§ After various petitions against the importation of Foreign silks, from persons engaged in the silk manufacture, had been presented to the House,
§ Mr. Ellicerose, and spoke, in substance, as follows:—
I am sure, Sir, it is unnecessary to preface the statement which it will be my duty to submit to the House, in support of the motion of which I have given notice, by an appeal to its patience and indulgence. The numerous petitions on the table from every branch of our Silk manufacture would be at all times entitled to our serious and deliberate attention; and however much I may feel my own inability to do justice to the case of the petitioners, I am greatly supported by the general sympathy that exists for their distresses, and the anxiety that prevails in all quarters, to grant any relief that may be compatible with other paramount considerations, and interests. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the cause of their present distress, there is unfortunately no want of proof of its intensity, and the severity with which it bears on a large class of the population: and it is from a conviction, that it is the duty of parliament to accede to the prayer of the petitioners for further inquiry, before we decide on adopting the alterations, which the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade has given notice it is his intention to propose, in the laws affecting this manufacture, that I am induced to press their representations on the House.
Before proceeding to the merits or details of this question, I wish, in the first place, to advert to some accusations that have been thrown out against me, in previous debates, as being willing to take the first opportunity of deserting, from some supposed pressure from without, those principles which have lately characterized our legislation affecting the general commerce of the country, and of which I have always professed myself a supporter and advocate. I might appeal to the right hon. gentleman opposite, for his testimony of the sincerity of these professions, and he must, at least, admit there has 734 been no want of zeal on my part, either in the committee up stairs from which these measures emanated, or in my place in this House, in endeavouring to remove the prejudices opposed to us, or in giving such assistance as I was capable of affording, to those plans of reform, and amelioration in our foreign trade, which have reflected so much honour upon his administration, and conferred such benefit on the public interests.
After the country had emerged from the late arduous and protracted war, during which our commerce, while labouring under all the disadvantages of a vicious system of regulations and restrictions, had been carried to an unexampled height, by the success of our navy, and by the almost entire destruction of the foreign trade of the rest of the world, a full and minute examination into the merits of that system, became essentially necessary, that every advantage might be given to our merchants and manufacturers, in the competition they were to expect on the return of peace. To the proceedings of the committee appointed to inquire into this subject, the opposition of interested parties was of course to be expected. The cry of "let well alone," incessantly urged against what were called rash experiments and inconsiderate innovations, assailed us from all quarters. We were not told, however, by those who raised this cry, what other means, than the removal of the prohibitions and restrictions impeding the free course of our foreign trade, they proposed, to maintain our commercial superiority, which had grown up under a monopoly, when that monopoly had ceased to exist. But while every reasonable man agreed with the right hon. gentleman, as to the justice of his principles, and expediency of their immediate adoption, in all cases where great injury would not result to considerable classes, and even to individuals, from establishments having been formed and protected by an opposite policy, the greatest caution was yet essentially necessary in their application to the complicated interests of many essential branches of our commerce. The first direction in which we had to look for immediate competition was in our navigation and foreign trade, and I have given my unqualified support to all the measures of the right hon. gentleman, to encourage and extend these main sources of our national prosperity and security. The next object, though not second in importance, was, to endea- 735 your by degrees, and with the most deliberate care, to apply the same principles to the various branches of our internal industry; and here I differ materially with the right hon. gentleman as to the course he has pursued. Although I have always admitted, to their utmost extent, the difficulties Government must have to contend with, in carrying into full effect the act of 1819, for the reformation and adjustment of the currency, and in proposing to parliament the repeal, or amendment of the Corn laws: still these should have been their first measures, and preceded any attempt to remove protections, by which particular branches of our manufactures, and especially those most connected with our export trade, had been fostered and encouraged. If parliament had not, to satisfy the landed interest in 1822, shrunk from a firm perseverance in the bill of 1819, for the restoration of cash payments, prices would have been gradually reduced to nearly a level with those of other countries, whose circumstances are in any respect analogous to our own. Moderate and steady prices would have enabled the right hon. gentleman to deal with greater facility with the Com laws, and a more equal and steady demand and remuneration for labour might have followed. The next step should have been a revision of the principles and system of our taxation. We should have endeavoured to relieve the productive industry of the country, by removing all duties, and taxes bearing particularly upon it, substituting in their place, taxes upon the wealthier and unproductive parts of society. It is unnecessary, with reference to the present discussion, to enter into the question of the partial bearing of particular taxes on different classes of our own community; but, surely, no doubt can exist as to their effects on the cost of the production of those commodities, for which we depend upon a foreign consumption. I do not mean, Sir, to state, that nothing has been done in this respect, or that which has been done ought not to be taken as an earnest of the determination of the right hon. gentleman to persevere in the general application of his principles to our whole system: no person is indeed more anxious than I am, that this, for his own credit, should be the result of his unremitted labours in the office he so ably fills. With our superior capital, the acknowledged and increasing intelligence, energy, and industry of our population, 736 who can doubt its ability to maintain, on equal terms, a competition with manufacturing rivals in other countries? But, Sir, you must first place it on that equality. The public burthens must be reduced, and free permission given to exchange the produce of its industry for that of its neighbours, on terms of fair reciprocity. Without these advantages, every step taken by the right hon. gentleman for the partial application of his principles may be detrimental. If he will take the trouble to inquire, he will find even our own colonies in America supplied with some articles of manufacture from the United States; that the woollen manufacturers in Silesia and Germany are treading fast upon us; that an active competition is rising in every quarter; and he can have no doubt of the vast superiority of the French and Swiss, in the manufacture now under our consideration. With the right hon. gentleman, I say, "freedom of trade," and that the removal of shackles and restrictions is the best and only adequate policy to meet the exigencies of our altered situation. My objections are only, that he begins where he ought to end; that the course he has pursued may oblige him to retrace his steps in particular cases, and that in the conflict of interests this may occasion, the country may lose the benefits that would result from a cautious adaptation of these measures, successively, to different interests, and from a steady perseverance in them. Nor, Sir, is there a single objection urged in the petitions on your table, against the principles of free trade. The petitioners only pray, "the House will inquire, whether there are not grounds for suspending, for a season, and at this particular, crisis, the operation of partial experiments, affecting their interests, which, if unaccompanied by other measures, may aggravate their present distress, and, in their opinion, expose every branch of the Silk manufacture of this country to the greatest peril."
In the first place, Sir, the petitioners complain, that the act of 1824, for finally removing the prohibition against the importation of foreign silks in July next, was passed without sufficient inquiry, or information, as to the consequences that must ensue from so sudden an alteration. No department of our internal trade has probably occupied so much of the time or attention of the legislature as this manufacture, since its first introduc- 737 tion and establishment in this country. Upon reference to your Journals, numerous instances will be found, of the appointment of committees, consisting always of the most distinguished members of this House, to inquire into, and report upon, different measures of regulation and protection, proposed, from time to time, for its improvement and advancement. I will not stop to inquire whether the means so devised were those best adapted to the attainment of the end in view. They at least prove the anxiety and solicitude of Government and Parliament to give every encouragement that could be suggested to the application of capital and industry to a new species of manufacture, in which we had to contend with the superior skill and experience of other countries, where it had been previously established, and carried to a high state of perfection. It had been described with justice, in some respects, as an exotic plant, but certainly it was the only extensive branch of manufacturing industry, in which our great political, and commercial rivals, had attained, and I am afraid still maintain, an admitted superiority. It had been reared gradually in this country, under the encouragement of a strict monopoly; to the protection of which monopoly the petitioners ascribe its progressive prosperity, and the important station it was found to occupy among our staple manufactures, on the return of peace. On the appointment of the committees of both Houses, on Foreign Trade in 1821, this case, as involving the consideration of one of the most extensive of our existing monopolies, was the first taken up by the committee of the Lords. Evidence was gone into, and considerable information obtained; and the present law, founded on their lordships' report, was the result of that inquiry. The petitioners then offered all the opposition in their power to the projected alteration, but were at last bribed into an unwilling acquiescence by the two years allowed them for preparation, and the expectation held out, that other measures would be adopted, before the expiration of that period, to place them, in respect to taxes, and the price of provisions, on an equality with their French and Swiss rivals. But still they warned the legislature, "they were proceeding on slender evidence, to justify such hasty and important changes." The only witnesses examined on the comparative expense of manufacturing in this country, and the 738 continent, were two American merchants, who estimated the difference at about 30 per cent, or at least found a difference to that extent in the purchase of silk manufactures for the supply of their own market. I do not deny, Sir, that much good has resulted, that the public and the petitioners themselves have largely benefitted by the spur applied by the apprehension of this threatened competition, and that our manufacture has improved beyond precedent in the last two years. This was to be expected from the repeal of the duties on the raw material; but much is also to be ascribed to the more general intercourse, and greater means of procuring information as to the management and mode of conducting the trade in France. The petitioners now only pray, "for a little time for further inquiry, and improvement, before you determine to expose them incautiously to danger, which may be either much diminished, or entirely removed, by the delay of one or two years more. They desire to communicate to the House better, and more direct evidence on all those points, than could have been procured by the former committee; to submit to your consideration much important knowledge, as to the state of machinery, means of supply, and charges on the manufacture in France, and, above all, to direct your earnest attention to the still more interesting view of this case, as connected with our Indian and China trade."
Having stated the general objects of the petitioners, and the grounds on which I feel myself justified to press upon them the consideration of the House, I will proceed, Sir, to lay before you such further details and information, as, I trust, will induce the House, at least to refer the whole subject again to a select committee. The petitions on the table are from every branch of this important manufacture, and from persons whose interests, in many respects, are opposed to each other. Still all coincide in regarding precipitate alterations with apprehension and dismay. The throwster, the dyer, the manufacturer of broad and narrow silks, have each their case: and, although I fear I shall trespass on the time of the House, I must endeavour to state the objections they respectively urge, to what they conceive a rash, and dangerous interference with the growing improvement, and prosperity of their trade.
The Throwster complains, in the first 739 instance, and with reason, looking only to his separate interest, of the sudden and unexpected reduction, in the duty on the importation of foreign thrown silk. This had been settled in 1824, at 7s. 6d. per pound, as a fair protection; and, although it was evident so high a duty would be found ultimately incompatible with justice to the manufacturer, when all restriction was removed from the importation of foreign goods, still, the trade was little prepared for the sudden reduction of a third, by order of the Treasury, without notice, and without the previous sanction of parliament. The House, too, should recollect the precise moment chosen for this alteration; when all manufacturing industry was paralyzed, and this trade was in a state of the greatest depression, the warehouses being overloaded with immense stocks of goods, for which there was no demand, and to the loss on which, occasioned by other causes, this reduction of duty was superadded. What justification could the right hon. gentleman urge for this measure, or more particularly for its infliction on the trade at such a moment? Or, how are persons in business to conduct their affairs, if government be to exercise a discretionary power of this description, according to their caprice, without due notice, and without considering the sacrifices entailed by such material changes on individuals? It may be true, that a reduction of the duty at a proper season was indispensable, and that general notice had been given to the throwsters, that at some time or other, government would be obliged to propose it to parliament; but certainly they have good cause of complaint against the right hon. gentleman, if their statements are correct, and I hope he will satisfy the House better than he has hitherto been able to satisfy the petitioners of the paramount necessity for this sudden alteration. With the exception however of the manner and time, I agree entirely with the right hon. gentleman as to the principle and policy of a reduction; but, in fairness to the manufacturers, if these measures should be persevered in, reduction must be carried still further; and then let us examine the representation the throwster makes of his case. In the first place, he cannot, or ought not to complain of the inferiority of his skill and machinery. On the contrary, I find no where in these petitions any allegations of this description. His 740 complaint is confined principally "to the price of labour," which is the gravamen of the whole ease. While this exists, he asserts, and desires to prove, "that the remaining protection is totally insufficient, that the capital invested in mills, and machinery will be entirely annihilated, and that the apprentices he has employed will be thrown on the parishes, to add at this crisis to their burthens." Are these statements admitted or not? and if denied, would it be an impolitic course, in the present feverish times, to expose the exaggerations imputed to them, by examination before a committee?
Then comes the petition of the Dyers, who have also fair cause of complaint against the right hon. gentleman, not for his sins of commission, but of omission in their case. While he applies his principles of free trade, in permitting the importation of foreign goods, he forgets to remove the oppressive duties on various articles used in dyeing, and which put all chance of fair competition out of the question. Two principal articles used by dyers are soap and barilla. On the importation of the former, for be it observed we are now discussing the merits of free trade, not those of the excise revenue, a duty of 4l.. 10s. per cent is levied, being at least twice the value of the commodity, arid amounting to an absolute prohibition. On barilla, an extravagant duty is specially imposed, for the protection of the coarser article of kelp, raised on the northern counties of Scotland, and defended on this especial ground by the vice president of the Board of Trade, the zealous advocate of his Highland constituents. On several other drugs, a list of which I hold in my hand, and which it is unnecessary to enumerate, the duties are equally indefensible. But I can have no doubt the right hon. gentleman, seeing of how little importance these duties can be to the revenue, yet of how much consequence to this branch of the trade, and to the success of his general measures, will prevail with the chancellor of the Exchequer to relinquish them altogether. The Dyers, like the throwsters, maintain, that their skill, and such machinery as they require, are quite equal to such as the French employ. The climates of Italy, Switzerland, and France, may be more favourable for particular details of their operations, but these are comparatively unimportant; and French workmen brought to this country, to assist in improving their colours, and other processes in dyeing, have 741 admitted their own inferiority to English workmen, in many essential points. But, Sir, let the petitioners speak for themselves, and the right hon. gentleman, at least, will not find fault with the grounds and principles on which they rest their opposition to his proceedings. They say, in the petition now on your table, "Your petitioners would not for a moment feel alarm about competition, if their burthens were less heavy, if Englishmen were, in point of expense, placed on a footing with the foreigner; for your petitioners have no hesitation in saying, that in point of industry, and for ingenuity and colours in the art of dyeing, they do not fear competition with any nation upon earth. But, while every article of life bears so extravagant a disproportion between England and other nations, your petitioners humbly submit, that the Operative of this country is not in a condition equal to meet those fearful odds that are to be hereafter brought against us." It is unnecessary to add one word to this expression of the feelings and opinions of these petitioners. The right hon. gentleman will find in it the whole essence of the question under our consideration.
I come now, Sir, to the more numerous petitions on your table, from persons of all classes and conditions employed in the manufacture of broad silks and ribbons, and who have hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of the supply of those articles in our home market.
The material points for examination by a committee, as connected with the broad trade, are, whether the proposed duty of 30 per cent is a fair and sufficient protection, when the monopoly is destroyed, and whether there is a reasonable probability of our being able to enforce so high a duty, when the great impediment to smuggling transactions, the power of seizing foreign goods under the present prohibition, when exposed for sale, is given up. Although I may differ ultimately with the opinions of the petitioners on both points, I think the statements they now make, and the evidence they are prepared to adduce in support of them, entitled to the most serious and deliberate attention of this House.
