Star.
London, England, 1824-03-06 00:00:00

ful to his Majesty's Ministers for tilling that view .of cite
subject ; but he must say, that they ought to have begun
where the experiment would not be so dangerous as in
this .instance. He must now *cleat to the Coin Laws,
Hew could this country rival France, when the price
of bread was twice as much in this country as in
France? This high price was not produced by natural
causes, but by restrictions which the Right Honourable
Gentleman would not consent to remove, perhaps be.
cause he would find it more difficult to remove them
than any other restrictions.- •• He-knew the-situation of
the country was a bar to our making such experiment;
as might "be made if the burthens of the country we're
lesS ; but when he found the assessed taxes unrepealed,
and the taxes upon every article of the pour man's
comfort unrepealed, he must admit that some tirol
must elapse before the manufacturers of this courerr
could be placed on a level with the foreign matrufac.
Curers. He might be asked, what then is the cause of
the commercial and manufacturing prosperity of am
country for the last few years? Ile would answer, the
low- price of provisiiins during that period. If the Corn
Laws went on, he was afraid that this country was on
the eve of that situation in which Holland was, ellen
the interest of -money was at two per cent. and the i rice
of labour and taxes so high, as to drive the capiraii.ts
and artisans from that dountry to this. where *they a ern
cherished, and rose to the highest pitch of prosper it, .•
The House could not place the British manufacturer 1.1
the same situation with the foreign manufacturer, with-
ilut taking off the very heavy taxes upon. labour. If
Ministers could say to the labourer, bread is as cheap
in this country as in Frauce, then they might say to the
manufacturer, we have put you on st level with the fo-
reigner, and we will take off the restrictions. He would
then support Ministers in opposition to the wishes of h..:
own constituents. He thought Ministers ought steadily
to pursue the general principle of free trade, but h
would suggest to them,-at the same time, the taking ctf
of such taxes as might be tsktot off without risk c.r
danger to any essential interests. It was of no avail to
talk of a protecting duty of thirty per cent. when smug-
glers could introduce the article- into this country at
ten per cent. and therefore the duty of tint ty per cent:
could never be said to be a protecting duty, as it never
would be paid to the revenue, while the article caul I
he procured in another way at ten per cent. It was well
known that the price of the labotir necessary to manu-
facture most articles, was equal to Ss. 4d. and on some
articles ss. 6d of the-price of the manufactured article.
'Now, when the price of the labour was double in one
country to what it was in another, it was impossible to
open the trade without giving an advantage to the
foreigner. He thought Ministers began at a wrong
time. When the manufacturer complained of the price
of labour, and the labourer complained of the inade-
quacy of the price of his labour to his support ; when
he told the House that the average wages of the work.
ing,silk weavers in Coventry did not exceed six shillings
a week—they would agree with him .that the master
manufacturer was not inclined to procure labour at an
expensive rate. -
Mr. Secretary PEEL would candidly ask the Ho-
noutable Member who had just sat down, if he would
support the prayer of the Petition if he were not argu-
ing as the Member for Coventry ? He would wish to
know what connexion there was between the admissions
and the arguments of the Honourable Member. The
Honourable Gentleman had admitted the propriety of
the general principle, but he disapproved of the appli.
cation of it in the present instance. Nr;w he would ask
the Honourable Gentleman to state upon what other ara
ticle of commerce, except silk, did an aete4 prohibition
exist ?(Hear, hear.)—The Honour Ic Gentleman had
said that Ministers were beginning! the system at the
wrong end. To that he would answer, Ministers, so far
' from having a system to commence, shad- a system to
conclude; and let them apply the same principle tosilk
as was applied to all other branches of commerce, and
the Silk Trade would then make its ground with a pro,
grecs equal to any other branch of our commerce. The
second argument of the Honourable Gentleman was—
lhat in the manufacture of silk the English menufac.
curer was htferior to the French manufacturer. Did not
that statement lead to the conclusion that this inferiot itv
arose from the prohibition, which checked the scope of
English exertion, and the application of English -capi-
tal ? He would then say, remove '.at prohibition,
le-
galize the importation of silk, give a protecting duty to
the English manufacturer, and then English machinery
and English capital would come into play, and the Eng.'
lish manufacturer would be able to meet the foreign
manufacturer. But it was said the manufacture of silk
was not a native manufacture; and therefore the pint.
ciple couldnot be applied to it with as much safety aster
other manufactures. •He did not know what was the
Hon. Gentleman's meaning of a native manufacture: silk
was as much a native manufacture as cotton, cutlet y;
and other manufactures which could be named (Hear).
Ile supposed the HonourableGentleman meant to draw'
a distinction between the silk sand the woollen manufac-
tures, and there certainly a distinction existed, but be-
tween silk and cotton manufactures no such distinction
existed. The Ilonourable Member (Mr. Baring) had
asked, who was the sponsor of this measure? To that
he would answer, no o.as peison was thesponsor of it,
the sponsor of the measure was the principles which
had been so hequently advocated by the . Gentle Men
opposite, principles which would be deemed higher au‘
thority than the• opinion of any one person, however
high might be his station. He asked of-the House when
they established a principle, and when Ministers, disre-
garding popularity, proposed the application of that
principle, in a way which must ultimately turn out more
beneficial to the country, to have the courage to go on
-steadily and without looking to any local interests. If
' the House should shrink from thus applying the prin-
ciple, they could never expect credit for sincerity. Those
principles wo red be brought into disrepute by declaiwe
ing on them and admitting their justness, and then,
blinded by local interests, opposing the application of
diem—(icar, hear).
Mr. PHILLIPS.—There could be no doubt that the
alteration now proposed would introduce some &S-
-culty at first, and such difficulty was one of the bad
effects of a bad system. It was, said that the present
state of the Corn Laws was such as to preclude the Bri-
tish manufacturer from any chance of competition. lie
would admit that the Corn Laws were injurious to the
manufacturer, but be could not, en the other hand,
overlook the advantages possessed by the English
over
the French manufacturer sri the skill and steady appli-
cation of the English workmen, an application which,
added to their skill, was so valuable that it procured for
those in mans who had emigrated from this 'country
higher wages than were .given to the native wotkmen.
His decided opinion wa's, that Government could 'Aft
select a measure which would Le productive of greater
idvantagos, and he trusted they would persevere. If

...