HC Deb 18 June 1869 vol 197 cc329-51
MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the French Treaty, particularly as it affected the silk manufacture in this country. The silk manufacture was divided into two branches, one the manufacture of broad silks, which was carried on in Macclesfield, Spitalfields, and Manchester, and the ribbon trade in Coventry. It was introduced into that city towards the end of the 17th century, where it flourished up to 1860 — the period of the French Treaty. The trade had long prospered in this country under protective duties. In 1824, however, Mr. Huskisson altered the duties, imposing in lieu an ad valorem duty of something like 30 per cent; and this, in 1846, was reduced to about 15 per cent by Sir Robert Peel. The arguments on which these reductions were made proved to be sound, and the silk trade continued to flourish up to 1860. In 1829, the population of the city of Coventry was 16,000; in 1831, it had risen to 20,000; and in 1859, it amounted to about 41,000; but the silk district, of which Coventry was the centre, had a population of about 70,000. Nearly eighty firms were engaged in the manufacture of ribbons at this time, having 1,000 to 2,000 looms in factories, employing some 3,000 persons, who were paid from 5s. to 30s. per week. Besides this—and it was a special feature of the city—there were from 2,000 to 3,000 looms, the property of the working weavers themselves, and worked in their own houses. These looms cost £40 each, representing a capital of £120,000; and he estimated the other necessary machinery—winding engines and filling wheels —owned by these workmen at £10,000. This was the state of things in Coventry when suddenly the French Treaty came upon them, and immediately the ribbon manufactories fell from eighty to twelve, theweeklywagesfrom£12,000to£3,000; the trade returns from £3,000,000 to £1,000,000 in the following year; and the manufacturers' stock, estimated the night before the Treaty at £800,000, fell 25 per cent; and, in the years that followed, wages decreased from 20 to 30 per cent, and this independent of those who were driven away from the city altogether. The dispensing of out-door relief increased alarmingly, for while £10,000 was the sum of the relief granted during the eight years ending with 1860, the sum dispensed in the eight succeeding years was £41,000, and this was supplemented by a national subscription of another £40,000. The effect of the Treaty upon Macclesfield had been to decrease the trade 25 per cent, and there were at present 1,500 empty houses in that town, and the population had decreased 7,000 out of 35,000. The French Treaty fell upon the prosperous silk trade without a note of warning; although, as we now know, it had been in negotiation during the whole autumn of 1858, but it had been kept completely secret. But in January, 1860, the Mayor of Coventry, having seen the Treaty announced in the Independence Beige, wrote to Mr. Ellice, the then Member for the city, and called his attention to the circumstance; but so secretly had it been negotiated, that he wrote back saying there was not the slightest reason to believe that any such Treaty was on the point of being contracted. Yet, three weeks afterwards—and it would have been earlier had not the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government been indisposed — it was announced to that House. Early in February, 1860, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and announced that which he said "would cause a thrill from one end of the country to the other," that the Government had ratified a commercial Treaty with France. By the first article the Emperor of the French engaged that the duties on the importation into France of—among other things — silk goods manufactured in England should not exceed 30 per cent, But how was it with regard to similar goods coming into England? Her Majesty engaged to recommend to Parliament to abolish altogether the duties on the importation of French silk goods into this country. Coventry was hardly treated in other respects, for the silk trade was specially exempted from the 14th Article, which gave, with regard to all other articles which came under the Treaty, an interval of two years, during which half-duties were to be levied. So the duties on silk goods coming into England from France were abolished in the March following. He would now ask the House to listen to the manner in which that Treaty was brought about. It had been described by M. Michael Chevalier, who, in a letter addressed to Mr. Bonamy Price, Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, said he had a conversation with Mr. Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 15th of October, 1859, and told him that, although he had no power to treat, certain circumstances induced him to think that the Emperor would receive with favour the proposal of a treaty, especially if it were to abolish the high duties that were levied on an important industry in France—that of silks. Mr. Gladstone answered that England would repeal the duties on all articles manufactured in Paris and Lyons, especially on silk, gloves, shoes, and the articles particularly described as "articles of Paris." "Everything was settled between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me in three-quarters of an hour." M. Chevalier added that he next saw Mr. Cobden, and arranged to meet him in Paris, but to travel thither separately, in order not to attract the notice of the Prohibitionists. The silence recommended by the Emperor was well kept by all, the notes of M. Rouher being copied by Madame Rouher, while those of Mr. Cobden were written out fair by Madame Chevalier. M. Chevalier added that judging from some recent acts, the zeal of the Imperial Government in behalf of Free Trade seemed to have considerably cooled, and he asked—"Is this a simple accident of politics or a relapse? Time will show." It was clear, from this letter, that the silk trade in England had been sacrificed in order to get the Emperor to agree to the Treaty. The whole negotiation seemed to have the character of a plot rather than an act of international