HC Deb 07 August 1832 vol 14 cc1180-208
Mr. Alderman Venables

rose to present a Petition on a subject of considerable importance, from a number of persons being silk manufacturers of the city of London and its vicinity. The petitioners expressed the opinion and sentiments of a large proportion of the trade in the metropolis, and in the country, stating their grief and disappointment that the Select Committee, appointed so far back as the 1st of March last, should have presented to the House the evidence heard before them, unaccompanied by any opinion as to the causes of the present distressed condition of the silk trade. On one point there would be but one opinion—namely, that the course which had been pursued by the Committee would have a most injurious effect on all the parties interested in the preservation of the silk trade. It must be clear to those persons who had attended to the evidence brought before the House, that matters could not rest here, but that some decisive measure must be resorted to. This petition made certain statements upon which he would say a few words, stating, at the same time, his conviction that these petitioners had proved the truth of all the allegations advanced by them in a former petition. They had made out a much stronger case than ever was expected. The Committee appointed by the House, and which was named in consequence of the former petition, were instructed to inquire, first, as to what effect had been produced by the changes made in the law since the year 1825, in the silk trade; and, secondly, whether any, and what legislative enactments, compatible with the interests of the country, might be suggested in order to promote the success of the manufacture. In his opinion they had proved, that distress, to a greater extent, more universal, and prominent than ever was known before, prevailed in this very important branch of our manufactures. Wages had fallen fifty per cent, and whilst the consumption had increased, the trade had lost. The parties had proved to the Committee that smuggling had greatly increased since the alteration was made in the law. Another point which had been established was, that the fancy branches of the trade which formerly employed a large number of hands, were almost lost. Again, the country was supplied from France and Germany with the coarser kinds of goods. To one circumstance connected with the prevailing distress, he would call the serious attention of the House;—it was this, that the practice which commenced in the agricultural counties of paying agricultural labourers out of the poor rates, had extended itself to this trade, so that the wages were regularly made up to the operatives out of the poor rates. If this practice were allowed to continue, it would extend itself to other trades. The petitioners, therefore, were most anxious that the matter should not end here. It had been further proved that smuggling, which was formerly carried on by a few persons of desperate character, was now practised by men of large capital, holding respectable stations in the country, who were induced to run the risk because they made sure of realizing a great profit by the extent of their transactions. These men could afford to pay a heavy sum to the Crown when detected. He was not desirous to interfere with free trade as an abstract question, yet it might be carried to excess at its first application; and such had been the case with reference to the silk trade. As to what means the House or the Government could adopt, with the view of remedying or removing the pressure under which the trade then suffered, he should forbear to offer any opinion; but some measure, having for its object the improvement of the silk trade must be adopted in the early part of the Session. He should wish to see the trade of this country made as free as possible; but it was the duty of the Legislature to see that abstract principles were not carried too far. He begged to move that this Petition be brought up.

Lord Dudley Stuart

concurred with his hon. friend, in the regret he had expressed, that the Committee had not agreed to any Report, but had contented itself with merely publishing the evidence. It would be his duty to present a similar petition from persons connected with the trade at Macclesfield. He could not, therefore, omit this opportunity of saying that if the Committee had been more regularly attended, the result would have been more satisfactory. He was bound to say, that some blame attached to those persons who had the formation of this Committee. Many of the members were also members of other Committees. However assiduous they might have been, it was to be regretted that they were appointed members of a Committee at which they could not attend. It was not surprising that the attention of the Legislature should be called to such petitions as that which his hon. friend had laid upon the Table, and that he was about to present, because persons were naturally anxious to have some specific information on this important question, and to see some measure adopted which should tend to diminish their intense anxiety. As to the existence of great distress, the evidence before the Committee fully confirmed the fact. It not only existed in one branch, but pervaded the whole manufacture. The manufacturers, indeed, had unhappily, for a long period, carried on their trade at a loss of property; and, looking to the state of the manufactures of the metropolis at that moment, and comparing their present con- dition with the state in which they were before the alteration of the law, the result was truly lamentable. Formerly there were, in Spitalfields, 169 manufacturers, which number was now reduced to only eighty-seven, of which sixty-seven had failed. In the rate of wages, there was likewise a frightful reduction since the year 1814, while, even at these reduced wages, but few labourers could obtain employment. The necessary consequence of this was, that the poor-rates in all places where the silk trade was carried on were increased to a most enormous extent, and in Spitalfields, more so than in any other place. In the year 1826, 914 persons received parochial relief in that place, while now that number was increased to the frightful one of 7,300. Several such circumstances might be adduced, and similar statements had, indeed, been made before the Committee. Facts like these were surely calculated to startle theorists, and to show the necessity of a speedy change in the measures which had caused so lamentable a state of things. He himself considered the case of the petitioners as one which imperatively called for the most serious and earnest consideration of the Legislature. Great blame attached to the Government, because it did not insist, when it permitted unrestricted admission of French goods, upon something like reciprocity; so that the benefits of the alteration should not have been given to France alone. When the Government thought fit to alter the existing law, the plan was met by repeated remonstrances from the trade, but in vain. The Government persisted, and the country now suffered. The trade was composed of various and dependent branches, and, by destroying one, the destruction of the whole must follow. The French and Italians had great advantages over us. The Italians had copious waterfalls; their mills were placed in situations superior to any which our trade could boast of—upon those streams which water the beautiful vallies of the country, and which, indeed, might well be called streams flowing with gold. Indeed this particular trade would be lost to the country, unless his Majesty's Government resorted to some measure of prohibition. He agreed with the worthy Alderman who had preceded him, in tracing one great source of evil to the practice of smuggling, which had increased to an immense extent. Like him he would suggest that severer laws against smuggling should be enacted; not merely to apply to the lower classes, who incurred great risks, and were amenable to severe punishment; but to affect the practice of smuggling among rich men—enjoying all the luxuries of life—possessors of large capital, who encouraged poor men to hazard their liberty, and perhaps even their lives, with a view to their own pecuniary advantage. The punishment in the case of a rich man should be much heavier than in the case of a poor man, who might be considered as a rich man's servant. The prevention of smuggling was a matter of such vast importance, that he trusted it would immediately receive due consideration. He wished to impress upon the House, that this was a question which must be regarded as affecting the silk trade as a whole, and could not be considered in parts. If, indeed, it were thought better that the silk trade of this country should be abandoned, it would be only fair for his Majesty's Government to come forward and say so boldly; but such a resolution would operate greatly to the prejudice of the country. On the whole, he assured the Ministers that the silk trade was in the deepest distress, and urgently required some measure of immediate relief.

Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer

agreed with the noble Lord that the state of distress to which this numerous class of operatives had been reduced, was such as to excite general sympathy. The health and strength of these persons was affected by the state of distress they were now reduced to. As member for Coventry, where the distress was most apalling, he trusted that he might be allowed to call the attention of the House to a few facts that had come out in the course of the inquiry before the Committee on the silk trade. When the subject was formerly under discussion, he said that the quantity of raw silk manufactured was no proof of the great labour it employed, or of the amount of wages; his opinion had been fully supported by everything that had come out in the course of the inquiry. In the evidence, p. 1953, Mr. Charles Rat-cliff said, that there were fewer looms, and less work, although there was more silk consumed than there was in the five years before 1826. Again, in page 1944, he said—"There has been less amount of wages paid, there is more silk consumed, but there has been less amount of work done." Mr. Cox said, in page 2105—"The distress has been greater since the larger quantity of silk has been consumed." In page 2107, he said—"In 1826, the cost of labour in 1 lb. of silk was 1l. 18s. and, in 1832, only 15s.; it would now take upwards of 2½ lbs. of silk to have the same cost of labour that it would have taken for 1 lb. in 1824." He would not go into further statements on this point, as he considered the facts which he had just stated sufficient. With regard to wages, Mr. Hume said—"That where the weavers used to earn from 30s. to 40s. they can now only earn from 10s. to 11s." Mr. Poole, a weaver of Coventry, at page 971, said—"Distress prevails in the greatest degree." Mr. Smith, also a Coventry weaver, in page 1306, confirmed this observation. Mr. Goode, page 1206, stated the same, and that, "according to the last census, there were unemployed 1,800 weavers, 450 fillers, 450 winders, and about 160 warpers, making, in all, 2,860." Again, in page 1206, he said—"Wages have been reduced, during the last three years, upwards of thirty per cent." Mr. Marston, of Foleshill, in page 1361, said—"That in December, 1829, there were 1,629 persons destitute of employment." Nor was this confined to Coventry, for Mr. Wadden, Spitalfields, page 9971, said—"That wages have been continually drooping from 1829 to the present time." In page 10285, Mr. Joseph Grant, who was proprietor of several silk factories, stated the following returns of wages:—"In 1822, 2,747 persons were employed at the average rate of 7s. 6d.; in 1824, 3,594, at the rate of 8s. 1½d.; in 1826, 3,516, at the rate of 6s.; in 1828, 2,818, at the rate of 4s; in 1831, 1,871, at the rate of 3s. 8½d." It, therefore, appeared at present, that only half the number of persons were employed, and at half the average wages. From these circumstances, the case of distress was clearly made out. The question, then, was whether this distress had not rather been occasioned by home than by foreign competition. With respect to Coventry, there was no home competition, for there was no other place in England where ribbons were manufactured. The truth was, that the preference was so much given to French fashions that it was impossible for the English manufacturer to compete with the French manufacturer in the finer goods. Mr. Merry, page 2546, stated—"that the prejudice is so much in favour of French goods, that the fashionable houses in London will not buy Coventry goods." In page 2162, Mr. Howell, of the firm of Howell and James, in conversation with Mr. Cox, said—"It is impossible that I could order English goods, because the fashion is not under my control. You know that any milliner, as well as ladies of rank, can import the fashions, and I could not sell any goods but what were in strict accordance with the French taste; and if I ordered goods of you, I might order things directly opposite to what the French introduce, and thereby, of course, not meet a sale for them." Mr. Ratcliff said -"that with prohibition, we remit orders as the French do now, but now the large dealers in ribbons here go over regularly to St. Etienne and Lyons, to order their goods for the Spring." Mr. Merry said, page 2204—"there have been recently imported from France 176,000 pieces of ribbon, which would have employed 4,230 hands if manufactured in England." Again, page 2543, he said—"In the years 1823, 1824, and 1825, we paid for labour 40,714l., or, on the average, for the three years, 13,571l. 6s. 8d. In 1829, 1830, and 1831, we paid only 20,411l. 6s. 2d., or on the average yearly, 6,803l. 15s., being a decrease, from 1825 to 1831, of 20,302l. 13s. 10d., and on the average, a decrease of 6,767l. 11s. 8d." Now when to this was added the statement which Dr. Bowring had made relative to the increase of looms at Lyons, it appeared that the French manufacture had increased as ours had decreased. Dr. Bowring said, page 8796—"At Lyons, in 1825, there were 20,101 looms; in 1830, 30,000, being an increase of 9,899; and at St. Etienne, there are now 20,000." Mr. Wadden said, 10,134 "that in 1825, there were 12,000 looms at St. Etienne, showing from 1825 to 1831, an increase of 8,000." Comparing this statement of Dr. Bowring with the statements of Mr. Goode and Mr. Cox, the former of whom said, that looms which formerly cost 12l. or 15l. now sold for 3l. or 4l,; and the latter, that, of 300 gauze looms in 1826, there were only 19 in 1831, it would be obvious that the decline of the English manufacture had been produced by the competition with the foreign manufacture. He would make no comments on the evidence he had just read, as the facts stated were sufficient in themselves. It was impossible to adopt this system of free trade as long as the monopoly on the chief article of consumption was preserved. It was cruel to adopt measures to make labour cheap, while the price of provisions was kept up. He trusted that, during the vacation, his Majesty's Government would look over the evidence, and that, in the course of the next Session, some relief would be afforded to the silk manufacturer, who had been most cruelly treated.

