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

TITLES ENTERED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION IN THE

UNITED KINGDOM.

Year I Coffee Silk,
end, Sugar.* and Cotton. Flax. raw and Tallow.
Jan. Cocoa. thrown.
5. ---
cwts. lbs. .1 lbs. cwts. lbs. cwts.
1824 3,127,691 8,741,720.187,619,721 516,623,2,477,908 758,710
1825 3,167,503 8,581,909 141,063,139 721,46711,011,018 792,635
1826 2,966,981.11,137,038202,546,869 1,006,550,3,604,058 1,113,740
1527 3,574,860,13,556,109 162,889,012 696,28212,253,513 963,016
1828 3,340,927115,952,10'0J,249,888,188 898,03914,213,153 1,191,197
* Deducting the amount exported in a refined state subse-
quent to the payment of duty.

*r
quenf

Thus it appeared, that between 1823 and 1828, there
had been an increase in the consumption of sugar
of 7 per cent. (on this article the increase was
smallest because the duty was highest); of coffee
90 per cent.; of cotton 34 per cent.; of flax 65
per cent. ; of 91) per cent. on silk, and on tallow 60
per cent. Those were the mischiefs resulting from
the horrible free trade system I This was the ruin
which had fallen upon the country !—(Hear.)—
There yet remains, continued the Hon. Member, one
more argument which has been urged by some of
the opponents of free trade. They are the most
dangerous, because they are the most moderate and
the most specious ;—because, whilst they grant the
truth of the general principle in words, they depart
from it in spirit ;—because their argument is at
once the most popular, the most apparently sensi-
ble, and yet the most fallacious,—l mean the argu-
ment of the absence of reciprocity, brought forward
by the Member for Kirkcudbright. " We are
friends," say they, to free trade,—" we grant all
the benefit which you tell us will arise from an un-
restricted interchange of commodities between dif-
ferent nations,—we agree to all your reasoning ;
but in order that there should be a free interchange,
it is necessary that the amount of our restrictive re-
gulations should be met by corresponding measures
on the part of other nations. If this be not the
case, we are giving away the advantage which we
possess of supplying at least ourselves with our own
productions,—we throw open our ports to receive
the produce of the industry of foreign countries,
whilst they shut their gates to ours; and we destroy
our national industry in those articles in the pro-
duction of which foreigners excel us, without their
becoming in their turn customers for ours. The
fallacy of this reasoning lies in this—these gentle•
men misunderstand the nature of trade. In order
to buy, we must also sell. We may open our
ports to the silks and wince of France,to the corn of
Germany and Russia, to the drugs of Asia and
of India, but we can get no pound's worth of
any commodity without giving in return a pound's
worth of our own productions. Our manufac-
turers will give away nothing ; they will not send
their goods to foreign ports without. getting an equi-
valent in return; and I will venture to say that
producers of foreign commodities, of French silks,

and German eloths, with which, according to the

statement of these gentlemen, this country has been

and will be o verwhilmed, are as little likely to make

a present to the British consumer of their hardly-
xvorked produce without taking in return the staple
articles of British produce. Foreign nations may,
a:.; we have seen, and as we are told, be inclined to
meet our liberal policy by tig-htening still more their

restrictive system. The effect can only be the pre-
vention of their own export trade, the curtailment

of their own commerce, and the suffering of their
own people. If by some manic wand the nations of
the Continent could suddenly surround their domi-
nions with the wall of brass fabled by Bishop Berk-

ley—if they could effectually exclude every article

of British produce, whilst their ports opened to per-
mit the free egress of all their own—not a vessel of
theirs could find its way to our shores; or if it did,
its cargo must be made a present of to our people.
They would deprive their own subjects of the bene-
fit of mutual interchange, they would deprive us like-
wise of it, but they could do no more : they would im-
poverish and ruin their own country ; they would
injure us in a less degree—they would reduce us to
what I consider an unhappy condition, but which the
Hon. Member for Coventry, and those who think
with him, have described as a happy and a prospe-
rous Stag;—the necessity of producing within our-
selves ail that we stand in need of. But, thank God,

it is not in the power of Governraents to carry into
effect so desolatiag, so pernicious a principle. There
is, in economical as in political affairs, a point be-
yond which it is not possible to go--a point at which

legislation becomes ineffectual, and power power-
Governments may enact laws, but mankind
will successfully resist them. Thus it is with these
attempts. The smuggler becomes in such a case
the corrector of faulty legislation, and the friend
and defender of mankind. Under his exertions the

