Commons Sitting of 1 March 1832

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. CRIPPS, to Regulate the mode of Electing County Coroners:—By Sir JAMES GRAHAM, for continuing an Act passed in the First year of the present King, for the Regulation of the Marines while on Shore; and by Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, for the better Payment of the Army, and preventing Mutiny and Desertion, commonly called the Mutiny Acts:—By Lord GEORGE LENNOX, to extend the Provisions of an Act of the 7th and 8th George 4th, relative to Remedies against the Hundred.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BURGE, of all Colonial and East-India Appeals, and all Appeals from the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Man, lodged or entered in the Books of the Privy Council, heard or decided, or remaining undisposed of, from the 1st of January, 1826, distinguishing each year;—On the Motion of Mr. Alderman VENABLES, of the Exports of British Manufactured Silks and mixed Silks, with the Amount of the Drawback paid thereon from 5th January, 1815, to 5th January 1832, and of the Duties received on Raw and thrown Silk, &c, imported during the same period:—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, a List of Boroughs arranged according to the Number of Houses, Amount of Assessed Taxes discharged to be deducted, Game Duties to be added, and Assessed Taxes to be corrected.
Petitions presented. By Mr. JAMES, from the Master Cotton Spinners of Blackburn and Bolton, against the Factories Regulation Bill, and by Colonel WEBB, from the Inhabitants of Gloucester, Wadebridge, Exeter, and certain Operatives, in favour of it:—By Mr. STANLEY, from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, praying that the Provisions of the Anatomy Bill may be extended to that Country; and from the Inhabitants of Drogheda for an Inquiry into the Turnpike Trusts (Ireland):—By Mr. ALEXANDER BARING, from Bulkington and Coventry. By Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN, from 9,000 Silk Weavers in Spitalfields. By Mr. ROBINSON, from Macclesfield. By Mr. HENRY LYTTON BULWER, from Coventry, Nuneaton, Alleborough, and Stockingford, in Cliverston. By the Earl of GROSVENOR, from the Tradesmen of Macclesfield, Inhabitants of Sowe, Congleton, Manchester, and Salford, complaining of the Distressed State of the Silk Trade and for Inquiry.

ABOLITION OF TITHES (IRELAND).
Sir Richard Musgravepresented Petitions for the Abolition of Tithes, from the parishes of Ballylaleen, Carricbeg, Kinsalebeg, and Butlerstown, in the county of Waterford; and from the parish of Gowran, in the county of Kilkenny. He said, in some of these parishes there are not any churches, nor a single Protestant parishioner, and yet tithes and church-rates are rigorously exacted. The parishioners of Ballyleen state, that a portion of their tithes is paid to a lady, who is quite incapable of affording them any spiritual comfort or consolation. Every friend of the Protestant religion ought to wish for a total abolition of the tithe system in Ireland. In that country the clergy of the Established Church have, for a long period, possessed great wealth and great political power. They could easily influence the Legislature to pass any Tithe Act or Acts for levying church-rates, for which they wished. Even when they assented to the Tithe Composition Act, they took care to introduce a provision, that the clergyman should take precedence of the landlord. The result, however, of this great wealth, and of this political power, has not been favourable to the interests of religion, or to the increase of the number of Protestants. Their number has been greatly diminished, as compared with the Catholics, and, in many parishes in the south, Protestants have altogether disappeared. The discontent which prevails, is not confined to the Catholics, for the exaction of tithes has tended to alienate Protestants from the Church. The most respectable Protestants perceive that the temporalities of the Establishment are highly injurious to the real interests of religion, nor can they shut their eyes to the glaring injustice of taxing a Catholic population, for the benefit of sinecure Protestant clergymen. Can any person defend the levying of church-rates in parishes where there are few Protestants, and where, at the same time, tithes are rigorously exacted? In the parish of Lismore, where I reside, tithes to the amount of 800 l. a-year are levied, under the denomination of economy tithes, for the repair and building of churches,; and yet church-rates are annually exacted to the amount of 80 l. or 90 l. These rates are laid on 2,000 rate-payers, almost all of whom are Catholics, and many of whom are, from then-poverty, summoned before the Magistrates,
988
who have then a most distressing duty to perform. As to the remedy for the many evils of this system, I beg leave to read an extract from the letter of a beneficed clergyman of Ireland, lately addressed to me. I beg the attention of hon. Members to this document, as it is of considerable importance, and highly creditable to the writer:—
"It appears to me, that the only equitable mode of arranging the future remuneration of the clergy is, by a commutation of tithe into land. I do not mean that the clergy should enjoy their present (in many instances) overgrown incomes, under a tithe commutation. To make a commutation of tithe practicable, I conceive it must be, in some degree, a popular measure. To make it popular, being equitable at the same time (I do not mean that efforts should be made to win the approbation of the revolutionist and common disturber of the public peace, for they, even by concession and conciliation, are not to be won), but I assert, that the measure shall meet with the general approval of the reflecting and good among all parties of the State. This can only be obtained (as also I firmly believe the best interests of the Established Church are to be advanced) by reducing the incomes of the clergy to moderate dimensions. Let the Committee recommend, that tithe property be divided into three equal parts—one for the benefit of the poor, one for the building and repair of churches, paying officers' salary, &c, and one for the respectable remuneration of the Established clergy. Commutation under those circumstances (and under those only) I consider practicable: without this division, I fear even landlords may dread to purchase the tithes of their estates, or, having purchased, may find it a difficult, if not a dangerous task, to collect such to remunerate themselves in their purchase money. I think, in the present state of public opinion (including that adverse to the Established Church, and that regarding its welfare), that it would be idle to attempt to legislate with satisfaction or success upon the method of paying the clergy, without including a wholesome reduction of the Church's temporalities. It is evident, that a legal provision must (and that at no distant day) be made for that ever-multiplying body, the Irish poor; and I feel that that object can, with justice to the general interests of the country, be best effected, by appropriating to it a portion of the superabundant wealth of the Church."
Such are the sentiments of a beneficed clergyman, and I hope they will attract the attention of the Legislature. I shall not now seek to bring on a discussion on the specific measures necessary for effecting a change of system. The Report and evidence of the tithe Committee, will soon

989
be brought before this House, and I shall take that opportunity of restating here, the same objections which I urged against that Report, as a member of the Committee. The Report appears to me not to be borne out by the evidence, and the measure therein recommended, of following the precedent of 1799. and of giving the Lord Lieutenant power to imprison those who refuse to pay tithes, must lead to the most calamitous consequences.
Mr. Henry Grattanexpressed his surprise that the papers relating to the Report of the Committee, which were laid on the Table ten days ago, had not been printed. In consequence of the delay in printing them, many erroneous impressions had gone abroad.
The Speakersaid, that the cause of the delay was, that though the Report was short, the papers connected with it—the evidence on which it was founded—was very voluminous. He had made inquiries into the subject, and finding that the printing of the evidence would take some time, he had given orders that the Report should be printed at once, without the evidence, and when the evidence was printed, the Report should be reprinted with it. Within twenty-four or, at most, forty-eight hours, the Report would be in the hands of the Members.
Mr. Blackneyhad been requested to support the petition from Gowran, which he did with great pleasure. It bore the signature of 300 persons, who were exceedingly aggrieved by the oppressive system of tithes. In this neighbourhood, the hurlers had commenced their operations, and the rector of Gowran was one of those to whom they applied for a reduction of the tax, complaining, that they were in the utmost misery—that tithes and taxes robbed them of the means of support—that their families were without clothing, and themselves almost without food. In the adjacent parishes the population were in the same abject circumstances. He held affidavits in his hand which asserted, that a party had been summoned for an arrear of sixpence, and that the summons cost 2s.; another was summoned for twopence, and for that miserable sum was charged with the usual expenses, besides loss of time, to which he was compelled to submit. The gentlemen who were to receive these pittances held good livings, and large incomes. It was, therefore, monstrous to suppose, that the House would consent
990
to advance money from the Treasury, to be repaid at some future day by a tax levied on the land of Ireland, to uphold a system which authorized such practices, while the poor, on whom the payment would ultimately fall, were famishing and dying for want of food and raiment. Money might be had from the Treasury, certainly, for such a purpose, but it never could be reimbursed from the acres of Ireland.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he did not rise to continue a discussion on the subject of tithes, for nothing could be more inconvenient than a desultory discussion on a subject, which was now undergoing an arduous and strict inquiry before a Committee, still less could he think it right, that hon. Gentlemen should enter into statements which went to affect the reputation and character of particular clergymen, who had no means of protecting themselves from such attacks. On this part of the subject he would assure such hon. Members, that if they had any facts which came within their own knowledge, or know of any case of oppression, the Committee up-stairs would pay every attention to their evidence. Having made these few remarks, he begged to state, that he had been requested by the Chairman of the Committee, to call the attention of the House to a subject of much importance, as far as it regarded the proceedings of the Committee. For the last three or four days it was well known, that a gentleman had been under examination by that Committee, whose opinions and views, not less from his great ability than from his high station in the Catholic Church (he meant Dr. Doyle), had excited great interest. The Committee-room had, consequently, been crowded, not merely by Members of the House, who had a right to be present, but a considerable number of strangers were also admitted. The Committee did not wish their proceedings to he kept private, nor that whatever passed might not be a matter of public knowledge; at the same time, the House would agree with him, that it was often necessary, when the Committee printed the evidence, to accompany it with notes; and, therefore, that it was highly objectionable to allow that evidence to go before the public before the whole of the proceedings were in the possession of that House. There were also many cases in which the Committee might be required to exercise a discretion as to the parts of evidence it was necessary to suppress, and, therefore, it was

991
extremely improper for individuals to take advantage of the permission granted to them of being present, to make partial and garbled Reports of the proceedings, through the usual channels of information. He held in his hand The Dublin Morning Register, in which there was a lengthened Report of the substance of Dr. Doyle's evidence given on Thursday last, and, in some of the Morning Papers he had seen abstracts of that evidence. He only now wished to call the attention of the House to the inconveniences attending such a course, if advantage were taken of putting before the public a partial or garbled statement, or, indeed, any statement at all, before the Report should be laid on the Table. He stated this, in order that those Gentlemen who attended the Committee-room, if they were Members of the House, might abstain from saying any thing, or laying before the public any information which they might receive in attending the Committee; or if, as was more probable, those paragraphs proceeded from strangers not being Members, that if such a course were continued, the Committee would feel it necessary to exercise the privilege they possessed of excluding all strangers who were not Members of the House. He thought it right to lay these facts before the House, in order that the practice should be put a stop to.
Mr. Ruthventhought it unfair that any part of the evidence should be suppressed, or that a selection should be made. In his opinion, no Committee ought to be allowed to exercise such a discretion as the right hon. Gentleman had advocated.
The Speakerobserved, that the hon. Member who had spoken last, had entirely misunderstood the observations of the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Stanley). He thought the course that had been pursued, was extremely improper, and was, clearly, a breach of one of the privileges of the House, which it was essential to uphold. If this course was pursued, the consequence would be, to compel the House to withdraw that indulgence which had hitherto been given.
Mr. Humewas afraid, that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, as a great grievance was not in the power of the House to remedy. The Report to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, if it was the same which he (Mr. Hume) had seen, did not purport to be the evidence that had been given before the Committee,
992
but only the substance of it. The only remedy was in the discretion of the Members how far they would consider themselves warranted in giving publicity to what had been stated before the Committee. Perhaps the Speaker would have the kindness to point out some course by which the grievance might be remedied.
Lord Miltonthought the suggestion of the hon. Member who spoke last would be attended, if adopted, with great inconvenience.
Mr. Ruthven, in explanation, observed, that he understood the right hon. Gentleman opposite to have stated, that it was competent to the Committee to suppress part of the evidence; if such was the case, it was a course he highly deprecated.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that if such was the impression of the hon. Member, he had completely mistaken his meaning; what he had said was, that it was competent for the Committee, where evidence was tendered, to strike out such parts as they did not think evidence. There were also a number of cases, in which the names of individuals were mentioned, and circumstances annexed to those names, that it would not be right to give to the world.
Petitions to be printed.