Mr. Wynn Ellis

could not tell what the Parliament would do; but he knew what ought to have been done ere it repealed the duties which protected so important a branch of manufacture: it ought to have reduced taxation, and repealed the corn laws. A justification for every species of protection and monopoly was to be found, while one which affected the necessaries of life was allowed to continue. In addition to the great disadvantage, against which our manufactures had to contend, in the existence of a monopoly of corn, the silk trade had claims to protection against that most unfair monopoly of the raw material, maintained by France in favour of her home manufacture, equal at one period to at least 20 per cent.; and still giving a most decided advantage to the French manufacturer. The unrestricted export of the raw silk of France ought to have been conceded before French manufactured silks were admitted into this country. Having constantly attended the sittings of the Committee, and believing that he had a tolerably correct acquaintance with the principal facts taken in evidence, he was induced to claim, for a few minutes, the attention of the House. In common with the petitioners, he deeply regretted that the Committee did not make a Report, because he was of opinion, that no person but those who listened to the evidence could possibly arrive at any correct estimate of the various bearings of that evidence. An hon. member of the Committee stated that the opinion given that Spitalfields employed once 3,000 or 4,000 looms in the figured branch alone, had reference only to a very short period of time; but he was reminded by another Member, that the witness spoke of an average of ten years previously to the opening of the ports to foreign manufactured silks. Now, when it was remembered that the great grievance and complaint was, that the fancy branch was lost to this country, that, which at first sight might appear unimportant, was really one of the most material considerations: for the same witness stated that, at this time, the number employed did not exceed 300. In any arrangements also to be entered into with the French government, the Report of the Committee would have been a valuable document, showing that, unless they granted the unrestricted export of the raw and thrown silk of France, they could not be suffered to enter the English market with their manufactured silks; that the grower in France was desirous of exporting, and that the objection really lay with the French manufacturer. It was to be regretted that a report, which would have strengthened the hands of both Governments, was not presented. He would call the attention of the House to the first question proposed, and answered by Dr. Bowring, as tending to show how carefully his evidence ought to be read and considered. In page 8723, he said, in answer to the question—"You have been for some time past in France, have you not?"—'Yes, I have been engaged for the last four or five months as a commercial commissioner at Paris, and it has been my business to examine, in all their bearings, the manufacturing and commercial relations of France, and I wish, with reference to this object, to make one preliminary observation to the Committee, which appears to me of great gravity and importance: it is this—that in investigating the state of exportations into France from England, and importations into England from France, we have discovered that the amount of manufaotured goods imported into England (upon the system which exists here) from France, and imported into France (under the system which exists there) from England, is about equal; but we have been very much struck by one remarkable fact, which is this—that in the goods imported into France from England labour forms a great proportion of the cost of production, and in the goods introduced into England from France labour forms a small proportion of the cost of production; and hence one very obvious consequence will occur to the Committee, that in as far as any measure should prohibit the introduction of French goods into England, a much greater quantity of labour must inevitably be displaced than the labour which is protected.' Now Dr. Bowring might have stated the whole fact, which was, that, of the amount of manufactured silks, the whole value was the labour of France, which produced the raw material, in which it must be allowed labour was as essentially value as in the mere operation of weaving; and therefore the evidence of this Gentleman ought to be received with much caution, who, in pursuit of an object, could overlook so material a consideration. Dr. Bowring gave the opinion and words of M. Dugas, to shew that, "under a system of monopoly, France languishes, and commerce declines." This did not come with a very good grace from one who demanded a monopoly of the raw material, and whose opulence and prosperity was founded on that very system he pretended to deprecate. As to the value of manufactured silks, which Dr. Bowring stated at 800,000l., he must remark, that the French Custom-house valuation was per killogram, and that the scale of value was only ten francs higher for figured silks and ribbons than for plain silks. The real value was, however, for figured silks, 125s., for ribbons, 135s., or an average of 130s., while the French government gave, as the value, only 100s. It would appear, therefore, that, instead of 800,000l., the real value, without duty, amounted to 1,100,000l.; and as this was in commodities of which the value of the labour formed in France an average of 100 per cent, and in England a higher average, it would give a total to be expended in this country, in the purchase of labour, of from 600,000l. to 700,000l. How serious, then, must be a loss to the English operative in the silk trade. The value of Marabout silk was stated to be 27s. per lb. English, by Dr. Bowring; but the evidence and information of Mr. Dillon and his correspondent, stated it to be 23s. 6d. He certainly had no particular prejudice in favour of the throwing interest; but, in the course of the inquiry, he had been struck with the fact of large capitals having been invested in the erection of mills, and which, for many years, was uniformly encouraged by the Government; and although greatly reduced in value, this capital yet amounted from 2,000,000l. to 3,000,000l. sterling, which he feared would be sacrificed, if the duty on foreign thrown silk were repealed. Although the importation of raw silk from Italy had increased up to 1826, from 300,000 lbs. 1,500,000 lbs., yet the thrown never was less than 200,000 lbs., and never exceeded 400,000 lbs., so long as the duty remained at not less than 5s., but, immediately the duty was reduced to 3s. 6d., the quantity increased to 500,000 lbs., and upwards, per annum. It appeared, likewise, that the throwing-mills in Italy were capable (being at present employed only eight months in the year) of throwing the whole of the silk there grown; and he did not believe a single pound would be sent to this country in the raw state, if the present duty of 3s. 6d. were reduced or repealed. He would, in conclusion, say, that great distress existed in the throwing districts. Bad, however, as was their present state, it was yet much better than it would be, if these duties on foreign thrown silk were repealed—an event which he could only look upon as likely to en tail wretchedness on the whole population of women and children employed in the throwing mills, and which would be destructive of the property of the mill-owners.