Acts of the Legislature become void, and the laws
of your ports and your custom-houses are dead let-
ters. Do we want the experience of mankind to
illustrate the truth of this great principle ? You
have it within your own times. The man whose
power was never surpassed in modern, and scarcely
equalled in ancient times—he whose career of vic-
tory the bounds of Europe could scarce restrain,
whose look was a word, whose word was a law, in
vain attempted to counteract this great principle.
Iluonaparte, when at the height of his power he
fulminated his decrees from the Palace of the
Duomo of Milan, which was to annihilate his only
rival, thought but little that his orders could be
contended or his will disputed. And yet, what was
the result ? 11e, whose armies successively occu-
pied every capital of Europe—who made and un-
made Kings with a breath, was set at nought by
the lowest of his subjects. The smuggler bearded
him in the streets of his capital, and set his power
at nought in his own ports and cities. The goods
which he refused to admit found their way through
the frozen ocean into the heart of France. I speak
from personal knowledge when I say, that an unin-
terrupted line of communication was established
betwem Archangel and Paris, and goods, even the
bulky articles of sugar, coffee, and manufactures,
were conveyed with as much case and safety,
though at a proportionably increased cost, as from
London to Havre. Insurances were then as safely
effected at Brody and at Leipsic as at Lloyd's or
at New York. But need we go farther than the
very trade before us for un illustration of what I
say ? Do gentlemen, who make 110 difficulty re-
specting the importation of raw silk (whatever
they may think of thrown), know that Italy rigidly
excludes all our manufactures from her ports ; and
yet we take from her annually the value of
2,000,0001. sterling ? How do we pay for
it, then ? Her custom-houses are shut to our
produce, and the objects of our industry are
as strictly prohibited as the works of Voltaire or of
Gibbon. I have had the curiosity to endeavour to
trace this, and what will the House think of the re-
sult ? Upon a careful examination of the bills which
are drawn from Italy in payment of this silk, by se-
veral houses in the trade, at least three-fourths of
them are remittances from Austria and the German
States, which have been made to Manchester and
Glasgow for British manufacture. It is hopeless,
then, for uny nation to attempt to exclude. the pro-
ducsionivof another. They may injure their own
subjects by enhancing the, price, but exclude they
cannot. But the advantage to a country in first
adopting the principle of freedom of trade, is not
merely relative, but positive. Under a system of
restriction with us other nations may make and up-
hold corresponding restrictions ; but if we set the
example of free intercourse, they may make, but I
defy them to uphold them. They may struggle for
a time to comply with the wishes of the ignorant
land interested producers in their own country, but
they cannot do so long. The ruin of their own
trade,—the destruction of the property of all those
who are not immediately interested in the monopoly
—the outcry of the whole mass of consumers, will
drive them into a better and a wiser course. If we
wait till they grant reciprocity, we are the slaves of
their will if we give free admission to their pro-
duce, they become the servants of ours. What is
the case with France at the present moment? No
one can more deeply regret than I do the illiberal
policy which guides, and, I fear, for some time
must continue to guide, the commercial councils of
that great people; and I speak in sorrow, not ill
anger, when I refer to it. But lam induced to do
so, not only because I think it a happy illustration
of the errors of such a system, but because I find
if not in the speeches of Hon. Gentlemen, at least
in the petitions of the silk-throwsters, especially
that from Macclesfield, her example is quoted, and
her conduct held up as wise and just, and
worthy of imitation by us. " She continues,"
say the petitioners, " wisely her prohibitive
laws." " Look," they say, "at France :
under her wise regulations, her manufacture of cotton
has increased tenfold, her industry has flourished,

her prosperity has augmented." I-low does the
case stand? I will not speak of her cotton-mills—
she may raise printed cottons at. a dear rate—she
may raise iron, instead of taking it from us, at
double the cost : but what effect does this have
upon the general industry of the country ? What
do those branches of producers say to this system,
who find that there is no longer any demand for
their produce ? Are they satisfied ? Do they find
that other nations can buy their produce of them,
when France refuses to take any thing in return ?
Are they not with one voice besieging the doors of
the Chambers to induce them to return to a system
less ruinous to their interests ? It is a case so com-
pletely in point, that I cannot help referring to it.—
What is the situation of the wine-growers,—an in-
terest five times as great as any other within the
• French dominions, employing 3,000,000 of people,
and a capital ten times greater than any other in
France ? Listen to their language,—thus it is they
address the Chamber :—" What," say they, " is
the basis of the prohibitive system ? A chimera.
To sell without buying. A secret still to be dis-
covered! If we shut our ports to the productions
of other countries, it is good at least to know that
theirs must be shut on our industry : this kind
of reciprocity is inevitable—it is in the nature
of things; and what are tl►e results ? The de-
struction of the power of interchange, the de-
struction of all emulation, the obtaining a worse
article at a dearer cost ?" And how is this
statement supported ? By a document showing
that the decrease in the export of wines from Boor-
deaux and other places, has been from 100,000 to
30,000 hogsheads. They must follow our example.
It is no more in the power of Governments to up-
hold for long, than it is for the interest of nations to
suffer, such a system. I am no rash theorist,—l am
not desirous of carrying a favourite principle into
operation at the expence of existing interests ; but
I maintain that your only course is a gradual, a pro-
gressive, but a steady approach to a free system ;
and I maintain, without fear of contradiction, that
the very essence of manufacturing and commercial
industry is freedom from legislative interference and
legislative protection. Attempt, to assist its course
by protective enactments, by fostering care, you
, arrest its progress, you destroy its vigour. Unbind