legislation. He remembered a caricature which came out at that time, and which represented the silk trade as being thrown in as a sop to the Cerberus who was guarding the French Empire. He believed that if Mr. Cobden were living now he would be the first to agree to a Motion for the re-consideration of the subject, because he only accepted the French Treaty as a lesser evil, in order that it might lead to a greater good, which it had not done. The present Session was peculiarly appropriate for the re-consideration of the Treaty, because the Treaty came into force in February, 1860, and was to last until February, 1870, and after from year to year, unless notice be given of its revision. It might be said that there were other causes which had led to the depression of the trade — such as the changes of fashion, the increase in the price of the raw material, and the closing of the American ports, which had led to the flooding of the English market with French and Swiss goods. This was not so. So far from there having been any decrease in the manufacture and use of silk, there was a far greater quantity of manufactured silk and silk ribbons used in England now than there ever was before, only the figures had changed places. The quantity of silk imported into this country from abroad before the French Treaty was the quantity now manufactured here; while the quantity now imported was considerable greater than that manufactured here before the Treaty. He held in his hand statistics to show the effects of this Treaty on the silk trade. It appeared that in the eight years preceding the French Treaty, we imported of silk and satin ribbons from France, l,575,000lbs; and in the eight years succeeding that Treaty—namely, from 1861 to 1868, there were imported into this country from France, 5,618,852lbs; being an increase of 4,043,000lbs—that was an increase of 250 per cent. And, in respect to broad silk, such as that manufactured in Macclesfield and Spitalfields, the importations from France for the eight years preceding the Treaty, amounted to l,925,0001bs; whereas, for the eight following years, the imports had reached 14,863,0001bs; being an increase of 13,000,000lbs, or upwards of 650 per cent. It was pretty clear then that there had been no decrease in the use of ribbons or silks, and there was, therefore, nothing in the argument that there had been a change of fashion, or that the American War or any other cause had led to a falling off. The figures have simply changed places, and the foreigner now manufactures and exports to England that which England formerly manufactured for herself. The evils of the present system would be apparent when they examined the details of the manner in which silk goods exported from this country into France were dealt with under the Treaty. Upon pure ribbons there was a specific duty amounting to 3¾ per cent, upon black ribbons, 7½ per cent, and upon elastic goods from 10 to 12½ per cent. But that hardly represented the effect which had been produced upon Coventry. Coventry had been especially hardly dealt with, for whereas all nett silk went duty free into France—these being articles in which, practically, we do not compete with her —ribbons, even of nett silk, were specially exempted, and were made liable to the duty, and there was a duty rising from 3¾ per cent to 10 or 12 per cent upon all ribbons imported into France; yet every one of these, under this Treaty, came into England duty free. Nor was this the worst part of the Treaty as it affected the silk trade. The principal part of the trade in which England was most capable of competing with France was in those goods in which there was a mixture of silk with cotton. While silk goods mixed with cotton came into England duty free, there was a duty of 10 per cent on articles exported from England in which the silk predominated over the cotton, and of 15 per cent upon those in which cotton predominated over the silk. This was found to be a duty which amounted, in point of fact, upon this great industry in England, almost to a prohibition. There was another matter with regard to the provisions of the French Treaty to which he would also draw the attention of the House — namely, the injustice of specific duties. The duties levied were specific duties, or duties on the goods per weight; and this great inequality arose with regard to all specific duties. Suppose that goods weighing 10 kilogrammes pay 10 francs duty, and are worth 100 francs, this is equal to 10 per cent. But if the value of the goods rose to 150 francs, then the duty was about 6¾ per cent; while, if the value of the goods was depreciated from 100 francs to 50 francs, the duty became 20 per cent. Thus, whenever the trade was depressed, the duty increased, and fell when prices were high. The question then arose, whether, under all these circumstances of inequality and unfairness, it was worth while to have any treaty at all? Was any treaty worth preserving, by virtue of which, upon articles in which France could very well compete with us, they levied a duty on us, while we were prevented from levying a duty upon them? Let us follow up, as Mr. Cobden said, the work of Free Trade, but do not let it be all upon one side. He knew it had been said that with regard to the silk trade that the silk trade might have suffered, but that other trades had been benefited. But was it the fact that other trades were benefited to an extent that would compensate for this particular injustice? When the French Treaty passed, the cotton trade, the woollen trade, and the linen trade, in the absence of good textile machinery in France, increased their exports by 15 per cent, in spite of the duty on the importation of these articles into France; but now that France had got textile machinery of her own, the statistics would show how, under this Treaty, these trades could hold their own. In 1866 there were imported into France of cotton manufactures 56,343,372 yards; in 1867 that was reduced to 41,147,794 yards; and, in 1868, there was a further reduction to 38,593,729 yards; showing a decrease in the course of two years of 25 per cent. Of linen manufactures