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

SILK TRADE.

and grave importance, which he might fail to urge
efficiently; and he knew that what he should state
might be replied to by the talent, ability, research,
and eloquence of the Right Hon. the President of
the Board of Trade, and by the industry and ability
of those Gentlemen opposite, who might be con-
sidered as the founders of thiS new system : yet lie
was quite confident, if the Committee for which he
should this evening move were granted, that he
should produce before it such a mass of evidence,
such a body of incontrovertible facts,—facts deposed-
to by practical men,—as would leave no doubt th:tt
the principle of free trade, as applied to the silk
trade, had entirely failed,—that it had absolutely
done mischief, and that so far from its:operating be-
neficially, it would, if it were continued, effect the

annihilation of the silk manufacture in this country,
He would not now ewer into a discussion of the

principles of free trade generally, but consider how
far those principles appeared to be, from experience,
applicable to that particular branch of manufacture,
the state of which it was now his duty to present to
the attention of the House. The only remark he
would make, in passing, was to say, that though he
considered the system of free trade beautiful in
theory,—(Hear, hear,)—yet he thought that in a
country like this, which was in an artificial state
groaning uncle a heavy load of taxation, and oppress-
ed by a large debt, he did not think, in such a state
of things, that there could be a free trade of manu-
factures., while, in every other respect, there was a
system of monopoly.—(Hear, hear.)—How could a
free trade in manufactures co-exist with a monopoly
of corn ?—(Hear.)—He was certain that a partial
system of free trade never could be beneficial to the
manufactures of this country ; and he would further
say, that if there were any one trade inure likely to
be particularly injured than another, by the adoption,
of this system, the trade the situation of which they
were now discussing was that trade.—(Hear, hear.)
—lf they considered the great disadvantages under
which this trade must labour when placed in com-
petition with our neighbouring rivals—if they con-
sidered the different nature of the soil and climate,
if they considered the comparative ease with which
that rival could procure the best material, and the
great difficulty, however great his anxiety might be,
which the British manufacttirer encountered in

bringing it into this country;—when he looked be-
sides at the disproportion in the price of provisions,
and, in the same ratio, the disproportion in the price
of labour in the two countries, he was not at all sur-
prised at the failure which had been experienced in
that umequal and ruinous race of competition, which
for three years had pressed so heavily on the trade.
One of the greatest commercial authorities in that
House, the Hon. Member for Callington (Mr. A.
Baring), though aft advocate for free trade himself,
whet.) he presented the merchants' petition, stated
what would probably be the effect of this system ul-
timately with respect to this trade. Perhaps the
time to which that Hon. Member looked forward
had not yet arrived; but certain it was, that this
trade, once so flourishing, was in a state of lingering
decay ;—nay, he might assert, that it was now fast
verging to utter ruin. Before he proceeded further
it would not be improper to allude to the different
plans which had been carried into effect since 1824,
with respect to this trade. In that year the Right
Honourable Member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskis-
son) introduced the principle of free trade, with re-
ference to the silk manufacture. He reduced the
duty on thrown silk from I4s. 71d. to 7s. 6d.; and
the duty on raw silk from 3s. to Id. per lb. In
182.5, the duty on thrown silk was reduced from
7s. 6d. to 5d.; and this last change was effected in
what he conceived to be rather an arbitrary mode,

oarnely, by a Treasury order, the intention of the

Right Hon. Gentleman being, in 1826, to impose
an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent. on foreign silks
imported into this country. In 1826, however,
another Right Hon. Gentleman, who succeeded the
Right Hon. Member for Liverpool as President of
the Board of Trade, introduced a different plan.
Although that Right Hon. Gentleman was attached
to the principle of free trade, and wished to apply
it to the silk manufacture, yet he did not deem n
possible, or perhaps he did not think it wise, to

_ .
follow up the proposition of his predecessor. He
therefore abandoned the idea of an ad valorem duty
of 30 per cent., and he substituted a graduated
scale of duties, regulated by weight, piece, &c.,
the basis of which was 30 per cent. And this
evening they were prepared to hear the statement of
another measure, differing, no doubt, from those
two which had gone before it; at least he conceived
that it would be, in some respects, dissimilar fron►
the former. His object was to show, that during
the five last years, the silk t►ade had beer, the vic-
tim of experiments—that different shades of policy
existed—and that even those who were supporting
the present system were doubtful of its advantages.
Shades of difference were daily arising,—changes
and vacillations were every day observable—the sys-
tem became a series of trial and experiment, and a
(4E41 one it was to those who were engaged in it.—
(Hear.)---But to show that these Hon. Gentlemen
themselves saw the subject in no other light than as a
matter of experiment, he would take the liberty to
read to the House a short extract, containing the
opinion of both the Right Hon. Member for Liver-
pool and the Right Hon. Men,ber for Inverness.
The Right Hon. Member for Liverpool said, " Let
this system be fairly and fully tried, for the benefit of
the country, and for the sake of those who support
it." The Right Hon. Member for Inverness ob-
served, " It was due to the consumer, it was due to

Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from
certain merchants in London, connected with the
Silk Trade in India. The petitioners stated, that a
duty of two and a half per cent. was imposed on
silk goods imported into India from this country, •
whilst there was a duty of 30 per cent. upon silk
imported into this country from India. The peti-
tieners prayed that there might be an equalization
of duty on Indian and other foreign Silks.
Mr. HUME, in rep'y to an observation from an
Hon. Member, not audible in the Gallery, stated
that the people of India were greatly dissatisfied
with the present state of the law; but he complained,
that from the suppression of a free press, and from
other causes, the wants and wishes of the people of
India were not heard in this country.
Mr. C. FERGUSON differed from his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hume), that the people of India had
not ample means of having the expression of their
wants and wishes conveyed to this country, but he
concurred in the opinion that they were much dis-
satisfied with the present state of the law„ and he
hoped that by the result of the statement of the
Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Fitzgerald) some intelli-
gence would he conveyed to the people of India, to
satisfy and conciliate them for the disappointment
which they had experienced last year in the non-ful-
filment of the premise made to these.
After a few words from Mr. HUSKISSON cad Ms,
C. GRANT. the petition was brought up, read, and
ordered to be puinted.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN presented two
petitions—the one from persons concerned in the li
Silk Trade at Coggleshall, in Essex, complaining
of the hardships under which they laboured, and
praying that the House would take their ease into
consideration ; the other (which had been put into
his hands by the Ron. Member for Westminster)
from the Journeymen Shoemakers of Westminster,
complaining of the distress whit; they suffered in
consequence of the importation of French shoes.
The petitions were brought up, read, and masted
'to be printed.
Mr. F. BUXTON presented a petition, signed
by 7000 Journeymen Silk-weavers of tpitalfields.
complaining—and he knew with great justice—of
their deep distress, which they ascribed to the re-
gulations of 1826,and praying that their case might
be taken into consideration.
The petition was brought up, read, and ordered to
be printed.
Two Notices of Motions were given, the one by
Mr. S. WORTLEY, the other by Mr. G. LAMB; but
• from the low tone in which the Hon. Gentlemen
spoke, we were linable to ascertain their nature.
Mr. FYLER presented two petitions; the one
from between five and six thousand Ribbon Manu-
facturers, of Coventry, the other from the Silk
Weavers of Manchester and Macclesfield, complain-
ing of their want of employment, of the lowness r,,r
their wages when employed, and of other grievances,
I which they attributed to the introduction of the
I principles of free trade.
The petitions were brought up, read, and ordered
to be printed.
1 STATE OF THE SILK MANUFACTURE.

the country, that this experiment"—always treating
it as an experiment—" should be tried." Again,
the Right Lion, Gentleman asked—" But has this
experiment been tried '' It is foolish to talk of the
effect of this experiment, since the time for making
it has not arrived." The Right Hon. Gentleman
then said—" Try the experiment fairly, bring your
goods into the market, and if you then fail,
you will come to the House with at least a
case of justice as well as feeling."—(Near, hear.)
Now, he would call on the Right Hon. Gentleman
to redeem his pledge. He felt that he came with a
strong ease to the House, and he was sure the
House would not fail in its duty. It would not
allow this trade to be sacrificed to plausible theories
and delusive speculations; it would not suffer those
who were embarked in it to be victims, as hitherto

had been the case, of fanciful but ruinous experi,
ments, lie believed that every gentleman who
heard him was aware that distress existed in every
branch of this manufacture, but he did not be-

lieve that they were acquainted with the appalling
the unparalleled extent of that distress, pot only
in this country, but he might add, in not
and in Ireland. However painful, therefore it might
be to animadvert on such a melancholy subject, yet
he felt it necessary to point out whet was the
exact state of the distress now felt in the silk,maint-
facturing districts. For that purpose he should lay
before the House extracts taken from accounts fur-
nished by the principal large towns that were con,
neetoti with the manufacture; and if the House
thought it iruprtant—as they must think it im-
portant—to obtain infomation on this head, they
would allow him to read, as shorty as possible, some
of these statements. He should first read e.n eztract
which ws sent to him yesterday morning in a.lefter
from Coventry. It ran thus :—" At a general meet-
ing, convened for the purpose of examining into the
exact state of the silk manufacture, it wac rn;olved,
that in the opinion of this meeting there is an in-
crease of 50 silk-weevers out of employ since the
meeting of the 17th of March ; and the number of
winders,
.war pep, and spinners out of employ has
increased in thesame proportion in the same period.
Out of employ "payers,.. 2,547
Winders. . • BO
Warpers . . 204.
Spinners • 641

Total .4,253
" The inhabitants of the undermentioned places, in
the county of 'Warwick (he would not enumerate
them), declare that they are in a similar situation.
With respect to wages
.they stated that the rate of
wages paid for labour in the frame trade is so bad,
that it does not enable them to procure a sufficiency,

