Sitting of 23 February 1826

REDUCTION OF DUTIES ON TOBACCO AND SNUFF.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from the importers of Tobacco and Snuff in the town of Belfast, praying for a reduction of the duties thereon. He could not forbear remarking, in presenting this petition, that few things could be more beneficial to the fair trader, more destructive to smuggling, or more advantageous to the revenue, than the reduction of the duties upon these articles. In order to illustrate this, it might be sufficient to refer to the state of the trade from 1810 to 1812, as compared with its condition in 1820 to 1822. In the former period, when the duty was per lb. 2s., it was paid on 41 millions of pounds. For the latter period, when the duty was 4s. per lb., it was levied on only 33 millions of pounds. Now, the population, and consequently the consumption of the article, must have increased considerably during the latter period, and yet the number of pounds on which the duty was levied had decreased by eight millions. This clearly proved how much the revenue must, in consequence of the high duty, have suffered from the discouragement of consumption and encouragement of smuggling. Similar results had attended these high duties in Ireland, where, notwithstanding the increase of population, the quantity of these articles paying duty, had considerably decreased. He was persuaded, that, if ministers would consent to reduce the duty 1s. 6d. per lb., smuggling these articles would entirely cease, and the revenue be, at the same time,
696
greatly benefitted. The proof of this was, the effects which had resulted from the reduction of the duties on Scotch and Irish whiskey; in regard to which the revenue had materially increased, notwithstanding the reduction of duty to the amount of one half.
Mr. Hart Davissaid, that in consequence of the increase of duties, the number of houses in a certain town engaged in the importation of these articles, had been reduced from eighteen to eight. He agreed, that if the duty were reduced to 1s. 6d. per lb., smuggling would be almost annihilated, and the fair trader and the revenue greatly benefitted.

PROMISSORY NOTES BILL—PETITION OF WILLIAM COBBETT.
Colonel Johnsonpresented a petition from William Cobbett, expressing great alarm at the power given by the Promissory Notes bill to the Bank of England to issue small notes for a certain period, and stating that it would prevent the return to a metallic currency, unless its operations should be counteracted by other clauses. The petition also stated some instances of hardship, in consequence of the country bankers refusing to pay their notes in coin, and prayed that such bankers might be rendered liable to a distress for payment at the instance of a magistrate, upon twenty-four hours' notice. This was the only part of the petition in which he did not agree, as he thought the time too short, and that three or four days ought to be allowed. He himself knew an instance of a person, who having got possession of some Birmingham bank notes, presented them there for payment in gold. He was answered, that the notes were payable in London, and that at the place of issuing them they would only be paid in Bank of England paper. He trusted that a clause would be inserted in the bill to prevent the recurrence of those difficulties; for unless some such summary mode of enforcing payment were adopted, instead of leaving the parties to the ordinary course of law, they never could have gold in general circulation.
The petition was read as follows:—
"The Petition of William Cobbett, of Kensington, in the county of Middlesex, most humbly shows,
"1. That your Petitioner sees, with great alarm, that the bill now before your honourable House has had introduced

697
into it a clause to enable the Bank of England to make small notes for a considerable time yet to come; that this power in the Bank of England would, as your petitioner believes, effectually prevent a return to a gold and silver currency, and would, in effect, be a legal tender, in all parts distant from London, unless prevented by other clauses in the said bill.
"2. That your petitioner has been most credibly informed, and that he believes the facts, that a man presented, on Saturday last, to a great country bank at Norwich, one hundred and thirty pounds in the notes of that bank; that he demanded gold for the same, and that he was peremptorily refused payment in any thing except Bank of England notes; that, on the same day, the same man made a similar application to another country bank in the same city; that he not only met here with a similar refusal, but that the bankers threatened to put him in charge of a constable, if he remained and persisted in his demand; and that if your honourable House will permit him, your humble petitioner doubts not that he shall be able to produce proof of these facts at the bar of your honourable House.
"3. Your humble petitioner prays your honourable House to be pleased to reflect, that it has been solely by means of this species offender, that the country bankers have been able to shut gold out of general circulation; that, as long as they can venture to refuse gold under pretence of paying in Bank of England notes, there can be no gold circulation, and no diminution of the country small notes, because, when it is merely one sort of paper for another, people in the country will, in most cases, prefer the country notes, however much they may suspect their goodness; and that thus, with a very small supply of Bank of England small notes, the country bankers may wholly defeat the laudable design to give the people once more a circulating gold and silver money.
"4. That, in order to prevent such imposition upon the people, and also to prevent those dreadful consequences that must finally result from the continued issue and re-issue of small country notes, your humble petitioner, with great deference and profound respect, begs leave to be permitted to suggest to your honourable House, that it may be enacted in the said bill, and he humbly prays your honourable House to enact, that, in case
698
any country banker shall, under pretence of a tender in Bank of England notes, refuse the legal coin in payment of his own notes, the said banker shall, at the end of twenty-four hours, be liable to a distress, issuing from a justice of the peace, for enforcing immediate payment in coin, and that he shall, moreover, be liable to a penalty for such illegal refusal; or, your petitioner most humbly prays, that your honourable House will be pleased to adopt such other remedy for this great evil as to the wisdom of your honourable House may seem most meet. And your petitioner will ever most humbly pray.
"Feb. 21, 1826. WM, COBBETT."
Mr. Humecalled the attention of the chancellor of the Exchequer particularly to this petition, since it afforded a practical proof of the necessity of the clause which he had proposed the other night, to compel the country bankers, by summary process, to pay in gold; for, unless some such provision was introduced, the excess of paper issues would be as great as ever. The bankers ought undoubtedly to lodge proper security for their notes; and it was not in the least unfair, that, upon three or four days notice, they should be compellible, by summary process, to pay them in, gold on the spot.
Ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

COMMERCIAL DISTRESS—PETITION OF MERCHANTS OF LONDON FOR RELIEF.
Mr. Thomas Wilsonsaid, he never rose with greater anxiety to address the House than on the present occasion with a petition on a subject of vital importance to the welfare of the country, seeing that the performance of this duty placed him in the situation in which he was obliged to differ much from those whom it had formerly been his pride to regard as his hon. friends; but, whatever might be the consequence—whatever might be the impression unfavourable to himself in the quarter to which he alluded—when he witnessed the distress that every where prevailed, and was called on by his constituents to discharge the duty they had imposed upon him, he felt himself bound to stand forward. He trusted, therefore, that he should experience the indulgence of the House, while he was compelled to trespass upon their attention. The House knew, that not only the city of London, but the whole mercantile world, had been suffering, for weeks and months, under

699
the pressure of financial difficulties, which had brought many houses to the ground, and threatened destruction to many more. The merchants of London had solicited his majesty's government for relief, by an issue of Exchequer bills, as on former occasions of a similar character; and though he would make no comment on the manner in which that application had been received, yet he might venture to say, it was quite evident, from what had taken place, that his majesty's government had made up their minds to grant no relief whatever. Several objections had been stated on their part, to the course pursued by their predecessors. For himself, speaking as a practical man, he hoped he should be excused for saying, that on a great emergency like the present, that remedy would be found to be the most effectual, which had so proved at former periods of the same nature. During the discussion that had been going on, his majesty's government had found out that the charter of the Bank of England enabled that body to lend money on goods, and therefore they concluded, that any interference on their part would be highly improper, and Would have the effect of perpetuating a series of precedents, calculated, in their ulterior consequences, to work great injury to the country. As by this discovery it had been ascertained that the Bank was open to the relief of the mercantile classes, why, it was asked, did they not apply to that body? What necessity was there for an issue of Exchequer bills under these circumstances? The answer he bad to make on behalf of the mercantile classes was, that relief in one case was administered by means wholly unobjectionable; while, by the other mode, the affairs of the merchant must be subjected to an investigation which would completely expose his embarrassments to the Bank directors. The Exchequer bills would be issued under the management of commissioners sworn to secresy. A merchant who wanted an advance, not on imaginary security, but on real goods of intrinsic value, could, unknown to the world, apply to the commissioners, and thus overcome his difficulties, without the circumstance of his temporary embarrassment transpiring to any human being. The present idea, however, was, that if it was advisable to discount a bill, it was quite as easy and proper to obtain an advance of money on goods, indeed, that the latter course was less discre-
700
ditable. No mistake could be greater. One transaction was sanctioned by time and custom. It was what occurred every day, and without it the business of the country could not go on. The other was a transaction that could not take place without bringing a slur on the credit of the individual having recourse to it. In the first stage of the discussion, the objection taken by government to afford relief, was directed more against the sufferers themselves, as sinners, than against the principle of relief itself. The merchants, manufacturers, and traders were treated as wild and profligate speculators; or at best, as men engaged in unreasonable adventures. They were described as being concerned in bubbles of every kind, railways, water-companies, and gas-associations; and it was said, that as by means of these speculations, and the consequent excess of trading, the country had been brought into its present state of distress, it was fit that things should be left to find their own level and that government ought, on no account, to interfere. As he wished to save the time of the conference, he had put the worst case that he thought it possible to conceive, and which yet he undertook to prove one deserving of relief. He had, therefore, stated the case of a speculator, who, though still owner of a good deal of property, had lost half he had possessed. Yet this individual, he contended, was worth saving; not for his own sake, but as forming part of the commercial community. So he would say of the sufferers generally. If not for their own deserts, they were yet worth saving for the sake of the country, to whose prosperity their welfare was essential. Passing over the connection that subsisted between the commercial and the agricultural interests, he would maintain the necessity of relief, on the ground that the distress—though he would not say it had been aggravated—had certainly been superinduced by the conduct of government, and therefore he would repeat, that the merchants, manufacturers, and traders had a fair claim of relief, considering all the circumstances under which the distress had been produced. As to the charge of excessive speculation, he had never gone into the subject before; but, when he was told that speculators did not deserve relief, and therefore that no relief ought to be administered to the existing distress, he would stand up for the merchants of the city of London and, in

701
their name, deny that this was the case with them generally. They were not, as they had been represented, overgrown speculators. They did not deserve the imputations thus cast upon them. Before they were treated in this way, it became government to shew, that the difference in the price of consols had exercised no influence on the value of goods. Was the difference between consols at 95 and at 75, nothing? Had the fall in the price of government securities no effect in throwing down the value of goods? Was no allowance to be made to the merchant, on account of the change which now resulted from the proceedings of government, with the view of reducing the five per cents? There was no proof of speculation beyond what the circumstances of the times seemed to require. As to the excess of trading, with which the merchants were charged, it was easy now to throw the imputation in their teeth. They were accordingly told, that they had traded beyond their power and strength. But, how were they, beforehand, to arrive at this conclusion? How were they to know this result, till it had proved itself? When the trade opened with South America, who could say that five, or ten, or fifty cargoes, were too few or too many, of one kind of merchandize, before the market was actually glutted? At the same moment, too, goods were despatched, perhaps from London, from Liverpool, and from Glasgow, and this unforeseen union produced the overtrading. This objection had been pushed much too far against the mercantile classes. As to the mining concerns in South America, he differed widely from those who had attacked them. He was not in the House when some animadversions had been recently made upon them, or he would then have stated his opinion respecting them; but he had no hesitation in saying, that he considered them a legitimate employment of capital. If the government of Spain had been supported for so many years by the produce of the mines, it was surely not irrational to expect that these undertakings would, at the present time, yield a considerable profit; and, though the investment of capital in them might be a matter of inconvenience at this moment, there was no reason to apprehend that the result would not be greatly beneficial to the adventurers. The sums of money gained or lost by gambling in shares was altogether another consider-
702
ation. He was not disposed to justify the practice of gambling in any shape, but it was obvious, that the sale of shares had nothing whatever to do with the present question. He perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Montrose, that the country had certainly not been impoverished by this gambling. One man was richer, and another poorer; but the whole stock of wealth was neither increased nor diminished. The question as to the South American mines was, whether the investment of capital in those undertakings was a legitimate speculation. He was perfectly satisfied that it was. One cause of the present suffering was said to be the excess of imports. The same remark was-applicable to this, as to the question of speculation generally. The imports of a country could only be known to be excessive, when, by experience, they were found to be so. At present, the imports were excessive, only because the demand for foreign goods had suddenly fallen off. The loss resulting from the difference of prices would not be entirely sustained by this country. While the great importations were taking place, and while the prices of foreign merchandize were advancing, the prices of our own manufactured goods were also advancing; so that if, on one hand, we were importing at high prices, we were sending out our own manufactures, on the other hand, at prices advanced proportionally to the rise on the raw material. He did not stand up to recommend that assistance should be given to the dealers in bubbles of any kind, rail-roads, or gas companies, or foreign speculations, nor to the holders of bills of exchange of a long date, or difficult of negotiation. His proposition was simple. He wished that relief should be applied to that class of individuals who, with ample means, were suffering from the general want of credit and confidence, and who, he would add, were suffering to an extent which he would hardly venture to describe. No language could be used that would be too strong for the state of things to which it was to be applied. Every failure tended to aggravate the mischief and distress pervading the commercial world. Since the failure of the house of Goldschmidt, the consternation had spread in every direction. That house was deemed, like others, to have dealt too largely in foreign securities, and to have been concerned too deeply in over-trading. But, what was the fact?

703
That name, lately so high in credit and affluence, had, no longer ago than last summer, through one of the partners, then abroad, laid out 50,000 l. in the stocks of the United States, in order to obtain greater interest on the money than they could procure by any investment in this country. They had also founded an establishment at Leeds, in order to assist the manufacturers of this country, and at the time when the house stopped payment, they had made advances to the extent of 45,000 l. on the manufactured goods under their care. The course they pursued was this: If the goods were sold, the advance was repaid;—if not sold within a certain period, the goods were sent out to such part of Brazil or South America, as the manufacturer chose to point out. Of the 45,000 l. advanced, 12,000 l., had been in this manner repaid. But, what was the state of the country at this moment? Parliament might learn it from the affairs of this house. A communication received the other day from the head of the concern at Leeds stated, that he could not raise 12,000 l. to support the credit of the establishment. Four days previous to the stoppage of the house, doubts having been expressed as to its stability, communications to that effect were despatched to Paris and Amsterdam, The alarm produced there, by this intelligence, was excessive. Advices had been sent over from both those cities, stating, that the mischief that must follow this event on the two exchanges, would be incalculable, and would ultimately recoil upon the merchants of London. In this way the distress, great as it was, would be aggravated by every fresh failure. Never was the truth of the old proverb more apparent—that delays were dangerous. Those hon. gentlemen who were acquainted with the city, knew what frightful reports were in circulation only yesterday, respecting establishments of the highest respectability and of known property. Yet, these mere rumours had driven down the price of the English funds two or three per cent, and the foreign funds four or five per cent. Among the inconveniences pointed out as likely to result from the granting of relief, was the evil of an excessive issue of Exchequer-bills. It might, he admitted, be attended with inconvenience, under present circumstances, to government, or the Bank, if Exchequer-bills were, to any great extent, brought into the market; but not treble the amount asked for
704
would, under more favourable circumstances, produce any mischievous effect. If his-majesty's government sympathised, with the mercantile classes, all would be well; but not while they said, "Some of you have done what you ought not, and-as we cannot discriminate between you, all shall suffer alike." This was hard treatment from a government which depended mainly on trade for the means of supporting its army, its navy, and its other, great establishments. The conduct of his majesty's government was, in this respect, utterly unjustifiable. Perhaps it would be said, that he had overcharged the picture he had drawn, and he expected that severe animadversions would be made upon him for inflaming the public mind. He declared, however, solemnly, that he was discharging a most unpleasant duty conscientiously, to the best of his belief. Among the many painful feelings he suffered on this occasion, one of the most painful was that arising from the necessity of removing from the bench on which he had sat with so much satisfaction for so many years, to that sort of neutral ground on which he was standing. He had judged it more advisable to take up that position, than to go at once over to the opposition benches, where, possibly, he might have been looked upon as a spy in the enemies camp. The president of the Board of Trade had lately recommended to the House, that the balance of trade should be kept in view by the merchant, in order to regulate his proceedings. But he (Mr. Wilson) was one of the old school, of which it was a doctrine that the balance could, be defined only by the result. The state of our foreign trade was now greatly, altered. When our imports were chiefly from, and our exports to the continent, the balance of trade was easily adjusted. But now the supplies received by this country from the continent were much greater; and they would necessarily increase in consequence of the relaxation that had taken place in our navigation laws. The exports to the continent last year had been cramped by restrictions, but the, great dependance of the country as to exports was on the trade with India, Brazil, and South America generally; and the returns in that trade could not be calculated until after 12, 18, or 24 months. As to the doctrine of limiting trade in order to force up the exchanges, he regarded it as one of the absurdities of the day. It must be left, he contended, to the Bank of Eng-

705
land to decide for itself, when it should extend or decrease its discounts. To say that the Bank directors should be compelled to watch the exchanges, and drive them up by contracting their discounts, was to inculcate a doctrine wholly at variance with the sound principles of trade. If it were to be acted on, he would say, "Good bye to the consequence, importance, and respectability of the mercantile establishments of this country." A favourite notion afloat at the present time was the necessity of putting the currency and trade of the country into a wholesome state. He readily admitted, that no object could be more desirable; but, if parliament was to begin this intended course of improvement by ruining some of the existing banking establishments, and inducing the rest, in self-defence, to shut up their shops, they would inflict calamities which they could not foresee on the country, already suffering excessively from the operation, perhaps unavoidable, of other causes. In his opinion, they should have let well alone. Government had committed themselves by a legislative enactment, in the circulation of country bank notes during an extended, period. The right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer might now pay all the compliments he could invent to the country bankers; but he could not remove the stigma which was, at the opening of the session, fixed upon them all. On the part of the public there would be runs, and on the part of the bankers distrust.—He regretted that he bad occupied the attention of the House at such length; but there were yet two subjects on which he begged leave to say a few words, mainly connected, as they were, with the causes of the present commercial distress—he alluded to the Corn laws and the Silk trade. He could not help considering these subjects, at the present time, as being closely connected with the actual state of country banking. If, at this period, government persisted in their intention of unhinging so many important interests, they would, in his opinion, adopt a dangerous system of legislation, which he trusted parliament would not tolerate. If the principles of free trade were to be introduced, government should at least pause, until they knew what were the feelings of the landed interests as to the proposed alteration of the Com laws. The landed interest, after all, would probably turn round upon
706
them, and defeat the grand design. What a state of confusion would there then be between wholesome and unwholesome principles jumbled together into a system, if it might be so called, which no man could pretend to understand. In conclusion, he had one or two words to say as to himself. If he had, in strong terms, advocated the measure of relief, he begged it might be understood that he had not advocated his own cause, but that of the merchants of London. He had no personal interest whatever in obtaining an advance of Exchequer bills; but he had heard and witnessed so much distress, that he could not avoid speaking in the strong language in which he had delivered himself. For the consolation of his majesty's ministers, and the country at large, he felt it his duty to say, that he did believe that the country was never possessed of more elements of prosperity, or a greater mass of substantial riches, notwithstanding the extraordinary, unnatural, and fearful situation in which it was placed, by measures pursued and by measures not adopted. There was property enough to answer every demand. All that was wanted was the restoration of confidence. The city of London, however, had sent memorials and deputations in vain. But his majesty's government, it appeared, had made up their minds to give no relief, and therefore the merchants were compelled to lay the statement of their condition before the House of Commons, and pray for redress from parliament. Before he sat down, he gave notice of his intention, on Tuesday next, to move for a select committee to inquire into the present distress of the commercial world.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the hon. member for the city of London anticipated from him any severe animadversions, either on the manner in which he had stated the case, on the mode in which he had described the distress, which they all knew was, unfortunately, prevailing in different parts of the country, or on his own personal conduct in bringing the question under the consideration of the House, expressing, as he had done, his altered sentiments on many important questions relative to the policy of the country, he would be greatly disappointed; because, sensible, as he was, that it was impossible the hon. member could address the House on the subject without feelings of the greatest pain, he trusted that the hon. gentleman would also do him the

707
justice to believe, that he could not address the House himself without similar feelings, naturally arising from that sympathy which every honest man felt in the distresses of his country. It would be a great injustice, therefore, to his own feelings, if he gave utterance to any remark on the hon. member's speech, which could, with propriety, be described as a severe animadversion upon it. When the hon. gentleman, the other evening, had asked whether it was the intention of his majesty's government to submit any proposition to parliament, following the example of two former occasions, he had felt it his duty at once, distinctly and unequivocally, to state, that, in the opinion of his majesty's government, it would be highly dangerous, if not fatal to the permanent interests of the country, to imitate, on the present occasion, those examples. He knew the course recommended by the hon. gentleman was sanctioned by the authority of great names. He knew he might be taunted with affecting to follow, though with humble steps, the policy of those great names, while, in fact, it would be said, he was departing from it. To that reproach, however, he would submit, rather than incur the danger which he foresaw must result from the measure to which he was now urged. If parliament were to adopt it, he should deeply regret such a determinatiqn—not as to the immediate effect of the measure, but with regard to the consequences that would not remotely flow from it. In these matters it was the first step which it was essential to avoid. If, because this measure had been adopted twice before, it was, therefore, to be adopted again, he could not see where the practice was to stop. On every occasion of distress, it would be called for, as, every time distress occurred, it would be represented as the most grievous calamity the country had ever endured. He objected to it decidedly on principle, and he would found his objection on the very arguments used by the hon. gentleman in its favour. He contended, that the proposed relief would unavowedly be, to offer a bonus to extravagant speculation. For what were the cases to which the hon. gentleman had referred I He had told the House of enormous speculations in cotton, wool, and other commodities, which, followed by excessive importations, had produced a dreadful depression of prices. If that were to be the ground of relief on the present occasion, what hope was the
708
House to have that prudence would ever operate on the affairs of men? What was the description given by the hon. gentleman of the situation of the great house of Goldschmidt? He had never heard the particulars stated before; but, according to the showing of the hon. gentleman himself, surely, if ever there was a case of excessive speculation, that was the very case. They had locked up their disposable capital in the stocks of a foreign government thousands of miles off. The establishment at Leeds was not to execute orders in the ordinary way of business, but to speculate in getting commissions where they were, by sales, to have been obtained. Their whole establishment was conducted on a principle which was the very essence of speculation. But, ministers were said to be guilty of injustice; they were charged with attacking characters, and endangering the credit of stable and respectable houses, because they had expressed themselves freely as to the evils of the present state of things. But, it was the very nature of speculation, that the mischiefs it produced were not confined to the individuals who embarked in it. Was it to be laid down as a principle, that whenever general distress was produced by excessive speculation, his majesty's government were to step forward and administer relief? On all occasions was this to be the rule? If, indeed, he could believe that this was the last time relief would be called for, his view might be somewhat changed; but he foresaw clearly that if it was now granted, another demand of a similar nature could not be far distant. This would continue to be the case as long as parliament, on every fresh occasion, supplied fresh fuel for the fire of speculation. The hon. gentleman had referred to the power of the Bank of England to afford a relief, by lending money on goods; but he had, at the same time, expressed his opinion, that that was an improper measure to resort to. Now, what was the state of the law? By the charter of the Bank, by the act of parliament, creating and regulating that corporation, and by the bye-laws by which it governed itself, that identical mode of proceeding was clearly settled and pointed out. It might not be desirable, perhaps, to have recourse to it. Many reasons might induce the Bank to abstain from that course; but why was a new law to be passed, creating the government and people