STATE OF THE SILK TRADE.
Earl Grosvenorthen rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of bringing the state of the Silk Trade under the consideration of the House. The subject was one of considerable importance, and of the utmost interest to a very numerous class of persons. He therefore regretted that the introduction of it had not fallen to the lot of some other individual more competent to deal with such an important question than he was—either the hon. member for Coventry, or the worthy Alderman, who was one of the Representatives of London, for in their hands he was sure that it would have been dealt with in a much more satisfactory manner than he could hope to treat it. He would endeavour to fulfil, however, the responsibility which he had undertaken to the best of his humble abilities. The course which he meant to pursue was, that of requesting the House to grant a Committee of Inquiry for the purpose of searching into the distressed condition of the silk manufacturers of the country. It was unnecessary for him to go at length into detail upon such a question, with a view to excite feelings of commiseration for the unfortunate ma-

993
nufacturers; but he must be permitted to say, that the dreadful distress he had witnessed among the silk manufacturers was alone sufficient, if he had no other reason, to induce him to call the serious attention of the House to the subject. This state of distress in the silk trade was attributed mainly to the existence of certain regulations which were adopted respecting it in 1826. The subject was one devoid of all party considerations, and it would, therefore, he had no doubt, be discussed entirely upon its own merits. He felt himself called upon to state, that his opinions formerly were decidedly in favour of the system which was said to have been attended with such disastrous consequences, but those opinions had been greatly shaken in consequence of facts which had recently come under his observation. He trusted, however, he might fairly say, that his mind was free from prejudice, and that he was prepared to go into a Committee, if one was granted, in the spirit of candour, and with an inclination to hear and judge from the best information that could be had on all sides of the question. He considered a Committee on this subject indispensable, because, by that means, the House and the country at large would become acquainted with the details of suffering and distress which the changes made in 1826 had brought upon persons engaged in this trade, a history of which, from an earlier period, might explain the source of the mischief done, and point out measures to prevent its continuance. He had documents by which he would prove to the House, that the poor-rates in all the districts in which the silk manufactures had been carried on, had been progressively increased to an enormous extent, in proportion as the number of spindles in use had decreased; and he would enable the House to trace the intimate connexion between the decrease of labour, increase of poor-rates, and the overwhelming misery which now prevailed in Macclesfield, Coventry, and St. Matthew, Bethnal-green. By referring to the amount of the poor-rates expended in the parish of Macclesfield, it appeared that the gross expenditure of the poor-rate for that parish in 1825, was 4,201 l. 18 s.; in 1827, it amounted to 7,810 l. 11 s.. 4d.; in 1830, to 8,670 l. 17 s. 5½d.; and, in 1831, to 6,673 l. 8s. 2d. Again, he found that the amount paid to the casual poor in each year had also greatly increased. Thus the sum paid in the first
994
week of 1824, for casual poor, was 7l. 19 s. 10 d.; in 1827, it amounted to 45 l. 17 s.; and, in the first week of 1832, the amount paid was 85 l. 0s. 2d. Again the number of families receiving relief at Christmas, 1824, was 50; at Christmas, 1831, no less than 511. The number of spindles employed in January, 1824, was 276,000; and in January, 1820, the number had diminished to 117,192. The number of mill people employed in January, 1824, was 10,229; at the same period of 1832, 3,622. Again, the average weekly earnings of each person, clear of all deductions, was, in 1824, 15 s. 6d.; in 1831, 6s. The number of factories in Macclesfield and its neighbourhood, or places occupied as such, in 1814, was thirty-two; in 1823, fifty-eight; in 1826, seventy; and in 1832, seventy-one. Again, the number of silk factories occupied in Macclesfield and its neighbourhood was forty-one; the number unoccupied, thirty. According to some extracts from a Report on the ribbon trade, the poor-rates in Coventry, in the year ending April, 1826, was 11,232 l. 14 s. 4d.; the poor-rates for the same period in 1831, were 20,314 l. 5s. 6d. The charge for casual poor in the year 1826, was 2,069 l. 3s. 3d.; the same charge in 1831, was 4,087 l. 4s. 10 d. In the parish of Foleshill, the general poor-rates for the year ending March, 1826, was 1819 l. 8s.; and for the year, ending March 1831, they were 3,462 l. 18 s. 4d. The charge for casual poor for the year ending March, 1826, was 527 l. 6s. 11 d.; in 1831, 1,5367. 2s. 10 d. In the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, the number of poor in the workhouse in 1824, was almost 450; the number in the workhouse in 1831, was 1,100. The number of poor relieved out of doors weekly, was, on the average, in 1824, about 150; in the year ending January, 1832, the number amounted to no less than 6,142. The relief given weekly in 1824, was in the proportion of twenty to about 500, in 1831. In 1824, the parish owed nothing; in 1832, it was in debt 13,000 l. In the Spitalfields district there were, in the beginning of 1832, 15,000 looms, of which there were at present nearly 6,000 out of employ, and the rest were only half paid. He thought that these facts were sufficient to justify the demand for an inquiry into a system to which such consequences were imputed. He must express his regret that a late right hon. Gentleman, whose loss all must de-

995
plore, was not still in existence, and in his place in that House; for he thought that he would now be willing to profit by the six: years' experience which the country had had of the evil effects of the regulations of 1826. He was fully convinced that the confidence of that great man in the success of the system of free trade, which he urged with so much ability, would be greatly shaken. In order to trace the cause of the present distress, he begged to call the attention of the House to a paper which had been prepared by a gentleman of great acuteness and research, who had turned his attention to the consideration of the present state of the silk trade. This gentleman, well known to many Members of this House, was, on all occasions, ready to come forward with personal assistance or pecuniary aid. That gentleman was Mr. Alexis Doxat. The document to which he intended to refer was a progressive comparison of the quantities worked up by our silk and cotton manufactures, from 1815 to 1830. He should also be able to show, from this gentleman's documents, that wages had been far less since 1826 than they were before that year. He trusted, also, to be able to prove to the House, that the silk trade, up to the year 1826, was in a state of progressive improvement, and that, since that period, it had been gradually declining. It appeared, from this statement, that, on the average of three years, from 1815–1817, to 1818–1820, the increase of silk manufactured was thirty-one per cent, against an increase of only twenty-two per cent in the cotton manufacture. Again, on the average of the six years, from 1815–1817 to 1821–1823, the increase in the silk trade was seventy per cent, against forty-eight per cent in the cotton trade. On the average of eight years, from 1815–1817 to 1824–1825, the increase in the silk trade was 155 per cent, while the increase in the cotton manufacture, for the same period, was on eighty-three per cent. Thus, it appeared that the increase was two to one in favour of silk. Again, on the average of five years, from 1826–1830, there was altogether an increase of only fifteen per cent in silk, against thirty-seven per cent in cotton. The average amount of wages, duties, -profits, &c, stood thus:—for 1815–1817, three years, at the average of 2,073,000 l. per annum; for 1818–1820, three years, at the average of 2,719.000 l., per annum; for 1821–1823, three years, at the aver-
996
age of 3,514,000 l., per annum; for 1824–1825, two years, with low duties, and the same rate of wages, at the average of 4,300,000 l., per annum; whilst the average per annum of the five following years, 1826–1830, had been about 2,700,000 l.; and 1829–1831, of about 2,500,000 l.; instead of being at the rate of 1824, or 6,000,000 l. per annum. These facts were sufficient to show that a Committee was required. There had been occasional distress in several branches of our trade and manufactures; but it must now be tolerably clear to the House, that the distress in the silk trade had been gradually increasing since the adoption of the regulations now complained of, in 1826. The silk trade was first carried on in the reign of Edward 3rd. In the time of Henry 6th, a number of regulations were made, for the purpose of protecting the rising manufacture of silk in this country. In the following reign, the Acts were not enforced, and the consequence was, that a number of workmen were thrown out of employment, and great distress prevailed in the trade. The Acts were then enforced again, and this system continued for a century. In the reign of James 1st, the broad silk manufacture began, and, at that time, the Company of Throwsters was first incorporated. In 1661, the silk throwsters employed no less than 40,000 men, women, and children; the trade had, therefore, at least, the claim of antiquity in its favour. In 1685, there appeared one of those Acts which arbitrary Governments were so apt to commit in their short-sighted policy, without considering the consequences of their conduct; he alluded to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the effects of which led to the firmer establishment of the silk trade in this country. It continued to prosper until the year 1765, when, in consequence of the non-enforcement of the protecting enactments, the distress of the manufacturers became so great, that it was found necessary to impose restrictions on the importation of foreign silks. In 1776, it was deemed necessary, as the restrictions were not found to be sufficient, to resort to prohibition. This continued to 1809, when the prohibitions on the importation of foreign silks were voted perpetual. This continued to 1824, when, in consequence of the advance that had taken place in the silk manufactures of the country, it was thought right to remove some of the restrictions on the importation of foreign silk.

997
Several resolutions were passed in 1824, and they were brought into operation in 1826. It would be recollected that the removal of these restrictions was most violently opposed by the practical men, and their anticipations had unhappily been fulfilled to a very great extent. He must say, with regard to these gentlemen, that he had never met with a body of men less influenced by private considerations. They, as all men must, regretted the distress which unhappily prevailed in the silk trade, and they were desirous of having the causes of that distress removed. They were, however, actuated by the greatest liberality of feeling; and if they were convinced, that the system would work for the benefit of the whole community, they would willingly yield up their own interests to the general welfare. But as they were convinced that, if this system of free trade was persisted in, it would lead to similar distress in other branches of our manufacture, they urged the House to abandon a system which would be attended with such disastrous consequences.
"Non ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco."
The Report of the Committee of the House of Lords, appointed in 1821, to inquire into the means of extending and securing the foreign trade of the country, stated,
"It appears certain that, without some artificial support, this manufacture (referring to the silk trade) could not, in former times, have been introduced or maintained, with any success, in this country; and, as long as our principal supply was derived from a part of Europe so much nearer to France as Italy, all competition, in its own favourite branch of manufacture, with the former country, which produces, at the same time, so large a proportion of the raw silk which it consumes, must have appeared entirely hopeless. But now, that the supply from our own possessions in the East Indies is annually improving in its quality, and its quantity appears increasing to almost an unlimited extent, it may not be unreasonable to expect that the skill of our artisans, the influence of our capital, and the perfection of our machinery, should be as successfully applied to this as to other branches of manufacture, in which we can, with facility, command a cheap and certain supply of the raw material."
The House would perceive, that the restrictions were removed on the ground, that we could enter into competition with the foreign manufacturer, in consequence of the skill of our artisans, the influence of our capital, and the perfection of our machinery; but how had this experiment suc-
998
ceeded? The skill of our artisans and the perfection of our machinery were nearly the same thing, and, certainly, no one would estimate both higher than he did; but these, with the almost unlimited supply of capital in the hands of our manufacturers, had been of no avail. There was a very considerable difference between the cotton and silk manufacturers, and circumstances had operated to prevent the extension of the latter. He had heard of several instances where the best workmen had been engaged, the most perfect machinery erected, and a large capital employed in the silk trade, and yet those who had attempted to carry this system into effect had completely failed. It was clear, therefore, that the English could not compete with, the French silk manufacturer in several most important articles. One of the gentlemen engaged in a respectable house in the silk trade, Messrs. Ames and Atkinson, who, with all the circumstances in their favour, were, after the sacrifice of an extensive capital, compelled to abandon their undertaking, was asked in the Committee,
"In what year was the factory at Battersea put to work?—It was put to work in 1826, with a determination, if possible, to compete successfully with foreign goods.
"What did the buildings and machinery cost?—About 19,000 l. We purchased the buildings for about 3,000 l., which was muck below their original cost, and we erected the machinery ourselves.
"Was a French artist employed, and what was his name?—Several French artists were employed under a Frenchman named Guillot.
"What was the nature of the machinery?—Some of it was for plain, and some for figured ribbons.
"Were the plain looms upon any improved principle?—Yes; they were bar looms of the very best description, and such as are generally used in France.
"And what were the figured looms?—Some of them were the common Jacguard, and others were an improvement upon the Jacguard.
"Was the whole of this machinery of the newest and best principle known in France?—Yes, it was.
"What was the amount of capital employed in your house?—Upwards of 100,000 l.
"What were these premises and machinery sold for, and when were they sold?—The whole buildings and machinery were sold for 5,050 l.; they were sold in January, 1830.
"How many years has your house been in business?—Twenty-five years."
Here was a case in which the skill of the artisan, the perfection of our machinery, and an extensive capital were brought into