Mr. FY LER said, he was aware that in consider-
ing this question there were many points of deep

even of the commonest necessaries of life, and rather
than agree to a farther reduction of price, it was
deemed advisable to put those hands that are em-
ployed on half work; but that it is not practicable
to go on this way, because their situation was every
day becoming worse. The fancy and ornamental
branches (they observed) were superseded by the
immense importation of foreign -goods;—so far, in-
deed, hai the evil extended, that the masters have
gisen up manufacturing those articles, and have en-
gaged in a regular foreign trade."—(Hear, hear.)—
Now he would say, that if any thing could prove
more than another the low state to which this trade
was reduced, it was to find that those who formerly
carried on the business of manufacturers found it
better to abandon their old pursuit and to become
importers.. The communication went on to say,
" that although some persons are continued in em-
ployment, yet they undergo a reduction of wages every.
week. Many of the friendly societies have been ob-
liged to give up their articles from the inability of
the members to keep up their payments ; and those
members were obliged to part with every disposable
article to procure food Mr them Selves and their
famishing children." It was emphatically observed,
" that all these statements are strictly true, and, if
necessary, can be confirmed on oath." He should
now proceed with some more of these heart-rending
details. It appeared that there were twenty-six
mills standing still in Congleton. In 1824, the
average wages were 12s. Bd. per week; in 1828,
4s. 7d. In Paisley, there were two-thirds more
mills at work in 1824 than in 1828. The average
rate of wages was 15s. in 1824, and only Bs. I id. in
1828. In Macclesfield there were 52 mills employed.
in 1824, in 1828 there were 16 standing still. At
Taunton, in Somersetshire, of 70 mills that were
employed in 1824, 50 were now standing still, and
wages were reduced 70 per cent. In Spitalfields,
in 1824-5, Gros de Naples was paid for at, the rate
of 10d. a yard, it was now 6d.; lustring was Is. a
yard, it was now 8t1.; other fabrics that were paid
for at the rate of Is. 2d. a yard, were now 9d. Now
let gentlemen look to the number of looms employed
in 1824-5, and compare them with the number at
work at present in Spitalfields. In 1824-5 there
were 17,000 looms employed, while at the present
day there were only 9,000. The rate of wages
averaged at the former period 175., at present it
amounted to only 9s. Figured and fancy goods, in
1824.5, produced an average of 225. a week wages;
that rate was now reduced to 14s. Here it should be
observed, that in 1824-5 one-third of the whole
manufacture of Spitalfields consisted of fancy
goods ; but now of 9,000 looms employed,
only 2,000 are engaged in the manufacture
of fancy articles, which was that branch of
the trade from whence the greatest advantage
was derived. He should only advert to one other
document,. and he should then leave gentlemen to
draw their conclusion from these facts. The paper
from which he was about to read an extract, was put
into his hands this evening, by the Hon. Member
for Dublin ; and it showed the decay of the silk ma-
nufacture in that city. In 1824-5 it appeared that
there were 1,200 broad silk looms employed, and
there were now only 200. In 1824-5 there were
966 riband-engines employed ; that number was
now reduced to 144. In 1824-5 the total number
of broad-weavers in employ was 2,196; in 1828
the number employed was only 444. In 1828, the
wages were 35 per cent, less than in 1i324. In 1824,
there were 10 mills at full work; at present there
were only two, and these only partially employed.
Ia 1824 the heeds employed in throwing were
2,200. In 1828 there were only 138. In 1824,
the wages were Bs., in 1828 they were only ss.
Now, although he might be expected to apologise
to the House for entering on so dry a detail, still
he conceived it to be his duty to state these unplea-
sant facts, for the purpose of proving to the House
the ruinous, the disastrous situation in which the
manufacturers were placed at this moment; and he
could assure gentlemen that the picture was not
overcoloured or exaggerated. But some persons
would argue that this distress must be temporary,
and had grown out of temporary causes. He could
not assent to that proposition; but, whatever might
be the cause, it was the duty of Parliament to re-
move the pressure which weighed so heavily on
the industrious but starving poor of the coun-
try, When wages had descended 50 per cent.
and when even then English labour could not
find employment, it was impossible not to see
the utter hopelessness of carrying on such a compe-
tition as had been entered into with any prospect of
success. There were a few other points that well
deserved the attention of Parliament. It was quite
clear, that under the existing system there was a re-
dundant labour that could not be called into action ;
and even those persons who chanced to be employed
did not receive sufficient to enable them to procure
the necessaries of life. They were, however, told
the other evening, that distress was not confined to
this country, but that it was not felt in an equal de-
gree at Lyons. Now there was a great and mani-
fest difference between France and this country.
France manufactured for export—not one-third of
her silk was intended for home consumption; which
was not the case here. Now the markets for fo-
reign orders---the markets of North and South
America, &c.—were glutted with silks; and when-
ever these markets were glutted, not only by the
introduction of French goods, but by the increasing
intercourse between America and China, the con-
sequence would be, that a large quantity of those
commodities would be poured into this country.
France would do her best to transfer those cargoes,
which she could not dispose of elsewhere, to Eng-
gland. That was the point which we ought to
guard against. Our manufacturers ought not to be
suffered to become the victims of contingencies
which grew out of the regulations of foreign
countries; and if there were any reason which, more
than another, proved that this particular trade
ought to be protected, it was the relative position in
which we stand towards France. But various causes
were assigned for this distress. Over-trading and
other causes were referred to as the occasion of the
evil. When ho saw 8,000 looms out of employ-
ment in Spitalfields, he was told that that event
was produced by competition elsewhere. If he
found distress and misery in the manufactories at
Congleton or Coventry, that was attributed to the
extensive introduction of machinery. If he ob-
served the same desolate state of things in other
places, he was told that it was the effect of over-
trading. But it appeared to him, that that which
was the obvious cause of all this distress was stu-
diously kept out of sight,—and that was the enor-
mous amount of foreign silk goods which was im-
imported 1:eto this country.—(li*ear, hear.)—The
Right lion. Gentleman, the member for Liverpool,
had stated, that one proof of the great advantage
of the measures which he had sanctioned was the
revival of this trade. The Right Hon. Gentleman
did, if he mistook pot, declare, that those measures
bud called a new tradp into existence ; that, so great
was their efficacy, that the salvation of the trade of
this country might be said to have arisen from their
operation since 1824. Now he did not consider it
fair to take nay one or two single years to support a
proposition of that nature. He would therefore
tale an r.vereas of years, from 1815 to 1824,5 a pe-
riod during Which the silk trade was steadily and
progressively iinproving; 'and' then-he would look
to the effect which the subsequent regulations had
produced. In 1815, 1816, and 1817, the aggregate
amount of the import of raw and thrown silk was
4,007,000 lb., being equal to an average in each
year of 1,336,000 lb. la 1818, 1819, 1840, the
aggregate ajnount was 6,592,000 lb., being equal to
an average in each year of 2,194,000 lb. In 1821,
1822, 1823, the aggregate atnninip waq8,072,0Q01b.,
i;gipg equal to an average in each year of 2,691,0001b'.
The imports, therefore, of raw and throWn silk had
been increasing every year from 1815 till 1824, until,
in 1823 and the two preceding years, the amouat
was 8,072,0001 b.; and it must therefore be obvious
to Hon. Members that the silk trade could not be
fairly said to have flourished in consequence of the
introduction of these new principles. It had been
gradually and perceptibly increasing every year,- and
it might be fairly said, that if the new Measures. had