709
into a sort of new bank for that purpose, when there was already an existing law, and an existing Bank, competent to do the identical thing for which a new law and a new bank were called for? Why were the members of his majesty's government to be loaded with every species of obloquy, because they would not create a new law and a new body, when there was actually existing a body by law, capable of giving all the relief expected or desired. He recollected well, that on the discussion of the law of merchant and factor, the argument used by the lion, gentleman in favour of the amendment of the law—and a pinching argument it was, which nobody could evade or resist—was, that, as the law formerly stood, it was impossible for any banker to advance money on goods. Parliament was convinced by this argument, and felt compelled to alter the law specially, for the purpose of enabling advances to be safely made on goods. If this amendment of the law was desirable, in order that bankers might have the power of making these advances, on what principle would parliament be now told, that it was utterly unjustifiable to refer the merchants to the Bank of England for the relief which, by its charter, it was competent to give, and which the amended law rendered it perfectly safe to administer? He could not comprehend why government was to place itself in the situation of a public banker, for a purpose that any existing banking establishment might effect.—He would not, on that occasion, follow the hon. gentleman into the subject of the Corn laws or the Silk trade; but he would revert to one point in his speech which confirmed him, if possible, more strongly than ever in the opinions he held as to the propriety of the course which government had adopted. He had heard with the greatest dismay, an argument used by the hon. gentleman on the subject of the currency and the exchanges; namely, that the Bank of England ought not to look to the state of the exchanges to regulate its issues, but only to what was termed the effective demand of the mercantile interests. If that principle was sanctioned by parliament, all that had been done to restore a wholesome state of the currency would be rendered completely abortive. Nothing in that case could prevent the recurrence of the desperate evils which had overwhelmed the country with all the calamities, from which no man knew how to escape, and which, he feared,
710
it was destined for some time yet to feel. He besought the pardon of the House-He had, perhaps, expressed himself with more warmth than he ought to have done—certainly with less self-possession than the question required—but he hoped the House would do him the justice to believe, that any expressions he might have uttered, to which any gentleman might object, or any omissions of which he had been guilty, had not arisen from any want of sympathy for the unfortunate distresses which at present existed, or from neglecting to exercise the best energies of his own mind, or to avail himself of the wisdom of the more powerful minds of those by whom he was surrounded. He had endeavoured to express, to the utmost of his ability, the considerations which, in his mind, rendered it impolitic to adopt the course which the hon. gentleman had proposed.
Mr. Baringsaid, that no man could have listened to the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, without being fully impressed with his perfect sincerity on the present occasion; nor did he require any assurances beyond those which the right hon. gentleman himself expressed, and which a knowledge of his character fully supported, that the distress under which so large a portion of the community was suffering, produced a large share of sympathy in his mind. But in stating thus much, he must also say that the whole speech of the right hon. gentleman convinced him that the right hon. gentleman was not fully sensible of the extent and depth of the existing distresses. And on this important subject, which was one more of understanding than of feeling, he trusted the House would not be carried away by the earnestness of the manner, or the perfect good faith of the character of the right hon. gentleman. He would readily admit that it was not the business of government to interfere in any ordinary case of distress, but a case might arise (and such was the present) where the distress might be of such an extraordinary nature, and so extensive in its operation, as to render it the indispensable duty of government to step forward and attempt its alleviation. It was most unjust to attribute disasters to the improvident speculations of the whole of these merchants. He, on the part of the merchants of the country, denied the fact. He believed, upon examination, it would be found, that nearly three-fourths of the absurd schemes which were

711
set afloat last year, had their origin, not in the counting-houses of the merchants, but in the inns of court—that they were concocted by some cunning attorney, or some scheming land-surveyor, whose only aim was to make money for the time being, by going before a committee of that House, careless to what the project might ultimately come. Some of those speculations might be traced to the more courtly circles of the west end of the town; and really, if the gentlemen of St. James's-street thought proper to bring their speculations to the merchants of the Royal Exchange, they had no right to say that the merchants of London alone were blameable. e did not mean to deny that many of those speculations had originated with that class of the community, but it was unfair to attribute the whole fault exclusively and entirely to them. As to the consequences which had ensued, he had never, at any time, hesitated to express his opinion that such must be the case; but, because he had ventured to predict that such consequences would ensue, he should not feel himself justified in turning round like the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, who, because he had predicted, and no one would take warning, was for leaving the victims to their fate. Had it been the case of an individual, or of a particular branch of trade, perhaps he might say that it would be useful to allow experience to teach its lesson. But it was not that limited question; it was a question that embraced the country; that affected its leading interests, its revenue, its industry, its commerce, its manufactures, and its agriculture. The right hon. gentleman had stated no good reason why that remedy, which two examples had already proved the utility of, a remedy of known benefit, a remedy practised by the greatest man that ever administered the civil and internal affairs of this country—Mr. Pitt there was no reason why that remedy which had been found to work so well on former occasions should not now again be resorted to: for he firmly believed, that if all the cases of distress that had ever, in any former time, occurred in this country were to be summed up together, they would fall far short of equalling the mass of distress and suffering which at present oppressed the nation. That distress had at first sprung up from natural causes, but it had been grievously aggravated by the measures of
712
government. What reason, then, was there for withholding similar assistance now, when it was well known, that the difficulties did not arise from any want of real substantial property, but from the cessation of the means of commercial intercourse, from the abstraction of the medium of circulation, and the destruction of that mutual confidence upon which our commerce depended? A general panic seemed to pervade every man's mind, that he would be unable to meet his engagements in consequence of the distresses of others. Every debtor had, as it were, his creditor at his throat. This, then, was surely a state of things peculiarly fitted for the interference of government; and the high estimation in which government paper and securities were at present held, considering the great depreciation which had taken place in other property, afforded an additional reason for granting the required assistance. But, it seemed that government had determined to adhere to a rigid, invariable, unbending rule, to listen to no practical men, but to be actuated only by abstract theories. They seemed to have altogether forgotten, that, in matters of even greater moment than the one now under consideration, we had been obliged practically to acknowledge the truth of the maxim, that necessity had not, nor could have, any fixed law; for, what was in estimation or in reality more valuable to a Briton than his personal liberty? Still, a state of things had more than once arisen in this country, when it had become absolutely necessary for a time to subject that most estimable right of Englishmen to the absolute disposal of the government. To a frequent interference by ministers in these matters, he had as great an objection as the right hon. gentleman could possibly have; but he looked upon this as one of those peculiar cases which required them to step forward and lend a helping hand to those who were now sinking under the pressure of distress. He was induced to think that the issue of Exchequer-bills would do more than any other mode which could be devised, for the relief of the present distress. The very ground and origin of that distress was a general want of confidence; and, because the measure he had alluded to was calculated to relieve the distress, and at the same time to restore confidence, he preferred it above any other. Persons who were in want of assistance would feel the greatest reluctance in applying for it to the Bank. In

713
order to procure it, they must make a statement of their affairs, and expose circumstances which their interest required them to conceal. Such an application, too, must be always disagreeable, and even in some instances disgraceful—he meant disgraceful to the mercantile reputation of such persons as were driven to make it. The applications, on the contrary, which might be made to the proposed commission, would be conducted with that privacy which was necessary to die welfare of the merchants, and being made upon oath, would afford the greatest possible security to the government. With respect to money being advanced by the Bank of England on the deposit of merchandise, he looked upon that expedient to be as objectionable in principle and as inconvenient in practice as could possibly be imagined. It might be true (hat the charter of the Bank empowered the directors to do so if they thought fit; but it was certain that they had not thought proper to exercise that power. Until it had been discovered just now, by the research of some industrious antiquary, nobody had been aware, not even the directors themselves, that any such power existed. And even if it should be asserted that they had, it was quite clear that they bad never thought it wise or wholesome to exercise it. Any person acquainted with the nature of these affairs must know, that if the Bank should once adopt this measure, they would be called upon constantly to continue it. It would have the very effect which the legislature intended to prevent, by making them dealers in merchandize; for, although they were restrained from buying goods, they were empowered to sell in the event of the nonpayment of their advances, and thus they must be, to all intents and purposes, dealers. He thought, too, that the complaint coming as it did directly before the House, it became them to provide some remedy for the distress which had become so urgent, and not to send the persons who were suffering under it from themselves to the Bank. With the greatest respect for the right hon. gentleman, be thought such a proceeding would be unsatisfactory and even unfair. The distress, it should be remembered, was felt not only in London, but had extended, and was rapidly extending itself, to all the other important towns and cities in the kingdom. He could tee no ground of objection to compliance on the part of the government.
714
An advance of Exchequer-bills would be most opportune. It would ease the pressure of distress, calm agitations, and restore mutual confidence, between the commercial classes. He was satisfied, though 5,000,000 l. might be the sum required, that, as on former occasions, the issue of 1, or 2,000,000 l., at most, would be found sufficient to put the elements of prosperity into action. The principle had been acted upon with decided advantage; and there was no instance, be believed, of the application of it being attended with a loss of sixpence to the public. His hon. friend who presented this petition had done no more than represent the wishes and opinions of his constituents. He was glad to see his hon. friend take up what in military phraseology would be called an imposing position on the left flank of ministers. For his own part, he cordially concurred in the opinions be had expressed with so much good sense and spirit.
Mr. John Smithsaid, that in all that had been urged upon this subject, that which he took to be the most important point had been lightly touched on by his hon. friends: he meant the unprecedented nature of the distress which prevailed, and the mode which had been hitherto adopted for its relief. It was not his intention to inquire into the causes which had produced that distress—whether the panic which was its immediate cause bad solely occasioned it, or whether the clumsy contrivances which had been suggested had increased it to its present extent. This, however, was quite clear, that the House was called upon to deal with an entirely new state of things. At this juncture the chancellor of the Exchequer bad taken up the subject of the currency, and had proposed to do away with the circulation of one and two pound notes. He believed that the announcement of that intention on the part of government had had no small effect in producing the evils of which we had to complain. Was this to be renewed at some distant period? Was the House again to be occupied with debates on this subject? He hoped not. With respect, however, to the existing distress, he did not remember, nor, he believed, could any man living remember, a time of such universal pressure; Did any man recollect a period at which six London and an immense number of country bankers had broken?—when distress like that which now prevailed was felt at the same

715
time in London and at Manchester, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, and many other towns of the highest importance? It was very true that, some time ago, an absurd desire for speculation had existed throughout all conditions of the people. The noble earl at the head of his majesty's ministry had not been the only man to foresee the fatal consequences which must result from that rash spirit of speculation. He himself had expressed to his friends his firm conviction that some dreadful calamity would ensue; but he had in one respect been deceived, because he thought the distress would take place, not in the winter, but in the spring. It unfortunately happened, that the consequences of that calamity had extended themselves far beyond the persons who had been instrumental in spreading the mania for speculating. Many honourable tradesmen and most deserving individuals had been involved in the ruinous effects. Among those to whom he alluded the persons engaged in the silk trade were in die most unmerited and alarming state of suffering. Many of them had large stocks of silk, for which they had been obliged to pay, but which they found it impossible to turn to any account. In the present state of the trade, they durst not; manufacture it; and even if they could have disposed of it, they could not have procured for it any price. Such a class of men deserved the warmest sympathy, because they had done nothing to deserve what they were now suffering. Day after day their bills were dishonoured, and they could see no limits to this time of pressure and dismay. A man of this description, who was possessed of 40,000 l. worth of silk goods, had come to him that day, and said, "I have in my possession this property, but, I cannot go on, unless you will lend me some money." He, and those with whom he was connected, did so, and would continue to do so, as far as they could; but it must be obvious that no prudent man in these times, could do this to any great extent. He approved of the manner in which his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Huskisson) had resisted all the attempts which had been made against the law which, he had introduced on the subject of the silk-trade; but he wished it to be put into immediate operation, rather than wait till July next. He believed, that, so far from that measure having any injurious effect, it would, on the contrary,
716
be a means of relieving the public. There could be no question that the Bank had a right to lend money on the deposit of merchandize, and in fact they had done so. This, he understood, was now objected to, and he was sorry to hear it. But although that was a measure which, under some circumstances, he thought highly expedient, he did not think it could be adopted so as to be universally useful on the present occasion. He preferred, on every account, the issue of Exchequer-bills, because the relief which they would afford would be prompt; and it was in the promptness of relief at the critical moment that its efficacy must consist. He could imagine no reasonable grounds on which ministers ought to refuse the request now made to them. What was there in it that they should hesitate to grant? It was true there were other modes in which relief might be afforded; to adopt them would require time, and while the grass was growing the steed would starve. He besought ministers to recollect, that the dangers which were now menacing the country were of no small importance. Without touching further upon this point, he would have the House to remember, that hungry men were not easily made to listen to advice, or to obey the laws by which they were, in times of less excitement peacefully governed. If such a stale of things as that to which he could only venture to allude distantly should arrive, he knew that no one would regret it more than the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer. To avoid this the means seemed to be obvious. There could be no doubt that it was the duty of government to do whatever they could for the purpose of granting that relief which was imperatively called for. Before he sat down, he must say, that he could never understand upon what principle it was that ministers thought themselves bound to act. Some two or three years ago, unless his memory deceived him, a noble lord at the head of the ministry, from a speech which he had made, appeared disposed to believe that, even in case of absolute famine, it was not the duty of government to interfere to do away the evil, lest they should destroy that caution and care which the people ought always to have for their own protection and preservation. He could by no means concur in so general a proposition. He thought, on the contrary, that the conduct of government, on this and

717
on all other occasions, should be regulated by public utility. They were bound to ascertain, in cases where a request like the present was made, whether greater evils were likely to ensue from their refusing than from their granting it. If, on this occasion, they could show, that greater evils would ensue from their granting than from their withholding it, they should have his full concurrence. So wholly different, however, was his present impression upon the subject, that he was seriously apprehensive of the greatest evils, unless the relief prayed for should be granted without delay. He trusted, therefore, that the government, either by themselves or through their influence with the Bank, would afford this relief; and he hoped that the House would do him the justice to believe, that he would not have used the language, nor have uttered the sentiments which had been drawn from him on this occasion, but from a perfect conviction that they were such as the present exigency demanded.
Mr. Pearseobserved, that if the directors of the Bank of England had withheld the relief which was so urgently required, it was not because they did not know and feel the difficulties under which the country laboured. Being, as they all were, either merchants or engaged in pursuits intimately connected with the commerce of the country, they were interested (speaking merely of their pecuniary interests) in removing, if it was in their power, the present distress. The reason which had induced them not to interfere to any greater extent than they had already done, was, because they knew, by experience, that much better means than any which they could put in practice had been devised, and which, in their opinion, were altogether free from objection. He would shortly state the reasons which induced him to concur in this view of the case. In the first place, she distress had extended itself throughout the country. There was no place of importance which did not feel its full share of calamity, and in the appointment of the commission which had been so urgently, and he thought so wisely, recommended to the adoption of the House, the same method of forming it should be pursued as in that of 1793, when persons were inserted to represent every part of the kingdom. One gentleman from Scotland, who was well acquainted with the inter-
718
ests of that country, which then had its share of suffering, was placed upon the; commission, in order that its interests and wants might be ascertained and provided for. The same rule was observed With respect to other parts of the kingdom. The great advantage of this plan, when the distress was, as in the present instance, diffused generally, was too obvious to need any comment. The practice and knowledge of the directors of the Bank of England were necessarily confined to London, while the commission would have the best possible information respecting the whole country. Another advantage to be gained by the commission would be its great notoriety. It would convince the people that the legislature were interested in their distresses, and that they had busied themselves in the attempt to remove them. In this point of view more than in any other, he thought the commission would be highly advisable, and that it would produce the most satisfactory results. No issue of money from the Bank, to whatever amount, would have the effect that this measure would immediately occasion; because it would restore that public confidence which, although it had originated with the actual distress, had made that distress infinitely more dangerous and universal. The Bank had already done a great deal in all such ways as it could. It did certainly possess, as had been stated, the power to lend money upon the deposit of goods; but that was a permissive power, and the few occasions upon which it had been exercised, showed that it was not intended nor calculated to be frequently resorted to. The act expressly said, that the Bank should not purchase goods; but the very next clause empowered them, having lent money, to sell the pledged goods in case of their not being redeemed in due time. It was evident, therefore, that this power was not to be exercised excepting when some necessity required it. He could not imagine any objection, in practice, to the advance of Exchequer-bills by the government; and particularly at this moment, he was convinced that no other measure would be so advisable. This was the opinion of all the persons with whom he had the honour to act, and who had exercised the best of their skill and judgment in investigating the Subject. The result of their deliberations had long ago satisfied them of this. The experience of the last four or five days had

719
served to convince them more and more, that this was the most desirable way of meeting the present crisis. The mere knowledge that the House had taken up the subject of the general distress, would have the immediate effect of restoring confidence. Without the issue of a single pound, a conviction that the commission was to be appointed would mitigate the sufferings of the country, and be the most effectual and wholesome cure for all the evils which were now universally felt.
Mr. Brightreferred to the report of the commissioners appointed in 1793, and said, that the beneficial effects which had resulted from the measures adopted under that commission, were the best arguments that could be used for its renewal upon the present occasion. He did not know for what reason the government should refuse now to do that which had then been found so satisfactory a remedy for evils of precisely the same nature as the present. The commissioners of 1793 said in their report "that its advantages were evinced by a speedy restoration of confidence in mercantile transactions, which produced a facility in raising money that leas presently felt, not only in the metropolis, but through the whole extent of Great Britain." He saw no reason why any doubt should be entertained that the same consequences would result, if the same measure were now put in practice. The commissioners further stated, that "the difficulties in which many considerable commercial houses were involved have been thus removed, and the fatal effects of those difficulties on other houses who were dependent on them have been prevented." Nor was the operation of the act less beneficial with respect to a variety of eminent manufacturers in different parts of the kingdom, who having, in a great degree, suspended their works, were enabled to resume them, and to afford employment to a number of workmen who must Otherwise have been thrown on the public for support, and perhaps, in some cases, with the loss of the manufacture. We now beard complaints, that not only those who had rashly entered into the speculations which were so universally condemned were ruined, but that they had drawn into the same distress many honest and laborious tradesmen who bad taken no part in their schemes. To obviate evils such as these, ministers were called upon to adopt an expedient, the efficacy of which had beep already satisfactorily proved. Many
720
manufacturers who bad bees obliged to suspend their works and to discharge their workmen would, by these means, be enabled to re-employ them, and that most important branch of the national interests with which they were connected would again be restored. Such distress as that which now prevailed—distress at once so extreme and so general—no man, he believed, had ever witnessed. It was vain to say that precedent did not justify this measure, or that it was contrary to the principles by which the government felt itself bound to act. The occasion was one of such urgent necessity, that it required no precedent; and principles, however valuable on other occasions, must give way to an exigency like this. But, said the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, we must not encourage rash and unjustifiable speculation. He would not stop to inquire who it was that encouraged that speculation—whose speeches favoured that speculation, the knowledge of which they avowed, and on the success of which they congratulated the country—while they described the prosperity which was to be the consequence of them; but he bad a right to complain, that ministers now quitted the course they had found so pleasant a one; that they turned round upon all they had done before; and, when a plan was recommended to them which would relieve the distress that had been increased, if not produced, by their own measures, they rejected it, and refused to listen to the counsel of men the best informed and instructed. The right hon. gentlemen now sheltered themselves under the authority of principle; and said, that whatever relief was to be afforded, ought to be granted by the Bank, over which (notwithstanding the censures which were heard respecting the connection between the government and the Bank) the right hon. gentleman said he had no such influence as was supposed. Why was not the power which the Bank was to have of purchasing Exchequer bills, not in the way nor for the purpose of their trade, a violation of principle? When Exchequer bills were selling at a discount, and men who wanted money were obliged to part with them at the market-price, the Bank stepped in, and raised the price to the certain loss of those who bad been compelled to sell them at a large discount. Was the government to empower them to do this, and afterwards to refuse a mea-

721
sore which was for the benefit of the whole country, on the ground of its being contrary to principle? To quit this subject, and return to the expediency of the measure proposed—he would ask, why they should hesitate to do that which had been done before? It could not be denied that it was necessary that public confidence should be restored. The House was called upon to interfere to effect this; and even if what they now did should be followed by some slight inconvenience, still he was satisfied that the urgency of the present distress was such as would justify the measure. He disclaimed any interest in that measure, excepting such as every other member of the community must feel; and concluded by expressing his conviction, that unless the government should consent to the issue of Exchequer bills in the manner recommended, the distress must become more extensive, and the consequences such as every man must contemplate with dismay.
Mr. Holme Sumnerconcurred in the view taken on this subject by the hon. member who had spoken last. He was as great an advocate as any man could be for adherence to principles, as long as that was practicable. But, circumstances might happen to render it necessary to lay aside for a time those principles; and such circumstances he thought prevailed at this moment. The distress had assumed such a shape, that there was no class in the community exempt from its operation. No man, whether of high or low station, could say he was secure from the general pressure. It was true that owe of the causes of this distress might be ascribed to the rash and unjustifiable speculations which had been indulged in. But the melancholy fact was, that the speculators no longer existed; they had been swept away in the general ruin; and those who remained and implored relief were not those who had thus sinned, but men of respectability, honour, and integrity, who had unfortunately become the sufferers from the operations of others. It was not, therefore; with a view of serving the speculators but others who had no connection with them that he joined in imploring relief; for there were not any classes of society—not even those who fancied themselves wholly beyond the reach of disaster of any kind—who might not be eventually dragged into the vortex of destructions, if something was not done to save those who were at present in dan-
722
ger. It was, therefore, for the House and his majesty's ministers to consider, whether something should not be done to stop the conflagration which raged at present in their neighbour's house, and might eventually reach their own.
Mr. Monteithsaid, that the distress which prevailed was by no means confined to England. It had reached Scotland, and was making rapid and alarming progress there. The city of Glasgow was at that moment suffering under distress as severe and universal as any other part of the kingdom. He valued the principles upon which the government acted so highly, that nothing short of absolute necessity should induce him to sanction any departure from them. But circumstances like the present left no option, and either the issue of Exchequer-bills must be consented to by ministers, or consequences of the most disastrous nature would ensue. On the other hand, it appeared to him, that by consenting to this measure, no possible injury, or even inconvenience, could be the result. He trusted that the representations which had been made would have their weight with the right hon. gentleman, and that an acquiescence in them would dissipate that frightful train of evils which presented themselves in prospect.
Mr. Manningexpressed himself in favour of an issue of Exchequer-bills under commissioners by the government. A similar measure was adopted by government in 1793 with the happiest results—the distress at that time immediately subsiding. Government then proposed to issue Exchequer-bills to the amount of 5,000,000 l., but it appeared from the report of the commissioners, that they never found occasion to lend more than 2,200,000 l. Originally, they wereapplied to for advances to the extent of 3,855,624 l., but the parties who applied found relief in other quarters; for, the moment it was known that government had authorized an issue of Exchequer-bills, assistance was easily procured in various quarters. Ministers in that House, and in another place, had thought fit to attribute nearly the whole of the present distress to the speculations in joint-stock companies, and other matters; but, on that point, he begged leave to differ from them. He did not mean to impute it as a matter of blame to ministers; but he must say, that much of the present distress had originated in measures adopted by themselves. He had

723
never, either In public or private, concealed his opinion, that the measures which ministers adopted for reducing the rate of interest on Exchequer-bills and other public securities were very impolitic. What bad been the effect of
those measures? Ministers complained of the foreign loans which had been raised in this country. What had led to them? It was the reduction of the 5 per cents to 4 per cents, and the reduction of the rate of interest on Exchequer-bills. In consequence of those measures, persons who had before derived moderate incomes from the funds were driven to invest their money in foreign securities, in which they had a prospect of obtaining 7 or 8 per cent. Ministers were aware that the Bank disapproved of the reduction of the rate of interest: they remonstrated on the subject, and stated, that great public inconvenience would arise from the measure. The Bank had been reproached with being instrumental in causing the present distress, by extending their issues of notes. It must be obvious, that there were occasions when it was necessary for the Bank to extend their issues; but he mustsay, after thirty years connection with that body, that he had never known an instance in which such an extension of issues had taken place but upon the best motives. When he stated, that the reduction of the rate of interest had led to the investment of money in foreign securities, he did not intend to blame ministers, but merely to show that they were not justified in attributing all the existing distress to speculation. A state of distress, such as no member of that House had ever witnessed before, had now existed for two months. During the continuance of that distress, the Bank had done every thing in their power to alleviate it. They had performed their duty, their bounden duty to the public. If they had acted otherwise, they would have deserved censure. The Bank, however, could do no more than they had already done. It had been said, that the Bank should look only to their own security, and leave the consideration of the interests of the country to parliament and the government. If the Bank had acted upon that selfish principle in December last when the two Houses of parliament were not sitting, and ministers, he believed, were all out of town, how greatly would the embarrassments of the commercial world have been augmented! Fromall
724
parts of the kingdom—from all the great towns of England, Wales, and even Scotland—persons had come to the Bank to ask assistance, and that assistance had been most liberally granted. As a merchant, he was happy to second his hon. friend who sat near him, in calling upon government, as a matter of favour and grace, to take into consideration, in the interval between the present moment and the day on which the hon. member for the city had given notice of a discussion, the propriety of adopting the measure which, had been successfully resorted to on former occasions, for the purpose of alleviating commercial distress. He did not wish them, to give an answer one way or the other at that moment; but he trusted that they would turn the subject in their minds, and consider whether they ought to persevere in the course which they had commenced. Distress had now extended to merchants of every description. The warehouses were every where full. This was a state of things which called loudly for the assistance of government. Under these circumstances, he trusted that they would act upon the precedent of 1793 and 1811. It was obvious, that it must be extremely inconvenient for the Bank to go out of their regular course of business, and become the holders of goods in warehouse. They would not have the same remedy as government in cases of failure. He could assure the House, that it was from no want of desire on the part of the Bank to alleviate the prevailing distress, that they had resolved not to advance money on goods.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he so far agreed with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, as to consider, that, as this question was to be brought before the House on a future day, when the course of their proceedings would leave them to the further expression of their opinions by a vote—it was not desirable to proceed with this discussion on the present occasion; and more especially, as there stood upon the paper, for that night, the consideration of a subject of very great interest, and connecting itself, in some degree, with many of the topics which had now been brought forward, rather irrelevantly, to be sure, in the course of this discussion; but which it would be, for the purposes of a sound discretion, quite desirable to separate from those which the House was so about to enter upon. He could not, however, suffer a part of the