I have before said, the principal evidence on which the former committee proceeded, was that of two American merchants, who had some experience of the relative cost of silk goods in France and in this country; and the House was further encouraged to 742 adopt the bill of 1824, by the unhesitating confidence then expressed by certain manufacturers of Manchester, of their ability even to compete at that time with the foreign manufacturer. Among the petitions on the table, praying you will arrest the progress of these measures, is one of considerable weight and ability, from these same persons engaged in the manufacture at Manchester, and their arguments, which I will not repeat, in favour of caution and inquiry, are entitled to the greatest consideration. Nor will I go into all the calculations that have been made from actual purchases of goods in France, and comparisons of their quality with that of others manufactured in this country. It is only necessary to refer the House to the printed papers circulated by the committee of manufactures at Weavers Hall, and by that most respectable and able gentleman Mr. Doxat on this subject. Some of these statements make the cost of manufacturing plain goods in this country 44 per cent above that in France, and considerably more on figured and fancy articles. If this be true, how is such a difference to be accounted for, and if it be not an exaggeration, and the difference cannot be reduced, of what use is a duty of 30 per cent, leaving still an advantage of 14 per cent to the foreigner, on the lowest quality of his manufacture? But if the case is so with respect to French goods, how infinitely do we find it aggravated when a comparison is made with Indian and Chinese silks? At the last sale at the India House, goods of this description invariably sold for less than the price of raw silk, added to the duty and expense of throwing; and this with the prospect of the ports opening for their admission to home consumption in July. Would 30 per cent in this case be sufficient, or was it possible, with any chance of being able fairly to collect it, to impose a greater duty? But other considerations arise from this statement. One of the great objects of the right hon. gentleman was so to encourage this manufacture, as to lead us to hope for an extension of it by an export trade. To the direct imports from India and China, have been added others from America, where no market could be found, even at low prices, for Indian and Chinese silks. What hope, then, can we have of selling similar goods to a profit, which cost 50 or 70 percent higher? And this remark ap- 743 plies to all the markets of the world, seeing the exportation of these manufactures is made without duty or restriction. Are the prices of Indian manufactured silks, then, unusually low? Do they remunerate the manufacturer in India and China, who has the raw materials at hand, and labour at a rate proportioned to the wants and maintenance of the people of these countries? Or is it calculated, that the additional demand on the English market—for I have stated they are not even required at their present value in any other—will so raise the price, as to enable us to compete with them? And if so, in what proportion will they displace our goods in our own consumption, and what effect will this have on our manufacturing population? Are these not questions worth inquiring into, if only to satisfy the petitioners, and allay the alarm, well or ill grounded, that has spread abroad on this subject? Samples of French as well as Indian manufactures, can now be laid before a committee, and the calculations on which the petitioners have proceeded be verified, or the errors of them detected and exposed. The House will also recollect, that for the protection of the throwster, a duty is still to be left on Italian and French thrown silk of 5s. per lb. This amounts to at least 7½ of the 30 per cent, leaving only a duty in favour of our manufacturer of 22½ per cent, instead of the protection of 30 per cent held out to him. Is this to be permanent? If not, when is it proposed to make a further reduction? And would not inquiry be expedient, with a view to adjust these points, with the least possible injury to the parties interested in the decision? Before the duty was increased on raw silk, no such protection was considered necessary for the throwster. In 1766, the duty on raw silk was 9d.—on thrown 1s. 9d.—a difference of only 1s. What circumstances have since arisen to justify the additional 4s., or to give such colour to the representation of the throwsters, that even with this protection, they may be obliged to abandon their occupation?
Beyond all the difficulties urged by persons concerned in the broad trade, there are others peculiarly affecting the narrow trade, or ribbon manufacture. This part of the case, if any credit be given to the representations of those interested in it, would appear so strong, as almost to justify some exception in their favour, if the House shall support 744 the right hon. gentleman in opening the ports for the admission of other silk goods in July. I am almost afraid of being accused of deliberate exaggeration in stating the enormous disadvantages under which the petitioners affirm, they must enter into competition with their French and Swiss rivals, if no greater time be allowed them for preparation; but I desire particularly not to be held responsible for the correctness of those statements, which it is my anxious wish should be thoroughly sifted and examined above stairs. Nay, Sir, I will go further, and express my fervent hope and expectation, that we should have to convince the petitioners of the fallacy of some of their calculations, and that much of their alarm and apprehension is, if not entirely groundless, greatly over-rated. But still I must admit, these statements come from most intelligent and respectable persons, who have taken great pains personally to examine into the details of their manufacture, as it is conducted in France and Italy, and who make out a prima facie case not easily resisted, and which, if I mistake not, has rather surprised the right hon. gentleman and the Board of Trade. In all the other branches of this manufacture, the petitioners ascribe their inability to compete with the foreigner, principally, if not entirely, to the difference in the value of labour, the heavier amount of burthens and taxes and the increased price of provisions, which, while they continue to operate on the rate of wages, must necessarily maintain that difference against our countrymen. But neither the throwster, the dyer, nor the broad-silk weaver complain of their inferiority in skill and machinery. In the narrow trade, and particularly in light fancy goods, and gauze ribbons, not only does the amount of labour bear a quadruple proportion to the value of the manufactured article to that in the broad trade, but the superiority of the French and Swiss looms has been ascertained beyond all doubt, and can be proved to a degree that would astonish the House. Much has been done within the last two years in introducing improvements; and time and encouragement are alone wanting to give confidence for further application of capital to this most important object. One workman can now produce, with the improved engine loom lately adopted, six-times the quantity of ribbon he could have before manufactured in his common single-hand- 745 loom; and it is a melancholy consideration, and one eminently deserving the serious attention of the House and his majesty's government, that fully three-fourths of the looms still in use in Coventry, to which place this manufacture is almost entirely confined, are of an inefficient description, and by far the greater part of them, the property, and it is sadly to be feared the only property, of the operative weavers themselves. Their buildings and houses are adapted to this machinery, and must be altered for the reception of the engine looms, which require more room and greater height; and in the present depressed state of the trade, and the apprehension of the immediate introduction of foreign goods, the weavers are unable, and the manufacturers unwilling, to invest money in alterations which may only increase their difficulties, without some assurance of adequate protection. If you tell the petitioners, as I have often endeavoured to impress upon them, there could be no great risk of the foreign manufacturer being prepared with an additional stock, equal to our demand, at the outset of this new trade, and at the low price at which they state he is able to make his goods; they answer, there is as much capital invested in the ribbon manufacture in the town of Basle alone as in Coventry alone; that the manufacturer there enjoys an exemption from those fluctuations of credit and paper, which cause so many periodical convulsions in this country; and that we are proceeding in utter ignorance, if we suppose his means of production are not adequate to any additional demand that can be made upon him. The manufacture in Switzerland consists principally of plain silk and satin ribbons, and employs, according to the statement of the petitioners, about 10,000 engine looms, all constructed on the most improved principles, 3,000 of which, it is alleged, are sufficient to produce an adequate quantity of these articles for the consumption of Great Britain. They further state, that upwards of 12,000 of the same looms are in use in St. Etienne, St. Chamond, and the neighbourhood of Lyons, in the manufacture of fancy and figured ribbons, 2,000 of which would amply supply our whole consumption of this species of goods. If these statements be correct, and if the cost of manufacturing be so comparatively cheap as the petitioners 746 offer to prove it, will 22½ per cent, the duty proposed, making allowance for that still retained on thrown silk, be a sufficient protection? or what inducement can our manufacturers have, to invest further capital in a trade exposed, as they maintain, to so hopeless a competition?
Another point well deserving our attention, with reference to this part of the subject, is the state of the law relative to patents and patent rights. In the course of their inquiry into the situation and circumstances of the foreign manufacture, some of these individuals have discovered material improvements in the construction of machinery, in the invention of which they have no merit, but for which they have obtained patents on the usual petition, stating they had procured information from the inventors abroad, and desired the protection of a patent for introducing their discoveries into this country. In two recent instances connected with the narrow silk manufacture, such patents have been obtained; and if the improvements be to the extent and of the importance represented, it might be desirable to grant some remuneration to the proprietors, and throw them open to the trade. One is for the machine well known on the continent by the name of its inventor, the Jacquard loom. The other for a loom for weaving velvet ribbons and bindings, and which, by a most ingenious process, actually enables one weaver to make forty-eight times the quantity of those articles, he can in the common and very inferior single-hand loom now employed, and which is the only machinery hitherto applied in England to this particular department of the manufacture. Both the models of these improvements have been exhibited to the right hon. gentleman, and I suppose he has desired some inquiry and report to be made by competent persons of their merits; but the monopoly of them by individuals in this country, while their use is open to all persons abroad, is an additional embarrassment to our manufacture. This subject should be canvassed and settled, while such great alterations in our commercial system are under discussion; and I am sure the House will agree with me, that some check should be imposed to the issue of patents, to persons merely copying or adopting the inventions of others, and which may, as in the present instance, greatly fetter and cramp improvements in our trade.
747 I have now, Sir, gone through the principal allegations in the petitions on the table from the manufacturers concerned in the different departments of this important branch of our industry, and the House will be able to judge, whether there is sufficient ground laid for the motion of which I have given notice on their behalf. I wish again and again to press upon their consideration, that with an open trade, no greater protection can be given, without entirely sacrificing the throwster, than about 22½ per cent. You will at the same time observe, the smuggler obtains an inducement to continue his operations to the extent of the full 30 per cent, and the greater part of the risk of seizure will be removed by his being enabled lawfully to expose his goods for sale. I do not press these facts and arguments in favour of the eternal continuance of the monopoly. I should resist that as strenuously as the right hon. gentleman, but they are entitled to great weight in deciding the question, whether longer time ought not to be given for preparation. I will further state a decided opinion, that in the end it will be found impossible to maintain the duty to the extent now proposed, without sacrificing the revenue to the smuggler; and that all protection of this kind held out to our manufacturers must be illusory, beyond such moderate duty as can be collected with certainty and facility.
But, Sir, the more serious and important subject for the consideration of the legislature still remains behind. I have hitherto confined my observations to the petitions from the manufacturers. The throwsters have their particular grievances; and any person acquainted with the present state of the trade, must be entirely satisfied, however much he may differ with them as to the causes assigned for their distress, that they are not overstated. The dyers state plainly and intelligibly the only difficulty they have to contend with; the manufacturers represent, in possibly exaggerated terms, their alarms and apprehensions; but all these individuals, with the exception of the throwster, whose mills and establishments are of great value, can easily quit a losing trade, and turn their capital to some more profitable branch of industry, or send it abroad to be still engaged in this, under more favourable auspices and circumstances. But if the facts, or any 748 portion of them, which I have laid before you are true, what is to become of the more important class, the labouring population, engaged in this manufacture, if you rashly interfere with the limited employment they now have, or do not remove those clogs imposed on their exertions and industry, by your taxation, and laws affecting the price of the necessaries of life? They are not deficient in patient industry, in skill or intelligence; the climate gives them certain advantages over the artizans in warmer countries; and what is it, then, I would ask the right hon. gentleman, which compels the manufacturer to present to us such a striking contrast between the cost of production in this country and in others? Is the present rate of wages an adequate remuneration to the operative weaver? Look to the state of the population in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, in Macclesfield, in Coventry, and in the other districts where this manufacture is carried on, for evidence on this subject—in almost every case reduced to a state of unmerited deprivation, or deep distress. The right hon. gentleman will tell us this is the unavoidable consequence of our speculation and over-trading last year, about which a word or two by-and-by; but certainly it is not imputable to any ordinary fluctuation in trade, or more especially to any fault of the poor people themselves. Is some inquiry not necessary into the peculiar burthens affecting them, before you run the risk of increasing their already intolerable privations? and might it not be safer to endeavour, in the first instance, to abolish the monopoly in corn, and to adopt such other measures as may tend to place them, with respect to the price of the necessaries and comforts of life, on a footing with the population of France? See the wide difference that now exists in this essential point, and which is only the creation of our wars and taxes since 1792. From a statement published by the secretary of the Congleton committee, and which I use, merely for the purpose of easy reference, without going into the details, it appears, that house-rent, meat, flour, butter, cheese, coals, milk, and potatoes are all more than double the price that they were at that period. The ports were open for the importation of wheat in 1792, when the price was 50s., at a duty of 2s. 6d. They are now open at 80s., and with a duty, above 70s., of 12s. But has the 749 foreign artizan the same changes and circumstances to contend with? Prices in France and England did not vary much, except from occasional depreciations in the currency of either, for 200 years before 1792. In 1825, we find them in France nearly as they were before the Revolution. In England double! How long does the right hon. gentleman suppose a competition in trade and manufactures can go on, with this appalling difference in the condition of the people? and is he of opinion there is no risk in these violent alterations in our existing I system, without he has some assurance of being able to place our labouring population, with respect to the means of maintenance, and existence, on an equality with those with whom he calls upon them to contend? or are we, without caring for their daily and hourly demoralization to embark in this hopeless competition, paying the same wages as in Lyons and Basle, and sending the poor weaver to the parish, for such addition from the poor-rates as the overseer may consider necessary to keep him and his family from actual starvation? We witnessed these scenes in the cotton manufacture in 1818 and 1819, and boasted afterwards of an export trade, in which we made a present to the foreign consumer at the rate at which we supplied him of the greater part of the real cost of production. While we were selling our goods at half their cost, our superior capital and machinery had credit for the destruction of the infant manufacturing establishments on the continent, where they could not understand by what process we could derive profit from our sales. But while we deceive in this way the rest of mankind, we forget we are practising the greater deception on ourselves. It is perfectly true that much injury has been done to other countries, by the frequent revolutions that have taken place in our currency and prices since the peace; but the evil has been felt in a ten-fold greater degree at home, and will in the end aid the other causes in operation, all tending, if not checked with a strong hand, to the destruction of our manufacturing and commercial greatness. We must always recollect, we have not been the only rich and great commercial community in the world; that our ascendancy rose on the ruin of the trade of other nations, whose decline was owing to the causes now threatening ours; and the right hon. gentleman, as it ap- 750 pears to me, would direct the attention of the legislature, and the powers of the government much more beneficially in a manly endeavour to remove these causes than in partial attempts to apply his principles, when the experiment, unaccompanied with other measures, may be attended with so much risk, and so great an addition of positive suffering to large masses of the people. He tells us, and there I entirely agree with him, that the greatest part of the present distress in this, as in all other branches of our industry, arises from the reaction consequent upon the over-trading of the last two years, and that it is idle to ascribe any material portion of the depression in the silk-trade, to the apprehension of any considerable import of foreign goods in July next. But my difference with him is, first, as to which party is to blame for this over-trading. Government, or our merchants and manufacturers? and, secondly, whether the precise moment to be chosen for such an experiment in a particular branch of manufacture, is one, when two-thirds of the population engaged in it, are entirely without employment, in a state of absolute destitution, and the other third working at half wages, and threatened with a similar fate? He may say, recollect what passed on the close of the discussion on this subject in 1824. The trade generally, and I then agreed in opinion with them, were willing to come to a compromise for the two years, after the duty was repealed. The right hon. gentleman, on that occasion, misquoting, and misrepresenting, but which I am sure he did unintentionally, Mr. Hale's evidence before the committee, urged it as one of his main grounds of belief and expectation, that the English weaver would be able to maintain a successful competition. The sanguine calculations of his Manchester friends could not even brook the delay then conceded. We have since had two years' experience. Call these witnesses again before a committee, and ask them their present opinion, on the relative state of wages, and condition of the operative classes in the two countries, with the additional information they have since obtained. Then, as to over-trading, it is easy for the right hon. gentleman to use the argument when it suits his own purposes; but I have observed an unusual shyness on his part, and on that of his right lion, friend, the chancellor of the 751 Exchequer, to meet the question fairly, to examine dispassionately and coolly the great causes of this pestilence, and to inquire what persons are justly accountable for the present disastrous condition of all the trading interests of the country. Let us look back a little to the tampering with the currency, the alternate issues and contractions of paper, and the expedients which have been resorted to for the maintenance of our revenue since the peace, and we shall see, at once, the foundation of all our distresses. In 1816, we were to restore our metallic circulation, and, with the necessary contraction of paper for that purpose, came embarrassment and difficulty. In 1817, tired of that policy, the ministers had recourse to loans from the Bank and new issues. With the consequent temporary prosperity, came new taxes, and a determination, as it was called, to support the credit of the country by an efficient sinking fund. In 1819, finding it impossible to reconcile our issues of paper, with a sound circulation, the philosophers again set to work, and decreed, we should collect the increased taxes in a doubly enhanced currency. Then came deeper distress than on the former occasion; and when this fell on the land in 1822, as it always inevitably must do, although at a later period than on trade, we adopted, without hesitation, the old remedy. The country bankers were encouraged to resume their old habits of paper-making in perfect confidence. Prosperity, as it is called, again followed. And does the right hon. gentleman, or his right hon. friend near him, so soon forget who it was that assured the country the prosperity of that day was real, and must be permanent? If others had participated in, or been deluded by, their opinions and encouragement, they, of all persons in the world, are the least entitled to accuse the dupes of their time-serving and wretched policy, of acting without sufficient caution on this mistaken and false view of the affairs of the country. Who forcibly reduced the rate of interest, and, by ruinous expedients of loans of paper from the Bank for fictitious sinking-funds, paying off those public creditors who refused their reduced interest, and deferring the burthen of what has been called the dead weight, so increased the temporary abundance of money, as to produce the unparalleled and unprecedented engagements for foreign loans, and the disgraceful speculations of the last two years?
