-(£>
|
CO ^H |
||||||||
|
11 11 0177053 |
||||||||
|
fi |
||||||||
|
1 |
1 |
liliii.ii.i iuiiiii!iiiiiiiiiili!ii,iii>iJiiiiiii,:iJiJii:ii,i,.ii,i;i,ijiiiiii,ii!ii;.v
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/battlefornativei02greauoft
THE
BATTLE FOR NATIVE INDUSTRY.
(
LONDOM:
OIOKOB WOODPALL AND SON,
tnmtLL roviiT, uiMiiitK •»■«-.
THE BATTLE FOR NATIVE INDUSTRY.
t THE DEBATE
^ rroa
THE CORN LAWS,
TBI
CORN mPOETATION AND CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILLS, THE OTHBB FINANCIAL MBASUBKS OF THB GOVERNMENT.
IN SESSION 1846.
REFBINTBD, BY FEBMIS8I0N, FROM
" HANSARDS PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.'
IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. IL
OFFICE OF THE SOCIETY
FOR THX
PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE AND BRITISH INDUSTRY.
17 OLD BOND STREET,
LONDON.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME 11.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
1846.
Apr. 27. The Corn Bill. — Motion of Lord Brougham for certain returns . 229 Lord Brougham, 229.
May 7. The Corn Laws. — Motion of Lord Ashburton for certain returns . 268
Lord Ashburton, 268.— Lord Brougham, 269.— Earl FiUwiUiam, 269.— The Duke of Richmond, 269.— Earl Orey, 269.— Lord Beaumont, 270.
May 12. The Corn Laws. — Presentation of a Petition .... 349 The Eari of Hardwicke, 349 Earl Fitzwilliam, 849.
May 14. The Corn Laws. — Motion of Lord Stanley for certain returns . 371
Lord Stanley, 871.— The Earl of Dalhouiie, 372.
May 18. Corn Importation Bill — First Reading 428
The Duke of Wellington, 428.— The Duke of Richmond, 428, 430.— Lord Brougham, 429.— The UarqoeM of Londonderry, 430.— The Earl of Bipon, 430. — Bill read a Firtt tine.
May 19. Customs Duties Bill — First Reaoino 449
The Duke of Buccleoch, 449.— The Lord Chancellor, 449.— The Duke of Richmond, 449, 453.— Lord Montcagle, 450.— Lord Beaumont, 451.— Lord Brougham, 4S1.— Earl Orey, 451.— Lord Ashburton, 452.— The Earl of Dalhouiie, 468. — The Earl of Haddington, iSS.—Bill read a Finl time.
May 25. Corn Importation Bill — Second Reading. — The Duke of Rich- mond's Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill . . 45 j
The Earl of Ripon, 455.— The Duke of Richmond, 463.— Earl Fitzwilliam, 468. — The Duke of Cleveland, 470. — The Marquess of Londonderry, 476. — Lord Stanley, 477. — Lord Brougham, 600. — DdxUe adjoumtd.
May 26. Corn Importation Bill — Second Reading. — Adjourned Debate on
the Duke of Richmond's Amendment. — (Second Night) . . 511
The Earl of Wilton, 611 — The Duke of Cambridge, 512.— Earl Qrantine, 612. — The Marquess of Normanby, 513. — The Earl of Cardigan, 617. — The Earl of Winchiljea, 618.— The Earl of Chirendon, 620.— The Earl of Camarron, 629.— The Earl of Malmesbury, 638 — The Earl of Haddington, 638.— The Marqoesa of Normanby, 644. — The Earl of Hardwichr, 546. — Debate again adjmrti,' Vol. II. b
ti CONTENTS.
IS4C
Ma
May n. Com iMronTATiox Biil — Pecoxd Rbadino. — Adjourned Debate on
th« Duke of Richmond'* Amendment. — (Third Night) . . 54-9
Tk« Bui of Dslbomi*, 6*9, S90 Lord Ashbnrton, 54», 665.— Lord
Brni^M. 54», e»0.— Lord Mootogte, M9.— Earl Ore;, S50 — The Manjuen
tl Lntdowiir, 671— The Bui oT Bmbz. 679.— The Earl of Eglintoon, 681.—
hoii Baamoat, 6ftS.— Tba DiJm of BcwiCgtt, SOS.— The Dnke of WeUingtoo,
606. — LifT or Dnmioa. — Bitt rmd a Steomd Hwu.
JuM 4. Ci;tTaiii Duties Bill — Secoxd Rbadimo. — The Duke of Rich- mond's Amendment ........ 608
The Earl of Dalhouiie, 608, 613.— The Dnke of Richmond, 618.— The Earl of
WkUow, 614.— Earl Ore.T, 614 Lord Aihburton, 616.— Lord Monteagle,
616. — Bill read a Stamd time.
Juae 11. Chbsbibb AoRiccLTCRAL Society. — Presentation of a Petition . 617
TiaoooBt Ooahcnnafe, 617, 618.— Lord Delamere, 617, 618. — The Duke of Bichmond, 618.
Corn Importation Bill — Committee. — Earl Stanhope's Amend- ment to the House going into Committee on the Bill . ' . .619
The Bui of Ripon, 619.— Bail Stanhope, 619, 627.— The Earl of Euex, 627.— The Earl of Radnor, 627.— The Earl of Wieklow, 630.— The Duke of Buckingham, 637- — Lord Bowden, 641. — DibaU adjounud.
Jnw 12. Corn Importation Bill— Committee. — Adjourned Debate on Earl
Stanhope's Amendment.— (Second Night) .... 643
The Mantaea of Exeter, 643.— Bari Delawarr, 646.— The Bi«hop of St Darid'i, 647, 665.— The Biibop of Exeter, 653.— The Earl of Warwick, 655. —The Biihop of Oxford, 666, 672.— Lord Aihburton, 664.— Lord Monteagle, 667.— Lord Stanley, 672, 678, 682.— Earl Grey, 675.— Lord Broug;hain, 677. —The Duke of Richmond, 680.— /Wato a^in mijounud.
June 15. Cheshire Aoricultdral Protection Society. — Explanation ot
Lord Delamere ......... 683
Lud Delamere, 683, 684.— The Duke of Richmond, 688.— Viiconnt Combcr- sun, 684.
Petition or the Mbrchants, Bankers, Traders, &c., of the
City or London 684
Lard Stanby, 684, 686— The Earl of Dalhouiie, 684.— Earl Grey, 686
Lroid AAbwtM. 686.— Lonl Breagham, 686.
Corn iMroRTATioN Bill— Explanation 686
Iha Blikap of St. DaTid'a, 686, 689.— Lord Stanley, 687— The Bi.hop of •''"'*"l. ««T.— The Bari of Malmeebory, 688.— The Earl of Haidwicke aS9.— Tha BUkop of Oxford, 689— The Earl of Wiochilfea 690.— The Earl araalWTCy,690.
CoRji Importation Bili— Committee.— Adjourned Debate on Earl
8lw>bope's AmeiMlinent— (Third Night) 690
Tk^Diik. af BaknglMa. 690— The Bari of Ripon, 691— The Earl of (^M*fty, 691.— Isii Sinkape, 694 — Lord Beaniment, 696.- The Marqueti I^BMi, 69S.— The lari af Haidwicke, 699 — Lord Kinnainl, 702.— Lbt or
CONTENTS. Til
1846.
PAOB
June 16. Corn Importation Bill — Question 704
Earl Stanhope, 701.— The Earl of Bipon, 704.— The Earl of Winchilaea, 704. —The Duke of Richmond, 704.— Earl Grey, 705.— The Earl of Stiadbroke, 705.
Corn Importation Bill — House in Committee. — (Second Night) . 705 The Earl of Wicklow, 705.— The Marquew of Clanricarde, 708. — Lord de Mauley, 713.— Lord Cloncurry, 714.— The Earl of Winchilsea, 714.— Lord Polwarth, 715.— Earl Fitzwilliani,715.— Lord Brougham, 716.— Lord Stanley,
721 The Harqueii of Lanidowne, 725. — Lord Brougham, 728.— The Earl
of Besborough, 730.
June 19. Corn Importation Bill — House in Committee. — (Third Night) . 730
The Duke of Richmond, 730.— The Earl of Ripon, 732.— The Earl of Malme»- bory, 733.— The Earl of Momington, 733, 737, 788.— The Earl of Abingdon, 735.— Earl Stanhope, 736, 737.— Lord Ashburton, 737 The Duke of Rich- mond, 738.
June 22. Corn Importation Bill — House in Committee.— (Fourth Night) . 738
Lord Ajhburton, 738.— The Earl of Dalhousie, 740.— Earl Grey, 743.— Lord Bedeidale, 743.— The Eorl of Ellenboroagh, 744.— Lord Ashburton, 744.
Customs Duties Bill — Thk Silk Trads. — Presentation of a
Petition — Motion made that the Petitioners be heard by Counsel
at the Bar 744
The Duke of Richmond, 744.— The Earl of Dalhouiie, 745 Lord Brougham,
746.— The Earl of Ellenborough, 746.— The Doke of Wellington, 747, 756, 757.— The Doke of Richmond, 747, 750, 757, 761.— List of Ditibioh.— I*rd Brougham, 748, 750.— The Earl of Glengall, 748, 749.— The Mai^uew of luiidowne, 749.— The Duke of Buccleuch, 749.— The Lord Chancellor, 749 — Th« Eari of Home, 749.— Lord Redetdale, 749.— The Earl of Widdow, 749.— Earl Grey, 750.— Lord Stanley, 750, 760.— The Earl of Dalhouric, 754, 766, 767, 760. — Earl Stanhope, 756, 767.— The Earl of Ripon, 757.— Lord Mont- eagle, 758. — The ManjucM of Saliabory, 769.— Lord Colcheater, 760. — Lord Ashburton, 760.
June 23. Customs Duties Bill — House in Committee .... 761
The Sari of Haidwicke, 761.— The Earl of Dalhonsie, 762, 763, 764, 766, 768.
—Lord Stanley, 762, 765, 766 The Duke of Richmond, 762, 764, 765, 767,
768.— The Earl ofWicklow, 764.— Lord Ashburton, 764.— Lord Colchester, 764.— Earl Stanhope, 764, 767, 773.— The Earl of Ripon, 764.— Earl Fiti- wiUi«m, 766, 766.— The Earl of Radnor, 766.— The Earl of GaUowsy, 766, 767, 768.— &•« BeporUd.
June 25. Corn Importation BrLL — Third Reading. — Amendmenc of the
Duke of Richmond to the Third Reading of the Bill . . .' 777 The Earl of Wicklow, 777.— The Earl of Ripon, 779.— Lord Fevcrsham, 781. —The Doke of Clereland, 782.— The Earl of Dalhousie, 783.— Viscount Gage, 784.— Earl Stanhope, 785^-Thc Earlof Selkirk, 786.— The Duke of Richmond, 786 The Earl of Ellenborough, 167— BUI read a Tkird time.
Customs Duties Bill — Third Readiwo.— Amendment of the Duke of Richmond to the Third Reading of the Bill .... 787
The Duke of Richmond, 787, 788.— The Earl of Dalhousie, 788.— Iiord Stanley, 788 — Bill rtad a TUrd (mm.
b 2
^;j CONTEKTS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mu. H. CcrroMi akd Cokn Import atiom Resoldtions Reported. — Second
Reading of the Resolutions .....■• ^
Mr. Spooner, 1, 7, 13.— Sir G. Clerk, 6, 9, 10, 15.— Mr. Newdegato, 7, 8.— Mr. Munti. 7, 8.-8ir Kobert Peel, 8, 13.-Mr. S. O'Brien, 8.— Mr. T. Dun- combe,9,l«.— Mr. Alderman Thompion,9.— Mr. Orogan, 9.— Mr.J.ToUenuiche, 10.— Sir E. InglU, 10. -The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 10.— Lord G. Ben- tiadt, 11, 16.— Lin or Division.- Sir H. Halford, 13.— Mr. Gisbomc, 14.— OolMel RoUefton, U.— Mr. R. M. Milnea, 14.— Mr. Stnitt, 15.-Mr. W. KUU, 15.— Sir J. Hobhonae, 16_Mr. W. Milet, 16.— Viaeount Ingeatre, 16.— Mr. Ficwao, 16. — UnotVtraion.—F»rtkfreontida'ation<)fUuTariffadJourMd.
Mar. 16. Customs akd Corn Impobtation. — Second Reading of the
Resolutioni. — (Second Night) 18
Mr. Plumptre, 18 Sir B. Peel, 18, 39.— Mr. Puller, 19.— Colonel Austin, 19.
—Mr. Knight, 19.— Mr. Alderman Homphery, 20.— Mr. A. J. B. Hope, 20.— Mr. Prewen, SI.— The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 21.— Lord G. Bentinck, SS, St.— LiR ur Dmnoi.— Mr. Knight, 23.— Mr. Rcpton, 23.— Sir O. Clerk, SS, 80.— Mr. Bankaa, 24.— Mr. Vlyna EUii, 29.— Mr. Brocklehorrt, 29.— Mr. Nawdigala, 8S_Mr. Bawe*, 84.— Mr. Adderiey, 85.— Mr. EUice, 36.- Mr. DfmuM, 4S.— LiR or Ditiooii. — Report lo b* fwrDur coiuidtnd.
Blar. 17. State or Public Business 46
Mr. A. Staffgrd O'Brien, 46.— The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 47.
Customs and Cork Importation. — Second Reading of the
BcMlutions.— (Third Night) 18
Mr. Cayley, 48.— Mr. Speaker, 48.-Dr. Bowring, 50.-Mr. C. Bullcr, 60.— Mr. Batthwick, 60, 62.- Mr. Mnnti, 61.— Mr. Alderman Thompion,61.— Mr. Bwart, M.— Tha Marqocai of Oranby, 62.— Mr. Carfwell, 52, 69.— Mr. Knight, 63.—
hat M Dmaioi.— Mr. Allix, 63, 64 Sir R. Peel, 64, 57.— Mr. W. Milea,
M.— OoloMlSlbthofp, 56.— Mr. P. Howard, 66.— Mr. Finch, 58.— The Chan-
ctlW af tk* BxdMqoer, 69. -Sir J. TyieU, 60, 66.— Mr. Villicr., 60, 64
Kr J. Tnllapa, «2.— Sir J. WaUh, 64.— Mr. Yorkc, 64.— Sir C. Knighlley,
•*.— Mr. 0. Braea, 64.— Lord 0. Bentinck, 64, 69.— List of Ditibiok Mr.
UvsoB, Se, 68,-«ir 0. Clerk, «6.— Lin of Ditibiok.- Mr. Mitchell, 69. — 8Jr J. Buoar, «».— iiqwrt (o b, Jk^Jm conMtnd.
Mat. to. The Corh Law— Question 70
Uri 1. KoMeU, 70. -Sir Robert Peel, 70.
CONTENTS. , IX
1846.
PAOB
Customs and Cork Importation. — Second Reading of the Resolutions.— (Fourth Night) 71
Manjnew of Worcester, 71.— Mr. Speaker, 72.— Mr. H. Hinde, 72.— Mr. Cardwell, 75. — Mr. A. Chapman, 77. — Captain Harris, 78. — Mr. 6. Palmer, 78. — Mr. Warburton, 79. — Mr. Borthwick, 81. — Mr. Henley, 83.— Mr. Hume,
84.— Lord G. BenUnck, 86 .Sir G. Clerk, 93.— Mr. C. Buller, 96 — List
OF DITISIOH. — BilU ordtred to he brvught in.
Mar, 23. Corn Importation Bill — Second Reading. — Mr. E. Yorke's
Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill . . . .101
Sir R. Peel, 101.— Mr. E. Torke {AmetulmeiU), 101.— Sir J. Y. Buller, 105.
—Mr. M'Geachy, 105.— Mr. Packe, 109 Mr. Fox Made, 110.— Mr.
Cholmondelcy, 111.— Mr. H. Vernon, 113.— Captain Berkeley, 114.— Sir E. H. Inglis, 114. — Mr. Childcrs, 117.— X»«iafe adjounud.
Mar. 24. Corn Importation Bill. — Adjourned Debate on Mr. E. Yorke's
Amendment. — (Second Night) . . . . . .117
yiKonnt Follington, 117.— Mr. Flmnptre, 119 Mr. Hawes, 120.— Sir J.
TroUope, 126.— Sir J. Hanmer, 129.— Viscount Ebrington, 132.— Mr. Rash- leigh, 135.— Mr. P. T. Baring, 137.— Mr. Shaw, 140.— The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 145. — The Earl of March, 147. — DebaU agaiit adjonnud.
Mar. 26. Corn Importation Bill. — Adjourned Debate on Mr. E. Yorke's
Amendment.— (Third Night) 149
Mr. Finch, 149.— Lord Rcndlcsham, 154.— Mr. FeUowes, 156.— Mr. Fuller, 156.— Mr. P. Borthwick, 157.— Mr. C. Boiler, 163— Lord G. Bentinck, 168. — ZMote again adjounud.
Mar. 27. The Government Measures 173
Mr. Newdegate, 173. — Sir B. Peel, 173.
Corh Importation Bill. — Adjourned Debate on Mr. E. Yorke's Amendment. — (Fourth Night) ....... 173
Mr. Cobden, 173.— Sir J. Graham, 173.— Mr. Stuart, 186.— Mr. Bouvcrie,
193 The Marquess of Worcester, 196.— Mr. Gardner, 196.— Mr. Mildroay,
197. — Sir E. Peel, 200.— Mr. Stafford O'Brien, 217.— Viscount Palmerston, 220.— List or Ditisiox. — BUI read a JSeamd lime.
May 4. Corn Importation Bill — Committee. — Lord G. Bentinck's
Amendment to House going into Committee .... 230
Lord G. Bentinck, 230, 231, 257 Lord John Eussell, 231, 249.— Sir E.
Peel, 239, {Ilmue in CommilUe) Mr. G. Bankcs, 247.— Mr. Disraeli, 252.
—List o» Division Mr. P. Bonnet, 258.— Mr. Packe, 268.— Mr. C. Buller,
258. — Colonel Sibthorp, 258 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 258.— Sir R.
Peel, 258.
Corn Importation Bill — Committee.— (Second Night) . . 259
Lord O. Bentinck, 269, 265.— Sir H. W. Barrow, 263.— The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 265.— The Attorney-General, 266.— Captain Layard, 266.— Mr. J. S. Stuart, 266.— The Chairman, 266.— Mr. Borthwick, 266.— Mr. Finch, 267.
270
X OONTKNTS.
1846.
May 8. Com Immetatioii Biti — Sir C. Burrell'* Amendment to the Report being taken into consideration ....
b a AnnD, STO, S0«.— Colood Vtnier, 272.— Mr. Bank*, 27«.— The Barl of UnwJn, 27», SOS.— Mr. Floyer, 28S.— Mr. StaHbrd O'Brien, 283— Mr. I-fcoy, S84.p-Mr. Borthwiek, 28«.— Mr. H«nley,291, 801— Mr. Boelmck, 294. —Mr. Oimdi, 2M— Mr. 8. Herixrt, 298.— Lord O. Bentiack, 801, 807, (AmmJmtmt in(Ur«m)— Mr. Uw, 806.— Sir R. Feel, 306.