the shackles in -which your unwise tenderness has
confined it,.---permit it to take unrestrained its own
course,—expose it to the wholesome breezes of com-
petition, yott give it new life, you restore its former
vigour. Industry has been well likened in my opi-
nion to the hard; alpine plant self-sown on the
mountain side, exposed to the inclemency of the
seasons, it gathers :lanai in its struggles for exist-
ence, it shoots forth in vigour and in beauty. Trans-
planted to the rich soil of the parterre,—tended
the fostering hand of the gardener,—nursed in the
artificial atmosphere of the forcing-glass, it grows
sickly and enervated—its shoots are vigotirle!is, its
flowers inodorous. In one single word lies the soul
of industry—competition. The answer of the
S•atesman and the economist to his Sovereign, in-

quiring what he could do to assist the industry of
his kingdom, was—" Let it take its own course."
Such is my prayer. Relieve us from the chains in
which your indiscreet tenderness has shackled us—
remove your oppressive protection—give us the
fair field we ask, and we demand no more. The

talent, the genius, the enterprise, the capital, the
industry of this great people will do the rest, and
England will not only retain but she will take a yet
more forward place in the race of competition for
wealth and improvement, which, by the nature
of things, she is destined to run amongst the nations
of the world. Place us in that condition is our

prayer—not by any violent change, but by slow and
easy transition. Here we shall find security for
our enterprise and reward for our labours—

Hic patet ingcniis campus: certusque merenti
Stat favor : orrmtur propriis industria donk
Mr. F. BUXTON said be had heard much of

political economy in the course of this discussion,
but he had heard nothing urged against the appoint-
ment of a Committee, but that it would occasion

delay, and delay would cause a stagnation of trade,—
that customers would not give their orders.. This
objection came with a bad grace from the Right
Bon. Gentleman, who might on the first day of the
session have moved for a Committee, which would
have had its report ready before this time. Even
if there had been some delay, its disadvantages would
be compensated by the benefits that would i►ave re-
sulted from inquiry. After objecting to the partial
views taken by some Hon. Members, of the state of
the trade at particular periods, for the purpose of
making out their own propositions, the Hon. Gen-
tleman went on to show that the trade of the throw-
stets was in a state of decline. In proof of this he
read an extract of a letter from a gentleman whose
opinion on this subject, he observed, was entitled to
more weight than that of any other man in England.
He alluded to Mr. Bernard Royd, of Manchester.
The extract stated, that they had written to.the
Right Hon. V. Fitzgerald, stating the advantages
enjoyed by the Italian throwster over the throwster
in England, and they begged to be allowed to take

themselves and their machinery out of the country.
To this letter they did not expect an answer, nor
did they complain of it; but still they thought it too
bad to destroy a man's trade, and not allow him
to take himself and his tools to another country,
where he might carry on his trade with advantage.
The Hon. Member (Mr. P. Thomson) had said
that the distress of the trade was highly coloured,
and that there was as much felt before in the trade as
at present. That might be, but the distress felt at the
time of the meeting at the Mansion-house, in 1816,
was temporary—it, went off in the following spring;
but the present distress began in the autumn, con-
tinued through the winter, and there was now no
chance of its being removed in the spring. He
wished he could say that the distress was overrated,
but unfortunately there were now thousands in the
trade in a state bordering on starvation, from which
they were preserved by the liberality of the public
and the formation of soup societies. When he
knew of that distress, which was greater than could
be conceived by those who had not witnessed it, he
should support the motion for a committee; he
should support the motion even for the sake of the
Government itself, to show that it was not the
cause of the distress. It was said that the system
proposed by Government would put an end to
smuggling, and would create an export trade; but
had it done either ? He apprehended it would be
found that it had not. If the superiority of our