999
requisition, and yet the undertaking completely failed. Thus the wonderful success anticipated by the Committee of the House of Lords was anything but realized. Undoubtedly, it might fairly have been anticipated, that a portion of capital could be advantageously employed, but it had been found in this case, that, instead of reproducing itself, it had been lost, and a serious check had been thrown upon the productive industry of the country. The prospects of the trade for the future were, in his opinion, most gloomy; and if the present regulations were to be continued, he saw no remedy for the overwhelming distress which prevailed among the artisans, nor any hope of their future comfort or happiness. He did not mean to say, it was impossible for the trade to rise again, but, as long as the deterioration in the value of the silk goods of English manufacture continued, the prospects of the trade could not improve. Every one must be aware of the difference between a brisk and a slack trade; for, although the profits on the sale of goods might be nominally equal in both, yet the manufacturer was always better off with the former. Many of the measures of Mr. Huskisson were attended with considerable benefit to the country; but other plans of that right hon. Gentleman had completely failed. Let France flourish, by all means, but not at the expense of England. It might be said, that we had derived considerable advantage from the former commercial treaty with France, in 1786. This treaty, at the same time that it removed many of the restrictions from the trade between the two countries, provided for the security of such of our manufactures as required protection. He had been informed, that a gentleman was sent, down to Macclesfield from the Board of Trade, who was for some time engaged in inquiring into the nature of the distress that prevailed there. He was asked, on his return, whether he could suggest any remedy for the existing distress; and he replied, that, in his opinion, the panacea for all the evils the manufacturers now laboured under, was a repeal of the Corn Laws. But, besides the memorial which he had placed in his hon. friend's hands, bearing upon this point, he had, on that day, presented a petition from the broad silk weavers of Manchester, Salford, and other places, positively denying that the silk trade was in a flourishing condition there, as was asserted in a public document. Perhaps, he
1000
had trespassed longer on the attention of the House than he ought to have done; but there were still a few points upon which he wished to make some observations. Passing by that part of the case connected with the trade of Spitalfields and Coventry, which would be treated of by an hon. Alderman, and the member for Coventry, ten thousand times better than he could treat it, he would notice some points which might be taken up as grounds for defending the present system. It was urged against an hon. friend of his, the other evening, when pressing this question upon the House, that he advocated the interests of a particular class only, and, perhaps, that argument might at present be produced again; but he thought that the class whose claims he attempted to advocate had a right to be considered as well as others; and the question was simply this, whether silk should be sold in this country at a high rate and our labourers and artisans flourish, or whether it was to be sold cheap, to be within the reach of the lowest classes, and our manufacturers and artisans should be ruined, and reduced to want and starvation. After what he had stated, he hoped the House would see the necessity of immediately taking this subject into consideration. The principle of existence in nations appeared to bear some resemblance to the principles of life. Both had their seasons of youth, mautrity, and old age. Athens and Carthage were once young, and, in their youth, were flourishing; in their maturity, powerful; but old age came, and their vigour sunk; such, also, was the case with Rome. England, then, must recollect that she was not a new country,—that her own youth had long since passed, that, in her maturity, she had been raised to the highest pitch of greatness among nations; but she must remember, too, that this was a doubtful position—that she could not continue in the place where she now was—that she must either advance or recede—and that, if she would not do the latter, her population must be maintained in its present industrious pursuits. He implored the House well to consider the situation in which they were placed. He humbly and unwillingly, but sincerely and earnestly, entreated his Majesty's Ministers to pay attention to the request now made to them. By the sad reflections of the past—by the awful aspect of the present—by the gloom which hung over the future—he solemnly and sincerely im-

1001
plored the House to attend to the prayer of these unfortunate men. He would only add, that his motion was not exactly in the terms of which he had given notice, but his object being to relieve the distress which prevailed throughout the country, its effectiveness would not be, on that account, lessened. He begged leave to move, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the silk manufacture of Great Britain."
Mr. H. Lytton Bulwersaid, whoever had heard the able and statesmanlike speech of the noble Lord who had just sat; down, must be satisfied that he had shown, that, in every place at all extensively connected with the silk manufacture, whether it was Macclesfield, Congleton, Bethnal-green, or Spitalfields, great distress (whatever might be the cause) did really exist, Manchester was, in some degree, an exception to this remark; but if he was rightly informed, the silk manufacture at Manchester could not greatly interfere with the trade of Spitalfields. The silk manufacture there was of a much coarser, commoner, and cheaper nature; so that it was not likely that any lady would purchase, instead of the satin or velvet gown she could get at Spitalfields, the two or three servants gowns which might be bought for the same price of the Manchester manufacturer; on the contrary, it was much more likely that the servant maid would purchase, instead of her two cotton gowns, one of silk of this cheap description, which had many advantages in point of economy. The fact, therefore, was, that the silk manufacture of Manchester rather interfered with its own cheap cotton manufacture than with the expensive silk manufacture of Spitalfields. In respect to Coventry and the ribbon-trade, concerning which the noble Lord had referred to him, its distress was so notorious that he should hardly trouble the House by speaking of it, were it not for the purpose of mentioning a few facts which could not be generally known. All the silk used in the making of ribbons was dyed at Coventry; and he had ascertained that the quantity dyed in 1824 and 1825 was almost the same as in 1830 and 1831. He could mention this fact, first, because it led to the natural question—"What reason, then, have you to complain, when the quantity of silk made into ribbons is the same now as it used to be?" The simple answer to that question was, that the ribbons now made
1002
were of a thicker, stouter description than those formerly made, and required a double quantity of silk. But only the same quantity of silk was used now that was used at that time. Consequently there could be only half the number of yards of ribbon made, compared with what there used to be manufactured, and, therefore, only half the number of persons employed; or, what was the same thing, a great number must be thrown upon the parish, and the wages of the remainder much reduced. In proof of this, the wages of weavers of one class of ribbons had fallen from twenty-five to thirty per cent; of another, from thirty to thirty-five per cent; and of a third—those employed in the manufacture of gauze ribbons—to the actual amount of sixty five per cent. In the same manner he was borne out by what his noble friend, in the course of his statement, had said with reference to the increase of the poor-rates; and he had reason to believe his right hon. friend, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had also obtained some information upon this subject. He most likely would notice some extraordinary charges upon the rates, and say they ought to be deducted from the charge actually occasioned by the poor; but, as those charges were always made, he must, if he meant to compare the poor-rates of the present day with the amount of any former period, deduct those charges in both instances, or in both instances let them stand. Neither could it be said of the ribbon trade that it had gone elsewhere; Coventry had no Manchester—no English or British rival; unless, indeed, his right hon. friend, who had been anxiously sending about the country to find out the spot of its emigration, should have found it blushing unseen in some obscure nook of the country, whence it might venture forth this evening, perhaps, under his special patronage and protection. As he had just stated that the quantity of silk dyed was no criterion of the quantity of ribbon manufactured. He would also take the opportunity of contradicting the idea that any increase in the number of pounds of silk imported was any proof, as might be supposed, of an increase in the quantity or value of manufactured silk. There had been an increase in the importation of silk; and hon. Gentlemen were apt to imagine that a pound of silk was like a pound of iron, or of any other similar commodity, and represented the same amount of capital and employ-

1003
ment, one pound with another. It happened, however, that the great increase in imported raw silk, was in the heavy and coarse descriptions of silk which came from Turkey and Bengal, one pound of which would only yield 86,000 yards, fit for an inferior fabric; whereas a pound of the finer Italian silk would frequently make 200,000 yards, applicable to the most expensive manufactures. It was evident, therefore, that a pound of the finer silk would make a much greater quantity of silk, and that of a more valuable quality, than a pound of the coarser kind; while, in respect to the employment given by each, a fact had been communicated to him by a silk-manufacturer, which he would take the liberty of stating. It appeared from his books, then, that, in 1824, he paid 75 l. for labour in money upon 25lbs. of silk, while, curiously enough, in 1831, the case was exactly reversed, as he paid 25 l. for labour on 75lbs. of silk. An increase in the quantity of silk imported, therefore, though always assumed as such, was no kind of proof in fact, of the state of the manufactures, or the condition of the weavers. To return to Coventry—the same want of employment for looms, and the same consequent depreciation in wages prevailed in that city as elsewhere. Out of 20,000 looms in that town, 12,000 were unemployed; some, which cost 30 l. in making, were sold for 10 l., and others, which cost 50 l., sold for 20 l. and 25 l. His right hon. friend might say, that this was not the first time we had had distress in the silk trade, for that it had been heard of even in the halcyon times of prohibition. But the right hon. Gentleman, to make that fact an argument, must show that the causes of that former distress were the same with those which had produced the distress of the present time; and therefore, that, as distress was merely temporary then, it was not likely to be perpetual now. There was distress in 1815 and 1816, naturally occasioned by the return to a state of peace from a state of war, the increased competition of labour, and the opening of trade with France, which, during that war, England had exclusively possessed. In 1818, again complaints were heard, occasioned by the death of the Princess Charlotte, and the long mourning that followed, which rendered all the ribbons manufactured for the spring trade entirely useless. In 1826, also, just prior to the introduction of French goods, the fear of what might re-
1004
suit from the proposed alteration of the law went beyond any calamity to be apprehended from the measure itself; at all these times the distress was temporary as its causes; and if the House imagined that a similar case existed at the present time, he would not recommend it to assent to the Motion of the noble Lord. But the manufacturers asserted that their calamities were not of this temporary nature—they saw, or imagined they saw—in the source of these calamities, a probability of their continuation and increase. In short, they contended, that it was impossible for the manufacturers of this country to continue, under the existing regulations, to compete with the French manufacturers, on account of the innumerable advantages which they possessed over the English, and not to be acquired by them. In the first place, there was the cost of production. The protection of 3s. 6d. per lb. to the English throwster was reduced by the export duty of 10 d. paid in the Italian ports, and 2d., the present value of the debentures, to 2s. 6d. Still the French manufacturer got his Italian thrown silk more than 2s. 6d. cheaper than our manufacturers did. Besides this, France had silk of her own of a most valuable quality, of which, while we allowed the introduction of her silks and ribbons, she, under severe penalties, prohibited the exportation. Again, the expense of constructing a design or pattern fell considerably heavier upon the English manufacturer than it did upon the French. If any fancy article of a particular pattern be produced in too great a quantity, the value of the whole pattern is deteriorated. A haberdasher, therefore, goes to a manufacturer, and agrees with him for a certain quantity of silks and ribbons of a particular pattern, conditioning that he shall sell none of that pattern to any other English House; but the English manufacturer had only the English market. The French manufacturer's market, on the other hand, was in almost every country. If, therefore, a London haberdasher ordered of him fifty pieces of silk, of a particular pattern, conditioning that he should supply it to no other House in England, he could still send twenty pieces to Hamburgh, thirty to Petersburg, and more elsewhere, of course spreading the expense of the pattern over a wider surface. But his right hon. friend would, no doubt, say, we had a large protecting duty to counterbalance these advantages;