725
speech of the hon. gentleman who had just concluded, nor the speech of the hon. Bank director who had preceded the member for Lymington, and the tone of authority and admonition that they had both of them adopted, in respect of his majesty's government, to pass without some observation, and some explanation, on the part of government, of the principles by which they were actuated in respect of the proposed advances. He thought it fair to throw out of the question altogether the crimination and recrimination in which hon. gentlemen had thought proper to indulge, as to any alleged insensibility on the part of his majesty's ministers to the distresses of the country. It was a matter which had not been fairly raised that night; unless, indeed, it was meant to be said, that whoever were really sensible to the distresses of the country, were bound to adopt, without examination, and against conviction, whatever remedy any individual might propose to administer for those distresses. It was most unfair to infer from any hesitation on the part of government to adopt any particular remedy, under such circumstances, that there existed, therefore, on their part, an insensibility to the extent or nature of the existing evil. "For myself," continued the right hon. gentleman "and for my colleagues, I totally disdain to answer such insinuations. I impute to no man, who now hears me, that he is insensible; but, Sir, for others to impute to those upon whom, every day and every night, care and anxiety are brought by the consideration of those distresses, in addition to the common sympathy in which they share as men, is to impute to them, not only a want of feeling, but a want of sense, which would unfit them, not merely for the situations which they fill in the government of the country, but to appear here, in the midst of those whom I have the honour of now addressing. Why, Sir, the present situation of the country, as to these distresses, is afflicting and alarming; but the whole question in which the hon. member for the city of London, and other hon. gentlemen have brought before us, is, not whether the state of the country be alarming and afflicting, but whether the particular remedy which they suggest ought to be adopted by government, without previous examination, and against the judgment of those on whom it is proposed to throw the task of propounding it to parliament,
726
of explaining its details, and of vindicating its propriety. If any man will think but for a moment bow much easier it would be for us to give in to this proposal, at once—if, considering this (as the hon. Bank director said) merely a fair measure for parliamentary consideration, under circumstances of great public distress and difficulty, we were disposed to popularize, by sanctioning a measure of this kind, can it be doubted by any who hears me, that it would only be necessary for my right hon. friend to stand up in his place and say, 'My judgment remains unshaken and unaltered; but I yield to the current. I see that there is a combination of opinion against me; and notwithstanding my own remains unchanged, I will yield to the torrent which sets against me.' That would be the language which my right hon. friend would be justified in holding, under the circumstances I am supposing: but I say, Sir, that if it were possible that my right hon. friend could hold it, he would decidedly desert his duty. He would desert the duty which, as a member of parliament, he owed to his constituents, and to the country in general; and he would violate the weighty trust reposed in him, as a member of the government, by acceding to that, as a popular expedient, which his deliberate judgment had taught him to reject, as being in itself prejudicial to the interests of the whole community. As an individual member of parliament, called upon only to discharge the ordinary responsibilities of his situation, he might, perhaps, with the same conviction, have yielded to the urgent necessity of the case, and abandoned what he conceived to be the strict line of his duty, when assailed by the strongest sense of misery, supported with all the eloquence of distress; and he might so have yielded, without any reflection upon the justice or propriety of that course which the circumstances of their situation had forced him to adopt. But, as a responsible minister of the Crown, called upon to bring forward a proposition of relief—to carry it through this House—to adopt it as one of the measures of his policy—to fight for it now and hereafter, against all the objections which may be brought against it—for even now although the wish seems so unanimous, objection will be brought against it from some quarter—and hereafter to contend against all the accusations which might be the consequence of either its failure or its success—why then, I say, Sir, that if

727
his judgment is not convinced of the thorough propriety of the course which has been recommended, it becomes his duty to waive every other consideration, to persevere in his determination, and leave to the parliament of the country to adopt such measures as to them may seem expedient, and to place measures which he does not think it right to sanction, in hands more capable of carrying them into execution. Now, Sir, in our opinion, there is but one proper remedy for the distress; I say plainly and openly but one, and that is, the exercise of the power vested by charter in the Bank to make advances upon the security of property or merchandize, to those who may require them. The Bank directors, however, say, as indeed the hon. member who spoke last reminded us, that the power is in an imperfect degree—that it is not sufficient for security—that, in short, it is not an imperative, but only a permissive power. And yet, Sir, the Bank of England—I hope the hon. director will admit that—lends money on mortgages, buys gold and silver, and makes advances upon bills of exchange, and other like securities. Will it, then, be said, that the power of lending on all these, is not a power which extends to other commodities capable of sale? Why, Sir, the act of William and Mary expressly mentions merchandize as one of those things upon which the Bank was permitted to make advances, when it obtained its charter; and there remains not a shadow of doubt upon my mind, that the power to make advances upon that kind of security, is no more a power exclusively permissive than the power to lend money upon the security of bullion. The words of the act are: 'Provided always, that nothing herein contained be construed to hinder the corporation of the Bank of England from dealing in bills of exchange, or in coined gold and silver, or in bullion, or merchandize, which may have been bona fide deposited with them as a security for advances.' Can it, then, be denied for a moment, that the power here mentioned is not as much an imperative as a permissive power? I say it is. I gay, as far as the sense of the legislature can be gathered from the words of this act, that the power is precisely the same as that upon which the Bank makes its issues upon any other description of property, and that the making advances upon merchandise is as much in the discretion and power of the directors, as
728
upon mortgages or bullion. Undoubtedly it is in the power of the directors of that company to say they will not; and they have said they will not. They have refused to make advances upon those deposits which may be offered to them, and have called to-night upon his majesty's ministers to supply that assistance to the country which they refuse, upon grounds, of which it may be said, stet pro ratione voluntas, but which, I contend, they have full power to grant, when required. We have considered it our duty to deny the assistance claimed from us; and it will remain now to be determined, what means are left to meet the exigences of our situation. It has been said, not only by the hon. bank director, but by almost every one who has taken a part in the debate, that the application upon this occasion is supported by a series of precedents, commencing with the year 1793. I say, Sir, that, independent of the question, and whether we are right or wrong in our refusal, the granting of this assistance of Exchequer-bills would be altogether a new measure, and that, as far as regards the precedent of 1793, it is only applicable at all in the existence of the distress. But, Sir, I would draw a distinction not only between our present situation, and the time of 1793, but between it and all the others; and it is this, that we were called upon to make advances to the distressed in a time of war and during the reign of the Bank Restriction act; and until we are placed again in the same situation, we must not be told that, we are to follow a precise precedent. The distinction, Sir, is always to be taken. Not that on no possible occasion the government should again lend money to relieve the distresses of the commercial interests; but when they are called upon to do so, there should be the same union of political contingencies which on that occasion formed both the reason and the justification for so extraordinary a departure from general policy. But, Sir, no man seems to consider the strange condition in which the country was unexpectedly placed, in passing from a state of peace to that of war, at the time of the precedent alluded to. In the year 1792, when Mr. Pitt brought forward his budget, no language could be more pacific than that which he then addressed to parliament and the country; and yet, in a short time after, without the slightest warning, without any

729
apprehension on the part of those engaged in our commercial transactions, we were on a sudden engaged in an extended war. I do not mean to cast the slightest reflection upon the reputation of that great statesman. No man respected his character when living, or venerates his memory when dead, more than I do; but I wish to show how little the country was prepared for such a transition; that those engaged in its commerce could have had no foresight of the events which were to plunge them in distress, and that the great and unexpected changes and reverses which then took place, were the result of circumstances totally different, and gave rise to claims essentially more imperative upon the compassion of the government, than those, however lamentable or extensive they may be, which have been created in a time of peace, the most profound which the world has witnessed for half a century. It does not, therefore, follow, because his majesty's ministers do not adopt the measure which has been suggested to them, that they have not considered. On the contrary, they have considered it deeply and anxiously. That consideration, however, does not lead them to an abandonment of the course which they have laid down, and which they are determined to pursue. In adverting to past transactions, and to what have been regarded as precedents parallel to this period of distress, I do so only with a view of negativing the effect of those precedents, as applicable to the present time. If the course now recommended by some, was adopted in every future case of emergency, and every pressure, even of less general distress than the present, this course would be pleaded as a precedent; and, if such a case should occur in five or six years hence, there would be no reasonable ground for resisting the importunities of those who might require it. It might, to be sure, be more agreeable to yield to the arguments, or rather the desires of those who recommended a departure from the line of conduct marked out by ministers. It might be, perhaps, the road to popularity. But convinced as ministers were of the wisdom of not departing from it, they would persevere, regardless of the censures with which they may be visited by
some, and of the admonitions so liberally proffered to them by others. Let it not, Sir, be supposed that relief will be precluded by government not acceding to the measure now recom-
730
mended to its adoption. The Bank has the power of administering relief in the way that I have pointed out, and that power stands upon the same footing as the discharge of any other of its functions. They may act as they think proper, and there is no person to call them to account. It has been said, by the hon. member for Medhurst, that although this power is vested in the Bank to advance money on goods, there is a great disinclination on the part of the Bank to act upon it. It is said, that merchants are not disposed to go to the Bank for assistance. Why not? For the life of me I cannot see why such a disinclination should exist. What is the ordinary course of proceeding between merchants and the Bank? It is usual for the Bank, in ordinary cases, to discount the bills of merchants. These bills are the connecting link between the Bank and the holders of those bills. They are 'the visible and outward signs' of property on which the advances are made. But now a chasm has occurred in this species of security. It is true, that as the Bank have the power of making advances, they have also a discretion to exercise in the manner in which they make them. But I am utterly at a loss to know why there should be any shyness on the part of merchants in taking their bills of parcels or their invoices to the Bank, which would be a substantial foundation of property; and on their depositing these, advances might with propriety and safety be made upon them. There is one facility in effecting the measure at the present time, which did not formerly exist. Before, the goods on which the advances were made were scattered all over the face of the metropolis and of the country, so that it would be almost necessary for the Bank to have an establishment, in order to keep an eye upon them. Whereas, at present, the goods on which advances would be required are warehoused under the king's lock and key, and it only required to transfer the key in the door, to effect a transfer of them. Under these circumstances, I own I can see no reason why advances should not be made by the Bank, and required by the merchants. There is one point to which, as it is a personal one, I wish to advert, before I conclude. It was stated by an hon. bank director, that during the pressure of severe distress his majesty's ministers were out of town. It was stated, that in the month of December last we were absent. Now,

731
I can only say, on the part of my right hon, friends on my right and on my left (Mr. Peel and Mr. Huskisson), and my right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself, that we were then in town, and that we were at our posts day and night, constantly and anxiously engaged in deliberation upon the distresses of the country, and the best mode of relieving them. We were then in town, when the hon. director was in the country; at least, if he was in town, we did not see him on any of those occasions when we had the pleasure of seeing his brother directors; and I can appeal confidently to one of those gentlemen (Mr. Pearse), who, I am sure, will be ready to bear testimony to the anxious solicitude then evinced by his majesty's ministers; I can appeal to him to testify that there was no want of disposition—no want of zeal—on our parts, to render whatever assistance was in our power: nor were we backward in rendering those acknowledgments which we thought were due to the conduct of the Bank at that momentous crisis."
Mr. Pearsedisclaimed the use of any tone by the Bank which would amount to an admonition to the government. They had merely represented, that as the mode pursued in 1793 had operated so beneficially, it would be advisable to adopt the same course now.
Mr. Robertsonsaid, that the conduct of ministers, and the measures introduced by them, were loudly condemned by the country. They had proved themselves unfit for their situations. The opinion and feeling of those within and without doors were, that they had reduced the country to a most helpless condition [Cries of "Question!"]. Such was his opinion of their conduct, and he would not be deterred from stating it. It was usual, when ministers found that their measures were not approved of to resign their places to those whose counsels were acceptable to the nation. Their continuance in office was an embarrassment to the king; who with other ministers, might adopt measures more applicable to the situation of the country.
Mr. Alderman Bridgesconcurred in all that had been said with respect to the strong claims which the unexampled pressure of the present crisis gave to the commercial world for relief. He could not understand why a measure which proved so successful in 1793, should
732
not be resorted to at the present moment. The causes and consequences of the two periods were exactly similar. Such was his grave opinion, and such was the conclusion to which a hundred merchants of London, after the most mature deliberation, had come to. In 1811, government afforded relief by an issue of Exchequer-bills, though the distress was not then so great as at present.
Mr. Curteiscontended, that the precedent of 1793 was a very fair guide as to what the government ought to do in the present case. The Bank directors were all men of practical experience, who understood the nature of the distress better than any body else; and, as they advised the government to come forward with assistance, he was inclined to think that they were right. It was true that the recent measures of ministers had been cheered by their opponents; but those cheers ought to be looked at with some jealousy. He was one of their friends, as he generally voted with them, except when they got into their novelties. Whatever mischiefs might arise from their new doctrines of free-trade, he could not be looked upon as a particeps criminis as he had invariably opposed them.
The petition was then brought up and read, setting forth, "That the House has, in former instances of extraordinary pressure amongst the mercantile classes, sanctioned an issue of Exchequer-bills for the relief of the commercial and manufacturing interests of the British empire; that the petitioners beg leave to approach the House with a respectful expression of their opinion that the unexampled distress which at this time prevails amongst a very large portion of the merchants and traders of the city of London, and of various other parts of the United Kingdom presents an irresistible case for the immediate interposition of the legislature; and the petitioners are therefore of opinion, that an issue of Exchequer-bills, in such amount, and under like regulations, as have been adopted upon former similar occasions, will not only afford essential relief to those who are now suffering under temporary commercial embarrassment, but will operate in a most important degree to restore that confidence in mercantile transactions which has been recently suspended, and to which the distress which now exists is chiefly attributable; that the petitioners, being deeply impressed with these sentiments, humbly

733
pray that the House will be pleased to take the premises into its most favourable consideration, and afford such relief, by the issue of Exchequer-bills or otherwise, as in its wisdom may seem meet."
Ordered to be printed.

SILK TRADE.
After various petitions against the importation of Foreign silks, from persons engaged in the silk manufacture, had been presented to the House,
Mr. Ellicerose, and spoke, in substance, as follows:—
I am sure, Sir, it is unnecessary to preface the statement which it will be my duty to submit to the House, in support of the motion of which I have given notice, by an appeal to its patience and indulgence. The numerous petitions on the table from every branch of our Silk manufacture would be at all times entitled to our serious and deliberate attention; and however much I may feel my own inability to do justice to the case of the petitioners, I am greatly supported by the general sympathy that exists for their distresses, and the anxiety that prevails in all quarters, to grant any relief that may be compatible with other paramount considerations, and interests. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the cause of their present distress, there is unfortunately no want of proof of its intensity, and the severity with which it bears on a large class of the population: and it is from a conviction, that it is the duty of parliament to accede to the prayer of the petitioners for further inquiry, before we decide on adopting the alterations, which the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade has given notice it is his intention to propose, in the laws affecting this manufacture, that I am induced to press their representations on the House.
Before proceeding to the merits or details of this question, I wish, in the first place, to advert to some accusations that have been thrown out against me, in previous debates, as being willing to take the first opportunity of deserting, from some supposed pressure from without, those principles which have lately characterized our legislation affecting the general commerce of the country, and of which I have always professed myself a supporter and advocate. I might appeal to the right hon. gentleman opposite, for his testimony of the sincerity of these professions, and he must, at least, admit there has
734
been no want of zeal on my part, either in the committee up stairs from which these measures emanated, or in my place in this House, in endeavouring to remove the prejudices opposed to us, or in giving such assistance as I was capable of affording, to those plans of reform, and amelioration in our foreign trade, which have reflected so much honour upon his administration, and conferred such benefit on the public interests.
After the country had emerged from the late arduous and protracted war, during which our commerce, while labouring under all the disadvantages of a vicious system of regulations and restrictions, had been carried to an unexampled height, by the success of our navy, and by the almost entire destruction of the foreign trade of the rest of the world, a full and minute examination into the merits of that system, became essentially necessary, that every advantage might be given to our merchants and manufacturers, in the competition they were to expect on the return of peace. To the proceedings of the committee appointed to inquire into this subject, the opposition of interested parties was of course to be expected. The cry of "let well alone," incessantly urged against what were called rash experiments and inconsiderate innovations, assailed us from all quarters. We were not told, however, by those who raised this cry, what other means, than the removal of the prohibitions and restrictions impeding the free course of our foreign trade, they proposed, to maintain our commercial superiority, which had grown up under a monopoly, when that monopoly had ceased to exist. But while every reasonable man agreed with the right hon. gentleman, as to the justice of his principles, and expediency of their immediate adoption, in all cases where great injury would not result to considerable classes, and even to individuals, from establishments having been formed and protected by an opposite policy, the greatest caution was yet essentially necessary in their application to the complicated interests of many essential branches of our commerce. The first direction in which we had to look for immediate competition was in our navigation and foreign trade, and I have given my unqualified support to all the measures of the right hon. gentleman, to encourage and extend these main sources of our national prosperity and security. The next object, though not second in importance, was, to endea-

735
your by degrees, and with the most deliberate care, to apply the same principles to the various branches of our internal industry; and here I differ materially with the right hon. gentleman as to the course he has pursued. Although I have always admitted, to their utmost extent, the difficulties Government must have to contend with, in carrying into full effect the act of 1819, for the reformation and adjustment of the currency, and in proposing to parliament the repeal, or amendment of the Corn laws: still these should have been their first measures, and preceded any attempt to remove protections, by which particular branches of our manufactures, and especially those most connected with our export trade, had been fostered and encouraged. If parliament had not, to satisfy the landed interest in 1822, shrunk from a firm perseverance in the bill of 1819, for the restoration of cash payments, prices would have been gradually reduced to nearly a level with those of other countries, whose circumstances are in any respect analogous to our own. Moderate and steady prices would have enabled the right hon. gentleman to deal with greater facility with the Com laws, and a more equal and steady demand and remuneration for labour might have followed. The next step should have been a revision of the principles and system of our taxation. We should have endeavoured to relieve the productive industry of the country, by removing all duties, and taxes bearing particularly upon it, substituting in their place, taxes upon the wealthier and unproductive parts of society. It is unnecessary, with reference to the present discussion, to enter into the question of the partial bearing of particular taxes on different classes of our own community; but, surely, no doubt can exist as to their effects on the cost of the production of those commodities, for which we depend upon a foreign consumption. I do not mean, Sir, to state, that nothing has been done in this respect, or that which has been done ought not to be taken as an earnest of the determination of the right hon. gentleman to persevere in the general application of his principles to our whole system: no person is indeed more anxious than I am, that this, for his own credit, should be the result of his unremitted labours in the office he so ably fills. With our superior capital, the acknowledged and increasing intelligence, energy, and industry of our population,
736
who can doubt its ability to maintain, on equal terms, a competition with manufacturing rivals in other countries? But, Sir, you must first place it on that equality. The public burthens must be reduced, and free permission given to exchange the produce of its industry for that of its neighbours, on terms of fair reciprocity. Without these advantages, every step taken by the right hon. gentleman for the partial application of his principles may be detrimental. If he will take the trouble to inquire, he will find even our own colonies in America supplied with some articles of manufacture from the United States; that the woollen manufacturers in Silesia and Germany are treading fast upon us; that an active competition is rising in every quarter; and he can have no doubt of the vast superiority of the French and Swiss, in the manufacture now under our consideration. With the right hon. gentleman, I say, "freedom of trade," and that the removal of shackles and restrictions is the best and only adequate policy to meet the exigencies of our altered situation. My objections are only, that he begins where he ought to end; that the course he has pursued may oblige him to retrace his steps in particular cases, and that in the conflict of interests this may occasion, the country may lose the benefits that would result from a cautious adaptation of these measures, successively, to different interests, and from a steady perseverance in them. Nor, Sir, is there a single objection urged in the petitions on your table, against the principles of free trade. The petitioners only pray, "the House will inquire, whether there are not grounds for suspending, for a season, and at this particular, crisis, the operation of partial experiments, affecting their interests, which, if unaccompanied by other measures, may aggravate their present distress, and, in their opinion, expose every branch of the Silk manufacture of this country to the greatest peril."
In the first place, Sir, the petitioners complain, that the act of 1824, for finally removing the prohibition against the importation of foreign silks in July next, was passed without sufficient inquiry, or information, as to the consequences that must ensue from so sudden an alteration. No department of our internal trade has probably occupied so much of the time or attention of the legislature as this manufacture, since its first introduc-

737
tion and establishment in this country. Upon reference to your Journals, numerous instances will be found, of the appointment of committees, consisting always of the most distinguished members of this House, to inquire into, and report upon, different measures of regulation and protection, proposed, from time to time, for its improvement and advancement. I will not stop to inquire whether the means so devised were those best adapted to the attainment of the end in view. They at least prove the anxiety and solicitude of Government and Parliament to give every encouragement that could be suggested to the application of capital and industry to a new species of manufacture, in which we had to contend with the superior skill and experience of other countries, where it had been previously established, and carried to a high state of perfection. It had been described with justice, in some respects, as an exotic plant, but certainly it was the only extensive branch of manufacturing industry, in which our great political, and commercial rivals, had attained, and I am afraid still maintain, an admitted superiority. It had been reared gradually in this country, under the encouragement of a strict monopoly; to the protection of which monopoly the petitioners ascribe its progressive prosperity, and the important station it was found to occupy among our staple manufactures, on the return of peace. On the appointment of the committees of both Houses, on Foreign Trade in 1821, this case, as involving the consideration of one of the most extensive of our existing monopolies, was the first taken up by the committee of the Lords. Evidence was gone into, and considerable information obtained; and the present law, founded on their lordships' report, was the result of that inquiry. The petitioners then offered all the opposition in their power to the projected alteration, but were at last bribed into an unwilling acquiescence by the two years allowed them for preparation, and the expectation held out, that other measures would be adopted, before the expiration of that period, to place them, in respect to taxes, and the price of provisions, on an equality with their French and Swiss rivals. But still they warned the legislature, "they were proceeding on slender evidence, to justify such hasty and important changes." The only witnesses examined on the comparative expense of manufacturing in this country, and the
738
continent, were two American merchants, who estimated the difference at about 30 per cent, or at least found a difference to that extent in the purchase of silk manufactures for the supply of their own market. I do not deny, Sir, that much good has resulted, that the public and the petitioners themselves have largely benefitted by the spur applied by the apprehension of this threatened competition, and that our manufacture has improved beyond precedent in the last two years. This was to be expected from the repeal of the duties on the raw material; but much is also to be ascribed to the more general intercourse, and greater means of procuring information as to the management and mode of conducting the trade in France. The petitioners now only pray, "for a little time for further inquiry, and improvement, before you determine to expose them incautiously to danger, which may be either much diminished, or entirely removed, by the delay of one or two years more. They desire to communicate to the House better, and more direct evidence on all those points, than could have been procured by the former committee; to submit to your consideration much important knowledge, as to the state of machinery, means of supply, and charges on the manufacture in France, and, above all, to direct your earnest attention to the still more interesting view of this case, as connected with our Indian and China trade."
Having stated the general objects of the petitioners, and the grounds on which I feel myself justified to press upon them the consideration of the House, I will proceed, Sir, to lay before you such further details and information, as, I trust, will induce the House, at least to refer the whole subject again to a select committee. The petitions on the table are from every branch of this important manufacture, and from persons whose interests, in many respects, are opposed to each other. Still all coincide in regarding precipitate alterations with apprehension and dismay. The throwster, the dyer, the manufacturer of broad and narrow silks, have each their case: and, although I fear I shall trespass on the time of the House, I must endeavour to state the objections they respectively urge, to what they conceive a rash, and dangerous interference with the growing improvement, and prosperity of their trade.
The Throwster complains, in the first