there were imported into France from England, in 1866, 5,637,477 yards; in 1867, 4,976,933 yards; and, in 1868, 3,752,756 yards, showing a decrease of 30 per cent. Of woollen manufactures there were imported into France, in 1866, 4,664,129 yards; in 1867, 7,560,016 yards; but, in 1868, the figures woefully changed, showing a depreciation last year over 1867 of no less than 75 per cent. He did not think, then, that it could be said, that these figures showed any ad- vantage which other trades had derived from the operation of the French Treaty. The Board of Trade and Navigation Returns, and the whole balance of trade between England and France, gave similar results, the Returns for 1867 showing that the French imports into this country, after deducting the raw and part manufactured articles, were £30,000,000 against £13,500,000 of English exports into France. These facts, he contended, showed the necessity for some inquiry. It would be said that the result of agreeing to his Motion would be an expression of opinion in favour of returning to some system of protective duties, but it was not with that view he asked for a Committee of Inquiry. He thought no country could be great which did not import all raw material duty free. He would not mix up Protection with this subject, but he would say to France that if she would not admit our goods on fair and equal terms with her own, either the Treaty should be abolished, or £10,000,000 worth of our coal should not go to assist the manufactures of France, or an alteration should be made in the light dues. We had given away so much to France that we had made ourselves poor indeed; still he hoped we had something yet left to offer or withdraw in order to induce France to admit our goods on the same footing that we had admitted hers for the last ten years, especially as it would be found that these duties pressed in a vital way upon our commerce. The cry of the silk trade simply was—"Give us reciprocity." He entreated the House to grant the inquiry. If the working men employed in the silk trade were wrong in attributing their sufferings to the French Treaty, it was deeply important that their error should be corrected. Throughout the whole of their losses and miseries they had borne themselves as loyal subjects, and he hoped that if the Inquiry were granted they would yet see a more prosperous day.

MR. EATON

, in seconding the Motion, said, he had to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. It would not be necessary for him to enter at any length into the details of this subject, or to follow his hon. and learned Colleague through the various reasons which he had given for having brought this matter under the consideration of the House. It would be sufficient for him, as a practical men, and as one who perhaps had as large an interest in the welfare of the silk trade of this country as anyone, to say that with those details and those reasons he entirely concurred. Upon one point he might, however, be allowed to say a few words. There could be no doubt that the inequality of duties as imposed by the French Commercial Treaty had worked most injuriously to their trade. He thought he could not better prove this fact than, with the permission of the House, by quoting a few figures which he had taken from a table that he himself published for many years, showing the imports, exports, and consumption of raw silks in this country. He would take, for example, the year 1859, the year preceding the French Treaty, and he found the consumption of raw silk in this country in that year was 7,376,240 lbs. against an export of 2,000,000 lbs. In the past year, 1868, these figures have been nearly reversed; for he found the consumption at home now only 2,134,204 lbs. against 4,050,000 lbs. sent out of this country. But unfortunately this is not all, for the working of this Treaty has enabled the foreigners to compete with us in every market in the world. In China and India they have been carrying on a very considerable business in silk, a direct trade nearly unknown to them before the operation of this Treaty. In Manchester, before the passing of the Treaty, there were between thirty and forty silk manufacturers employing a large amount of labour and. capital. They were now reduced to five or six, and those employing their workpeople only a part of their time. In Macclesfield a similar diminution in the consumption of silk has taken place; and in Coventry, the city which he had the honour of representing, the ribbon trade has equally suffered. But, further, he might add, what was perhaps more within his knowledge than it could be within that of his Colleague, he could assure the House that, as far as he had been able to ascertain, the trade was unanimous in asking for this inquiry. At a meeting held at his offices in the City, in the early part of this week, there were present most of the leading members of the silk trade in all its branches. They met for the purpose of pressing upon his Colleague and himself the increasing necessity for this inquiry. They were men of different political feelings; but they were all united in urging, as he did now in seconding this Motion, the great necessity which exists for an inquiry, with a view to the revision of a Treaty which has worked so injuriously and so unjustly to the silk trade of this country.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of the Commercial Treaty with France, ratified the 13th day of January 1860, and particularly as it affects the silk Manufacture in this Country,"—(Mr. Staveley Hill,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BROCKLEHURST