Mr. Hume

said, that having been one of those who supported the appointment of the Committee, after the observations of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he felt called upon to make a few remarks upon the present question. It was not altogether fair in the hon. member for Coventry to read extracts from the evidence which had not been printed. Out of 12,000 questions which were put, there would be no difficulty in selecting answers which would support any view of the subject, as, of course, there was a great variety of views among the witnesses. He had no doubt that he might have selected numerous answers that would have suited his view of the case, as well as those referred to by the hon. Member suited the view which he took of the subject. These petitioners took a most erroneous view of the trade, and imputed the distress which they experienced to wrong causes. He would beg the House to consider what was the nature of this petition. It purported to be the petition of the silk manufacturers. Now, there were distinct bodies with separate interests—the throwsters and the weavers. The former body had a monopoly, and the latter had not. He believed that the manufacturers who made a large portion of the silk, were burthened with a duty of eight percent., which was given to the throwsters. The latter body chiefly had signed the petition; there might be some weavers who had signed it, but it was inconsistent to suppose that the weavers, who used the silk, should ask the House to raise the price of the raw material, and thus enable them to compete with the French manufacturer. The evil which they now experienced arose from the monopoly given to the throwster, and the only effect of increasing the duty would be to raise the price of silk articles, which would certainly not increase the prosperity of the manufacturer or the wages of the mechanic. The Italian silk was used in the manufactures of both countries, and our object ought to be to have thrown silk as cheap in one country as in the other. If this were done, it would enable our manufacturer to compete with the foreign manufacturers in all except a few finer articles. It was true there were some articles in which they greatly surpassed us, even to the extent of from 25 to 30 per cent.; for instance, fine gauze. But in many articles we might compete with them, and he had no doubt carry our manufactures into all the markets of the world. The hon. member for Leicester had said that France had an advantage over us in the quality of the raw silk. This certainly was the case; but the quantity of silk he alluded to was not very great; and until we could procure that commodity we should not be on a footing of equality. If by protection was meant an additional duty upon thrown silk, the effect would only be to increase the tax on all articles of silk manufacture. He could not conceal from himself the fact that the number of throwsters in this country had greatly increased, and they were much more injured by the home competition than by any from the foreign market. Any attempts, however, to bolster up the present system would only tend to increase the ruin of those engaged in this trade. The reduction of wages in Coventry and Spitalfields could not be denied; but the reduction of wages was not confined to this trade; for, in the iron and other manufactures, the same complaints were made. The removal of the manufacture to Manchester and Stockport had reduced the number of looms at work in Spitalfields and Coventry; but this had entirely arisen from the injudicious regulations with respect to wages in the latter places. The table of the rates of wages at Coventry, and the regulation of wages by the Magistrates in Spitalfields, had done incalculable injury to the workmen in those places. Rules of this sort were very troublesome to the manufacturer, and always induced him to employ his capital in those places where such rules did not exist. In all cases the best course was to leave the manufacturer to himself. It was a most erroneous opinion entertained by the workmen, that by combinations they could make the rate of wages higher in one part of the country than in another. It was impossible to dispute that a great deal of distress had been occasioned by the substitution of the use of machinery for the hand-looms. This, no doubt, had led to a reduction of wages, and to great distress. But it was impossible to obviate this. If we intended to compete with other nations, we were bound to introduce all sorts of improvements in our machinery. If we endeavoured to prevent anything of the sort, we should soon ruin our manufacture. He saw no remedy for this evil. If we were to adopt a system of prohibition, and to raise the duty on foreign silk, the result would inevitably be injurious, and the general interests of the country would suffer. Even if it would benefit the one class, which however, he denied, it was too much that the country at large should suffer. He did not doubt, merely, whether increase of duty on thrown silk would benefit the weaver, he was convinced that it would be most injurious to him. With regard to agreeing to a Report, he should have been happy if the Committee had had time to have done so; and certainly much of the benefit of the inquiry would be lost in consequence of not making a Report; but they had not time to enable them to do so in a satisfactory manner. There was almost a direct opposition of views in the Committee. Witnesses, who took a completely different view of the subject, were examined, and it would have taken a great deal of time and discussion before the Committee could have agreed in a Report. He had supported inquiry, because he had been in hopes that all parties would have been satisfied; and he was only sorry that the result had not fulfilled his expectation.

Mr. Alderman Venables

said, this petition was not from the silk-throwsters, but from the weavers. They did not pray for prohibition, but they merely prayed for such a protecting duty as would enable them to carry on their manufacture. He would only add, that organzine did not form one-tenth part of the silk used.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