739
instance, and with reason, looking only to his separate interest, of the sudden and unexpected reduction, in the duty on the importation of foreign thrown silk. This had been settled in 1824, at 7s. 6d. per pound, as a fair protection; and, although it was evident so high a duty would be found ultimately incompatible with justice to the manufacturer, when all restriction was removed from the importation of foreign goods, still, the trade was little prepared for the sudden reduction of a third, by order of the Treasury, without notice, and without the previous sanction of parliament. The House, too, should recollect the precise moment chosen for this alteration; when all manufacturing industry was paralyzed, and this trade was in a state of the greatest depression, the warehouses being overloaded with immense stocks of goods, for which there was no demand, and to the loss on which, occasioned by other causes, this reduction of duty was superadded. What justification could the right hon. gentleman urge for this measure, or more particularly for its infliction on the trade at such a moment? Or, how are persons in business to conduct their affairs, if government be to exercise a discretionary power of this description, according to their caprice, without due notice, and without considering the sacrifices entailed by such material changes on individuals? It may be true, that a reduction of the duty at a proper season was indispensable, and that general notice had been given to the throwsters, that at some time or other, government would be obliged to propose it to parliament; but certainly they have good cause of complaint against the right hon. gentleman, if their statements are correct, and I hope he will satisfy the House better than he has hitherto been able to satisfy the petitioners of the paramount necessity for this sudden alteration. With the exception however of the manner and time, I agree entirely with the right hon. gentleman as to the principle and policy of a reduction; but, in fairness to the manufacturers, if these measures should be persevered in, reduction must be carried still further; and then let us examine the representation the throwster makes of his case. In the first place, he cannot, or ought not to complain of the inferiority of his skill and machinery. On the contrary, I find no where in these petitions any allegations of this description. His
740
complaint is confined principally "to the price of labour," which is the gravamen of the whole ease. While this exists, he asserts, and desires to prove, "that the remaining protection is totally insufficient, that the capital invested in mills, and machinery will be entirely annihilated, and that the apprentices he has employed will be thrown on the parishes, to add at this crisis to their burthens." Are these statements admitted or not? and if denied, would it be an impolitic course, in the present feverish times, to expose the exaggerations imputed to them, by examination before a committee?
Then comes the petition of the Dyers, who have also fair cause of complaint against the right hon. gentleman, not for his sins of commission, but of omission in their case. While he applies his principles of free trade, in permitting the importation of foreign goods, he forgets to remove the oppressive duties on various articles used in dyeing, and which put all chance of fair competition out of the question. Two principal articles used by dyers are soap and barilla. On the importation of the former, for be it observed we are now discussing the merits of free trade, not those of the excise revenue, a duty of 4l.. 10 s. per cent is levied, being at least twice the value of the commodity, arid amounting to an absolute prohibition. On barilla, an extravagant duty is specially imposed, for the protection of the coarser article of kelp, raised on the northern counties of Scotland, and defended on this especial ground by the vice president of the Board of Trade, the zealous advocate of his Highland constituents. On several other drugs, a list of which I hold in my hand, and which it is unnecessary to enumerate, the duties are equally indefensible. But I can have no doubt the right hon. gentleman, seeing of how little importance these duties can be to the revenue, yet of how much consequence to this branch of the trade, and to the success of his general measures, will prevail with the chancellor of the Exchequer to relinquish them altogether. The Dyers, like the throwsters, maintain, that their skill, and such machinery as they require, are quite equal to such as the French employ. The climates of Italy, Switzerland, and France, may be more favourable for particular details of their operations, but these are comparatively unimportant; and French workmen brought to this country, to assist in improving their colours, and other processes in dyeing, have

741
admitted their own inferiority to English workmen, in many essential points. But, Sir, let the petitioners speak for themselves, and the right hon. gentleman, at least, will not find fault with the grounds and principles on which they rest their opposition to his proceedings. They say, in the petition now on your table, "Your petitioners would not for a moment feel alarm about competition, if their burthens were less heavy, if Englishmen were, in point of expense, placed on a footing with the foreigner; for your petitioners have no hesitation in saying, that in point of industry, and for ingenuity and colours in the art of dyeing, they do not fear competition with any nation upon earth. But, while every article of life bears so extravagant a disproportion between England and other nations, your petitioners humbly submit, that the Operative of this country is not in a condition equal to meet those fearful odds that are to be hereafter brought against us." It is unnecessary to add one word to this expression of the feelings and opinions of these petitioners. The right hon. gentleman will find in it the whole essence of the question under our consideration.
I come now, Sir, to the more numerous petitions on your table, from persons of all classes and conditions employed in the manufacture of broad silks and ribbons, and who have hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of the supply of those articles in our home market.
The material points for examination by a committee, as connected with the broad trade, are, whether the proposed duty of 30 per cent is a fair and sufficient protection, when the monopoly is destroyed, and whether there is a reasonable probability of our being able to enforce so high a duty, when the great impediment to smuggling transactions, the power of seizing foreign goods under the present prohibition, when exposed for sale, is given up. Although I may differ ultimately with the opinions of the petitioners on both points, I think the statements they now make, and the evidence they are prepared to adduce in support of them, entitled to the most serious and deliberate attention of this House.
I have before said, the principal evidence on which the former committee proceeded, was that of two American merchants, who had some experience of the relative cost of silk goods in France and in this country; and the House was further encouraged to
742
adopt the bill of 1824, by the unhesitating confidence then expressed by certain manufacturers of Manchester, of their ability even to compete at that time with the foreign manufacturer. Among the petitions on the table, praying you will arrest the progress of these measures, is one of considerable weight and ability, from these same persons engaged in the manufacture at Manchester, and their arguments, which I will not repeat, in favour of caution and inquiry, are entitled to the greatest consideration. Nor will I go into all the calculations that have been made from actual purchases of goods in France, and comparisons of their quality with that of others manufactured in this country. It is only necessary to refer the House to the printed papers circulated by the committee of manufactures at Weavers Hall, and by that most respectable and able gentleman Mr. Doxat on this subject. Some of these statements make the cost of manufacturing plain goods in this country 44 per cent above that in France, and considerably more on figured and fancy articles. If this be true, how is such a difference to be accounted for, and if it be not an exaggeration, and the difference cannot be reduced, of what use is a duty of 30 per cent, leaving still an advantage of 14 per cent to the foreigner, on the lowest quality of his manufacture? But if the case is so with respect to French goods, how infinitely do we find it aggravated when a comparison is made with Indian and Chinese silks? At the last sale at the India House, goods of this description invariably sold for less than the price of raw silk, added to the duty and expense of throwing; and this with the prospect of the ports opening for their admission to home consumption in July. Would 30 per cent in this case be sufficient, or was it possible, with any chance of being able fairly to collect it, to impose a greater duty? But other considerations arise from this statement. One of the great objects of the right hon. gentleman was so to encourage this manufacture, as to lead us to hope for an extension of it by an export trade. To the direct imports from India and China, have been added others from America, where no market could be found, even at low prices, for Indian and Chinese silks. What hope, then, can we have of selling similar goods to a profit, which cost 50 or 70 percent higher? And this remark ap-

743
plies to all the markets of the world, seeing the exportation of these manufactures is made without duty or restriction. Are the prices of Indian manufactured silks, then, unusually low? Do they remunerate the manufacturer in India and China, who has the raw materials at hand, and labour at a rate proportioned to the wants and maintenance of the people of these countries? Or is it calculated, that the additional demand on the English market—for I have stated they are not even required at their present value in any other—will so raise the price, as to enable us to compete with them? And if so, in what proportion will they displace our goods in our own consumption, and what effect will this have on our manufacturing population? Are these not questions worth inquiring into, if only to satisfy the petitioners, and allay the alarm, well or ill grounded, that has spread abroad on this subject? Samples of French as well as Indian manufactures, can now be laid before a committee, and the calculations on which the petitioners have proceeded be verified, or the errors of them detected and exposed. The House will also recollect, that for the protection of the throwster, a duty is still to be left on Italian and French thrown silk of 5s. per lb. This amounts to at least 7½ of the 30 per cent, leaving only a duty in favour of our manufacturer of 22½ per cent, instead of the protection of 30 per cent held out to him. Is this to be permanent? If not, when is it proposed to make a further reduction? And would not inquiry be expedient, with a view to adjust these points, with the least possible injury to the parties interested in the decision? Before the duty was increased on raw silk, no such protection was considered necessary for the throwster. In 1766, the duty on raw silk was 9d.—on thrown 1s. 9d.—a difference of only 1s. What circumstances have since arisen to justify the additional 4s., or to give such colour to the representation of the throwsters, that even with this protection, they may be obliged to abandon their occupation?
Beyond all the difficulties urged by persons concerned in the broad trade, there are others peculiarly affecting the narrow trade, or ribbon manufacture. This part of the case, if any credit be given to the representations of those interested in it, would appear so strong, as almost to justify some exception in their favour, if the House shall support
744
the right hon. gentleman in opening the ports for the admission of other silk goods in July. I am almost afraid of being accused of deliberate exaggeration in stating the enormous disadvantages under which the petitioners affirm, they must enter into competition with their French and Swiss rivals, if no greater time be allowed them for preparation; but I desire particularly not to be held responsible for the correctness of those statements, which it is my anxious wish should be thoroughly sifted and examined above stairs. Nay, Sir, I will go further, and express my fervent hope and expectation, that we should have to convince the petitioners of the fallacy of some of their calculations, and that much of their alarm and apprehension is, if not entirely groundless, greatly over-rated. But still I must admit, these statements come from most intelligent and respectable persons, who have taken great pains personally to examine into the details of their manufacture, as it is conducted in France and Italy, and who make out a prima facie case not easily resisted, and which, if I mistake not, has rather surprised the right hon. gentleman and the Board of Trade. In all the other branches of this manufacture, the petitioners ascribe their inability to compete with the foreigner, principally, if not entirely, to the difference in the value of labour, the heavier amount of burthens and taxes and the increased price of provisions, which, while they continue to operate on the rate of wages, must necessarily maintain that difference against our countrymen. But neither the throwster, the dyer, nor the broad-silk weaver complain of their inferiority in skill and machinery. In the narrow trade, and particularly in light fancy goods, and gauze ribbons, not only does the amount of labour bear a quadruple proportion to the value of the manufactured article to that in the broad trade, but the superiority of the French and Swiss looms has been ascertained beyond all doubt, and can be proved to a degree that would astonish the House. Much has been done within the last two years in introducing improvements; and time and encouragement are alone wanting to give confidence for further application of capital to this most important object. One workman can now produce, with the improved engine loom lately adopted, six-times the quantity of ribbon he could have before manufactured in his common single-hand-

745
loom; and it is a melancholy consideration, and one eminently deserving the serious attention of the House and his majesty's government, that fully three-fourths of the looms still in use in Coventry, to which place this manufacture is almost entirely confined, are of an inefficient description, and by far the greater part of them, the property, and it is sadly to be feared the only property, of the operative weavers themselves. Their buildings and houses are adapted to this machinery, and must be altered for the reception of the engine looms, which require more room and greater height; and in the present depressed state of the trade, and the apprehension of the immediate introduction of foreign goods, the weavers are unable, and the manufacturers unwilling, to invest money in alterations which may only increase their difficulties, without some assurance of adequate protection. If you tell the petitioners, as I have often endeavoured to impress upon them, there could be no great risk of the foreign manufacturer being prepared with an additional stock, equal to our demand, at the outset of this new trade, and at the low price at which they state he is able to make his goods; they answer, there is as much capital invested in the ribbon manufacture in the town of Basle alone as in Coventry alone; that the manufacturer there enjoys an exemption from those fluctuations of credit and paper, which cause so many periodical convulsions in this country; and that we are proceeding in utter ignorance, if we suppose his means of production are not adequate to any additional demand that can be made upon him. The manufacture in Switzerland consists principally of plain silk and satin ribbons, and employs, according to the statement of the petitioners, about 10,000 engine looms, all constructed on the most improved principles, 3,000 of which, it is alleged, are sufficient to produce an adequate quantity of these articles for the consumption of Great Britain. They further state, that upwards of 12,000 of the same looms are in use in St. Etienne, St. Chamond, and the neighbourhood of Lyons, in the manufacture of fancy and figured ribbons, 2,000 of which would amply supply our whole consumption of this species of goods. If these statements be correct, and if the cost of manufacturing be so comparatively cheap as the petitioners
746
offer to prove it, will 22½ per cent, the duty proposed, making allowance for that still retained on thrown silk, be a sufficient protection? or what inducement can our manufacturers have, to invest further capital in a trade exposed, as they maintain, to so hopeless a competition?
Another point well deserving our attention, with reference to this part of the subject, is the state of the law relative to patents and patent rights. In the course of their inquiry into the situation and circumstances of the foreign manufacture, some of these individuals have discovered material improvements in the construction of machinery, in the invention of which they have no merit, but for which they have obtained patents on the usual petition, stating they had procured information from the inventors abroad, and desired the protection of a patent for introducing their discoveries into this country. In two recent instances connected with the narrow silk manufacture, such patents have been obtained; and if the improvements be to the extent and of the importance represented, it might be desirable to grant some remuneration to the proprietors, and throw them open to the trade. One is for the machine well known on the continent by the name of its inventor, the Jacquard loom. The other for a loom for weaving velvet ribbons and bindings, and which, by a most ingenious process, actually enables one weaver to make forty-eight times the quantity of those articles, he can in the common and very inferior single-hand loom now employed, and which is the only machinery hitherto applied in England to this particular department of the manufacture. Both the models of these improvements have been exhibited to the right hon. gentleman, and I suppose he has desired some inquiry and report to be made by competent persons of their merits; but the monopoly of them by individuals in this country, while their use is open to all persons abroad, is an additional embarrassment to our manufacture. This subject should be canvassed and settled, while such great alterations in our commercial system are under discussion; and I am sure the House will agree with me, that some check should be imposed to the issue of patents, to persons merely copying or adopting the inventions of others, and which may, as in the present instance, greatly fetter and cramp improvements in our trade.

747
I have now, Sir, gone through the principal allegations in the petitions on the table from the manufacturers concerned in the different departments of this important branch of our industry, and the House will be able to judge, whether there is sufficient ground laid for the motion of which I have given notice on their behalf. I wish again and again to press upon their consideration, that with an open trade, no greater protection can be given, without entirely sacrificing the throwster, than about 22½ per cent. You will at the same time observe, the smuggler obtains an inducement to continue his operations to the extent of the full 30 per cent, and the greater part of the risk of seizure will be removed by his being enabled lawfully to expose his goods for sale. I do not press these facts and arguments in favour of the eternal continuance of the monopoly. I should resist that as strenuously as the right hon. gentleman, but they are entitled to great weight in deciding the question, whether longer time ought not to be given for preparation. I will further state a decided opinion, that in the end it will be found impossible to maintain the duty to the extent now proposed, without sacrificing the revenue to the smuggler; and that all protection of this kind held out to our manufacturers must be illusory, beyond such moderate duty as can be collected with certainty and facility.
But, Sir, the more serious and important subject for the consideration of the legislature still remains behind. I have hitherto confined my observations to the petitions from the manufacturers. The throwsters have their particular grievances; and any person acquainted with the present state of the trade, must be entirely satisfied, however much he may differ with them as to the causes assigned for their distress, that they are not overstated. The dyers state plainly and intelligibly the only difficulty they have to contend with; the manufacturers represent, in possibly exaggerated terms, their alarms and apprehensions; but all these individuals, with the exception of the throwster, whose mills and establishments are of great value, can easily quit a losing trade, and turn their capital to some more profitable branch of industry, or send it abroad to be still engaged in this, under more favourable auspices and circumstances. But if the facts, or any
748
portion of them, which I have laid before you are true, what is to become of the more important class, the labouring population, engaged in this manufacture, if you rashly interfere with the limited employment they now have, or do not remove those clogs imposed on their exertions and industry, by your taxation, and laws affecting the price of the necessaries of life? They are not deficient in patient industry, in skill or intelligence; the climate gives them certain advantages over the artizans in warmer countries; and what is it, then, I would ask the right hon. gentleman, which compels the manufacturer to present to us such a striking contrast between the cost of production in this country and in others? Is the present rate of wages an adequate remuneration to the operative weaver? Look to the state of the population in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, in Macclesfield, in Coventry, and in the other districts where this manufacture is carried on, for evidence on this subject—in almost every case reduced to a state of unmerited deprivation, or deep distress. The right hon. gentleman will tell us this is the unavoidable consequence of our speculation and over-trading last year, about which a word or two by-and-by; but certainly it is not imputable to any ordinary fluctuation in trade, or more especially to any fault of the poor people themselves. Is some inquiry not necessary into the peculiar burthens affecting them, before you run the risk of increasing their already intolerable privations? and might it not be safer to endeavour, in the first instance, to abolish the monopoly in corn, and to adopt such other measures as may tend to place them, with respect to the price of the necessaries and comforts of life, on a footing with the population of France? See the wide difference that now exists in this essential point, and which is only the creation of our wars and taxes since 1792. From a statement published by the secretary of the Congleton committee, and which I use, merely for the purpose of easy reference, without going into the details, it appears, that house-rent, meat, flour, butter, cheese, coals, milk, and potatoes are all more than double the price that they were at that period. The ports were open for the importation of wheat in 1792, when the price was 50 s., at a duty of 2s. 6d. They are now open at 80 s., and with a duty, above 70 s., of 12 s. But has the

749
foreign artizan the same changes and circumstances to contend with? Prices in France and England did not vary much, except from occasional depreciations in the currency of either, for 200 years before 1792. In 1825, we find them in France nearly as they were before the Revolution. In England double! How long does the right hon. gentleman suppose a competition in trade and manufactures can go on, with this appalling difference in the condition of the people? and is he of opinion there is no risk in these violent alterations in our existing I system, without he has some assurance of being able to place our labouring population, with respect to the means of maintenance, and existence, on an equality with those with whom he calls upon them to contend? or are we, without caring for their daily and hourly demoralization to embark in this hopeless competition, paying the same wages as in Lyons and Basle, and sending the poor weaver to the parish, for such addition from the poor-rates as the overseer may consider necessary to keep him and his family from actual starvation? We witnessed these scenes in the cotton manufacture in 1818 and 1819, and boasted afterwards of an export trade, in which we made a present to the foreign consumer at the rate at which we supplied him of the greater part of the real cost of production. While we were selling our goods at half their cost, our superior capital and machinery had credit for the destruction of the infant manufacturing establishments on the continent, where they could not understand by what process we could derive profit from our sales. But while we deceive in this way the rest of mankind, we forget we are practising the greater deception on ourselves. It is perfectly true that much injury has been done to other countries, by the frequent revolutions that have taken place in our currency and prices since the peace; but the evil has been felt in a ten-fold greater degree at home, and will in the end aid the other causes in operation, all tending, if not checked with a strong hand, to the destruction of our manufacturing and commercial greatness. We must always recollect, we have not been the only rich and great commercial community in the world; that our ascendancy rose on the ruin of the trade of other nations, whose decline was owing to the causes now threatening ours; and the right hon. gentleman, as it ap-
750
pears to me, would direct the attention of the legislature, and the powers of the government much more beneficially in a manly endeavour to remove these causes than in partial attempts to apply his principles, when the experiment, unaccompanied with other measures, may be attended with so much risk, and so great an addition of positive suffering to large masses of the people. He tells us, and there I entirely agree with him, that the greatest part of the present distress in this, as in all other branches of our industry, arises from the reaction consequent upon the over-trading of the last two years, and that it is idle to ascribe any material portion of the depression in the silk-trade, to the apprehension of any considerable import of foreign goods in July next. But my difference with him is, first, as to which party is to blame for this over-trading. Government, or our merchants and manufacturers? and, secondly, whether the precise moment to be chosen for such an experiment in a particular branch of manufacture, is one, when two-thirds of the population engaged in it, are entirely without employment, in a state of absolute destitution, and the other third working at half wages, and threatened with a similar fate? He may say, recollect what passed on the close of the discussion on this subject in 1824. The trade generally, and I then agreed in opinion with them, were willing to come to a compromise for the two years, after the duty was repealed. The right hon. gentleman, on that occasion, misquoting, and misrepresenting, but which I am sure he did unintentionally, Mr. Hale's evidence before the committee, urged it as one of his main grounds of belief and expectation, that the English weaver would be able to maintain a successful competition. The sanguine calculations of his Manchester friends could not even brook the delay then conceded. We have since had two years' experience. Call these witnesses again before a committee, and ask them their present opinion, on the relative state of wages, and condition of the operative classes in the two countries, with the additional information they have since obtained. Then, as to over-trading, it is easy for the right hon. gentleman to use the argument when it suits his own purposes; but I have observed an unusual shyness on his part, and on that of his right lion, friend, the chancellor of the

751
Exchequer, to meet the question fairly, to examine dispassionately and coolly the great causes of this pestilence, and to inquire what persons are justly accountable for the present disastrous condition of all the trading interests of the country. Let us look back a little to the tampering with the currency, the alternate issues and contractions of paper, and the expedients
which have been resorted to for the maintenance of our revenue since the peace, and we shall see, at once, the foundation of all our distresses. In 1816, we were to restore our metallic circulation, and, with the necessary contraction of paper for that purpose, came embarrassment and difficulty. In 1817, tired of that policy, the ministers had recourse to loans from the Bank and new issues. With the consequent temporary prosperity, came new taxes, and a determination, as it was called, to support the credit of the country by an efficient sinking fund. In 1819, finding it impossible to reconcile our issues of paper, with a sound circulation, the philosophers again set to work, and decreed, we should collect the increased taxes in a doubly enhanced currency. Then came deeper distress than on the former occasion; and when this fell on the land in 1822, as it always inevitably must do, although at a later period than on trade, we adopted, without hesitation, the old remedy. The country bankers were encouraged to resume their old habits of paper-making in perfect confidence. Prosperity, as it is called, again followed. And does the right hon. gentleman, or his right hon. friend near him, so soon forget who it was that assured the country the prosperity of that day was real, and must be permanent? If others had participated in, or been deluded by, their opinions and encouragement, they, of all persons in the world, are the least entitled to accuse the dupes of their time-serving and wretched policy, of acting without sufficient caution on this mistaken and false view of the affairs of the country. Who forcibly reduced the rate of interest, and, by ruinous expedients of loans of paper from the Bank for fictitious sinking-funds, paying off those public creditors who refused their reduced interest, and deferring the burthen of what has been called the dead weight, so increased the temporary abundance of money, as to produce the unparalleled and unprecedented engagements for foreign loans, and the disgraceful speculations of the last two years?
752
And that this charge may not be made slightly, let us come to facts within the knowledge of every man. There is no such accurate test of the operations of government in these matters, as the state of their account with the Bank, and that is always on your table. In 1819, when it was at last finally, and with so much wisdom, determined to restore the ancient currency, the debt to the Bank was nineteen millions. The committee, on the representation of the directors, came to a decision, that it was necessary to repay ten millions of this amount, so as to reduce the balance to nine. Will the House believe, that, after being reduced, according to its resolutions, to nine, it has been since increased by the transactions I have described, and now remains subject to the reduction which has been lately agreed upon at twenty-five millions? For the truth of this statement, and the figures, I refer to my hon. friend, the member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), whose calculation I have adopted; and after having submitted it to the House, I will ask, whether any possible doubt can remain as to the party really to blame for all this over-trading and speculation? What was the stimulus to the before unheard-of, and insane projects, so unworthy our former commercial character? The rest of the world, made rich by your loans, by money pressed upon them in this way, and which it is always so easy to spend, became your customers for manufactures and articles of luxury, which their own means never enabled them before to consume. Your manufacturers called in new hands to provide the additional, and as they were taught to expect permanent and growing demand for their goods. Beyond supplying the actual consumption, the foreign markets were over-loaded, according to the uniform course of such matters, in expectation of good sales and returns from a continuance of this hollow prosperity. Suddenly, the philosophers of 1819 find out, all they have been doing since 1821 is wrong. The currency must be immediately and forcibly contracted, to bring back into circulation, the gold you have been scattering so lavishly on all sides, and your foreign debtors, who were relying upon further accommodation, are pressed for repayment of your former advances. The scene changes, as if by the wand of the enchanter. The goods abroad are unsaleable, returns are obtained with extreme difficulty for those previously disposed of, and