752 And that this charge may not be made slightly, let us come to facts within the knowledge of every man. There is no such accurate test of the operations of government in these matters, as the state of their account with the Bank, and that is always on your table. In 1819, when it was at last finally, and with so much wisdom, determined to restore the ancient currency, the debt to the Bank was nineteen millions. The committee, on the representation of the directors, came to a decision, that it was necessary to repay ten millions of this amount, so as to reduce the balance to nine. Will the House believe, that, after being reduced, according to its resolutions, to nine, it has been since increased by the transactions I have described, and now remains subject to the reduction which has been lately agreed upon at twenty-five millions? For the truth of this statement, and the figures, I refer to my hon. friend, the member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), whose calculation I have adopted; and after having submitted it to the House, I will ask, whether any possible doubt can remain as to the party really to blame for all this over-trading and speculation? What was the stimulus to the before unheard-of, and insane projects, so unworthy our former commercial character? The rest of the world, made rich by your loans, by money pressed upon them in this way, and which it is always so easy to spend, became your customers for manufactures and articles of luxury, which their own means never enabled them before to consume. Your manufacturers called in new hands to provide the additional, and as they were taught to expect permanent and growing demand for their goods. Beyond supplying the actual consumption, the foreign markets were over-loaded, according to the uniform course of such matters, in expectation of good sales and returns from a continuance of this hollow prosperity. Suddenly, the philosophers of 1819 find out, all they have been doing since 1821 is wrong. The currency must be immediately and forcibly contracted, to bring back into circulation, the gold you have been scattering so lavishly on all sides, and your foreign debtors, who were relying upon further accommodation, are pressed for repayment of your former advances. The scene changes, as if by the wand of the enchanter. The goods abroad are unsaleable, returns are obtained with extreme difficulty for those previously disposed of, and 753 generally only in colonial produce, which sells, in your enhanced currency, for one half its former value. All industry is checked and paralyzed—first, your merchants, next, your manufacturers, become bankrupts—the people employed by them are thrown on the parish, and then the only consolation they receive is, that they must take upon themselves the consequences of their own indiscretion, while his majesty's ministers turn their attention to other experiments, which, according to the opinion of the petitioners, may have no better result.
I am aware, Sir, these observations apply more to the general and foreign trade of the country, than to the silk-manufacture. It is not dependant on a demand for export, nor in fact can any over-trading be imputed to the persons engaged in any branch of it, except the throwsters. But I know, from what has passed elsewhere, that the dupes and victims of the system that has brought this nation to the brink of a frightful convulsion, will, for the purposes of this debate, be charged as its authors and abettors, and I am bound in duty to shield them from such unjust accusations. Whatever may be the ultimate result of those measures, it is not improbable, that the silk-trade, confined to our own consumption, and independent of foreign demand, may rally more rapidly than many of our staple manufactures. That is certainly my opinion. The stocks of manufactured goods are far from being large. The apprehension, just or groundless, of a considerable importation on the opening of the ports, has deterred the manufacturers from increasing them, and the present suspension of employment in Spital-fields and Cheshire tends to the diminution of the usual supply. The spring trade is always the best; and it must be recollected, the consumers of this expensive luxury are not among those who suffer most from the peculiar distresses of the times. I state this, Sir, to show I do not participate in the general gloom and despondency that appear to prevail amongst all classes of the petitioners; and who should recollect, unless we are to place entire credit in the ability of France and Switzerland, to supply a large additional demand, as represented by the ribbon-manufacturers, there can be no danger of immediate interference, to any extent, with their home trade.
I am afraid, Sir, I have exhausted 754 the patience of the House, and performed very inadequately to the petitioners, the duty they have imposed upon me, of submitting their case to your consideration. I fear, also, from the manner in which their former representations have been received by government, I have to expect the decided opposition of his majesty's ministers, to any review, or reconsideration of the measures adopted in 1824. And if I could bring myself to concur in the opinion of the lords of the Treasury, as expressed in their secretary's letter to the country deputation on the 28th of December last, that "their lordships have never entertained the belief that any importation of foreign goods was likely to be made to such an extent as to interfere with our own manufactures, or in any greater degree than might be sufficient to supply, in a legal manner, that portion of the consumption which is at present derived from the fraudulent introduction of foreign silks," I might also be disposed to object, to any further, because useless discussion, of this question. I have stated distinctly, in the outset; my accordance with the general principles of the right hon. gentleman, and that I am no advocate for the interminable, or any very protracted maintenance of the present monopoly. Nor indeed, Sir, have I finally made up my mind, whether it is necessary or expedient to grant further time, or if further time, whether to all, or any particular branches of the trade. My apprehensions as to the partial application of the principles of free trade go much beyond their effect on the silk-manufacture. Without a reduction of taxes and the abolition of your Corn laws, or rather the substitution in their stead of the regulations of 1792, I fear the right hon. gentleman will be compelled to pause in his proceedings, if not to go back, not because his principles are, or can be wrong in the abstract, but because he wants the power to apply them generally in a state of things which has grown up under different and entirely opposite regulations, and I need not explain to him the risk, to which such a necessity would expose the ultimate adoption of a more wise and rational system of commercial administration. As one of the zealous supporters of such a system, I pray him to be cautious, and surely I may again urge, if there be a case requiring the greatest forbearance and caution, it is that of a trade, in which as an exception to all others, we are still, 755 on the whole, confessedly inferior to other countries, and where we have to look for all improvement, to their instruction. Many prejudices, and much error, and groundless apprehension, have been removed by the previous inquiry, and the experience of the last, two years. If we do not succeed in satisfying the petitioners, by the further inquiry I now pray the House to grant them, we shall at least have credit with the public, for proceeding with that deliberation which the importance of such a case deserves, and disarm the opponents of all improvement and reform, who are ever on the watch to accuse us of inconsiderate rashness, and neglect of existing interests, in our attempts to ameliorate, and improve the institutions of the country. Above all things, Sir, I entreat the House to look round, and reflect on the particular crisis at which this appeal is made to them. Our commercial interests exposed to a frightful convulsion. Our currency unsettled. On the eve of some attempt to alter and re-model our Corn-laws. The manufacturing population in a state of unparalleled distress, imputing, and with reason, all their sufferings to bad policy and misgovernment—I cannot, under these circumstances doubt the wisdom, or see the danger, of acceding to the prayers of the petitioners, that you will grant them a further inquiry, before you determine to adopt the final measures for the regulation of this trade, of which the right hon. gentleman has given notice; and I therefore move you, Sir, for the appointment of a Select Committee, for the purpose of referring to them the petitions on the table, that they may examine and report their opinions, and such observations thereupon, as may guide the House in their further proceedings on this most important subject.
§ Mr. John Williamsrose to second the motion of his hon. friend. He began by observing that he had always understood it to be desirable, that if a doubtful measure was to be discussed at all—and a doubtful measure he considered this to be—it should be discussed at a period when the tranquillity and prosperity of the country were such as to prevent the danger and risk which such a discussion might produce. That such was not the present state of the country, he believed no man would venture to deny. The greater part of our manufacturing population were under-going a degree of suffering unparalleled in our history. His hon. friend had 756 made an allusion to the distresses which existed in Macclesfield. Now, he would beg the attention of the House, while he stated a few additional facts relative to the distresses in that district. He wished to inform the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Huskisson), if he was not already aware of the fact, that the misery and distress existing in that town, great as they were, were likely to be aggravated ten-fold, unless a check was given to the measures by which those evils were caused. The House was not, perhaps, generally, aware of the rapidity with which the population of Macclesfield had increased under the ancient and erroneous system of our Silk trade. In the year 1730 the population of that place amounted to 4000 persons. In 1826, its population had swollen to 23,000 persons. He was not aware whether the right hon. gentleman thought this too rapid an increase of population, and that famine and disease should be allowed to step in and thin their numbers, and keep the peace. He would now say a word or two as to the amount of employment given to that population in the silk trade alone. In the year 1825, he found that twenty thousand hands were there employed in the variou9 branches of the silk manufacture. Of these, there had been thrown out of employ, in consequence, as they state, of the operation of the right hon. gentleman's measure of free trade, and this, too, in the last half year, no less than 8,731 persons, leaving in employment, or rather in half employment, nearly 14,000 persons. He wished also to state, for the right hon. gentleman's information, that there were in Macclesfield alone, 1,600 families supported by voluntary contributions: those persons were supported solely upon oatmeal and potatoes; but even that subsistence was likely soon to be taken from them, as the fund from which it was derived was exhausting, and would in a few weeks be at an end, so that that number of families must fall, for subsistence, on the poor-laws. He had been informed by the mayor of Macclesfield, that that gentleman had, before he came to town upon this distressing business, signed no less than eleven orders of removal, in order to throw upon the land a portion of the burthen caused by those distresses; as if the land had not been sufficiently burthened before, without including the numbers of Irish who were passed along, and becoming a daily bur- 757 then to the country. The distresses of that district were hourly increasing, and there was no hope for relief; because no hope of employment could be entertained, so long as there prevailed an apprehension of the introduction of French silks.—He had also obtained some details with respect to the state of the silk trade in Manchester, and he would confine himself to the broad-silk trade, as the most favourable case for gentlemen opposite, because in figured silks the labour was greater, and consequently the dread of foreign importations greater. In the Spring of 1825, there were 10,688 silk-looms at work, and in January last there were but 4,110 looms employed, making a reduction of 6,578 looms; and the proportion of looms going out of work would go on rapidly increasing, unless the cause of the existing alarm was removed. He found, notwithstanding this reduction in the number of looms, that, at the time of the calculation, 24,000 persons were employed in the silk trade in that district. In the parish of Bethnal Green, no less than 1,000 silk-workers, of various kinds, were sustained by parish relief, and it was said that the numbers were daily increasing. But, notwithstanding the extent and variety of this distress—not-withstanding the probability of its increase, and the certainty that a portion of the population must be driven to ruin and despair—notwithstanding all this, he would not oppose the measures of the right hon. gentleman, if he would show to him the great countervailing benefits they were to produce in the country. Let him but prove this—let him but show to that House, that benefits would be derived to the country greater than the evils which it was suffering, and those which were apprehended, and then let him, by all means persevere in his measures. But he called upon the House to pause, and wait until they had before them some proof that those benefits would be produced. He implored them, in the mean time, to weigh well the complaints and the apprehensions, of the suffering manufacturers, before they gave their assent to those theories which were considered injurious, but which the right hon. gentleman showed his consistency by a determination to persevere in. It was their duty to have full and clear evidence before them, before they took a course which would have the effect of bringing the most serious and lasting evils upon the country. He did not assert that the right 758 hon. gentleman was wrong, but he did assert that there was sufficient in the distress which existed, and the alarm excited, to call for the strictest inquiry. It was their duty to give the petitioners an opportunity of proving their statements, and of pointing out the grounds of their alarm. The whole of those distresses had been attributed by the right hon. gentleman and others to the spirit of over-trading and over-speculation, which had seized upon the manufacturers, as well as upon almost all other classes of society. That was, he believed, the right hon. gentleman's theory. And how did he propose that the evil should be cured? He believed, by leaving all to the natural course of things. But did not the right hon. gentleman perceive how this must aggravate the distress, by compelling the manufacturer to sell his stock at a loss, in order to get the superabundant stock out of the market, and regulate the supply to the demand? But, if the petitioners could make out that even this would not bring about a return of the demand for the manufactures, then he conceived they would have established their right to a further inquiry. He was not authorised by the silk manufacturers to admit that they thought their distresses had arisen from over-trading or over-speculation. They thought quite the contrary; but he would, for argument sake, concede that such was the case. But to the point. How did the demand for manufactures come round? The stock of manufactured goods in the market was to be found in the hands of the warehouseman and the merchant; both of whom applied to the manufacturer as they wanted to add to the stock. This was the period of the year, when that demand for goods was usually greatest upon the manufacturer. It was known, too, that the stock on hand with the warehousemen and merchants was much below par, and yet the demands upon the manufacturer for a fresh supply were entirely at a stand. How was this to be accounted for, unless from a feeling that, after the 5th of July, supplies of silks would be obtained from abroad, at a cheaper rate than the English manufacturer would be able to make them? This was the fair inference which must be drawn from the existing state of things. The petitioners feared, and justly, that the ports, once open, the supply for the foreign article would go on, to the exclusion of the English manufacturer; so that the mea- 759 sure would operate only as a relief and benefit to our foreign neighbours.—There were one or two other observations with which he meant to trouble the House. The business of silk throwsters occupied about one-third of the capital of those engaged in the trade. The quantity of manual labour, as distinguished from machinery, was less in proportion than that used in weaving and winding. It was said, that amongst silk throwsters, there were four-fifths of manual labour. Now, it was stated, that the price of labour must be regulated by the comparative provisions in this and the adjoining countries. He held in his hand a return, made by a gentleman upon whose accuracy he had every reason to rely, during his travels on the continent in July last. It stated, that at Lyons, the price of bread was three sous per lb. while in England it was 2½d. per lb. or nearly double. This alone would make the comparative value of labour in England and in France as two to one. The same gentleman stated, that the value of labour in England was 44½ per cent dearer than at Lyons, and 60 per cent dearer than at Zurich. Was it likely, with such a disparity in the value of labour, that the British manufacturer could compete with the produce of foreign markets? He stated again, that the silk manufacturers had established a case which entitled them to the inquiry. He implored the House to pause, and give time for that inquiry—he entreated them not to give their sanction rashly, and without due consideration, to measures which were already represented as having caused such great and extensive distress—measures which, if thus suddenly adopted, would at once destroy that last melancholy hope of the unfortunate—the hope of having their complaints considered, and their sufferings and distresses relieved. Would the House suffer this meritorious part of the population to say, that they had applied to parliament for a consideration of their complaints, and that parliament had refused to hear them—had refused to listen to the probable consequences of the introduction of a measure, which they offered to prove was highly injurious, and which the House seemed about to carry into effect, more out of deference to the right hon. gentleman who had proposed it, than for any other cause? On those subjects of expenditure in the silk trade, which appertained more particularly to the other 760 branches of that business, he might repeat what he had already stated, that the winding and weaving resolved themselves, even still more than the other branch, into an expense proportioned to the price of provisions. About one-third of the persons engaged in this trade were employed in the two departments of it to which he had just alluded; and surely their situation was deserving of some attention. He considered that the immediate tendency of the right hon. gentleman's measure was, to suspend the demand for goods, which was the only remedy for the evils that this numerous and meritorious body of men were now suffering; and also, on the other hand, to create a demand, not for the product of the labours of the artificers of this country, but for those of foreigners, who possessed advantages that would enable them to beat us even in the English market; advantages which no protecting duty that the right hon. gentleman might uphold, would enable us to meet; for, the larger the amount of that duty, the greater would be the chance of throwing the trade into the hands of the smugglers [cries of hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. Be it so—he would not retract his argument—he still contended, that if the duty was large, the trade would be thrown into the hands of smugglers, and foreign goods would be introduced, to the injury of the fair trader and of the industrious English manufacturer. What the present petitioners asked was, that the right hon. gentleman would re-consider the measure he had proposed, and delay its execution until a more convenient opportunity—until the hospitality he was ready to exercise towards foreigners was in some measure met by them—until that system of reciprocity, of which he had spoken so much and so triumphantly, had been established. Let not ministers rashly run the chance of the serious difficulties they might ultimately occasion, merely for the sake of a principle, and support a measure which might prove positively injurious to a considerable body of industrious men. The system of reciprocity to which he had alluded, was that system which had been mentioned with so much praise by the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, when he described the flourishing condition of the empire. In the Spring of 1824, the right hon. gentleman had said, certainly in a very oratorical manner, and in a most metaphorical style, that "it was high time to 761 cut the cords which fastened commerce, which bound her, as it were, to the earth;" and consequently, to make the metaphor complete—to enable her to soar to heaven. Where, he would ask, had this, or anything like this, been done? He had no doubt the right hon. gentleman was prepared to receive foreign nations with open arms; that he had dealt out the hospitality of the country, with a liberal hand, to many who had most freely accepted it; but, had any of those persons been generous enough to give him an invitation in return? Had they acted on the principle of reciprocity so far as to extend to this country the benefits they had received themselves? If they had, he should be glad to learn what were those reciprocities. If they had not, was not their conduct a proof that the right hon. gentleman had been wrong; that he had gone too far; and that his foreign friends were not prepared to treat him in the same liberal manner? Had the Netherlands—had any foreign state been moved to act on the same principles as the right hon. gentleman. Had they performed one single act—had they acknowledged one principle of reciprocity—to justify the present measure, or the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, who was now urging this measure, in support of his own principles, and to show that we understood political economy better than our ancestors?—He had now only to advert to one other point. It was said that this measure was only in furtherance of others of a more general nature, which had received, in a great degree, the approbation of this House. Whether that statement of the approbation of this House were true or not, the measure was not less a fit subject for inquiry. Whether the right hon. gentleman had been led on, or supported by the cheers of those who surrounded him, or whether all he had done was upon his own responsibility, he was equally bound now to hesitate before he pursued his career any further. The people of England had a right to look to ministers for an account of those measures which they cither produced or supported; and it was no answer to the people, when a disadvantageous measure had been passed, to say, that it had been done with the approbation of parliament. If the measure was in itself injurious, that approbation would not afford it a defence. He confessed, that if it was a proof of stupidity not to see the value of general principles in the 762 abstract, he must plead guilty to the charge; but at the same time, he would say, that there was no quackery more common and notorious, nor any more injurious—no theory, nor want of theory, when reduced to practice, so dangerous, as to attempt to reduce every thing to the level of certain general principles, without bearing in view the particular circumstances, or the particular times, in which those principles were to be called into practice. It was trifling with the people to say that the principles stated were true, if the times and the circumstances were such as to render it improper to bring those principles into practice. It was in the application of principles that the great difficulty consisted. When they came to apply general principles to a country of such great and multifarious interests as this—to a country so peculiarly circumstanced—it was not at all surprising that his majesty's ministers should find themselves in the midst of difficulties—that they should discover they had been entrapped into dangers, and that then they should have no other consolation than that of not having seen the dangers before encountering them, and then of having no remedy to afford to them. The circumstances of this country, into which they now attempted to introduce these measures, ought to have been well considered. They ought not to have been taken by surprise, or to have acted incautiously, on such a subject. They ought not to have acted as if in utter ignorance of the present times, and of existing circumstances. "Ye gods! annihilate both space and time," seemed, however, to have been the prayer of the ministers; and, with respect to this measure at least, their prayer appeared to have been fully heard. Then did the right hon. gentleman open wide his arms, as if ready to receive in their capacious embrace, the commerce of the world; but to talk of reciprocity, in a country so circumstanced as this was, with respect to some other countries in Europe, was as preposterous as would be the attempt to put a man loaded with fetters to run a race with another, whose limbs were free. The hon. member for Bridge-north, too, had come forward, with his principles of free trade, and so far had supported the right hon. gentleman; but he would not, if he could help it, allow five hundred thousand persons (the number said to be engaged in the silk trade) to be sacrificed to abstract princi- 763 ples, however pure those principles might be. On this point, he would cite the opinion of Mr. Burke, with whom he fully agreed. That right hon. and very learned person had said, when speaking of those unbending and hard-hearted metaphysicians, that they "exceeded the devil himself in point of malignity, and contempt for the happiness of mankind." He must say, that, in the present instance, he thought, if he might use the expression, that the right hon. gentleman had manifested an overweening attachment to abstract principle. One word more, and he had done. Ministers asked parliament to take this measure on their responsibility. The request was needless. No gentleman could relieve them from it. The House might divide the blame, and so lessen it; but ministers, by the possession of their office, by their acceptance of place, took upon themselves a responsibility from which nobody could relieve them. But, when the right hon. gentleman knew of that distress, of which the House had had some taste that night; when he knew that he had no remedy for this distress; when he knew these things, he would be guilty of extreme rashness, if he refused the present motion; which did not ask for the rejection of his measure, but which called on him to hesitate, to pause, to examine, to hear the facts which had transpired since that resolution had been first proposed. The ministers had already incurred a responsibility, the extent of which he did not know; but he did believe that if, between that House and the feelings out of doors there existed any community, he might say, with almost a certainty, that they would be driven from their purpose by the vote of that night.