May ll.Coaw luronTATiox Bin— Third Readino. — The Marquess of
Granby's Amendment to the Third Reading of the Bill . 807
The MaiT]neM of Onmby, 807.— Mr. Bheridan, 814.— Mr. Floyer, 318.— Sir J. laMkept, 819— Mr. Milet, 820— Mr. Ckjrley, 3S9.—DA<Utat^nud.
Hay It. CoBK Iiipo«iation Bill. — Adjourned Debate on the Marquess of
Granby's Amendment. — (Second Night) 850
Mr. Newdegate, 3S0.— Mr. 0. Palmer, 356.— Captain Fdhill, 356. — Mr. Bowlt, 866.- Mr. Flumptre, 358.— Mr. Haitie, S59.— Sir J. Wal»h, 359.—
Hr.Shmnui Crawford, 362.— Mr. P. Scott 368 Lord Brooke, 866.— Captain
Vyaa, 866. — Mr. Seymer, 867. — DtUUe offain adjoumtd.
May 15. Coax Imfortation Bill.— Adjourned Debate on the Marquess of
Granby's Amendment.— (Third Night) 372
Mr. Colquhoun, 372.-8ir B. Peel, 372, 380, 408, 419.— Mr. C. Wood, 876. —Mr. P. Bennet, 879.— Mr. Hndaon, 380.— The Marqueu of Worcester, 382. Mr. M. Goir, 383.— Mr. Lawwrn, 387.- Mr. Vcmon Smith, 388.— Mr. Disraeli,
890, 418.— Lotd J. Rouell, 403 Laid 0. Bentinck, 419.— Mr. Villiers, 423.
—Lin or Dnmmi.- Mr. B. Torke, 427.— Mr. Speaker, 4K.—BiU rtad a TUrd Htu attdpoMtd,
May 18. Custohs Duties Bill. — Second Reading of Amendments made by
the Committee 431
Lord 0. Bentinck, 431.— Mr. LawioD, 437.— Alderman Humphery, 439.— The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 440.— Mr. Banket, 443.— Mr. Hawes, 446.— Mr. Botthwick, 446.- Mr. FInmptre, 446.— Dr. Bowring, 446.— Colonel Sibthorp, 448— Mr. Uealejr, 448.— Mr. Hndwn, 449.
May 19. Customs Duties Bill— Third Reading. — Agricultural Statistics . 453
Sir ft. PmI, 468.— Mr. Slaflord O'Brien, 453.— Sir Q. Clerk, 454.— Lord Q. 464.— Mr. Bright, 456.— Mr. Mile* iiS.—IliU rtad a Third tim*
CONTENTS. XI
LIST OF DIVISIONS.
The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. Grogan's Amendment to the question " That Butter lOs. the cwt. stand part of the Resolution on the Customs and Corn Importation Report " 12
The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. R. M. Milnes's Amendment to the question, " That Cotton articles, or manufactures of cotton, wholly or in part made up, not otherwise charged with duty, for every lOOl. value lOl. stand part of the Resolution on the Customs and Corn Im- portation Report" . . . . . . . . .17
The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. Plumptre's Amendment to the question, " That Hops the cwt. 2l. 5t. stand part of the Resolution on the Customs and Corn Importation Report " 22
The Ayes and the Noes on the question, " That all articles included under the head ' Silk Manufactures,' stand part of the Resolution on the Customs and Corn Importation Report " . .... 44
The Ayes and the Noes on the question, " That Spirits and Strong Waters of all sorts I5t. the gallon, stand part of the Resolution on the Customs and Com Importation Report " 53
The Ayes and the Noes on the question, " That Oxen and Bulls stand part of
the Itesolution on the Customs and Corn Importation Report " . 65
The Ayes and the Noes on the question, " That Hides stand part of the Resolu- tion on the Customs and Corn Importation Report " . . .67
The Ayes and the Noes on the question, " That the House agree with the Com- mittee on the Resolution on the Customs and Corn Importation Report" 99
The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. E. Yorke's Amendment to the Second Reading
of the Corn Importation Bill 226
The Ayes and the Noes on Lord George Bentinck's Amendment to the House , going into Committee on the Corn Importation Bill . . . 257
XII CONTENTS.
PAoa TIm Aje* and (he N'ocs on the Marquess of Granby's Amendment to the
Third Reading of the Corn Importation Bill .... 425
Tbt Coottnts and Kon-Contents on the Duke of Richmond's Amendment to
the Second Reading of the Corn Importation Bill . . 607
The Non-Contents on Earl Stanhope's Amendment to the House going into
Committee on the Corn Importation Bill 703
The Contenu on the Duke of Richmond's Motion "• That certain Petitioners be
beard at the Bar of the House respecting the Silk Trade " . 748
PROTESTS.
On the Duke of Richmond's Amendment to the Third Reading of the Com
Importation Bill (Nos. 1 and a) 788
THE BATTLE FOR NATIVE INDUSTRY.
THE DEBATE UPON THE CORN LAWS
IN SESSION 1846.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, March 13, 1846.
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REI'ORT.
THE Report on the Customs and Com Importation Resolutions was brought up. On the Question that they be read a Second Time,
Mb. SPOONER thereupon rose to move that the Resolutions be read a second time that day six months. He felt bound to make this Motion, because he considered they were about striking a fatal blow at the prosperity of this country, and to put at hazard the national credit, by the remov- al of protection to British industry — that system under which commerce, agriculture, and manufactures had attained their pre- sent state of greatness and renown. It was under that principle of protection to native industry, that they had been able to compete successfully with foreign coun- tries ; under that system had grown up their ships, their colonies, and their com- merce, which had excited even the envy .and admiration of Napoleon Bonaparte, who declared he would give half of his empire for them. He thought that by abandoning that principle they would be in serious danger of losing these advantages. What grounds had been urged for aban- doning this principle? They had been
Vol. II. '
told that experience had proved that those articles from which protection had been removed, had increased in price ; in fact, that by the removal of protection, the price of the article had universally in- creased. [Sir R. Peel: The price uni- versally incrcase<l ! I did not say so. 1 He regretted if he had misrepresented the right hon. Baronet ; but he certainly un- derstood the right hon. Baronet to argue from the fact, that the price of cattle had risen under the provisions of the late Tariff — that the diminished protection had proved a benefit rather than an injury to the inter- ests from which protection had been taken. He thought that the argument of the right hon. Baronet had been already fully an- swered. It was proved, beyond a doubt, that the price which butchers' meat had maintained, had arisen from causes very ditTerent from the removal of protection. He would not weary the House by details upon the subject ; but he might just briefly state, that, owing to disease and a dry season, graziers were obliged to send their cattle to market before they were fat — they had no food for them : added to this, a panic had seized the graziers on account of the Government measure — a low price was the natural consequence of these things at the time, and a short supply in subsequent years, which short supply naturally in- creased the price. He would not go at length into a refutation of all the arguments
B
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
that iMd boea >dr«nocd by the rifrht bon. Bwronct. ibawing bow tbe removal of pro- tection IumI fftvoumbly influoncwl tmdo nnd BMiufacturM ; but lie would juitt mention MM department of manufactun-H, whiob CMoe nnder bis own iminediate knowlodf^e
Um gloTe trade — for be resided in the
■aMiboarhood of tbe larj^eat glove manu- laetoriea in England. This experiment wa« the 6r«t tried in free trade ; and the effect of this experiment waa, that out of 100 manufactories existing at that time in Wote«8ter, there wore only forty now rc- ■wining; and by tbe last census, there were 800 houses racant in that rity. lie knew a number of glove manufacturers, who were niaiiitaiuing their families in comfort, contributing their shares towards the public burdens and to an increase of the wealth of the country, who were thrown oat of employment, and driven into inili-
rce for the remainder of their days, the removal of protection. WTiat be- came of the poor operatives who bad been brought up to tliis trade, and could do notbiug else? Their labour was their capital— their skill had been rendered ralueless — they were thrown out of em- plojrment, could work at none other, they Mcamc a burden upon society, and were radueed to the utmost destitution. The aoUe Lord the Member for the city of Loodoo bad, in bis work on the Constitu- ttOBf shown the fallacy of the argument, diat when one employment fails, another ean be taken up ; he stated that it could not be done — the blacksmith could not be- come a silk weaver : he showed that it was not safe to b<.' guided by general princi- ples, but tliat they sliould look to jiractieul •Sects, land take care how they meddled with trade. Not only in Worcester, but in Hereford and the adjoining neighbour- hood, tbe glove trade was extensively car- ried on : but in many of tbe latter districts there was not now a vestige of it. Was it not men- cUji-tnip, therefore, to talk of hnjing in the eheapest and selling in the MkPast nwrfceU? They bought chcai)e«t in the French markets, in this instance, and they paiil very dearly for it indeed, for thcT ruined a very important branch of their own manufactures. Cheapness did BOt always oonsist in tbe small ciuantity uf ■wwy fxud for an article ; for although at • loir price, the article was often too imu^ boofht, when at the expense of their own trade : to the money paid nmst he addod th« cost of the destruction of ca- pital, and the ruin of the individuals whoso
skill, whose capital, and whose labour was involved in tbe issue. The noble Lord tho Member for Lynn had shown so clearly and so ably the evils which the removal of protection hatl caused in the silk trade, that he felt it unnecessary to enter upon.it. No one could have listened to the unanswered and unanswerable speech of that noble Lord, without being convinced of the evil which resulted from what was called buying ill the chea])est and selling in the dearest market. Tbe arguments of the noble Lord had not been answered — they were irre- fragable. It was a vain anticipation for hon. Members to expect that any measures under tbe present monetary system, would ensure continued prosperity to trade and manufactures. Every year showed that some branch of industry was in great dis- tress and depression. Manufactures suf- fered one year — then agriculture ; they probably both revived in another year ; and then it was imagined that the country was in a prosperous state. But it was all a false prosperity. After the termination of the war in 1815, very general and extreme distress ensued. Of course, causes for this were sought. First, they blamed tbe change from war to peace ; but tbe evil remained so long that practical men be- gan at length to see that it could not be attributable to that cause, and they were forced to find out another. It was next attributed to over-abundant harvests ; the bounties of Providence were T)lanicd as the cause of national suffering. Then followed the time of wet seasons, and the distress was ascribed this time, with too much truth, to the bad weather ; but that tem- porary evil passed away, and still the na- tion suffered ; and then they were driven to search for some other cause. It was next attributed to our having too many people ; and emigration was proposed aa the remedy. Wo were to ship off our suqdus population. But of what did that surplus consist ? Not tbe drones of so- ciety. They would have been of no more use abroad than they were at home. No ; it was tho industrious, the skilful, and the small-capital men of tbe country that were to be exported ; and to show how little of real knowledge, or of sound judg- ment, was brought to bear on the subject, he would mention the singular fact, that at the time to which he alluded, two Commit- tees were sitting up-stairs, who carried on their deliberations next door to each other, the one for the purpose of preventing more corn from coming into the country, and tho
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA^CH 13, 1846.
other to send awaj the mouths. Too many loaves, and too many men — such was the singular paradox which these Committees attempted to meet. Such were the reme- dies which, from time to time, had been adopted for these ever-recurring evils. Now, what was the master evil — -what was the cause of all their distress — the cause which was even now in operation, and which would certainly not be removed by the pro- positions that were now before the House? He did not know whether he dared to men- tion it ; hut he woidd throw himself upon the kind indulgence of the House. He never had in that House at any length entered into consideration upon the sub- ject, and he would entreat them to hear him, while he briefly explained what he really thought was the cause of nil their distresses, and, having done that, he would leave it. The monster evil was the Cur- rency Bill of 1819. [Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear!"] He knew that it was his misfortune, an(f a deep and a heavy mis- fortune he felt it to be, to differ from a large majority of the House ; but he would not sbrink from stating his opinions in op- position to theirs ; for, as long as he held a sent in that House, he felt it to be his duty to declare his opinions. He, therefore, Would not shrink from stating as bis opin- ion, that to the Bill of 1819 was to be at- tributed all those alternations of false pro- sperity, and consequent reactions of adver- sity, they had been struggling with. Ever since the Bill of 1819, remedies had been applied to the ever-recurring evils, and ap- plied in vain. They had refused to inquire into the real cause of these evils, and till they did so, they never would find a re- medy : and he warned his right hon. Friend (Sir K. Feel) that his present propositions would prove as complete a failure as any of the remedies that had been formerly proposed. They might say Committees had been appointed. But how had those Committees conducted their inquiries ? Would it be believed, that on the first in- quiry, which was instituted in the House of Lords, the following incident occurred between a noble Lord and a director of the Bank of England. The director was throw- mg out a hint that it might be a dangerous step to adopt the course then proposed of returning to a gold payment. He was met by Lord Grenvilie in this curious way. His Lordship said —
" Sir, we rent for jron not to tell ni of the con- sequences of retumins to a gold stand.ird— not to give an opinion u to tlio propriety of the attempt ;
but we sent for yon to ascertain the best way of carrying out this object — an object which we liave already resolved upon.'*
That remark at once shut the mouths of practical men ; and those who saw the dangers which were coming were pre- vented from laying before the country their opinions on this essential point. In order to a real inquiry into the merits of this subject, they must call before them prac- tical men, not pseudo-philosophers — men who bigotcdly adhered to abstract prin- ciples, without regard to the obstacles that lay in the way of reducing them to practice. He would illustrate his meaning by an idea that just occurred to him. Sup- pose a man were in a wood on a fine star- light night ; he did not know his way out, except generally that his way lay towards the north. He fixed his eye, therefore, upon the polar star, and proceeded con- fidently onwards, but before going far he came to a deep river over which he could not pass, and thus in spite of himself he was obliged to turn back to the south. That, he thought, was an exact illustra- tion of the value of abstract principles without regard to prncticnl difficulties. Yet this was the course now adopted. They were all for free trade, never minding the difficulties into which these principles and a circulation based on bullion would throw the country; not caring for the destruction of capital, manufactures, and trade : they had resolved to go back to the ancient standard of value, caring notliing for the consequences that ensued, showing that without hesitation they would destroy a nation rather than abandon what they called a principle. He called upon the House not to expect any good from the plans that were now proposed, for he be- lieved they would produce a great and severe aggravation of the evil. He hoped they would rather follow the advice of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who once thought as he now did. It was that right hon. Baronet who taught him on this great subject; and though he might now think proper to dispense with his former speeches and publication, he could not get rid of the impression those speeches and that |iubli- cation had made upon him. He was the admiring pupil of the hon. Baronet of J< etherby. He could not he an unconvinced follower of the right hon. the Secretary of State. But it might be said, what was wrong in the Bill of 1819? He would tell them iu a few words. They commenced
B 2
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
tlw WW with • debt of 300.000.0001.. and witli • trifling doprrciBtiim in the currency. Thoy wont on. nii'l •liiriii;r the war the doht'increftMHl t<i - "•/., and they
had cn-at.'d n dcpit . iii the currency
of more than .1.3 per cent What did they do at the end of the war? They resolved •t onee to po back to the ancient standard of ralue. They said the public faith re<|uired it, and that they had always intended to
Eback to that ancient standard. But V ooold hon. Gentlemen hold that opin- ion when thev recollected what took place in 1810 and 1811 ? In the first of these jears. after a debate of five nights, and in the second year, after a debate of six or ■«ron nights, they came to this memorable conclusion — and he was not sure but bis rijfht hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury himself had voted for the proposition — that there was no depre- ciation in the currency — that there wos no departure from the standard value — that a 1 /. note and a shilling were for all legal pur- jioses of equal value with a golden guinea; and yet after this, in 1819, they called upon the country to recognise the depre- ciation which before they denied to exist. They said that justice required them to n»tum to a point which they formerly de- clared they bad never left, and to find a rrmcdy for an evil which they before de- clared had no existence. But it ought to be remembered that country gentle- men and other* confiding in the Reso- lution of the IIousR in 1810, had made settlements for their younger children — had entered into mortgages and ogrec- menta, having no fear of the country re- turning to the ancient standard of value, b(>cause this House bad declared that they had never moved from it. They expected, tber<>fore, that the charges they had made, and the bunlens they had consented to, would remain in force to be measured in the currencT in which they had been in- curred. BuT these persons were at oneo turned round ujwn by the House, who said to them, we must return to the ancient standard of value. But they were not even content with that — they did more than re- turn to the ancient standard of value. The ancient standard consisted of gold and silver jointly, with precautions against nelting taUon. He knew that
Aoac 111 were eradetl ; but ho
kMw that llu' evasion took place at consi- dcnble risk ; but now they hud altogether thrown the trade of exportation open, and tiBWTed the mural check* which formerly
existed ; and the effect of the present meii- sure would be to aggravate the evil, as the bullion would more than ever be exported for corn. He knew this was denied oa- the other side, b.h it was argued that fo- reigners would take our manufactures in exchange ; but he thought such results would not ensue. Foreigners bringing their com to this country would have the option of taking the taxed manufactures of this country in exchange ; or they had another option, and that they would make use of, of going to the Bank of England for gold, and then carrying that gold away and buying with it the untaxed manufac- tures of other countries. That was the process which would go on ; and he warned his right hon. Friend, that many and great as were the difficulties which pressed upon him now, he would have this one added, that the gold would go out of the country which ought to be spent in .the wages of liibour at home ; causing a want of food on the one hand, and on the other a want of the means of paying the wages of labour. With reference to the subject in hand, he begged to say, thot he agreed with his hon. Friends nearhira on this important point — that protection to native industry was es- sential to the prosperity of all classes in the country. He would say more — that it was essential to the maintenance of the public credit — essential to the safety of the Crown — essential to the well-being of the community. On what principle could they defend the introduction of foreign labour to compete with home labour, unless the two were placed on equal terms ? Ho be- lieved they were all agreed in this, that taxation fell ultimately upon labour ; and therefore he claimed protection, not for any class, but he claimed it for the British labourer ; for as he bore a large share of the taxation of this country, no foreigner ought to be permitted to compete with him, unless he contributed the same share to the taxation and the local burdens of the country. That principle this country had always maintained, and it was by the main- tenance of that principle that she had risen to such a high station — that she had been enabled to establish her ships, colonies and commerce. He wished to preserve them. It was essential to maintain the principle of protection, if this kingdom were to be, as she had ever been, the mis- tress of the seas, the envy and admiration of the world. He hailed the passing of the Canadian Corn Bill, for be thought there ought to be free trade with all our
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH- 13, 1846.