wished to say a few words, as he was engaged in the silk manufacture, and a large employer of labour. In 1824, when Mr. Huskisson initiated Free Trade, 300,000 persons derived employment from the manufacture of silk goods in this country, but since 1861 not half that number had been employed. He could not think Mr. Cobden contemplated such an event as the outbreak of the American War when he pressed for the French Treaty, or he would have foreseen the recent flooding of the market with French goods, which would otherwise have been absorbed by the United States. He urged the appointment of this Committee of Inquiry, not because he desired to return to a policy of Protection, but because he hoped some means would be discovered of remedying the evils which the present defective system of Free Trade produced. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, in which he proposed to give the working men a free breakfast table, had given great satisfaction; but the Free Trade tea and sugar would be of little use to the working man unless he had employment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the question was of great interest to a number of his constituents, because they had found that from the date of the French Treaty there had been a gradual but constant diminution in their trade. In fact, in Lancashire the silk trade was almost at a standstill. He had voted for the French Treaty against the wishes of his political friends when he before had a seat in this House, and would not annul it without an effort to remedy its defects; but these defects were so glaring, and the distress in our silk manufacturing districts so painful, that an inquiry was absolutely necessary to see whether some means could not be suggested to put an end to the anomalies complained of. If nothing were done to secure this end, he would bring the whole matter before the House. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would object to an inquiry. The value of silk goods imported, in 1858, was £3,235,000, and that had increased to £10,214,000. On the other hand, the silk goods exported from this country had decreased in a still greater ratio.

MR. CHADWICK

said, that in supporting this Motion he had not deserted his Free Trade principles, nor did he ask the Government to give up these doctrines. He regretted that the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) had referred in an irritating manner to the history of the Treaty. He (Mr. Chadwick) only asked the House and the Government to agree to a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Treaty. The silk trade of Coventry, Manchester, and Macclesfield was in a state of the most serious depression at the present time, and he wished the facts to be laid before the country in order to see whether the French Treaty might not be modified so as to remove the present depression, and he believed that this might be done by a few simple modifications in the Treaty which would not injuriously affect any of the great interests concerned. The French admitted silk goods which were made of pure silk free of duty, but taxed those mixed with cotton. Now, the staple trade of Macclesfield was the manufacture of silk containing a portion of cotton, and if the French Government could be induced to admit the mixed silk on the same terms as the pure, the injurious character of the Treaty would be to a great extent removed.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

said, he hoped the inquiry would be granted, and that it would embrace the manner in which not only the silk trade, but also the worsted and woollen trades were affected by the Treaty. Thorough out the ma- nufacturing districts in the North of England there was a strong desire that something should be done to remedy that want of reciprocity which they all felt.

MR. BRIGHT

Sir, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) into the history of what he was pleased to call the plot by which the French Treaty was obtained. I think I know as much about the history of it as any Member of the House, and as I believe it was of the greatest benefit, so I believe that nothing was ever more honourable to all the parties concerned than the manner in which it was accomplished. The hon. and learned Member alluded to the suddenness with which the French Treaty came upon his constituents, and on this account considered them as harshly treated. But if there be one thing more acknowledged than another by all persons conversant with these affairs, it is this, that the kindest way of dealing with a trade in which a change of duties is contemplated is to make that change suddenly. If twelve months' notice had been given to the manufacturers of silk in this country that, at the expiration of that time, French silks would come in free of duty, there would have been a complete paralysis of the trade for twelve months. Nobody in England, speaking generally, would have bought English silk goods, because they believed French were much better and cheaper, and the stock would consequently lay on the manufacturers' hands. And, in the meantime, French manufacturers, expecting the opening of a new and great market, would have prepared large quantities of goods to throw into this market in a moment; and the two processes would have been followed by far more damaging consequences than those which resulted from a sudden transition. I will not dispute with the hon. and learned Member as to whether it would be better to have no Treaty at all than that we have, and will simply say he very badly represents those who sent him here if he supposes it would be better the present Treaty should be abolished. The hon. and learned Member had better rest content with the ills he has than fly to others which he seems to know not of. His speech was of a kind we heard frequently some ten to twenty years ago. It was a speech of pure Protection, for he seemed to think there was no remedy for the evils he complained of but a return to the protective system. No doubt, the inquiry he asks for would produce some facts, certainly some arguments, which would be curious in their way; but no man in this country who knows anything of trade can doubt for a moment that the French Treaty has been of great advantage to this country. I will say, if you like, of not smaller advantage, perhaps of greater advantage, to France; that it has been one of the most beneficent measures the House of Commons has accepted for many years I am perfectly convinced, and that is the opinion of the majority of educated men in the country. Now, it may be stated, in the first place, that the trade between the United Kingdom and France has been more than