Mr. Alderman Waithmanmoved, pursuant to notice, for an account of the drawback paid in each quarter, from 5th of January 1830, to 5th January 1832, upon the exportation of British manufactured silk goods; distinguishing the amount paid upon stuffs or ribbons of silk only, upon stuffs and ribbons of silk and cotton, and upon stuffs or ribbons of silk and worsted mixed, and 296 distinguishing London from the other ports; also, a Return of all raw and waste silk imported, and entered for home consumption, in each year, from 1814 to 5th of January, 1832: distinguishing the importations from the East Indies, China, St. Helena, the Cape of Good Hope, and Turkey, from other parts, and stating separately, each year, the quantity of raw, thrown, and waste, including knubs and husks, and the amount of duty separately:—and of the amount, each year, of the importation of manufactured goods which were not prohibited, but upon which a reduction of duties took place, from 5th of January, 1826, to 5th of January, 1832; distinguishing those from the East Indies and China. He said, that it had been objected to a part of the Motion, that it would be improper to expose the private affairs of individuals. But that was an objection of no weight, as he had in his pocket the names of all the persons who imported those goods, and an account of the quantities imported by them.
§ Mr. Spring Riceobjected to the last return, on the ground that no documents were in existence by which it could be made out. But, supposing it possible that such a return could be presented, he should oppose its production, because he did not think it fair to drag unnecessarily the private affairs of individuals before the House.
Mr. Goulburnconcurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking, that the return ought not to be granted.
§ Mr. Dixoncould answer for the Scotch traders, who, he was sorry to say, had been much calumniated, that they were not afraid of having their names, and the amount of their importations published.
§ Mr. Robinsondid not think it right that the names of parties importing foreign goods should be kept secret; and, if such was the desire of Government, they could not fail to be disappointed, because the Custom-house List, which every person might see, contained an account of the quantity of goods imported, and the names of the parties importing.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, it was quite impossible to get at the names of the real owner of the goods imported. Great quantities were often imported in the name of brokers.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he held in his hand a list of ten principal importers of foreign silk goods, whose annual 297 importation amounted to the value of 250,000l.; and among them there was but one broker, and he only imported to the value of 6,000l. The object he had in view in moving for the return was, to let the public know what amount of goods each house imported. He had often seen in a house which only imported to the value of 3,000l. or 4,000l., foreign goods to the value of 20,000l. It was, therefore, plain, that smuggling to a considerable extent must be carried on. Indeed, it was considered so much a matter of course, that the right hon. the Vice President of the Board of Trade, in a brilliant speech which he delivered to his constituents at Dover, took occasion to commend them for the dexterity and intrepidity with which they carried on a system of smuggling; and the right hon. Gentleman's compliment was loudly cheered by his hearers.
§ Mr. Poulett Thomsonbegged to assure the House, that the statement which drew forth the applause of his constituents at Dover was not of the nature described by the worthy Alderman.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that he had no intention to misrepresent any statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He had seen the story in print; but, after the right hon. Gentleman's contradiction, he was, of course, bound to suppose that it was an invention of the "vile Press."
§ The Motion agreed to.