Colonies. They ought to be treated, as what, in fact, they were, parts of the British Empire : like counties, as much an integral portion of the kingdom as Dorset- shire and Hampshire. They had adopted that principle with respect to Canada ; but what were they now doing ? They were about to take the cup which they had raised to the lips of the Canadians, and to dash it to the ground. Canada was pre- paring for the new com trade — she had built mills — she had sown a greater breadth of land ; but now the corn to compete with the produce of this country would come not from the Canadians, who would take our manufactures in return, but from coun- tries on the Continent, who would take our gold in return. In illustration of this, he stated that he met, two days ago, a gen- tleman in a railway carriage near Coven- try, who told him that several large orders for watches from Canada had already been countermanded, because the Canadians saw that the necessary effect of the proposed measures would be to stop the importation of com from Canada. He (Mr. Spooner) thought it right to say, that while he agreed with his hon. Friends near him on the principle of protection, he differed from them on the question of the sliding scale, which he thought militated against the only principle on which protection could bo claimed. Protection was claimed and given on this principle, that whatever articles came into this country must bear an equal share of taxation with corresponding pro- ductions of this country. Now, that was not the principle of the sliding scale. The duty was not laid according to the taxa- tion bearing on the home produce, but according to the price which the home pro- duce brought in the market. He believed that the sliding scale aggravated the evils of the monetary system, because under it com was kept up till it reached its highest average, and then a great glut was sud- denly let in upon the market. He thought the gliding scale bad in principle, and it had been proved to be bad in practice ; but much as he preferred a fixed duty, even that, under the present system of currency, would be totally inefficacious. These, he begged to state, were no new doctrines of his own. They were opinions which had been pub- lished in the year 1826 by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ; and he would assure his right hon. Friend that nothing would remove from his mind the impression his writings had produced ; and he would tell his right hon. Friend now, that he did
not believe he would rise and say he had altered hia mind. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote the following pas- sages from Sir James Graham's work on Com and Currency : —
" It is impossible to establisli a fixed protecting duty with Cairness, when the standard of value is itself unfair. This ap]>ear8 to me," said the right h(in. Baronet, addressing the landowners, "the very core of the whole subject— the point on which you have committed the most fatal errors. You fiave fought for high prices, and concurred in measures wtiich render them impossible. You have retained your monopoly, but consented to a cluinge in the value of money, which must destroy its efficacy. The ground which you still endeavour to defend is no longer tenable ; and the [>oints which you sur- rendered, ensure your defeat. If 1 might venture to allude to the conduct of the landed interest in this last Session of Parliament, 1 should say, that it affords conclusive evidence of the blindest ad- herence to the single object of high prices, cou- pled with an entire misapprehension of the means by which this object miglit be attained, and of the general principles on which prices must depend. The price of commodities, and of corn amongst the rest, is compounded of two ingredients — of the supply in the market compared with the demand, and also of the value of money ; itself the mea- sure of value, liable, however, to great variation, in proportion to its quantity."
He found also that the right hon. Baro- net, in speaking of the compact which he affirmed to have been made between the landlords and those who concerted and maintained the monetary measures intro- duced in 1819, thus expresses himself: —
" For it is well known, that in this last Session (1S25) they bargained with the King's Ministers to »up|K)rt the further contraction of the currency, on condition that the Government did not destroy their monopoly by a repeal of the Corn Laws."
And then further, the right hon. Baronet remarked —
" So far from urging the Government to bring separately under the view of the Legislature the questions of currency and corn, it was the decided interest of the landowners to have insisted on a careful revision of both these subjects conjointly. They are in themselves intimately blended ; it is absurd to talk of price without reference to money ; and it is impossible to .titer thequantity of money without affecting prices. Disjointed discussion on these two vital p<iint8 is the precise cause of the dangerous conclusions now sanctioned by Parlia- ment, which threaten with ruin and degradation the whole cl.iss of existing proprietors."
Now, he would appeal to his right, hon. Friend, whether hu still held tho.se opin- ions. If his right hon. Friend did not, he hoped, before this debate was brouglit to a close, his right hon. Friend would give the House some clear and substantial rea- sons for bis change of opinion ; and if hia right hon. Friend did so, he would not say that he would not be converted, hut be
CUSTOMS AND COEN IMPORTATION EEPORT.
irooU not •nrrendpr hi* opinionn while un- eontvrtod. mmI he ninxt continup to hold kia iir— cut riew*. Mnrh bxi bo«>n said of W dwigpr that had pressed upon thcni k fpw yran ago, when thev had a Imd trade and high prorinions. No one could be more teDiible of that danj^er than he vma, living at the time in a manufncturinp; Strict, and being an active niapHtrnte in tke neigfaboarfaood ; but he could toll the right bon. Bamnet at the head of Her Majesty'* Government that the hijfh prices of proviaionn did not cauKo the had state of trMO. No, the had trade arose from cir- muutauieea which could l>e easily explained in Committoe. or in that House, if he were not afraid of trespassing u])on tlieir in- dulgence. But if they would give him a Gommitteo to investiffate these matters, ho wonld abow that that distress had been oeoMMmed by circumstances which wonld again occur — which had compelled the Bank of Kngland to withdraw the circu- lating medium to force prices down to the level of the Continent, in order to retain gold in this country. Hence the misery, the discontent, which they all so deeply deplonsl ; and he wame<l the right lion. Baronet that at no distant period he would •ee the aamo distress recurring. The na- tioa waa again upon the eve of a great ehaiige. Many plans had been tried to core erils pressing upon the nation, but without avail. A large, sudden, and evan- oaeent amount of trade had recently mani- feated itself in the country. This could Dot laat. Commerce would again languish ; and if the moment recurred when a high price of food followed a reduction of wages, the consequences would not he obviatetl by such mea-sures as were now introduced by the right hon. Baronet. The evil would then W enhanced by the loss of the gold which would leave the country. That evil would lie gn>atly aggravated by the diBai>- imintnient which would he felt by the worlt- ing cUsaea, who were M to expect from the propoaed mMmrea a low price of food, mm! • eontiniwnee, at least, of the present nt9 of w»g«a. In this they would be sorely dSsappoinled. Before ho sat down, he WDaU —y a few words to his noble and ■SB- ' ' ' hnnd, who more
•"ttif tlif Innded inter-
»i«lt that the aristoeraev .11 the position they had so
|.ii.' li. i.l II ]..,-lil iitial to the pre-
• •ii.ilv.n "f i.iir nil. i. lit iii^litutions — the iiit.'',;til\ iif thi- <'»n>titntiiin, niid the safely of till' < riiwn ? Hid ihi-y wish to retain their
title ond estates, and to hand them down inviolate to their descendants ? Let them examine this question, use the jiower they possessed, and force the Ministers to insti- tute a searching inquiry into the cause of the evils of which they complained. They must not trust to a continuance of the sys- tem which ha«l ever proved, and would prove, inefficient for the purposes for which they advocated it. Ho would call also on the fundholder, if he wished his pro- perty to be rendereil safe, ond if he de- sired that public credit should continue unassailed, to oppose the measure now be- fore the House, and to join the landlords in compelling the Minister to institute in- quiry. He called upon the merchant and manufacturer, if they desired to secure a trade to themselves and their dependents, by which steady profits were to be realized, and to put down that system of wild specu- lation by which, though some had made lorge fortunes, multitudes had been ruined — to join in calling for and in forcing this inquiry. To the statesman ho would say — if he were desirous to restore homiony, to put an end to the unconstitutional pro- ceedings of the Anti-Com-Law League, and to other dangerous meetings — if ho wished, by restoring prosperity to all classes, to maintain peace, safety, and prosperity — to yield this inquiry, and no longer delude himself by expecting effi- ciently to remedy the evils under which we had so long suffered, while a systora was maintained that had so long been the great monster evil, oggravating every other evil, ond paralysing every remedy. The hon. Member concluded by submitting his Mo- tion to the House.
Sir G. clerk said, the original Mo- tion, to which the hon. Member had moved an Amendment, was, that they should take into consideration the Report upon certain Resolutions which hod been agreed to in a Committee of tliot House, for the purpose of making oltcrations in the duties levied upon the importation of certain articles of Customs. Before that Report was brought up, numerous ]>etitioiis had been presented to that House, setting forth the inconveni- ence which every description of trade in the country was suffering in consequence of the uncertainty which prevaile<l as to whether any or what reductions were U) take jdoce. He believed, though a differ- ence of opinion might exist as to some of the propositions included in the Resolutions before the House, yet that with respect to tlie propriety of a very large jiroportion of
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1846.
those reductions in duty, there was no difference of opinion whatever. The hon. Member for Binningham, the representa- tive of one of the greatest manufacturing and commercial towns in the country, had professed to meet those Resolutions by pro- posing that they should be reported that day six months; but the main argument of his speech was that a great mistake had been committed some years ago with regard to the arrangement of the monetary sys- tem of the country; and he contended that a Committee should be appointed to in- quire whether all the causes of the distress of the country were not owing to the mea- sure of 1819 ? It was no doubt a matter of the greatest importance to this country that our currency and monetary system should be placed upon a substantial and sure foundation ; but he confessed he was extremely surprised that upon that occa- sion, when every hour was of consequence, the hon. Member should have attempted to divert the attention of the House from the question properly before it to that subject. He should have thought that the hon. Member would have attempted to have shown that some injurious consequences would have arisen to the country in conse- quence of the adoption of certoin of these measures. [.Mr. Spocser : I intend to do 80 by and by. ] If the hon. Member meant to do so by and by, he felt it to bo quite unnecessary to consume the time of the House now. He was obliged to the hon. Member for saying that this was only a preliminary step. When the hon. Member referred to particular items, he should feel bound to state the reasons which had in- duced Her Majesty's Government to pro- pose these reductions. As it was, after the explanation which the hon. Member had given, he felt that ho should be only wasting the time of the House if he went on now.
Mr. NEWDEGATE did not know whe- ther many hon. Members were aware of the fact, that contemporaneously with the introduction of these great free-trade mea- sures a Bill had been proposed and read a second time for extending the operation of the Bill of 1819 (of which the hon. Member for Binningham complained) to Scotland and Ireland. The course adopted by the Government was this — that whilst they brought in measures to exjwse our domestic industry to foreign competition, and there- by to reduction of price, they at the same time introduced monsures restrictive of the currency, which would also depress prices;
thereby doubly attacking native industry and the value of its products. He knew the subject was distasteful to the House; but he was quite confident that they could not fully appreciate the effect of any great measures like the present, which wojild cause a considerable reduction in the price of the articles produced by the labour of the country, if they looked solely at the question of price as a matter between the supply and demand for those articles, and knew nothing of the relation of the medium of exchange to articles which were to be exchanged; for price consisted of two ele- ments : the relation of the articles to bo exchanged to each other; and, secondly, of their relation to the medium of exchange — of the value to be given by each party for the use of it. Those who considered price without reference to this second ele- ment, saw only half its bearing.
Mr. SPOONER did not wish to press his Motion to a division. He only desired to point out the real aspect of matters, and in some degree to point attention to the injury which had arisen from measures that had hitherto been passed. He would, therefore, withdraw the Motion he had proposed.
Amendment withdrawn. Resolutions to be read a second time.
On the Question that Bronze Manufac- tures not enumerated, be charged with a duty for every lUUZ. value 10/.,
Mr. SPOONER said, that if the pro- posed reduction of duty with regard to articles of bronze of foreign manufacture were agreed to, severol valuable manufac- tories in Birmingham would be destroyed, and a great many men thrown out of em- ployment. He would move the omission of the article, and that the present duty be retained.
Mr. MUNTZ hoped his hon. Colleague would withdraw his Motion. He could not understand upon what principle they could abolish protection as regarded land, and not as regarded manufactures. He had told his constituents that if the duty on foreign corn were taken off, they would have to submit to the duty on foreign manufac- tures being reduced, or perhaps abolished. He had called upon them to deliberate upon the subject, and to decide one way or the other, and they had accordingly de- cided on trying the policy of reduction. The only fault which he found with that policy was, that the whole of the protective duties were not equally reduced, and upott that point he begged to ask the right hon.
CUffTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
BaraMt oppoMto whettMr he would Uko in I urn at the end of three yean for ac-
■plwhini; that ol>ji>ct ?
8iB R. VEFAj wuuld answer the ques- of both bon. (jcntlemen. The fimt Imm. Member for Birmingham had stated that if the protectirr datjr on foreign brome articles wore reduco<l from 15/. to 101. seTeral bronte manufacturers in Bir- niaaliani would be ruined. Now what had haaa the effect of the present duty ? The whole amoant of duty paid on the importa- tioa of artirlps of bronze of foreign manu- faeture during the last year was only 78/. They were now going to rontiniie a duty of 10 per cent., and the hon. Gentleman had undertaken to pro]>lioi>y that the bronze mannfacturers of Binuingliam would be mtned. lie hoped that prediction would he reeorded, for it would, perhaps, be worth while to remember it. lie would Tenture to say, that with a duty on the foreign article of 10 per cent., the bronze manufactures of Birmingham would not be ruined : and that in a rear hence the amount of dutr paid, though it might ex- ceed 78/., would not be such as to cause the slightest apprehension. With respect to the question of the other hon. Member for Birmingham, he thought he had very wisely dissented from the opinion of his CoUeague. The hon. Member had asked him the question which the noble Ia)rd op- posite haid asked him the other night — rit., whether he was prepared to fix any particular p<-rio<l when the protection now eontinuml should temiinate i That was a question for the consideration of Parlia- ment. If the bon. (icutlenian and tho.se who reM«iento<l the manufacturing in- teraat mouM come forwanl and say that there should be a particular time at which toch protection should absolutely cease, he vaa iMrt at all sore that he would not ac- ^iesee in their views.
Mr. Ml'.VTZ wished for free trade in the true sense of the word, and thought that as the duty had been reduced on the manufactared article, the duty on copper ore. a raw material, should also be re-
U%. KEWDEOATK said, that upon the ^— atioB BOW before the House, he wished to oWanre that he had eonf<ilt<>d n portion of liiaeoiuititnencyrMidi! tn,
becMiae he had. of eoar^> ..of
MM adraaciag opiuoBaoB «ii«tt«rs on which he did not poami the opinions of practical powoiw; and he eoold aaaura the Honso ihM, day by day, aa th« moaaore was more
fidly seen, »o, day by day, did the opinion gain ground that distress must follow, if passeil into a law; and that tho!>e who felt Its effects would not easily be able to re- cover the injury it must do them. In sup- port of the statement made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, he would read a letter to the House he had received from a person to whom he had applied for informa- tion : not feeling himself capable of afford- ing a practical opinion, he had obtained the judgment of one far better versed than himself in the matter. This letter, as he had before observed, would support the statement made by one of the hon. Mem- bers for the town of Birmingham; and it had emanated from one of the largest manufacturers in the place, who said he hod also consulted several of the principal merchants there, and their conviction was, that in those cases —
" Wlierc nuich in.-iDual labour wa< required, froe compelition with France, Bel);ium, and Prussia, would 1)0 very injurious, and unless we obtained reciproi-al favours, would, in niany instances, bo niiuoun," the labour there being so much cheaper. Tlie writer .idded — " The (rreater part of the Bir- mingham and Sheffield articles are now prohibited from enterinjf France ; and on the remainder the duties are so pvat that very few of any kind are sent ; pretty nearly the saiuc is tlte case in Prussia and Belgium ; the duties on all English manufac- tured articles hare been increased within the last few years in every country in Europe, and the greatest possible efforts are being made by each Government to supply their own wants."
The document he had read might be taken as a true index of the o])inion held by his constituents in the town of Birmingham, and fully corroborated the statement matle by one of the hon. Members for that town. 'Mk. STAFFORD O'BRIEN' trusted that the hon. Member for ]3irminghnra would not press his Amendment. At the same time he must say, that the Resolu- tion recognised a principle which by right should bo extended to the fanner. Al- though the right hon. Baronet would not say when he would take off the remaining duties, ho must ask what chance any other duty had of being maintained merely as a protection, and not as a revenue duty, now that the keystone — as hon. Gentlemen op- posite calle<l it— of protection was gone. The right hon. Baronet said, he expected to sec the time when the manufacturers would come ond ask him to take off all re- maining protective duties; but even there ho showed more regard to the manufac- turers than he had done to the fanners, for he had not heard that the farmers had yet gone up in procession to the right hon.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAECH 13, 1846.
Baronet to implore him to take away their protection. As the right hon. Baronet claimed credit for being so far-sighted, perhaps he was also clear-sighted ; in that case, the right hon. Gentleman would be conferring an obligation upon him (Mr. S. O'Brien) and his friends, by explaining by what process he proposed to distinguish buck-wheat meal from wheat meal. He would challenge any man, even the right hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, who generally saw as far into a millstone as any man, to distinguish the one from the other by their appearance.
On the Question that the duty on Bronze Powder be 101.,
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had presented a petition, signed by 500 of the paper-stainers of the metropolis, com- plaining of the proposed reduction of duty on foreign paper. It was but fair that gome equivalent should be given to them ; and as bronze powder was an article much used in paper-staining, he wouKl propose that it should be allowed to come in duty free. With regard to the reduction of the duty on foreign paper, he believed that the rich alone would be benefited by it. On the common paper the duty would be pro- hibitory, and the only paper that would come in would be that which would be used in such houses as those in Grosvenor Square. At the present moment, he was sorry to state, that a great number of the employers of these paper-stainers had given notice to their men, that they did not intend that any loss which might arise from the proposed reduction should come out of their profits, but that it should come out of the wages of those whom they employed. A manufacturer at Islington, who employed about sixty hands, had given such a notice ; and in another establish- ment conditional orders had been accepted, the employers holding back one-fifth of the men's wages until the Tarifif was settled. In the event of its being passed, one-fifth would be deducted from the wages of these parties, and that he thought would be very unfair towards them. In 1842 the duty was 1». It was then proposed to reduce it to 3(i. ; hut, in consequence of representa- tions which were made to the right hon. Baronet opposite, it was allowed to remain unaltered. It was now proposed to re- duce it to 2d., and with such a duty the paper-stainers of this country believed that they would not he able to compete with the foreigner. On the best sort of paper made
in this country there was an excise duty of 2^d., while the foreigner paid no excise duty at all; and he thought that if any alteration was to be made, the paper- stainers should at least be allowed to im- port bronze powder duty free, it being, as he had stated, much used in their trade.
SiB G. CLERK said, he had recently received a deputation from the paper- stainers on the present subject, to whom he had explained that what they had to pay in this country in the way of excise duties did not by any means act as an in- jury to them, in consequence of the extent of the virtual protection which their manu- facture enjoyed. With respect to the bronze powder of Birmingham, it had been admitted that that article had recently so much improved that it was now generally used in this country in preference to that of foreign production. That body had also allowed that with respect to design, the foreign manufacturers generally excelled them ; and the acknowledgment of infe- riority in this respect, on their parts, was calculated to encourage the pubUc to pa- tronise the foreign manufacture in pre- ference to the home. But he considered that the best mo<le by which the manufac- turers of this country would improve in the matter of design, was by exposing them to compete with the foreign manufacturer.
Mr. Alderma.v TIKJMPSON considered the silk weavers, the hatters, the boot and shoe makers, as well as the paper-stainers and every other home manufacturer, would have equally to complain of this foreign competition.
Motion agreed to.