doubled by the operation or since the passing of that Treaty. The annual imports into this country from France seven years before the Treaty were from £12,000,000 to £13,000,000 sterling; and for the seven years since, from 1861 to 1867, they were about £27,500,000. The exports show an increase from £10,000,000 to £23,000,000 —so that the increase is considerably more than double. The hon. and learned Member may say these exports do not represent manufactures only; and he would be quite right, because cotton, for instance, comes from the United States to Liverpool, and, being purchased by French spinners, is re-shipped to France. But the annual average for the seven years before the Treaty of actual English manufactures was about £5,000,000, and of the seven years since at least £10,000,000; therefore, whether we look at the whole of the exports and imports, or those purely the produce of the United Kingdom, we find a large and very satisfactory increase. And from the year 1854, when the first reduction took place, the exports have increased three-fold. In silks the goods which come here from France amounted to £4,500,000 per annum in the seven years before the Treaty, and in the seven years since to £7,750,000; showing a large increase, and fulfilling the expectations and desires of the people of England. If there had not been a large increase, the Treaty would be as waste paper, and we should have been disappointed. But let me show the House something respecting a point the hon. and learned Member did not refer to, and that is, that although the French have sent here an increase of rather more than £3,000,000 per annum of silk manufactures since the establishment of the Treaty, during the same time they have exported to the United States nearly £3,000,000 less than they did before; that from 1854 to 1860, the seven years before the Treaty, the French exports to the States were £4,100,000, and that during the seven years since the annual exports to America were £1,400,000, showing an actual decrease of £2,700,000, which goes a long way to balance the extra trade they have done with us, amounting to £3,200,000. I think there has not been any increase at all of silk manufactures exported from Prance, for I find that from 1854 to 1860 the total exports from France were rather more than they were during the seven years since the Treaty—that is, they were £16,500,000 in the former seven years, and £15,968,000 in the latter, showing a decrease of more than £500,000. This proves that there has been no great increase in the silk trade in France; and we are led to the conclusion that there has been some great influence at work in France, as well as in England, to produce great disaster to the French trade as well as the English, and that both countries would have suffered from these influences if the French Treaty had never been imagined. The hon. and learned Member says—"Let us not have excuses that there is dearness of silk." The hon. and learned Member does not use much raw material in his profession, but if he was a manufacturer of cotton he would know that during the last eight years the diminished supply of cotton has brought ruin to the trade of Lancashire, and that hardly anything which has befallen the silk trade can be said to be as disheartening as what befell the cotton trade during those eight years as simply the result of the high price of raw material. The hon. and learned Member's Colleague (Mr. Eaton) knows perfectly well that, in 1867, the price of raw silk was just double what it was in 1855: and when an article of that costly nature, even at the cheapest, is doubled in price, only conceive the loss; why, there must be almost nothing left for wages and profit, and thus we can readily see what a great effect the high price of the raw material has upon the trade. The hon. and learned Member says—"Do not tell us about the American market;" but the American market was a very great one for France; in 1856 the French export of silk manufactures to America were not less than £10,500,000; in 1863 they fell to less than £1,000,000; the annual totals run £10,000,000, £7,000,000, £5,000,000, £8,000,000, £6,000,000, £1,000,000, £1,000,000, £970,000, £1,000,000, £1,500,000, and £3,500,000. Thus the failure of the American market has had the greatest possible effect upon France; and it is not Coventry, Macclesfield, and Spitalfields alone that have been suffering, St. Etienne has suffered as much. The distress in Lyons for several years past has been somewhat painful. Nor has the American failure had no effect upon our silk trade. The goods the French were accustomed to send to America and had prepared for the purpose came here; no doubt the export to this country was increased by the abolition of the 10 per cent duty, but the main cause was the shutting of the American market, and the result has been the distress which I deplore as much as any man. It is a curious fact that, since 1860, the actual export of silk manufactures from England seems scarcely to have fallen at all, notwithstanding the greatly increased imports from France. During the seven years, before 1860, our exports were £1,500,000, and during the seven years since they were £1,327,000—a decrease of not more than £150,000. I am, therefore, brought irresistibly to the conclusion that dear silk and the American War, and after the American War a war against trade, scarcely less destructive, the war of the American tariff, all have been causes of this depression. In opposition to the hon. and learned Gentleman, too, I am informed that there has been a very great change of fashion, which has had something to do with the sufferings of his constituents. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman dates his knowledge of the Coventry district from the day of his election; but if he has gone back for a longer period he will know, as his Colleague does, that during the last fifty years there has been no trade which has been the subject of such fluctuations as the silk trade, and no other trade which has so often come to this House, and sometimes to the Palace, to ask for relief. Frequent appeals have been made to the leaders of fashion to stimulate the trade. I am not here to deny the existence of sufferings in the silk trade. I have acquaintances and friends in Manchester and Coventry in that trade, nor do I deny that the French Treaty has added to those sufferings; but I say this combination of circumstances is sufficient to account for almost all we have seen, and when these circumstances disappear, in all probability we may find in all these centres of the silk trade some considerable and early revival. Perhaps the House is not aware that the silk trade was treated much more generously by the Treaty than any other trade; goods made of pure silk in which, no doubt, the French thought they could beat us, are admitted free, and it is only on the mixed goods a duty is imposed. And it may be new to some hon. Members that we get a large quantity of our ribbons from Switzerland free of duty, and the 3¾ per cent on foreign ribbons imposed by France is much more directed against Switzerland than us. To think the abolition of the 3¾ per cent of duty would make a difference is an idle dream, which no intelligent man should foster. But I believe these times of suffering are passing away already. I have had a letter from one of the most extensive and influential manufacturers in the neighbourhood of Manchester assuring me that he is satisfied with the prospect of things. He says—"The Treaty was a serious thing to us, because it came combined with other things for which none of us looked;" but he expresses a belief that the silk manufacture is likely to do much better now than it has done for many years past. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Brocklehurst, and Mr. Chadwick) might have told us that things were looking better. It is perfectly well known that there has been a revival of the Coventry ribbon trade; for the manufacturers there have discovered how to meet the competition of the Swiss by dyeing the goods in the cloth instead of dyeing them in the yarn as the Swiss do, and they have much improved the manufacture of what were called gray satins, in which the Swiss defied competition. The hon. and learned Gentleman certainly comes here with this piteous complaint at a very inopportune time; we know that, at this moment, a hopeful feeling enlivens his constituancy, and I think the circumstances certainly should have prevented him making so dismal a story. Now, as to an inquiry. The Government can have no object in doing anything but the best for the trade of the country in its power; the facts are all known; the hon. Members for Macclesfield and Coventry are both largely concerned in the silk trade, and could tell us all we wish to know of the exports and imports that we may not be acquainted with already; if, however, there is anything they cannot tell us, I am sure I could find some one in the Board of Trade who would help us. If we had a Committee, we should find that there was a duty of about 4 per cent on pure silk goods, and that on silks mixed with cotton there are higher duties, which I much regret; it is not to be expected that the French Government are willing to undertake a general reduction of their tariff; and it is not to be expected that while the French charged a duty on woollens and cottons any result would be obtained by a Commission recommending the reduction of duties on silks mixed with cotton. I must express my deep regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made it a question of Protection. [Mr. STAVELEY HILL made a gesture of dissent.] Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of having a heavy weapon in his armour; at least I know he used two or three metaphors about this matter, pointing to the recommendation that if the French did not do what we wanted them to do, we were to do something which would be very impleasant to them; in fact, that we were to threaten to put on some heavy duties. But some of the hon. and learned Members' constituents have called upon me at the Board of Trade. I think the chairman of the Coventry Chamber of Commerce was among them, with other intelligent gentlemen, and though they were not all of this political party, there was not one of them for a moment dreaming of a return to protection for improving the trade of Coventry. All that they asked for was that the Government should endeavour to get the small duties, principally on ribbons, removed, and the duties on mixed goods reduced, by making repre- sentations to the French Government. Now, that is exactly what the Government would try to do any day if it thought such a thing could possibly be done. The hon. and learned Member must remember that Protection in France is as strong now as it was here thirty years ago on those Benches where he sits, and it is not a case that can be met by such inquiry as he asks for. Although, at this period of the Session, it would not be desirable to have an inquiry at all, still, if any advantage were expected from it, I would recommend that it be not confined to the silk trade, but should be on some broader basis. I think, however, it would be better to postpone it until the beginning of next Session, when there would be time to consider the question properly as affecting the whole of the interests touched by the Treaty. I, therefore, ask the House not to consent to an inquiry now, and not to consent to an inquiry at all specially directed to the silk trade, because the effect of it would be most unfortunate even to all those connected with the trade. Should this inquiry be granted, we should have in all those centres where the silk trade is carried on, hopes stimulated which would never be realized. It may be presumptuous in me to complain of the conduct of the hon. and learned Member, but I cannot refrain from observing that it is the duty of Members of this House, who are chosen men, never to mislead the people, to whom we are accustomed to speak at our elections; but that we should, if possible, lead them on to the conception of and appreciation of sound principles; —[Opposition Cheers.]