held in his hand a petition from the silk-weavers, complaining that the Committee did not report, and expressing their regret at the manner in which the investigation was carried on. This was a very favourable opportunity for him to express his opinion upon the subject; and he would, therefore, avail himself of it. The hon. Member who just addressed the House, stated that he was greatly surprised that so much dissatisfaction prevailed in this trade at the proceedings of the Committee; but a very satisfactory reason could be assigned for this dissatisfaction. He held in his hand two declarations protesting against the manner in which the Committee was appointed—the one from the Committee of weavers, and the other from the Committee of silk-throwsters, in which they declared that they knew from the manner in which the Committee was appointed, what would be the result of its labours. The Committee of silk-manufacturers never acted as a Committee in this investigation; they considered, from the names of the majority of the Committee, that there was a determination, on the part of the Government, not to relieve them, but to use every exertion to support the present system, erroneously called a free-trade. But even in this investigation it had been proved, beyond doubt, that the assertion of the right hon. Member for the Board of Trade, that there was less distress at present, in this trade, than at former periods, was entirely unfounded. It had been demonstrated that there never was so much distress as at the present time. The Committee was constituted in the most improper manner. Thirteen of the Members of it were decided advocates of free-trade, and, among the other seven, not more than one or two entertained opinions of an opposite nature. The Committee would have remained in this state had not an hon. Baronet requested that his (Mr. Alderman Waithman's) name, instead of his own, might be substituted, as he could not attend. There was another alteration of a similar kind, but this was not done with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman, but by the distinct vote of the House. The silk manufacturers at once saw, from the constitution of the Committee, that there was a determination not to give them relief. The object of the right hon. Gentleman had been all along to get the duty taken off thrown silk. When a proposition of this sort was before the House in 1829, he said that it would not give relief to reduce the price from 5s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. The manufacturers then said, that they did not want a relief of that sort, as allowing this drawback would not benefit them. The fact had turned out that this had done no good; a tax had been laid upon the public, and 83,000l. had been expended in this way, every shilling of which had got into the pockets of two or three persons at Manchester. This had been confirmed by Mr. Hume of the Custom-house, and indeed by persons from Manchester, for the latter admitted that if the 83,000l. had not got into their pockets, they would not have been able to have exported any silk. A few individuals might have benefited by it, but the great body of the manufacturers had suffered. The greatest distress prevailed in this branch of the trade a Manchester, Stockport, Coventry, Spital fields, Foleshill, and all other places where the manufacture was carried on: there had been the greatest depression of profits, and wages had been reduced so low that the workmen were hardly able to procure the most common necessaries of life, or food enough to sustain existence. From a decent and respectable body of workmen they had become a squalid and miserable race. It was proper that the people of England should know how this Committee was established. Many of the Members paid little attention to the subject, but had made up their minds before they entered into the investigation, and were prepared to vote on all occasions with the right hon. Gentleman. There was a majority of nine to six whenever he divided. After having sat for four months, they had got an immense quantity of documentary evidence; examined witness after witness till they had got upwards of 800 pages of evidence, all the main facts contained in which were known long before. The granting this Committee was a very convenient way of getting rid of the business, at least for this Session of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knew full well that the decision of the Committee would on all occasions be with him. If the Committee had been fairly appointed, no man would have believed it possible that he could have carried such propositions as he did. The chief examiner was, on most occasions, the hon. member for Middlesex, who did not endeavour to elicit great and important facts, but went into the most trifling details, in no way connected with the subject. The hon. Gentleman exercised his ingenuity in putting a variety of the most foolish questions, merely, perhaps, with a view to exhibit his talents at cross-examination. Of 164 questions put to Mr. John Poole, 104 were put by the hon. member for Middlesex, the greater portion of which had nothing to do with the silk-trade, but related to the rates of wages, to persons going to bar-rooms and public-houses, and to all other things. Indeed, the greater portion of the time of the Committee was occupied in putting unnecessary questions. They had had petitions from every place where the silk manufacture was carried on, complaining of distress. What chance had England to compete with France in the production of articles of this nature—labour there was cheaper, and the raw material could be procured at a lower rate, and with greater facility. It was stated, indeed, by Dr. Bowring, that the French manufacture could not compete with the English manufacture, not only in the foreign market, but in France, in most articles. This great doctor was under examination for several days, and he admitted that he knew nothing of the silk-trade here. The learned doctor gave the most positive and direct evidence on those points with which it was obvious he could not be acquainted, and of those matters with which he ought to have been familiar, to fit him for the office he was appointed to, he was utterly ignorant. He stated that France took from us an equal quantity of goods for those which we sent there. Now, this was directly contrary to the fact, for it was well known that the greater part of what we purchased from them was paid for in bullion. He made this assertion, but every return, both English and French, showed otherwise. Indeed, he made many assertions, and some of them of such a nature that he (Mr. Alderman Waithman) held up his hands with astonishment, and at last, he could listen no longer, for he found that he could not place any confidence in the assertions of this great and learned doctor. He said that large quantities of our manufactured goods were imported into France; but when he was asked to specify, he mentioned the article of cotton-twist, which, indeed, could hardly be called a manufactured article, and certainly the export of it could be attended with little advantage to this country. The French evidently laughed in their sleeve at the learned doctor, when he was collecting his information. He stated that the capitalists engaged in the silk manufacture in France altogether got twenty-five per cent profit. But not only the manufacturer, but the dye-merchant, and the loom-maker and repairer, must have a profit; and how could he tell the precise profit gained by each of them? He told the Committee, that all the suffering now experienced by the manufacturer was for the general good, and that trade instanced no loss: how he endeavoured to prove this, he (Mr. Alderman Waithman) would not attempt to describe. The learned doctor thought that the French nation were a most glorious people, and he said all manner of good of them, but they had evidently imposed upon him in the information they communicated. The opinions of Dr. Bowring and the hon. member for Middlesex were to be taken in spite of all the authority of the persons engaged in the trade, who, it might be presumed, were best able to form a correct opinion on the subject. The learned doctor got all the information which he communicated from the French people, whom he believed to be the most candid people on earth, but they had, nevertheless, succeeded in imposing on his credulity. Without being aware of it, he all along proved facts which told against him. He said you can buy silk goods in London at fifteen per cent cheaper than you can at Paris, but then he made no allusion to the fact, that the English people would not have the produce of their own country, when they could get French goods even at this additional price. Dr. Bowring also said, that there had been a greater improvement in the English silks since 1826 than there was in the previous fifty years, and that the French silk-manufacturers were completely frightened at the advance we had made, and that they were most anxious that we should adopt a system of prohibition. The noble Lord opposite asked Dr. Bowring whether the fact, that formerly 4,000 looms were at work in Spitalfields, and that now only 300 were employed there, was a proof of improvement. This case the learned doctor could not admit. No doubt the Government paid him well for travelling in France for them, and for collecting information just of a nature to suit their views; but the truth was, this witness knew nothing whatever of what he was talking. When he was shown two pieces of silk, and was asked to point out which was French, and which was English manufacture, he said, "Oh, I know nothing about that;" and yet he was sent to France by the Government to collect information. This reminded him of the lines in the old song— Johnny Bull he went to France,— There he learnt to caper and prance, And a finish'd goose came over. The learned doctor knew nothing of the manufactures of his own country, and yet he made the most positive assertions. Of course, they were bound to believe all that the learned doctor asserted from his own knowledge, but he admitted that he knew nothing of the manufactures at home, and that he would not pledge himself to the documents. If any hon. Member wished to get at the real facts of the case, he must refer to the evidence of those men who had had practical experience on the subject, and who were acquainted with the trade in all its branches. The hon. member for Middlesex and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade said, that the case was not proved that the distress experienced in the silk trade was occasioned by the competition of the French manufacturer. But to him it appeared most cruel to sacrifice the interests of such an important branch of our manufacturers, for the sake of supporting a speculative opinion. There were no less than four millions of capital embarked in that trade—hundreds of thousands of persons had to depend on it as the means of subsistence—thousands were now thrown out of employ, and became chargeable to the parish, or the men were driven to commit acts of depredation, and the women to become prostitutes. If the competition in the home market was palpably ruinous, what could be expected to be the case in Germany or America, or any other foreign market? It was nonsense to suppose that we could compete with the French manufacturer in these countries, unless we were prepared to give our goods away, and to meet with ruin. There was another witness who supported the views of the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Middlesex, and he admitted that wages were reduced twenty per cent, and that thousands of persons were out of employ, and that the women and children were almost in a state of starvation, and that the manufacturer got little or no profit, and yet he contended that the present system was most excellent. They were told by one of the witnesses—a partner in the house of the hon. member for Ipswich, that their trade had increased by some hundreds of thousands, since the importation of French silks; but the same witness, also stated, that whereas formerly they used to deal with a hundred houses in Spitalfields, they now did business with only sixty; from which it appeared, that out of this hundred, forty had been destroyed; and they too were the smaller houses of business; in fact there was no witness before the Committee who made out a stronger case for the weavers than this gentleman did. A buyer from Coventry also told them, that all the smaller houses had been swept away; and Mr. Heath, one of the first manufacturers in London, gave evidence to the same effect. He himself had known the trade since he was seventeen years old; and he could not now walk along the streets without observing the fearful distress to which that trade was reduced. To be sure, some few in it succeeded; one hon. Gentleman he knew of, who had amassed half a million. He did not blame him for that, but he blamed him because he would not see the distress of those poor creatures, from whose blood and bones, as it were, he had amassed his treasure. He could scarcely help despairing, knowing as he did, that the House would not be at the pains of reading the mass of evidence that was laid before the Committee; and therefore, if the Government would not attend to the subject, he feared that nothing whatever would be done. He should be a free trader, if we could have free trade; but we had it not; and therefore we were only giving an advantage to other countries at the expense of our own labourers. When he had last addressed the House on this subject, he had read to it an extract from Dr. Brewster. He was extremely sorry that that extract was not published in the newspapers, because the name of Dr. Brewster stood deservedly high, and the article in question clearly exposed the false doctrine of these theoretical "free traders;" and even now he could not abstain from expressing a wish, that hon. Gentlemen would turn to this essay, and give it their perusal. He felt indignant at the conduct of the Committee: it really seemed as if an attempt was making to defeat the House by delay; but his indignation was nothing compared to the indignation which that portion of the community which was suffering through the behaviour of the Committee, must feel.