753
generally only in colonial produce, which sells, in your enhanced currency, for one half its former value. All industry is checked and paralyzed—first, your merchants, next, your manufacturers, become bankrupts—the people employed by them are thrown on the parish, and then the only consolation they receive is, that they must take upon themselves the consequences of their own indiscretion, while his majesty's ministers turn their attention to other experiments, which, according to the opinion of the petitioners, may have no better result.
I am aware, Sir, these observations apply more to the general and foreign trade of the country, than to the silk-manufacture. It is not dependant on a demand for export, nor in fact can any over-trading be imputed to the persons engaged in any branch of it, except the throwsters. But I know, from what has passed elsewhere, that the dupes and victims of the system that has brought this nation to the brink of a frightful convulsion, will, for the purposes of this debate, be charged as its authors and abettors, and I am bound in duty to shield them from such unjust accusations. Whatever may be the ultimate result of those measures, it is not improbable, that the silk-trade, confined to our own consumption, and independent of foreign demand, may rally more rapidly than many of our staple manufactures. That is certainly my opinion. The stocks of manufactured goods are far from being large. The apprehension, just or groundless, of a considerable importation on the opening of the ports, has deterred the manufacturers from increasing them, and the present suspension of employment in Spital-fields and Cheshire tends to the diminution of the usual supply. The spring trade is always the best; and it must be recollected, the consumers of this expensive luxury are not among those who suffer most from the peculiar distresses of the times. I state this, Sir, to show I do not participate in the general gloom and despondency that appear to prevail amongst all classes of the petitioners; and who should recollect, unless we are to place entire credit in the ability of France and Switzerland, to supply a large additional demand, as represented by the ribbon-manufacturers, there can be no danger of immediate interference, to any extent, with their home trade.
I am afraid, Sir, I have exhausted
754
the patience of the House, and performed very inadequately to the petitioners, the duty they have imposed upon me, of submitting their case to your consideration. I fear, also, from the manner in which their former representations have been received by government, I have to expect the decided opposition of his majesty's ministers, to any review, or reconsideration of the measures adopted in 1824. And if I could bring myself to concur in the opinion of the lords of the Treasury, as expressed in their secretary's letter to the country deputation on the 28th of December last, that "their lordships have never entertained the belief that any importation of foreign goods was likely to be made to such an extent as to interfere with our own manufactures, or in any greater degree than might be sufficient to supply, in a legal manner, that portion of the consumption which is at present derived from the fraudulent introduction of foreign silks," I might also be disposed to object, to any further, because useless discussion, of this question. I have stated distinctly, in the outset; my accordance with the general principles of the right hon. gentleman, and that I am no advocate for the interminable, or any very protracted maintenance of the present monopoly. Nor indeed, Sir, have I finally made up my mind, whether it is necessary or expedient to grant further time, or if further time, whether to all, or any particular branches of the trade. My apprehensions as to the partial application of the principles of free trade go much beyond their effect on the silk-manufacture. Without a reduction of taxes and the abolition of your Corn laws, or rather the substitution in their stead of the regulations of 1792, I fear the right hon. gentleman will be compelled to pause in his proceedings, if not to go back, not because his principles are, or can be wrong in the abstract, but because he wants the power to apply them generally in a state of things which has grown up under different and entirely opposite regulations, and I need not explain to him the risk, to which such a necessity would expose the ultimate adoption of a more wise and rational system of commercial administration. As one of the zealous supporters of such a system, I pray him to be cautious, and surely I may again urge, if there be a case requiring the greatest forbearance and caution, it is that of a trade, in which as an exception to all others, we are still,

755
on the whole, confessedly inferior to other countries, and where we have to look for all improvement, to their instruction. Many prejudices, and much error, and groundless apprehension, have been removed by the previous inquiry, and the experience of the last, two years. If we do not succeed in satisfying the petitioners, by the further inquiry I now pray the House to grant them, we shall at least have credit with the public, for proceeding with that deliberation which the importance of such a case deserves, and disarm the opponents of all improvement and reform, who are ever on the watch to accuse us of inconsiderate rashness, and neglect of existing interests, in our attempts to ameliorate, and improve the institutions of the country. Above all things, Sir, I entreat the House to look round, and reflect on the particular crisis at which this appeal is made to them. Our commercial interests exposed to a frightful convulsion. Our currency unsettled. On the eve of some attempt to alter and re-model our Corn-laws. The manufacturing population in a state of unparalleled distress, imputing, and with reason, all their sufferings to bad policy and misgovernment—I cannot, under these circumstances doubt the wisdom, or see the danger, of acceding to the prayers of the petitioners, that you will grant them a further inquiry, before you determine to adopt the final measures for the regulation of this trade, of which the right hon. gentleman has given notice; and I therefore move you, Sir, for the appointment of a Select Committee, for the purpose of referring to them the petitions on the table, that they may examine and report their opinions, and such observations thereupon, as may guide the House in their further proceedings on this most important subject.
Mr. John Williamsrose to second the motion of his hon. friend. He began by observing that he had always understood it to be desirable, that if a doubtful measure was to be discussed at all—and a doubtful measure he considered this to be—it should be discussed at a period when the tranquillity and prosperity of the country were such as to prevent the danger and risk which such a discussion might produce. That such was not the present state of the country, he believed no man would venture to deny. The greater part of our manufacturing population were under-going a degree of suffering unparalleled in our history. His hon. friend had
756
made an allusion to the distresses which existed in Macclesfield. Now, he would beg the attention of the House, while he stated a few additional facts relative to the distresses in that district. He wished to inform the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Huskisson), if he was not already aware of the fact, that the misery and distress existing in that town, great as they were, were likely to be aggravated ten-fold, unless a check was given to the measures by which those evils were caused. The House was not, perhaps, generally, aware of the rapidity with which the population of Macclesfield had increased under the ancient and erroneous system of our Silk trade. In the year 1730 the population of that place amounted to 4000 persons. In 1826, its population had swollen to 23,000 persons. He was not aware whether the right hon. gentleman thought this too rapid an increase of population, and that famine and disease should be allowed to step in and thin their numbers, and keep the peace. He would now say a word or two as to the amount of employment given to that population in the silk trade alone. In the year 1825, he found that twenty thousand hands were there employed in the variou9 branches of the silk manufacture. Of these, there had been thrown out of employ, in consequence, as they state, of the operation of the right hon. gentleman's measure of free trade, and this, too, in the last half year, no less than 8,731 persons, leaving in employment, or rather in half employment, nearly 14,000 persons. He wished also to state, for the right hon. gentleman's information, that there were in Macclesfield alone, 1,600 families supported by voluntary contributions: those persons were supported solely upon oatmeal and potatoes; but even that subsistence was likely soon to be taken from them, as the fund from which it was derived was exhausting, and would in a few weeks be at an end, so that that number of families must fall, for subsistence, on the poor-laws. He had been informed by the mayor of Macclesfield, that that gentleman had, before he came to town upon this distressing business, signed no less than eleven orders of removal, in order to throw upon the land a portion of the burthen caused by those distresses; as if the land had not been sufficiently burthened before, without including the numbers of Irish who were passed along, and becoming a daily bur-

757
then to the country. The distresses of that district were hourly increasing, and there was no hope for relief; because no hope of employment could be entertained, so long as there prevailed an apprehension of the introduction of French silks.—He had also obtained some details with respect to the state of the silk trade in Manchester, and he would confine himself to the broad-silk trade, as the most favourable case for gentlemen opposite, because in figured silks the labour was greater, and consequently the dread of foreign importations greater. In the Spring of 1825, there were 10,688 silk-looms at work, and in January last there were but 4,110 looms employed, making a reduction of 6,578 looms; and the proportion of looms going out of work would go on rapidly increasing, unless the cause of the existing alarm was removed. He found, notwithstanding this reduction in the number of looms, that, at the time of the calculation, 24,000 persons were employed in the silk trade in that district. In the parish of Bethnal Green, no
less than 1,000 silk-workers, of various kinds, were sustained by parish relief, and it was said that the numbers were daily increasing. But, notwithstanding the extent and variety of this distress—not-withstanding the probability of its increase, and the certainty that a portion of the population must be driven to ruin and despair—notwithstanding all this, he would not oppose the measures of the right hon. gentleman, if he would show to him the great countervailing benefits they were to produce in the country. Let him but prove this—let him but show to that House, that benefits would be derived to the country greater than the evils which it was suffering, and those which were apprehended, and then let him, by all means persevere in his measures. But he called upon the House to pause, and wait until they had before them some proof that those benefits would be produced. He implored them, in the mean time, to weigh well the complaints and the apprehensions, of the suffering manufacturers, before they gave their assent to those theories which were considered injurious, but which the right hon. gentleman showed his consistency by a determination to persevere in. It was their duty to have full and clear evidence before them, before they took a course which would have the effect of bringing the most serious and lasting evils upon the country. He did not assert that the right
758
hon. gentleman was wrong, but he did assert that there was sufficient in the distress which existed, and the alarm excited, to call for the strictest inquiry. It was their duty to give the petitioners an opportunity of proving their statements, and of pointing out the grounds of their alarm. The whole of
those distresses had been attributed by the right hon. gentleman and others to the spirit of over-trading and over-speculation, which had seized upon the manufacturers, as well as upon almost all other classes of society. That was, he believed, the right hon. gentleman's theory. And how did he propose that the evil should be cured? He believed, by leaving all to the natural course of things. But did not the right hon. gentleman perceive how this must aggravate the distress, by compelling the manufacturer to sell his stock at a loss, in order to get the superabundant stock out of the market, and regulate the supply to the demand? But, if the petitioners could make out that even this would not bring about a return of the demand for the manufactures, then he conceived they would have established their right to a further inquiry. He was not authorised by the silk manufacturers to admit that they thought their distresses had arisen from over-trading or over-speculation. They thought quite the contrary; but he would, for argument sake, concede that such was the case. But to the point. How did the demand for manufactures come round? The stock of manufactured goods in the market was to be found in the hands of the warehouseman and the merchant; both of whom applied to the manufacturer as they wanted to add to the stock. This was the period of the year, when that demand for goods was usually greatest upon the manufacturer. It was known, too, that the stock on hand with the warehousemen and merchants was much below par, and yet the demands upon the manufacturer for a fresh supply were entirely at a stand. How was this to be accounted for, unless from a feeling that, after the 5th of July, supplies of silks would be obtained from abroad, at a cheaper rate than the English manufacturer would be able to make them? This was the fair inference which must be drawn from the existing state of things. The petitioners feared, and justly, that the ports, once open, the supply for the foreign article would go on, to the exclusion of the English manufacturer; so that the mea-

759
sure would operate only as a relief and benefit to our foreign neighbours.—There were one or two other observations with which he meant to trouble the House. The business of silk throwsters occupied about one-third of the capital of those engaged in the trade. The quantity of manual labour, as distinguished from machinery, was less in proportion than that used in weaving and winding. It was said, that amongst silk throwsters, there were four-fifths of manual labour. Now, it was stated, that the price of
labour must be regulated by the comparative provisions in this and the adjoining countries. He held in his hand a return, made by a gentleman upon whose accuracy he had every reason to rely, during his travels on the continent in July last. It stated, that at Lyons, the price of bread was three sous per lb. while in England it was 2½d. per lb. or nearly double. This alone would make the comparative value of labour in England and in France as two to one. The same gentleman stated, that the value of labour in England was 44½ per cent dearer than at Lyons, and 60 per cent dearer than at Zurich. Was it likely, with such a disparity in the value of labour, that the British manufacturer could compete with the produce of foreign markets? He stated again, that the silk manufacturers had established a case which entitled them to the inquiry. He implored the House to pause, and give time for that inquiry—he entreated them not to give their sanction rashly, and without due consideration, to measures which were already represented as having caused such great and extensive distress—measures which, if thus suddenly adopted, would at once destroy that last melancholy hope of the unfortunate—the hope of having their complaints considered, and their sufferings and distresses relieved. Would the House suffer this meritorious part of the population to say, that they had applied to parliament for a consideration of their complaints, and that parliament had refused to hear them—had refused to listen to the probable consequences of the introduction of a measure, which they offered to prove was highly injurious, and which the House seemed about to carry into effect, more out of deference to the right hon. gentleman who had proposed it, than for any other cause? On those subjects of expenditure in the silk trade, which appertained more particularly to the other
760
branches of that business, he might repeat what he had already stated, that the winding and weaving resolved themselves, even still more than the other branch, into an expense proportioned to the price of provisions. About one-third of the persons engaged in this trade were employed in the two departments of it to which he had just alluded; and surely their situation was deserving of some attention. He considered that the immediate tendency of the right hon. gentleman's measure was, to suspend the demand for goods, which was the only remedy for the evils that this numerous and meritorious body of men were now suffering; and also, on the other hand, to create a demand, not for the product of the labours of the artificers of this country, but for those of foreigners, who possessed advantages that would enable them to beat us even in the English market; advantages which no protecting duty that the right hon. gentleman might uphold, would enable us to meet; for, the larger the amount of that duty, the greater would be the chance of throwing the trade into the hands of the smugglers [cries of hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. Be it so—he would not retract his argument—he still contended, that if the duty was large, the trade would be thrown into the hands of smugglers, and foreign goods would be introduced, to the injury of the fair trader and of the industrious English manufacturer. What the present petitioners asked was, that the right hon. gentleman would re-consider the measure he had proposed, and delay its execution until a more convenient opportunity—until the hospitality he was ready to exercise towards foreigners was in some measure met by them—until that system of reciprocity, of which he had spoken so much and so triumphantly, had been established. Let not ministers rashly run the chance of the serious difficulties they might ultimately occasion, merely for the sake of a principle, and support a measure which might prove positively injurious to a considerable body of industrious men. The system of reciprocity to which he had alluded, was that system which had been mentioned with so much praise by the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, when he described the flourishing condition of the empire. In the Spring of 1824, the right hon. gentleman had said, certainly in a very oratorical manner, and in a most metaphorical style, that "it was high time to

761
cut the cords which fastened commerce, which bound her, as it were, to the earth;" and consequently, to make the metaphor complete—to enable her to soar to heaven. Where, he would ask, had this, or anything like this, been done? He had no doubt the right hon. gentleman was prepared to receive foreign nations with open arms; that he had dealt out the hospitality of the country, with a liberal hand, to many who had most freely accepted it; but, had any of those persons been generous enough to give him an invitation in return? Had they acted on the principle of reciprocity so far as to extend to this country the benefits they had received themselves? If they had, he should be glad to learn what were those reciprocities. If they had not, was not their conduct a proof that the right hon. gentleman had been wrong; that he had gone too far; and that his foreign friends were not prepared to treat him in the same liberal manner? Had the Netherlands—had any foreign state been moved to act on the same principles as the right hon. gentleman. Had they performed one single act—had they acknowledged one principle of reciprocity—to justify the present measure, or the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, who was now urging this measure, in support of his own principles, and to show that we understood political economy better than our ancestors?—He had now only to advert to one other point. It was said that this measure was only in furtherance of others of a more general nature, which had received, in a great degree, the approbation of this House. Whether that statement of the approbation of this House were true or not, the measure was not less a fit subject for inquiry. Whether the right hon. gentleman had been led on, or supported by the cheers of those who surrounded him, or whether all he had done was upon his own responsibility, he was equally bound now to hesitate before he pursued his career any further. The people of England had a right to look to ministers for an account of those measures which they cither produced or supported; and it was no answer to the people, when a disadvantageous measure had been passed, to say, that it had been done with the approbation of parliament. If the measure was in itself injurious, that approbation would not afford it a defence. He confessed, that if it was a proof of stupidity not to see the value of general principles in the
762
abstract, he must plead guilty to the charge; but at the same time, he would say, that there was no quackery more common and notorious, nor any more injurious—no theory, nor want of theory, when reduced to practice, so dangerous, as to attempt to reduce every thing to the level of certain general principles, without bearing in view the particular circumstances, or the particular times, in which those principles were to be called into practice. It was trifling with the people to say that the principles stated were true, if the times and the circumstances were such as to render it improper to bring those principles into practice. It was in the application of principles that the great difficulty consisted. When they came to apply general principles to a country of such great and multifarious interests as this—to a country so peculiarly circumstanced—it was not at all surprising that his majesty's ministers should find themselves in the midst of difficulties—that they should discover they had been entrapped into dangers, and that then they should have no other consolation than that of not having seen the dangers before encountering them, and then of having no remedy to afford to them. The circumstances of this country, into which they now attempted to introduce these measures, ought to have been well considered. They ought not to have been taken by surprise, or to have acted incautiously, on such a subject. They ought not to have acted as if in utter ignorance of the present times, and of existing circumstances. "Ye gods! annihilate both space and time," seemed, however, to have been the prayer of the ministers; and, with respect to this measure at least, their prayer appeared to have been fully heard. Then did the right hon. gentleman open wide his arms, as if ready to receive in their capacious embrace, the commerce of the world; but to talk of reciprocity, in a country so circumstanced as this was, with respect to some other countries in Europe, was as preposterous as would be the attempt to put a man loaded with fetters to run a race with another, whose limbs were free. The hon. member for Bridge-north, too, had come forward, with his principles of free trade, and so far had supported the right hon. gentleman; but he would not, if he could help it, allow five hundred thousand persons (the number said to be engaged in the silk trade) to be sacrificed to abstract princi-

763
ples, however pure those principles might be. On this point, he would cite the opinion of Mr. Burke, with whom he fully agreed. That right hon. and very learned person had said, when speaking of those unbending and hard-hearted metaphysicians, that they "exceeded the devil himself in point of malignity, and contempt for the happiness of mankind." He must say, that, in the present instance, he thought, if he might use the expression, that the right hon. gentleman had manifested an overweening attachment to abstract principle. One word more, and he had done. Ministers asked parliament to take this measure on their responsibility. The request was needless. No gentleman could relieve them from it. The House might divide the blame, and so lessen it; but ministers, by the possession of their office, by their acceptance of place, took upon themselves a responsibility from which nobody could relieve them. But, when the right hon. gentleman knew of that distress, of which the House had had some taste that night; when he knew that he had no remedy for this distress; when he knew these things, he would be guilty of extreme rashness, if he refused the present motion; which did not ask for the rejection of his measure, but which called on him to hesitate, to pause, to examine, to hear the facts which had transpired since that resolution had been first proposed. The ministers had already incurred a responsibility, the extent of which he did not know; but he did believe that if, between that House and the feelings out of doors there existed any community, he might say, with almost a certainty, that they would be driven from their purpose by the vote of that night.
Mr. Huskissonrose, and spoke, in substance, as follows:—
Sir;—Although the hon. member for Coventry, who introduced the present motion, may be supposed to be under the influence of suggestions and views, which have been furnished to him by his constituents, and from other sources out of doors, I am, nevertheless, ready to admit, that that circumstance ought not to detract from the weight which is fairly due to the hon. member's statements and arguments, in support of the motion which he has submitted to the House.
But, Sir, however true this may be, as far as respects the hon. member for Coventry, the same observation applies
764
not, in the remotest degree, to the hon. and learned gentleman who has seconded the motion; and who, acting, I must suppose, under the influence of a connection, certainly not political, but the more binding, perhaps, as having been more recently formed, has thought proper to take a wider range, and to indulge in a higher tone of declamation:—or, it may be, that he looks forward to the expectation of becoming the colleague of the hon. mover; and by his speech of this evening, proposes to declare himself a joint suitor with the hon. mover for the future favours of the good people of Coventry. Whatever may be the motives of the hon. and learned gentleman, I confess that I have listened with the utmost astonishment to the speech which he has just delivered.
Sir, in the course of that speech, the hon. and learned gentleman repeatedly told us, that he was not authorized to make certain statements—that he was not at liberty to admit this, and to admit that, This, I presume, is a mode of expression, in which gentlemen of the legal profession are wont to indulge, to mark that they keep themselves within the strict limits of their briefs, and that the doctrines which they advocate are those prescribed to them by their instructions. However customary and proper such language may be in the courts of law, it certainly sounds new and striking in the mouth of a member of this House.
With regard to the general tone of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech—the vehemence of his declamation, his unqualified censure, and his attempts at sarcasm, I can, with perfect sincerity, assure the House, and the hon. and learned gentleman, that I entertain no sentiment bordering upon anger, nor any other feeling, save one, in which I am sure I carry with me the sympathy and concurrence of all those who entertain sound and enlightened views upon questions of this nature—a feeling of surprise and regret, at finding that hon. and learned gentleman, now for the first time, launching forth his denunciations and invectives against principles and measures which have received the support of men the most intelligent and best informed, on both sides of this House, and throughout Europe.
Having said thus much, I leave the hon. and learned gentleman to the full enjoyment to be derived from the new lights that have so suddenly broken in

765
upon him. I leave to him, and to his hon. friends around him, to settle among themselves, the taunts, the sneers, and the sarcasms which he has heaped upon their heads, as the friends of those principles which are involved in the present discussion—principles which it has been their boast that they were the first to recommend, and of which they have uniformly been the most eager advocates in this House.
In whatever quarter the statements and arguments of the hon. member for Coventry may have originated, they are entitled to the serious and attentive consideration of the House; more especially if derived from individuals now suffering distress from want of employment, and who may have been led to believe, that that want of employment has been caused by measures which have been adopted by this House. This circumstance adds to the difficulty in which I am placed, in rising to address the House on the present occasion. In opposing the proposed inquiry, I feel that I may be represented as insensible or indifferent to the sufferings of those on whose behalf it is called for.
Sir, the hon. and learned member for Lincoln has, indeed, given countenance to this unjust imputation. He has not only chosen to assert, that I am mistaken in my views—he has not scrupled to insinuate, that I am without feeling for the distress now prevailing amongst the manufacturing classes [Mr. Williams here denied that he had asserted any thing of the kind]. What, then, Sir, did the hon. and learned gentleman mean by his quotation? To whom did he mean to apply the description of an "insensible and hard-hearted metaphysician, exceeding the devil in point of malignity"?—I appeal to the judgment of the House, whether the language made use of by the hon. and learned gentleman, with reference to me, was not such as to point to the inference, that I am that metaphysician, lost to every sentiment of humanity, and indifferent to every feeling, beyond the successful enforcement of some favourite theory, at what ever cost of pain and suffering to particular bodies of my fellow creatures? When the hon. and learned gentleman allows himself to talk of "hard-hearted metaphysicians, exceeding the devil in point of malignity," it is for him to reconcile such language with the general tenor of his sentiments on other occasions; to explain,
766
as he best may, to those around him, whether they are included in that insinuation—and it is for me to meet that insinuation (as far as it was levelled at me) with those feelings of utter scorn with which I now repel it.
Still, Sir, it sits heavily on my mind, that any individual, or any body of individuals, should in any quarter be impressed with the notion, that I, or any of my right hon. colleagues, could be capable of that which has been imputed to us; and it is but perfectly natural that I should feel anxious to show that my own conduct, and that of my right hon. friends, has not been such as, in some quarters, it has been represented to be.
The hon. member for Coventry, and the hon. and learned member for Lincoln, have, by some strange perversion, argued the whole case, as if I, and those who act with me, were hastily and prematurely pressing on some new, and, till this evening, unheard-of measure—as if we were attempting to enforce that measure by all the influence of government: instead of which, we have proposed nothing, and are lying upon our oars, quietly waiting for the going into effect of an act of parliament, passed more than eighteen months ago, with the unanimous concurrence of this House; an act which is now the law of the land; and of the enactments of which all the parties concerned were as fully apprized on the day when it first passed this House, as they can be at this moment.
In the view which I take of the speech of the hon. member for Coventry, of which I do not complain, and of the speech of the hon. and learned member for Lincoln, of which I do complain, the greater part of their arguments go to impugn those principles of commercial policy, which under the sanction of Parliament, have now prevailed in this country, for the last two or three years;—a policy, which has for its object gradually to unfetter the commerce of the country, by the removal of those oppressive prohibitions and inconvenient restrictions, which had previously existed; and to give every facility and encouragement, consistent with vested interests, to the extension of the skill, the capital, and the industry of the people of England.
This, then, being the real drift of the argument especially brought forward by the hon. and learned gentleman, it is, with reference to a much greater question, that