1005
but even in that respect, they were still unfortunate. This duty was levied either on the pound weight of silk, or on the value of the article; but, as it was of course difficult for a Custom-house officer to price an article, the value of which depended upon fancy and fashion, it was usual to levy the duty upon the weight. Now, there was often no correspondence between the value of the commodity and its weight. It would happen, therefore,—and he had ribbons in his hand to prove it—that an article paid only fifteen or sixteen per cent duty, instead of thirty per cent; then, making allowance for the 2s. 6d. per pound protection of the throwsters, which was equal to four or five per cent, the protection to the manufacturer was actually reduced to ten or eleven per cent. It was not, therefore, only against the principles of his right hon. friend, but against his adaptation of those principles, that they had cause to complain. The protection was really only one-third of what he promised, while those doctrines of free trade were not applied in favour of the home manufacturers, by which they could obtain the raw material cheaper, as he had already shown the charges upon raw silk were much greater than those to which the foreign manufacturer was subject. But, even if the cost of production could be equalized by any fair and well-executed protecting duties, there would still remain the almost overwhelming advantage—which the influence of the French fashion gave to the French manufacturer. Nor did this depend merely upon the silk or ribbon itself; any superiority in the taste or skill of the French milliner gave a superior value to every art she employed, and since the French milliner was more skilful and tasteful than ours, and since the French ladies, in consequence, set the fashion to ours, it followed, as a matter of course, that if nothing but green silks and ribbons were to be seen in the spring or summer seasons at Paris, it would be perfectly useless for us to have made the prettiest brown ribbons or silks in the world. A singular instance of this occurred shortly after the prohibition upon silks was taken off. The French, who had been trying various methods of cheapening their manufacture, found out one of dyeing the silk without discharging the gum, by which they gained four ounces on every pound. The disadvantage of this method, however, was, that the silk was dead, and by
1006
no means of so lustrous and beautiful an appearance as it acquired by the ordinary process. No sooner, however, was this dull-looking silk sold in England, as of French manufacture, than its very defect was considered a peculiar charm, and, for some time, until, indeed, this method of dyeing was discovered and practised in England, no person would purchase the richer and more glossy silk. It was unfashionable, because it was not French. So, in ribbons—a Mr. Merry, last spring season, was selling a lutestring ribbon at 60 s. the piece. It was much admired and sought after: when a French ribbon made its appearance. It was of much the same colour as the English ribbon; but it was a satin ribbon, instead of a lutestring. From that moment the poor lutestring was hardly looked at; it was sold with the greatest difficulty for 30 s.; while Mr. Merry was subjected to the sad necessity of seeing the rival article sold for 72 s. Nor was this passion for French goods simply confined to ladies of a certain class or description. He would venture to say, that there was hardly a female in town who would be seen, if she could help it, with an English ribbon; he had it as a fact, from a well-accredited house in the City, that, on being sent to the other day by a milliner, in a small way, in a little village, in one of the least inhabited parts of Northumberland, for a stock of ribbons, and on, unfortunately, sending some English ribbons, he not only had his ribbons disdainfully returned to him, but the milliner declared that, for the future, she must withdraw the whole of her custom from so ungenteel an establishment. In consequence of this, the manufacturer of France proceeded with his work in the certainty that he should obtain purchasers in the English market; in fact, his goods were all sold beforehand, while the English manufacturer could get no order in advance from the haberdasher, and if he made his goods, and brought them for sale, he was told by those who had not yet ordered French goods, that they must wait till it was seen what the French fashions were; while it was clear that a person, who had already given his orders for French goods, would recommend and sell them before he allowed a single English ribbon to pass through his hands. These circumstances, in connexion with the peculiar quality of that French silk, which was not to be obtained here, had induced the ribbon

1007
manufacturers, and some part of the fancy silk-trade, to imagine that their best resource would be in prohibition. They said, supposing the smuggling system were to continue, which was the greatest evil feared from prohibition, one of two things must happen; either the French goods would be of a different description from our own, and, consequently, be immediately detected as foreign, or, to escape detection, they would be more similar to our own; in which case as the French would be following and imitating us, instead of we following and imitating them, we should be placed in that advantageous position over them, which they now enjoyed over us. He stated this argument, because it had some force, and the parties concerned laid great stress upon it. At the same time, all that the ribbon manufacturers were anxious for at this moment was, to obtain a Committee to inquire into their case in hopes that, thereby they might obtain some relief. They did not presume to say what that relief should be, but some must be given, if the utter and immediate ruin which would otherwise fall upon those who were engaged in this branch of our manufactures was to be prevented. He saw no reason why one produce of our skill and industry should not be protected as well as another. What might be the species of protection requisite for each, must, of course, depend upon many peculiar circumstances. He was willing to admit that, where it was possible—by driving the English manufacturer into severe competition with the foreigner, so to operate upon his exertions as eventually to give him possession of the foreign markets—that it might be sound policy to inflict an immediate and individual evil, for the sake of the general advantage that would follow. But where it was impossible even to enter into successful competition in another market—there the most wise and prudent course was, to give such protection to our producers, providing their interests were not greatly at variance with those of the great body of consumers—as might preserve them against foreign monopoly in our own markets. The ribbon manufacture was one peculiarly of this description; it was the manufacture of an article of mere luxury. If any hon. Gentleman doubted whether we could really compete with the foreigner in this article, let him pay a visit to Coventry, taking with him that important French document which so pompously set
1008
forth the prosperity of the French ribbon manufacturer at St. Etienne, and that prosperity, too, declared to be the consequence of increasing orders from England. He knew there were some Gentlemen, however, whom mere ocular demonstration of this kind would not convince; they had an easy kind of way of imbibing a theory, and then, in order to prevent their minds from being unsettled, they made it a rule to pay no attention to its practice. They reminded him of the physician in Sterne, who, when he heard that his patient was dead, held a dispute of two hours with the nurse and the undertaker to prove that he ought to be alive. So, if he could show these hon. Gentlemen the people of Spitalfields in actual insurrection, and the city of Coventry in ruins, they would tell him, with the most complacent air imaginable, to make his mind perfectly easy, for that the one ought to be happy and contented, and the other in a state of the greatest prosperity. Other Gentlemen might, with greater plausibility urge that, where a manufacturer required all this excessive care and protection, it must be uncongenial to the country, and that it was, therefore, better to allow it to be destroyed, and the capital embarked in it invested elsewhere. Certainly, if they were now deliberating on the first establishment in this country of a manufacture which required such support, he should perfectly agree with these hon. Gentlemen; but they must take the case as it was, and the facts such as they were; and, first, in regard to withdrawing capital from these uncongenial manufactures, and giving it a new and more profitable direction. Admitting that that part of the capital which could be thus withdrawn might be employed more advantageously elsewhere, they must deduct from the profit made by labour becoming more productive in one place, the loss which was sustained by individuals being thrown out of employment in another, and, therefore, to be supported by the poor-rates. Thus the gain to the individual was not all sheer gain to the community; and while the general gain was obtained by the richer man becoming more wealthy, the whole of the general loss was sustained by the poorer man, whose fortunes were already far on the decline. He was aware that there was a natural tendency to changes and such fluctuations of business, but they were not always so generally advantageous as some Gentlemen supposed even in a com-

1009
mercial point of view; while he was quite certain that there were many political reasons which should induce us to place some kind of check upon their too great facility. A great nation had been compared to a great individual merchant, and, in some points, the same principles might be applied to both but it was erroneous to do so in all cases. It was not the only object of a nation to increase its wealth; the maintenance of order and tranquillity ever influenced by sudden transitions from wealth to indigence in different classes of the community, was not an object to be forgotten or overlooked. If, in a thickly-populated country, like this, capital was to be perpetually urged by every petty impulse into a new direction—if it was adopted as a principle, that large bodies of men on the slightest variations of trade or fashion, not only in this country, but through out Europe, were to be perpetually thrown out of employment, they might have what form of Government they pleased, but they would be practically living in a perpetual state of anxiety and confusion. No power on earth would induce men submissively to bear evils for the sake of the good which others were to derive from their sufferings, and there were at this moment those habits of regard and communication between the working classes in this country, that it was impossible to render any part more desperate, without their feelings being in a great degree participated in by the whole. These were circumstances which it was surely of consequence to take into consideration; more particularly at the time when these classes were to receive a greater power in the State than they had hitherto possessed. He was not addressing himself to the Vice President of the Board of Trade or to his Majesty's Government; they had recognized much that he had ventured to say, in the course they pursued upon the truck question, as well as in many other parts of their commercial policy. If the interest of the consumer was to be wholly regarded in anything, it would most assuredly be in the cheapness of that article which was the main support of life: for this reason he had voted, and, as long as our commercial regulations remained the same, he should ever vote, for every motion that tended to reduce the price of corn; not so much, perhaps, because he was convinced that its free and sudden importation would be a wise and just measure in itself, as because its present prohibition—for prohibi-
1010
tion it was practically—was an act of great relative injustice. He would not trouble the House further; but, before he sat down, he should wish to correct himself, if, in any expression he had used, there had appeared the slightest disregard or disrespect for the principles of those great men who had made the wealth of nations their peculiar study. These were his feelings. Mr. Canning, in speaking of these illustrious persons, spoke of them as placed on heights from which alone they could take an extended view of human nature. It was from the very circumstance of this their extraordinary elevation—it was on account of the distance at which they were from the objects at which they were looking—that, while the main features of the prospect arrested their attention, its minor parts were overlooked, and all its inequalities were rendered level to their view. But the traveller, who had to pass over the country which they had been viewing would find a great deal of difference between the ground he had to traverse and its distant appearance, and would choose a very different, and, in all probability, a far more circuitous path to his destination than the eye, merely looking down from an eminence, would naturally have chosen. This must always be the distinction between the statesman in speculation, and the politician in action; nor did he see why a difference, necessary to the qualities of each, should take away from the merit of either. In that House they met to act, and not to philosophize; nor had it ever been the custom of that assembly to speculate on a distant good that might possibly arrive, rather than apply a practical remedy to an immediate grievance. Surely, then, if present expediency had never hitherto been disregarded in the course of policy the House had, at various times, been called upon to pursue, there never was a time in which it could be less expedient to render desperate men more desperate—or reduce famishing men to a greater certainty of starvation—than a period like this, when great political excitement was abroad, and when an awful pestilence had already made its appearance, which the many miseries of poverty fatally encouraged, if they did not actually engender it.
The Motion having been put,
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that in one sentiment which had been expressed by his noble friend opposite he fully and cordially concurred, and that was
the regret which

1011
he felt that his late right hon. friend, Mr. Huskisson, was not now alive to defend the policy which he had introduced into the commercial system of this country. Deeply indeed did he (Mr. P. Thomson) feel the loss of his right hon. friend, when he, humble as he was, found himself suddenly called upon to do that which his right hon. friend, with his great talents and experience in business, would have done so much better. Though he did not think it necessary that the great principles which his right hon. friend had so ably advocated and supported should be at all called into question in this debate, still he could not refrain from regretting that an abler supporter of those principles than himself should not be called upon to explain their developement, and to defend their results. If by those principles were meant what hon. Gentlemen had adverted to in this discussion, and what his hon. friend, the member for Coventry, had said was vulgarly denominated the principles of free trade, he would only say, that those principles were not necessarily called into question when the House was called upon to examine into the arrangement of duties, which were said to be nominally thirty per cent, but which were alleged to be actually, and practicably, much less than that amount. It was not his intention, as he had already intimated in private to his noble friend, to oppose, on the part of the Government, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the silk trade. He found it, however, necessary to alter the terms of his noble friend's Motion, not with a view of limiting its extent, but rather with a view of increasing it, by uniting with it a subject with which it was naturally connected, and on which the hon. and learned member for Corfe Castle had already given notice of a motion—he meant the consideration of the best means of preventing smuggling in articles of silk manufacture. Under these circumstances, he should not have troubled the House at much length, had not his noble friend entered into a vast variety of details, and drawn numerous conclusions from them, with which he found it impossible to agree. It was, therefore, necessary for him to go more at length than he had originally intended into the details, to show that it was not in consequence either of those details, or of the conclusions drawn from them, or of the view with which those details and consequences were stated, that his Majes-
1012
ty's Government had acceded to the appointment of this Committee. Whoever had listened to the speeches, not only of his noble friend, the member for Cheshire, but also of his hon. friend, the member for Coventry, must have seen that they were actuated by the best and purest motives, residing, as both of them did, near places where the silk trade was carried on, and where, unfortunately, great distress prevailed, and obeying, as both of them did, the wishes of their constituents, in pressing this subject on the attention of the House. His hon. friends had done no more than justice when they stated their belief, that the Government sympathized deeply with the distress which had fallen upon their respective constituents. He readily admitted the existence of this sympathy on the part of Government, but he could by no means admit, that the condition of the silk trade was so deplorable as they had represented it to be, or that there was any thing in the condition of that trade which had not occurred over and over again; and which was not, if he might use such an expression, adherent to its character. His hon. friend, the member for Coventry, seemed to be aware of this when he remarked, that distress had been of frequent occurrence. It became his (Mr. Poulett Thomson's) duty to touch upon several instances of this nature, when the state of this trade had been brought before that House. In the year 1793, it was stated, that not less than 4,000 looms were out of employment in Spitalfields. In the year 1795, similar distress prevailed. In the year 1810, the distress in that district was so great, that no less a sum than 20,000 l. was voted from the public coffers to relieve it. Again, in the year 1817, the pressure of distress was very great. Shortly afterwards, namely, in the year 1819, a Committee of that House was appointed to inquire into the cause of the distress, which then, as formerly, impeded the progress of the trade. All these periods of distress had occurred during the period which his hon. friend, the member for Coventry, had denominated "the happy period of prohibition." Since the time that prohibition had ceased, the country had heard of the recurrence of distress in a regular cycle of years; but there was not an iota of proof that there had been more distress since the prohibition was taken off, than there had been before. His noble friend had told the House that it was incumbent upon the Government to