Mr. Poulett Thomson

said, the House might be assured that he did not rise for the purpose of going into the question. It was most inconvenient to discuss a subject of this kind on the presenting of a petition. He should not trouble the House with the refutation of the general common-places which the worthy Alderman had so frequently advanced before, but he would leave the House to judge of the good taste of the attack made by the worthy Alderman, not upon himself, for he did not complain of it, but upon a member of the Committee who was not present to defend himself, and upon one of the witnesses. It was a most unusual proceeding, and an injustice to the subject to comment upon evidence with which it was impossible that Members could be yet acquainted: he, therefore, would have contented himself with entering his protest against this important question being brought under discussion in this inconvenient manner, but for the accusations which had been thrown out against the Committee, for not having conducted itself in a manner becoming the important subject which it had met to consider. The hon. Alderman had made insinuations against the Committee, though he had not made any positive charge. Should, however, the worthy Alderman think proper to bring forward such a charge at any future period, he would find that there were members of that Committee prepared to defend the line of conduct that had been pursued. At the present moment, however, he was alluding more particularly to a statement, not made in that House, but which had appeared in a public print, and which was announced as emanating from one connected with the silk trade. He treated the charge there made, as far as regarded himself personally, with the most perfect contempt: and, indeed, he would not have condescended to have noticed it, had not an attempt at the same time been made to implicate the Committee in the same charge. To say that the Report of the Committee was got rid of by a maœeuvre of any sort or kind, was not only false, but at the same time absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Indeed, on this point, he might appeal to every Member of the Committee, except, perhaps, the worthy Alderman, and he would take on himself to say, that that appeal would end in his statement being entirely corroborated. The fact was, that he, and those members of the Committee, who were of the same way of thinking as himself, had advised that there should be a Report; but when they found that Members could not be brought to remain to consider the Report, then they certainly did object to lay more Resolutions, which did not enter into details, before the House; and he himself had stated that, in his opinion, there were but two courses for the Committee to follow—the one, to report the evidence alone to the House; and the other, to make a full and ample report on the whole of the subject. The worthy Alderman had also thought fit to apply terms not very measured in their language to one of the witnesses personally, and to the evidence likewise which that witness gave before the Committee. With respect to the evidence, he (Mr. Thomson) would allow that to speak for itself; and he should be very much astonished if every gentleman who read it was not struck with the clearness of the views and the soundness of the knowledge which it contained. He would appeal to the members of the Committee, whether the whole of the evidence of Dr. Bowring did not appear to have been drawn with the greatest pains from official sources, so as, if not to carry conviction home to the minds of all, at least to leave a most favourable impression of that gentleman's industry and talents. The worthy Alderman had thought proper to say, that Dr. Bowring had given evidence on subjects about which he knew nothing, while he gave no testimony on those subjects with which he was really acquainted. But the fact was, that that gentleman had only been examined on such information as he had been able to collect; he had taken care to state whence that information had been collected, and had then told the Committee, as in duty bound: "I will not be answerable for this information; all that I can do is to give you my authorities;" besides which, it was right to mention, that when Dr. Bowring had been asked his own opinion of the silk trade in this country, his answer specifically was, that he had not been directed to turn his attention to that part of the subject.

Mr. Robinson

said, that when he observed the mass of evidence that had been laid on the Table, and considered that no Report had been made upon the subject, he could not help thinking that that omission was occasioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite not being able to procure a Report conformable to his own opinion.

Mr. Poulett Thomson

I was most anxious that there should be a Report, and as a proof of it, I have only to state, that when the hon. Member for Ross-shire wished to adjourn the Committee, fearing that we could not get through the evidence, I opposed the Motion, in the hope that when the evidence was gone through, a Report would be founded on it.