767
I find myself called upon to consider the present motion. The point at issue is, not whether we shall grant the committee, but whether we shall re-establish the prohibitory system? If we re-establish it in one instance, we shall very soon be called upon to do so in many others. If we once tread back our steps, we shall not be able, in this retrograde motion, to stop at that point from which we first set out:—we must go further, and, ere long, we should have in this country a system of commerce, far more restrictive than that which was in force before the late changes. Anxious as I am to persevere in our present course, I say that, if we once depart from it, we must at least be consistent in our new career; and that, to be consistent, we must impose restrictions and prohibitions, far beyond those which have been lately removed.
The present question, therefore, is not simply the motion before the House—but, neither more nor less than, whether a restrictive or an enlarged system of commercial policy be the best for this country?
In order to come to a sound decision upon so important a subject, it behoves the House to look back a little to the course of events, and to bear in mind some of the occurrences which have materially contributed to those relaxations in the restrictive system, of which it is now the fashion to complain.
With this view, I must ask the permission of the House to call its attention to a petition, presented to the House in the month of May, 1820, a period which, like the present, was one of great difficulty and public distress. The petition is somewhat long, but, I assure the House, that those hon. members who may favour me with their attention will be well rewarded by hearing sound principles laid down, in the clearest language, not by philosophers and unbending theorists—not by visionaries and hard-hearted metaphysicians, with the feelings of demons in their breasts—but by merchants and traders; men of the greatest practical experience in all that relates to commerce. This, petition, Sir, is a document of no ordinary interest. The House will see how decidedly the petitioners maintain the principles upon which his majesty's government have acted; and, when I have done reading it, I am sure they will admit, that those principles are therein expounded in words far more apt and for-
768
cible than any which I can command. The petition, as I have already said, is not the exposition of any speculative doctrine. It conveys to the House the deliberate judgment of the merchants and traders of the city of London; the result of their daily observation of the evils inflicted upon the country, by the unnecessary restrictions imposed upon their industry and pursuits. The petition states,—
"That foreign commerce is eminently conducive to the wealth and prosperity of the country, by enabling it to import the commodities for the production of which the soil, climate, capital, and industry of other countries are best calculated, and to export in payment those articles for which its own situation is better adapted.
"That freedom from restraint is calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, and the best direction to the capital and industry of the country.
"That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market, and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable, as the best rule for the trade of the whole nation.
"That a policy, founded on these principles, would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state.
"That, unfortunately, a policy, the very reverse of this, has been, and is more or less adopted and acted upon by the government of this and of every other country; each trying to exclude the productions of other countries, with the specious and well-meant design of encouraging its own productions; thus inflicting on the bulk of its subjects, who are consumers, the necessity of submitting to privations in the quantity or quality of commodities; and thus rendering, what ought to be the source of mutual benefits, and of harmony among states, a constantly recurring occasion of jealousy and hostility.
"That the prevailing prejudices in favour of the protective or restrictive system may be traced to the erroneous supposition, that every importation of foreign commodities occasions a diminution or discouragement of our own productions to the same extent, whereas, it may be clearly shown, that although the particular description of production which

769
could not stand against unrestrained foreign competition would be discouraged; yet, as no importation could be continued for any length of time without a corresponding exportation, direct or indirect, there would be an encouragement for the purpose of that exportation of some other production, to which our situation might be better suited; thus affording at least an equal, and probably a greater, and certainly a more beneficial employment to our own capital and labour."
I will not trouble the House with reading the whole of this valuable document.—[Loud cries of "Read! read!"] I will then, Sir, read the whole, for it is a most valuable document; and, indeed, so it was thought at the time, for it is one of a few, if not the only one, which is given at length in the published reports of our proceedings.
"That of the numerous protective and prohibitory duties of our commercial code, it may be proved, that while all operate as a very heavy tax on the community at large, very few are of any ultimate benefit to the classes in whose favour they were originally instituted, and none to the extent of the loss occasioned by them to other classes.
"That among the other evils of the restrictive or protective system, not the least is, that the artificial protection of one branch of industry, or source of protection against foreign competition, is set up as a ground of claim by other branches for similar protection; so that, if the reasoning upon which these restrictive or prohibitory regulations are founded were followed consistently, it would not stop short of excluding us from all foreign commerce whatsoever.
"And the same strain of argument which, with corresponding prohibitions and protective duties, should exclude us from foreign trade, might be brought forward to justify the re-enactment of restrictions upon the interchange of productions (unconnected with public revenue) among the kingdoms composing the union, or among the counties of the same kingdom.
"That an investigation of the effects of the restrictive system at this time is peculiarly called for, as it may, in the opinion of the petitioners, lead to a strong presumption, that the distress which now so generally prevails is considerably aggravated by that system; and that some relief may be obtained by the earliest
770
practicable removal of such of the restraints as may be shown to be most injurious to the capital and industry of the community, and to be attended with no compensating benefit to the public revenue.
"That a declaration against the anti-commercial principles of our restrictive system is of the more importance at the present juncture, inasmuch as, in several instances of recent occurrence, the merchants and manufacturers in foreign states have assailed their respective governments with applications for further protective or prohibitory duties and regulations, urging the example and authority of this country, against which they are almost exclusively directed, as a sanction for the policy of such measures: and certainly, if the reasoning upon which our restrictions have been defended is worth any thing, it will apply in behalf of the regulations of foreign states against us; they insist upon our superiority in capital and machinery, as we do upon their comparative exemption from taxation, and with equal foundation.
"That nothing would more tend to counteract the commercial hostility of foreign states, than the adoption of a more enlightened and more conciliatory policy on the part of this country.
"That although, as a matter of mere diplomacy, it may sometimes answer to hold out the removal of particular prohibitions on high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other states in our favour, it does not follow, that we should maintain our restrictions, in cases where tire desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained; our restrictions would not be less prejudicial to our own capital and industry, because other governments persisted in pursuing impolitic regulations.
"That, upon the whole, the most liberal would prove to be the most politic course on such occasions.
"That, independent of the direct benefit to be derived by this country on every occasion of such concession or relaxation, a great incidental object would be gained by the recognition of a sound principle or standard, to which all subsequent arrangements might be referred; and by the salutary influence which a promulgation of such just views, by the legislature and by the nation at large, could not fail to have on the policy of other states.

771
"That in thus declaring, as the petitioners do, their conviction of the impolicy and injustice of the restrictive system, and in desiring every practical relaxation of it, they have in view only such parts of it as are not connected, or are only subordinately so, with the public revenue: as long as the necessity for the present amount of revenue subsists, the petitioners cannot expect so important a branch of it as the Customs to be given up, nor to be materially diminished, unless some substitute less objectionable be suggested: but it is against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue, against all duties merely protective from foreign competition, and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue and partly for that of protection: that the prayer of the present petition is respectfully submitted to the wisdom of parliament; the petitioners therefore humbly pray, that the House will be pleased to take the subject into consideration, and to adopt such measures as may be calculated to give greater freedom to foreign commerce, and thereby to increase the resources of the state."
It will be clear to all who have been at the trouble to attend to the very able document which I have just read, that it embraces all the great principles of commercial policy, upon which parliament has since legislated.
Why do I lay so much stress upon this petition? For the purpose of showing, first, that if the government have pursued this course, we have done so, not on the recommendations of visionaries and theorists, but of practical men of business: secondly, that the merchants of the city of London—the great mart of the commerce and wealth of the country—felt convinced, in 1820, that the distress of that period was greatly aggravated by the narrow and short-sighted system of restrictions and prohibitions which then prevailed; and that, in their judgment, the alleviation, if not the cure of that distress, was to be sought for in the removal of those restrictions and prohibitions.
And, because we have followed up, cautiously and circumspectly, the recommendations of the mercantile community, are we to be told by men who know nothing of commerce, that we are unfeeling projectors and metaphysicians, insensible to the wants and the miseries of our
772
fellow creatures? If this be a just charge against us, what are we to think of the parties who could sign, or of the member who could present, such a petition as this? This morning I took the trouble to look at the names of the merchants who signed it; and, the first signature I read is that of one of the most distinguished of that class in the city of London; a gentleman who was many years ago governor of the Bank of England, who is now one of the directors of that establishment, and who was, for a long time, a valuable member of this House; a gentleman, who, in the best sense of the word, is a practical man, and one whose conduct in private life would protect him (if any man can be protected by his conduct) from the suspicion of being a "wild and unfeeling theorist"—a "hard-hearted metaphysician"—"alike indifferent to the wants and the miseries of his fellow creatures"—I mean Mr. Samuel Thornton. And, besides his name, the list contains the names of others, who, like him, have been governors of the Bank of England; of several who are now in the direction of that great establishment; and of many who hold the highest rank in the commercial world.
Let it not, however, be supposed, that I offer this petition to the House in the way of an apology for myself and my right hon. colleagues—in the way of extenuation of any thing which we may have done, to excite the wrath of the hon. and learned member for Lincoln. Sir, I think now, as I have always thought, that our measures require no apology. I believe now, as I have always believed, that they are calculated to promote the best interests of the people. I say now, as I have always said, that those who, either by their speeches in parliament, or the exertions of their talents out of it, have contributed to bring the people of England to look with an eye of favour on the principles recommended in this petition, have done themselves the greatest honour, and the country an essential benefit.
If, however, I refrain from troubling the House with apologies, where I feel that they are not required, neither do I wish to claim for his majesty's government, any participation in the merit of these measures, beyond what really belongs to us. By a reference to many other petitions and proceedings of a like nature with those to which I have already adverted, I could show that, in all these matters, the first impulse was not given

773
by the government. We claim for ourselves no such credit. The changes hitherto made have been the result of public opinion, sanctioned by the concurrence of practical men, and confirmed by the proceedings and inquiries of the two Houses of parliament. We did not create that opinion: we did not anticipate it: we did not even act upon it, until it was clearly and distinctly manifested. And, in what we have done, we have not exceeded the sober limits prescribed by the authority of those who, by the habits and pursuits of their lives, were most competent to form a sound judgment. But, when that judgment was pronounced and recorded, it was our duty to act upon it. From those who fill responsible situations, the country has a right to expect, not that they should be slow of conviction to important truths in matters of political economy; but that they should be cautious in deliberating, before they attempt to give them a practical application. The goad which is used to give increased impetus to the machine is an instrument more properly placed in other hands: the care of government should rather be to regulate the drag, so as not to check the advance, but to maintain a safe and steady progress towards improvement.
Has this been the principle of our policy on the subject now under consideration? Before I sit down, I think I shall prove, Sir, that the system upon which his majesty's government have acted has uniformly; been guided by that principle. Need I remind the House, how frequently, and with what asperity, we have been charged from the opposite benches, with reluctance and tardiness in carrying into execution those principles of an enlarged and enlightened policy in matters of commerce, upon which all parties were said to be agreed? Year after year have we been urged by the force of public opinion out of doors, and by the earnest remonstrances of honourable members within, to adopt the very measures against which a senseless clamour is now attempted to be excited.
Who were the first, and the most earnest, in suggesting these measures—aye, and in wishing to push them to extremes—but some of those very persons whom we now find arrayed against us, and against those principles which they formerly supported? By whom was the petition which I have just read to the House presented? By whom was the prayer of it advocated?
774
After great note of preparation—after a formal notice of what wag about to come —this petition, Sir, was brought down, on the 8th of May 1820, by the hon. member for Taunton,* whom I now see in his place. He it was, Sir, who introduced it to the attention of the House, in a long, but able and elaborate, speech; too long to be read by me now, as I have read the petition; although, by so doing, I should add a most luminous commentary in support of the doctrines of that petition, and should best shew, by what force of argument and weight of authority the hon. member then contended for those measures which the House is now called upon to condemn, and in which condemnation he himself appears disposed to concur.
After mentioning the petition, and the great respectability of the gentlemen by whom it was signed; and after regretting that "there was in the then circumstances of public embarrassment much, to which no remedy could be applied, at least no parliamentary remedy," the hon. gentleman went on to say, that "the first desideratum was such security and tranquillity in the country as would enable the possessor of capital to employ it without apprehension."
The House will recollect, that the period at which this petition was laid upon our table was one of great public distress; and, in that respect, it but too much resembled the present time. Now, however, though the country is again visited with pecuniary pressure, and though the labouring classes (many of them) are suffering great privations from the want of employment, I feel confident that we shall not witness the same danger to property, or the same disposition to violence, which at that time prevailed in the manufacturing districts. I feel confident that the unfortunate individuals, who, in 1820, allowed themselves to be misled by unprincipled agitators, will recollect how much their sufferings were increased by listening to pernicious counsels—counsels, which may prolong and aggravate, but which can, in no case, abridge or relieve their privations—and that they will not, a second time, lend a willing ear to those who would lead them on to their destruction. I trust they will so conduct themselves under their present difficultiest
* Mr. Baring. See Parliamentary Debates, New Series, Vol. i. p. 165.

775
as to conciliate the regard and sympathy of every other class, and to excite in the bosoms of those, from whom alone they can expect assistance, no other feelings than those of kindness and benevolence.
Sir, after "security and tranquillity," the hon. member for Taunton proceeded to say, that "the second desideratum was, as great a freedom of trade as was compatible with other and important considerations." In the opinion of the hon. member, at that time, a free trade was the very essence of commercial prosperity; and, therefore, he pressed us to adopt, all at once, the system which we have since gradually introduced.
The hon. member then proceeded—as he has since done, upon several occasions, and done, indeed, this session—to tax my right hon. friend the chancellor of the Exchequer (who then filled the situation which I now hold), and the other members of his majesty's government, with apathy, and a total indifference to the distressed state of the manufacturing districts. "So far were they," said the hon. member, "from being sensible of the necessity of some exertion, that they went on, from year to year, trusting that the next year would be spontaneously productive of some favourable change, and, apparently, with very indistinct notions of what the real condition of the country was. Whenever a question arose between two classes of the community, government, without seeming to have any opinion of their own, stood by, until they ascertained which party could give them the most effectual support. If the House looked back to an earlier period of those which were still our own times, they would behold a different picture; they would find Mr. Pitt engaged in framing a commercial treaty; and amidst difficulties of every description, boldly taking whatever steps appeared to him to be the best calculated to advance our commercial prosperity. He wished that he could see a little of the same spirit in the present day; but, instead of that, his majesty's ministers were balancing one party against another, and trying how they could keep their places from year to year; neglecting, in the meanwhile, all those great commercial and national questions, to which their most lively attention ought to be directed."
The hon. member for Taunton then went on to say—and I perfectly agree with him—that, "the first doctrine which
776
the petitioners wished to combat, was that fallacious one which had, of late years, arisen, that this country ought to subsist on its own produce; that it was wise, on the part of every country to raise within itself the produce requisite for its consumption." "It was really absurd to contend," continued the hon. member, "that if a country, by selling any article of manufacture, could purchase the produce which it might require, at one-half the expense at which that produce could be raised, it should nevertheless be precluded from doing so."
This is unquestionably sound doctrine, and I readily admit it. But, how is it to be reconciled with the doctrine, which is now maintained by great authorities out of doors, as that which ought to be the rule of our commercial policy? According to these authorities, to which we have now to add that of the hon. and learned seconder of the present motion, prohibition is the only effectual protection to trade: duties must be unavailing for this purpose, because the influence of soil and climate, the price of labour, the rate of taxation, and other circumstances, are constantly varying in different countries, and consequently the scale of protection would require to be varied from month to month. But, what is the legitimate inference to be drawn from this exclusive system? Can it be other than this—that all interchange of their respective commodities, between different countries of the world, is a source of evil to the one or the other?—that each country must shut itself up within itself, making the most of its own resources, refusing all commerce with any other country, barbarously content to suffer wants which this commerce might easily supply, and to waste its own superfluous productions at home; because, to exchange them for the superfluities of that other country, instead of being an exclusive advantage to either party, would afford an equivalent benefit to both. This is the short theory of prohibitions, which these sage declaimers against all theory are so anxious to recommend to the practical merchants of this country.
But, if this system be wise and just in itself; if, for the reasons alleged in its support, it be necessary for the protection of British industry, let us see to what it leads. Can this country command labour on the same terms as Ireland? Is the scale of taxation the same? Are the

777
poor-rates the same in the two countries? Is there any country in Europe which, more than Ireland, differs from Great Britain in these and many other particulars, affecting their commercial relations? Does it not follow, that, if we admit the system of prohibitions now recommended to us by the hon. and learned member for Lincoln, we must prohibit all commercial intercourse with Ireland—we must revive those laws which forbade the manufactures, and repelled the productions of her soil—we must sacrifice the mutual benefits, which both parts of the empire now derive from the unrestricted freedom of intercourse—we must again revert to the prejudices of our ancestors?
And, for what?—because, from prejudices certainly less pardonable, if not from motives less sincere, than those of our ancestors, a senseless clamour has recently been raised against the present system of our commercial policy. I have no desire to disturb the partizans of the opposite system, in the enjoyment of their favourite theory. All I ask of them is, a similar forbearance towards us. Let each system be fully and fairly tried. For the sake of freedom of trade and industry, and for the sake of England, let England be the field of trial for our system. For the sake of prohibition and monopoly, let the system of our adversaries also be fairly tried; only let the trial be made upon some other country.
But, can prohibition ever be tried under circumstances of greater favour than it now experiences in Spain? In that flourishing country, prohibition has been carried to the very extreme. There restriction has been added to restriction-there, all the fruits of that beautiful system are to be seen, not yet, perhaps, in full maturity, but sufficiently mature, to enable every one to judge of their qualities. Spain is the best sample of the prohibitory system; the most perfect model of fallen greatness and of internal misery, of which modern civilization affords an example—an example to be traced, not only in the annihilation of her commerce and maritime power, but, in her scanty revenue, in her bankrupt resources, in the wretchedness of her population, and in her utter insignificance among the great powers of the world. The commercial policy of Spain is simply this—to admit nothing from other countries, except what the smuggler brings in. And the commercial wisdom of the
778
hon. and learned seconder of the present motion is equal to that of Spain.
I must now beg of the House to indulge me for a little, while I endeavour to go through the detail of the specific measures recommended in the speech of the hon. member for Taunton, on presenting the London petition. It will be perceived, how false and unfounded are all those clamours which have been heaped upon me and my right hon. colleagues, for having unnecessarily made those alterations in our system of commercial policy, which, if I am to believe certain gentlemen, have plunged this country into misery and ruin.
The hon. member for Taunton, who is so great a practical authority—the greatest, perhaps, this country affords—did not content himself, in this speech, with stating general principles. He referred to details; and, as I have just observed, he proposed measures of relief of a specific and particular nature. These propositions the House, I hope, will permit me to go over, one by one, in order to show that his majesty's government have not been wanting in attention to the suggestions of the merchants of the city of London, nor backward in adopting their remedies, and recommending them to the consideration of the House.
The first measure pointed out upon that occasion, and recommended in the warmest terms to the attention of his majesty's ministers, for the relief of the country, was, "an alteration of the duty on the importation of wool." "What can be so absurd," said the hon. member, "as a tax on the raw materials of our manufactures?" Accordingly, he urged the abolition of the duty on the importation of foreign wool, dyeing drugs, and such other articles as are used in the great manufactures of this country. What, at that time, was our answer to this proposition? Why, this—"we have no objection to take off the duty on the importation of foreign wool, provided you will consent to allow the free exportation of British wool."—"No," said the woollen manufacturers, "take off the duty on foreign wool, if you please; but keep in force the law which prohibits the exportation of British wool from this country." To this proposal we would not agree. We could not, upon any principle of justice, open our markets to an untaxed article of foreign growth, unless the manufacturer would concede his monopoly over

779
the like article of our own growth. After years and years of struggle and conflict, we at last succeeded in convincing our opponents, that the duty on foreign wool might be taken off, and the prohibition to export British wool be repealed, without endangering their interests.
And what has been the result? Where is the ruin that was so confidently predicted? I own I am more and more distrustful of the predictions of these practical authorities. Instead of our manufactures being ruined—instead of the fulfilment of the assurances, that all the British wool would be exported, to the utter destruction of our manufactures, and that from their destruction the foreign wool would no longer be wanted in this country—what has been the real effect of this measure? Why, that since the removal of the restrictions on the export, we have sent abroad the amazing quantity of 100,000lbs. weight of British wool; while, of foreign wool, we have imported no less a quantity than 40,000,000 lbs. weight. This, Sir, is not speculation. It is practice and result against speculation. We removed the restrictive and prohibitory duties, and the consequences were, that we imported an excess of the foreign raw material, while we exported, comparatively, none of native growth—because we had a better market for it at home. Good or bad, therefore, the first measure recommended to the attention of his majesty's ministers by the hon. member has been carried into complete effect.
The second measure proposed for our adoption by the hon. member for Taunton, was a general revision of the revenue laws, with a view to their simplification. The hon. member stated—and he stated truly—that those laws were so numerous, so complicated, and so contradictory, that mercantile men could not understand them —that they were at once a great impediment to trade, and a source of vexation and oppression to all who were engaged in it—that no man, however innocent his intention, could escape their penalties; that, therefore, it was the bounden duty of his majesty's government to simplify and consolidate them.
The task was one of great magnitude and difficulty; but, we did not shrink from it. My right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject; but, I am free to admit, that
780
we never could have succeeded in our undertaking, without the assistance of an official gentleman, in the service of the customs, a gentleman* of the most unwearied diligence, and who is entitled, for his persevering exertions, and the benefit he has conferred on the commercial world, to the lasting gratitude of the country. Of the difficulties of the undertaking, the House will be enabled to judge, when I state that there were no fewer than five hundred statutes, relative to the Customs alone, to wade through; independently of the numerous enactments concerning smuggling, warehousing the plantations, &c. In the performance of this duty, we had innumerable difficulties to encounter, and battles without end to fight. And now, Sir, in one little volume, † which I hold in my hand, are comprised all the laws at present in existence, on the subject of the management and the revenue of the Customs, of navigation, of smuggling, of warehousing, and of our colonial trade, compressed in so clear and yet so comprehensive a manner, that no man can possibly mistake the meaning or the application of them. I do not say this to boast of the successful result of our labours. It was the duty of government to do what it has done. I only adduce it to show, that this, the second recommendation of the hon. member, as the organ of the commercial world, has not been disregarded.
Then comes the third recommendation of the hon. member for Taunton; namely, that we should do away with' prohibitions altogether; and substitute, in all cases, protecting for prohibitory duties. I will beg leave to read a short extract from what I consider a very accurate report of this part of the hon. member's speech. "Another desirable step" said he, "would be, to do away totally prohibitions, as much as possible." To be sure, Sir, it may be difficult to reconcile "totally," and "as much as possible;" but, I have no doubt the hon. member's meaning was to express his thorough detestation of the prohibitory principle. "Where," he continues, "protection for particular manufactures is considered to be necessary, it ought to be in the form of duty, and not in that of prohibition. Prohibi-
* J. D. Hume, esq. Comptroller of his Majesty's Customs in the port of London.
† Laws of the Customs, by J. D. Hume, esq.

781
tions had, no doubt, seriously injured the revenue, by the encouragement which they gave to smuggling. The Customs had fallen off a million and a half, in the course of the last year. He was sure that a good deal of that defalcation might be ascribed to prohibitions."
I intreat the House to attend to what follows in the speech of the hon. member—"Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose, that any prohibition would prevent the introduction of the articles which were in demand. The fact was, that, at an advance of twenty or twenty-five per cent, all light prohibited articles might be had at our doors. He would not say which sex was most to blame, but such was the fact." Now, here we have the opinion of a practical man, who had come to this conclusion after collecting the best evidence upon the subject, during his repeated visits to Paris. Indeed, I cannot help thinking, that the hon. member had silk, and nothing but silk, in his view, at the time when he made these allusions. The hon. member has long been a professor of those doctrines which he now reprobates me for upholding, as much as he then censured the government for not more readily adopting. Even in the year 1817 —also a period of distress—I find the hon. member declaring to the House, that, "in the article of silk, smuggling was carried on to a very great extent; a proof of which was to be found in the fact, that although silks were in much greater use now than formerly, yet that the British manufacturer was ruined." So that it appears, Sir, that in the year 1817, the silk manufacture, which, according to the doctrines of the present day, can only flourish under a system of prohibition, was, in that year, in a state of ruin, owing to prohibition.
The stagnation and embarrassment of 1816 and 1817 were followed by a state of unusual commercial activity. In like manner, the depression of 1822 and 1823 terminated in the extraordinary spirit of speculation which marked the Autumn of 1824, and the Spring and Summer of 1825. Is it not irrelevant to the present discussion to compare these two periods, each commencing with commercial distress, and each ending in over-trading—each marked, in its first stage, by a great contraction of our paper circulation, and the accumulation of a vast amount of gold in the coffers of the Bank, and, in its second, by a great
782
expansion of our circulating credit, and by the re-exportation of most of the gold which the Bank had previously accumulated. This comparison, whilst it connects itself with the question now under our immediate consideration, is calculated to throw some light on the equally important question of the currency, which, at this moment, occupies so much of the attention of parliament and of the country.
At the beginning of the year 1817, "the Bank," as we are informed by the report of the committee of 1819, "possessed a larger amount of cash and bullion in their coffers then they had been in the possession of at any former period since their establishment." With this accumulation, they gave notice of a partial resumption of cash payments, engaging to pay in gold all notes under 5l. From the beginning of 1817 till the month of July in that year, the whole demand for gold coin, under this notice, did not exceed 38,000 l.; but, in consequence of a great augmentation of Bank paper in August 1817 (exceeding, by upwards of three millions, the amount of the corresponding month in the preceding year), and of a like augmentation of country paper, the foreign exchanges were turned against this country; and, from that moment, the gold was withdrawn from the Bank with much greater rapidity. In the course of the following eighteen months, many millions of coin were thus put into circulation, without any corresponding diminution in the amount of Bank notes; —or rather, to speak more accurately, these millions, as soon as they were taken from the Bank, were sent to France, and other parts of the continent, till the treasure of the Bank was very much reduced at the beginning of 1819; and then the amount of their notes was again contracted. This contraction was followed by a great depression of commerce, and of prices, in the subsequent years. During this depression, the government were frequently called upon, as they are now called upon, to give relief by an issue of commercial Exchequer-bills; but our first object, then, was permanently to restore—as our first object., now, is effectually to secure—a system of cash payments: the success of which might have been endangered by this mode of relief. So much for the first period, as far as relates to our currency.
In the first stage of the second period (1822, 1823, and a part of 1824), the Bank again accumulated an amount of

783
gold, greater even than what It possessed at the begining of 1817. Between September 1824 and November 1825, that gold was again taken out of the Bank, under all the like circumstances of foreign exchanges being against this country, and with the like results as had occurred in 1818. Again, notwithstanding the issue of so many millions of coin, the amount of Bank notes and of country paper was increased: again, these millions so issued were, for the greatest part, exported; and again, in the Autumn of 1825, the Bank was driven to take precautions, by contracting its circulation, in order to protect its remaining treasure. What has since occurred is known and felt by all.
So much for the currency; now for the trade.
In 1816, and 1817, during the first absorption of treasure by the Bank, the amount of silk imported was, upon the average of the two years, I,150,8071bs: in 1818, during the first flight of our coin to the continent, that importation was raised to 2,101,618 lbs., being an increase of 81 per cent.—Of sheep's wool, the average importation of the first two years was 11,416,853 lbs.: in the year 1818 alone the quantity was 26,405,4861bs. being an increase of 130 per cent.—Of cotton-wool, the average of the two first years was 423,580 bales: the amount in 1818 was 660,580 bales, being an increase of 57 per cent.
Let us now compare the import of the same articles in the years 1823 and 1824, with the import of 1825. It will turn out as follows; Silk, average import of 1823 and 1824, 2,780,600 lbs.: import of 1825, 4,231,673 lbs., being an increase at the rate of 50 per cent. Sheep's wool, average import of 1823 and 1824, 19,225,306 lbs.: import of 1825, 58,705,682 lbs., being an increase at the rate of 100 per cent. Cotton wool, average import of 1823 and 1824, 167,120,O65 lbs.: import of 1825, 222,457,616 lbs., being an increase at the rate of33 percent.*
I will not go more at length into this subject. It would lead me too far away from other topics, growing more immediately out of this debate, to which I
* These returns for the years 1823 and 1824, are made up from January to January, and for 1825 from October 1824 to October 1825; the return to January 1826 not being yet received.
784
have still to advert; but, I have said enough to point out to those who take an interest in these matters, the intimate relation that exists between our currency and our trade; to show in what manner the expansion of our paper circulation, combined with an unfavourable foreign exchange, leads to over-trading, till overtrading again forces a contraction of the currency: thus, producing those alternations of extravagant excitement and of fearful depression, which this country has so often experienced of late years; alternations, of which the consequences are at once so dangerous to men of capital, so distressing to the labourers who depend for employment on that capital, and so subversive of those principles of security to property, on which the prosperity of every commercial state must ultimately rest.
The immediate inference which I draw from this comparison is, that the present stagnation in the silk-trade is more produced by the late alternation, than by any effect of the law which will come into operation next July.
To return, Sir, to the speech of the hon. member for Taunton. The fourth point to which he called the attention of government was, the state of the navigation laws. The change which the hon. member recommended would, in fact, have amounted to the total repeal of those laws. He thought "that no restriction ought to be held on foreign ships importing into this country, whether the produce was of their own, or any other country." Accustomed to look on these laws as the prop of our maritime power, and to watch with a jealous eye any encroachment upon them, we could not consent to this sweeping principle of innovation. On the other hand, we professed ourselves ready to inquire, how far some of their regulations, inconvenient to trade, might be dispensed with, without prejudice to the higher political objects, for which these laws were originally enacted. This inquiry was gone into with great care, by a committee, over the labours of which, my right hon. friend, the master of the Mint, presided; and the result has been that, by his zeal and diligence, several measures have been introduced to the House, which have led to a relaxation in those laws, highly beneficial to the commerce of the country, and in no way injurious to our strength as a maritime power. But the principle of those laws is still retained. In this in-

785
stance, certainly, we have not been able to go all the lengths recommended by the practical men; bat, be it recollected, that the charge, against which I am now upon my defence, is that we are theorists.
The fifth point, which was strongly recommended by the hon. member for Taunton, was the removal of the transit duties on german linens and some other articles of foreign produce. At the very time that the hon. member was pressing for this removal, he must have been aware, that his majesty's ministers were sensible of the impolicy of these restrictions, and that they were desirous, not only to get rid of them but, also, to revise the whole system of bounties and drawbacks. But he could not be ignorant of the complication of interests, and the difficulty of detail, which we had to encounter, in every stage of this undertaking. He could not be ignorant of the prejudices by which this system was upheld. For the abatement of those prejudices, we thought it more safe and more expedient to trust to the influence of time and reason, than, at all hazards, to encounter them at once by an act of power. This was our theory in 1820; and, I am now happy to add that, by adhering to it, we have been completely successful. The transit duties have been all removed; and the system of bounties and drawbacks has undergone an entire revision, and been remodelled on an improved plan.
To come to the sixth recommendation of the hon. member for Taunton. He told us, that "it was of importance that we should alter our commercial regulations with respect to France. It was desirable," added he, "that all restrictive regulations between the trade of England and France should be removed; but to do so, we must begin at home. It would be unfair to attempt a negotiation for a commercial intercourse, while we kept our ports shut against them. Let it be considered, that it was not by a restrictive system that this country had grown to such a pitch of greatness; but, on the contrary, that such a system was a bar to that greatness. It was necessary also to remove am impression which our system of commerce had made abroad. We were looked up to as the first commercial nation in the world; and it was therefore believed, that we had adopted our restrictive or protecting system, from a conviction of its beneficial effects on our commerce. This impression it was our in-
786
terest, as well as our duty, to remove, by altering our commercial regulations with foreign powers."
This advice of the hon. member for Taunton, his majesty's government have also attended to. What have we done in this case? We have "begun at home." We have set an example to the nations of the continent. We have put an end to the restrictive system affecting France, as far as we could put an end to it. And, we have invited France to follow in our track, by doing away with the obstacles existing on her part to a greater freedom of trade. France has taken a first step towards placing the intercourse between the two countries upon a footing of great facility. This is a practical approximation on her part to the principle of a more enlarged system of commerce; a principle equally recognized by the most enlightened statesmen, and the most leading merchants of that country; a principle which cannot fail to make its way in France, as it has made its way in this country, by discussion and inquiry, and which, in proportion as it gains ground, will confer advantages upon France, and, by her and our example, furnish a salutary' lesson to the rest of the world.
As I have adverted to this subject, I will beg leave to say one word as to the convention of navigation recently concluded between the two countries; upon which a misconception appears to have gone abroad. I allude to the decree of the French government against the introduction of the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, through this country, into France, for home consumption. The regulation of this decree has been mistakenly considered as the effect of a stipulation under the convention. This I beg leave to deny. The decree is an act of the French government, quite independent of the convention. It might, and probably would, have been passed, had no such convention been made between the two countries. A similar law was proposed to the Chambers last year, and then only postponed. It is a regulation of which we have no right to complain, and against which we have no right to stipulate; because, the like restriction exists in this country. That for which we had a right to stipulate, and for which we have stipulated, is, that if, in relaxation of this decree, any of the productions of Asia, Africa, or America, are admitted into France for home consumption, from

787
this country, they shall be equally admitted, and upon the same duties, in British as in French vessels.
I do not deny that, beyond what is provided for by this convention, much might be done to improve the commercial relations of this country and France; but, the basis is laid down, and the contracting parties have expressly reserved to themselves "the power of making, by mutual consent, such relaxations in the strict execution of the article, as they may think useful to the respective interests of the two countries, on the principle of mutual concessions, affording each to the other reciprocal or equivalent advantages." The development and further application of this principle must be left to time, and to an improved state of public opinion in France. But, I confidently appeal to the House, and to the hon. member, to say, whether the best course for doing away with prejudices and unfavourable impressions on the continent, would be for us to retrace our steps; to re-enact the old prohibitions and restrictions; and to exclude foreign merchandize and foreign shipping, as we had formerly done.
Seventhly, and lastly, the hon. member for Taunton recommended to his majesty's government, "an extension of our trade with British India." In answer to this suggestion, it is only necessary for me to say, that our attention has been incessantly directed towards that desirable object. We have left no steps untried, to prevail on the East India company to consent to an enlargement of the private trade. To a certain point we have succeeded, though not to the extent of our wishes. If all that the hon. member sought for has not been done, the fault is not ours: we have no means of compelling the company to comply with the wishes of the merchants. The vested rights of that corporation have been conferred upon them by parliament; and, inconvenient or not, we are bound to respect those rights, till the expiration of that period for which they have been granted.
These are the principal improvements which were urged on the government of the country, in the year 1820, by the hon. member for Taunton; speaking—be it always remembered—in the name, and on the behalf, of the merchants of London. To all of these suggestions, I say, his majesty's ministers have attended. My right hon. friend, the chancellor of
788
the Exchequer, who then filled the situation which I now hold, replied to the speech of the hon. member on that occasion. He repelled the accusation of the hon. member, that the government were insensible to the sufferings of the people. He avowed his desire to proceed in the course that was recommended; but he, at the same time, represented the difficulties by which his endeavours had, till then, been opposed. Did the hon. member acknowledge himself satisfied with the assurance and explanation of my right honourable friend? By no means Sir.
So eager was the hon. member for Taunton for the immediate enforcement of these important changes, that he concluded his reply to my right hon. friend, in the following terms: "As to the petition itself, the principles which it contained had met with so unanimous a support, that he wondered whence that opposition could come, by which the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade seemed to be deterred from attempting any reform of our commercial system; and he could not help expressing a hope, that, for the future, that right hon. gentleman would not listen entirely to the suggestions of others, but, in treating the subject, would rely on his own excellent understanding."
With this admonition, the debate closed. The recommendations of the hon. member —the great authorities from which they originated—convinced the government, that the time was come, when they might go forward with measures, to which they had long before avowed a friendly disposition. The consequence was, a determination, on their part, to institute an inquiry before a committee of this House, in order to ascertain, how far and by what course of proceeding, the steps recommended, and any others founded upon the same principles, could be acted upon, for the general improvement of the commerce of the country.
In the other House of parliament, a committee was sitting, whose labours were directed to the same object. This committee had been appointed upon the motion of a noble marquis (the marquis of Lansdown), who had, at all times, taken the liveliest interest, in whatever relates to the trade and commerce of the country, and whose principles, in these matters, unlike to the grasshopper on the Royal Exchange, do not veer about, with every

789
change of the wind, or with every fluctuation in the speculations of those who transact business in that Exchange.
One of the subjects which particularly engaged the attention of the noble marquis, and of the committee over which he presided, was, the state of the silk trade. They heard evidence; they called for papers; and they examined witnesses from every quarter. What was the result of their investigation? Why, Sir, they state in their report, that, "it appears to the committee, that there is no bounds to smuggling, under the prohibitive system; and that, in the opinion of the committee, protecting duties might, advantageously, be substituted for prohibitive ones."
Such was the view taken by the committee of the House of Lords in 1821. I will not detain the House, by going at length into the course of inquiry by which they arrived at this conclusion. But, some attempt has been made this night to undervalue the evidence of two merchants from the United States, who were examined before the committee; and examined, be it recollected, upon oath. These two merchants came to Europe, for the purpose of purchasing silks. They first visited France; and then they came to England. They could be actuated by no other interest than that of procuring silks on the cheapest terms.
And what was their evidence? On being asked, as to the relative cost of the silks of France and the silks of England, one of them said, that "he had bought goods in France and in England; and that the difference, when the quality was equal, was from twenty to twenty-five per cent." And the other said, that "the difference did not exceed twenty per cent." But, both of them stated, that, in the article of silk hosiery, price and quality considered, they greatly preferred the English manufacture to that of France.
The report containing this evidence, recommended an alteration of the laws relative to the silk trade, by the removal of the duty on the raw material, and of the prohibition on wrought silks. Hon. members, however, are aware, that the House of Lords could not, from the nature of the proposed change, initiate a measure, to carry into effect the object of this report.
Nothing further took place till the year 1823; when the hon. member for the city of London (Mr. T. Wilson) came down to this House with a petition from the
790
master manufacturers of Spital-fields, praying for a repeal of what is generally called, "the Spital-fields' act." This, as the House well knows, was a law for regulating the mode of working in that district; and for enabling the magistrates to fix the rate of wages to be given for each description of work. In short, a most unfit law to remain upon the Statute-book; but the professed object of which was, to protect the men against the exactions of their masters. The only possible excuse for having ever passed such a law is, that, when it was passed, the masters had a monopoly of the silk manufacture in this country.
I will tell the House why I state this. A deputation of the weavers of Spital-fields waited upon me, and my right hon. friend, the other day. They are a sincere, well-meaning, and, certainly, a well-behaved body of men. After hearing their representations, I was satisfied, that if I had put it to them, to make their choice between the revival of the Spital-fields act, or of the prohibitory system—if I had said to them, "You cannot have both a prohibition and the Spital-fields act, but you may have either the one or the other-take your choice!"—they would have instantly said, "Give us the Spital-fields act, and let the prohibition go to the winds." So much for practical feeling; which is now urged in opposition to what is called theory!
And here I must beg leave shortly to refer to the doctrine laid down in the petition presented in 1823, by the hon. member for the city of London, to which I have just alluded. The petitioners state, "that with our unlimited supply of silk from our territories in India, we might be independent of the rest of the world; that with our great command of capital, and the unrivalled skill of our artizans, the manufacturers did not fear the competition of any foreigners: and that, with a free trade, silk would become, like cotton, one of the staple manufactures of the country."
I do not mean to accuse these petitioners of making this statement, in order to entrap the public, and to induce the parliament to take measures which they knew would involve their own manufacture in distress; but, I have a right to refer to their petition, as well as to the more general petition of the merchants of London, to show that the measures which his majesty's ministers have taken are neither

791
the offspring of theory, nor measures which, they carried in opposition to the prevailing opinion of the country, or of the trade. They brought forward these measures, because they were convinced that they were founded in sound policy; but not till they were satisfied, that they would meet with the concurrence and support of those who had a more immediate interest in their result. So far was government from any precipitation in carrying them into effect, that it was not till the year 1824, that they determined to propose the repeal of the duty on the raw material, and to permit the importation of foreign manufactured silk, subject to a protecting duty. They were aware that, without taking the duty off the raw material, they could not attempt this improvement; but, as soon as my right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer was enabled, by the flourishing state of the finances, to reduce taxation, he did not hesitate to remit this duty, as the necessary preliminary to the removal of the prohibition.
From that moment we lost the support of the hon. member for Taunton, to whom I have so often alluded; and his voice was only heard in opposition to measures which he had so long been recommending for our adoption.
My right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, having, on the 23rd of February 1824, stated generally to the House, what it was our intention to do; it fell to my lot, on the 8th of March to open the measure more in detail. Then it was that I heard, for the first time, of the serious opposition which the proposed measure would receive from the hon. member for Taunton. Then it was, that, seconded by the hon. member for Coventry, who opened the debate of this evening, he declared, that, by the end of the two years which I proposed to allow before the prohibition should finally cease, the silk trade would be destroyed.
This delay I now consider to have been the greatest error that was then committed, and the origin of our present difficulty, as far as this trade is concerned. "Those," said the hon. member for Taunton, "who propose this new plan, are completely ruining the silk manufacture of England. The moment this plan is promulgated, the great object of all who have capitals embarked in the manufacture will be, to disentangle those capitals; and those who have no capital, except their labour, will be left to struggle for them-
792
selves, and probably to perish, for want of employment."*
Such, in 1824, were the gloomy forebodings of the hon. member for Taunton. Experience has made me rather obdurate to all such prophecies; for, so many are daily made by individuals whose fears are excited, or who, when they suppose their particular interests to be at stake, attempt to excite fear in others, that I must have abandoned every measure which I have brought forward for improving our commercial policy, had I allowed myself to be acted upon by such forebodings.
Last year, for instance, I received representations from the iron trade—day after day, and month after month; but, I could not share in their alarms. I must state this, however, with one exception. There exists in this country one considerable establishment, in which iron is smelted by charcoal in great perfection, but at a heavy expense. This iron is held in equal estimation with the best from Sweden; but there was reason to apprehend, that it could not, under the reduced duty, maintain itself in competition with the latter. The establishment in question belongs to a most respectable and scientific gentleman, well known to many members of this House —Dr. Ainslie. Having heard his statement, I told him that, although I could not alter a general measure to meet one particular case, I would endeavour to devise some other mode of relief, if he should be overwhelmed by the competition.
And, what does the House think has been the result? Sir, within the last fortnight, that respectable individual has sent me word, through an hon. member of this House, not only that his fears have not been realized, but that my most sanguine hopes had been confirmed—that his trade, in fact, had in no degree suffered by those very measures, which he apprehended would have been fatal to it; and that it was, upon the whole, in a very flourishing state.
Let us now see how far the predictions of the hon. member for Taunton, and the hon. member for Coventry, have been realized. These predictions were, that the silk trade would be annihilated, in the course of the two years allowed to the manufacturers to prepare for the change.
The bill passed this House m the Spring of 1824; and, during the rest of that year,
* Parliamentary Debates, Vol. x, p. 817.

793
the silk trade went on flourishing and increasing, in the face of this threatened annihilation. In the Spring of 1825, there prevailed a degree of excitement—a spirit of speculation—an extension of demand m this manufacture—to a greater degree than had ever been witnessed before, in almost any branch of trade. It was in 1825, that so many new factories were erected; so many new mills set at work: so many new looms occupied. The old mills were not sufficient: many new ones were raised; the erection of each of which, I am assured, did not cost less than from 10,000 l. to 15,000 l.: and several of these Mw mills have not even yet been roofed in.
Thus, at the very time when, to satisfy the prediction of the hon. member for Taunton, this trade should have been in a state of rapid decline, the manufacturers were building to an excess that had never been equalled in the periods of their greatest prosperity.
The hon. and learned member for Lincoln has alluded to the present condition of the town of Macclesfield. I know what misfortunes and bankruptcies have occurred there, and I feel the deepest and most undissembled sorrow for the sufferings of that population. I am aware of their distressed state at this moment. But I cannot help thinking, that the hon. and learned member, in stating their situation, should also have stated some of the circumstances which have aggravated, if not created, their present difficulties; for, certain it is, that the spirit of speculation has, in that town, been carried to the greatest extravagance. According to the last census in 1821, the whole population of Macclesfield amounted to 17,746 souls. Now, I will suppose that, between that year and the year 1825, it increased to 20,000. What, then, in that year, was the demand for additional labour, in the silk manufacture alone of that town? I have seen, and many other gentlemen have no doubt seen, in a Macclesfield newspaper, of the 19th of February 1825, the following advertisement:—"To overseers, guardians of the poor, and families desirous of settling in Macclesfield. Wanted immediately, from four to five thousand persons," [Loud cries of hear, hear!]. The House may well express their surprise; but, I beseech their attention to the description of persons required by this advertisement —" from seven to twenty years of age" —so that the silk manufacturers were content to receive children of the tender
794
age of only seven years—"to be employed in the throwing and manufacturing of silk. The great increase of the trade having caused a great scarcity of workmen, it is suggested, that this is a most favourable opportunity for persons with large families, and overseers who wish to put out children" (children of seven years of age!) as apprentices, to ensure them a comfortable livelihood. "Application to be made, if by letter post paid, to the printer of this paper."
Humanity is not the least remarkable part of this precious document; and the House will not fail to observe, how admirably the cruelty of confining children of seven years of age to labour in a silk mill, for twelve or fifteen hours out of the four-and-twenty, is tempered, by the inducement to parents to provide for their families for life. What sort of provision that has been, the present wretched state of those helpless infants will best evince. And here I cannot help observing, that, at the very time such an invitation was sent forth to overseers and parents, by the owners of silk-mills, this House was very properly occupied in passing a bill, to prevent the employment of children under nine years of age in cotton factories.
Very soon after this advertisement, and before the mills were finished, in which these children were to be immured, there appeared, I have been assured, another advertisement, nearly in the same extravagant style:—"Wanted to be built immediately one thousand houses!"—doubtless to contain five thousand new inhabitants. Yet, all this took place in the year 1825; just one year, according to the honourable member for Taunton, before the silk trade was to expire for ever. I ask, then, what weight can be given to the predictions of those, who, in the face of these striking facts, continue to assert, that the silk trade of this country will be annihilated before the end of the next twelve months? Can any man wonder, after such an enormous extent of speculation—after such inhuman efforts to induce so many destitute children to flock into the manufactories—after such an influx of population—can any man, I say, wonder—all branches of this trade being now in a stagnant state—at most of these newcomers being out of work at Macclesfield-—or, at the fact stated by the hon. and learned member for Lincoln—liis hair almost standing on end with horror, "that eleven orders for the removal of as

795
many paupers, had been made out in one week?"
Under ordinary circumstances, it could scarcely have been expected, that the silk manufacture alone could have formed an exception to the general re-action which has followed over-trading and speculation in every other branch of commerce; but, under the circumstances of peculiar excitement which I have now stated, it would, indeed, have been matter of surprise, had it escaped its full share of the common pressure.
Sir, I feel that, upon this occasion, a heavy burthen is imposed upon me. I feel that I have not only to defend myself from the attack of the hon. member for Lincoln, but to say something in behalf of my right hon. colleagues;—something in vindication of the House itself, for the course which they have pursued, in the adoption of the system of commercial policy which we recommended.
As the whole of that system has been so vigorously attacked, I shall, I trust, be excused, if I touch, very briefly, upon the proceedings of the last session of parliament: when, in furtherance of that system, and with the cordial concurrence of this House, I brought forward measures of a more general nature than the silk bill of the preceding session; inasmuch as they went to effect an important, and more extensive change, in the colonial, as well as in the commercial policy of the country. The colonial part of the subject had not, I admit, been much pressed upon his majesty's government, either by representations in this House, or in discussion out of doors. But, there are occasions on which it is the duty of a vigilant government, instead of waiting for such pressure, to watch the signs of the times, and to accommodate their policy to those changes in the world, under the continued operation of which, a blind adherence to our former system would no longer be either safe or expedient. Upon this principle, I shall be ready to vindicate the alterations, great as they are, in the policy of our colonial commerce, whenever those alterations may be called in question; but as, hitherto, they have not been attacked in this House, and as they received the special approbation of the hon. member for Taunton, I shall now say no more upon that part of the subject.
With respect to the alterations in our general commercial system, however extensive in their application, what were the
796
objects which they embraced? They went to the removal of useless and inconvenient restrictions, to the doing away of prohibitions, and to the lowering of duties so excessive, as to be in fact prohibitory on the productions of other countries—restrictions, prohibitions, and duties, which, without benefit, nay, highly mischievous to ourselves, have produced all the evil effects, and given rise, in other parts of the world, to the retaliatory efforts of foreign governments, to put down the commerce of this country. These were some of the bad consequences justly attributed to our exclusive system by the hon. member for Taunton and the merchants of London, in the speech and petition to which I have so often referred.
And here I cannot but express my astonishment, that gentlemen (I am now speaking of persons out of doors)—who must be better informed—whose sincerity I cannot doubt—but whose judgment, in this respect, seems to be most unaccountably perverted—impute all the prevailing distress, as well as the derangement in the foreign exchanges, which preceded, and, in a great degree, produced that distress, to this lowering of excessive duties, and removal of unnecessary prohibitions.
I have called for the production of a paper, which has not yet been printed, but which will, I hope, in the course of twenty-four hours, be in the hands of every hon. member—for the purpose of showing what have been, during the last year, the actual imports of most of the principal articles, the duty on which has been materially reduced. From this document, it will be manifest, that, although there has been some increase of import in most of those articles, in none has it been carried to any great extent. In manufactured goods—cottons, wool-lens, linens, &c. the increased import of the whole does not exceed a few thousand pounds. And yet, in opposition to this decisive evidence, there are those, I understand, who have had dealings for mil-lions in foreign loans, who, to facilitate the payments of those loans, and other financial operations of foreign governments, have sent million after million of our gold coin, drawn from the Bank of England, to the bank of Paris, and who, in the face of such gigantic operations—the benefit of which to this country (whatever it may be to themselves) it is difficult to conceive—have been pleased to attribute the unfavourable state of the