§ Mr. Huskissonrose, and spoke, in substance, as follows:—
Sir;—Although the hon. member for Coventry, who introduced the present motion, may be supposed to be under the influence of suggestions and views, which have been furnished to him by his constituents, and from other sources out of doors, I am, nevertheless, ready to admit, that that circumstance ought not to detract from the weight which is fairly due to the hon. member's statements and arguments, in support of the motion which he has submitted to the House.
But, Sir, however true this may be, as far as respects the hon. member for Coventry, the same observation applies 764 not, in the remotest degree, to the hon. and learned gentleman who has seconded the motion; and who, acting, I must suppose, under the influence of a connection, certainly not political, but the more binding, perhaps, as having been more recently formed, has thought proper to take a wider range, and to indulge in a higher tone of declamation:—or, it may be, that he looks forward to the expectation of becoming the colleague of the hon. mover; and by his speech of this evening, proposes to declare himself a joint suitor with the hon. mover for the future favours of the good people of Coventry. Whatever may be the motives of the hon. and learned gentleman, I confess that I have listened with the utmost astonishment to the speech which he has just delivered.
Sir, in the course of that speech, the hon. and learned gentleman repeatedly told us, that he was not authorized to make certain statements—that he was not at liberty to admit this, and to admit that, This, I presume, is a mode of expression, in which gentlemen of the legal profession are wont to indulge, to mark that they keep themselves within the strict limits of their briefs, and that the doctrines which they advocate are those prescribed to them by their instructions. However customary and proper such language may be in the courts of law, it certainly sounds new and striking in the mouth of a member of this House.
With regard to the general tone of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech—the vehemence of his declamation, his unqualified censure, and his attempts at sarcasm, I can, with perfect sincerity, assure the House, and the hon. and learned gentleman, that I entertain no sentiment bordering upon anger, nor any other feeling, save one, in which I am sure I carry with me the sympathy and concurrence of all those who entertain sound and enlightened views upon questions of this nature—a feeling of surprise and regret, at finding that hon. and learned gentleman, now for the first time, launching forth his denunciations and invectives against principles and measures which have received the support of men the most intelligent and best informed, on both sides of this House, and throughout Europe.
Having said thus much, I leave the hon. and learned gentleman to the full enjoyment to be derived from the new lights that have so suddenly broken in 765 upon him. I leave to him, and to his hon. friends around him, to settle among themselves, the taunts, the sneers, and the sarcasms which he has heaped upon their heads, as the friends of those principles which are involved in the present discussion—principles which it has been their boast that they were the first to recommend, and of which they have uniformly been the most eager advocates in this House.
In whatever quarter the statements and arguments of the hon. member for Coventry may have originated, they are entitled to the serious and attentive consideration of the House; more especially if derived from individuals now suffering distress from want of employment, and who may have been led to believe, that that want of employment has been caused by measures which have been adopted by this House. This circumstance adds to the difficulty in which I am placed, in rising to address the House on the present occasion. In opposing the proposed inquiry, I feel that I may be represented as insensible or indifferent to the sufferings of those on whose behalf it is called for.
Sir, the hon. and learned member for Lincoln has, indeed, given countenance to this unjust imputation. He has not only chosen to assert, that I am mistaken in my views—he has not scrupled to insinuate, that I am without feeling for the distress now prevailing amongst the manufacturing classes [Mr. Williams here denied that he had asserted any thing of the kind]. What, then, Sir, did the hon. and learned gentleman mean by his quotation? To whom did he mean to apply the description of an "insensible and hard-hearted metaphysician, exceeding the devil in point of malignity"?—I appeal to the judgment of the House, whether the language made use of by the hon. and learned gentleman, with reference to me, was not such as to point to the inference, that I am that metaphysician, lost to every sentiment of humanity, and indifferent to every feeling, beyond the successful enforcement of some favourite theory, at what ever cost of pain and suffering to particular bodies of my fellow creatures? When the hon. and learned gentleman allows himself to talk of "hard-hearted metaphysicians, exceeding the devil in point of malignity," it is for him to reconcile such language with the general tenor of his sentiments on other occasions; to explain, 766 as he best may, to those around him, whether they are included in that insinuation—and it is for me to meet that insinuation (as far as it was levelled at me) with those feelings of utter scorn with which I now repel it.
Still, Sir, it sits heavily on my mind, that any individual, or any body of individuals, should in any quarter be impressed with the notion, that I, or any of my right hon. colleagues, could be capable of that which has been imputed to us; and it is but perfectly natural that I should feel anxious to show that my own conduct, and that of my right hon. friends, has not been such as, in some quarters, it has been represented to be.
The hon. member for Coventry, and the hon. and learned member for Lincoln, have, by some strange perversion, argued the whole case, as if I, and those who act with me, were hastily and prematurely pressing on some new, and, till this evening, unheard-of measure—as if we were attempting to enforce that measure by all the influence of government: instead of which, we have proposed nothing, and are lying upon our oars, quietly waiting for the going into effect of an act of parliament, passed more than eighteen months ago, with the unanimous concurrence of this House; an act which is now the law of the land; and of the enactments of which all the parties concerned were as fully apprized on the day when it first passed this House, as they can be at this moment.
In the view which I take of the speech of the hon. member for Coventry, of which I do not complain, and of the speech of the hon. and learned member for Lincoln, of which I do complain, the greater part of their arguments go to impugn those principles of commercial policy, which under the sanction of Parliament, have now prevailed in this country, for the last two or three years;—a policy, which has for its object gradually to unfetter the commerce of the country, by the removal of those oppressive prohibitions and inconvenient restrictions, which had previously existed; and to give every facility and encouragement, consistent with vested interests, to the extension of the skill, the capital, and the industry of the people of England.
This, then, being the real drift of the argument especially brought forward by the hon. and learned gentleman, it is, with reference to a much greater question, that 767 I find myself called upon to consider the present motion. The point at issue is, not whether we shall grant the committee, but whether we shall re-establish the prohibitory system? If we re-establish it in one instance, we shall very soon be called upon to do so in many others. If we once tread back our steps, we shall not be able, in this retrograde motion, to stop at that point from which we first set out:—we must go further, and, ere long, we should have in this country a system of commerce, far more restrictive than that which was in force before the late changes. Anxious as I am to persevere in our present course, I say that, if we once depart from it, we must at least be consistent in our new career; and that, to be consistent, we must impose restrictions and prohibitions, far beyond those which have been lately removed.
The present question, therefore, is not simply the motion before the House—but, neither more nor less than, whether a restrictive or an enlarged system of commercial policy be the best for this country?
In order to come to a sound decision upon so important a subject, it behoves the House to look back a little to the course of events, and to bear in mind some of the occurrences which have materially contributed to those relaxations in the restrictive system, of which it is now the fashion to complain.
With this view, I must ask the permission of the House to call its attention to a petition, presented to the House in the month of May, 1820, a period which, like the present, was one of great difficulty and public distress. The petition is somewhat long, but, I assure the House, that those hon. members who may favour me with their attention will be well rewarded by hearing sound principles laid down, in the clearest language, not by philosophers and unbending theorists—not by visionaries and hard-hearted metaphysicians, with the feelings of demons in their breasts—but by merchants and traders; men of the greatest practical experience in all that relates to commerce. This, petition, Sir, is a document of no ordinary interest. The House will see how decidedly the petitioners maintain the principles upon which his majesty's government have acted; and, when I have done reading it, I am sure they will admit, that those principles are therein expounded in words far more apt and for- 768 cible than any which I can command. The petition, as I have already said, is not the exposition of any speculative doctrine. It conveys to the House the deliberate judgment of the merchants and traders of the city of London; the result of their daily observation of the evils inflicted upon the country, by the unnecessary restrictions imposed upon their industry and pursuits. The petition states,—
"That foreign commerce is eminently conducive to the wealth and prosperity of the country, by enabling it to import the commodities for the production of which the soil, climate, capital, and industry of other countries are best calculated, and to export in payment those articles for which its own situation is better adapted.
"That freedom from restraint is calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, and the best direction to the capital and industry of the country.
"That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market, and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable, as the best rule for the trade of the whole nation.
"That a policy, founded on these principles, would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state.
"That, unfortunately, a policy, the very reverse of this, has been, and is more or less adopted and acted upon by the government of this and of every other country; each trying to exclude the productions of other countries, with the specious and well-meant design of encouraging its own productions; thus inflicting on the bulk of its subjects, who are consumers, the necessity of submitting to privations in the quantity or quality of commodities; and thus rendering, what ought to be the source of mutual benefits, and of harmony among states, a constantly recurring occasion of jealousy and hostility.
"That the prevailing prejudices in favour of the protective or restrictive system may be traced to the erroneous supposition, that every importation of foreign commodities occasions a diminution or discouragement of our own productions to the same extent, whereas, it may be clearly shown, that although the particular description of production which 769 could not stand against unrestrained foreign competition would be discouraged; yet, as no importation could be continued for any length of time without a corresponding exportation, direct or indirect, there would be an encouragement for the purpose of that exportation of some other production, to which our situation might be better suited; thus affording at least an equal, and probably a greater, and certainly a more beneficial employment to our own capital and labour."
I will not trouble the House with reading the whole of this valuable document.—[Loud cries of "Read! read!"] I will then, Sir, read the whole, for it is a most valuable document; and, indeed, so it was thought at the time, for it is one of a few, if not the only one, which is given at length in the published reports of our proceedings.
"That of the numerous protective and prohibitory duties of our commercial code, it may be proved, that while all operate as a very heavy tax on the community at large, very few are of any ultimate benefit to the classes in whose favour they were originally instituted, and none to the extent of the loss occasioned by them to other classes.
"That among the other evils of the restrictive or protective system, not the least is, that the artificial protection of one branch of industry, or source of protection against foreign competition, is set up as a ground of claim by other branches for similar protection; so that, if the reasoning upon which these restrictive or prohibitory regulations are founded were followed consistently, it would not stop short of excluding us from all foreign commerce whatsoever.
"And the same strain of argument which, with corresponding prohibitions and protective duties, should exclude us from foreign trade, might be brought forward to justify the re-enactment of restrictions upon the interchange of productions (unconnected with public revenue) among the kingdoms composing the union, or among the counties of the same kingdom.
"That an investigation of the effects of the restrictive system at this time is peculiarly called for, as it may, in the opinion of the petitioners, lead to a strong presumption, that the distress which now so generally prevails is considerably aggravated by that system; and that some relief may be obtained by the earliest 770 practicable removal of such of the restraints as may be shown to be most injurious to the capital and industry of the community, and to be attended with no compensating benefit to the public revenue.
"That a declaration against the anti-commercial principles of our restrictive system is of the more importance at the present juncture, inasmuch as, in several instances of recent occurrence, the merchants and manufacturers in foreign states have assailed their respective governments with applications for further protective or prohibitory duties and regulations, urging the example and authority of this country, against which they are almost exclusively directed, as a sanction for the policy of such measures: and certainly, if the reasoning upon which our restrictions have been defended is worth any thing, it will apply in behalf of the regulations of foreign states against us; they insist upon our superiority in capital and machinery, as we do upon their comparative exemption from taxation, and with equal foundation.
"That nothing would more tend to counteract the commercial hostility of foreign states, than the adoption of a more enlightened and more conciliatory policy on the part of this country.
"That although, as a matter of mere diplomacy, it may sometimes answer to hold out the removal of particular prohibitions on high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other states in our favour, it does not follow, that we should maintain our restrictions, in cases where tire desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained; our restrictions would not be less prejudicial to our own capital and industry, because other governments persisted in pursuing impolitic regulations.
"That, upon the whole, the most liberal would prove to be the most politic course on such occasions.
"That, independent of the direct benefit to be derived by this country on every occasion of such concession or relaxation, a great incidental object would be gained by the recognition of a sound principle or standard, to which all subsequent arrangements might be referred; and by the salutary influence which a promulgation of such just views, by the legislature and by the nation at large, could not fail to have on the policy of other states.
771 "That in thus declaring, as the petitioners do, their conviction of the impolicy and injustice of the restrictive system, and in desiring every practical relaxation of it, they have in view only such parts of it as are not connected, or are only subordinately so, with the public revenue: as long as the necessity for the present amount of revenue subsists, the petitioners cannot expect so important a branch of it as the Customs to be given up, nor to be materially diminished, unless some substitute less objectionable be suggested: but it is against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue, against all duties merely protective from foreign competition, and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue and partly for that of protection: that the prayer of the present petition is respectfully submitted to the wisdom of parliament; the petitioners therefore humbly pray, that the House will be pleased to take the subject into consideration, and to adopt such measures as may be calculated to give greater freedom to foreign commerce, and thereby to increase the resources of the state."
It will be clear to all who have been at the trouble to attend to the very able document which I have just read, that it embraces all the great principles of commercial policy, upon which parliament has since legislated.