machinery could compensate for our disadvantages
in other respects, it would be something; but the
costs of the raw material and the price of labour
were what we had to compete with. How coda
we compete with the French in the former when
they produced that material ; or how could we com-
pete with them in the price of labour, with the
heavy pressure of taxes, and the high prices of every
article of consumption in this country ? Under all
the circumstances, he should vote for the committee
because an inquiry was but an act of justice to all
parties.
Mr. C. GRANT said, that as he. felt a deep in-
terest in the welfare of the petitioners who had
recently appeared at their bar, he could not consent
to vote against the motion for a Committee, with-
out stating the reasons why he did so. The distress
existing among all parties connected with the silk
trade had been urged as the reason for going into a
Committee; and it had been said that because that
distress existed, it was necessary to inquire into the
causes which had given rise to it, and into the re-
medies which were best calculated to check it.—
With that had been connected an auxiliary argu-
ment, that the distress was owing to the innova-
tions introduced into the commercial system of the
country by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for
Liverpool, and that the cure of it was to be found
in nothing else but• a recurrence to the old system.
He should allude to the subsidiary argument first.
He should contend that there was no ground for
supposing the distress of the silk trade to originate
in the policy of his Right Hon. Friend; and that
there was no ground for supposing that it wort!,l
experience any relief by returning to the old
system of prohibitions and protections; and he
should then proceed to argue, that admitting a
pressure of distress to exist in the silk trade, it did
not exist in that branch of trade alone; and that it
did not therefore afford in itself a sufficient cause for
granting a Committee. It had been said by an
Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House that
the manufacture of silk would be entirely destroyed by
this policy, or that if the manufacture of silk was
not destroyed by it, the throwing branch of the
trade, at any rate, would be annihilated ; and fur
this reason,—that you would have foreign thrown
silk introduced in immense quantities. He asserted
that such would not be the case, and maintained
that the returns already on the table bore him out in
the assertion.. He complained that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Dover had not acted fairly to iris Right
Hon. Friend, in stating that the year 1821 ought
not to be taken into his calculation. Why should
it not? The year 1824 was the first year in which
the new system was adopted. In that year the
duty on raw silk was reduced to 3d. a pound, and
the duty on thrown silk to 7s. a pound. He would
shortly explain the effect of that reduction. In the
year 1823 the total import of raw and thrown silk
amounted to 2,432,2861b5. In the first quarter of
the year 1824, the old system of prohibition and of
import duties was still in operation, and the quan-
iity of raw and thrown silk imported in t quar-
ter amounted to 532,0001b5. weight. In the next
quarter, ending the sth of July, the new system
came into operation, and the quantity of raw silk
imported was 949,3121b5., and of thrown silk was
135,3121b5., making a total of 1,085,0001b5. In the
whole year, 1824, the quantity of raw silk im-
ported was 3,540,9061b5., and of thrown silk was
452,4691b5.,making a t0ta10f3,993,3791b5.,as com-
pared with the 2,432,2861L5. imported in the pre-
ceeding year. (Hear, hear.) He looked upon
that result as a decisive proof of the benefical ope-
ration of the new system. He complained, too,
that the Hon. Member for Coventry had not acted
altogether fairly by his Right. Hon. Friend in con-
trasting the returns of the years 1825 and 1826
against the returns of the years 1827 and 1828 ;
and for this reason,—that the year 1825 was a year
of excessive speculation, and the year 1826 a year of
excessive panic. And yet what did the contrast show?
That in the two former years the quantity of raw

and thrown silk imported was 5,633,7651b5. Bud in
the two later 8,757,06911 n. (Hear, hear.) The Hon,
Member for Coventry had likewise found fault with