never been introduced, it would have gone on in-
creasing in the same ratio. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had taken the quantity of raw silk cleared
inwards at the Custom-house in the preceding year
and iu 1827, in which years there was certainly a
very large importation of the raw article, and, rest-
ing upon that, had said that the silk trade was in a
flourishing state in those years. But the quantity
cleared inwards at the Custom-house in a single
year would giie no idea of the consumption : that
could only be obtained from the average of imports
in various years. Now, if the Right Hon. Gentle.
man would take the average of the importation of
raw and thrown silk in 1826 and 1827, he would
find that there was a decrease, us compared with the
average in 1824 and 1825, of 1,149,1531 b. The
years 1824 and 1825 were years of prohibition,—
the others were not.—(Hear.) But there were
peculiar circumstances which caused the large im-
ports which took place in 1827. It would, per-
haps, be in the recollection of Hon. Members, that
in 1826 there were great alarms excited in conse-
quence of the intentions of his .Majesty's Ministers,
without it being known what the effect of the'mea-
sures to be introduced by them would be ; and
therefore only a small quantity of stock was taken
out of hand. But, at the latter end of 1827, con-
fidence-revived,- the price of silk became low, and a
large quantity of stock was taken out of hand for
consumption: and if the Right Hon. Gentleman
would loOk at the sth of Jan. 1828, he would see
that the stock in hand was more than it was in
1827 by 600,0001 b. The difference between the
amount of raw silk cleared inwards at the Custom-
house in 1827 and 1824 was only. 215,8781 b. Now,
With regard to the imports of the present year, it was
of great consequence to state the increase in the im-
port of raw and thrown silk, as that had been
brought forward as an argument to prove that the
silk trade was in a flourishing condition. In 1828,
the total increase of the imports of raw and thrown
silk over the imports of 1827, was 78,5501 b. In 1828,
the imports.amourited to 4,547,8121 b. From this
however, must be deducted 380,0001 b.; so that, in
fact, the amount was 4,167,8121 b. In 1827, the
imports amounted to 4,209,25716.; but by a similar
deduction to that in the last account, the amount was
reduced to 4,089,2571 b.; so that the increase was, as
he had stated, 78,5501 b. in the imports of 1828, over
the imports of 1827. This bore no proportion to
the large amount of stock on hand; and when they
talked of imports they should deduct from them the
excess of stock in hand at the end of the year, and
not called into consumption, but which, without the
importation of the foreign article, would have
added life and activity, and vigour to the trade.
Now in die imports of the present year there had
been a most alarming increase. In 1828, they
amounted to 676,973/. 19s. 6d., which was a most
rapid increase; for in 1826, they amounted only to
445,0001., and in 1827, to 555,087/. Now, if he
took one-third of the quantity as to the amount
brought into the country by smuggling, and left
two-thirds for legal importation, it would give him
2,000,000 pounds weight, which, at a fair calcula-
tion, would give him 1,000,000/ of money, the
amount of money displaced from the work of this
country. Then, following up this remark, he would
add, that, by a reference to the difference between
the price of labour in this country and in France,
there was lost to the industry of this country, in
depriving our labourers of the manufacture of the
raw article into an article of use, no less a sum
than 1,066,2331. He was aware that he had
entered into a very dry 'and tedious tale. (Hear,
hear.) It was not his wish to do so; but he
had thought it his duty to state the exact amount
of facts, in order to shew the real state of the
trade in this country. There was one branch
of the trade which seemed to be totally leaving us
he meant the manufacture of fancy and figured arti-
cles. He found that this was entirely given up to the
foreigner, and the fact led him to remark, that in some
branches of the trade the number of goods, and not
the number of pounds of silk, was the only fair cri-
terion of the trade being in a flourishing or decaying
condition. These articles, in particular, were of a
very heavy nature, taking a large quantity of silk;
and yet this, the most lucrative part of the trade,
was given up to foreigners. It would not be suffi-
cient for the Right Hon. Gentleman to tell them
the amount of the imports; he must also demon-
strate to the House the value of the system. He
(Mr. Fyler) would ask what advantages we had de-
rived from the system. He did not know what mea-
sures the Government intended to propose. Report
however, stated that the Government meant to do
their utmost to prevent smuggling. This must be
prevented, not by the preventive service, by a strict
attention to the duty imposed; and if that duty
were not brought to a level with the premium, the
trade of the country would be destroyed. It mat-
ittenrpeodrtlai tttiloen sovrhebtyhersmstillgkoiNnvger,e
iifnttrioleduteraeddebyofletgahel
country were to be overborne. He spoke without
authority, and on mere report; when he said that it
was understood that the Government intended to
decrease the duty on foreign thrown silk. One ar-
gument in favour of this proposition might be, that
while raw silk had increased, thrown silk had de-
creased ; but let them consider the numbers of per-
sons who had been for some time past employed in
throwing, and that, too, at extremely low wages,—
Those wages must now be reduced still lower, and
the plan proposed would therefore be a certain and
positive injury to one branch of the trade.—
The cause he pleaded, then, was not connected
with that of the throwsters; but lie was sure
the persons for whom he spoke did not wish to
obtain any advantage at the expence of the
throwsters. Let it be considered that if the
throwsters were reduced by the duty being lowered
from Is. to 55., they would be deprived of one-
third of their vested property. The large capital,
too, invested in buildings and machinery, could not
be transferred into any other employment. Not to
insist that one part of the trade ought not to be
benefitted at the expense of the other, he would say,
that the small benefit thus obtained would scarcely
*be felt when it was spread over the whole trade,
though it would be a serious injury to those from
whom it was taken. There was no argument in fa-
your of this system, but only praises of the prim
ciples of free trade, which they were told must tri-
umph at last. There would be no triumph. They
were merely engaged in a struggle to avert the blow
which must crush them at last. When distress,
like that which now prevailed, was forced upon
their attention, they ought not to content themselves
with half measures. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. V. Fitgerald) meant to follow the footsteps of
his predecessor, and to take for his motto vesligia
nulla retrorsum, he trembled for the silk trade of
this country. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman
would not consider himself as mixed up with them,
but that he would act independently. The unfortu-
nate persons whose cause lie (Mr. Fyler) advocated,
looked upon the Right Hon. Gentleman as their
only patron and protector. He begged to conclude
by moving that a committee be appointed.
Mr. ROBINSON rose to second the motion,