1013
prove that the distress, which was now so prevalent, arose from the same causes as the distress which had formerly existed in this trade. To that assertion of his noble friend he said no. His noble friend attributed the distress to the change which had been made in our commercial system; now, as no person could prove a negative, it was necessary that his noble friend should prove that the distress did arise from that cause, and from no other. His noble friend had read a great variety of documents, in order to prove, that up to the year 1821, the silk trade had been in a state of progressive increase, and that since that time, it had been in a state of progressive decline. The House could not fail to recollect, that, in the year 1824, a bill was Introduced by the late Lord Liverpool's Government, which proposed to reduce the duty on thrown Italian silk from 14 s. 3d, to 7s. 2d. per lb., to take off the prohibition on manufactured silks, and to fix duties upon them formed upon a calculation of the minimum of the cost of smuggling, with a view of putting an end to the contraband trade. It was said, at the time, that the result of taking away the prohibition would be the inundation of the country with French silks, and the robbing the throwster, not only of employment, but also of subsistence. Time was, therefore, asked to enable him to withdraw his capital from the trade, and to guard against the effects of this expected inundation. Time was accordingly given him; and, unfortunately, it was granted at the same moment when the duty on the raw material of the thrown silk was to be taken off, while the prohibition on the manufactured article should not be withdrawn till the year 1826. What was the result? Was any reduction made either in the employment or the capital of the throwster? Quite the reverse; for the throwster increased, in the most imprudent and extravagant way, both his capital and his employment. To such an excess was this carried, that the manufacturers of Macclesfield even advertised for workmen to come and settle in the neighbourhood of that place. He would now proceed to show that, even supposing that increase had been prudent—and imprudent it most certainly was, for we had no right to anticipate the great consumption of silk which ensued—there had been a very undue increase of employment for the establishments then in existence. If he could show that the raw ma-
1014
terial which the throwing establishments had to consume, had increased immensely since the alteration of the law, he should be able to show that if there was now distress in the trade, it could only arise from over-speculation, and, consequently, that the parties who complained of it had only themselves to thank for it. He would not trouble the House with a long series of figures upon this occasion; but as his noble friend had quoted figures, perhaps the House would permit him (Mr. P. Thomson) to do the same. He would take the five years previous to 1824, and the five years subsequent to 1827; for he would reject the years 1824 and 1825, because they were the years when the new law did not operate. There were entered for home consumption in the years—

1819

1,440,000

lbs. of raw silk.

1820

1,620,000

1821

1,864,000

1822

1,993,000

1823

2,051,000

There were entered for home consumption in the years—

1827

3,559,000

lbs. of raw silk.

1828

2,912,000

1829

2,491,000

1830

3,771,000

1831

3,360,000

Having stated the quantity in each of those periods of five years, he should now state the average of those years, and he entreated attention to the statement, because, if there was one fact more convincing than another, it was the fact that the average importation had increased in the five years subsequent to the admission of the foreign article, as compared with the importation of the five years preceding the change in the law. The average of the five years from 1819 to 1823, including raw and waste silk, was 1,873,000lbs. and the average of the five years from 1827 to 1831, was 3,739,000 lbs., being an increase in the importation of raw silk to the amount of nearly 100 per cent. What had the throwster to complain of besides: His hon. friend said, "the competition of the foreign throwster." On that point he wished to call the attention of the House to the strong fact—that while the duty on thrown silk had been diminished, till the throwster said, that he was injured seriously by its diminution, the consumption of home-manufactured silks had greatly Increased. The alteration in the duty took place in 1829. The duty was reduced from

1015
7s. to 5s., and afterwards from 5s. to 3s. 6d. It appeared, however, that, in three years before the change of duty took place, namely, in the years 1826, 1827, and 1828, the amount of thrown silk imported was 376,000lbs., whilst, in the three years subsequent to the alteration—the years 1829, 1830, and 1831—the quantity of thrown silk imported was 374,000 lbs. The consumption of thrown silk, therefore, remained exactly where it had been before any alteration took place. It might be said, that the throwsters were injured by the importation of manufactured goods, and not of thrown silk, but the great apprehension at the time the duty was reduced was, from the importation of thrown silk. He believed the great mistake was, the leaving any duty at all on that commodity. The introduction of thrown silk arose from the necessity of having a certain quantity of that article from the markets of Italy, and, in his opinion, therefore, his hon. friend, the member for Coventry, would do greater service to the silk manufacture, and act more wisely, if he proposed a reduction of duty on thrown silk rather than an increased duty, or a prohibition. In considering this subject, it was impossible to shut out of view that a large number of factories had recently been established in places where they had not previously existed. If considerable distress existed in Macclesfield, much of that distress arose from competition; for every one acquainted with the trade knew that, if less work was done in Macclesfield, a great deal more was done in Manchester. A large trade in throwing silk had lately sprung up in Manchester, and materially injured Macclesfield. Nor was the increase of machinery to be left out of consideration. Whilst on this subject, he might state the amount of mills which existed in Manchester before and since the change in the law. Before 1819, how many mills did the House think had been erected in Manchester? Not one! Between 1819 and 1823, seven mills had been established, and, since 1823 five more; so that twelve mills had been established since 1819, which naturally carried a large proportion of the trade from where it had formerly been. The House would bear in mind, too, that there was a considerable difference in mills. Some mills had five times the amount of power possessed by others. It was curious to observe how Manchester sucked to itself a great proportion of the trade of the coun-
1016
try, and took the lead in every knew branch of industry that was opened. Before the year 1823, the horse-power in the mills then at Manchester amounted only to 146; since that time there had been an increase of 196. Thus there was a horse-power in the silk mills at Manchester, amounting to 342, working with all the improvements in machinery which were so advantageous to the skill, and industry, and capital of England. What, then, would his noble friend come to in his proposition for the silk throwsters of Macclesfield? Would he have raw silk taxed 5s., and thrown silk 14 s., per pound? His noble friend had said, that he was no friend to prohibition, though he was now moving for an inquiry to show that it was necessary; and, therefore, he could not suppose that his noble friend meant to recommend prohibition as a mode of relieving the throwster. He now came to the case of the Coventry weavers, as his hon. friend opposite had endeavoured to illustrate it by reference to the Poor-rates. He was not incredulous of the distress which prevailed among them, but as no good could arise from putting forward exaggerated statements of its amount, especially on the authority of figures, he must be permitted, when he had it in his power, to reduce those exaggerated statements to their true level. His hon. friend stated, that the Poor-rates of Coventry had of late increased in a most extraordinary way. He held in his hand an account, signed by the Overseer of the Poor for that town, from which it appeared that the Poor-rates had diminished, instead of increased, during the last year. He had an account of the Poor-rates for Coventry for every year since 1816. He would only notice the account for the last one or two years. In the year 1829 the Poor-rates in Coventry amounted to 12,400 l. In the year ending July, 1830, they rose to 20,000 l. That arose from this circumstance—in the year 1829, considerable discussion took place on the propriety of the silk duties. In consequence of that discussion, an apprehension prevailed that they would be altered in the ensuing Session of Parliament. That apprehension paralysed the operations of the trade; many men were turned off by the masters, and thus great distress, and consequent pressure on the Poor-rates, was occasioned. No alteration of the duties having taken place, however, trade resumed its operation, and in the year end-

1017
ing July, 1831 the Poor-rates were again reduced to 12,400 l. In the last half-year, ending December, 1831, the Poor-rates amounted to 6,990 l. and he was informed, that, in all probability, they would not exceed 13,000 l. for the present year. Hon. Gentlemen would, however, bear in mind, that although there had been no increase in the Poor-rates, such an increase might naturally have been expected. There had been a great increase in the population within the last fourteen or fifteen years, and as the subsistence of that increased population depended on the employment given to industry, it might have been expected that there would be some great increase in the Poor-rates of the place in which it was collected together. But what was it at which his hon. friend wished to arrive by his argument on the Poor-rates of Coventry? His hon. friend said, "I do not know, and, therefore, I wish to inquire." His hon. friend avowed his wish to protect the weavers of Coventry in their own market from foreign competition. Did his hon. friend know to what extent the amount of protection now given them went? His hon. friend said, that, on no one article of Coventry manufacture did the protecting duty amount to thirty per cent. He (Mr. P. Thomson) held in his hand a copy of the rate of duties imposed on all articles of foreign silk manufacture; and, so far was he from finding that the rate of duties was under thirty per cent, that he was quite certain that it was above thirty per cent, on most articles, and particularly on those which were also manufactured at Coventry. This might perhaps be disputed. He, therefore, wished the House to hear the rate of duties by which articles of Coventry manufacture were protected, and to consider whether any additional protection could be an advantage to the weavers of that place. French gauze ribands, ribands, and figured silks, were the three articles in which Coventry most feared foreign competition. Now, the rate of duty on the first was between fifty and sixty per cent, on the second, between sixty and sixty-six per cent, and on the third—figured silks—was forty-one per cent. Was not this rate of duty sufficient? If not, would his hon. friend propose to protect his constituents, by re-establishing a complete prohibition? Did his hon. friend recollect what was the burthen of the various arguments advanced in the memorials presented by the manufactures of
1018
Coventry from the year 1801 to the year 1816, respecting the distressed condition of their trade? If his hon. friend did not, he would tell him it was this—that, in spite of prohibition, the British manufacturer was seriously injured by the manner in which the smuggler undersold him. What had that practical man of business, his hon. friend, the member for Thetford, said on the subject of prohibition? His hon. friend had said, "Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that any prohibition can prevent the introduction of articles in demand, at an advance of twenty or thirty per cent upon their real value. It is impossible to suppose, that ladies will not get French shoes, French ribands, French gloves, and French silks, in this way, if they can get them in no other." He thought it clear, then, that, from the renewal of prohibition, no benefit could be derived to the weavers of Coventry; and even if it could, would the House inflict prohibition on the country, followed up, as it must be, by domiciliary visits of all kinds in search of silks, which could not be distinguished, at present, from English silks without the greatest difficulty? To fix a penalty upon a matter that was open to so much doubt, and that required the nicest discrimination, would be a species of tyrannical interference, which he was sure that House would never tolerate or agree to. Thinking, then, as he did, that prohibition would never be resorted to again by that House, he must ask his hon. friend what he wished to gain for his constituents in the view which he had that night taken of their condition? Having now concluded his observations on the case of the throwsters of Macclesfield, and the weavers of Coventry, he should like to advert very briefly to the general state of the silk manufacture. His hon. friend had taken up the three points of Mr. Huskisson, and endeavoured to refute the argument which that statesman had built upon them. His late right hon. friend had said, that, in consequence of our adopting the principles of free trade, we should succeed in the trade of silk. But his hon. friend said, that prediction had been falsified by events. He replied, that instead of being falsified, never had prediction been more fully realized. The three points on which Mr. Huskisson mainly relied were, the superiority of our machinery, the skill of our artisans, and the extent of our capital. His hon. friend asserted, that he had