Upon the Question, that Butter the cwt. I0«. stand part of the Resolution,
Mr. GROGAN" objected to any reduc- tion of the import duties upon butter. He said it formed, if he might so speak, almost the staple manufacture of many parts of Ireland, and that even with the present rate of duty the Irish fanners were barely able to compete with foreigners. How, then, he would ask, could they expect to do so when the duty was reduced from 21*. to lOt., as proposed by Her Majesty's Go- vernment ? He argued that the effect of '■ this reduction would be to drive Irish but- ter almost entirely out of the market ; and he could not conceive how any Irish Iklem- ber could with propriety support the pro- position of the Government to reduce the duty. From the years 1827 to 1841, the exportation of Irish butter in Por- tugal had decreased from 29,909 cwt. to
10
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION RETORT.
5,900 cwt., whiUt the imporution of fo- raign batt«r into thk eountry during; tlio now period had ineroMed. rndcr thoHC uillj— Mlaiirn he thou^lit it wa« not unre*- MsaUe to Mk, that protection oliould be — ihiaed upon bult<>f and cheosc. In 1842, wfcen tnc Tariff was under considera- tion in that Houne, it was considered as an act of justice to Ireland, that the articles of butU'r and cheese should not be inter- fiand with. He could not see now, whr. aider a pretext of impendinfi; famine, the QvMrninent should endeavour to deprive Irtlaad of one of her most desirnblo sources of indostrj. He waa suqirisc«l that Iri!<h Members had not raised their voices against this proposition ; but as thej had not, he should do so. and should endeavour to ex- clude both rlie<>so and butter from the Ta- riff. He should oppose the Motion.
Sib 0. CLERK was not surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member to the proposed rc<luction of duty upon cheese and buttor, especially when he considered, as had been observed by the hon. Member, that they formed the staple manufacture of Ireland. The hon. Mem)>er had stated that no reduction was ma<le in the duties npon those articles in the Tariff of 1842, because it would have been considered an ■et of injustice to Ireland to have done so. Now, ho begged to state, that the sole gnnind upon which his ri^ht hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government resi.stcd the ^lotion of the noble Lord opposite, was solely upon the ground of revenue, the amount of duty b^g 200,000{. per annum. He would refer the hon. Member, however, to the •tate of the butter trado up to the year 1816, when tbo duty upon foreign butter waa not more than .ti. per cwt., and up to which time the butter tratlc in Ireland flourished ; and bmking to the increase in, tW tnde in Ireland since 1816, he could not Me reason to apprehend danger from the importation of fon-ign butter. The hon. Member had state«l that the exporta- tion of Irish butter to foreign countries had decrraM-d ; but he had not stated the quan- tity which had been sent fmm Ireland into Great Britain. Now the fact was, that tko article of butter being one of prime and ' eoosanptioa in this country, Imd 1 te m greater proportion than the I of pOfmlataon. L nfortunately, in 1825 (bere waa no official account of the ^aantity of butter im)Mirted into this coun- trj from Ireland; but it had been aaccr-
taincd upon data on which perfect relianee might with safety be pla<'ed, that the quan- tity of butter importofi into Great Britain from Ireland, from 182.') to 18.'i7, had nearly doubled, Wing not less at the pre- sent time than 1 ,000,000 cwt. The price of foreign butter imported into Eng- land waa, and always had been, regulated entirely by the price of the English mar- kets. It was well known that when trado was prosperous generally throughout the manufacturing districts, that a larger quan- tity of butter was required than this coun- try waa able to jiroduce ; it was, therefore, necessary for them to get a supply from other sources ; but he thought, that in- stead of the competition of the foreigner, in the article of butter, having an injurious effect upon the Irish producer, it would tend to Btiniulato him to greater exertions to improve by every means in his power the manufacture of so necessary an article of life ; and if tliis wa.s the result, he could only say, that the Irish would have no- thing to apprehend from foreign compe- tition, more especially with a protective duty of 10». per cwt., which he considered quite ample. He believed the result of this proposition would be, that Irish butter would be so improved as to be able to com- pete with the best foreign butter produced. He admitt«d, however, that, considering the article of butter to be one of necessity, the duty was only to be justified on ac- count of the large amount of revenue.
Mr. J. TOLLEMACHE hoped the hon. Member for Dublin would j)res8 the ques- tion to a division ; and if he did not, he should himself feel it necessary to take the sense of the House on the proposed duty.
Sm R. H. INGLIS said, that the right hon. Baronet the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had stated that, after all, the hon. Member for Dublin need not bo alarmed, for no great deal of butter would bo imiwrtcd. This reduction involved the alternative, that if no more butter was imported than last year, there would be a loss of revenue ; but if there was double the quantity imported, it would compete successfully with our own production, which was deprive<l of protection.
The CHANCELLOR of tiie EXCHE- QUER said, that the hon. Baronet had only conKidere<l the producers, but the Go- vernment would not forget the consumer. By this reduction revenue was risked, but he was confident that it would he mode up by increased consumption ; nor would the increaaod importation injure the agricid-
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1846.
11
tural interest, for such an injury depended on the quantity produced at home, as com- pared with the importation ; but when the quantity of butter consumed was con- sidered, he was sure the hon. Baronet would feel that care should be taken that there should be no scarcity of that article. It was one of those articles which consti- tuted a comfort of the lower classes, and no such im])ortation would ensue as would injure the agricultural interest. When he resisted the reduction of this duty on for- mer occasions, he did so distinctly on the ground of revenue, which was so large that he could not afford to lose it, but now that there was a rela.xation of duties, it ought to be among the first.
Lord G. BENTINCK said: If, Sir, one argument more conclusive than another could have been pro<luced, why we should have rejected the proposition of the Go- Tcmmcnt in regard to this article, it was that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Clerk) who begins by telling you that it is the staple manufacture of Ireland on which it is proposed to reduce the existing protection by one-half ; and of which, as he believes, incredible as the statement appears, 1 ,000,000 cwt. are annually im- ported from Ireland into this country. Why, good God ! Sir, the price of butter, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is 80«. per cwt. ; and, if you are going to decrease the protection by 10». on 1,000,000 cwt. of butter, the amount lost to Ireland — if Ireland suffers the whole loss — will amount to 500,000;. Well, Sir, and if you are not going to reduce the price of butter by taking off protection, of what good will the reduction be to the consumer ? If the re- duction is to be productive of any ad- yantage to the English consumer, you must reduce the price by reducing the protec- tion. Therefore, I have a right to pre- sume that the object of Her Majesty's Ministers, and the object of this House in giving up an amount of duty little short of 125,000/. per annum, must be to reduce the price of butter ; and, if you do that, yon must injure Ireland in a corresponding degree. I should have thought. Sir, that this was not the time when we should be disposed to carry any measures that could by possibility prove injurious to Ireland. We arc told, Sir, that Ireland is, if not in a state of actual famine, at least in great distress ; and we are called upon, and we willingly respond to that call, to vote a sum of 2.'J0,OO0i. for the purpose of relieving, by public expenditure, the people of that
portion of the Empire. If the position of the sister country is then so critical a one, is this the moment, I ask, in which we ought to carry measures that may injure her to the amount of half a million sterling per year ? Which are the counties that produce the greatest quantity of butter in Ireland ? The county of Cork is, I believe, more celebrated than any other. [Hon. Members: Kerry and Carlow.] Well, Kerry, Cork, and Carlow. Now, what has been the statement made a few days ago, by one who ought to be a good authority upon Irish matters — the " Times Commis- sioner?" We see it stated by the " Times Commissioner," that he had it from the authority of the secretary to the savings bank at Cork, that the small agriculturists — the conacre farmers, I believe they are called — the " frieze-coats" of the county of Cork, within a circuit of twenty miles round the city, have laid by no less a sum than 200,000/. in savings alone in the course of the last year. Upon this au- thority, we find that the small farmers of the county of Cork have saved 200,000/., which, we arc told, amounts upon an average to .34/. each. So that such is the flourishing state of the county of Cork under protective laws — under protection to the agriculture of Ireland, and protection to Irish proiluce of all descriptions, wheat, oats, and, above all, butter — that no less a number than 6,000 small farmers have been able to lay by from their savings 34/. each within a year. And are you now going, by making an alteration in those laws, to check the prosperity of that large number of industrious agriculturists ? I think. Sir, it would be unwise to choose this as the moment in which to withdraw protection from Irish butter. What says the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) ? Why, he tells us what- ever may be the duty upon butter, that exactly the same amount of Dutch butter will be imported ? In God's name, then, why not take the duty from the Dutch ? I cannot understand the principle upon which Her Majesty's Ministers are proceeding. Thcv fling duties away in large sums — 125,000/. on butter, and 70,000/. on cheese — without any object that I can un- derstand, unless it is to bring foreign pro- duce into competition with English and with Irish produce. I could understand them if they flung away the malt duty — a tax amounting to 60 per cent, on the raw material ; but they seem to be in no hurry to reduce that. The reduction of the duty
IS
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPOKT.
oa malt would be a meaanre of relief ex- cliuivdj conferred upun the Knglish pro- doeer and consumoT. Yes, the drinkers of bear and the barlvr gprowers would dirMe t)ie entire benefit, and therefore it is that Her MttjentT'it Minsters will not for the world touch the Malt Tax. If the ob- JMt of rrdurinf( duties is to relieve the aonsomer, I be)( of hon. Gentlemen to say whether ther do not think a retluction of th* duty upon tea would not be as advan- tagWNH to the oonsomer as a reduction of dotr upon butter. Yet Her Majesty's Ministers do not propose to reduce the duty tea ; and why hare they not made a proposition ? Why, fur no reason that I can see, except that tea docs not eome into competition with the produce of Great Britain. Well, then. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says, " Oh, depend upon it, the reduction will not injure Ire- land ; Ireland has a protective duty of 3t. per cwt." Why, has the right hon. Gen- tleman forgotten that Great Britain was at war with almost the whole of Europe for twenty years before ; and was not that a sufficient protection to Ireland ? W^as there an opportunity of importing butter from Holland, or from any other country ? These, Sir, are the reasons why I cordially concur in the opposition to this article being ad- mitted into the s<'he<lu1e now before us.
The House divided on the Question, that Butter \0t. cwt. stand part of the Resolu- tion : — Ayes 213; Noes 111: Maioritv 102. ^ '
LUt of the AvKS.
AeUiHl. T. D. A'Coart, Capt. A|Uoakr, H. A.
AiMWOItll,P.
AMaB,W. Aasea, boo. Col.
lUillir. Col.
lUillio, H. J. BuiM>. W. Wsawmnn, A. Bwviaj. D. BarU^U. Bwiaf, It. boa. F. T. Bariaf,T.
Bariag, it. hoo. W. B. BwMi<E.O. Bufwntff, MMl. C* Bttwntf, BOA. Ccpi. ~ ■ Kalph M.J. H. Birtili BwUh
;.I>r.
Bright, John Brothorton, J. BrawBc, hon. W. Bmoe, i,ord Ernest BulliT, Charlea Butfeild, Willuun Botlcr, P. S. Cudwpll, E. CsTcaduh, boD. G. II. Chapman, B. Chichester, Ixird Chrutir. W. I). CUy. Sir W. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir 0. Cob<ien. R. Cochrane, A. Cockbum, rt. hn. Sir G. Colebrooke, Sir T. E. t'orry, rt. hoo. II. Crair. W. O. Crawford. W. S. Cripp.. W. Currie, Raikea Cvrteii, II. B. IMmeny, Lord IWrpnple. Capt. ItawsM, boa. T. V.
Dennistoun, J.
IVEjrnoourt, rt. hn. C. T.
IMckiiiton, F. II.
IHvett, E.
Douglas, Sir C. E.
Drumroond, H. U.
Duke, Sir J.
Duncan, Viwt.
Duncan, G.
Dunoaonon, Viact.
Duncombe, T.
Dundas, Adin.
Ea9t;ior, Vitct.
Kllicc. rt. hon. E.
Klli., Wynn
Elphinatone, H.
Escott, B.
Etwall, R.
Evans, W.
Evan», Sir De L.
Ewart, W.
Ferguion, Col.
Fitiroy, hon. H.
Flower, Sir J.
Forater, M.
Fox. Charici B.
Gisborne, T.
Gill. T. Giboon, T. M. Gore, M. Gore, hon. R. Goulburn, U. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Greene, T. Groy, rt. hon. Sir G. Hall, Sir B. Hamilton, W. J. Hamilton, Lord C. llastie, A. Ilatton, Capt. V. Ilawes, B. Ilayter, W. G. Ileathcoat, J. Herbert, rt. hon. S. Hill. I.,or>l M. Hindley, C.
nobhouse, rt.hon. Sir J. Hogg, J. W. Iloilond, R. Hornby, John llornman, E. Howard, hon. C. W. G. Howard, P. H. Howard, Sir R. Hughea, W. B. Hume, Joseph Humpbery, Aid. Hutt, W. Jamcf, W. Jamex, Sir W. C. Jermyn, Earl Jervi», John Jooelyn, Visot. Johnstone, II. Kolly, Sir Fiti Roy Ijibouehorc, rt. hon. II. Ijwocllei, hon. W. S. Ixich, James Ixx-khart, A. E. Lyall, G<M)rgo Macaulny, rt. hon. T. B. Mackinnon, W. A. Macnanura, Major
M'Carthy, A. MGeaehy. F. A. M'Taggart, Sir J. Mahon, Visct. Mangles, R. D. Marshall, W. Martin, J. Martin, C. W. Masterman, J. Matbeson, J. Maiile, rt. bon. F. Mcynell, ('apt.
Mildmay, H. St. John
Milncs, R. M.
Milralfe, H.
Mitchell, T. A.
Moffatt, G.
Moleswortb, Sir W.
Morris, D.
Morrison, Gen.
Morrison, J.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. I>.
Munti, G. F.
Napier, Sir C.
O'Connell, D.
O'Connell, M. J.
OTonn*ll, J.
Ord. W.
Osborne, R.
Palmerston, Viact.
Parker, John
Patten, J. W.
Pechell, Capt.
Peel, rt. hou. Sir R.
Peel, J.
Plumridge, Capt.
Price, R.
Rawdon, Col.
Reid, Sir J. B.
Reid, Col.
Russell, Lord J.
Russell, Lord E.
Scott, Robert
Scrope, G. P.
Seymour, Lord
Seymour, Sir H. B.
Smith, Benj.
Smith, J. A.
Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Smythe, hon. G.
Smollett, A. Somerville, Sir W. iL Stensfleld, W. R. C. Stanton, W. H. Stuart, Lord J. Stuart, U. Strickland, Sir G. Strutt, E. Tanert>d, 11. W. Thesiger, .Sir F. Thornely, T. Tollemacbe, hon. F. J. Tomline, G. Towneley, J. Trail, G. Trclawny, J. S. Trench, Sir F. W. Tufiiell, U. Villiers, bon. C. Vivian, J. II. Vivian, hon Capt. Waklev, T. Wall, C. B.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1846.
13
Warburton, H. Ward, H. G. Wavm, J. T. Wellesley, Lord C. White, S. Williams, W. Wilshere, W. Wood, C.
List
Acton, Col. Alfbrd, Visct. AUix, John P. Antrobus, E. Arbuthnot, hon. H. Archbold, R. Arkwright, G. Aaatin, Col. Bagge, W. Baillie, W. Baldwin, B. Bankes, G. Barrington, Visct. Bateson, T. BeU. M. Benett, J. Bennett, P. Bentinck, Lord G. Bentinck, Lord II. Bcrcsford, Major Bortbwick, P. Bramston, T. Vf. Broadley, H.
Broadwood, H.
Brooke, I>ord
Bruce, C. L. C.
Buck, L. W.
Chandos, Marq. of
Christopher, R. A.
Churchill, Lord A.
Chute, W. L. W.
CUyton, R. R.
Cole, hon. H. A.
Compton, H. C.
Courtenay, Lord
Deedea, W.
Diaraeli, B.
Itodd. G.
Douglas, Sir H.
Duckworth, Sir J.
Duncombe, hon. A.
Dancombe, hon. 0.
Du Pre, C. G.
Fellowes, E,
Finch, G.
Fitimaurice, hon.
Floyer, J.
Forbes, W.
Frewen, C. H.
Fuller, A. E.
Gore, W. 0.
Granby, Marq of
Halford, Sir U. Hall, Col. Halsey, T. P. ■ Harris, hon. Capt. Heathcote, G. J.
Wood, Col. T. Worsley, Lord Wortley, hon. J. S. Wyse, T. Yorke, hon. E.
TELLERS.
Young, R. Baring, E.
of the Noes.
Henley, J. W. Hildyard, T. B. T. Hinde, J. H. ^
Hodgson, F. "
Hodgson, R. Hope, A. Hudson, G. Hurst, R. H. Hussey, T. Inglis. Sir R. 11. Irton, S.
JollifTe, Sir W. G. H. Jones, Capt. Knight, F. W. Knightley, Sir C. Law, hon. C. E. Lennox, Lord G. H. G. Liddell, hon. H. T. Lockhnrt, W. Lowther, hon. Col. Mackenzie, T. Maclean, D. Manners, Lord J. March, Earl of Miles, P. W. S. Miles, W. Mundy, E. M. Nceld, J.
Neeld, J. S. Newdegate, C. N.
Newport, Visct.
O'Brien, A. S.
Ossulston, Lord
Packe, C. W.
Palmer, R.
Palmer, G.
Pigot, Sir R.
Rashleigh, W.
Rcndlesliam, Lord T. B. Rcpton, G. W. J.
Rolleston, Col.
Seymer, H. K.
Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Sibthorp, Col.
Snthoron, T. H. S. W. Spooner, R.
Spry, Sir S. T.
Thompson, Aid.
Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Vyse, H. R. H.
Waddington, U. S.
Walpole, S. H.
Williams, T. P.
Yorke, hon. E. T.
TELLEBa.
Grogan, E. ToUemache, J.
On the Question, that Button Metal for every lOOZ. value, lOi., stand part of the Resolution,
Mr. spooner objected to a reduc-
tion of duty on foreign buttons. He was of opinion ttat unless protection was con- tinued for this branch of manufactures, our trade would suffer materially from German competition. He would not divide the House upon the subject, but content himself by recording his opposition to but- tons being included in the schedule.
Sir R. peel said, that when the duty received on buttons was 151. per cent, the amount of revenue derivable therefrom had been 91. Under those circumstances, ho could not see what apprehensions the but- ton manufacturers could feel by reducing the duty to 1(W. If his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner) thought the difference proposed would in- jure the trade, he (Sir R. Peel) could not agree with him. His hon. Friend really did not give Birmingham fair play. Question agreed to.