and he then found :-that. NOb_te_LariLholding eat
great prospective blessings from. relexinrOO
of prohibition. ' Among these promised blessle
was a vast export trade to this country #9.113
foreigners opening their ports to us; but,. 411C°1
these hopes being realized, foreigners continued tbetfj
system of prohibition. We 'suffered foreigner ..4
compete with us at' home, and - received -nrotkig;4l
but prohibition from them in return. The GoVern",,
ment. was warned in 1826 of _the necessity of apex''
ing this inquiry, but the persons. who:-urged -that.'
necessity met with such contradictions; from those
who advocated the principles of free trade,,tbat:the.
House was not prepared to entertain the motiop-Ar'
a Committee. Ile begged the
.Honse not to disrai..A
the subject now without inquity. He hopedtae:
Hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr; HtiskiSson) WOO,
excuse him if he referred to_a letter whiCh the HO"'
Member read in that. House. It was.a letter. from
an extensive agent to ship-owners in' the north ;Of ik
England. That letter stated that the ship-oWtrers ,
were not in want of employment ; bla that, on the
contrary, there was more employment than eve,r;
" .Meeting. the writer of that letter the next day, s
continued the Hon. Member, " I asked him SAY,
he put such a weapon into the hands of the Itigtrr.
Hon. Gent. who was already too formidable; a."l '
he told me that the Right Hon. Gent. had.:,alniqe`i
the context, in which he said that, though there' was
plenty of employment, it was altogether without
profit or return to capital." He was sure the..itight:'!,
Hon. Gent. would understand that he did not naeanto-• '
insinuate that this passage was intentionally omitted.:
One of the arguments now used against the s;lk7,.
manufacturer was, that there was plenty of employ-
ment. The lion. Member for Inverness (Mr-
Grant) had stated, that there had taken place a great'.
'-
increase in the importation of row material, and
drew therefrom the inference that there was. an
crease in the trade. That was not, however, the.
fact, because the altered fashion in the manufacture
of silk required a greater quantity of the raw ma-
terial for the same number of yards than was used
formerly. Besides, the extension of trade in itself
was no evidence of its prosperity, unless it return-
ed a profit to the country and the comfortable.
means of subsistence to the individuals engaged in
it. He contended that nothing was more absurd
than to apply the principles of free trade tou branch
of manufacture the least prepared to meet the evils
growing out of that system, arid to establish in the
staple article of life, that of corn, something very -
like a prohibitory system. He asked the House
whether the prediction uttered by Lord Goderich,
in 1824, had been fulfilled, that England would
shortly supply the whole world with silks ? After
every attempt had been made to induce France to
the proposition of establishing a system of recipro-
city, she had refused to do so, and England was met .
by a persevering adhesion to the prohibitory system,
and by a commercial hostility on the part. Of
America. He hoped the House siould agree. to
the motion made by the Honourable Member, as it
was one purely for inquiry, and would not tie the
House down to the adoption,, of any one system or other.,
Mr. V. FITZGERALD—AIthough, Sir, I can-
not be insensible of the many and peculiar
ditli-
culties which embarrass and which surround this
question, nor unconscious of my own inability to
treat its various topics, and to enter into the com-
plicated details which belong to it, with that clear-
ness with which it would be my wish to bring every
subject under view of the House—though I feel
how additionally painful it is, under circumstances 1
of suffering such as the. Hon. Gentleman, has
painted, and in the midst of that distress which.
affects those districts in which the silk manufacture
has been established—though I feel, Sir, how much ,
more difficult, as well as painful, it is to resist the
sympathy of the House, and to oppose the motion
for inquiry which the Hon. Gentleman has made--
I am yet not sorry that an opportunity is at length
offered to rue, when I may be permitted to vindi-
cate the principle and the policy on .which Par-
liament has acted with respect to this trade—
when I may be allowed to show that the. distress
and suffering of those engaged in it, deeply as we"must feel arid deplore its existence, is yet not lea-
imitable to those causes to which it has been
ascribed—that, on the contrary,. it has flowed from: •
causes, over which neither the Government nor the
Parliament has had controul—and when I may be en-
-
abled to submit to the House the outline of those
measures which it is the duty of the Government to
recotnmenl, as the only means of restoring to
sound and wholesome state this important branch.of.'
the national industry. . Before, Sir, I enter into std'•
extensive a consideration of the subject, I am bout•
to meet, in the first instance, the immediate prop& •
ssti
atitoentohfe hr .
tNbleembe f
ds, only grounds,
groor Coventry,
u.nds,upo a
m whichhnid t°
ch I
should have opposed his motion for inquiry; hid his •
speech been confined to a recommendation of that
course alone, 'and had he not made it the vehicle of
other arguments arid other statements, whiA it will
be impossible for me to leave unnoticed.. In .00'
course of what 1 shall have to offer to the House; I
shall be obliged to comment on those passageti Of
the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, because, in the
view which I take of the causes of that distress
which exists, I shall be led to combat his reasoning,
and to prove, not only that he has ascribed' It*
un-
duly to the causes to which the petitioners through
theirhe recommendsstifferin sufferings, twi t that t
ould thee voeirdyy In
the
primary tut rte impute
eh
primary step to an aggravation of that distress.
And first, Sir,.l can assure the Hon. Member, that
if I could persuade myself that the'appointment of a .
Committee could .tend to alleviate the sufferings •of- •
those who have approached the 'House with their ,
petitions, I should feel much more reluctance in re-
sisting the motion which he has made. It is be-
cause I am convinced that the appointment' of
such a Committee must increase the, difficulties in '
which the manufacturer is plaeed, must add to the
stagnation of his trade, and encourage an opinion
which has been so indUstrionsly. circulated, that ,Par.
liament was likely to change its policy, and to recur
to a prohibitory system—it is because I believe 01.4
if you leave them to that slow relief which e Peon' ,
season particularly, when the trade requires. impulse,
and the manufacturer employment—you -would ag-
gravate, to an intolerable degree, the sufferings- of ,
every branch of it. I cannot complain,-Sir, that
the lion. Gentleman, or the petitioners, have eon.,
cealed the object with which they press for investi-
gation t the avowed object is, to induce Parliament
to recur to a system of prohibition. To those who - •
are decided against such a system, not on general
principles alone, but from a conviction that it would
be fatal to the manufacture itself, I need no argu-:
- mittee could afford, you would aggravate, at this
merits to dissuade them from acceding to a motion,
which, professing to inquire, avows the ulterip,F
ject which it has in view, and the'intqltipus. Of 'it!!
authors. I lament to ssy -that' the petitioners hay
been led to think that a'departure from that systeM
has caused their distress, and that a return to it -
would remove the cause. This has been impressed
upon them by too many who are capable .of reason-
ing better, and who ought to have disabused them. I.