—I am glad to find a general assent to that proposition, but the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the speech which he made now nearly a year ago, made some observations which I think, if he will allow me to say so, would have been better omitted; and on the 4th of June in this year he said— I shall bring the subject before the Government and the country, and see whether I can wring from those in power—for that is the only way in which it can be obtained—something which can lead to an alteration of things at the present time. Now, it was not fair to me to say that, nor fair to the Government. My right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown has done more than any man to make taxation equal and give to all industries the freest course; and the hon. and learned Member has formed an unfair opinion of me if he thinks it is necessary to wring from me an act of justice to the working population. I trust the hon. and learned Member will explain to his constituency the whole case as it was admitted to me by the deputation which called on me; that he will disabuse the minds of his constituents of the false notions with which they are now filled; that he will tell them that, while they were doing all they could to revive their trade, the Government is anxiously watching for any opportunity which will give them the slightest chance of successfully urging the French Government to make a more satisfactory bargain with us. I have not exaggerated the case in the least. I sympathize with the condition of the silk weavers; and, if next year sufficient cause for inquiry shall be shown, the Government will readily grant it.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he knew as much about Coventry as the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade) did, and he admitted there was a partial revival of one small particular branch of the silk industry there. But there was a falling off in the trade of that district of one-third of what it was formerly. He bore testimony to the truth of the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill) in respect to the rapidity with which Mr. Cobden negotiated the Treaty. Immediately after that Treaty came into operation he happened to be a member of the Committee for the relief of the distress that ensued. What was the state of that distress? They had 22,000 people of Coventry looking to the Committee for relief, who could not obtain assistance under the Poor Law. He thought the Members for Coventry would bear him out in this statement—that there was not one-sixth of the master manufacturers in Coventry solvent. In 1861, there were 1,600 houses there empty, 1,000 more for which no rent was paid, and 500 vacant in one district, which had occupants the previous year. He had communicated with Mr. Cobden at that time on the subject, and that Gentleman, admitting the great distress that existed, gave him a donation towards its relief. Knowing all these circumstances, he thought it was not unreasonable for Ms hon. Friend to ask for an inquiry before this Treaty was renewed There was a remarkable want of diplomatic knowledge in the framing of this Treaty. He trusted that its terms would be more carefully considered before it was renewed. Protection had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. Now he (Mr. Newdegate) was talking Protection in that House for twenty years, but he did not recommend it now. Whenever anything was said on that side of the House upon such subjects as this the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends around him became alarmed, and charged them with a desire to renew the Protection duties. He (Mr. Newdegate) however, contended that this treaty was wholly inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade. There never was a greater violation of the doctrine of Free Trade passed into a law by a Government professing to be ardent Free Traders than the execution of the commercial Treaty between England and France. It was a one-sided bargain into which the Government would not allow the House to inquire. It was not impossible, however, that the French Government would pay some attention to the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. To show the silk trade of Coventry was not an exception to the silk trade throughout the kingdom, he might state that, according to the Board of Trade Returns, the value of the manufactured silk imported into this country, between 1859 and 1867, had exactly trebled in value, while the value of the exports had not increased at all. Exactly to the extent of the increase had been the displacement of English labour and English produce from the effect of the treaty with France. The right hon. Gentleman had advised them to wait till next year before instituting an inquiry. But probably next year they would find that the whole matter had been arranged and then they would be told, as they had formerly been told, that they could not disturb the terms of a treaty after it had been negotiated. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman whose name stood at the head of Free Traders should refuse an inquiry by a Committee on the question of the renewal of the French Treaty, when asked to do so, at the only time when such an inquiry could be attended with practical results, because in all probability next year they would find that the Treaty had been concluded.

MR. CRUM-EWING

said, he did not deny that depression existed in the silk trade; but he was glad to say that his constituents were too enlightened to wish for the abrogation of the French Treaty with this country, as they were well aware of the benefits which had resulted from it. He admitted that there were in Paisley now only 2,000 weavers, where formerly there had been 8,000; but the majority had betaken themselves to other employments, and were in a better condition now than formerly. At the same time he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman granted a Committee of Inquiry into this matter. He had confidence in the right hon. Gentleman so far as to believe that he would grant the inquiry at the time which best suited the interests of the nation, and if he did so he hoped it would be extended to other places besides Coventry and Macclesfield.