On the Question, that Cotton Articles, or manufactures of cotton, wholly or in part made up, not otherwise charged with duty for every lOOi. value, 10/., stand part of the Resolution,
Sir H. halford said, that with re- gard to the abatement of duty on cotton stockings, from 20 to 10 per cent., the reduction would have a most injurious ten- dency upon an important article of manu- facture in the midland counties. As the Representative of an agricultural and ma- nufacturing district, and connected with land in the midland counties, he would oppose any abatement of duty on cotton hosiery. The present was, he considered, a matter deeply interesting to agriculture in those counties, because the operatives employed in framework knitting in the counties »f Leicester and Nottingham, resided for the most part in the country villages in the vicinity of towns, and were dependent upon the poor rates levied upon land, and not upon manufactories, when out of employment. Thus, any abatement in duty likely to cause a less demand for home produce, would have the effect of ma- terially injuring this important branch of native industry. lie could refer to docu- ments quoted in that House to show what opinion competent witnesses had formed with respect to the withdrawal of protec- tion from the framework knitters of the midland counties. The hon. Baronet read a portion of the evidence taken before a Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the framework knitters in the counties of Leicester and Nottingham, and proceeded to say that 100,000 persons
14
cuarroMS and cobn importation report.
wera emploTed in the niAniifacturo of cotton baaierT.MMl thatthesam of 2,287,(X)0/. wag Mwually paid in whge». Tho exports for tho tbiM year*. iBclndiog 1 81 4-1 5- IG, amount- ed to575.872 doi«n pairs, ami the value to 1.156,022t.;whilcduriii ■ Mars from
1834 to 184.3. the av. . i.-d value
feu from 1.13«.OL'2/. to 11U.W8/. This frUiiig'^tff was to be traced to Saxon com- petition ; for the borne coMumcr, to meet the low priceH of the foreign article, resorted to the manufacture of a fraudulent article in order to cmniM'te ftucee.Hsfully. The fruits of this competition resulted in an article of so inferior a de»cription, that the manufacture got into discredit, and eonwe- quentlj the demand became gradually less and lee*. So successful had the Germans also been in producing gluves of a superior description, that gloves could be imported into Kngland at half the price they sold for here. It was not at all unusual for a respectable London ond New York house to import gloves from Gennanv for the wholesale tratlc. The trade of the frame- work knitters Imd declined tietwecn 3(J and 40 per cent, since 1815; and abundant erideuce could be adduced to show the diatreaa that prevailed among the persons emplored in that branch of manufactures. If this abatement of duty took place, coupletl with free trade in com, the distress of the frameloom operatives would be con- siderably augmented ; because the experi- eoee of past years testified that when the price of provisions was low, wages declined in direct ratio ; and tho condition of tho operative population became much aggra- vated, lie saw nothing in anticipation but misery — that misery and ruin which wuuld follow from the competition that would reault from the proposed measure. There waa much said <in the subject of Dritish industry, and on the skill and perseverance of British workmen: thot was all true; but the persons who indulged in that species of argument, were not those who would feel the pressure — as that pressure could only be fully felt by the operative, whose inter- ests would be afre<.'te<l by the removal of that protection to which he wos entitled.
U*. GISllOKNK did not rise for tho pnrpoao of contradicting tho statement matle by the hoii. Baronet as to the misery of the framework knitters ; on the con- trary, he fully concurrc<l with him that their situation could not be worse ; but for manj years previous he knew it had not Wan batter. Thb knowledge be obtained tnm n long ro^doncc among them ; and be
feared that no measure could be introduced that would cause that branch of trade again to flourish. If anything could alleviate the misery which the lion. Baronet so tndy described, it was, in his opinion, the opening of the ports, and giving to those suifering tradesmen food at the lowest price. He did not believe they were adverse to the proposed measures of Ilcr Majesty's Go- vernment ; he could say, that neither from bis Apnstituents, nor any other parties con- nected with the hosiery trade, had he re- ceived any remonstrance against those measures ; and he was firmly convinced that the only chance left for the revival of that branch of manufacture, was the carry- ing into immediate and full effect the system of unshackled free trodc.
Colonel ROLLE.STON could not un- derstand the argument that if the operatives of the hosiery trade bad suffered so much under protection, the reduction of protection one- half could remedy the evil which all admitted to exist. He could not think how hon. Gentlemen who adopted such an argu- ment, could reconcile tf) their own minds what involved so apparent a contradiction. But however they might reconcile it to their own minds, or endeavour at present to explain it away to the operatives, the time would come when their interests would be so materially affected as to convince all ]>artiea of their mistake. The subject then before the House was one of no ordinary interest, as it concerned a very large class of the commimity ; and, being so, it should not be hastily legislated on. It demanded serious attention — it required due consider- ation— especially when it was well known that of the working classes in manufac- turing districts, even in a single town, there were no less than one thousand fami- lies totally dependent for relief either on public charity or the workhouse. Under such circumstances, the proposition of the right lion. Baronet should be well considered before ultimately decided on ; a proposition, the tendency of which would he to effect a greater depression. For his part, after giving the subject due consideration, and knowing tin; injurious effects which must follow, he Wuuld enter against the re<luc- tion of the present protection his most decided protest.
Mil. R. M. MILNES would feel it his duty to divide tho House on tho subject. An unjust accusation had been thrown out against those on this side of the House, that b(!causc they were themselves deprived of protection they were indifferent about
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1846.
15
the interests of others. He was quite sure so unworthy a sentiment never passed through their minds. Before, therefore, they would give up the cause of the hosier and the handloom weaver ; hefore they would de- clare their case hopeless, they should make an effort for the continuance of that pro- tection which they now enjoyed.
Sib G. clerk said, that the House must regret to hear of the melancholy picture that had been drawn by the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir H. Ualford) ; hut they must still remember that this was the state of things as they had existed under a system of comi)lete protection. The hon. Member for Leicestershire had stated that the number of persons employed in the hosiery trade was 100,000 ; and that, a very short time ago, they had exported oods to the value of one million sterling. Sir H. Ualford: In 1815.] That in 815 they had exported goods to the value of one million sterling ; but that their ex- ports had since been reduced to four hun- dred thousand pounds. Uc had attributed that falling-off to the fact of fraudulent goods having injured the character of Eng- lish goods in the foreign market. But tlie House would observe that the prosperity of the trade de|K;nded on its competition with the foreign tra<le ; for if the labours of the framework knitters of Leicester and Nottingham were confined to the home market, they must remain in the greatest state of destitution ; 1 00,000 persons being employed in the trade. The only chance of improving their condition would be by giving them a foreign trade. It was useless to prevent the introduction into this country of hosiery goods, unless means were taken to give them a foreign market ; otherwise they would do no good to the framework knitters of Leicester and Nottingham. The House must consider whether these mea- sures would have a tendency to extend the foreign trade. If so, they would confer a benefit on the framework knitters, as well as on the other manufactures of this coun- try. For it was not competition, which the hon. Member for Leicestershire said had been the cause of their misery, but their ex- clusion from foreign markets. Under these circumstances, even if a complete protec- Kk. tion were given them, and they were satis- '- fied with the monopoly of the home market, they would be effectually prevented from
t introducing those improvements into the manufacture by which only they would be
tores. The whole amount of duty received under the 20 per cent., had been only 700/., showing that it was quite insignificant. Behoving that the continuance of the pro- tection would not in the slightest degree benefit the operatives, he could not consent to any alteration in the proposal.
Mb. STRUTT had attended a great meeting of the manufacturers of the mid- land counties, a few years ago, at Derby, at which statements were made as to the condition of their trade ; and those state- ments were equally unfavourable with those the House had now heard ; and yet the object of that meeting was to petition for the abolition of the Com Laws, and the general freedom of trade. The ground the manufacturers took on that occasion was this. They said — "We are now placed under certain disadvantages, com- pared to foreign countries, by the ope- ration of the Com Laws, combined with the restrictions laid on our trade : we have thus been, from year to year, driven out of foreign markets ; our profits have been thereby re<luced, and our operatives have been brought to the melancholy state in which they now are." Their object was not to j>etition for any protection whatever, hut simply to ask that they should be placed on tlie same footing as the manufacturers of other nations ; that they should have the same means of obtaining food, and be placed exactly on the same footing ; and then, they stated, they should not be afraid of entering into fair competition.
Mr. WYNN ELLIS said, he had pre- sented a petition signed by 7,000 frame- work knitters, praying for the adoption of the measure of Government. He quite agreed in the statements that had been made as to the effect of those measures on the trade. In 1829 he had canvassed all parts of the town of Leicester, and nothing could exceed the misery and poverty which then everywhere prevailed. The tales told him were perfectly horrible : all this ex- isted under a state of protection, the great panacea of the day.
Sib J. UOBHOUSE said, he had pre- sented a petition from the mayor and town- council of Nottingham, which had been agreed to unanimously — also a petition signed by 12,000 of the inhabitants of Nottingham — in favour of the measure ; and such was their confidence in those measures, that though they considered Government had not carried the principle to the fuU extent, namely, immediate re-
16
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
peal, yet, for the nake of the benefit which the meMuro woald confer on the country gMMnllj. thov begge<l that their own pro- teetion nii|;ht be taken awav. Though he (Sir .1. HobhoUHo) had receive<l no com- munication on the Rubjeot, he was far from denyin); that distreoi* prevailed at Notting- hAin. Since hiit cunnexiun with that town, 1m hftd not known a iiingic year, or portion of a year, in which such complaints had not been made ; but this had been during; the continuance of the protective system. There wa« aoraethinp Ticious in the system under which these attempts of the frame- work knitters had been carried on ; they had been seeking to force a species of ma- nufacture which could not be carried on adrantageously under that system ; and when the measures of Government were carried, they would at least have no more to complain of than any person engaged in other manufactures.
Mk. W. miles asked, if when the amount of protection was 20 per cent., Saxon hosiery came into this country, how much more would come in when that pro- tective duty would be reduced to 10 per cent. ? Would not, he would ask, a very large quantity be imported ? Would not, then, the Saxon trade deprive this country even of the advantage of a liome market ? Would not the natural consequence be the total ruin of the operatives in Nottingham on its reduction to 10 per cent.? Total free trade, or the proposed reduction in the present protective duty for hosiery, must almost, if nut altogether, drive the home manufacture out of the market. He hope<l, therefore, an effort would be made on that occasion to allow those operatives to remain as they were ; for if now they were not able to compete with the fo- reigner with a duty of 20 per cent., would it not be totally impossible for them to eomp<-tc with him when it would be reduced one half?
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought there should be a great distinction made be- tween the state of the trade and the state of the oiMTativo. Nothing could be more frightful than the condition of the operative. How came it to be so bad ? Because he did not receive his full share of the profits. Did people suppose, were the duty raised to 40 per cent., it would at all be to the ad- vantage of the operative; that while the master manufacturer received 1 Ss. a dozen, the operative only received his 8«. Was that a fair share for him to receive? Last
year there was a law passed called the " Ticket Act," the carrying out of which, he thought, would be of great advantage ; and believing it would be useful in its ope- ration, he would call on the right hon. Ba- ronet at the head of the Government to en- force that law, which, if properly adminis- tore<l, would confer great Wnefit.
Viscor.vT INGESTRE wished to know, if at the meeting alluded to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Strutt), there had been a single operative present to assert the claims of his class ; if not, and the meeting consisted only of capitalists, he could view the proceedings only as an attempt to re- duce yet further the miserable pittance the men still had.
Mr. FREWEN, in allusion to the re- mark of the hon. Member for Finsbury, declared his belief there was not a magis- trate in the county of Leicester who would not do his utmost to carry into effect the law of last Session.
Lord G. BEXTINCKsaid, that thathon. Gentleman would have them believe that all the distress had originated in the pro- tection which was given to the stockingers; but he would like to know, if protection were that bane to the stockingers, how came it that the Saxon, under protection the most stringent, was able to enter into competition with the stockingers of Eng- land, so as to be able almost to drive them out of the market ? He apprehended there was no country in which manufac- tures were more stringently protected than in Saxony, and yet the result was, that Saxony was able to rival England, not only at home but in all the markets of the world. He recollected the account which was given by Mr. M'Gregor, of the manufac- tures of Saxony. He stated that there stockings were made for 3rf. a pair; while the Member for Nottingham told the House that there the charge was Ss. a dozen. Ho wanted to know how the stockingcr of Not- tingham and of Leicestershire could, under a productive duty of 1 0 ])er cent., and charg- ing 8». a dozen for stockings, compete with the Saxon who could sell his stockings at 3rf. a pair, or 3». a dozen ? The hon. Member for Leicestershire had stated to the House that 100,000 persons wore en- gaged in the stocking business. Was his noble Friend who asked protection for agri- culture, prepared to try the experiment of free trade on the 100,000 stockingers ?
The House divided on the Question — Ayes 190 ; Noes 102 : Majority 88.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAKCH 13, 1846.
17
List of the Ayes.
Acland, T. D. A'Court, Capt. Adderly, C. B. Aglionby, H. A. Ainsworth, P. Aldam, W. Archbold, R. Baillie, Col. Baine, W. Baldwin, K. Barkly, II.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Barnard, E. G. Berkeley, hon. Capt. Blake, M. J. Bodkin, W. H. HotSeld, B. Bouverie, hon. E. P. Bowes, J. Bowlea, Adm. Bowring, Dr. Bright, J. Brotherton, J. Browne, hon. W. Bruce, Lord E. Busfeild, W. Cardwell, E. Cavendish, hon. G. H. Ctiapnian, B. Chichester, Lord J. L. Christie, W. D. (ilay. Sir W. Clerk, rt. bon. Sir G. Cobilen, R. Cochrane, A. Cockbum, rt. hn. Sir G. Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Corry, rt. hon. U. Craig, W. G. Crawford, W. S. Cripps, W. Currie, R. Curteis, H. B. Dawson, hon. T. V. Dennistoun, J. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. Dickinson, F. H, Douglas, Sir C. E. Drummond, H. II. Duke, Sir J. Duncan, Visct. Duncan, G. Ihinc'annon, Visct. Duncombe, T. Dundas, Adm. Eastnor, Visct. Ebrington, Visct. EUice, rt. hon. E. EUicc, E. Ellis, W. Elphinstone, H. Escott, B. Etwall, R. Evans, W. Ferguson, Col. Fitzroy, hon. H. Flower, Sir J. Forster, M. Gibson, T. M. Gill, T. Gisbome, T. Vol, II.
Gladstone, Capt. Gore, M. Gore, hon. R. Gonlburn, rt. hon. H. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Greene, T. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Hall, Sir B. Hamilton, W. J. Hamilton, Lord C. Hastie, A. Ilatton, Capt. V. Hawes, B. Hayter, W. G. Herbert, rt. hon. S. Hill, Lord M. Hindley, C.
Ilobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Hollond, R. Hornby, J. Horsman, E. Howard, hon. C. W. G. Howard, P. U. Hughes, W. B. Hume, J. Uutt, W
James, Sir W. C. Jermyn, Earl Jervis, J. Jocclvn, Visct.
Kelly, Sir F. Lnbouchere, rt. hon. H.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Loch, J.
Loekliart, A. E.
Lyall, G.
M.->onaniara, Major M'Carthy, A.
McGcachy, F. A.
McTaggart, Sir J.
Mahon, Visct.
Mangles, R. D.
Marshall, W.
Martin, J.
Martin, C. W.
Masterman, J.
Matheson, J.
Meynell, Capt.
Mitcalfe, H.
Mitchell, T. A.
Moffiitt, G.
Moieaworth, Sir W.
Morris, D.
Morrison, J.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Muntz, G. F.
Napier, Sir C.
Norreys, Sir D. J.
O'Connell, D.
O'Connell, J.
O'Connell, M. J.
Osborne, R.
Paget, Col.
Palmerston, Visct.
Parker, J.
Patten, J. W.
Pechell, Capt.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Peel, J.
Plumridgo, Capt.
Price, Sir R.
Rawdon, Col. Reid, Sir J. p. Rcid, Col. Russell, Lord J. Russell, Lord E. Ryder, hon. G. D. Sandon, Visct. Scott, R. Scrope, G. P. Seymour, Sir H. B. Smith, B. Smith, J. A. Sniythe, hon. G. Smollett, A. Sonierville, Sir W. M. Stansfleld, W. R. C. Stanton, W. U. Stewart, J. Stuart, Lord J. Stuart, II. Strickland, Sir G. Strutt, E. Thesiger, Sir F. Thomely, T. Tollemacbe, bon. F. J. Tomline, G.
Towneley, J. Trelawnv, J. S. Trench, Sir F. W. TufiieU, H. Villiers, hon. C. Vivian, J. H. Vivian, hon. Capt. Waklev, T. Walker, R. Warburton, H. Ward, H. G. Wawn, J. T. WelleslcT, Lord C. White, S. Williams, W. Wilshere, W. Wood, C. Wood, Col. T. Worsloy, Lord Wortley, hon. J. S. Wyse, T. Yorke, II. R.
TKLLERI.
Young, R. Baring, U,
/
List of the Noes.
Acton, Col. Alford, Visct. Allix, J. P. Antrobus, E. Arkwright, G. Austen, Col. Bagge, W. Baillie, W. Bankcs, G. Barrington, Viact. Batcson, T. Bcnett, J. Bennett, P. Bentinck, Lord G. Bentinck, Lord U. Bercsford, Major Borthwick, P. Bramston, T. W. Broadley, H. Broadwood, H. Brocklehurst, J. Brooke, Lord Bruce, C. L. C. Buck, L. W. Chandos, Marq. of Churchill, Lord A. S. Chute, W. L. W. Clayton, R. R. Clifton, J. T. Cole, hon. H. A. Compton, H. C. Courtenay, Lord Deedes, W. Disraeli, B. Dodd,G.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Duncombe, bon. O. Du Pri, C. G. Fellowes, E. Finch, G.
Fitzmaurice, bon. W. Floyer, J. Forbes, W. Fox, S. L.
Fr«weo, C. H. Fuller, A. E. (iranby, Marq. of Grogan, E. Hall, Col. Halsoy, T. P. Harris, hon. Capt. Heathcotc, G. J. Henley, J. W. Hildvard, T. B. T. Uiudc, J. H. Hodgson, R. Hope, A. Uouldswortb, T. Hudson, G. Hurst, R. H. Hussey, T. Ingestre, Visct. Irton, S.
JolUffe, Sir W. G. H. Jones, Cant. Knight, F. W. Knightley, Sir C. Law, hon. C. E. Lennox, Lord G. H. G. Liddell, hon. H. T. Lowtber, hon. Col. Maclean, D. Manners, Lord J. March, Earl of Maxwell, hon. J. P. Miles, P. W. S. Miles, W. Milnes, R. M. Mundy, E. M. Neeld, J. Neeld, J. Newdcgate, C. N. Newport, Visct. O'Brien, ,A.S. Palmer, R. Pigot, Sir R. Rashleigh, W. Rendlcsham, I.ord
c
18
RMtaa.0. W. 0. KoUmm«.Co1. ScfMr, H. K. Stew. It. boa. F. 8ib(lwrp.CoL fMkmom.T.B.S.
R.
». Aid. , J.
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
\jf. R. II. R. n.
Waddiiifton, U. S. Wklpolp. S. U. Willuun., T. P. Yorkc, bon. K. T.
TILLBU.
nslfonl. Sir II. I'wke, C. W.
Farther coiwulerktion of the Tariff ad- journed till Muiidav. Hoaa« adjoumou.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, March 16, 184€.
CUSTOMS AND COR.V IMPORTATION REPORT.
The further proceedings on the Report of the Customs and Com Importation Re- Bolutions was resumed.