Ile begged to remind the House that in 1826 great would ask of the Hon. Gentleman what inquiry be..
distress prevailed in the silk trade, and that the fore
.a Committee of the House of Commons would
claim of the persons concerned for the appointment establish for him, or for his clients, such a proposi-
of a Select Committee was rejected, on the ground tion ? He has told us, indeed, how prohibition has
that they had not made out a sufficient case. The acted. To the amount of acknowledged foreigil
Right Hon. Gents. who werc.! then the President import he could not recur. That amount lital not
and Vice-president of the Board of Trade, 'said that been such--:-.=he knoWd by affecting
•
their measures would remedy the distress which then tlse.consuniption; could' affect the interests of the
existed ; and the Hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. inanufaCturer. It is, he tells us, to the illegal
C. Grant) added, that if during the operation of importation, to the unequal competition of the
there measures the distress was not alleviated, the domestic manufacturer with the smuggler, that the
petitioners Would come before the House with an extinction of the English manufacture i 3 owing.
irresistible case. After this declarntiqn, he trusted Extikction ! Has the Hon. rientltinhh referred to
that Inverness would satiafac- the amount. of 'English production also P Do not the
tori tilyat "or); l‘ien
for the
foredistress which now prevailed, very petitions and representations made to the House
or support the motion for a Committee. He did convince him that there never was a period at which
not deny that there had been Qverqading in this as the supply has so far exceeded the demand ? Or
well as in nearly every other branch of out trade; does he, or dim Iyho Itrge this inquiry, believei
but then he contended that the importation of fo- that if by a system of forced prohibition, they could
reign silk added another evil to that of overtrading. exclude foreign competition, if they could, by the _
These principles, falsely called principles of free protection which they seek, raise the price, andthe
trade, were first introduced ministerially by a Noble value of the domestic manufacture, securing to the
Lord, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1824.; merchant, those. profits which they . say he-has lost,