MR. BENTINCK

pointed out that one of the results of the French Treaty had been to limit the export of first-class articles, because the French placed such high protective duties upon this description of goods that their entrance into France was virtually prohibited. He would illustrate his argument by a reference to the carpet trade. At the present moment there was a large export of carpets to France, but the goods were of the lowest priced and worst description, and made for the sole purpose of underselling the foreign producers. English manufacturers could not send their best carpets to France on account of the duties, while French manufacturers sent their best goods to England without restriction. An Axminster carpet, for instance, was subjected in France to an ad valorem duty from 15 to 25 per cent, while an Audubusson carpet could be sold in London at the same price as in Paris. Was this condition of things then satisfactory to the English trade? He (Mr. Bentinck) contended it was not, and that their demand for reciprocity was simple justice. The President of the Board of Trade had taunted his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) with having misled the working men of Coventry upon his own intentions, and upon the facts of this case, but he (Mr. Bentinck) charged the President of the Board of Trade with having misled the country with regard to the action of the Conservative party when the French Treaty was under discussion in the House. The President of the Board of Trade when he starred in the provinces, and exhibited himself on platforms, was accustomed to say that the Conservatives had opposed the French Treaty, and had thus endeavoured to deprive the country of an immense benefit. He (Mr. Bentinck) desired to say, without reserve, that these statements were utterly without foundation. He and his political friends never opposed the Treaty, contrary, as it was, to the principles of Free Trade. As a treaty they had supported it, but they held that the bargain was one-sided, and that without fair reciprocity it was too much to the advantage of France. Had not events proved that this view was correct? That very debate was an admission of the case, for every Member on the Government side who had risen had cried "more reciprocity," and virtually assented to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend. He was glad to have had the opportunity of thus publicly correcting the misrepresentations of the occupants of the Treasury Bench and their friends so systematically made on the hustings and elsewhere, relative to the point to which he had adverted. He was also surprised the President of the Board of Trade should have endeavoured to throw ridicule upon his hon. and learned Friend by reading a letter. The argument he deduced was far fetched indeed; but he thought his hon. and learned Friend had a right to treat that letter after the same fashion that another letter with which the House was familiar, and which had been the subject of discussion last evening (Mr. Bright's letter to the Birmingham meeting), had been treated by the First Minister of the Crown, and therefore repudiate it altogether. The arrangement with France was no Treaty at all, but a mere capitulation and surrender for the benefit of Manchester; and as Manchester had now discovered that all was not gold that glittered, he trusted the House would agree to grant the Committee, whose labours could do no harm and. might effect great good to the suffering trade of the country.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that all trades were suffering—even those which had no French competition to complain of. The high rate of the United States tariff was seriously injuring the trade of that country; the ship-building trade was, in consequence, going to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Having lived near Coventry all his life, he could state that before the Treaty the silk trade was always in a state of alternate distress and prosperity. Just before the Treaty there was a period of great distress arising out of a strike. There could be no doubt that the war in America and the change of fashion had been productive of the present distress. There was no necessity for this particular inquiry, but there was for general inquiry, because trade generally was bad. He never knew trade to be worse, and he regretted to say he saw no prospect of improvement. He attributed it to the frightful swindle of limited liability.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that one branch of the silk trade with which he was connected, although it had absolutely no competition, was nearly extinct owing to the change of fashion and the high price of the raw material. Fine cotton, fine wool, and mixed goods had taken the place of silk goods. The trade also suffered from the American tariff having been raised against us. Coventry had suffered from a variety of causes, from protected industry, from Free Trade, alteration of fashions, and other matters. And Nottingham had suffered in the same way with reference to silk lace. The hats with feathers of sea birds now worn by ladies displaced silk bonnets and silk ribbons. The duty on Coventry ribbons going to France was not more than 3 per cent. He could not see what the Committee could do for the silk trade which could not be better done by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. He believed that by adopting improvements of taste and manufacture, and keeping pace with other countries, the silk interests of Coventry, Manchester, and Macclesfield would regain their place in the industries of this country. So deficient was this country in scientific knowledge that English manufacturers sent silk in large quantities to France to be dyed. It was a great mistake to consider that every article imported displaced British manufactures in consumption, for since the duties had been taken off, foreign buyers came to England to purchase French and German goods.

MR. PHILIPS

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in attributing the depression in the silk trade to a certain extent to the high price of the raw material.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 101: Majority 54.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."