Mr. Robinson

said, it was unfortunate that the Report had not been made. Gentlemen generally looked at the Report, and not at the evidence; and he feared that the great mass of useful evidence taken on this occasion would be lost. His impression of that Committee certainly was, that it had not been granted on the part of the Government for the purpose of enabling the House, by means of the evidence, to legislate for the advantage of the manufacturers and of the public at large; but that it had been granted in the hopes of the testimony being such as to bear out the well-known theoretical views of the Ministry on the subject of free trade. This being the case, he really thought that it was useless to discuss the matter further. No converts had been made—no converts would be made—the Government had always contended that they were right, and they still contended the same thing. They had, however, shifted their ground materially; for formerly their arguments had been, that they were right in theory, but now, after ten years' experience had shown them that the trade and commerce of the country had got worse than ever, the effect of the observations of the hon. member for Middlesex, the great upholder of the visionary free trade system, was "You may go into the workhouse, if you can't find employment; but I see nothing in your misery to induce me to give up my fancy." He did not mean by this to say that the hon. member for Middlesex bad less sympathy or commiseration for the sufferings of the manufacturers than he himself had; but he only made use of the illustration for the purpose of pointing out how obstinately these theorists were wedded to their hobby in spite of all practical experience and actual inquiry into the facts of the case. But the misery which the hon. Member could not deny, certainly was not creditable to any country or government. It was the first care of all other countries to provide adequate employment for its native labouring population. This country alone seemed to disregard that principle of self-preservation. France was reputed a liberal nation; in politics it was well known it was so. But, speaking in a commercial sense, never was a disposition less disposed to liberality or reciprocity evinced by any people. It was the same with America; both those countries looked to themselves. However superior we might be to the Americans in literary qualifications and in the fine arts, in commercial legislation, they far exceeded us. He was sorry to detain the House upon this subject, but he felt strongly upon it, as one in which were involved the comfort, the prosperity, and even the existence of the manufacturing classes. Compared with the interests of those classes, what were all the improvements of Regent-street and the Strand, which were pointed to as indications of national prosperity? While such indications were daily forcing themselves upon the observation, the prisons and penitentiaries of the country were silently increasing in number; paupers and poor-rates were outgrowing the accumulated wealth of the country; crime and poverty were augmenting in a fearful ratio. He would not distress the House by marking all the features of this picture, which could only have the effect of harrowing the feelings of those who looked upon it. The Government, he was afraid, did not see all these signs of the times. Their information was drawn from such sources as the Report of Dr. Bowring, who, prejudiced in favour of a certain class of opinions, was sent to France to gather evidence of the correctness of those opinions. He did not doubt the talents of that gentleman, but his experience and efficiency for that particular office he did doubt. Any person going-upon such an excursion would, no doubt, be delighted with all he met. He would meet with persons who would agree to all his abstract propositions. But it should be borne in mind, that the mass of persons engaged in the occupations to which his propositions referred, were governed more by their own opinions than by the authority of their superiors. They were stupid, ignorant, and perfectly unacquainted with their own interests, according to those who wished to inspire them with different sentiments. At all events they could not be induced to alter their course. And what had the government of France done in the way of concession to these new principles? A noble Lord opposite seemed to intimate that the conduct of France had nothing to do with this question. He begged leave to come to issue with him. It had much to do with it; for that greatest of all men upon this subject, Mr. Huskisson, had distinctly declared in that House, that one great inducement to make the alterations which he proposed and vindicated was the hope of getting France to make corresponding concessions. The conduct of France, therefore, had a great deal to do with the question. Matters of this description were to be decided by the sober-minded and deliberate opinions of the community at large, not by the doctrines of a few; and, readily as the talents of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Poulett Thomson) were ackowledged by the country, he could tell him, that a want of deliberation and practical experience was his reputed deficiency amongst the commercial portion of the community. With respect to France and her liberal conduct towards this country, he understood that nests of smugglers were harboured and encouraged in certain ports on the opposite side of the Channel, having exclusive privileges there, and being recognized as smugglers by occupation. He had good information as to the fact, and had no doubt it was as he had stated. The object of France, he was persuaded, was to shut out the manufactures of this country altogether. In his opinion the interests of the manufacturers, as a class in whom resided the strength and power of the country, ought to be better attended to than they were. If the labouring classes were starving, what signified how cheap the manufactured article could be bought? This great question had not as yet been fully, or fairly, or impartially discussed in that House. It would be the duty of the Government, into whatever hands it should fall next year, to look carefully through the evidence themselves, and to come down to Parliament with some proposal for the relief of this branch of industry, and a laborious, long suffering, and patient people; and, if not able to propose some plan of relief for the trade itself, to give some relief to the sufferers.

Viscount Palmerston

suggested, as the evidence was not yet printed, that it would be better to abstain from all discussion till the subject was brought properly under the notice of the House. He could not believe that any government, with which we were on such good terms as we were with the French government, would countenance any particular body of men in carrying on a contraband trade with, and violating the laws of this country. He must say, that the governments of France and of America, as well as of other countries, were animated by the same liberal spirit as our Government; but they were prevented, as the Government of this country had been sometimes prevented, from acting oil those liberal views, by the prejudices of their subjects. But if those governments could not act on the true principles of trade, that was no reason why we should not, when it was proved that they were advantageous to us. What were called protecting duties were, in fact, disturbing duties. They impeded the employment of capital, they checked industry, and stopped the progress of wealth. It was for the interest of the country to cast off the fetters with which ignorance had bound it. It was monstrous to suppose that commerce could be all on one side, or that nations could sell without buying. By repealing what were called protecting duties, and acting on liberal principles, we should compel other nations to follow our example. The true encouragers, both of smuggling and prohibition in other countries, were the friends of protecting duties at home. He thought the discussion premature; but he felt himself obliged to say these few words, in opposition to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Worcester.

Mr. Sadler

said, he would follow the invitation rather than the example of the noble Lord, although he felt deeply upon this subject; and had there been a better opportunity than that which the presentation of a petition fairly afforded him, he would certainly have delivered his sentiments fully. He had been nominated for the Committee to which allusion had been made; but his name was struck out, probably because it was supposed that he had an undue bias towards the encouragement of native industry, and was one who thought that trade ought to have protection. They had been told, that when the protection was done away with, trade flourished. From that assertion he appealed to the living contradiction of hundreds and thousands of depressed artisans and labourers, reduced to a state of pauperism and starvation. He might be told that these suffering individuals were prejudiced. It was the grasp of poverty that taught them, in language much more convincing than that of false theorists, to condemn principles which had such disastrous results. If it were true that those nations did the best in commerce, which were subjected to the least regulation, what occasion could there be for Boards of Trade with Presidents to them in this country? By their own reasoning, they were useless. If the Government wanted our people to enter into competition with foreigners, it ought to reduce the burthens of our people to a level with those the foreigners had to bear. As a part of that reduction, he would say, at once get rid of the Board of Trade. It was with great difficulty he could restrain himself from entering more at length upon this important and interesting topic. What little he did say he meant to be more in the nature of an apology for touching so lightly upon it than any thing else. He supported the petition as one, the prayer of which ought to open the ears of those in power to the sufferings of a large and deserving portion of the population, in a state of the deepest distress.