restoring td the operatiie those
_high wages which he
formerly received and which rivalry at home, as
yr,ell as abroad, has tended to reduce—if these gen-
lientett. could guarantee to the augmented number,
lioth of manufacturers and throwsters, the same
profits and the same monopoly, which under another
!Mem, and with more limited numbers, to the pre-
Mice of the great body of consumers, they enjoyed,
do these gentlemen persuade themselves that that
extension of the trade which has been produced by
cheapness and competition will not be affected by
tne withdrawing of these primary incentives, or that
844 is the fashion or the patriotism of this country,
that its public and its consumers would be content to
Pay for our domestic manufacture the augmented
Price which monopoly would claim ? Does it not
?,eur, to the lion. Gentleman, that an imme-
ul4e result of a return to a prohibitory system, if it
Noduced that increase of price which he contem-
Plates, must produce also the most fatal effects upon
all those places to which the manufacture has been
ettended; on individuals as well as bodies of men
who have embarked in it ? Ile is of opinion that
there are are-no limits to the price and profits of
ongopolY--that by such minor considerations the
cumption of the country is not likely to be a-
im d
e • But is
is he of opinion also, seeing that there
enot airemunerative price, as he contendS, for any
ne,h of the trade, that the large stock cannot
• "jaPPsetl
.of—is he of opinion that if by re-
t9' Prohibition he shall raise the profits of
thetne throwster, in the first instance, the wages of
~, manufacturer in the second, there is no
Winger that the consumers of this country may
take to cotton, or to some other fabric, which has not i
isprohibition to protect it, and thus add to the distress,
not of the industrious constituents of the Hon.
Gent.--of those establishments which have grown
lup precisely since prohibition was at an end ? I
nave here, Sir, this part of the argument, only warn-
og those who deem that for every piece or yard of
cheap manufactured silk, whether produced at home
4broad, which has been recommended by that
bell cheapness,—which, if foreign is to be displaced
Prohibition, if domestic is to be raised in price
t° the Consumer,—they may not be able to secure
P, urchasero to an equal amount; and that while they
lope to encourage those -who are now dejected,
tope
may in fact be creating permanent causes of
their ruin. But, Sir, it is to the contraband trade—
't is to the illicit and immense importation of fo-
rein
silks—that the petitioners have universally
"scribed their present distress. I believe that the
has
of what has been smuggled into the country
"Os been exaggerated. But of that hereafter. I
Would here ask the Hon. Gentletnan, whether no
juggling existed under the system of prohibition ?
it not notorious and undeniable that at that e- rtod .French silks
to be seen ,p
ain every house,
and
the d fivery were
society ? The extent of the smuggling,
mischief" of it, were the subject of universal
complaint. In the evidence taken before a Com-
raittee of the other House of Parliament, it was dis-
titictly referred to, and suggestions were made there,
\vith a view to meet and to suppress it. But five
"t the Years, Sir, before that time, when the manufacture
capital was suffering under one of those visi-
,,i:Ons by which it has been periodically afflicted,—
At
en) though the trade had the benefit of probibi-
-I°, it was said that two-thirds of the looms ware
It'inttoplo
Yedr—the distress was universally ascribed to
• Ble inuggling in foreign silks. The same was stated
tree the year following, and I believe that it was as
e 1
year .
LB US it is now. If you would encourage the
Pop would
of smuggled goods, prohibit them; if
probWOuld confirm the caprice of fashion, and give
re foreign article a fancied superiority, recur to
sibition I I believe that they will be disappointed
j„th;e3 hope to distinguish them. Under the pant-
'-'ng effects of undue protection the goods of this
Fc'tintry were distinguishable at first sight, by their
inferiority, from those of France ; but imitation and
himProvernent, under the stimulus of competition,
`lick
been at work, and it has been more than once
Sir alt to maintain a seizure after it has been made.
fe2.lunier prohibition, the trade was a scene of 0f-
er"..,11,e and arbitrary laws, restrictive of the fair ex-
lesTe of the inclinations of the people, and regard-
feit Otheir wants. They were laws which no one
40°' impose any moral obligation, and thus au
itual indifference to the breach of law was en-
gendered
ere in in tbe,public mind. But I have said tbey
lhos --eiffilld°"; and Will the House encourage
e ..n3nVow that the object of their inquiry is
to establish a return to them ? I will remove from
lie statute book, if I can, legal crimes which the
!topic do not view as moral crimes. I would not
nri,the common informer with a power to enter the
Zuses of individuals. I would not permit even the
ng's officer, for the sake of a fiscal regulation, to
,!)
ilate the sanctity of every Englishman's abode.
aving sta so
ted me of the reasons for which I
'Zsht the Hon. Gentleman's motion, I proceed to
other branches of this subject. To convince the
tpPause of the nature of the present distress, by
Oing it.to its source-, it may be not undesirable to
43e a succinct view of the state of the silk trade for
01' years prior to the change which was made in
A:spring of- 1824.; to follow the manner and the
sqress of that change ; and to compare the actual
tof it, since the change, with an equal term
014 to it. It would be useful to trace tile history
eff i
the manufacture in France, with reference to the
,
°rats of our measures upon it, ana the re-action
it hose effects upon our own manufacture. I think
st
4,44 ot be doubted, that one of the causes of the
Ili"8 is, an over-production in both countries; for
41itt'Moriolts that the distress of France is as great
this Is here. There are
many facts connected with
toots
subject which are features, and proofs of over-
the immense increase of the raw silk
toported; .2dly,the high prices at which, owing to the
ti,!),petitiort of throwsters, the raw silks have never-
-458 been purchased, even up to the sale at the East
sttiql'a House at the end of January; 3dly, the nume-
e4 .new mills and works which have been establish-
ree 1823; and 4thly, the simultaneous distress
tilsjanoo, to which I before referred. 'The facts,
th,.e, of the great increase in the consumption of
bet raw Material, as well as the increase in the num-
the °F Persons, buildings, and works, employed in
tro4ikanufaxure, would sufficiently prove this over-
gtgei-;'sting the change of system at the be-
stut.ag or the year 1824, five years of the new
be,.." of the Silk-trade have elapsed. In those five
li%) the importation of raw and thrown silk has
182, 18,584,2131h5. In the five years preceding
140 e importation was only 10.,925,6461b5..,m. ak-
peri bllfference of 7,650,5671b5. in favour of a later
ruct4' Ido not mean that the-increase of manu-
• er
of lag employment has been equal to this increase
°llitikawterial, because, since the reduction of the duty
'`tai h. silk to a nominal sum (Id. per lb.) coarser
bth
i'.4tier• fabrics have been made, and silk has
i'l4.CP' freely used in many ways, not connected
,With
ohl silkinamifactare in its proper sense. But
l'.l4tai7°lirth of the increase be oeducted, the silk
Incroeture properly so called, will still have been
she b) -
full one-balf, on a comparison between
tit five years of the former state of the trade,
five years which have elapsed of the altered
tiop The following is an account of the imports-
during the ten years in question
FIRST PERIOD.

NI
1e218A..
ih2l-•
1ti,1..
,i.
....
.............

. -~

1824
....... . ...
.... ... . ....... : ......
............ .....
. ........... I

Raw.

Thrown.

1,41,990
1,700,41t1
1,94 ~516
2,037,415
2,095,972

lbs.
$01,588
309;953
350;200
3 r 0,273
346,314

Total.

1,782;578
480;366
2,290,725
2,407,688
2,132,286

lbs.
452,469
556,642
289,323
454,015
385,262

10,925,(46

Tvjal.