1019
derived no advantage in any one of them from the altered state of the law. Now, he appealed boldly to every man engaged in the manufacture of the silk, and asked, whether, of late years, the greatest improvements had not been made in our silk machines? To say nothing of other improvements, there was the Jacquard loom, which was now much employed in Coventry—which had given fresh energies to the skill of the weaver, and thus the trade had gone on increasing, and he hoped prospering in general, although no one could more regret than he, that misfortunes had happened to individuals and particular places, but he protested against the doctrine, that these isolated places of suffering, however much to be deplored, were to be taken as proofs of the decline of the trade generally. "But," said his noble friend, "the amount of capital engaged in the silk trade has done nothing of importance." If so, how did it happen that there had been such an increase of silk mills and manufactories at Manchester? The looms in Manchester had increased from 6,000 to 15,000 since 1824. Was that the sign of a ruined or an improving trade? He did not wish to weary the House; but there was another circumstance to which he must advert before he concluded. It was the point which had been alluded to as arising from foreign competition. The state of the introduction of the foreign manufactured article was shown from the Custom-house returns, on reference to which he found, that very little increase had taken place in the imports since the period at which the prohibition had been taken off. He held in his hand the Custom-house returns of the official value of silk manufactures, which showed little or no increase in the imports. In the first year of free trade, and after the prohibition was removed, the official value of the imports amounted to 556,000 l.; in the year, 1828, 677,000 l.; in 1829, 595,000 l.; in 1830, 595,000 l; and in the year 1831, nearly the same amount as the year which preceded. This, he conceived, was a clear proof that the silk trade could not be much deteriorated, when there had been comparatively no increase, within the last five years, to the importation of foreign manufactures. The silk trade of this country had not received much, if any, injury from smuggling, since the prohibition was removed, with regard to which point, inquiry, be proposed, should be made by the Com-
1020
mittee now to be appointed. It was certainly advisable that an end should be put to smuggling; but he did not believe that much increase had taken place in that respect, for, at present, as far as could be ascertained, the smuggling trade amounted to about 200,000 l. a-year, while, before the prohibition, it amounted to 150,000 l. so that there had been no great increase. It was, also, important that the House should know what the exports from this country had been, because it had been stated, that they had been decreasing; but it would be found that, whilst the British manufacturers had been undersold in their own markets, the export trade had been increasing. The returns showed, that, in the three years before 1824, the official value of British silk, unmixed, exported, was on the average of 102,000 l.; in the three last years, viz. 1827, 1828, and 1829, the average official value of the exports was 215,000 l.; and, in the last two years, 1830 and 1831, the amount was 348,000 l.; and in the last year, 500,000 l. With these facts before the House, how could it be said, that the silk trade had been injured by foreign competition? He might be told, that these returns included the exportation of mixed manufactures; but he was prepared to show that the exportation of mixed articles of silk manufactures had, within the same period, increased from 30,000 l. to between 70,000 l. and 80,000 l. He should not trouble the House with any more of these statements, but he would beg leave very briefly to state the grounds upon which his Majesty's Government considered themselves justified, without the least departure from the opinions and principles to which they had hitherto adhered, in consenting to the motion for an inquiry into the state of the silk trade. He, for one, rejoiced that they had come to that conclusion, satisfied as he was that, from that inquiry, if properly conducted, the truth would come, and that the truth, when elicited, would procure for their principles one of the most signal triumphs which they could possibly achieve. He repeated, that he rejoiced, so far as he was concerned, that his Majesty's Government had come to the determination of granting the Committee; but if there was one feeling which detracted from the satisfaction he should otherwise feel, it was, that he never could look, without the greatest fear and apprehension, at anything that was in the least likely to stagnate or

1021
disturb any branch of the trade of the country. That such must, in some measure, be the result of a Committee, it was impossible to entertain a doubt, because he knew practically too well that, on whatever grounds a Committee of Inquiry was granted, a degree of uncertainty must be felt with regard to the results, and the minds of men being agitated, their speculations could no longer be undertaken with security. Feeling this, he should, under other circumstances, have disregarded what he knew would be the desire of many Gentlemen, and some of them who were disposed to act with his Majesty's Government, in performance of the principles which they laid down—like his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, who was always anxious for an inquiry, in order to satisfy the parties interested. He should have resisted the proposition for a Committee, regardless of the unpopularity to which such a course might subject him, if it were not for the peculiar circumstances of this trade. He believed that alterations were necessary in the laws relating to the silk trade. He had already shown, that, so far from the duty being thirty per cent, there were many cases in which it amounted to forty, fifty, or sixty per cent. He was perfectly satisfied of the necessity of a change: not, however, with a view to increase the duties, they being already so high as that the smuggler could carry on his trade with success, but to reduce them to that point from which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite had started—to the minimum of the cost of smuggling; so that the manufacturer should have all due protection, and that, at the same time, there should be no temptation to violate the law. He was satisfied that the result of the Committee would be to alter the duty on thrown silk, so as to give to the constituents of the hon. member for Coventry the raw material without a heavy duty. He thought, also, that the labours of the Committee, even if they did not produce what some might desire, would go far to satisfy the parties engaged in the trade, not only that attention was paid to their interests, but that, if the House pursued a line of conduct different from that which they thought expedient, that was not done without the fullest inquiry, and that the Legislature conformed to their wishes, as far as was consistent with the general interests of the country.
Colonel Davieswould not detain the
1022
House a moment. He had merely risen to say, that the right hon. Gentleman had made use of the most incontrovertible arguments in favour of the Committee for inquiring into the glove trade, for which he (Colonel Davies) had moved a few nights ago; and it was, therefore, his intention, as soon as the present question was disposed of, to move, that the petition of the glove manufacturers should be referred to a Committee.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonhad forgotten to state, when on his legs, that although he agreed to the appointment of a Committee, as proposed by the noble Lord, he was anxious to unite the two objects; and, therefore, begged to move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord, that all the words after the word "appoint" be left out, for the purpose of inserting these words—"to examine into the present state of the silk trade, and to inquire what effect has been produced by the change in the laws since the year 1824; and, whether any and what legislative measures may be advisable for the promotion of the trade, or for the checking of smuggling in silk manufactures."
Mr. Alderman Waithmanhad listened with some surprise to the lengthened address of the right hon. Gentleman, for he had been in hopes that the Committee would have been appointed, and a fair and impartial inquiry have taken place, without any attempt, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, to add to the Motion of the noble Lord, and, as it were, to prescribe the conditions of the Committee. As to the right hon. Gentleman having gone so much into detail, he had no objection to that; but he certainly did object (and it was getting too much the practice in that House) to a member of the Government referring to documents to which the House had no access; besides which, he certainly was not at all able to see what they had to do with all these details, when they were to have a Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the whole subject. The plain and simple questions to him appeared to be—were the people in distress, or were they not? Now, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to say, that distress did not exist to the extent described by the noble Lord; but it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had refuted himself, for he had entered into a long argument to show that there had been a great increase in raw silk thrown for the last five years, and that there was

1023
no falling off in the thrown silk imported, and yet, when he came to talk of the state of the poor, he had attributed that to the increase of population. But, surely, if there was an increase of population, there ought also to be an increase of the consumption of articles made from silk; in the absence of which it was clear that the demand must have fallen off. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, there had been no increase in the importation of thrown silk; and, though there had been an increase in the raw silk, he was afraid that that was no argument, for the silk trade had wholly changed, and the prejudice in favour of foreign fashions I had driven our own weavers from the manufacture of the finer and more profitable branches, where a large portion of labour was employed upon a small portion of the raw material, to the manufacture of coarser and commoner articles, upon which there was a greater weight of silk, with much less labour, and lower profit to the manufacturer, and lower wages to the weaver, and consequent depression and distress. But really what were the facts, admitting, for the sake of argument, that the trade had increased? Why, that distress had increased also, for, since the year 1826, the wages of a weaver had fallen in the ratio of from 11 s. to 5s. per week. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the trade was thriving in Manchester, but, on the authority of a letter—a copy of which he held in his hand, from a most extensive silk throwster there, Mr. Royle, addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President to the Board of Trade—the very reverse was the case; that Gentleman stated, "that official facts would not satisfy the trade in the face of a starving population—that the weavers were in a state of destitution, although the trade was increased; and the individuals who performed the labour were filling the workhouses, not being able to support their families." The wages at Congleton and Coventry had fallen from 18 s. to 6s. a-week. In Spitalfields there were formerly 3,000 looms employed in the fancy trade—there were now but 250. The right hon. Gentleman said, exultingly, that all the predictions of Mr. Huskisson had been verified. He (Mr. Alderman Waithman) said, that not one of them had been fulfilled. While 2,000,000 l. worth of goods were received from France, not 100,000 l. did she receive of ours, and the whole of
1024
our exports might be limited to Bengal and China silk manufactured into handkerchiefs, the same amount would still continue to be exported, if we did not receive one shilling's worth of French silks. The question which he would put to the right hon. Gentleman was this:—"Have we not hands enough of our own, and why admit the manufactures of foreign countries into our markets, to beat down our own labour, when so many thousands of our industrious artisans are reduced to poverty and distress, and when those foreigners absolutely prohibit all our manufactures?" If he chose to enter upon the doctrines of free trade, he could show the House that the exports had fallen off since the year 1817 to the enormous amount of 9,000,000 l. per annum, and that though the official value might have increased 4,000,000 l., the real value had decreased 2,000,000 l. These, however, were facts which must come before the House in due season, and he would not, at the present time, enter upon them further. But not all the fallacies of the right hon. Gentleman could get over the fact that the value of labour in the silk manufactures had amazingly decreased, and, with this mortifying fact before his eves, the right hon. Gentleman had said, not only that he would have a Committee, but he would tell them what they were to do—an arrangement which appeared to him (Mr. Alderman Waithman) to be neither more nor less than a mere mockery of the whole affair, for it was quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman had other objects in view, and no intention of meeting the complaints of the petitioners. The present was no new case. The manufacturers of silk had been before the House year after year, and had as often been sent off with mere assurances and predictions that had never been verified. And did the right hon. Gentleman think that he knew better about these matters than the very persons who were engaged in the trade? According to the right hon. Gentleman's account, however, all that the Government wanted was, to stop smuggling. This he (Mr. Alderman Waithman) defied any Government to do; for he could tell the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman's own constituents could tell him, that smuggling, so far from falling off, was very much on the increase. He would give the House an instance of the extent to which it prevailed.

1025
Within two months before the late great seizure of silk, there was only 17,000 l. paid in duty, while in the two months after it 73,000 l. was paid. This was a proof how largely that trade was carried on. He hoped that the declarations which the House had heard from the right hon. Gentleman were rather the effusions of his own feelings than an expression of the determination of his Majesty's Government.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, if any Gentleman had listened to the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it would have been impossible for him to have come to the conclusion, that in the end he intended to accede to the proposition for a Committee; for his whole argument had been to show, that the petitioners had not a point on which to rest: besides which, the other night, when exactly a similar case was made out on the part of the glove manufacturers, a Committee was refused, and now one was granted to the silk manufacturers. These, however, were not the only inconsistencies in the right hon. Gentleman's speech; though he (Mr. Robinson) did not propose to occupy the time of the House with pointing them out. With respect to the distress that existed, it was so appalling, that he should be ashamed of himself if he attempted to say one word for the purpose of proving what, from its extent, must be a self-evident fact. That distress had, unfortunately, been too clearly made out by the noble Lord; and he did not believe it possible, that the Government would sanction the right hon. Gentleman in his denial of it.
Mr. Poulett Thomson: I do not deny the distress.
Mr. Robinson: He was glad to find, that he had at length succeeded in eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman, an admission that there was distress, and that, on that point, at least, they were no longer at issue. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had indulged in a number of old hackneyed arguments, and had accused these petitioners of bringing the distress on themselves, by imprudently overtrading at different periods. But what did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that accusation? Did he mean to condemn those exertions, which, it was the boast of the late Mr. Huskisson, that the adoption of the principles of free trade would call into action. The language of the right hon. Gentleman formerly used to be, "Use your best endeavours; and, if you fail, this House
1026
will take care to relieve you." But now the right hon. Gentleman changed his note, and said, "You should not have used these energies! Give up the foolish attempt, and yield your trade into the hands of your foreign competitors." That was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, turn it which way he might. Would any one deny, that the manufacturers had employed their best exertions? Would any one deny, that labour could find no employment—that wages were lowered—and that misery and distress were the melancholy results? Was he disingenuous enough to attribute the whole of this distress to foreign competition? No. But what he said was, that in this country there was such a stimulus to human labour, that individuals were obliged to embark in trade that was unprofitable, because they had no other way of living: and he would, therefore, boldly assert, that the very extension of the trade was a proof of the distress. That trade had gone from London to Macclesfield, and from Macclesfield to Manchester, but distress had followed it every where, and, in a few years, all would be alike involved in one common ruin. He should not now enter into the question of free trade, because he intended to discuss it hereafter, on broader and more general principles than any upon which he had ever heard it discussed in that House. The petitioners said, as the hon. member for Thetford had said in 1825, that if that House could not find employment for them, or improve their trade, or protect them against foreign competition, the country would be obliged, in the end, to maintain them without employment. The admission of foreign goods beyond what was necessary, tended to pauperize and demoralize the great mass of the people, and was one main source of that discontent and dissatisfaction, which produced a desire for changes of every description. Although he was a supporter of Reform, yet he must say, he was convinced, that it was the distress of the people which made them so vehement for changes. He thought, that although prohibition ought not to be resorted to, except in extreme cases, yet under the peculiar circumstances of this trade, if the Committee were not able to devise other means of relieving the distress, they must have recourse to prohibition, or things must take their course, and greater distress would ensue than already existed. But he at the same time must