Mr. Stewart Mackenzie

would confine the few observations he intended to make, to removing the imputation, that the Committee had been guilty of an intentional deceit or fraud upon the silk-trade of this country, by not presenting a Report. He sat for nearly four months, patiently and assiduously, as a member of that Committee, and to such a charge as that of the worthy Alderman he must give a flat and distinct denial. Every one of those hon. Gentlemen who composed that Committee, would bear him out in the assertion—that nothing but the late period of the Session, and the great length of the evidence, prevented a full Report from being made. Within three days of the Committee closing its labours, he moved to report the evidence to the House, feeling that a full and circumstantial Report, such as the extensive and complicated interests involved in that evidence demanded, could not, at this late period of the Session, be satisfactorily made in the absence of the noble Chairman and several other members of the Committee. This motion was then negatived, with the intention of framing Resolutions on which to found a Report; and though his motion had, on reflection, been subsequently adopted, he could not allow the worthy Alderman to send forth to the public so unfounded an imputation as that the Committee were acting with a view to delude those interested in the silk-trade, by not undertaking to draw up a Report upon the evidence. His right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, had sufficiently refuted the very unfounded attack of the same worthy Alderman on the character of the evidence of one very important witness, and his testimony should not be wanting to confirm all that right hon. Gentleman had so truly said of the value and distinctness, of the extent of research and patient inquiry into the French silk manufacture, from the growth and produce of the raw material to their richest fabrics, which Dr. Bowring's evidence had laid before the Committee; nor was it befitting in him, after his promise at rising, to enter into any part of that mass of evidence that would so soon be in the hands of hon. Members. Thus much he would only add, in justice to the petitions now presented from the manufacturers and operatives, so respectably and so numerously signed as they were, that the Committee had been most anxious to receive all evidence and information upon this very important branch of our domestic manufacture, that they had received a great mass of very valuable materials—that they were desirous to have reported their opinions to that House—and that, from the circumstances alone to which he had already alluded, and which were known to every member of the Committee, they relinquished their intention with reluctance and regret. He had become a member of the Committee unconnected altogether with any place or person interested in this trade. He had been most willing to have lent his best assistance to draw up a full Report, which would have shown that the distress, though severe, was perhaps only temporary, and would pass away; but, that the interests of this manufacture, in all its complicated bearings, would require very mature consideration, if it were contemplated to introduce important and extensive alterations of the present laws, which regulated its operations, he was not disposed to deny. It might be equally true, that these laws required early revision from a new Parliament; and should the revival of the Committee be hereafter resolved upon, the patient suffering of the operatives and weavers would command the early and serious attention of the Legislature. But none of these considerations, surely, could justify the worthy Alderman's uncalled-for attack upon the fairness and good faith of either the Committee or of the witnesses; and, to say the least of such imputations, they were unjustifiable on the hon. Member's part, more especially as he knew that those who were suffering from distress and privation, could, if affected at all, be only roused to additional dissatisfaction with the present condition of a trade with which it was most difficult and dangerous rashly to interfere—and which distress no Report could immediately alleviate—none altogether remove. It was but justice to the House, to the Petitioners, and to the Committee, to state this opinion thus fairly and distinctly.

Mr. Alderman Venables

, in moving that this Petition be printed, could not help regretting that the right hon. Gentleman occupied so much of his speech in correcting the observations of others, instead of turning his attention to the Petition of those who were entitled to the greatest commiseration; for he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the distress in the country was so extensive as to require the greatest tenderness on the part of the Government; and, indeed, it was an extraordinary fact, that, even in point of quantity, the consumption of silk was not so large, from 1826 to 1831 inclusive, as in the years 1824 and 1825. He was willing to go as far as he safely could in the principles of free trade; but he could not forget that the state of society in the country was so complicated as to require the greatest care in the application of the principle, however just it might be in theory.

Lord Dudley Stuart

begged leave to trespass for a few minutes on the time of the House, in consequence of some observations that had been made in the course of the debate. It would be well if the hon. member for Middlesex, who was the great upholder of the free-trade system in that House, would condescend to gain a little practical knowledge before he insisted on their adopting his speculative theories. He had spoken, for instance, of thrown silk being the raw material, when the fact was, it was no more the raw material than cotton twist. Whilst he was upon the subject of thrown silk, he begged to say that he entirely differed from the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex—that taking off the duty on thrown silk would be of advantage to the weaver. What was for the disadvantage of the one could not be for the advantage of the other. Besides, they ought to consider that the throwster had considerable claims upon the country. Where a manufacturer had 1,000l. or 2,000l. embarked in his business, the throwster had 15,000l. to 20,000l. embarked in his. This circumstance must give the throwster a considerable claim upon the Legislature, even if he had a different interest from that of the weaver, which he had not. Then, with respect to the question of smuggling, it was clear, from Dr. Bowring's own statement, as well as from all the other evidence, that, so far from diminishing, it had' of late considerably increased; and, in point of fact, the smuggler now made as large, if not larger importations from France, than the regular trader. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not then in his place, had talked of protecting duties being disturbing duties; but he should like to know who it was that disturbed trade in 1826? The prayer of all the Petitions then presented was, to let well alone; but they would not do so, and persevered in pursuing these disturbing measures. Even now, after the experience Government had had of the system—after the falsification of all the prophecies about our being convinced by the practice, that the theory was good—after the proof that had been given that Parliament did not know better than the silk-trade itself what was good for it—the system was still persevered in! The hon. member for Middlesex talked of the bonds which shackled trade being loosened, and of trade, in consequence, taking such a spring as in six months to double the value of labour. The hon. Member prophesied that the interests of trade would be greatly advanced and the value of labour wonderfully increased; instead of which, trade had never been so bad as it now was, and so much distress never prevailed amongst the labouring classes. He trusted that, after all the experiments that had been made—after the full trial that had been given to the system, they should no longer persevere in it.

Petition to be printed.

Back to