him for stating that the silk manufacture had been

created by the law introduced by hi 3 Right Hon.
Friend the Member for Liverpool. Now, he begged
leave to repeat his former assertion, that a most re-
spectable throwster had told him that the trade was
not so much improved as created by the regulations
of his Right Hon. Friend. It was notorious, that
before those regulations were introduced, the trade
was in a state of torpor and languor, and afforded a
good example of the condition to which any trade
must be reduced that was liable to the restrictions
'mposed on the silk-trade; and the result of his
Right Hon. Friend's regulations exhibited a splendid
triumph for the policy of removing such restrictions.
Till those restrictions were removed, there was no
application made for the superiority of our machinery
to the purposes of the trade; indeed, engines of
wood were always used where engines of iron are •
now employed. The machinery of the present day
does double the work of that employed before the
lemoval of the restrictions. Formerly there were
only 800 spindle revolutions in a minute, now the
average number varied from '2,300 to 2,500; and
he was informed that in one manufactory an engine
was employed which gave 7,000. There were coma
plaints made upon the state of the trade, but he
believed that it would be foundthat those complaints
in general came from those who were beaten by the
new competition which had recently sprung up in
the trade. He contended that there was abundant
proof that the policy of his Right Hon. Friend the
Member for Liverpool had given an impulse to the silk
trade which it hind never received before. He then
proceeded to examine the correctness of the state-;
ment that a recurrence to the old measur:s of pro-
hibition would prove a remedy for the existing dis-
tress of the silk-trade. He lamented the distress into
which the weavers were generally plunged; he felt
for them deeply, and he could not but express hir.
surprise at the conduct of those manufacturers and
throwsters who encouraged them in the delusion
that a recurrence to the old system would improve
their condition. It -showed an utter forgetfulnesa
of their own history : for what could be more inju--
riotts to the weaver than to teach him that prohibi-
tion would save him from a recurrence of the dis-
tress under which he now labours ? The weaves
should be told that under the restrictive system he
was exposed every three years to a regular return
of distress. He should be reminded, that duriup:
the distress, which he experienced in the years 1816
and 1817, he declared that his distress was owing
to the inundation of foreign silks. At that time
40,0001. was subscribed for the relief of the weavers
of Spitalfields; and it was said that upwards of
40,100 persons stood in need of it. In the year
1827 the people who were examined before a Com-
mittee of the House of Lords, asserted that great
distress existed in Spitalfields. How, then, could
it be said, with the slightest show of truth, that e
return to restriction would afford relief ?—(Hear.)
—They had been told that it was possible to make
a distinction in the duties on different silks, as on
plain silks, arid on partially figured silks. But thin
he denied; for there was no difference of labour in
forming the two silks. The machinery for both;
was nearly the same ; indeed the only difference
was, that in working the figured silks there was a
treadle placed above the loom. In Lyons, when-
ever there was a cessation of demand for the figured
silks, the weavers altered the position of the trea-
dle, and used their looms for plain silks'. He
must advert, also, to another deviation from tha
old system—he meant the abolition of the re-
gulation of wages by law.—(Hear, hear.)—They
had not heard any thing of it that night iii
the House; but lie must mention it, because
he understood it to be a favourite scheme of the
weavers themselves. They had formerly had au Act
for regulating the amount of their wages ; that Act
had been repealed ; but last year they had presented
petitions to both Houses of Parliament, praying
them not only to return to the old law, but also to
give it a general extension to other trades—such as
the cotton and the stocking trades. The weavers

ought to be made aware, that that Act, which had
been very properly repealed by the Legislature, had
driven the capital employed in the silk trade from
Spitalfields into the country; and that the same
reason which had induced capitalists to remove from
Spitalfields, would, in case that Act were made of
general extent, drive them also out of the country...*
(Hear, hear.)—The next point on which he ought
to dwell was, the heavy duty upon thrown silk; but
as his Right Hon. Friend had already touched upon
it, he would not deteriorate his arguments by at-
tempting to repeat them. All that he would say
upon that subject was, that he saw no reason for de-
parting from the improved system which his Right
Hon. Friend had introduced. He now came to the
distress in the silk trade, which gentlemen on the
other side of the House deemed a sufficient ground
for inquiry by a Committee. He admitted the ex-
istence of that distress; but when the House was
called upon to go into a Committee upon the de-
clining condition of the silk trade, he was bound to
inquire, whether the distress of that trade was not
owing to the pressure which weighed at present
upon every other branch of trade. If it were owing
to a pressure weighing generally upon all branches
of trade, then there would be no ground laid for
granting a Committee to inquire into the state of
the silk trade. The general pressure of distress
might be a good ground for examining into the con-
dition of all branches of trade, but formed no

.around at all for examining exclusively into the con-
dition of the silk trade. He believed that at