797
foreign exchanges, during the last summer and autumn, to the commercial measures adopted by parliament in the preceding session.
I am happy to say, that where the duties have been lowered upon articles of consumption, the result has hitherto fully borne me out in all my anticipations. In the six months which immediately followed the reduction of the duty on coffee, the consumption of that article has nearly doubled, without occasioning any decrease in the consumption of tea. In wine, the duty upon which, we were told, ought not to have been reduced without some reciprocity to the productions of this country, the consumption has also increased in an equal degree. And thus it will appear, that the same amount of revenue has been attained by the government from diminished burthens; thereby leaving greater means of comfort and enjoyment to the people.
I come now to the real jet of the silk question; and which—I say it with all due deference to the hon. mover and seconder of the present motion—has not been, in the slightest degree, touched upon by either of them.
It is admitted, on all hands, that silk is an article which can be easily smuggled; and, that it is now smuggled to a very considerable extent, in spite of all the preventive measures that have, from time to time, been adopted. Now, the object of the British manufacturer is, as much as possible, to shut out the competition of his foreign rival. If smuggling could be prevented, I would concede to him, that prohibition would be most effectual to this object. But, if it cannot, what is the advantage of prohibition over a protecting duty of 30 per cent? I say, of 30 per cent, because I never yet conversed with a single merchant or manufacturer, who did not admit, that if a higher protecting duty were imposed, the supply of foreign silk goods would be thrown into the hands of the smuggler.
The question, then, looking at it practically, is this—In what degree is prohibition better, as against smuggling, than a well-regulated duty?—by which I mean a duty sufficient to protect the British manufacturer, without being so high as to afford a premium to the smuggler.
In the first place, it cannot be denied, that the feelings of mankind are more likely to restrain them from committing a fraud, than from violating a Custom-house
798
prohibition. I am sure it will be conceded to me, that many honourable persons, who would not, for any temptation, be parties to a contrivance to evade a tax, and thereby to rob the public revenue, would feel very little scruple, in wearing an article that is absolutely prohibited, and the introduction of which is not in opposition to any moral duty.
So far, then, the argument, in support of the assertion, that a prohibitory law is the best check upon smuggling, makes directly the other way, and is in favour of protecting duties.
But, the great, indeed the only argument in favour of prohibition in preference to a protecting duty is this—that after the forbidden goods have been landed in this country, and when they are in the possession of individuals, even for their own use or consumption, you may follow them into private dwellings, nay, into the very pockets of the wearers, and seize them upon their persons, in the king's name, at the bare suggestion of any common informer.
To what does this power of seizing and examining all who may be suspected of possessing prohibited articles, amount? Sir, it amounts to this—that if any man —no matter what may be his rank, be he the humblest peasant or the highest peer in the realm—be suspected of wearing or possessing a silk handkerchief of foreign manufacture, he is liable to have it taken from his neck or his pocket, and to have his house ransacked, from the garret to the cellar, in quest of contraband articles. If, without such a subsidiary regulation as this—a regulation which encourages the worst passions, engenders the most appalling perjury and crime, and which opens so wide a door either to fraud and collusion, or to intimidation and personal violence—prohibition cannot be sustained; then, Sir, I say, in preference to such a system, let us in God's name have a well-regulated duty.
And here I hope I may be permitted to digress for one moment, to ask, how a great constitutional lawyer—a staunch advocate for the popular character of our constitution —a zealous stickler-for the inalienable rights of the people—a watchful guardian of the sanctity of an Englishman's private abode;—how he could so entirely discipline and subdue his warm and boasted feelings for the liberty of the subject, as to pour forth the declamatory harangue which we have heard this night

799
from the learned member for Lincoln, in favour of this system of prohibition?
But, even with the aid of this power of search and seizure, is prohibition an effectual remedy against smuggling? I have lately taken some pains to ascertain the quantity of smuggled silks that has been seized, inland, throughout the kingdom, during the last ten years; and I find that the whole does not exceed 5,000 l. a-year. I have endeavoured, on the other hand, to get an account of the quantity of silk goods actually smuggled into this country. Any estimate of this quantity must be very vague; but I have been given to understand, that the value of such goods as are regularly entered at the Customhouses of France, for exportation to this country, is from 100,000 l. to 150,000 l. a-year; and this, of course, is exclusive of the far greater supply which is poured in, through all the channels of smuggling, without being subjected to any entry. In fact, to such an extent is this illicit trade carried on, that there is scarcely a haberdasher's shop, in the smallest village of the kingdom, in which prohibited silks are not sold; and that in the face of day, and to a very considerable extent.
The hon. member for Coventry has mentioned the silk goods from India, as those against which any thing but prohibition would prove an unavailing protection. Now, in my opinion, it is scarcely possible to conceive a stronger case than those very silks furnish against the hon. member's own argument. X believe it is universally known, that a large quantity of Bandana handkerchiefs are sold, every year, for exportation, by the East-India company. But, does any gentleman suppose, that these Bandanas are sent to the continent, for the purpose of remaining there? No such thing! They are sold at the Company's sales to the amount of 800,000 or a million of handkerchiefs each year, at the rate of about four shillings each. They are immediately shipped off for Hamburgh, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Ostend, or Guernsey —and, from thence, they nearly all illicitly find their way back to this country.
Mark, then, the effect of this beautiful system—the system so lauded by the hon. member for Lincoln. These Bandanas, which had previously been sold, for exportation, at 4s., are finally distributed, in retail, to the people of England, at the rate of about 8s. each; and the result of their prohibition is to levy upon the consumer a
800
tax, and to give to those who live by the evasion of your law, a bounty of 4s. upon each handkerchief sold in this country.
That nearly all the Bandanas sold for exportation are re-imported and used in this country, is a fact not denied, even by those who are now most clamorous for prohibition. In a printed letter from a manufacturer of Macclesfield to the marquis of Lansdown, I find the following anecdote: "It is the custom, in the parterres of the theatres in France, to secure the place, by tying a pocket handkerchief on the seat. I had the curiosity, at the Théâtre FranÇois, to notice the appearance of them; and, out of twenty-five, immediately around me, there was not one silk handkerchief." I should have little doubt, if a similar custom prevailed in the pit of our theatre, that this accurate observer would find most of the seats decorated with handkerchiefs of prohibited silk. Nay, Sir, if strangers were at this moment ordered to withdraw from the gallery; and every member were called upon (of course in secret committee) to produce his handkerchief, with the understanding, that those who had not prohibited handkerchiefs in their pockets were obliged to inform against those who had—I am inclined to believe, that the informers would be in a small majority. Upon every information laid under this prohibitory law, the chances are, that the informer and the constable have Bandanas round their necks, and that the magistrate, who hears the charge, has one in his pocket.
Upon the motion of this evening, then, we have to make our choice between a moderate protecting duty which can be collected, and is likely to be available; and the going back to the system of prohibition which I have shown to be productive of such mischievous consequences.
But, since the repeal of the old law, a further difficulty has occurred in respect to prohibition. Two years ago, when a piece of silk was seized as foreign, the British manufacturer could, upon Inspecting it, at once say, "I know, and can prove, that this is not of the manufacture of this kingdom." If asked, "What is your proof?" he would reply, "The superior quality and workmanship of the article: it is quite impossible that any thing equal to it should have been manufactured in England. It wants that stamp of slovenliness and indifference to improvement, which is the sure characteristic of

801
all silk goods made at home." This is a very natural answer for monopoly to make, but it comes with a bad grace from a British manufacturer.
But, it may be asked, if excellence of fabric was, at that time, the proof that the article was not British, why is it not so still? I shall give the best answer to this question, by stating what has recently occurred.
Soon after the alteration of our law, an extensive French manufacturer removed from Lyons to this country. He brought with him his looms and his patterns. Under his management and superintendence two establishments were formed, one in Spitalfields, the other at Manchester. At both of these places he set weavers to work, fully satisfied that a duty of 30 per cent would afford him sufficient protection. His improved methods (with sorrow I state it) excited the jealousy, and drew down upon him the persecution, of the English manufacturers. They charged this industrious foreigner, boldly and rashly, and, as in the end it was proved, most unjustly, with carrying on his trade here, merely as a cloak to cover the smuggling of foreign manufactured goods. In their mortification at his success they even went the length of charging my hon. friend, the secretary of the Treasury, and the whole board of Customs, with being cognizant of the fact, and parties to this nefarious scheme for ruining the silk trade of England. This accusation was not merely insinuated in whispers: it was contained in a published report, inserted in the newspapers, and thus conveyed from one end of the kingdom to the other.
This was not to be endured. The Treasury determined to sift the matter to the bottom. They knew that, neither at the board of Treasury, nor at the board of Customs, could any countenance or facility have been given to smuggling; but they thought it not impossible that this French house might have been guilty of the irregularities imputed to them, and that these irregularities might have been connived at by some of the inferior officers. The accusers, therefore, wore called upon to substantiate their charge, and were distinctly told that the inquiry should be directed in whatever mode they might point out as most effectual. They said, the clearest proof would probably be found in the books of the party accused, if they could be got at. The books could not, certainly, be inspected without his
802
consent. Did he hesitate on this point? So far from it, that his immediate reply was, "You are welcome to inspect all the books of our house; and, that there may be no suspicion of garbling or concealment, let an officer go with me instanter, and they shall all be brought here (to the Treasury), in a hackney-coach."
This was accordingly done. His books were subjected to a rigid examination. Every transaction connected with his business was found regular—the names of the weavers employed by him, the work which they had in hand, and their places of residence were all duly entered. Taking with them a plan of Spitalfields, and without the possibility of previous notice or concert, proper persons went round to the particular houses which these books had pointed out; and, in every instance, they found the names of the men at work, and the goods upon which they were working, to correspond with the entries in the books.
All this was most satisfactory to the Treasury and the Customs. But the accusers persevered in their charge; They insisted, that the whole was a concerted plot; and that many pieces of silk in the warehouse of this foreigner, which he asserted that he had manufactured here, were, in truth, the productions of France.
The Treasury, in consequence, resolved to sift the matter still further; and again it was left to the accusers to point out the mode. In order to prosecute the inquiry, they selected from their own body the person whom they considered the most skilled in the knowledge requisite for the detection of such articles as might be contraband. And what, towards him, was the conduct of the party accused? "Go to my warehouse," said the Frenchman, "turn over all my goods; select from among them whatever pieces you please; and, on the proof of their being of English or of French manufacture let my guilt or innocence be finally established."
The offer was accepted. The person employed by the British manufacturers turned over and over several hundred pieces of silk; and at length, after the whole ordeal was passed, the board of Customs made known the result in an official report, which they transmitted to the Treasury. That report I hold in my hand. What is the substance of it? Why that thirty-seven pieces had been selected

803
by this agent of the accusers as being, beyond all doubt, of French manufacture. What followed? These thirty-seven pieces were seized, and the Frenchman was put upon his proof that they were made in this country. How did he prove it? By producing, one after another, the very men by whom every one of these thirty-seven pieces had been made; who proved, upon their oaths, in the most irrefragable manner, that every inch of these goods had been woven by themselves—Where? Not at Lyons—not in France—but in Spitalfields and Manchester!
I have stated these facts with feelings, I own, bordering on disgust. I cannot but think it humiliating, if not discreditable to my countrymen, that an unprotected foreigner should have been maligned and persecuted, instead of receiving countenance and encouragement for having transported his capital and skill to this country, and for being the first to set the example of great and successful improvement in our silk manufacture.
But how does this detail, into which I have entered, hear upon the present argument? It shows, in the clearest manner, that, if you continue to seize silk goods, in private houses, in shops, or upon individuals, you have now lost your former test, by which you could prove them to be of foreign origin. The most expert judge of such articles, it is now legally proved, cannot discriminate between the British and the foreign manufacture. Prohibition, therefore, has lost its only recommendation; it retains no advantage over a well-regulated duty.
But appeals have been made to our compassion; and our feelings have been alarmed by the statement, that above 500,000 individuals are at present engaged in the silk trade, and that ruin must inevitably be entailed on this large and meritorious class of the community, if the old law be not restored.
Now, supposing the number of persons employed in the silk manufactory to amount to 500,000—their wages, I assume, cannot be less, one with another, than 10 s. a-week for each person, I have been told, indeed, that a considerable portion of this number are children, some of whom do not receive more than Is. 6d. a-week; and, for this pittance, the hours of work in the mills, when the trade was brisk, I have been assured, were, from five in the morning till eight or nine at night.
804
If this be so, let us not talk of the difference in the expense of labour between this country and France. Will it be said, that a French child cannot earn in tire silk manufactory 1s. 6d. a-week; and that, without working from fourteen to fifteen hours out of the four-and-twenty I Certainly not. Supposing, however, the average earnings of these 500,000 persons (an exaggerated number I am convinced) to be 10 s. a-week, thirteen millions of money would then be the annual amount of wages alone in this manufacture. To this are to be added, the interest on capital, and the price of the raw material: so that the value of the goods sold could not be less than eighteen or twenty millions sterling. This, however, I consider too high a calculation. The Lords' report estimates the whole amount at only ten millions; but, allowing for increased consumption since 1821, it may, perhaps, be fairly rated at twelve or fourteen millions, exclusive of the quantity smuggled in from the continent.
If, then, fourteen millions of silk goods are about the annual consumption of this kingdom, what would happen, if, according to the predictions of the honourable member for Taunton, the British manufacture should be annihilated after next July? We should not, I take it for granted, consume a less quantity of silk goods: the only change would be, that we should have them, as it is alleged, of a better quality, and at a less price. But, all the goods so consumed, would, in this supposition, have paid a duty of 30 per cent on their importation; and the produce of that duty, consequently, would exceed four millions sterling. This large sum would be levied without, in the smallest degree, abridging the comfort or enjoyment of any other class of the community. It would bring with it no increase of burthen upon the consumer of silk goods, and consequently no diminution of his means of consuming other articles. It would simply be the premium of monopoly transferred to the Exchequer; and the capital, for which this monopoly was created, would be set free, to give employment to other branches of industry.
Such, certainly, would be the ultimate result, if the speculative fears of the silk trade should be realized. But, of such an issue, I am persuaded there is no risk. The whole consumption of silk goods in France is not equal to the consumption in England, Now, supposing, when the bill

805
comes into operation, there should be a greatly increased demand in this country for French silks—this new and additional demand would produce a corresponding advance in the price of the goods, and in the wages of labour, in France. To a certain extent there may be such a demand, especially at the first opening of the trade; but, I am convinced that, with the attention to economy which competition excites, with our improved machinery, our industry and ingenuity, and, perhaps, with the lowered prices of labour and the means of subsistence—a protecting duty of 30 per cent will be found to be sufficient.
The House is called upon, by the motion of the hon. member for Coventry, "to inquire." Has it never inquired before? Has the House of Lords entered into no investigation of the subject? And, did not that investigation take place at a period when taxation and prices were very considerably higher than at present? The country, too, at that time, was labouring under much distress; and the silk manufacture was suffering its full share of the existing difficulties. Was that inquiry loosely conducted? Certainly not. A noble marquis (Lansdown) presided over the labours of the committee, alike distinguished for talent, for diligence, and for the soundness of his views on all subjects connected with the commercial policy of the country. It was the opinion of that committee, after taking a mass of evidence on oath, that a duty of 15 per cent would be an adequate protection, instead of a duty of double that amount, under which the experiment is now to be made.
I have stated, too much at length I Fear, the grounds on which it appears to me, that this House ought not to entertain the present motion. This statement, I feel, must have appeared unnecessary to those who think with me on the subject of our commercial policy; and I dare not hope that it has made much impression on those who are the declared advocates of the restrictive system—those who belong to the same school of political economy as the hon. baronet, the member for Staffordshire. In his enmity to all improvement, he told us the other evening, that the ministers of the present day were only fit to form a council for the island of Laputa. Since this intimation of the hon. baronet's wish to see us banished to that island, I have turned in my own mind what recommendation I could take with me to that land of philosophers.
806
Not a letter from the hon. baronet, I can assure him; for he has given us to understand that, in mind, at least, he belongs to the Brobdignagian age of this country. But I think I have hit upon that which would infallibly make my fortune at Laputa: I will tell the hon. baronet what it is.
At the time of the great Bullion controversy in 1810–1811, the main question in dispute turned upon what was the real Standard of our money. We wild theorists said, as our simple forefathers had always said before us, that the standard was, and could be, nothing else than the weight and fineness of the gold or silver in the coin of the realm, according to the commands of the sovereign, specified in the indentures of the Mint. Had this definition been admitted by the practical men there would at once have been an end of the contested point—whether our then currency was or was not depreciated. But, for that very reason, this definition was denied by all who maintained the negative of that question. More than a hundred pamphlets were published on that side, containing as many different definitions of the standard. Fifteen of these definitions, most in vogue at the time, I have since retained, as a curiosity to laugh at: but they may now, perhaps, be turned to a more valuable purpose. Of that number I only recollect three at this moment. The first defined the standard to be "the abstract pound sterling." This had great success till another practical writer proved, that the standard was the "ideal unit." These two practical standards were, however, finally superseded by a third, of which the definition was, "a sense of value in currency (paper), in reference to commodities." This last standard was at once so perfectly tangible and clearly intelligible, that I consider it as the parent of the famous Resolution of this House, by which the question was to be finally set at rest.
Now, if I should take with me to Laputa this little, but invaluable collection of definitions, I have not the slightest doubt that my pretensions to have the whole monetary system of that island placed under my direction—to be master of the mint—governor of the bank—and superintendent of all the country banks—would be immediately and generally admitted. It is true we have had no authentic account of the progress of political science in that celebrated island for about a cen-

807
tury past; but, it is scarcely to be imagined that it can have been so rapid, as to enable their greatest philosophers to challenge the pre-eminence of these definitions, on the score of abstraction, metaphysics, and absurdity: and, at any rate, if the philosophers should cabal against me, the practical men could not fail to be on my side.
I am not aware, Sir, that I have omitted to notice any of the objections which have been urged against the important changes lately made by Parliament in our commercial system. That these changes are extensive, as well as important, I readily admit. Whether they will work ultimately for good, or for evil, it becomes not fallible man to pronounce an over peremptory opinion. That the expectation of those who proposed them, was, that they would work for good, he man will do us the injustice to deny. That up to this hour I am fortified in that expectation, By the deductions of reason in my own mind, by the authority of all who are most competent to form a dispassionate opinion upon the subject, by the beneficial result of every thing which has hitherto been done, for giving greater freedom to commerce in this country, and by the experience of the opposite1 effect which vexatious and Unnecessary restraints are daily producing in other countries—is what I can most solemnly affirm.
I make this declaration, I can assure you, Sir, in all sincerity of heart, and, as far as I know myself, without any mixture of false pride, or any mistaken feeling of obstinate adherence to consistency. I am the more anxious to make this declaration, in the face of the House, and of the world, because of late I have been assailed, and distressed, I will own, by ungenerous appeals to my feelings, calling Upon me to commune with my conscience and my God, and td say, whether I am under he Visitations of compunction and remorse, at having thrown so many persons out of bread, in the trial of a rash Experiment, and in the pursuit of a hollow theory. Good God! Sir, that man must have a heart of stone, who can witness without sympathy and the greatest pain, the distress which now, unfortunately, exists in most of our other great manufactures, as well as in that of silk. But, whilst I hope that I am not wanting in the duties and feelings of a man—I have also a duty to perform as a minister. If immediate relief be, in a great degree, out of our
808
power, it the more becomes us, as the guardians of all that is most valuable in civilised society, to trace the causes of the present calamities, and to prevent, if possible, their recurrence.—It is on this principle, that I am anxious to put an end to a system of currency, which leads to ruinous fluctuations in trade, and in the price of all commodities; which, whether in excitement or depression, is alike undermining the sober habits, and the moral feelings of the community; which confounds honest industry with unprincipled gambling: which injures the poor man in the earnings of his labour, and takes from the rich man all security in his property—a system which creates delusive hopes, only to terminate in aggravated disappointments—of which every succeeding convulsion must add to our inability to bear it—and of which the inevitable tendency is, to drive capital and industry to other countries; not in Europe only, but even across the Atlantic. The growing dread of instability here, the growing assurance of increased stability in those countries, would ultimately produce this transfer; and, with it, the further transfer of the rank and power which England has hitherto maintained among the nations of the world.
If I have ventured to intrude upon the House by any allusion to my personal feelings, they will, I trust, make some allowances for the provocation which I have received. This is the only place in which I can properly reply to the unmanly appeals which have been made to me through other channels. Such appeals, however painful to receive, have no influence on my conduct; neither can they detract from the sanguine hope which I entertain of better prospects and increased happiness for my country. I hailed with great delight, the other evening, the assurance of the right hon. member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney), that he saw nothing in our present difficulties to create despondency or alarm. In this sentiment I most entirely concur. The existing pressure may, for a short time, bear heavily upon the springs of our prosperity; but if we pursue a temperate course, there is nothing to fear, and every thing to hope, for our future progress. With confidence I cling to that cheering hope; and without looking forward to a long life, I trust that I shall witness its realization.
Whether in a public station or in retire-

809
ment, my greatest happiness will be to feel assured, that the power and resources of this country have been increased by those measures of commercial policy which it has fallen to my lot to submit to parliament.
That such will be their ultimate result, is my firm and conscientious conviction; and, in that conviction, I claim for those measures the continual support of this House.
Mr. Baringrose amidst cries of "adjourn," and "go on." The hon. member said, that at that late hour he could not hope for the attention of the House, if he were to attempt to follow in detail the many topics on which the right hon. gentleman had touched in his very able speech. He would, therefore, compress his observations into as narrow a compass as possible. Here the cries for an adjournment became very general, and the hon. member seemed unwilling to proceed, when
Mr. Canningsaid, that if the question before the House were confined merely to the motion of the hon. member for Coventry, there could be no difficulty in disposing of it on that night; but, as the eloquent and powerful speech of his right hon. friend had—most happily, he would say, for the country—involved the whole of the principles on which the commerce of the country was to be conducted in future, he thought it would be impossible to conclude the discussion that night. He would therefore move that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.
The motion of adjournment was put, and agreed to.

CORN LAWS.
Lord Suffieldpresented a petition from Ashton-under-Lyne, praying for the repeal or amendment of the Corn-Laws. He said, he could not lay the petition on the table, without expressing his regret, that the difficulties of this measure had not been grappled with during the present session. He agreed with the noble earl, not then in his place, that the discussion of this question was likely to be gone into with a considerable degree of passion. He was as likely as any one of their lordships to lose, in proportion to his wealth, by a fall in the price of corn, for he derived the greater part of his revenue from land; but he was prepared to make any sacrifice that might be for the good of the nation at large. Whatever measure the ministers might bring forward, which were for the public good, he would not oppose them. Perhaps he was wrong in saying a "sacrifice," for he laid claim to no peculiar patriotism; but he was convinced, that no class of society could profit, for any length of time, by any measure which was an injury to the other classes. He thought it was a mistake to suppose that the repeal of the Corn-laws would injure the land-owners. Of one thing he was sure, that the repeal of those laws would prevent fluctuations in price; which was a serious injury to the landed interest as as well as to the other interests of the society.
The Earl of Lauderdaleexpressed his regret, that noble lords, when it was understood that this question was not to

695
come on this session, should take an opportunity, oil presenting petitions, to make their little harangues, which, in the present state of the country, might harass the public mind. It pleased the noble lord to assume, that the Corn-laws caused fluctuations in prices, and were kept up for the benefit of the landed interest only; but, if that noble lord would examine the state of prices previous to passing the present law, he would find that there were more extraordinary fluctuations before than since the passing of it. He was sure, whatever might be the effects of that law, that no man in that House would argue for it out of any other motives than a regard to the public welfare.