1027
again inquire, as had already been done by his hon. friend and colleague, how it was, that the right hon. Gentleman exerted himself to prevent inquiry into the state of the glove trade, and granted a Committee upon the silk trade, when the allegations of the manufacturers in both trades were founded upon the same grounds?
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, he could state, that with respect to Macclesfield, the distress had been severely felt; and he would refer the House to some documents which he had in his hand, and which would clearly establish that fact. In 1825, the price of wages had been 16 s. 7d.; in 1826, it was only 7s. 9d. In 1824, the number of persons employed in silk-throwing was 276; in 1828, it was only 159; in 1824, the wages for silk-throwing were 11 s.; in 1828, they were only 5s. 3d.; and, with respect to the poor-rates, in 1825, they amounted to 4,400 l.; and, in 1829 to 7,800 l.
Mr. George Bankes: having listened to the tone which the right hon. Gentleman had assumed, as well as to the Amendment with which he had concluded, was not at all surprised at the effect that had been produced by his speech on other hon. Gentlemen; more especially, as if the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were right in this instance, he could not at all comprehend on what principle the inquiry into the state of the glove trade had been refused. Surely the right hon. Gentleman had been exceedingly inopportune in the taunts of which he had made use when the glove question was before the House, when, on the present occasion, he had actually adopted the proposition that had been made by the noble Lord. He was, however, very glad the Government had acquiesced in the proposition for a Committee, if it were only to quiet the feelings of those, whose distress, unfortunately, could not be doubted. He wished, however, that he had assented to the Motion as it was at first proposed, and, above all, without accompanying his sanction with the speech with which he had followed it up. He was unable to understand the grounds On Which the right hon. Gentleman had acquiesced in this Motion, for he considered the very grounds he had stated were totally at variance with the conclusion at which he had arrived. He had, in the appointment of the Committee which he proposed, adopted part of a Motion which he (Mr. George Bankes) had given
1028
notice of. He had no right to complain of this adoption, or of not having been informed of it otherwise than by the speech he had made that night. He felt it right, however, to mention the circumstance of the right hon. Gentleman's having appropriated a part of his Motion, because the incorporation would not, probably, be very gratifying to the parties concerned in the silk trade. He had given notice of the Motion to which he now adverted, on the ground, in the first place, of the great smuggling transactions which had recently been brought before the House; and, in the second, on account of the statement of the right hon. Gent., the Vice President of the Board of Trade, that he did not believe that a hundred dozen pair of gloves were smuggled into this country in the course of the year, a statement utterly at variance with all other authority on that subject. Under these circumstances, he had given notice of a Motion affecting generally the laws relating to smuggling. It had, however, been thought probable by some friends of his, that if he brought his Motion forward previous to that of the hon. member for Coventry, he should, instead of doing any service, be doing an injury to the silk manufacturers, and he therefore had postponed his intention, in order to give the hon. member for Coventry the priority; and he merely stated this in order that he should be exonerated from all suspicion of having been a party to that Motion, or in having in any degree assisted in disappointing the persons interested in the silk trade, which he feared would be the result. He should not, however, be deterred from bringing ort his Motion at some future opportunity, as the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman did not embrace the whole extent of his Motion, and, in the Mean time, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the Attorney General, who was also necessarily concerned, to a curious document which had been laid, amongst other papers, on the Table of the House, and to ask, whether the contents of that paper, Which purported to be a memorial from Messrs. Leaf and Coles, oh the subject of the late seizure of smuggled goods, were true? It was set forth in that document, "That your memorialists having found, that the only mode by which proof of the duties having been paid was refused to them, agreed to pay 20,000 l. on the express terms and conditions, that their

1029
goods should be restored to them, and that all legal proceedings against them should cease. That the latter part of this proposition was at first opposed, but was ultimately agreed to, on your memorialists insisting to proceed to trial, and their goods were, in consequence, restored to them." Now, he wished to know whether this was true—whether, in a case where, if the witnesses were to be believed, conviction must inevitably have ensued, so large a quantity of goods was restored to these persons, without having paid any duty, and, whether by this restoration, upwards of 100,000 yards of French ribbands were not being sold at the busiest season when such articles must come most decidedly in competition with fabrics of British manufacture? for, if all this were true, he must confess that his surprise at the transaction was greatly increased. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, studiously avoided touching upon that branch of the silk trade which was principally carried on at Coventry, and which was chiefly affected by this matter. With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman had said, of the wonderful powers of suction possessed by Manchester, which drew trade from all other parts of the empire, he might venture to say, that these powers were not exerted at the expense of Coventry, although the fact might apply to other places. Where, then, was the "suction" to be found, which had drawn from Coventry the trade it formerly possessed? He feared that it could not be found nearer than in the manufactories of France. To those they must look for the causes which had weighed down our silk trade—ruined our capitalists, and driven our artisans to starvation and despair. The right hon. Gentleman did not dispute that smuggling affected this trade in a considerable degree (although he had denied it with respect to the glove trade); and it was curious to observe how gradually and rapidly that evil was increasing. He would refer the House to a document which was read by Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, in the year 1829, on the subject of the silk trade. When the subject was then under consideration, that Gentleman read a letter, and made a statement, on very much the same sort of circular authority, probably, as the right hon. Gentleman founded his opinions the other night, when he talked of the "hundred dozen pair of gloves." Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald said, "he had in his possession a letter (dated from Calais) from a person
1030
on whose veracity he could rely, which intimated that the only article then smuggled to any extent, was broad silk; but that there was no chance whatever of smuggling gloves." This statement produced a very great effect in this House, and other documents were also referred to by the same hon. Gentleman, which he said, were of unquestionable authenticity. If that statement, however, was really true, what had been the cause of this great subsequent increase of distress in the silk trade was yet to be ascertained. With respect to another part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, a statement had been sent to him, by which it appeared, that in the year 1825, there were in Coventry upwards of 200 master manufacturers; and at this moment there were in that city no more than half that number—namely, 100. It was unnecessary, however, to press this part of the question, because it was not denied that the trade of Coventry was in a state of absolute depression and ruin. Again, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to shew the House, that the trade was not in such great distress generally as it was represented to be in; and, in support of his argument, he took the five years before 1824, and the five years after 1826. The selection of those particular years would not, however, bear out his statement. It was very true, that taking the years 1816, 1817, and 1818, the trade then was less than it became nearer to the year 1824; but, at that period, it was regularly and gradually increasing; and he had always heard, that the best proof of the prosperity of any trade being permanent was, a gradual, progressive, and steady advancement. The right hon. Gentleman entirely excluded from notice the year 1825. He did not know why the House was to follow his dictation in this respect; but there was an increase up to that year, and from that year there had been a decrease of the trade of Coventry. He conceived, that up to the year 1824, the silk trade progressively improved, both in respect to the quality of the fabric, and the returns derived from it. In 1824, however, certain alterations were proposed in the laws which regulated it; in 1826, they were carried into effect; and from that period down to the present time, there had been a gradual, regular, and progressive decay of the trade. As it did not appear that any opposition would be made to the appointment of the Committee, he had no wish

1031
to trespass upon the time of the House; but he had felt it necessary to say thus much, because there was an attempt to anticipate his motion, but as much of it as was still unaffected by the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, he should bring forward at a proper time, and he would now conclude by saying, that he cordially concurred with the general principle of the Motion, but regretted, that the alteration was brought forward in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kearsleysaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the present Vice President of the Board of Trade, seemed, by his speech, to be preparing himself to be President of that Board under a Reformed Parliament. He, however, might have spared his long speech, and told the manufacturers shortly and briefly, that their wealth was fructifying in the pockets of the Ministers, and of the Gentlemen on the Treasury benches. Those Gentlemen seemed quiteignorant of their own situation—for he could assure them, that there was not a single merchant in London who placed the least confidence in such a noodle and doodle Administration.
Mr. Heywoodsaid, that allusion had frequently been made, in the course of the debate, to the state of the silk trade at Manchester, he therefore trusted, that he might be permitted to say, that he believed, the distressed state of the manufacturers at Macclesfield, Congleton, and Spitalfields, arose chiefly from the competition of Manchester, which was rapidly becoming the principal seat of the silk, as it had long been of the cotton trade. He understood, from the noble Lord who opened the debate, that the number of spindles employed in throwing silk at Macclesfield was less, by 150,000 at present, than in 1824. Now, not only within that period, had more than that number of spindles been set to work at Manchester, but such was the superiority of the new machinery at that place, that 1,000 spindles would produce more than 1,500 of the old spindles at Macclesfield. An explanation of a similar character might be given with regard to the decline of silk-weaving in Spitalfields. The old system of sending the raw silk to Macclesfield and Congleton to be thrown, and receiving it back again in its prepared state for manufacture, was broke in upon by the Manchester capitalist, who united the two processes of throwing and manufacturing, and by the aid of skill, enter-
1032
prise and intelligence, and by his peculiar advantage in the abundance and cheapness of manufacturing labour, was gaining possession of the trade, and although the distressed state of the silk-weavers was very much to be lamented, it must not be forgotten, that the introduction of the silk trade into Manchester, had given employment to thousands of the starving cotton-weavers, who had been thrown out of work by the introduction of improved machinery into their trade. He was aware that Manchester itself had suffered from the depression of the silk trade, but the distress among the weavers there was subsiding. During the existence of this distress, it had been attributed, by the most intelligent manufacturers, to foreign competition, and he could adduce no stronger proof of the confidence felt that the depression was temporary, than the fact, that large silk-mills were now building in that neighbourhood.
Mr. Baringapproved of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in granting the Committee, which, in his opinion, ought to be armed with very extensive powers. As from the conflicting statements made, he was most anxious to have every possible information; however, there seemed to be no doubt, that much distress was felt in Spitalfields, Coventry, Macclesfield, and Congleton; and the only consolation they had was that which they had received from the hon. member for Lancashire, namely, that if the silk trade were declining elsewhere, it was getting better at Manchester. It was very clear, that they could not interfere to prevent the improvement of trade in one place, though that improvement might be detrimental to another. If Manchester had deprived Coventry of its trade, however desirous they might be to afford individual relief to persons who suffered from the change, still such changes could only be viewed as a partial, and not a general, calamity. The Legislature ought not to lay any restrictions on the free action and movement of trade from one place to another. If it were true, that the trade were flourishing in Manchester, then must the distress be only partial, and that was an additional reason for inquiring. The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had stated, that the importation of thrown silk had increased from 100,000 l. to 500,000 l. in value; but that was an extraordinary fact; when it was well known, that the de-