the present moment nobody could deny that the
pressure was general,—that there was a remarkable
stagnation in every department of manufacturing► in
dustry,—and that the farmer, the agriculturist, and
the retail dealer, all felt the existence of distres.
There was a want of confidence in every class of the
community,—the power of consumption, if he might
use such an expression, appeared to be paralyzed—
we were prosperous to all outward appearance; but
still there was a ground-swell at work, which made
the vessel labour prodigiously. The pressure, he
repeated, was not confined exclusively to the silk
trade. When heknew that the pressure affected all
the staple trades of the country, could he be sur-
prised that it also affected the silk trade ? Why,
then, should they have a Committee on the silk-
trade alone ? The cotton trade was, he believed,
still worse off than the silk trade, and they would
find details of distress among the cotton-weavers
fully as afflicting as those of which they had heard
an account among the silk weavers. If the causes
of the distress which pressed on the silk trade were
not notorious, they might require investigation by a
Committee : but they were notorious, and it WAS
well known that great part of the pressure on the
silk-trade was owing to that suspense in which the
trade had been placed for the last four or live
months, owing to its ignorance of the regulatio❑ by
which it was to be permanently governed. That
was no slight cause, and yet it was one that could
not be avoided; for his Right Hon. Friend could
not be immediately aware of the course which it
be most expedient for the Government to pursue.
That this suspense created distress was undeniable ;
for there had been many orders withheld from the
silk-manufacturers at this season of the year, which
would have been given if the parties had
been able to ascertain the conditions under
which they would be executed. The next
cause operating severely on a part of the silk trade
was the condition of the throwsters. No parties
had complained more loudly than the throwsters ;
and his /tight Hon. Friend, the President cf the
Board of Trade, had stated clearly the reason of
their complaint. He had proved that there Wdv, an
excess of competition in that branch of the trade,
by showing, that though the consumption of silk by
the country had increased, the number of mills in
the country had increased .in a much larger propor-
tion. As to the' distress of the weavers, he must
remind the House that there were local causes
which tended very much to increase the distress in
Spitalfields. The population of the district of Spital-
fields did not consist entirely of weavers, That was