On the Question, that IIops, the cwt., 2/. 5t., stand part of the Resolution,
Mb. PLUMl'TRE said, this was a sub- ject of deep and paramount importance to the county he had the honour to represent, and with which, of course, he was princi- pally conversant, though he had every rea- son to believe that the matter was of equal, if not of greater magnitude, as respected SlUMX and other hup growing counties. In 1842 the duty on the import of hops had been re»luced from SI. \0»., or 9/., to 4/. 10*. ; but the latter sum wag certainly acceded to by the hoj) growers, as not an inadequate amount of protection. It was now prmiosed, however, to reduce tlic duty from 4/! 10*. to 21. 5«. ; and the hop growers wore universally of opinion, that under such a duty they would he utterly unable to maintain a competition with the foreign producer. It should be recollected the home hop grower had to pay an excise duty of II. per cwt., a burden which, of course, the foreign pro<lucer had not to Ihhu', and which, therefore, operated, pro tanto, in favour of the foreigner, and against the homo producer. The real amount of protective duty on the English hops was thorefore rcdticed to 25s. per cwt. ; a duty entirely inadequate to protect the bop planter of this country. Those who were •c<|uaiDt<<d with the growth of hops knew that it n>quired some time to bring the Mticle to perf(<ction ; and that bringing a plaiiUtion into a state fit for production WM ftttendod with heavy preliminary ex- MorcoTcr, large tuma wore in-
vested in the building of vast houses in which to dry the hops, so that a great amount of capital was invested in the rais- ing of hops. There were from 20,000 to 30,000 acres occupied in the raising of hops in Kent alone. And it was a most im- portant consideration in connexion with this subject, and showed how inseparable from the question of protection were the inter- ests of labour — that in the growth of hops, at least 8^ more per acre were expended than in the cultivation of any other species of arable land; that is, that where 101. per acre was expended in the wages of labour in the growth of hops, only 21. per acre would be expended in the same way in the cultivation of wheot or any other grain. The labour likewise engaged in the raising of hops was not that of men alone, but of women and children. So that, in fact, in the hop districts, large populations had grown up around and arisen from the hop plantations in which they were engaged. The reduction of the duty would, by ex- posing the hop planters of this country to a ruinous competition, inflict irreparable injury on their interests. It was hut justice, therefore, that, under such circum- stances, if the customs duty were to be thus ruinously reduced in favour of the foreigner, at least the exci.sc duty should be propor- tionally reduced in favour of the home grower, who then might have some chance of success in an otherwise hopeless com- petition. It was of great importance to bear in mind, in this question, thot the consumer would not be bcnefite<l one jot by the reduction of duty. So small was the quantity of hops employed in brewing of beer, that when the effect of the duty was taken in detail, the reduction of the duty could not have the effect of lowering the price in any perceptible degree — cer- tainly not more than one farthing per gal- lon ; while, on the other hand, there was the certainty of irreparable injury — the prospect of utter ruin to an interest which j)rovcd the source of abundant emjiloyment to the poor, and in which large sums were invested. He pressed these considerations humbly, but earnestly, on the attention of the Government.
Sir R. peel did not know that ho could add anything to that which he stated when this subject was brought under con- sideration by the hon. Member for Sussex, in the year 1 842. It was stated that the duty being i)l. per cwt. in 1842, it was re- duced to 41. 14*. 6d. per cwt. Alarms of the same nature as those expressed by the
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1848.
19
hon. Member for Kent were then expressed, that hops would tlien cease to be cultivated, and that the people would cease to be employed. But it appeared that, during the three years which had elapsed since 1842, only two cwt. of foreign hops had been brought in, while the duty which had been paid had not exceeded 10/. in the three kingdoms. lie apprehende<l that the countries from which any formidable competition could be expected were very distant from this. Some hops, he believed, were grown in the United States ; but they could not stand a long voyage, and were very much inferior to those grown in Kent. The produce of Kent, with the duty of \l. per cwt., could enter into com- petition with the produce of America, or any foreign country. The introduction of hops into this C(iuntry from any other had been hitherto a bad speculation, though sometimes the price was exorbitant. But if in dear years a moderate quantity were brought in, controlling the exorhitantprices, he (Sir R. Peel) thought it would be for the general advantage of the consumer, and he very much doubted if it would not be advantageous to the hop growers them- selves. He could not consent to repeal the excise duties on hops, and lose 1 / 0,000t. revenue, or 200,000/. in prosperous years. The question was, whether the hop grower in this country, with a protection of 25s. ; that is, deducting the 11. excise duty from the 21. r>g. protection duty, could not enter into competition with the foreign grower, except when the prices were so exorbitant as to render it for the interest of the con- sumer that they should have a foreign sup- ply. He could not add anything to that which had been said upon what had been brought before them by the hon. Member for Sussex. He could not then consent to a reduction of the excise duties ; and ho could not think it desirable to maintain so high a duty aa had been paid on foreign hops for the last three years, during which time only two cwt. had been imported, and lOi. duty had been paid.
Mr. FL'LLER said, to repeal the Com Laws was bad enough, but to reduce the duty on hops was worse. It would ruin all the landowners, tenants, and labourers of Sussex and Kent, and it would throw thonsands out of employ. It was impos- sible to estimate the distress that must arise. At least the excise duty ought to be reduced. Foreign hops would be sold here for less than they could be raised at in Sussex. English capital would soon be
directed to the increased production of foreign hopB. The repeal of the malt duty which pressed so heavily on the agricul- turists and the country, would be a groat benefit to the entire community ; and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) might recollect his own declaration, that the re- peal of the malt tax must follow the repeal of the Com Laws. The right hon. Ba- ronet had represented that the hop planters had made a great opposition to the last re- duction of duty: it was true, and they had only agreed to the 4/. 10*. duty, on being assured that it should remain as a perma- nent and efficient protection.
CoLO.SEL AUSTIN concurred in what had been expresseil by the hon. Members for Sussex and Kent. The growth of hops stood in peculiar need of protection ; and that it was totally unnecessary to reduce that protection on account of the consumer, was evident from this, that the prices had been moderate on an average. The fallacy of the right hon. Baronet was in assuming, that because 4i. 10s. might be adequate protection, 21. 5s. could be so. But, in truth, it was only a protection to the ex- tent of II. 5s., when 11. per cwt. was de- ducted for the excise duty, to which our hop growers were exclusively subjected. If the (jovemment persisted in their ri solu- tion to reduce the duty, the most ruinous results must ensue in the hop growing counties. He feared t^t no reasoning and no appeals would induce the right hon. Baronet to m'odify his proposition ; but the right hon. Gentleman would teach the farmers of England a bitter lesson they would not readily forget — that they were to expect permanenee in no measures but such as operated to their detriment and disadvantage. Such were the fruits of that free-trade mania with which the right hon. Baronet had been unhappily inoculated from the opposite side of the House. Had he any influence with the House, he would not hesitate to use it to induce them to in- crease the protective duty on hops, rather than diminish it. But, as he knew that the hop-growing was carried on in few counties, and that Members for other dis- tricts were not acquainted with the im- portance of the subject, he despaired of making any impression on the House, and could only express an earnest hope that, on some future occasion, they would be in- duced to reconsider a matter so moment- ous.
Mr. KNIGHT wished it to be under- stood, that when the hop growers remon- C 2
80
CUSTOMS AND OOBN IMPORTATION REPORT.
ktntod with the QoTernmcDt on the hut reduction of the duty, thry did 8o under the impretaion that it was to be a reduc- tion to, 22$. in«U>a<i of 41. 10«., with which Utt«r (lun they wore tatiafied, and ex- pected that it would Ix* maintained. It otixht not to bo forgotten that extra tithes and poor rate* were charged on hop grounds to the extent of some 4*. or 5«. per cwt.; which was of couno a proportionate draw- hack on the protective duty. Then again anather circumstance uperated very unfa- Tonrahly to the English hop grower : he had to pay the duty when his hups were dry; whereas tlie foreign producer could keep his hops in l>ond till they were re- quired for consumption ; meanwhile the English hop grower lost the interest of his money. Since 1842 foreign hops (Bel- gian for instance) had been offered freely in the river at 21. 2$. per cwt., free of duty ; the hop dealers in London offered 6/. 6«. per cwt. including duty; and with a 41. 10*. duty, the foreign hops were cx- cludtnl; hut with a H. 5t. duty, of course at that price they would come into compe- tion with our own hops. He had been informed on good authority that hops could be brought from America at 21. per cwt., and the freight would be only 2s. or .3«. more ; so that they woidd be nearly on the same footing as the Belgian hops. The Re|K>rt of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, (Sir H. Parnell, Mr. Baring, and Mr. \\ ickhani,) all staunch free traders, recommende<l that, concurrently with the reduction of the ini|H)rt duty, there should be a repeal of the excise duty. The aver- age price of British hops had been 51. 9». per cwt. — not at all a high price — whereas foreign hops could be sold for 4/. 7*. per cwt., inclusive of the 21. 5t. duty now pro- posed. Ho understood tluit the proposed alteration in the law of settlement in the hop districts was to l>e retrospective instead of prospective. This would be felt as a Tery hard case in the hop growing districts. Supposing the hop grounds were broken up, what would become of the poor people who had been located in those parishes? It was, in fact, like breaking up a manu- facturing town, and leaving all the work- men to be maintained by the owners of Um deatrored factories : the poimlotion waa a« much crowded together. Ue sincerely hoped that the right hon. Baronet would Bot throw prices so low as to prevent the English grower of hops mnlinuing his cul- tivation. The right hon. Barunct had said, the precarious crop introduced a kind of
gambling into agricultural pursuits. The hop grower must have a certain capital to go on with in case of a bad year ; and when they had districts in England where there were men of capital, and who were capable of carrying on the cultivation, he really did not see why they should be in- terfered with in their speculations. The question, then, was, should Government ruin those men, or should it not? There was another thing. In these hop districts a great quantity of coarse linen was con- sumed yearly in making hop bags, while the coals for drying amounted to at least 10,000 tons annually. lie hoped the House would take this into consideration, and would either consent to let the fo- reigner pay a higher duty, equivalent to the excise duty on hops, or would take off the duty on hops altogether. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kent had clearly showed that a reduction would have no real effect in lowering the price to the consumer, and therefore it would be needless to touch upon that. He thought if the right hon. Baronet wished to give cheap beer to the people, he should take the duty off malt.
Mk. Aldehman- nUMPHERY thought the proposed reduction would be advan- tageous to the public, and he doubted the accuracy of the calculations which had been made by the hon. Member who had just sat down with respect to the average price of hops in England. He recollected one year, the year 1817, in which the price was as high as 38i. per cwt. He did not think it at all likely that the cost of carrying American hops to this country would not exceeil four or five shillings j)er bag; nay, he held it to be quite im]K>ssi- ble, for it cost as much to convey them from Canterbury and Maidstone to Lon- don. Even though many of the hop gar- dens were to be thrown out of cultivation, the consequences would not be very dis- astrous, for there was no description of ground which grew better wheat than that which had previously been cultivated under hops.
Mil. A. J. B. HOPE said, ho thought the present question had not been put strongly enough in favour of the hop- growers. Hop growers were not merely agriculturists, but they were at once agri- culturists and traders, and therefore might suffi'r the casualties which attend both the traders and the agriculturists. A bad crop of wheat or oats was a rarity ; but the hop grower could nut insure himself from
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846. 21
casualties even from one year to another, series of years, while the large grower
Formerly, they looked to a surplus of one made great profits. The year 1817 had
year to supply the deficiency of another, been alluded to in the course of the even-
They knew that high prohibitory duties ing ; but there was a very great blight
would prevent foreign hops from coming in. during that year, and therefore it ought
The course of nature generally brought it not to be quoted as a precedent, as it was
round that good and bad harvests were a very extraordinary year. Hops could
just sufficient to make up in good years not be grown, he was informed, under
the deficiency of bad years. Any hop 40/. an acre, of which 12?. went to pay
grower having capital could sell his hops, the wages of men, women, and children,
because he was enabled to store it up to He could assure the House that a large
meet the demands of scarce years ; but if number of hop grounds would be thrown
the facility which Government gave at pre- out of cidtivation in consequence of this
Bent were removetl, that could not be the measure. The hop grower, however, would
case in future. He thought there were not object to. the protective duty being
peculiar circumstances to prove that hops lessened, if the Government would at the
ought to be treated with particular leni- same time take off a portion of the excise
ency, especially when they remembered duty.
that hop growers paid the enormous e.\- The CHANCELLOR op the EXCHE- cise duty of 2d. in the pound. They were QUER said, that he was very glad he gave also put to the annoyance of having an way to the hon. Gentleman who had just excise o£Scer to stamp every bag of hops, addressed the House, as he had told them and compelled to pay toll before it. could that although the system of protection be taken out of the store. When all this amounted to a prohibition, yet the effect was considered, besides the uncertainties of it upon the hop grower was such as to of time and season, he did think it was a make hop grounds for the most part losing very great hardship for the hop growers of concerns. He thought no argument could Kent to have their protection taken from be stronger than that, for attempting some them while an expensive and burdensome change in the system which had proved so excise duty was still levied upon their pro- detrimental to small people engaged in the duce. He thought that if there was to be growth of that particular article. When free trade, there should be free trade be- the hon. Gentleman talked of a perfect- tween Maidstone and London. He under- ly free trade in hops, he should consider stood there was at the present moment a what the proposition was before the House, large London brewer who had ordered a The Government did not put the English quantity of hops from America, which at hop grower on the same footing as the fo- once went to prove that they could be reigner, but it put double the duty upon brought into England. The hop trade in the foreigner to what it did on the home Kent supported and provided food and grower. The hon. Member for Maidstone sustenance for numbers of the labouring had said, that were they not deprived of classes of that county. It had been said their present advantages, they could hold that a great spirit of gambling was their hops over against a deficiency ; hut abroad ; but if the excise duty were was such a mode of gaining a profit what taken away, there would be none. The the Government ought to support, as fair trade would then be carried on without to the consumer ? The hon. Gentleman any of that spirit of gambling which was had also expressed great fear that we now complained of. He thought that, should have American hops introduced into considering hops were subject to a heavy this country ; but on that head, he had excise duty, it demanded, if anything, a been sufficiently answered by one of his much greater protection. own party. He wished the hon. Gentle- Ma. FREWEN said, that the right man would mention the name of the large hon. Baronet had alluded to the great brewer who had sent to America for hops ; profit which had been made by the hop- because if his name were once known, growers. It was very true that some he would undoubtedly lose all his custom, large capitalists had made much money. Much had been said against the excise but it was not the case generally speak- duty. It had been said, that the foreign ing ; for so great was the spirit of compe- hops would not require to have the duty tilion in this country, that the profit was paid till they were taken out of bond, lowered very considerably. The small while the duty on home-grown hops must hop grower invariably lost money after a be paid when they were dried. Such waa
22
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
not (he fact ; tlic oxcUc duty was not pnid until » cousitlfrablc time aftrrwards. He Wlirvod the olcisc dutj waa cunsidorcd by many hop growers to be a protection to theni.
Lord G. BEXTINCR said, that there were other ^anibliiip; (peculations going on in thiA country tliun gambling in hops. There was a little gambling going on in railway speculations junt now ; but he was
higher duty than was required ; hut at the same time, he thought that duty reduced as it was now proposed to he reduced, was too small ; but the forms of the House pre- vented him from proposing any interme- diate duty ; and, therefore, whilst he pro- tested against his vote to-night being con- sidered as a vote in favour of a duty which was almost prohibitory, yet he had no other option than to pro^MM-e that that port
not exactly of opinion that any trade ought of tbo Resolution be omitt'eJ
The House divided on the Question, that Hops the cwt. 21. 5s. stand part of tho Resolution: — Ayes 91; Noes 44: Majority
47.
to bo put down because gamblers chose to •Beenlatc upon the honest pursuits of other peraoaa. lie apprehended that the hup grower! themselves were not the gamblers
— it waa the Lonu'on speculators who were ^.we of the Ates.
the gamblers. It had been stated by tho ChanceUor of tho Exchequer, that the House heard from tho hon. Member for Sussex that hop-growing ha-d heen a los- ing concern for some years pa.''t ; but tho Barnard, E. U right hon. Gentleman proposed a uifferent ^g™?^' ^ j
remedy to that which he should propose. He should propose that the excise du ty be
taken off. He was glad to hear, in tJ>e
early part of the evening, the stronget t
proof of the advantage of the abolishment
of the excise duties. The abolition of tho
excise duties upon glass had brought a
considerable reduction of outlay to tho
Government, by the employiuent of a less
number of eici.^ ofEeers ; and he thought
they had a reasonable groun<\ for suppos- ing that one hundred excise i )fficers might
come off, and upwards of 10, OOOf. a year
be »»r«d. by aboh'shing the present hop doty. That would be a meiins of giving
asaiattuee to tho hfp grower;!. A gentle- ,.. ,
■«B«a h»i called upon him tliat- moniing and (Vippn, W. aasurcd him that in the year 1836, under I>alryini)l.>, Cant. UK) rejnilations of the Excis.., he had j.aid }l^',[''I^"sir"c E. US*. M. a cwt. upon fifteen <;on8 and a half Kundan.Adm.
of hops, which were grown in 1836, which Kbrinf^on, Vinci
waa a goo4 y***^ : the result was, he was
obliged to h^ his hops till 1 840, when
he was tirod of holding them, and then
he sold tbo hops, with that duty of 1 8*. 8d.
paid upuii tliom for 16i. It had been stated
that in 1817 or 1818, hops were 38/. tho
cwt. Would they admit foreign-grown
hoM to remedT rach disastrous effects as
thm! Ho wished to call the attention of
the hon. Ocntlomen on the Treasury liench
to one tiling. Supjiosc they were to throw
the hop grounds out of cultivation, what did
the Government mean to do with the Tithe
CommuUtiun Act? He uudersto<Hl that Lilt of the 'SoES.
while wheat land paid 7«. an acre towards
tix! tithes, hop land iiaid 20f. Ho admit-
tad that a duty of 4/. 10(. a cwt. was a
Aglionhy, H. A. Aldam, W. ISainu, W. BariDfr, rt. hon. F. T.
Botfleld, B.
Bouvcrie, hon. E. P.
BowloK, Adm.
Brotherton, J.
Browne, Lon. W.
Bruce, Ixird E. ;tu»ficld, W. Bu tier, hon. Col. Caru'well, E. C'amej.'ie, hon. Cant. Chiche»;er. Ixird J. L. Childem, J. W. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Cobdcn, R. Collctt, J. Collins, W. Corry, rt. hon. H. Covri)er, hon. W. F. Crawford, W. S.
KUicf, rt. hon. E. Ellin, W. Escott, B. Etwall. R. Kitz^rald, R. A. Fitiroy, hon. H. Flower, Sir J. (loulhurn, rt. hon. H. nraluim, rt. hon. Sir J. (ireene, T. llannier, Sir J. llatton, Capt. Hratlicoat, J. Ilindl<Lv, C. Howard, P. O.