1033
bentures valued at 3s. 6d., that were given on thrown silk, and that were a bounty on silk exported, containing thrown silk, were selling for one penny. In fact, they were absolutely valueless. If the right hon. Gentleman would inquire of the ladies of his acquaintance, he would find, that they never would look at English silks, and that they were only French and Italian silks. Heavy coarse silks containing India silk might sell of English manufacture; but of the light and fine silks only French and Italian were worn, and nothing else was sold in the shops. This fact was exemplified by the great seizure made in the case of Leaf and Co., which showed, too, a remarkable change. Formerly smuggling was only carried on in such things as gin and tobacco, and was confined to low people; now it was proved, that houses, of what was called the first respectability, were notorious smugglers. This was an extraordinary fact, and it was surprising that it should have gone to such an extent before it attracted the attention of the Custom-house officers. He begged to be allowed to advert to an opinion of his, which had been severely dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. The House would recollect, that, at the close of the late war, the trade of this country was left by Mr. Rose, encumbered by the most irksome trammels and restrictions, and there was a general desire among the merchants to get rid of those Gothic absurdities, and get what was called a free trade. He had at that time presented a petition to the House, from the merchants of London, but it was not of his writing. He had supported the prayer of that petition, but he protested against being tied down by any precise form of words, or by any cant terms, and be thus made to express more than he meant. He was, undoubtedly, desirous to keep steady to the principles of free trade, but he had never thought of applying those principles, without consideration, to every case. He would not introduce them in particular cases; they were not yet generally introduced, and could not be, without that equitable adjustment which was another name for a general scramble. There was not yet a free trade in wool. Those principles had not yet been fully applied even to the silk trade. He thought it hard, if he had been tardy in going so far or so fast as some other Gentlemen, that he should be taunted as bigotted, and adverse to the principles of free trade. The
1034
silk trade was one of the last that ought to have been touched. If they looked at the details, they would see, that it was one of the most tender branches,; and, whenever they began to talk of applying the principles of free trade to it, they destroyed it. It was a trade already nourished into existence, employing a great many persons, and having considerable capital embarked in it, and was not a trade to be swept away by the application of any general principles. They begun with the silk trade however, which he thought ought to have been the last, and Spitalfields was ruined. After the plan of duties was adopted, Mr. Huskisson always came down to the House, and brought some details from the Board of Trade, which nobody else could find, to show, when the whole people were starving, that they ought not to be starving. That Board had always some figures ready, which contradicted the common sense of the people; and so the right hon. Gentleman had come down to-night, with figures which must satisfy the people, notwithstanding their complaints, that they were not distressed. The right hon. Gentleman said, that 1824 and 1825 ought to be excluded from their calculations,; but he did not understand why; for, in those two years, the manufacturers were placed in the precise situation they wished to be placed in. The duty was taken off the raw material in 1824, and the prohibition was not repealed till July 1826. That was precisely what the manufacturers now wanted, and, therefore, those two years ought to be included. Free trade consisted in buying where a commodity was to be got cheapest; but if a parcel of silks could be purchased at Lyons for 1,000 l. less than in Spitalfields, and if by purchasing them at that place, this country was burthened with 10,000 l. additional poor-rates, he contended that, in such a case, what was called free trade, must be disadvantageous to the country. A system which created pauperism could not be beneficial. Properly explained, and properly understood, and applied at proper times, he had no objection to the doctrines of free trade, but he objected to their being applied with that presumptuous arrogance with which the present philosophers applied their principles. There were other things to be considered besides cheapness; there were the moral consequences of depriving the people of employment, and condemn-

1035
ing them to pauperism and want of bread. He would not trouble the House further, as the subject was to go before a Committee, which gave him great satisfaction.
Mr. John Stanleyrose only to say, that he did not think the hon. member for Lancashire could be correct. At Macclesfield, the number of silk-mills employed was forty-four the unemployed amounted to thirty-one. At Congleton, the number at work was twenty-seven; the unemployed were thirty. The whole number of mills at Manchester was ten, and if they were fully employed, he did not think that would account for the thirty mills at Congleton, and thirty-one at Macclesfield being idle. He only stated these circumstances to show, that there was a necessity for inquiry.
Mr. Attwoodwas glad to hear that Ministers had granted a Committee, although he was surprised that they had done so, as they had given precisely the very same reasons for granting it which they had assigned for refusing a Committee on the glove trade some short time before. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that the distress of the glove trade was caused by overtrading; he said the same thing of the silk manufacture, and yet he granted a Committee in the one case, and refused it in the other. The glove trade was said to be only partially distressed, because Yeovil did not complain, and so it was said of the silk trade, yet a Committee was granted in one case, and refused in the other. Again it was said, in one case a Committee should not be granted, because it would excite false hopes; in the other it was granted. The Government was consistent only in inconsistency. He rejoiced, however, that they had yielded, but, at the same time, he wished the inquiry had been placed on broader and higher grounds. It seemed, by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, as if that House were considered as a check on the people—as if it were to watch over their pursuits, and contradict their assertions. The House, it appeared to him, did not pay due attention to the practical experience of the people, but wished rather to obey that miserable and narrow system of philosophy which had been so much eulogised, but from which no good had arisen. They ought, instead of taking such a course, to investigate, with laborious assiduity, the complaints of great bodies of the people, to redress their wants, and to show that they were identified with their
1036
interests, and sympathized in all their sufferings. He denied that overtrading had been the cause of the distress under which the silk manufacturers of this country laboured, but that it had been principally occasioned by the opening of the market to the French manufacturers. He entered his protest against the principles of free trade—rand he was at all times prepared to contend, that the House was not pledged to those principles. It was the duty of the House to inquire into the calamity and the distress which had been caused by carrying such principles into operation; and he would maintain, that if upon due inquiry it should be found, as he was confident it would, that such had been the consequence of the adoption of those principles, the Legislature was bound to reconsider its course. That their measures had been wrong was evident from their disastrous results, and, to prove this, it was sufficient to look at the altered state of the country since the period of their adoption. In February, 1824, when the new measures respecting the silk trade were introduced to that House, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said—"For some years past there has prevailed in this country among our ablest Statesmen, and our most eminent writers on political economy, and I may say, indeed, all men of understanding and reflection, a decided conviction, that the maintenance of the prohibitory system is exceedingly impolitic. * * * There never was a more favourable opportunity than the present for carrying these principles into effect, and for inviting foreign powers to act in conformity with them. It is time to cut the cords which tie down commerce to the earth, that she may spring aloft, unconfined and unrestricted, and shower her blessings over every part of the world. If ever there was a time at which such a policy could be adopted with the most favourable expectations of success, it is the present. Is not our revenue flourishing? Are not our manufacturers in a state of universal activity? Is not capital in eager search of the means by which it may be profitably employed."* This was the glowing picture then drawn of the state of the country. He invited the House to contrast it with our present condition. Was the revenue now in a flourishing condition? If the prosperous state of the revenue in 1824 was the ground for
*Hansard's Parl. Debates, New Series, vol. x. p. 330.

1037
making this experiment in free trade, was not the ruinous state of the revenue now a reason for abandoning it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1824, went on to say—"This is, therefore, the finest possible opportunity for the country to emancipate itself from ancient prejudices, and to make a new start in the race for national wealth and prosperity. If this was the test by which the soundness of the principles of free trade was to be judged, were they not bound, when they found the revenue decreasing, manufactures suspended, and capital no longer prosperously employed, to concede that these principles were inapplicable to the circumstances and condition of this country?"*
Mr. Charles Grantsaid, he would not follow the example of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; for he should occupy the House but for a few moments. He did not deem it necessary to answer those parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech which he had not been able to hear, for the House, knowing that the Committee was granted, had certainly evinced no desire to listen to the speech of the hon. Gentleman—to that annual oration of which he had been in the habit of delivering himself during the last six years. Any one who should have entered the House while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, and who might not be aware that a Committee was granted, would imagine, from the tone of the hon. Gentleman that inquiry had been altogether refused by the Government. In fact, the hon. Member's speech must have been intended as an answer to a resistance to the Motion on the part of Government, and coming full with it down to the House, he could not avoid disburdening himself of it. In no other way was it possible to account for the tremendous array of common places with which the hon. Member had favoured them on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman had told the Government, that they ought to inquire into the grievances of which the people complained. Why, the Government were ready to do so. His right hon. friend, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, assented to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, and there was, therefore, no necessity, on this occasion, for the unprovoked, the gratuitous and generous eloquence of the hon. Gentleman. He did not feel called upon to vindicate his la-
*Hansard's Parl. Debates, New Series, vol. x. p. 331.
1038
mented friend, Mr. Huskisson, against the attacks of the hon. Gentleman. To him was attributable the practical wisdom of the last ten years, and he had the merit of applying great principles to great emergencies, and to the inarch of events. Adhering as he (Mr. Grant) did to all those great principles of his late right hon. friend, not surrendering one of those principles, he perfectly agreed with his right hon. friend near him in the propriety of acceding to this Motion.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, the appointment of this Committee was a triumph of which those who had been for five years contending for inquiry might be justly proud. The Government of England had at length acceded to inquiry, and even the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who, a fortnight ago, had expressed himself against it, had now become a convert to the propriety of inquiry. He (Sir R. Vyvyan) had to congratulate the 500,000 persons who were engaged in manufactures in Macclesfield, Coventry, Manchester, and Spitalfields, that their grievances had at length a chance of being investigated and redressed.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the system of excluding human food, by means of the corn laws, while human luxuries were admitted, was one that was unjust in principle, and bad in practice, and he was sure if Mr. Huskisson were living, such a system would not be advocated by him. He was certain that, if Mr. Huskisson, were living he would make a speech the very opposite of that which had been just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant).
Lord Eastnorsaid, he could not allow the discussion to terminate without expressing an opinion that Ministers were bound in consistency to grant a Committee to inquire into the case of the glove-manufacturers. Those persons attributed their distress to the measures of Government. An inquiry, therefore, in justice ought to be afforded to the glove trade, there being no difference in the circumstances of the two branches of trade.
Lord Althorpsaid, that there did exist a great distinction between the glove and the silk trade. If the Government agreed with his noble friend (Earl Grosvenor) in giving the Committee, still his right hon. friend, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had stated the principle on which that Committee was to be granted, and the argument had no reference to the state of the glove trade. His right hon. Friend

1039
had said, that the reason why Government agreed to the Committee was, not on account of distress in that branch, but in order to inquire into certain facts. One of those facts was, to know whether the distress of the silk trade was to be attributed to smuggling. It was well known that smuggling went on in silk as a regular trade, and that there was an insurance office established in Paris for that purpose. No such facts, however, existed as to the glove trade. Another reason for appointing the Committee was, to ascertain whether the duty at present exacted for the protection of the throwster was necessary. If this duty should be found unnecessary, it would be removed. This would have the effect of lowering the price of thrown silk, and would thereby operate as a relief to the weaver; for these reasons he considered himself entitled to say, that there was a clear distinction between the glove and silk trades. He must not omit to state, however, that the duty on silk was represented as operating very unequally—in some cases it was not more than fifteen per cent, in others sixty. This formed another ground for inquiry. It was also ridiculous to apply the term free trade to one so protected as the silk trade was; and indeed so minute was the difference between the two manufactures, that officers had frequently gone into rooms where there were both French and English goods, but durst not make a seizure, from incapacity to distinguish between them.
Earl Grosvenorwas extremely glad the noble Lord had consented to the appointment of the Committee, although the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had attached another branch of inquiry to it. But that the result should prove beneficial to the interests of the manufacturers was his only object; and he, therefore, trusted, that the names of the persons to be appointed would be such as that a full, fair, and impartial inquiry might be instituted. The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had compared the present distress with what had been experienced at intervals before, and had argued, therefore, that it could not be attributed to the alteration of the law, but what he appeared chiefly to rely upon was, that the quantity of raw silk imported for the four or five years preceding 1824 was considerably less than the quantity imported during the four or five subsequent years; but the right
1040
hon. Gentleman must know, that the increased quantity of silk now consumed was applied to the manufacture of an article of inferior quality. As, however, Government had consented to inquiry, he would not enter in to any further examination of the topics the right hon. Gentleman had introduced in the course of his speech.
The question, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the present state of the silk trade, and to inquire what effects have been produced by the changes in the laws relating to it since the year 1824, and whether any and what legislative measures compatible with the general interest of the country may be advisable, in order to promote it, or to check smuggling in silk manufactures, and to report their observations thereupon to the House," was then agreed to.
Earl Grosvenor then read the names of the Members whom he wished to have placed on the Committee.
Lord Althorpproposed that four additional Members whose names he mentioned, be added to the Committee.
Earl Grosvenorobjected to the addition, not from any personal feeling against the Gentlemen named, but from the impression, on the part of those whose interests he had that night advocated, that these were gentlemen pledged to the free trade system.
Lord Althorpsaid, as there appeared a difference of opinion relating to the Members to be appointed in the Committee, he thought it would be better to postpone the question; he, therefore, begged leave to move, that the nomination of the Committee be adjourned until to-morrow.
Motion agreed to.