Why do I lay so much stress upon this petition? For the purpose of showing, first, that if the government have pursued this course, we have done so, not on the recommendations of visionaries and theorists, but of practical men of business: secondly, that the merchants of the city of London—the great mart of the commerce and wealth of the country—felt convinced, in 1820, that the distress of that period was greatly aggravated by the narrow and short-sighted system of restrictions and prohibitions which then prevailed; and that, in their judgment, the alleviation, if not the cure of that distress, was to be sought for in the removal of those restrictions and prohibitions.
And, because we have followed up, cautiously and circumspectly, the recommendations of the mercantile community, are we to be told by men who know nothing of commerce, that we are unfeeling projectors and metaphysicians, insensible to the wants and the miseries of our 772 fellow creatures? If this be a just charge against us, what are we to think of the parties who could sign, or of the member who could present, such a petition as this? This morning I took the trouble to look at the names of the merchants who signed it; and, the first signature I read is that of one of the most distinguished of that class in the city of London; a gentleman who was many years ago governor of the Bank of England, who is now one of the directors of that establishment, and who was, for a long time, a valuable member of this House; a gentleman, who, in the best sense of the word, is a practical man, and one whose conduct in private life would protect him (if any man can be protected by his conduct) from the suspicion of being a "wild and unfeeling theorist"—a "hard-hearted metaphysician"—"alike indifferent to the wants and the miseries of his fellow creatures"—I mean Mr. Samuel Thornton. And, besides his name, the list contains the names of others, who, like him, have been governors of the Bank of England; of several who are now in the direction of that great establishment; and of many who hold the highest rank in the commercial world.
Let it not, however, be supposed, that I offer this petition to the House in the way of an apology for myself and my right hon. colleagues—in the way of extenuation of any thing which we may have done, to excite the wrath of the hon. and learned member for Lincoln. Sir, I think now, as I have always thought, that our measures require no apology. I believe now, as I have always believed, that they are calculated to promote the best interests of the people. I say now, as I have always said, that those who, either by their speeches in parliament, or the exertions of their talents out of it, have contributed to bring the people of England to look with an eye of favour on the principles recommended in this petition, have done themselves the greatest honour, and the country an essential benefit.
If, however, I refrain from troubling the House with apologies, where I feel that they are not required, neither do I wish to claim for his majesty's government, any participation in the merit of these measures, beyond what really belongs to us. By a reference to many other petitions and proceedings of a like nature with those to which I have already adverted, I could show that, in all these matters, the first impulse was not given 773 by the government. We claim for ourselves no such credit. The changes hitherto made have been the result of public opinion, sanctioned by the concurrence of practical men, and confirmed by the proceedings and inquiries of the two Houses of parliament. We did not create that opinion: we did not anticipate it: we did not even act upon it, until it was clearly and distinctly manifested. And, in what we have done, we have not exceeded the sober limits prescribed by the authority of those who, by the habits and pursuits of their lives, were most competent to form a sound judgment. But, when that judgment was pronounced and recorded, it was our duty to act upon it. From those who fill responsible situations, the country has a right to expect, not that they should be slow of conviction to important truths in matters of political economy; but that they should be cautious in deliberating, before they attempt to give them a practical application. The goad which is used to give increased impetus to the machine is an instrument more properly placed in other hands: the care of government should rather be to regulate the drag, so as not to check the advance, but to maintain a safe and steady progress towards improvement.
Has this been the principle of our policy on the subject now under consideration? Before I sit down, I think I shall prove, Sir, that the system upon which his majesty's government have acted has uniformly; been guided by that principle. Need I remind the House, how frequently, and with what asperity, we have been charged from the opposite benches, with reluctance and tardiness in carrying into execution those principles of an enlarged and enlightened policy in matters of commerce, upon which all parties were said to be agreed? Year after year have we been urged by the force of public opinion out of doors, and by the earnest remonstrances of honourable members within, to adopt the very measures against which a senseless clamour is now attempted to be excited.
Who were the first, and the most earnest, in suggesting these measures—aye, and in wishing to push them to extremes—but some of those very persons whom we now find arrayed against us, and against those principles which they formerly supported? By whom was the petition which I have just read to the House presented? By whom was the prayer of it advocated?
774 After great note of preparation—after a formal notice of what wag about to come —this petition, Sir, was brought down, on the 8th of May 1820, by the hon. member for Taunton,* whom I now see in his place. He it was, Sir, who introduced it to the attention of the House, in a long, but able and elaborate, speech; too long to be read by me now, as I have read the petition; although, by so doing, I should add a most luminous commentary in support of the doctrines of that petition, and should best shew, by what force of argument and weight of authority the hon. member then contended for those measures which the House is now called upon to condemn, and in which condemnation he himself appears disposed to concur.
After mentioning the petition, and the great respectability of the gentlemen by whom it was signed; and after regretting that "there was in the then circumstances of public embarrassment much, to which no remedy could be applied, at least no parliamentary remedy," the hon. gentleman went on to say, that "the first desideratum was such security and tranquillity in the country as would enable the possessor of capital to employ it without apprehension."
The House will recollect, that the period at which this petition was laid upon our table was one of great public distress; and, in that respect, it but too much resembled the present time. Now, however, though the country is again visited with pecuniary pressure, and though the labouring classes (many of them) are suffering great privations from the want of employment, I feel confident that we shall not witness the same danger to property, or the same disposition to violence, which at that time prevailed in the manufacturing districts. I feel confident that the unfortunate individuals, who, in 1820, allowed themselves to be misled by unprincipled agitators, will recollect how much their sufferings were increased by listening to pernicious counsels—counsels, which may prolong and aggravate, but which can, in no case, abridge or relieve their privations—and that they will not, a second time, lend a willing ear to those who would lead them on to their destruction. I trust they will so conduct themselves under their present difficultiest
* Mr. Baring. See Parliamentary Debates, New Series, Vol. i. p. 165.775 as to conciliate the regard and sympathy of every other class, and to excite in the bosoms of those, from whom alone they can expect assistance, no other feelings than those of kindness and benevolence.Sir, after "security and tranquillity," the hon. member for Taunton proceeded to say, that "the second desideratum was, as great a freedom of trade as was compatible with other and important considerations." In the opinion of the hon. member, at that time, a free trade was the very essence of commercial prosperity; and, therefore, he pressed us to adopt, all at once, the system which we have since gradually introduced.
The hon. member then proceeded—as he has since done, upon several occasions, and done, indeed, this session—to tax my right hon. friend the chancellor of the Exchequer (who then filled the situation which I now hold), and the other members of his majesty's government, with apathy, and a total indifference to the distressed state of the manufacturing districts. "So far were they," said the hon. member, "from being sensible of the necessity of some exertion, that they went on, from year to year, trusting that the next year would be spontaneously productive of some favourable change, and, apparently, with very indistinct notions of what the real condition of the country was. Whenever a question arose between two classes of the community, government, without seeming to have any opinion of their own, stood by, until they ascertained which party could give them the most effectual support. If the House looked back to an earlier period of those which were still our own times, they would behold a different picture; they would find Mr. Pitt engaged in framing a commercial treaty; and amidst difficulties of every description, boldly taking whatever steps appeared to him to be the best calculated to advance our commercial prosperity. He wished that he could see a little of the same spirit in the present day; but, instead of that, his majesty's ministers were balancing one party against another, and trying how they could keep their places from year to year; neglecting, in the meanwhile, all those great commercial and national questions, to which their most lively attention ought to be directed."
The hon. member for Taunton then went on to say—and I perfectly agree with him—that, "the first doctrine which 776 the petitioners wished to combat, was that fallacious one which had, of late years, arisen, that this country ought to subsist on its own produce; that it was wise, on the part of every country to raise within itself the produce requisite for its consumption." "It was really absurd to contend," continued the hon. member, "that if a country, by selling any article of manufacture, could purchase the produce which it might require, at one-half the expense at which that produce could be raised, it should nevertheless be precluded from doing so."
This is unquestionably sound doctrine, and I readily admit it. But, how is it to be reconciled with the doctrine, which is now maintained by great authorities out of doors, as that which ought to be the rule of our commercial policy? According to these authorities, to which we have now to add that of the hon. and learned seconder of the present motion, prohibition is the only effectual protection to trade: duties must be unavailing for this purpose, because the influence of soil and climate, the price of labour, the rate of taxation, and other circumstances, are constantly varying in different countries, and consequently the scale of protection would require to be varied from month to month. But, what is the legitimate inference to be drawn from this exclusive system? Can it be other than this—that all interchange of their respective commodities, between different countries of the world, is a source of evil to the one or the other?—that each country must shut itself up within itself, making the most of its own resources, refusing all commerce with any other country, barbarously content to suffer wants which this commerce might easily supply, and to waste its own superfluous productions at home; because, to exchange them for the superfluities of that other country, instead of being an exclusive advantage to either party, would afford an equivalent benefit to both. This is the short theory of prohibitions, which these sage declaimers against all theory are so anxious to recommend to the practical merchants of this country.
But, if this system be wise and just in itself; if, for the reasons alleged in its support, it be necessary for the protection of British industry, let us see to what it leads. Can this country command labour on the same terms as Ireland? Is the scale of taxation the same? Are the 777 poor-rates the same in the two countries? Is there any country in Europe which, more than Ireland, differs from Great Britain in these and many other particulars, affecting their commercial relations? Does it not follow, that, if we admit the system of prohibitions now recommended to us by the hon. and learned member for Lincoln, we must prohibit all commercial intercourse with Ireland—we must revive those laws which forbade the manufactures, and repelled the productions of her soil—we must sacrifice the mutual benefits, which both parts of the empire now derive from the unrestricted freedom of intercourse—we must again revert to the prejudices of our ancestors?
And, for what?—because, from prejudices certainly less pardonable, if not from motives less sincere, than those of our ancestors, a senseless clamour has recently been raised against the present system of our commercial policy. I have no desire to disturb the partizans of the opposite system, in the enjoyment of their favourite theory. All I ask of them is, a similar forbearance towards us. Let each system be fully and fairly tried. For the sake of freedom of trade and industry, and for the sake of England, let England be the field of trial for our system. For the sake of prohibition and monopoly, let the system of our adversaries also be fairly tried; only let the trial be made upon some other country.
But, can prohibition ever be tried under circumstances of greater favour than it now experiences in Spain? In that flourishing country, prohibition has been carried to the very extreme. There restriction has been added to restriction-there, all the fruits of that beautiful system are to be seen, not yet, perhaps, in full maturity, but sufficiently mature, to enable every one to judge of their qualities. Spain is the best sample of the prohibitory system; the most perfect model of fallen greatness and of internal misery, of which modern civilization affords an example—an example to be traced, not only in the annihilation of her commerce and maritime power, but, in her scanty revenue, in her bankrupt resources, in the wretchedness of her population, and in her utter insignificance among the great powers of the world. The commercial policy of Spain is simply this—to admit nothing from other countries, except what the smuggler brings in. And the commercial wisdom of the 778 hon. and learned seconder of the present motion is equal to that of Spain.
I must now beg of the House to indulge me for a little, while I endeavour to go through the detail of the specific measures recommended in the speech of the hon. member for Taunton, on presenting the London petition. It will be perceived, how false and unfounded are all those clamours which have been heaped upon me and my right hon. colleagues, for having unnecessarily made those alterations in our system of commercial policy, which, if I am to believe certain gentlemen, have plunged this country into misery and ruin.
The hon. member for Taunton, who is so great a practical authority—the greatest, perhaps, this country affords—did not content himself, in this speech, with stating general principles. He referred to details; and, as I have just observed, he proposed measures of relief of a specific and particular nature. These propositions the House, I hope, will permit me to go over, one by one, in order to show that his majesty's government have not been wanting in attention to the suggestions of the merchants of the city of London, nor backward in adopting their remedies, and recommending them to the consideration of the House.
The first measure pointed out upon that occasion, and recommended in the warmest terms to the attention of his majesty's ministers, for the relief of the country, was, "an alteration of the duty on the importation of wool." "What can be so absurd," said the hon. member, "as a tax on the raw materials of our manufactures?" Accordingly, he urged the abolition of the duty on the importation of foreign wool, dyeing drugs, and such other articles as are used in the great manufactures of this country. What, at that time, was our answer to this proposition? Why, this—"we have no objection to take off the duty on the importation of foreign wool, provided you will consent to allow the free exportation of British wool."—"No," said the woollen manufacturers, "take off the duty on foreign wool, if you please; but keep in force the law which prohibits the exportation of British wool from this country." To this proposal we would not agree. We could not, upon any principle of justice, open our markets to an untaxed article of foreign growth, unless the manufacturer would concede his monopoly over 779 the like article of our own growth. After years and years of struggle and conflict, we at last succeeded in convincing our opponents, that the duty on foreign wool might be taken off, and the prohibition to export British wool be repealed, without endangering their interests.
And what has been the result? Where is the ruin that was so confidently predicted? I own I am more and more distrustful of the predictions of these practical authorities. Instead of our manufactures being ruined—instead of the fulfilment of the assurances, that all the British wool would be exported, to the utter destruction of our manufactures, and that from their destruction the foreign wool would no longer be wanted in this country—what has been the real effect of this measure? Why, that since the removal of the restrictions on the export, we have sent abroad the amazing quantity of 100,000lbs. weight of British wool; while, of foreign wool, we have imported no less a quantity than 40,000,000 lbs. weight. This, Sir, is not speculation. It is practice and result against speculation. We removed the restrictive and prohibitory duties, and the consequences were, that we imported an excess of the foreign raw material, while we exported, comparatively, none of native growth—because we had a better market for it at home. Good or bad, therefore, the first measure recommended to the attention of his majesty's ministers by the hon. member has been carried into complete effect.
The second measure proposed for our adoption by the hon. member for Taunton, was a general revision of the revenue laws, with a view to their simplification. The hon. member stated—and he stated truly—that those laws were so numerous, so complicated, and so contradictory, that mercantile men could not understand them —that they were at once a great impediment to trade, and a source of vexation and oppression to all who were engaged in it—that no man, however innocent his intention, could escape their penalties; that, therefore, it was the bounden duty of his majesty's government to simplify and consolidate them.
The task was one of great magnitude and difficulty; but, we did not shrink from it. My right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject; but, I am free to admit, that 780 we never could have succeeded in our undertaking, without the assistance of an official gentleman, in the service of the customs, a gentleman* of the most unwearied diligence, and who is entitled, for his persevering exertions, and the benefit he has conferred on the commercial world, to the lasting gratitude of the country. Of the difficulties of the undertaking, the House will be enabled to judge, when I state that there were no fewer than five hundred statutes, relative to the Customs alone, to wade through; independently of the numerous enactments concerning smuggling, warehousing the plantations, &c. In the performance of this duty, we had innumerable difficulties to encounter, and battles without end to fight. And now, Sir, in one little volume, † which I hold in my hand, are comprised all the laws at present in existence, on the subject of the management and the revenue of the Customs, of navigation, of smuggling, of warehousing, and of our colonial trade, compressed in so clear and yet so comprehensive a manner, that no man can possibly mistake the meaning or the application of them. I do not say this to boast of the successful result of our labours. It was the duty of government to do what it has done. I only adduce it to show, that this, the second recommendation of the hon. member, as the organ of the commercial world, has not been disregarded.
Then comes the third recommendation of the hon. member for Taunton; namely, that we should do away with' prohibitions altogether; and substitute, in all cases, protecting for prohibitory duties. I will beg leave to read a short extract from what I consider a very accurate report of this part of the hon. member's speech. "Another desirable step" said he, "would be, to do away totally prohibitions, as much as possible." To be sure, Sir, it may be difficult to reconcile "totally," and "as much as possible;" but, I have no doubt the hon. member's meaning was to express his thorough detestation of the prohibitory principle. "Where," he continues, "protection for particular manufactures is considered to be necessary, it ought to be in the form of duty, and not in that of prohibition. Prohibi-
* J. D. Hume, esq. Comptroller of his Majesty's Customs in the port of London.† Laws of the Customs, by J. D. Hume, esq.781 tions had, no doubt, seriously injured the revenue, by the encouragement which they gave to smuggling. The Customs had fallen off a million and a half, in the course of the last year. He was sure that a good deal of that defalcation might be ascribed to prohibitions."I intreat the House to attend to what follows in the speech of the hon. member—"Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose, that any prohibition would prevent the introduction of the articles which were in demand. The fact was, that, at an advance of twenty or twenty-five per cent, all light prohibited articles might be had at our doors. He would not say which sex was most to blame, but such was the fact." Now, here we have the opinion of a practical man, who had come to this conclusion after collecting the best evidence upon the subject, during his repeated visits to Paris. Indeed, I cannot help thinking, that the hon. member had silk, and nothing but silk, in his view, at the time when he made these allusions. The hon. member has long been a professor of those doctrines which he now reprobates me for upholding, as much as he then censured the government for not more readily adopting. Even in the year 1817 —also a period of distress—I find the hon. member declaring to the House, that, "in the article of silk, smuggling was carried on to a very great extent; a proof of which was to be found in the fact, that although silks were in much greater use now than formerly, yet that the British manufacturer was ruined." So that it appears, Sir, that in the year 1817, the silk manufacture, which, according to the doctrines of the present day, can only flourish under a system of prohibition, was, in that year, in a state of ruin, owing to prohibition.