Hashes, W. B. Hume, J. Ilumpherj-, Aid. .lerinyn, Earl •locelyn, Visct. Kellv, Sir F. Kirk, P. Langston, J. H. Lockhart, A. E. M'Carthy, A. Mangles, R. D. MaKtcrnian, J. MitcheU, T. A. Moffiitt, G. Molesworth, Sir W. Mostvn, hon. £. it. h. Munt'i, G. F. Neville, R. Osborne, R. Parker, J. PcchcU, Capt. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Peel. J. Philips, J. R. Phillpota, J. Plumridgv, Capt. Seymour, Lord Somers, J. P. Staunton, Sir G. T. Stewart, J. Stnitt, E. Thosiger, Sir F, Thomlcy, T. Trelswny, J. S. Trench, Sir F. W. Tutfiicll, H. Vivian, J. H. Wakley, T. Warburton, H. Wawn, J. T. Whit«, S. WUllanw, W. Wood, Col. T. Torke, U. R.
TXLLEBS.
Young, J. Baring, II.
Allii, J. P. Arhnthnolt, hon. Austen, Col.
Baillie, W. DankoK, J. Benctt, J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846.
23
Bennett, P. Bentinck, Lord J. Bentinck, Lord H. Beresford, Major Borthwick, P. Brocklehurst, J. Buck, L. W. Deedes, W. Disraeli, B. Dodd, G. Finch, G. Frewen, C. H. Fuller, A. E. Ga«keU, J. Milnes Granbj, Marq. of Halford, Sir U. Hall, Col. Hodgson, R. Hope, A. Houldsworth, T. UddeU, hon. H. T.
Lj-gon, hon. Gen. Manners, Lord J. March, Earl of Miles, W. Newdegate, C. N. O'Brien, A. S. Packc, C. W. Palnier, G. Rcpton, G. Vf. J. Richards, R. Rolleston, Col. Sheppard, T. Sibthorp, Col. Spooner, R. Stanley, E. Thompson, Aid. Worcester, Marq, of
TELLKHS.
Plumtre, J. Knight, F. W.
On the article Leather,
Mr. knight said, that with respect to boots and shoes, he understood that great distress had ensued among the boot and shoemakers, consequent upon the last reduc- tion in the Tariff affecting these articles. He knew that many houses in London, which had paid 5001. a week wages, had shifted their establishments to Boulogne. One of these houses had exported a great number of shoes and boots. He was of opinion that the reductions would not only injure the trades which they affected in the me- tropolis, but press with still greater severity on the inhabitants of the country towns and hamlets. He thought that the electors of Stafford had made a bad bargain for themselves by the recent election. He would not divide the House on the question.
On the Question that "Platting of Straw the lb., 5s.."
Mr. re PTOX regretted that the right hon. Baronet had made this article the subject of still further reduction. The right hon. Baronet said, he regretted that he had not in the Tariff of 1842 proposed a still lower rate of duty ; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had any reason for regret, except that he had re- duced the duty at all. Before 1842, the duty was 10«.; but it had by that measure been reduced to 7». 6d. The House might not perhaps be aware that there were from 30,000 to 40,000 people employed in the manufacture of straw plait in the counties of Hertford, Essex, Buckingham, and Be<l- ford. It appeared to him that one of the great advantages derived by those employed in that business was, that they were able to plait the straw in their own homes. Many children and girls were employed under the eyes of their own parents. In
Tuscany a particular sort of grass was cul- tivated for this purpose, which he was told did not grow in this country. He had him- self seen it growing near Florence. From inquiries made he was led to believe there were three kinds of plait — one was of a very fine nature ; the second fine, but less 80 than the first ; and the third of a coarser sort. It was only concerning the two for- mer kinds that apprehensions were enter- tained. Fine straw was of great use to the retailers in London ; but that particu- larly fine quality was used entirely by the upper classes. He put it to the House, if it were not a hard case that the poor oper- atives should suffer, to make this kind of plait somewhat cheaper. The people of this country woidd find it impossible to compete with those of the north of Italy. The article, as he had already said, was exclusively used by the upper classes, and he was sorry to say that his countrywomen gave it the preference over the produce of their own country ; but as it was, he thought that when these ladies would wear so fine an article, they ought to be made to pay for it. Much had been said about improv- ing the condition of the lower classes ; but he thought reduced wages, that would fol- low from this measure, was a bad step towards it. He thought it would operate injuriously upon the poor women and child- ren employed in this trade. It must bo known that plait was an article of which a great quantity could be wrapped in very small bundles ; and that, consequently, the freightage was trifling. He would be glad to know the number of convictions for smugghng this straw plait, for great smug- gling of this article had, in 1 842, been urged as one of the reasons for lowering the duty.
Sib G. clerk was sorry if any injury had been done to the straw-plait manufac- turers by the measure of 1842. At that time the duty was I7«. 6d. [Mr. Rei-ton : Ten shillings.] No; 17*. 6d., and that, too, be it recollected, upon a guinea's worth of the article. It was, in 1842, reduced to a duty of 7«. 6d. ; and they now proposed to reduce it to 5s. ; still leaving a protection of 20 per cent, upon an article which could be, and had been, smuggled with the greatest facility. Since the reduction of 1842, he was proud to say the straw-plait workers had introduced such improvements in the plaiting of the article, as to be en- abled to produce a superior quality ; so that there was no ground for the apprehension entertained by the Member.
Question agreed to.
S4
OimroiB AND CORN IMPORTATION RErORT.
On the QuMtion. that all the articles iii-
clii'l " ■ " ■ ' Silk Manufactures
(!«'.' :'>n,
Mk. UANlvlI.S miJ, he would propose the uniiii«ii>ii of items upon which it was propoaed to reduce th<* duty to a very large extent. In duinf; so he would meet the ehallengv of the right hon. Baronet nt the head of the Uovcmment, who chnl- leoged any one to !<how that any material intereat had been injure<l hy the lowering of duty for any length of time. The right hon. Baronet aRsumcd, not only that no interest had l>een injured, but that all had been benefited, either inime<liatcly or with- in a very short |>eriod of the time when Buch an alteration was made. He should have felt some hesitation in talcing up a subject on which he could not pretend to any practical knowledge or information, neither could ho say it was one in which his constituents were especially interested; but he felt for the many weavers whoso interests would he injure<l by the reduc- tion of duties, and he had obtained a de- gree of iiifomiatiun which reached to a certain periixl, was full and accurate, and of an authority that could not be disputed. Within Bi.\ years of the alteration made in the silk trade by Mr. Hu.-ikisson, circum- stances had occurred which, so far from showing any improvement, evinced that inconvenience and suflTcring had been the result — in fact so much so that Parliament, then under the control of a Whig Govern- ment, felt itself constrained to yield to the demands of those engaged in that trade, and appoint a ('ommittec to inquire into the subject. In 1832 a Committee was appointed, of which he was a Member. There was u|Kin it twenty-three Members of the House of Commons, of whom as far as he was aware, only seven were now in the House. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was a Mem- her of that Committee ; but, so far as his recollection extended, attended it verv soU dom. He (Mr. Bnnkes) had since thought that if the right hon. Baronet had ottended it more frequently, he would not have thrown out the challenge he had given, be- Mttie ho must have felt that the moss of •ridence there tendered was entirely oppo- •ite to his pn-scnt views. The hon. Mem- ber for Monlrtise was also a Member of the Commitleo, and a eimstant attendant at the sittings ; and that hon. MemWr would not dispute the authority of the evi- deoco it receivisl. The sittings of the Committee exlcnde*! over a period of five
months, from March until August. It was appointed —
" To oxaniinc into the present stat« of the silk trade, and to inquire what effects lind been pro- dnoed bj tlie cluinires in tiie laws relatinf; to the ■ilk trade, sini-e l!'24, .-ind whether any h'g:islatiro measure could be devised oonipatilile with tlie ge- neral interest of the country, which would have the effect of promoting it ; at the winie time to prevent smuegling in silk manu&cture, and to re- port thereon to the Ilousc."
The Committee sat almost incessantly, and only closed its labours with the Session. The Report of the Committee was only laid on the Table the last day of the Ses- sion, and was in these words : —
" Yonr Committee regret that they are unable to m.ike any general or full report on several matters committed to their consideration ; but the various interests included, and the extent of the subject brought before the Conunittee, as well as the great numbtT of witnesses they had to exa- mine, and the knowledge that many others still rt'main to be examined, eomi>el us at this late pe- riod of the Session, only to lay the evidence taken before the House."
Had he (Mr. Bankeg) been a Member of the ensuing Parliament, he would certainly have moved for the reappointment of the Committee; but ho had not been in that House for several years after. When the Committee drew near to a close, the lato Sir Fowell Buxton, who was one of its Members, prepare<l a Resolution, which he submitted to the Committee as a founda- tion for its Report. He had the honour of assisting him, and Alderman Waithman also took i)art in preparing it. A day was fixed upon which this Resolution was to be discussed. When the day came, one of the Members, then the Member for Coven- try, as he believed (Sir H. Bulwer), did not attend, from illness or some other cause. The consequence was, that the Members of the Committee were divided equally for and against the Resolution. The chainnan (Mr. Sanford) was known to be in favour of the views of the support- ers of the Resolution, and his costing vote would have decided it in their favour. Be- fore the division took place, hpwever, a Member of the Committee was sent for, w-ho hod never been at any previous sitting (Sir Henry Pamell), and he voted against them. This was the reason why no other than the meagre Report which they saw on the Table had been j)roduced, and which was sufficient to assure them that no com- plete inquiry had taken place ; but a mass of facts had been recorded which indispu- tably proved that the complaints of the peti- tioners were well founded, and that the
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846.
25
silk trade had experienced severe depres- sion from the measures introduced hy Mr. Huskisson. There might be still a very large capital engaged in the manufacture of silk; but it had been proved, and he woidd forthwith direct their attention to the evidence, that the lowering of the duty had had the effect of lessening the wages of the operatives engaged in that trade more than half — that, from a state of com- parative ease and comfort — he had almost said indulgence, in which they were before the change was made — they had been thrown into fearful and general distress during the six years that intervened be- tween the pa.ssing of the measure and the appointment of the Committee. The hon. Member then proceeded to read extracts from the evidence given before the Com- mittee in question. Mr. William Bnuis- kell after one or two obsen-ations made by him, was questioned as follows:^
" Uow do you think the measure has atkcted the ribbon trade ? —I think great distresa has tikcn place in the ribbon trade from foreign com- petition.
" Do you consider that smuggling has increased in this period as compared with the period prior to 1826»— .\maangly.
" Are you aware of any manufacturers who thought wcU of the scheme when first proposed, and who have since altered their opinion ? — Yes. I hare reason to think there are several, and I will name them if the Committee wish (witness did name them).
" Wliat difTcrcnce is there between the wages of the English and the foreign workman ? — I should think the English workman has, generally speaking, very nearly double.
" Are you not aware that a great number of weavers in Spitalfields are thrown out of employ- ment hy the same article being nranufacturcd in Manchester ? — I am not aware of that.
" Is it not a fiict, that taking the whole of the goods now made in Spitalfields, that a (quality is made much better than it was a few yean ago ? — I should say not ; I think they made better goods ten years ago than they make now.
" You state that wages in Spitalfields hare been reduced .50 per cent, since 1826 ? — Yes ? from 40 to 50 per cent.
" I>o you attribute that to the intnxluction of goods from Krance 1 — Y'es ; mainly I do.
There would be found in another part of the Report, an estimate of the average weekly earnings of weavers in full employ- ment, in the plain ribbon trade, including satins and sarsenets. From the evidence of Mr. Benjamin Poole, it appeared that in 1815 the wages was 18«. Ikd. per week; in 1816. 17*.; in 1818, lit. Gd. ; in 1819, l«ir. \\d. again; in 1824. 17«.; in 1820, the year after the reduction, 14«. ; in 1829, three years after the altera- tion, tbey fell to 10«. lOd., from 18«. l^d.
He also found in that Report an account of the money actually paid for poor rates in Coventry — the parish of Coventry, for the support of permanent casual poor. At Lady-day, 1824, the amount paid for poor rate in that parish for permanent and ca- sual poor, was l,307i. lOs. 3d. In 1830, six years after, the poor rate rose to 2.1921. 19*. 2d.. Then, as regarded the evidence of Mr. Brocklehurst, he gave a statement respecting Macclesfield ; he men- tioned the number of spindles in employ, which were, in 1824. 270,000, and 10.000 people employed ; in 1828, four years after, and two years after the alteration of duty, the number of working spindles in that town was reduced from 276,000 to 159,000 — whilst the people, who in 1824 were 10,000, were reduced to 5,254. But in the year 1831, a reduction still more re- markable occurred ; the number of spin- dles was reduced to 1 20,000, and the peo- ple employed to 3,000, having been 10,000 in 1824. Then as to wages. In 1824, the wages of the able man in this trade was 18*. a week, the wages of young men 14»., of young women 12*. a week, of children from 7s. 6d. to 3». Gd. In 1828, four years after, the wages of able men, which had been 18»., were reduced to 8». 6d. ; the wages of young men, which had been 14«., were reduced to 7«. 3d.; the wages of women, which had been 12s., were reduced to 6s. ; the wages of children, which had been from 7s. 6d. to 3s. Gd., were reduced to 3s. Gd. and Is. 9d. But in 1831, still further reductions took place, for the wages of able men were reduced to 4s. 7rf. which had been 18s., the wages of young men to 4s. of women to 3s., of children to Is. Then let them take the poor rates of Macclesfield. In 1824, the gross expenditure of poor rates was 4,20H. 1 8s. ; in 1 829, five years after the poor rate was more than doubled — it amounted to 8,670<. Then let them take the num- ber of families receiving relief. In 1825, there were fifty-six families in that town receiving relief ; in 1831 , 51 1 . Now, could any one withstand such facts as these ? Was he to be told now, even supposing the statement was true, which he could prove it was not, that it was true the silk wea- vers did suffer for five or .six years, but that they had now recovered ? That would not meet his case. He had answered the challenge which had been thrown out, to produce a single case where mischief had resulted from the reduction of protection ; and he had shown that great and enormous
26
CUSTOMS AKD CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
luitchiof had been the rcRult of n rai<h al- teration in thoM! duties — an alteration of tlic efToct of which tlio House vaa warned, but which beinr sanctioned by the great name of Mr. Huakiaaon, was carried as triomphantly as any of those ahcrationa which the Honse waa now achieving. Ho would not saj but the great manufacturers might be ready to try this great eijK>- riment, and to share in the glory which was anticipate<l from the now system, and which was to find iaiitators in every part of the world. Hut they could afford to stand the risk of five or six Tears of depre- ciation, and sustain the disadvantage which unrestricted competition would cause them ; but he begged the House to remember that that which was a mere temporary disadvan- tage to them, was ruin to the poorer classes. The Ilouse could not re-establish them — it could not indemnify them for the injury which was brought upon them. He thought, therefore, they ought to pause, and give the operatives time to recover from the injuries which had already been inflicted upon them. The manufacturers would no doubt speak for themselves — some of them were present in the House ; but he should be surprised, indeed, if any of them would rise and tell him that the operatives were in favour of this change, or that they did not look forward with great and reasonable dread to the farther mischief which these measurea were likel? to bring upon them. But it might be said, it was true, the Spital- ficlds weavers were ruined ; but what busi- ness had they to settle there ? The hon. Member for Montrose said that. [Mr. Hcme: No, no!] The hon. Member de- nie<l it, but ho had heard the hon. Mem- ber say something very like that, namely, that the weavers had no business to settle there. Others said, " True, the business had disappcare<l from Spitalfields, but it had risen in other parts of the country." ThoB. where was it ? He had not been •Ua to discover it in other parts of the eonntry. It was not the same sort of trade it was — not the trade which gave the high wages — it was not the trade which wrought the valuable kind of manu- factures, which branch of trade alone gave the high wages ; and when he was met. aa he had no doubt he would be, with retnnu (rem the Board of Trade, ahowing a groat increase in the weight and bulk of the silk exported, he begged to say that would not meet his argument in regard to wages — it rather confirmed his apprahmuiotu, that they hatl lost the
manufacture of those fine and valuable fabrics which were bought by the rich, till, in consequence of the change they were enabled to buy them from foreigners ; which were bought by the rich who could afford to pay high prices ; and for the fabrication of which the master manufac- turers were enabled to pay high wages. Those fabrics ought to have been encour- oge<l, and not to have been surrendered in despair of being able to com])etc with the taste or with the dyes of France. At the very moment the change took place, they were in the act of sunnounting these obstacles ; they were discovering the means of being able to compete with fo- reigners both with respect to the dyes and to taste ; so much so, that it was stated before the Committee that a fabric was seized at the Custom House as French, which was afterwards proved to be an English one. The quantity of silk now manufactured might bo as much as before ; but what he contended was, that those ex- pensive fabrics which alone gave high wages, were now given up in a great measure. Therefore, when it was said that the persons formerly employed in Spitalfields had now gone to Manchester and Nottingham, he said it was not to work those fine and beautifid fabrics. Tlicy were engage<l in the manufacture of silk it was tnic ; but it was silk of an inferior nature — what was called the husks and knubs. [Clwers.] Hon. Mem- bers cheered him. Was it a matter of in- difference to the operatives ? Did they think what wages they got ? That was his case. It was nothing to prove to him that the same number of people were em- ployed who would have been employed wi- der other circumstances. His case wa.f, that great nimibers of them were employed at wages so low as hardly to provide suffi- cient subsistence for themselves and their families. It required no intimacy with the feeling of the working classes to know that they were not agreeable to the pro- nosed change. Reports of meetings had been published in the public journals : one of these was held at Manchester, and the report described it as numerous and en- thusiastic. Mr. Cann was unanimously called to the chair ; and he stated that the proposed Tariff would have the effect of lowering thoir present low rate of wages. Then the meeting was addressed by Mr. Bennet, who declared to the meet- ing—
" Tfiat he bad beeu a weaver for fifty-aevcn
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846.
27
years, and he found by bitter experience that every advance towards free trade only lowered their wages ; he would ask who they were who were now the leaders of free trade ? Not the ma- nufacturers, but great capitalists who could bur goods anywhere, and would buy them where they could 2ot them the cheapest, never caring about the labourer, lie would ask who were Cobden and Bright ? Two men who had amassed large fortunes by getting work done cheap, and only wanted the repeal of the Com I^ws for their own benefit. But he was sure that neither the weavers, nor, in fact, any bo<ly of working men, when the matter was properly explained to them, would be led away by the cry of cheap bread. But then Mr. Cobden said bread would not &U much in this country, but would rise on the contrary abroad ; but the manufecturers there would not raise their workmen's wages any more than our manufactu- rers, because their food was dearer ; and thus wo should make the poor there worse off than they were at present, and do no good to ourselves. For our manufacturers and capitalists took care, when bread was cheap to make tliat an excuse to lower wages ; but they also took care, when food was dear, not to raise them. Uuskisson's measures had brought ruin upon numbers of poor families, and Sir Robert's, he was sure, would prove worse still.
" Mr. Jones said he quite agreed with the pre- vious speaker, and he thought the best thing they could do was to petition against the measure, be- cause he was sure that they could not compete with the French unless we bad taxation as low, and wages still lower.