not his own declaration merely : it was a declara-
tion made by a very respectable gentleman of the
district—he meant Mr. Head, the sworn advocate
of the weavers—who, in a pamphlet which he had
published, referable to the distress which existed in
Spitalfields in 1816, used these expressions—" The
distress which we are suffering in this district is not
occasioned so much by a want of demand as by our
local situation; and this will be more intelligible,
when I state, that from the cheapness of lodgings,
Spitalfields is the general resort of all the working
population of the metropolis, when they are out of
employment. It thus happens that thousands of
mechanics, who are not Spitalfields weavers, swell
Ao disproportionately the increase of our poor."
From that statement it was clear that there were
particular causes operating upon the district of
Spitalfields. The persons who were unemployed in
their own trades sought lodgings in Spitalfields from
their cheapness, and whilst there, resorted to weav-
ing as the best means of getting a pittance to sup-
port existence. These persons, on the first pres-
sure of distress in the trade, were again thrown out
of employment, and thus aggravated the distress,
and increased the imnibers of the unemployed
weavers of Spitalfields. Another cause, which pro-
duced the same effect, was a mistaken notion which
prevailed there respecting the regulation of wages.
f.seznough the Act for the regulation of wages in, that
district was repealed, a Committee was still in
existence there for the same purpose; and he would
just mention to the House an instance of its baneful
effects. In the year 19'26 a very large order was
given for work in Spitalfields. It was offered to the
weavers at Bd. a yard. They refused to accept the
order on those terms, because the book of rates said
they ought to have 10d. a yard. The consequence
CO!1" their refusing it was, that a manufacturer in the
country took the order, and executed it at his own
facter7 lot 6d. a yard.—(Hear, hear.)—It was pain-
fid to make such a statement; but it was still more
peinftil tb consider the delusion which had given
rise to it. He had now stated some of the peculiar
causes which operated on the silk trade exclusively.
He had attempted to prove, that there was no
ground for attributing to the measures of his Right
Hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool, the dis-
tress existing in the silk trade—that a recurrence to
the former system would not remove that distress—
that as the distress was general, it would not war-
rant the House in going into a Committee to exa-
mine the distress of the silk trade—and that where
the distress of the silk trade was peculiar, the causes
which had produced it were notorious. He there-
fore thought that he had established a right to look
at the other side of the argument, and to consider
whether the granting of a Committee would not
tend to the increase of the present distress. He
believed that it would have that effect, from the
stagnation which it would create in the trade; and
for that reason he was of opinion, that it would be
most unwise to consent to the motion proposed by
the Hon. Member for Coventry. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Coventry in the course of his speech had re-
ferred to some expressions which he had formerly
used, and had called upon him to redeem the pledge
which he had then given to the country. He did
not recollect what those expressions were, neither
did he consider himself responsible for them. What
he had said on the occasion to which the Hon.
Member for Coventry alluded was, that if the expe-
riment of a liberal policy in the silk trade was fairly
tried, and was eventually unsuccessful, the persons
engaged in that trade might come to the House
with a claim founded not merely upon justice, but
also upon feeling. Now upon his view of the case,
and, he might add, upon the more extensive view
of it which had been taken by his Right Hon.
Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the
time had not yet arrived when he could be properly
called upon to redeem his pledge—(Hear)—for as
yet the experiment had never been fairly tried.—
(Hear.),—;lt bad been tried under a year of excessive
speculation, followed by a year of panic and jeo-
pardy ; and yet he would say that even under all
those disadvantages it had succeeded. The Hon.
Member for Coventry must therefore wait some
time longer before he come forward to redeem the
pledge which lie was said to have given.—(Hear.)
s---He bad intended to have gone more at length
into the subject connected with this motion ; but
keeping. in view that this motion was for a Commit-
tee of Inquiry, he conceived that it was unnecessary.
He could not, however, resume his seat without re-
ferring to the language which had been used in the
course of the debate. He was rejoiced to hear his
Right Hon. Friend (the President of the Board of
Trade) declare his determination to adopt the same
principles as those which had been previously adopt-
ed by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Liver-
pool; and he was rejoiced at it because he conceived
restrictions to be injurious to the interests of com-
merce. He was therefore glad to find that the
count'', was not going to return to the antiquated
system of prohibitions and high duties, which his
Right Hon. Friend had abolished. But though lie
was inclined to give his tribute of applause to Go-
vernment for its determination to pursue so useful a
course, what could he say of those gentlemen, who,
disapproving restrictions, discountenanced the im-
portation of foreign commodities, unless they were
subjected to high duties? He should not trespass
further upon the House than by stating he must
oppose this motion.
Mr. BANKES said, that the very conflicting
statements upon the existing state of the silk trade,
from those who had spoken in this debate, were
enough to justify the call for a Committee, where
alone the real facts could be adequately ascertained.
While on the one side the operatives flecked more
like spectres than men to the House, the Hon. Mem-
ber for Dover and other Hon. Members described
them as comparatively prosperous. In the year
1826, a considerable change took place in the sys-
tem upon which this trade was conducted. Since
that time it had gradually declined. He should be
glad to ascertain and examine to what this altera-
tion was attributable, and to have all the parties
before a Committee, that the inquiry should be
complete. He repeated, that the conflicting opi-
nions upon the subject, coupled with the obvious
distress of the artisan, called for inquiry. Indeed,
lie hardly knew a case in which such inquiry had
been refused. The agriculturists had repeatedly
obtained it from Parliament,—so had particular
classes of traders : and in fact there had been,
on one occasion, a general committee on trade at
large. Witn respect to what was called free trade,
it involved a principle evidently inapplicable to the
complicated condition of an old commercial commu-
nity. It might do in a new country, or in a small
isolated state; but it could never be practicable in
ao old community with engagements and connexions
wrought into the long established system of other
countries. Extremes of all kinds he deprecated,
both in theory and practice. He was just as far
from adopting the principle of what was called free
trade, as he was of desiring to recur to the old pro-
hibitions. A medium course would he perhaps the
best for the conntry to steer, avoiding alike new
theories and obstinate prejudices. The Hon. Mem-
ber then urged his Majesty's Ministers to go into
the committee, were it only to satisfy a starving
community that their complaints were ill founded,
and their expectations visionary.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN would not, at that
late hour, occupy the time of the House by any de-
tailed arguments. They had indeed pregnant proofs
of the distress of the trade before them ; and lie
thought it equally obvious that principles of free
trade were quite incompatible with any effort to re-
trieve the condition of these people, or recruit the
energies of the country. The state of the world
evinced the inexpediency of such a course on the
part of Great Britain, and that her policy must in
this respect be altered. There was a balance against
us in our trade with France of 200,0001., and we
sent to that country only 400,000/. of oar own ma-
nufactures. Why was not the same principle ap-
plied to cord ? He (Mrs Alderman Waithman) had
opposed the Corn Bill, though he thought the land-
owners should have some protection. But they had

silk trade to have protection ? The goods we im-
ported were light and fancy goods ; we exported
only heavy goods; but the exports which were most
beneficial to this country were those which required
most labour. The question before the House had
been embarrassed by the subtle disquisitions of the
philosophers, as they were called, on the subject of
free trade ; he had read some of their treatises, and
had been bewildered by them.--(Hear.)—His fort.
Friend, the Member for Dover (Mr. P. Thomson),
who, though young, had shown high attainments,
had felt great confidence in the principles of free
trade, and he seemed to think lightly of the opinion
of those who had been engaged in trade for a long
period of their life. He (Mr. Waldman) had had
some connexion with business, and could if neces-
sary, read letters as convincing as those which had
been read. He believed that there existed a great
mistake as to the machinery of this country, and
that in some cases it had been unsuccessful. There
was an individual who had written a book on the
subject, and he had made experiments which did
not succeed. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
had stated that great distress existed in the country,
and at the same time spoke of the great increase in
the import of the raw material, and he adduced this
..s a proof of the increase of the trade; but it might
be accounted for by the fact, that there was more
weight of silk required in the heavy goods, which
were now the only articles made, the light
goods having thus left the country. There was
&so a much larger silk in stock this year than
the last. One reason for the increase in the silk
trade was that the wear of it had increased in this
country ; but the distress in the country existed,
notwithstanding all this increased consumption. The
increase in the number of manufacturers arose from
persons out of employ, who had been engaged in
cotton light goods, which were now out of fashion,
turning their attention to silk. If the measure pro-
posed by the Right Hon. Gentleman was carried,
there would not be an ounce less manufactured
goods imported this year than the last; and it would
teem to be intended to throw the throwsters over-
board, who employed 100,000 persons. The dis-
tress in the trade had been admitted by the Right
Hon. Gentleman ; he (Mr. Waithman) believed it
was known to the Right Hon. Gentleman, that at
Macclesfield there had been a Committee appointed
to relieve persons in distress ; and it was found
that the average produce of wages there, of men,
women, and children, was Bs. a week, and from 30
to 50 per cent. was taken off. In 1823, there had
been 12,000 persons employed at Macclesfield. At
the period he spoke of 5,000 were out of employ,
and no allowance was extended to any of those whose
wages averaged above Is. 3d. a-week. These poor
creatures had duplicates of articles of apparel and
tools, which they had pawned for 9d., 6d., and even
3d. It was the duty of the House on these circum-
stances to investigate the whole matter, and not to
be led away by any apprehension of odium, but to
yield to circumstances, if it should be necessary for
the preservation of our own labourers.
Mr. COURTENAY observed that the House
was now applying the principles of free trade to
the question. Unless something was done in the
Committee for the relief of the poor people, it would
be better not to go into it. That great distress ex-
isted was admitted ; the cause of it was said to be
the importation of foreign silks. Suppose, for the
sake of argument, this was the true cause; what
remedy was proposed ? Either prohibition or pro.
tection,—or some other expedient of which he had
not yet heard. The universal opinion of the House
seemed against a prohibition, and it was too impor-
tant a question to be submitted to a Committee; and
with regard to protection the question was only as
to the amount. But they were giving the highest
possible protection : if they had erred in this re-
spect it was in favour of the manufacturers. No in-
quiry would do any service to them ; and he (Mr.
Court enav) doubted if the constituents of the Hon.
Member (Mr. Fyler), after hearing what had passed
in that House, would wish him to press his motion.
Mr. WESTERN concurred in opinion with the
Hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Bankes.) He thought
that the House should appoint a Committee to in-
quire into the general distress of trade in this coun-
try. The Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite (Mr.
Fitzgerald and Mr. Grant) had not solved the pro-
blem, why, in the existing circumstances of the
country, its trade should be in such a state. It was
the duty of the House to investigate the cause
which pervaded every class of manufactures. His
(Mr. Western's) opinion hail been stated in the
year 1822, when he had pointed out the primary
source and root of the distress. He should vote in
favour of the motion for a Committee.
General PEACHEY spoke in terms of commen-
dation of the patience and loyalty of the distressed
silk-manufacturers, who had, on that account, strong
claims on the attention of the Government. The
expectations formed of the free-trade system had
been disappointed.—(Questioa.)
Mr. FYLER replied. With respect to his pres-
sing for a Committee, he had heard nothing to shake
his resolution. Every thing he had heard induced
him to think that a Committee was absolutely ne-
cessary. Almost every Hon. Gentleman had ad-
mitted the distress, and even the cause of distress.
Of all the arguments against the motion, there were
only two which were worth attention. The first
was, that the delay of a Committee would merely
increase the distress; but he (Mr. Fyler) chose the
least of two evils, and delay would be a less evil
than the intended measure. The other opinion was,
that if they went into a Committee, the necessary con-
sequence mtist be, that we must revert to prohibition.
Nothing of the sort was intended by him. It was a
non sequitur. The object of the Committee was to in-
vestigate fairly the causes of the distress. It would be-
sides afford great consolation to his constituents, if no
remedy was provided.-to find that the conclusions of
Government were confirmed by evidence, and to know
that Parliament hail given to their case ample delibe-
ration. With respect to what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Callington (Mr. Baring), all his re-
marks showed that the trade required investigation,
and lie (Mr. Fyler) was surprised he did not vote
for it. The Hon. Member had called it " a con-
demned trade." He (Mr. Fyler) hoped the House
would hear before they condemned it. All his con-
stituents asked was, " strike-but hear."
The House then divided—

Ayes
Noes

149

Majority llB
On the re-admission of strangers to the gallery,
the House was found by us in Committee on the
resolutions of Mr. V. FITZGERALD, which were
agreed to, and the report was ordered to be received
to-morrow.