The stagnation and embarrassment of 1816 and 1817 were followed by a state of unusual commercial activity. In like manner, the depression of 1822 and 1823 terminated in the extraordinary spirit of speculation which marked the Autumn of 1824, and the Spring and Summer of 1825. Is it not irrelevant to the present discussion to compare these two periods, each commencing with commercial distress, and each ending in over-trading—each marked, in its first stage, by a great contraction of our paper circulation, and the accumulation of a vast amount of gold in the coffers of the Bank, and, in its second, by a great 782 expansion of our circulating credit, and by the re-exportation of most of the gold which the Bank had previously accumulated. This comparison, whilst it connects itself with the question now under our immediate consideration, is calculated to throw some light on the equally important question of the currency, which, at this moment, occupies so much of the attention of parliament and of the country.
At the beginning of the year 1817, "the Bank," as we are informed by the report of the committee of 1819, "possessed a larger amount of cash and bullion in their coffers then they had been in the possession of at any former period since their establishment." With this accumulation, they gave notice of a partial resumption of cash payments, engaging to pay in gold all notes under 5l. From the beginning of 1817 till the month of July in that year, the whole demand for gold coin, under this notice, did not exceed 38,000l.; but, in consequence of a great augmentation of Bank paper in August 1817 (exceeding, by upwards of three millions, the amount of the corresponding month in the preceding year), and of a like augmentation of country paper, the foreign exchanges were turned against this country; and, from that moment, the gold was withdrawn from the Bank with much greater rapidity. In the course of the following eighteen months, many millions of coin were thus put into circulation, without any corresponding diminution in the amount of Bank notes; —or rather, to speak more accurately, these millions, as soon as they were taken from the Bank, were sent to France, and other parts of the continent, till the treasure of the Bank was very much reduced at the beginning of 1819; and then the amount of their notes was again contracted. This contraction was followed by a great depression of commerce, and of prices, in the subsequent years. During this depression, the government were frequently called upon, as they are now called upon, to give relief by an issue of commercial Exchequer-bills; but our first object, then, was permanently to restore—as our first object., now, is effectually to secure—a system of cash payments: the success of which might have been endangered by this mode of relief. So much for the first period, as far as relates to our currency.
In the first stage of the second period (1822, 1823, and a part of 1824), the Bank again accumulated an amount of 783 gold, greater even than what It possessed at the begining of 1817. Between September 1824 and November 1825, that gold was again taken out of the Bank, under all the like circumstances of foreign exchanges being against this country, and with the like results as had occurred in 1818. Again, notwithstanding the issue of so many millions of coin, the amount of Bank notes and of country paper was increased: again, these millions so issued were, for the greatest part, exported; and again, in the Autumn of 1825, the Bank was driven to take precautions, by contracting its circulation, in order to protect its remaining treasure. What has since occurred is known and felt by all.
So much for the currency; now for the trade.
In 1816, and 1817, during the first absorption of treasure by the Bank, the amount of silk imported was, upon the average of the two years, I,150,8071bs: in 1818, during the first flight of our coin to the continent, that importation was raised to 2,101,618 lbs., being an increase of 81 per cent.—Of sheep's wool, the average importation of the first two years was 11,416,853 lbs.: in the year 1818 alone the quantity was 26,405,4861bs. being an increase of 130 per cent.—Of cotton-wool, the average of the two first years was 423,580 bales: the amount in 1818 was 660,580 bales, being an increase of 57 per cent.
Let us now compare the import of the same articles in the years 1823 and 1824, with the import of 1825. It will turn out as follows; Silk, average import of 1823 and 1824, 2,780,600 lbs.: import of 1825, 4,231,673 lbs., being an increase at the rate of 50 per cent. Sheep's wool, average import of 1823 and 1824, 19,225,306 lbs.: import of 1825, 58,705,682 lbs., being an increase at the rate of 100 per cent. Cotton wool, average import of 1823 and 1824, 167,120,O65 lbs.: import of 1825, 222,457,616 lbs., being an increase at the rate of33 percent.*
I will not go more at length into this subject. It would lead me too far away from other topics, growing more immediately out of this debate, to which I
* These returns for the years 1823 and 1824, are made up from January to January, and for 1825 from October 1824 to October 1825; the return to January 1826 not being yet received.784 have still to advert; but, I have said enough to point out to those who take an interest in these matters, the intimate relation that exists between our currency and our trade; to show in what manner the expansion of our paper circulation, combined with an unfavourable foreign exchange, leads to over-trading, till overtrading again forces a contraction of the currency: thus, producing those alternations of extravagant excitement and of fearful depression, which this country has so often experienced of late years; alternations, of which the consequences are at once so dangerous to men of capital, so distressing to the labourers who depend for employment on that capital, and so subversive of those principles of security to property, on which the prosperity of every commercial state must ultimately rest.The immediate inference which I draw from this comparison is, that the present stagnation in the silk-trade is more produced by the late alternation, than by any effect of the law which will come into operation next July.
To return, Sir, to the speech of the hon. member for Taunton. The fourth point to which he called the attention of government was, the state of the navigation laws. The change which the hon. member recommended would, in fact, have amounted to the total repeal of those laws. He thought "that no restriction ought to be held on foreign ships importing into this country, whether the produce was of their own, or any other country." Accustomed to look on these laws as the prop of our maritime power, and to watch with a jealous eye any encroachment upon them, we could not consent to this sweeping principle of innovation. On the other hand, we professed ourselves ready to inquire, how far some of their regulations, inconvenient to trade, might be dispensed with, without prejudice to the higher political objects, for which these laws were originally enacted. This inquiry was gone into with great care, by a committee, over the labours of which, my right hon. friend, the master of the Mint, presided; and the result has been that, by his zeal and diligence, several measures have been introduced to the House, which have led to a relaxation in those laws, highly beneficial to the commerce of the country, and in no way injurious to our strength as a maritime power. But the principle of those laws is still retained. In this in- 785 stance, certainly, we have not been able to go all the lengths recommended by the practical men; bat, be it recollected, that the charge, against which I am now upon my defence, is that we are theorists.
The fifth point, which was strongly recommended by the hon. member for Taunton, was the removal of the transit duties on german linens and some other articles of foreign produce. At the very time that the hon. member was pressing for this removal, he must have been aware, that his majesty's ministers were sensible of the impolicy of these restrictions, and that they were desirous, not only to get rid of them but, also, to revise the whole system of bounties and drawbacks. But he could not be ignorant of the complication of interests, and the difficulty of detail, which we had to encounter, in every stage of this undertaking. He could not be ignorant of the prejudices by which this system was upheld. For the abatement of those prejudices, we thought it more safe and more expedient to trust to the influence of time and reason, than, at all hazards, to encounter them at once by an act of power. This was our theory in 1820; and, I am now happy to add that, by adhering to it, we have been completely successful. The transit duties have been all removed; and the system of bounties and drawbacks has undergone an entire revision, and been remodelled on an improved plan.
To come to the sixth recommendation of the hon. member for Taunton. He told us, that "it was of importance that we should alter our commercial regulations with respect to France. It was desirable," added he, "that all restrictive regulations between the trade of England and France should be removed; but to do so, we must begin at home. It would be unfair to attempt a negotiation for a commercial intercourse, while we kept our ports shut against them. Let it be considered, that it was not by a restrictive system that this country had grown to such a pitch of greatness; but, on the contrary, that such a system was a bar to that greatness. It was necessary also to remove am impression which our system of commerce had made abroad. We were looked up to as the first commercial nation in the world; and it was therefore believed, that we had adopted our restrictive or protecting system, from a conviction of its beneficial effects on our commerce. This impression it was our in- 786 terest, as well as our duty, to remove, by altering our commercial regulations with foreign powers."
This advice of the hon. member for Taunton, his majesty's government have also attended to. What have we done in this case? We have "begun at home." We have set an example to the nations of the continent. We have put an end to the restrictive system affecting France, as far as we could put an end to it. And, we have invited France to follow in our track, by doing away with the obstacles existing on her part to a greater freedom of trade. France has taken a first step towards placing the intercourse between the two countries upon a footing of great facility. This is a practical approximation on her part to the principle of a more enlarged system of commerce; a principle equally recognized by the most enlightened statesmen, and the most leading merchants of that country; a principle which cannot fail to make its way in France, as it has made its way in this country, by discussion and inquiry, and which, in proportion as it gains ground, will confer advantages upon France, and, by her and our example, furnish a salutary' lesson to the rest of the world.
As I have adverted to this subject, I will beg leave to say one word as to the convention of navigation recently concluded between the two countries; upon which a misconception appears to have gone abroad. I allude to the decree of the French government against the introduction of the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, through this country, into France, for home consumption. The regulation of this decree has been mistakenly considered as the effect of a stipulation under the convention. This I beg leave to deny. The decree is an act of the French government, quite independent of the convention. It might, and probably would, have been passed, had no such convention been made between the two countries. A similar law was proposed to the Chambers last year, and then only postponed. It is a regulation of which we have no right to complain, and against which we have no right to stipulate; because, the like restriction exists in this country. That for which we had a right to stipulate, and for which we have stipulated, is, that if, in relaxation of this decree, any of the productions of Asia, Africa, or America, are admitted into France for home consumption, from 787 this country, they shall be equally admitted, and upon the same duties, in British as in French vessels.
I do not deny that, beyond what is provided for by this convention, much might be done to improve the commercial relations of this country and France; but, the basis is laid down, and the contracting parties have expressly reserved to themselves "the power of making, by mutual consent, such relaxations in the strict execution of the article, as they may think useful to the respective interests of the two countries, on the principle of mutual concessions, affording each to the other reciprocal or equivalent advantages." The development and further application of this principle must be left to time, and to an improved state of public opinion in France. But, I confidently appeal to the House, and to the hon. member, to say, whether the best course for doing away with prejudices and unfavourable impressions on the continent, would be for us to retrace our steps; to re-enact the old prohibitions and restrictions; and to exclude foreign merchandize and foreign shipping, as we had formerly done.
Seventhly, and lastly, the hon. member for Taunton recommended to his majesty's government, "an extension of our trade with British India." In answer to this suggestion, it is only necessary for me to say, that our attention has been incessantly directed towards that desirable object. We have left no steps untried, to prevail on the East India company to consent to an enlargement of the private trade. To a certain point we have succeeded, though not to the extent of our wishes. If all that the hon. member sought for has not been done, the fault is not ours: we have no means of compelling the company to comply with the wishes of the merchants. The vested rights of that corporation have been conferred upon them by parliament; and, inconvenient or not, we are bound to respect those rights, till the expiration of that period for which they have been granted.
These are the principal improvements which were urged on the government of the country, in the year 1820, by the hon. member for Taunton; speaking—be it always remembered—in the name, and on the behalf, of the merchants of London. To all of these suggestions, I say, his majesty's ministers have attended. My right hon. friend, the chancellor of 788 the Exchequer, who then filled the situation which I now hold, replied to the speech of the hon. member on that occasion. He repelled the accusation of the hon. member, that the government were insensible to the sufferings of the people. He avowed his desire to proceed in the course that was recommended; but he, at the same time, represented the difficulties by which his endeavours had, till then, been opposed. Did the hon. member acknowledge himself satisfied with the assurance and explanation of my right honourable friend? By no means Sir.
So eager was the hon. member for Taunton for the immediate enforcement of these important changes, that he concluded his reply to my right hon. friend, in the following terms: "As to the petition itself, the principles which it contained had met with so unanimous a support, that he wondered whence that opposition could come, by which the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade seemed to be deterred from attempting any reform of our commercial system; and he could not help expressing a hope, that, for the future, that right hon. gentleman would not listen entirely to the suggestions of others, but, in treating the subject, would rely on his own excellent understanding."
With this admonition, the debate closed. The recommendations of the hon. member —the great authorities from which they originated—convinced the government, that the time was come, when they might go forward with measures, to which they had long before avowed a friendly disposition. The consequence was, a determination, on their part, to institute an inquiry before a committee of this House, in order to ascertain, how far and by what course of proceeding, the steps recommended, and any others founded upon the same principles, could be acted upon, for the general improvement of the commerce of the country.
In the other House of parliament, a committee was sitting, whose labours were directed to the same object. This committee had been appointed upon the motion of a noble marquis (the marquis of Lansdown), who had, at all times, taken the liveliest interest, in whatever relates to the trade and commerce of the country, and whose principles, in these matters, unlike to the grasshopper on the Royal Exchange, do not veer about, with every 789 change of the wind, or with every fluctuation in the speculations of those who transact business in that Exchange.
One of the subjects which particularly engaged the attention of the noble marquis, and of the committee over which he presided, was, the state of the silk trade. They heard evidence; they called for papers; and they examined witnesses from every quarter. What was the result of their investigation? Why, Sir, they state in their report, that, "it appears to the committee, that there is no bounds to smuggling, under the prohibitive system; and that, in the opinion of the committee, protecting duties might, advantageously, be substituted for prohibitive ones."
Such was the view taken by the committee of the House of Lords in 1821. I will not detain the House, by going at length into the course of inquiry by which they arrived at this conclusion. But, some attempt has been made this night to undervalue the evidence of two merchants from the United States, who were examined before the committee; and examined, be it recollected, upon oath. These two merchants came to Europe, for the purpose of purchasing silks. They first visited France; and then they came to England. They could be actuated by no other interest than that of procuring silks on the cheapest terms.
And what was their evidence? On being asked, as to the relative cost of the silks of France and the silks of England, one of them said, that "he had bought goods in France and in England; and that the difference, when the quality was equal, was from twenty to twenty-five per cent." And the other said, that "the difference did not exceed twenty per cent." But, both of them stated, that, in the article of silk hosiery, price and quality considered, they greatly preferred the English manufacture to that of France.
The report containing this evidence, recommended an alteration of the laws relative to the silk trade, by the removal of the duty on the raw material, and of the prohibition on wrought silks. Hon. members, however, are aware, that the House of Lords could not, from the nature of the proposed change, initiate a measure, to carry into effect the object of this report.
Nothing further took place till the year 1823; when the hon. member for the city of London (Mr. T. Wilson) came down to this House with a petition from the 790 master manufacturers of Spital-fields, praying for a repeal of what is generally called, "the Spital-fields' act." This, as the House well knows, was a law for regulating the mode of working in that district; and for enabling the magistrates to fix the rate of wages to be given for each description of work. In short, a most unfit law to remain upon the Statute-book; but the professed object of which was, to protect the men against the exactions of their masters. The only possible excuse for having ever passed such a law is, that, when it was passed, the masters had a monopoly of the silk manufacture in this country.
I will tell the House why I state this. A deputation of the weavers of Spital-fields waited upon me, and my right hon. friend, the other day. They are a sincere, well-meaning, and, certainly, a well-behaved body of men. After hearing their representations, I was satisfied, that if I had put it to them, to make their choice between the revival of the Spital-fields act, or of the prohibitory system—if I had said to them, "You cannot have both a prohibition and the Spital-fields act, but you may have either the one or the other-take your choice!"—they would have instantly said, "Give us the Spital-fields act, and let the prohibition go to the winds." So much for practical feeling; which is now urged in opposition to what is called theory!
And here I must beg leave shortly to refer to the doctrine laid down in the petition presented in 1823, by the hon. member for the city of London, to which I have just alluded. The petitioners state, "that with our unlimited supply of silk from our territories in India, we might be independent of the rest of the world; that with our great command of capital, and the unrivalled skill of our artizans, the manufacturers did not fear the competition of any foreigners: and that, with a free trade, silk would become, like cotton, one of the staple manufactures of the country."
I do not mean to accuse these petitioners of making this statement, in order to entrap the public, and to induce the parliament to take measures which they knew would involve their own manufacture in distress; but, I have a right to refer to their petition, as well as to the more general petition of the merchants of London, to show that the measures which his majesty's ministers have taken are neither 791 the offspring of theory, nor measures which, they carried in opposition to the prevailing opinion of the country, or of the trade. They brought forward these measures, because they were convinced that they were founded in sound policy; but not till they were satisfied, that they would meet with the concurrence and support of those who had a more immediate interest in their result. So far was government from any precipitation in carrying them into effect, that it was not till the year 1824, that they determined to propose the repeal of the duty on the raw material, and to permit the importation of foreign manufactured silk, subject to a protecting duty. They were aware that, without taking the duty off the raw material, they could not attempt this improvement; but, as soon as my right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer was enabled, by the flourishing state of the finances, to reduce taxation, he did not hesitate to remit this duty, as the necessary preliminary to the removal of the prohibition.
From that moment we lost the support of the hon. member for Taunton, to whom I have so often alluded; and his voice was only heard in opposition to measures which he had so long been recommending for our adoption.
My right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, having, on the 23rd of February 1824, stated generally to the House, what it was our intention to do; it fell to my lot, on the 8th of March to open the measure more in detail. Then it was that I heard, for the first time, of the serious opposition which the proposed measure would receive from the hon. member for Taunton. Then it was, that, seconded by the hon. member for Coventry, who opened the debate of this evening, he declared, that, by the end of the two years which I proposed to allow before the prohibition should finally cease, the silk trade would be destroyed.
This delay I now consider to have been the greatest error that was then committed, and the origin of our present difficulty, as far as this trade is concerned. "Those," said the hon. member for Taunton, "who propose this new plan, are completely ruining the silk manufacture of England. The moment this plan is promulgated, the great object of all who have capitals embarked in the manufacture will be, to disentangle those capitals; and those who have no capital, except their labour, will be left to struggle for them- 792 selves, and probably to perish, for want of employment."*
Such, in 1824, were the gloomy forebodings of the hon. member for Taunton. Experience has made me rather obdurate to all such prophecies; for, so many are daily made by individuals whose fears are excited, or who, when they suppose their particular interests to be at stake, attempt to excite fear in others, that I must have abandoned every measure which I have brought forward for improving our commercial policy, had I allowed myself to be acted upon by such forebodings.
Last year, for instance, I received representations from the iron trade—day after day, and month after month; but, I could not share in their alarms. I must state this, however, with one exception. There exists in this country one considerable establishment, in which iron is smelted by charcoal in great perfection, but at a heavy expense. This iron is held in equal estimation with the best from Sweden; but there was reason to apprehend, that it could not, under the reduced duty, maintain itself in competition with the latter. The establishment in question belongs to a most respectable and scientific gentleman, well known to many members of this House —Dr. Ainslie. Having heard his statement, I told him that, although I could not alter a general measure to meet one particular case, I would endeavour to devise some other mode of relief, if he should be overwhelmed by the competition.
And, what does the House think has been the result? Sir, within the last fortnight, that respectable individual has sent me word, through an hon. member of this House, not only that his fears have not been realized, but that my most sanguine hopes had been confirmed—that his trade, in fact, had in no degree suffered by those very measures, which he apprehended would have been fatal to it; and that it was, upon the whole, in a very flourishing state.
Let us now see how far the predictions of the hon. member for Taunton, and the hon. member for Coventry, have been realized. These predictions were, that the silk trade would be annihilated, in the course of the two years allowed to the manufacturers to prepare for the change.
The bill passed this House m the Spring of 1824; and, during the rest of that year,
* Parliamentary Debates, Vol. x, p. 817.793 the silk trade went on flourishing and increasing, in the face of this threatened annihilation. In the Spring of 1825, there prevailed a degree of excitement—a spirit of speculation—an extension of demand m this manufacture—to a greater degree than had ever been witnessed before, in almost any branch of trade. It was in 1825, that so many new factories were erected; so many new mills set at work: so many new looms occupied. The old mills were not sufficient: many new ones were raised; the erection of each of which, I am assured, did not cost less than from 10,000l. to 15,000l.: and several of these Mw mills have not even yet been roofed in.Thus, at the very time when, to satisfy the prediction of the hon. member for Taunton, this trade should have been in a state of rapid decline, the manufacturers were building to an excess that had never been equalled in the periods of their greatest prosperity.
The hon. and learned member for Lincoln has alluded to the present condition of the town of Macclesfield. I know what misfortunes and bankruptcies have occurred there, and I feel the deepest and most undissembled sorrow for the sufferings of that population. I am aware of their distressed state at this moment. But I cannot help thinking, that the hon. and learned member, in stating their situation, should also have stated some of the circumstances which have aggravated, if not created, their present difficulties; for, certain it is, that the spirit of speculation has, in that town, been carried to the greatest extravagance. According to the last census in 1821, the whole population of Macclesfield amounted to 17,746 souls. Now, I will suppose that, between that year and the year 1825, it increased to 20,000. What, then, in that year, was the demand for additional labour, in the silk manufacture alone of that town? I have seen, and many other gentlemen have no doubt seen, in a Macclesfield newspaper, of the 19th of February 1825, the following advertisement:—"To overseers, guardians of the poor, and families desirous of settling in Macclesfield. Wanted immediately, from four to five thousand persons," [Loud cries of hear, hear!]. The House may well express their surprise; but, I beseech their attention to the description of persons required by this advertisement —" from seven to twenty years of age" —so that the silk manufacturers were content to receive children of the tender 794 age of only seven years—"to be employed in the throwing and manufacturing of silk. The great increase of the trade having caused a great scarcity of workmen, it is suggested, that this is a most favourable opportunity for persons with large families, and overseers who wish to put out children" (children of seven years of age!) as apprentices, to ensure them a comfortable livelihood. "Application to be made, if by letter post paid, to the printer of this paper."
Humanity is not the least remarkable part of this precious document; and the House will not fail to observe, how admirably the cruelty of confining children of seven years of age to labour in a silk mill, for twelve or fifteen hours out of the four-and-twenty, is tempered, by the inducement to parents to provide for their families for life. What sort of provision that has been, the present wretched state of those helpless infants will best evince. And here I cannot help observing, that, at the very time such an invitation was sent forth to overseers and parents, by the owners of silk-mills, this House was very properly occupied in passing a bill, to prevent the employment of children under nine years of age in cotton factories.
Very soon after this advertisement, and before the mills were finished, in which these children were to be immured, there appeared, I have been assured, another advertisement, nearly in the same extravagant style:—"Wanted to be built immediately one thousand houses!"—doubtless to contain five thousand new inhabitants. Yet, all this took place in the year 1825; just one year, according to the honourable member for Taunton, before the silk trade was to expire for ever. I ask, then, what weight can be given to the predictions of those, who, in the face of these striking facts, continue to assert, that the silk trade of this country will be annihilated before the end of the next twelve months? Can any man wonder, after such an enormous extent of speculation—after such inhuman efforts to induce so many destitute children to flock into the manufactories—after such an influx of population—can any man, I say, wonder—all branches of this trade being now in a stagnant state—at most of these newcomers being out of work at Macclesfield-—or, at the fact stated by the hon. and learned member for Lincoln—liis hair almost standing on end with horror, "that eleven orders for the removal of as 795 many paupers, had been made out in one week?"
Under ordinary circumstances, it could scarcely have been expected, that the silk manufacture alone could have formed an exception to the general re-action which has followed over-trading and speculation in every other branch of commerce; but, under the circumstances of peculiar excitement which I have now stated, it would, indeed, have been matter of surprise, had it escaped its full share of the common pressure.
Sir, I feel that, upon this occasion, a heavy burthen is imposed upon me. I feel that I have not only to defend myself from the attack of the hon. member for Lincoln, but to say something in behalf of my right hon. colleagues;—something in vindication of the House itself, for the course which they have pursued, in the adoption of the system of commercial policy which we recommended.
As the whole of that system has been so vigorously attacked, I shall, I trust, be excused, if I touch, very briefly, upon the proceedings of the last session of parliament: when, in furtherance of that system, and with the cordial concurrence of this House, I brought forward measures of a more general nature than the silk bill of the preceding session; inasmuch as they went to effect an important, and more extensive change, in the colonial, as well as in the commercial policy of the country. The colonial part of the subject had not, I admit, been much pressed upon his majesty's government, either by representations in this House, or in discussion out of doors. But, there are occasions on which it is the duty of a vigilant government, instead of waiting for such pressure, to watch the signs of the times, and to accommodate their policy to those changes in the world, under the continued operation of which, a blind adherence to our former system would no longer be either safe or expedient. Upon this principle, I shall be ready to vindicate the alterations, great as they are, in the policy of our colonial commerce, whenever those alterations may be called in question; but as, hitherto, they have not been attacked in this House, and as they received the special approbation of the hon. member for Taunton, I shall now say no more upon that part of the subject.
With respect to the alterations in our general commercial system, however extensive in their application, what were the 796 objects which they embraced? They went to the removal of useless and inconvenient restrictions, to the doing away of prohibitions, and to the lowering of duties so excessive, as to be in fact prohibitory on the productions of other countries—restrictions, prohibitions, and duties, which, without benefit, nay, highly mischievous to ourselves, have produced all the evil effects, and given rise, in other parts of the world, to the retaliatory efforts of foreign governments, to put down the commerce of this country. These were some of the bad consequences justly attributed to our exclusive system by the hon. member for Taunton and the merchants of London, in the speech and petition to which I have so often referred.
And here I cannot but express my astonishment, that gentlemen (I am now speaking of persons out of doors)—who must be better informed—whose sincerity I cannot doubt—but whose judgment, in this respect, seems to be most unaccountably perverted—impute all the prevailing distress, as well as the derangement in the foreign exchanges, which preceded, and, in a great degree, produced that distress, to this lowering of excessive duties, and removal of unnecessary prohibitions.
I have called for the production of a paper, which has not yet been printed, but which will, I hope, in the course of twenty-four hours, be in the hands of every hon. member—for the purpose of showing what have been, during the last year, the actual imports of most of the principal articles, the duty on which has been materially reduced. From this document, it will be manifest, that, although there has been some increase of import in most of those articles, in none has it been carried to any great extent. In manufactured goods—cottons, wool-lens, linens, &c. the increased import of the whole does not exceed a few thousand pounds. And yet, in opposition to this decisive evidence, there are those, I understand, who have had dealings for mil-lions in foreign loans, who, to facilitate the payments of those loans, and other financial operations of foreign governments, have sent million after million of our gold coin, drawn from the Bank of England, to the bank of Paris, and who, in the face of such gigantic operations—the benefit of which to this country (whatever it may be to themselves) it is difficult to conceive—have been pleased to attribute the unfavourable state of the 797 foreign exchanges, during the last summer and autumn, to the commercial measures adopted by parliament in the preceding session.
I am happy to say, that where the duties have been lowered upon articles of consumption, the result has hitherto fully borne me out in all my anticipations. In the six months which immediately followed the reduction of the duty on coffee, the consumption of that article has nearly doubled, without occasioning any decrease in the consumption of tea. In wine, the duty upon which, we were told, ought not to have been reduced without some reciprocity to the productions of this country, the consumption has also increased in an equal degree. And thus it will appear, that the same amount of revenue has been attained by the government from diminished burthens; thereby leaving greater means of comfort and enjoyment to the people.
I come now to the real jet of the silk question; and which—I say it with all due deference to the hon. mover and seconder of the present motion—has not been, in the slightest degree, touched upon by either of them.
It is admitted, on all hands, that silk is an article which can be easily smuggled; and, that it is now smuggled to a very considerable extent, in spite of all the preventive measures that have, from time to time, been adopted. Now, the object of the British manufacturer is, as much as possible, to shut out the competition of his foreign rival. If smuggling could be prevented, I would concede to him, that prohibition would be most effectual to this object. But, if it cannot, what is the advantage of prohibition over a protecting duty of 30 per cent? I say, of 30 per cent, because I never yet conversed with a single merchant or manufacturer, who did not admit, that if a higher protecting duty were imposed, the supply of foreign silk goods would be thrown into the hands of the smuggler.
The question, then, looking at it practically, is this—In what degree is prohibition better, as against smuggling, than a well-regulated duty?—by which I mean a duty sufficient to protect the British manufacturer, without being so high as to afford a premium to the smuggler.
In the first place, it cannot be denied, that the feelings of mankind are more likely to restrain them from committing a fraud, than from violating a Custom-house 798 prohibition. I am sure it will be conceded to me, that many honourable persons, who would not, for any temptation, be parties to a contrivance to evade a tax, and thereby to rob the public revenue, would feel very little scruple, in wearing an article that is absolutely prohibited, and the introduction of which is not in opposition to any moral duty.
So far, then, the argument, in support of the assertion, that a prohibitory law is the best check upon smuggling, makes directly the other way, and is in favour of protecting duties.
But, the great, indeed the only argument in favour of prohibition in preference to a protecting duty is this—that after the forbidden goods have been landed in this country, and when they are in the possession of individuals, even for their own use or consumption, you may follow them into private dwellings, nay, into the very pockets of the wearers, and seize them upon their persons, in the king's name, at the bare suggestion of any common informer.
To what does this power of seizing and examining all who may be suspected of possessing prohibited articles, amount? Sir, it amounts to this—that if any man —no matter what may be his rank, be he the humblest peasant or the highest peer in the realm—be suspected of wearing or possessing a silk handkerchief of foreign manufacture, he is liable to have it taken from his neck or his pocket, and to have his house ransacked, from the garret to the cellar, in quest of contraband articles. If, without such a subsidiary regulation as this—a regulation which encourages the worst passions, engenders the most appalling perjury and crime, and which opens so wide a door either to fraud and collusion, or to intimidation and personal violence—prohibition cannot be sustained; then, Sir, I say, in preference to such a system, let us in God's name have a well-regulated duty.
And here I hope I may be permitted to digress for one moment, to ask, how a great constitutional lawyer—a staunch advocate for the popular character of our constitution —a zealous stickler-for the inalienable rights of the people—a watchful guardian of the sanctity of an Englishman's private abode;—how he could so entirely discipline and subdue his warm and boasted feelings for the liberty of the subject, as to pour forth the declamatory harangue which we have heard this night 799 from the learned member for Lincoln, in favour of this system of prohibition?
But, even with the aid of this power of search and seizure, is prohibition an effectual remedy against smuggling? I have lately taken some pains to ascertain the quantity of smuggled silks that has been seized, inland, throughout the kingdom, during the last ten years; and I find that the whole does not exceed 5,000l. a-year. I have endeavoured, on the other hand, to get an account of the quantity of silk goods actually smuggled into this country. Any estimate of this quantity must be very vague; but I have been given to understand, that the value of such goods as are regularly entered at the Customhouses of France, for exportation to this country, is from 100,000l. to 150,000l. a-year; and this, of course, is exclusive of the far greater supply which is poured in, through all the channels of smuggling, without being subjected to any entry. In fact, to such an extent is this illicit trade carried on, that there is scarcely a haberdasher's shop, in the smallest village of the kingdom, in which prohibited silks are not sold; and that in the face of day, and to a very considerable extent.
The hon. member for Coventry has mentioned the silk goods from India, as those against which any thing but prohibition would prove an unavailing protection. Now, in my opinion, it is scarcely possible to conceive a stronger case than those very silks furnish against the hon. member's own argument. X believe it is universally known, that a large quantity of Bandana handkerchiefs are sold, every year, for exportation, by the East-India company. But, does any gentleman suppose, that these Bandanas are sent to the continent, for the purpose of remaining there? No such thing! They are sold at the Company's sales to the amount of 800,000 or a million of handkerchiefs each year, at the rate of about four shillings each. They are immediately shipped off for Hamburgh, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Ostend, or Guernsey —and, from thence, they nearly all illicitly find their way back to this country.
Mark, then, the effect of this beautiful system—the system so lauded by the hon. member for Lincoln. These Bandanas, which had previously been sold, for exportation, at 4s., are finally distributed, in retail, to the people of England, at the rate of about 8s. each; and the result of their prohibition is to levy upon the consumer a 800 tax, and to give to those who live by the evasion of your law, a bounty of 4s. upon each handkerchief sold in this country.