" Mr. Field then moved the following Resolu- tion : — ' Resolved that we, the weavers of Man- chester, in public meeting assembled, are of opin- ion that the reduction of duties upon foreign silks will be a very great injury to the silk trade of this country ; and we, therefore resolve to oppose it by every legal and constitutional means.' lie (Mr. Field) could also recollect the vast amount of misery which Huskisson's measure had inHicted on the silk trade of this country, and the misery and starvation which that measure had brought upon the weavers generally. It had had the effect of lowering their wages one-half, and I'eel's mea- sure would, if passed, do the same ; and he was sure it would benefit no class of persons but the fiindholder, the large capitalist, and the fixed an- nuitant. It was very well for such men as Mr. Hume to advocate low wages, just because bis lady would get a silk dress Jkbnnt sixpence cheaper, or perhaps a new bonnet threepence cheaper. The (act was, that the capitalist and large manu- facturers were not content with taking their sweat, but they had taken their fiosh, and now they wanted to open their bones and suck the marrow out. He concluded by proposing the Resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Canvenner.
" Mr. Clough then moved, ' that a petition Iw presented to both Houses of Parliament, against the passing of Sir Rolwrt Peel's measure, and in- stead of it to grant protection for labour to the working claw.' "
There was another meeting hehl in a dif- f<Tcnt place on the same day. It appeared that these meetings were perfectly open ; and yet the Resolutions were carried with- out one dissentient voice. Now, if he found that even in Manchester itself such lan-
guage was openly held, could he doubt that the working classes generally were averse to the change ? True, he found no persons of wealth or consideration taking part in these meetings ; but that was no reason why the House should disregard them. They were meetings of the work- ing classes, who were awake to the danger to which they were exposed by these rash experiments. They were persons who had felt the evils ; and therefore they were alive to this fresh attack. It was true that other trades and occupations had not shown the same feeling, because, happily, they had not hitherto felt the same degree of injury. Now, he had been told that the Spitalficlds weavers had gone to Manches- ter ; well, he had traced them to Man- chester, and this was the wretched condi- tion in wliich he found them, that they were scarcely able at present to provide food for themselves and their families, and rea.sonably anticipating that if thi« fresh change were made, their condition would become worse than ever. But it was verj singular that in a few parts of the kingdom did they hear much of this class of per- sons. His attention had been drawn in- cidentally to this subject, by lo^tiag over the Report of one of the Inspectors of Factories, whose attention was necessitrily directed to the subject of mills, and facto- ries through the kingdom. In looking through the Report of Mr. Saunders for the year 1845, whoso districts compre- hended the counties of Derby, Hertford,. Kent, Lancaster, Leicester, Nottingham, Somerset, Wilts, and York, he- found this result, that from comparing the num- ber of mills in October, 1838, with those in January, 1845, there were in the for- mer periotl, of cotton, 204 mills, m the latter period, 26.3 mills ; being an in- crease of 59. Of wool, in the former period, there were 566 millsv in the latter period, 6.'55 ; being an increase of 8^ mills ;. of worsted fabrics, in the former period, there were 388 mills, in the latter 438, increase 50 ; of flax mills, in the former period, 59 mills, in the latter 65 ; mcrease 6 ; and then came silk, which employed in: the former period 69 mills, and in the latter 63 ; being the only trade in which there had been a decrease. He ibniKl also- that the total number of chtldfen sndcr hi». observation in Lancashire wa& 13,000, while the children employed in the silk trade was only 800. Therefore, looking- to this extensive district of the coun- try, he did not find tha). tlic silk trade.
d8
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
yMA lukd be«n exp<>Ucd from London bj theM experiments, had been largely wtaUklMd HI any otIuT part of the kingdom. lie did not dixputo that there WW* many manufaotures which were called Bilk, but which were not formerly thought worthy of that name — manufactures where ■ilk WTM mixed with cotton, worsted, ond other articles : but he begged ogain thnt the House would bear in mind thot it was the question of wages ho wns arguing. There was a paper which had been largely circulated, and from which, therefore, he would quote but little ; but there were a few particulars which he begged to lay be- fore the House as a fair summary of his case, and as containing matter well deserv- ing their attention. It oppeared, then, that the wages of the silk weaver were less by one-half now than they were in 1 824 ; he thought the evidence ho had quoted had already established that fact. He trusted he should hear in the course of the debate, that, in many parts of the kingdom, the higher rates of wages were resumed ; for he did not deny that the manufacturers now could and diq carry on the higher fabrics, but not to the same extensive degree as before ; they had not increased in the same proportion os they would have done if pro- tection hod not been withdrawn ; and there- fore he had a right to assume that a large proportion of those who were now earning amall wages would have been eniploye<l in a more profitable way, if these alterations bad not been made. The second statement contAined in the paper to which he had re- ferred was, that the annual value of the silk manufactured in England was less by 2,000.000t. or .3,000.CkXM. stcrhng than it waa in 1824. Here again they had to deal with quality, not with quantity, be- CMue the exports of silk to Franco, which were so much spoken of, consisteil of coorse yams for fringes, iic, while the imports from France conMsted of the finest fabrics, ■o that the areragc value of Knglish silk exported to France was 7$. Cxi. per lb., while the average value of the French silk importod to England was ,5Gji. per Ih., wmeh marked the ditfcrencc in the quality of tba ailk and in the value of the labour. TIm daelarod Taluo of the English exports of ailk into Franco waa *omewlicn> alKivc 156.00U{., while the declared value of the Fraaeh import* into England was above l.OOO.OOM. sterling. He might state that ■ • portion of his constituents were interested in the ailk trade ; and when he had on a faiiHi iwcMioii oppmcd the reduction of
the duty on thrown silk, and urged the case of his constituents upon the right hon. Baronet, he received for answer that his was one of the counties which had been beaten out of their manufactures by the discovery of new machinery ; and, above all, by the discovery of steam. Now, he could assure the right hon. Bnronct, thot the monufacturo of thrown silk could be quite OS well carried on by water power as by steam. But the fact was, in conse- quence of the reduction in the duties, where there had been two large establishments employing a great number of hands, there was now only one establishment, the hands were considerably reduced, and the rates of wages, though there was every disposi- tion on the part of the masters to pay libe- rally, were still in no degree so high as they had been before. Thus the population of that district bad to a large extent been thrown out of work, particularly young fe- males were deprived of employment which was profitable to them, and in no degree injurious to the health ; for it was a singu- lar fact, that the health suffered less in the silk than in any other manufacture. For those reasons, in addition to others, he trusted thnt the case of those persons would meet with the sympathy of the House. He did not wish to mix it up with other questions. Ho should prove an in- terested and unw^orthy advocate, if he were to damage the cause of these- unfortunate persons by mixing it up with any other qiiestion. Vote as they would upon other questions — state if they chose that the case of the agricultural labourer rested on a dif- ferent footing ; but let them not, in their wish to carry the Com Laws, do injustice to this particular class of persons who had already suffered so severely from the Ta- riff, ond who, if tlrey were now in a pro- sperous state, wore but recovering from the depression to which former experiments hod reduced them. If it could be shown that they were now in a flourishing state, ho said, leave them so ; and for years to come let them enjoy thot protection to which they were so nnich entitled. Those richer fabrics which atlordcd the high prices, could only be purchased by the wealthy. They wore the only persons who could complain of the high prices ; and he tnisted that class woidd let it be a part of their privileges — a part of their pride — if they were to adorn thc-ir palaces with hang- ings of these fabrics, that in these expen- sive articles of dress and furniture they were contributing to the high wages of the
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846.
29
operative classes. He would certainly divide on this subject, because, as had been said, it involved other interests ; for the ques- tions of dress and millinery related to the same subject — they all related to the pride and the pleasure of the rich. They might, by the abolition of the Corn Laws, lower the amount of wealth of the nobles of the land ; but depend upon it, it would still be their pride and their happiness to con- tribute to the just remuneration of the working classes. He concluded by moving the omission of all articles in the Tariff which included silk.
Mr. WYNN ELLIS said he had been a Member of the Committee of 1833, to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankcs) had referred, and that he had taken the part of the operatives in the silk trade during that investigation. He gave the hon. Member credit for sincerity ; but ho begged to remind him that the question was not whether we could return to the old system of prohibition. That was quite impossible. It was assumed that if we did, the former rate of wages might still be obtained ; but he apprehended no such result would foUow, the competition for employment being too great. The hon. Gentleman said he did not know what had become of the silk trade that had left Spi- taliields ; and he asked where it was gone ? He was sorry to say that since 1832 the number of parties engaged in the silk trade in Spitalfiitlds had been reduced from 14,000 to 9,000. It was also assumed, and it was quite true, that if you admitted the silks of France, the whole of the very superior fabrics would come from that country. That was the case undoubtedly ; and it would be so for some time yet, because in France there was a richer description of silk grown than reached this country, all of which they consumed. He had been in the silk trade thirty-five years, and he could assure the House that the best de- scription of silks now imported from France had never, at any time, been manufactured in Spitaliields, although there had been a great improvement in the manufacture of this country, and although in operative skill the workmen of Spitalfields were equal to the execution of anything that could be produced in France. He would, however, revert to one point he had omit- ted, and give the House an idea of what had become of the silk trade. Ribbons fonnerly made in Coventry were now ma- nufactured in Derby ; large houses bad been established at Manchester, Battersca,
and Congleton. At Coventry they now made a description of goods hardly known there twenty years ago — gauze ribbons. Broad sUks were manufactured at Leigh, Middleton, Manchester, and other places. With regard to the prices at which these goods could be imported from France, he had a return in his hands from Lyons, from which he was satisfied that, weight for weight, excluding gauzes, our goods were quite as cheap as those manufactured in France. There was little to fear from competition. Let our inferiority be no longer proclaimed, but let us, by sound le- gislation, induce men of enterprise, capital, and energy, to embark in the trade, and it would soon be found that Spitalfields would not only rival, but be superior to, the ma- nufactures of France. Broad silks — ban- danas for instance — were made in large quantities by the hon. Member for Mac- clesfield (Mr. Brocklehurst), exceeding in quality and cheapness those of France, so much so that they were printed and ex- ported to a very great extent to France, and other parts of the Continent.
Mr. brocklehurst begged to in- terrupt the hon. Member. The article of bandanas were manufactured in India, printed in this country, and then sent to France. They were not the manufacture of Macclesfield.
Mr. W. ELLIS assured the hon. Mem- ber that Indian bandanas were not only printed in this country, but also that his (Mr. Brocklehurst's) own cloths were printed, and then sent into France, through Belgimu. He admitted that there had been a diminution in the wages of the oper- atives within the last few years ; but that, he contended, would have occurred had the system of protection been continued. If these duties were removed, he felt con- vinced that men of capital would embark their money in the silk trade, which would thus be placed on a systematic footing, the same as regulated the cotton trade. He believed that in a few yeors these duties would be removed oltogether, and he knew that one of the most intelligent manufac- turers of Spitalfields had provided for tlie anticipated change by sending his sons to the manufacturing towns of France.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST said, the hon. Member who had just sat down spoke of the sons of a manufacturer being sent abroad for the purjwse of being taught the modes of conducting the silk trade in France ; and to bis (Mr. Brocklehurst's) apprehension, by this fact the weakness
so
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
of the MTniment of th* hon. Member wm proTwl. What would Imtoiuc of the wea- vers of S|iil«lfioliU until thiKe pt-mon* re- turned with new notion* of tri»de ? The hon. Gentleman spoke largely of broad nilkn, but took a verv narrow view of the nubjei-t. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of Spitalfielils boing under the direc- tion of •' hnikers;" but he should have •aid '• wholesale dealers," who, in fact, addreseed lanjiruage of this description to the manufacturers — " These are ourpriccs ; if jou like them, take them ; but if you do not choose to accept, we shall send our trarcllers to France, and supply ourselves from that country." In the town of Mac- clesfield was a population of 40,000 to ,')0,000 persons, and it was his duty to de- fend them on all occasions from attacks made against them. It might be argued by •ome that if one particular emjdoyment was destroyed, the operatives of that employ- ment might n'sort to theirs. That principle, however, he disregarded. It was not possible shoemakers couKl turn themselves into milliners, or other trades make equally strange metamorphoses. The hon. Mem- ber for Leicester said, he wished men of capital would enter the silk trade, though he (Mr. Brocklehurst) did not observe the hon. Member showed why they had hitherto kept away. He supposed, however, he wished an inference to be drawn that pro- tection drove them from that trade. If such was the intended inference, he could not admit its truth. He had been entrusted with a petition to present to that House, signed by a large proportion of the manu- facturing population of Macclesfield, which clearly evinced the feeling of the operatives Hi>on the subject. These petitioners stated, that they perceived with deep regret that the remission of the silk duties in 1824, and the admission of foreign silk gomls in 1820, had been reganled as successful measures, when their effects, as the peti- tioners stateil, had been most disastrous to thorn — thousands of them having been thrown out of work, and been compelled to depend upon the public kitchen for their ■upport ; not the operatives only, but many of Uie •mall manufacturers had in consc-
qni '■""■' ruined. The petitioners re-
gir Ik trade as one which ought
to bi- jin-.ned, in case of any depression in the eotton trade ; and they therefore prayed roch favourable consideration from the Hoaae as that branch of business nd^t be tbottgfat worthy of at their hands. ffit boa. PricDd lukd laid great stress upon
the circumstance of our exporting silk to France ; but the fact was, that whilst we exported 20,000f. worth of silk goods, we imported from France 150,000/. worth. .So much for the boasted reciprocity. The hon. Member proceeded to quote at some length from Mr. Deacon Hume's evidence before the Committee on the Silk Trade, in 1 832, in support of the views which he had entertained. It was said that the effect of maintaining the duties was to give encou- ragement to smuggling ; but it was quite possible to prevent smuggling, unless it took place with the connivance of the officers. It was quite evident, from the returns which had been laid on the Table of the House, that the Government had not obtained as great an amount of duty under the existing system ns they would have ob- tained under the former system.
Sir G. clerk said" that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had,- at the com- mencement of his speech, promised to show that the silk trade was a case in which not (inlj- temporary but permanent injury had been inflicted, by the alterations in our fiscal system which had taken place in 1824 and 1825. The hon. Member had entirely rested his statement on the evi- dence taken before the Select Committee of 1832, of which he was a Member ; and the hon. Member wished to make it appear that the Government of that day had felt such doubts as to the expediency of re- taining the new system which had been in- troduced two years previously, that they willingly consented to inquiry. But the then Vice-President of the Board of Trade, the late Lord Sydenham, distinctly stated to the House that he went into the Com- mittee, not entertaining the slightest doubt of the soundness of Mr. Huskisson's policy; without any intention of increasing the duty on silks, and still less of reverting to the exploded system of prohibition, but because he considered that the rates fixed in 1826 were too high, that they held out a temptation to the smuggler, and he made an addition to the instruction to the eficct, that the Committee was to consider what steps could be taken for the prevention of smuggling. He admitted that several wit- nesses had made statements as to the dis- tress among the operative ailk weavers in consequence of the fall of wages : he did not deny that at particular seasons great distress did prevail in the silk trade, as in every other branch of our manufactures ; but the hon. Member should have shown that such distress was peculiar to the silk
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846.
31
manufactures, and also that it had arisen entirely since the alteration in the duty. The hon. Member should have referred to the evidence which had been taken before Committees at former periods, and the statements then made as to the state of the silk trade while enjoying the highest de- gree of protection. Had the hon. Member read the statement of Sir Fowell Buxton, made at the Mansion House in 1816, when a meeting was called to take into consider- ation the distressed state of silk weavers ? Why, the distress of 1841 was nothing as compared to the distress of 1816, when the people were dying in the ditches about Bethnal Green. Neither was such distress confined to 1816. Sir Fowell Buxton re- ferred to 1812, and the exertions rendered necessary on that occasion. Then in 1818, they had petitions from the silk weavers of Coventry, and a Select Committee was ap- pointed to inquire into the facts. The dis- tress then was infinitely greater than in 1832, and statements were put forth that the best men were working 100 hours in the week, and only obtaining ot. 9d. wages. Therefore, when the hon. Member quoted particular years, he ought to admit that the distress to which he alluded had not been caused by the alteration of the duties in 1826, seeing that greater distress than had occurred subsequent to the alter- ation liad previously taken place under all the supposed advantages of monopoly. The misfortune of the silk trade had always been that it was a manufacture of an article of luxury, and therefore liable to l>e affected by the wildest caprices of fashion. Sometimes the operatives were in full employment at high wages, at others they were completely destitute of employ- ment and the means of subsistence. This state of things was aggravated also by ab- surd regidations, because by the Spital- fields Act it was impossible to give higher or lower wages than was fixed by the Act. The manufacturer was prevented, under a heavy penalty, from offering wages higher or lower than such as he found fixed in a certain table. What was the consequence ? The manufacturer, who under other cir- cumstances might continue to employ the me^ in slack seasons at lower wages, was obliged to discontinue employment alto- gether ; and the men were at once reduced to .itarvation, while the trade was ultimately driven from Spitalfields to Macclesfield and ilanehester, where they were not exposed to the consequences of such absurd rc- Btricliong. In 1826 the language was,
" Give us a few years to get out of the trade, ^as your changes will destroy it ;" but the trade had been in a more flourish- ing condition since than before. What were the tests by which the state of a trade was to be ascertained? If they found that the importation of the raw material used in the manufacture, and that the export of the manufactured article, had increased, was not that a proof of extension ? Silk was now no longer considered a luxury, to be exclusively engrossed by the rich, but was extensively used by the middle and even the humbler classes ; and it was clear that if the duty had not been reduced, that would not have taken place. If they wished to discourage the use of silk goods, they could not adopt a better means than by re- introducing the system which had been in force previous to 1824. By that system a duty was imposed on the raw material, and a minimum of wages was fixed, so that at some periods enormous profits were realized, while at others complete destitution prevailed. It was impossible for the trade to flourish under such restrictions ; and, accordingly, he found, on referring to the returns made on the subject, that from 1765 to 1817 — a period including the triennial period after the peace — that the silk trade had only doubled; whereas, since 1817 up to the present time, it had more than trebled. The hon. Member for Macclesfield had re- ferred to printed papers to corroborate his assertion with regard to the exportation of the coarser descriptions of silk manufac- ture. It was true that we exported a quantity of silk yam, certainly of an infe- rior description to the fine Italian yams ; but he found that of the whole quantity of raw silk imported only about five per cent, was exported, and that the average value of such silk was not 7i. Gd. a lb., but be- tween 60*. and 70*. a lb. The hon. Mem- ber for Leicester had stated, that we could not compete with France in the manufac- ture of lighter fabrics. He believed that there was no doubt that our silk manufac- tures were quite equal in texture, quality, and colour, to any that could be manufac- tured at Lyons, and that the only thing they were superior to us in was taste. He felt convinced, that the only way for them to get over that difficulty, was by entering upon a fair competition with the French manufacturers. The hon. Member said, that the silk trade had not increased to the same extent as the cotton trade. But the cotton trade had never been protected to the same extent as the silk trade, but
89
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
in • gTMt OMMura had been left to rest on iu own energie*. The bon. