Star.
London, England, 1824-03-23 00:00:00

lose nothing. lie was borne out in this by the fact,
that in 1801, 1802, and 1803, the fevenul received was:
greater than after the ditties had belit increased. He*
wished the subject might be referred to the Committee
now sitting.
The CHANCtLLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that if any inconvenience had arisen to the trade from
an idea that he intended to take up the subject this
Session, they had brought it on themselves. Nothing
had fallen from him either in the House, or on any
communications he had with parties out of the House
on this subject, which could lead to the supposition
that he intended to take it up this Session. He did not,
it was true, disguise from the House last year his
opinion, that the produce of the revenue was not corn- I
mensurate to the amount of duty, and that the con-
sumption_ had diminished. This he would allow fur-
nished a prima facie case to conclude that the duty
might be advantageously reduced, consistently with the
principles he had laid dawn. He was, however, fully-
justified in:reserving any expression of his opinion as to
the time when it might be proper to propose an altera-
tion. Though the consumption might eventually in-
crease, so a prevent permanent deterioration of the
revenue, it was clear that at the outset a reduction of,
the duty must be productive of great loss. At a time
when, they were making such considerable sacrifices in
other branches of the revenue, it would not be deemed
unreasonable it he declined committing himself on this
question. It would have the effect of exciting all sorts
of expectations, and thereby lead to no small inconve- '
nience. He endeavoured, upon former occasions, to
state the principles on which questions of thisalatute
should be treated. But they could not do everything
atonce. Ile hoped the House would excuse him if he
abstained from any further explanation.
Mr. WALLACE said it would' be impossible the
Ccimmittee could go into the inquiry during the pre-
sent Session.—The Petition was ordered to be printed.

• slit:. •
Mr. CALCRAFT said he held in his hand a Petition
from the Silk Mercers of the Citrof Westminster.,
The case of the Petitioners "was this. A liberal allow:
ante had been made to the silk manufacturers to secure
them against injury from the provisions of the measure
before the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had granted allowances
in the most handsome, the most 'considerate, and the
'most liberal manner, down to the very lowest articles of
the trade, But the parties whom he (Mr. Calcratr) re-
presented were subjected to very great hardships, hav-
ing for the most part large stocks of valuable goods on
hand, for which, by the construction which- had been
put upon the clause of the Bill, in the instructions issued
from the Custom-house, they were not considered as en-
titled tO.those allowances, which, as he conceived, it was
thj intention of the Legislature in agreeing to that clause
that they should have. It appeared that at the end of
every piece of broad silk manufactured in the loom
there was what was called a fagersd, which it was the
custom of the trade to cut off' to be used as a pat-
'tern ; and when that end was so cut off, the piece was
no longer considered as an uncut piece, and thi
mercer who had' it in sock would not he alio%%ed,
to avail himself of the drawback or bounty. The
consequence of this interpretation of the clause %\ aso
that Were we:c a great many persons in the trade who
had large stocks on hand, and who would not be per-
mitted to receive one quarter of the allowance for the
drawback on the whole of their,btocks. SNir could,
never have heen the intention of the Legislature. Cut
silk, lie should coutenJ, could only mean where any
part of a piece had.been cut off fur the purpose rf sup-
plying a customer. He understood that it would be
said in answtr los this, that it would be a matter of con-
siderable difficulty to make any allowances, and that in
fact it was not usual. to snake such allowances to retail
dealers. nut no such answer could be applied to this
Case ; for retail dealers would under these new regula-
tions be entitled to The allowances on every piece of
goods they might send in to be warehoused " uncut."
The word " uncut:: he said, had been added by the
Commissioners of Customs in the instructions which
they had issued. His Hon. Friend • the Member for
Coventry (Mr. Ellice), who watched over and promoted
the interests of his constituents with so much zeal and
assiduity, had obtained for the ribbon weavers of that
City an allowance on every article they made, down
even to the skein which he (Mr. Calcraft) held in his
hand, which was made in pieces of 18 'yards only in
length, at the price of `2d. per yarJ ; while the dealer
who had on hand a large stock of goods in pieces of
from 80 to 100 yards each, and of from 151. to 16/. iri
value, was not to be allowed the drawback, because the
fag-end had been cut off. He hoped the case of the
petitioners would not go unheeded by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, nor unremedied by the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER bored
that the discussion of this measure would be reserved
for the Committee, when details could be best ;onsi-
de' ed—( Hear, heat).
• Mr. HOBIIOUSE said, that though fiiendly to the
principle of the proposed measure, he hoped the appli-
cation of the Petitioners would. be fully and maturely
considered. They wanted nothing but fairness, and a
due consideration at their complaints.—The Petition
was brought up and laid on the table.

'