That nearly all the Bandanas sold for exportation are re-imported and used in this country, is a fact not denied, even by those who are now most clamorous for prohibition. In a printed letter from a manufacturer of Macclesfield to the marquis of Lansdown, I find the following anecdote: "It is the custom, in the parterres of the theatres in France, to secure the place, by tying a pocket handkerchief on the seat. I had the curiosity, at the Théâtre FranÇois, to notice the appearance of them; and, out of twenty-five, immediately around me, there was not one silk handkerchief." I should have little doubt, if a similar custom prevailed in the pit of our theatre, that this accurate observer would find most of the seats decorated with handkerchiefs of prohibited silk. Nay, Sir, if strangers were at this moment ordered to withdraw from the gallery; and every member were called upon (of course in secret committee) to produce his handkerchief, with the understanding, that those who had not prohibited handkerchiefs in their pockets were obliged to inform against those who had—I am inclined to believe, that the informers would be in a small majority. Upon every information laid under this prohibitory law, the chances are, that the informer and the constable have Bandanas round their necks, and that the magistrate, who hears the charge, has one in his pocket.
Upon the motion of this evening, then, we have to make our choice between a moderate protecting duty which can be collected, and is likely to be available; and the going back to the system of prohibition which I have shown to be productive of such mischievous consequences.
But, since the repeal of the old law, a further difficulty has occurred in respect to prohibition. Two years ago, when a piece of silk was seized as foreign, the British manufacturer could, upon Inspecting it, at once say, "I know, and can prove, that this is not of the manufacture of this kingdom." If asked, "What is your proof?" he would reply, "The superior quality and workmanship of the article: it is quite impossible that any thing equal to it should have been manufactured in England. It wants that stamp of slovenliness and indifference to improvement, which is the sure characteristic of 801 all silk goods made at home." This is a very natural answer for monopoly to make, but it comes with a bad grace from a British manufacturer.
But, it may be asked, if excellence of fabric was, at that time, the proof that the article was not British, why is it not so still? I shall give the best answer to this question, by stating what has recently occurred.
Soon after the alteration of our law, an extensive French manufacturer removed from Lyons to this country. He brought with him his looms and his patterns. Under his management and superintendence two establishments were formed, one in Spitalfields, the other at Manchester. At both of these places he set weavers to work, fully satisfied that a duty of 30 per cent would afford him sufficient protection. His improved methods (with sorrow I state it) excited the jealousy, and drew down upon him the persecution, of the English manufacturers. They charged this industrious foreigner, boldly and rashly, and, as in the end it was proved, most unjustly, with carrying on his trade here, merely as a cloak to cover the smuggling of foreign manufactured goods. In their mortification at his success they even went the length of charging my hon. friend, the secretary of the Treasury, and the whole board of Customs, with being cognizant of the fact, and parties to this nefarious scheme for ruining the silk trade of England. This accusation was not merely insinuated in whispers: it was contained in a published report, inserted in the newspapers, and thus conveyed from one end of the kingdom to the other.
This was not to be endured. The Treasury determined to sift the matter to the bottom. They knew that, neither at the board of Treasury, nor at the board of Customs, could any countenance or facility have been given to smuggling; but they thought it not impossible that this French house might have been guilty of the irregularities imputed to them, and that these irregularities might have been connived at by some of the inferior officers. The accusers, therefore, wore called upon to substantiate their charge, and were distinctly told that the inquiry should be directed in whatever mode they might point out as most effectual. They said, the clearest proof would probably be found in the books of the party accused, if they could be got at. The books could not, certainly, be inspected without his 802 consent. Did he hesitate on this point? So far from it, that his immediate reply was, "You are welcome to inspect all the books of our house; and, that there may be no suspicion of garbling or concealment, let an officer go with me instanter, and they shall all be brought here (to the Treasury), in a hackney-coach."
This was accordingly done. His books were subjected to a rigid examination. Every transaction connected with his business was found regular—the names of the weavers employed by him, the work which they had in hand, and their places of residence were all duly entered. Taking with them a plan of Spitalfields, and without the possibility of previous notice or concert, proper persons went round to the particular houses which these books had pointed out; and, in every instance, they found the names of the men at work, and the goods upon which they were working, to correspond with the entries in the books.
All this was most satisfactory to the Treasury and the Customs. But the accusers persevered in their charge; They insisted, that the whole was a concerted plot; and that many pieces of silk in the warehouse of this foreigner, which he asserted that he had manufactured here, were, in truth, the productions of France.
The Treasury, in consequence, resolved to sift the matter still further; and again it was left to the accusers to point out the mode. In order to prosecute the inquiry, they selected from their own body the person whom they considered the most skilled in the knowledge requisite for the detection of such articles as might be contraband. And what, towards him, was the conduct of the party accused? "Go to my warehouse," said the Frenchman, "turn over all my goods; select from among them whatever pieces you please; and, on the proof of their being of English or of French manufacture let my guilt or innocence be finally established."
The offer was accepted. The person employed by the British manufacturers turned over and over several hundred pieces of silk; and at length, after the whole ordeal was passed, the board of Customs made known the result in an official report, which they transmitted to the Treasury. That report I hold in my hand. What is the substance of it? Why that thirty-seven pieces had been selected 803 by this agent of the accusers as being, beyond all doubt, of French manufacture. What followed? These thirty-seven pieces were seized, and the Frenchman was put upon his proof that they were made in this country. How did he prove it? By producing, one after another, the very men by whom every one of these thirty-seven pieces had been made; who proved, upon their oaths, in the most irrefragable manner, that every inch of these goods had been woven by themselves—Where? Not at Lyons—not in France—but in Spitalfields and Manchester!
I have stated these facts with feelings, I own, bordering on disgust. I cannot but think it humiliating, if not discreditable to my countrymen, that an unprotected foreigner should have been maligned and persecuted, instead of receiving countenance and encouragement for having transported his capital and skill to this country, and for being the first to set the example of great and successful improvement in our silk manufacture.
But how does this detail, into which I have entered, hear upon the present argument? It shows, in the clearest manner, that, if you continue to seize silk goods, in private houses, in shops, or upon individuals, you have now lost your former test, by which you could prove them to be of foreign origin. The most expert judge of such articles, it is now legally proved, cannot discriminate between the British and the foreign manufacture. Prohibition, therefore, has lost its only recommendation; it retains no advantage over a well-regulated duty.
But appeals have been made to our compassion; and our feelings have been alarmed by the statement, that above 500,000 individuals are at present engaged in the silk trade, and that ruin must inevitably be entailed on this large and meritorious class of the community, if the old law be not restored.
Now, supposing the number of persons employed in the silk manufactory to amount to 500,000—their wages, I assume, cannot be less, one with another, than 10s. a-week for each person, I have been told, indeed, that a considerable portion of this number are children, some of whom do not receive more than Is. 6d. a-week; and, for this pittance, the hours of work in the mills, when the trade was brisk, I have been assured, were, from five in the morning till eight or nine at night.
804 If this be so, let us not talk of the difference in the expense of labour between this country and France. Will it be said, that a French child cannot earn in tire silk manufactory 1s. 6d. a-week; and that, without working from fourteen to fifteen hours out of the four-and-twenty I Certainly not. Supposing, however, the average earnings of these 500,000 persons (an exaggerated number I am convinced) to be 10s. a-week, thirteen millions of money would then be the annual amount of wages alone in this manufacture. To this are to be added, the interest on capital, and the price of the raw material: so that the value of the goods sold could not be less than eighteen or twenty millions sterling. This, however, I consider too high a calculation. The Lords' report estimates the whole amount at only ten millions; but, allowing for increased consumption since 1821, it may, perhaps, be fairly rated at twelve or fourteen millions, exclusive of the quantity smuggled in from the continent.
If, then, fourteen millions of silk goods are about the annual consumption of this kingdom, what would happen, if, according to the predictions of the honourable member for Taunton, the British manufacture should be annihilated after next July? We should not, I take it for granted, consume a less quantity of silk goods: the only change would be, that we should have them, as it is alleged, of a better quality, and at a less price. But, all the goods so consumed, would, in this supposition, have paid a duty of 30 per cent on their importation; and the produce of that duty, consequently, would exceed four millions sterling. This large sum would be levied without, in the smallest degree, abridging the comfort or enjoyment of any other class of the community. It would bring with it no increase of burthen upon the consumer of silk goods, and consequently no diminution of his means of consuming other articles. It would simply be the premium of monopoly transferred to the Exchequer; and the capital, for which this monopoly was created, would be set free, to give employment to other branches of industry.
Such, certainly, would be the ultimate result, if the speculative fears of the silk trade should be realized. But, of such an issue, I am persuaded there is no risk. The whole consumption of silk goods in France is not equal to the consumption in England, Now, supposing, when the bill 805 comes into operation, there should be a greatly increased demand in this country for French silks—this new and additional demand would produce a corresponding advance in the price of the goods, and in the wages of labour, in France. To a certain extent there may be such a demand, especially at the first opening of the trade; but, I am convinced that, with the attention to economy which competition excites, with our improved machinery, our industry and ingenuity, and, perhaps, with the lowered prices of labour and the means of subsistence—a protecting duty of 30 per cent will be found to be sufficient.
The House is called upon, by the motion of the hon. member for Coventry, "to inquire." Has it never inquired before? Has the House of Lords entered into no investigation of the subject? And, did not that investigation take place at a period when taxation and prices were very considerably higher than at present? The country, too, at that time, was labouring under much distress; and the silk manufacture was suffering its full share of the existing difficulties. Was that inquiry loosely conducted? Certainly not. A noble marquis (Lansdown) presided over the labours of the committee, alike distinguished for talent, for diligence, and for the soundness of his views on all subjects connected with the commercial policy of the country. It was the opinion of that committee, after taking a mass of evidence on oath, that a duty of 15 per cent would be an adequate protection, instead of a duty of double that amount, under which the experiment is now to be made.
I have stated, too much at length I Fear, the grounds on which it appears to me, that this House ought not to entertain the present motion. This statement, I feel, must have appeared unnecessary to those who think with me on the subject of our commercial policy; and I dare not hope that it has made much impression on those who are the declared advocates of the restrictive system—those who belong to the same school of political economy as the hon. baronet, the member for Staffordshire. In his enmity to all improvement, he told us the other evening, that the ministers of the present day were only fit to form a council for the island of Laputa. Since this intimation of the hon. baronet's wish to see us banished to that island, I have turned in my own mind what recommendation I could take with me to that land of philosophers. 806 Not a letter from the hon. baronet, I can assure him; for he has given us to understand that, in mind, at least, he belongs to the Brobdignagian age of this country. But I think I have hit upon that which would infallibly make my fortune at Laputa: I will tell the hon. baronet what it is.
At the time of the great Bullion controversy in 1810–1811, the main question in dispute turned upon what was the real Standard of our money. We wild theorists said, as our simple forefathers had always said before us, that the standard was, and could be, nothing else than the weight and fineness of the gold or silver in the coin of the realm, according to the commands of the sovereign, specified in the indentures of the Mint. Had this definition been admitted by the practical men there would at once have been an end of the contested point—whether our then currency was or was not depreciated. But, for that very reason, this definition was denied by all who maintained the negative of that question. More than a hundred pamphlets were published on that side, containing as many different definitions of the standard. Fifteen of these definitions, most in vogue at the time, I have since retained, as a curiosity to laugh at: but they may now, perhaps, be turned to a more valuable purpose. Of that number I only recollect three at this moment. The first defined the standard to be "the abstract pound sterling." This had great success till another practical writer proved, that the standard was the "ideal unit." These two practical standards were, however, finally superseded by a third, of which the definition was, "a sense of value in currency (paper), in reference to commodities." This last standard was at once so perfectly tangible and clearly intelligible, that I consider it as the parent of the famous Resolution of this House, by which the question was to be finally set at rest.
Now, if I should take with me to Laputa this little, but invaluable collection of definitions, I have not the slightest doubt that my pretensions to have the whole monetary system of that island placed under my direction—to be master of the mint—governor of the bank—and superintendent of all the country banks—would be immediately and generally admitted. It is true we have had no authentic account of the progress of political science in that celebrated island for about a cen- 807 tury past; but, it is scarcely to be imagined that it can have been so rapid, as to enable their greatest philosophers to challenge the pre-eminence of these definitions, on the score of abstraction, metaphysics, and absurdity: and, at any rate, if the philosophers should cabal against me, the practical men could not fail to be on my side.
I am not aware, Sir, that I have omitted to notice any of the objections which have been urged against the important changes lately made by Parliament in our commercial system. That these changes are extensive, as well as important, I readily admit. Whether they will work ultimately for good, or for evil, it becomes not fallible man to pronounce an over peremptory opinion. That the expectation of those who proposed them, was, that they would work for good, he man will do us the injustice to deny. That up to this hour I am fortified in that expectation, By the deductions of reason in my own mind, by the authority of all who are most competent to form a dispassionate opinion upon the subject, by the beneficial result of every thing which has hitherto been done, for giving greater freedom to commerce in this country, and by the experience of the opposite1 effect which vexatious and Unnecessary restraints are daily producing in other countries—is what I can most solemnly affirm.
I make this declaration, I can assure you, Sir, in all sincerity of heart, and, as far as I know myself, without any mixture of false pride, or any mistaken feeling of obstinate adherence to consistency. I am the more anxious to make this declaration, in the face of the House, and of the world, because of late I have been assailed, and distressed, I will own, by ungenerous appeals to my feelings, calling Upon me to commune with my conscience and my God, and td say, whether I am under he Visitations of compunction and remorse, at having thrown so many persons out of bread, in the trial of a rash Experiment, and in the pursuit of a hollow theory. Good God! Sir, that man must have a heart of stone, who can witness without sympathy and the greatest pain, the distress which now, unfortunately, exists in most of our other great manufactures, as well as in that of silk. But, whilst I hope that I am not wanting in the duties and feelings of a man—I have also a duty to perform as a minister. If immediate relief be, in a great degree, out of our 808 power, it the more becomes us, as the guardians of all that is most valuable in civilised society, to trace the causes of the present calamities, and to prevent, if possible, their recurrence.—It is on this principle, that I am anxious to put an end to a system of currency, which leads to ruinous fluctuations in trade, and in the price of all commodities; which, whether in excitement or depression, is alike undermining the sober habits, and the moral feelings of the community; which confounds honest industry with unprincipled gambling: which injures the poor man in the earnings of his labour, and takes from the rich man all security in his property—a system which creates delusive hopes, only to terminate in aggravated disappointments—of which every succeeding convulsion must add to our inability to bear it—and of which the inevitable tendency is, to drive capital and industry to other countries; not in Europe only, but even across the Atlantic. The growing dread of instability here, the growing assurance of increased stability in those countries, would ultimately produce this transfer; and, with it, the further transfer of the rank and power which England has hitherto maintained among the nations of the world.
If I have ventured to intrude upon the House by any allusion to my personal feelings, they will, I trust, make some allowances for the provocation which I have received. This is the only place in which I can properly reply to the unmanly appeals which have been made to me through other channels. Such appeals, however painful to receive, have no influence on my conduct; neither can they detract from the sanguine hope which I entertain of better prospects and increased happiness for my country. I hailed with great delight, the other evening, the assurance of the right hon. member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney), that he saw nothing in our present difficulties to create despondency or alarm. In this sentiment I most entirely concur. The existing pressure may, for a short time, bear heavily upon the springs of our prosperity; but if we pursue a temperate course, there is nothing to fear, and every thing to hope, for our future progress. With confidence I cling to that cheering hope; and without looking forward to a long life, I trust that I shall witness its realization.
Whether in a public station or in retire- 809 ment, my greatest happiness will be to feel assured, that the power and resources of this country have been increased by those measures of commercial policy which it has fallen to my lot to submit to parliament.
That such will be their ultimate result, is my firm and conscientious conviction; and, in that conviction, I claim for those measures the continual support of this House.
Mr. Baringrose amidst cries of "adjourn," and "go on." The hon. member said, that at that late hour he could not hope for the attention of the House, if he were to attempt to follow in detail the many topics on which the right hon. gentleman had touched in his very able speech. He would, therefore, compress his observations into as narrow a compass as possible. Here the cries for an adjournment became very general, and the hon. member seemed unwilling to proceed, when
§ Mr. Canningsaid, that if the question before the House were confined merely to the motion of the hon. member for Coventry, there could be no difficulty in disposing of it on that night; but, as the eloquent and powerful speech of his right hon. friend had—most happily, he would say, for the country—involved the whole of the principles on which the commerce of the country was to be conducted in future, he thought it would be impossible to conclude the discussion that night. He would therefore move that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.
§ The motion of adjournment was put, and agreed to.