Mr. Calcraftwished to know what steps it was intended to take with respect to the Silk Manufacture bill, which he understood had come down from the Lords with several amendments, after their lordships had agreed to an inquiry into which that House had refused to enter.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that as it was usual for the person who introduced a bill, after-wards to move whatever amendments it might receive in the House of Lords, he had hoped that the hon. gentleman would have allowed him to state the course which he purposed to adopt. He was free to say, that that measure had been so dealt with in the other House of parliament, and so materially altered, that it was not his intention to move the adoption of the amendments made by the Lords. The bill which was sent up do the Lords had been framed by a committee of that Houses, after an examination 1541 of a report from a committee of the House of Lords; but it now came down in so altered a state and with so many of the old regulations unrepealed, that, in his view of the subject, it would neither conduce to the public, interest, nor be consistent with his duty, to proceed further with it at present.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he did not, until that moment, know what course the right hon. gentleman intended to take. He had rather imagined, as two conferences were about to be held with the Lords, that the right hon. gentleman would have endeavoured to negative the amendments, and leave the result to a third conference. Those who opposed the bill in the other House had so torn and mutilated those fine principles, which the right hon. gentleman thought necessary for the benefit of a set of people who told him they were very well off and perfectly satisfied, that he did not wonder at his abandonment of the measure. Their lordships had altered the bill in such a way, that the right hon. gentleman could no longer agree to foster it. Indeed, it would have been impossible for him to concur in such amendments. Much difference of opinion seemed to exist amongst the members of administration. The other evening there was a difference on a pure matter of taste, and now there appeared to be a difference on a mere matter of trade. The fate of this bill would, he hoped, teach gentlemen not to introduce measures vitally affecting large bodies of the community, without fully considering and perfectly understanding the subject.
§ Mr. Abercrombysaid, he was extremely glad that the bill would not be allowed to pass in its amended shape. But the opportunity ought not to be suffered to go by without exposing the sort of regard that was had to the principles of justice and humanity by the parties who had altered the bill. The narrow, intolerant, and he would say ignorant, principles, on which the amendments proceeded, ought to be canvassed: for the purpose of showing that the measure as altered would be most unjust and mischievous. Individuals elsewhere had supported those amendments, on the ground, that they would secure the comfort and happiness of the class who would be affected by the bill; while it could be clearly demonstrated, that the measure, as it now stood, would create misery and distress amongst those people. It was a measure entirely on one 1542 side, and would operate against, and not in favour, of those suffering workmen. It would take away from those people that capital which formed the means by which they lived and compel them to fall back on the parish for subsistence.
§ Mr. Brightwas exceedingly glad that the bill was lost; not so much on account of the principle on which is was founded, but because no inquiry had been entered into. The Lords had examined the parties interested, and the result was, that they had removed those clauses which were most relied on in that House. It would now go forth to the world, that the Commons had refused to listen to the representations of the people, while the Lords had lent a willing ear to their complaints. It was a lamentable thing, that they, the representatives of the people, would not hearken to the voice of the people, on matters which so deeply, interested them. He repeated, that he was glad the bill had been defeated. The principles on which it proceeded were not, in his opinion, fitted for the complicated state of society in which they lived; and if they attempted to legislate without entertaining practical views, they would destroy the prosperity and happiness of those whom they intended to benefit.
Mr. Gordonregretted most sincerely that the bill had not been carried, be cause he thought it one of the first steps towards improving the system of legislation with respect to trade. It should be recollected, that the committee of the House of Lords, with one exception, unanimously approved of this bill; and it was merely owing to the objections of a learned lord, who had such extraordinary power over that House, that the measure was not carried. He hoped, however, that the right, hon. gentleman would again bring the bill under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Secretary Canningwas afraid the hon. member for Bristol triumphed more at the bill in question being defeated, than he himself supposed; for he not only, rejoiced at the failure of that bill, but his argument went to denounce all measures which might be introduced with the view of establishing a general system of free trade. The present bill was framed, originally in conformity with those liberal principles which all professed to admire and to be guided by—although every man perhaps had desired some little exception to their application, in cases affecting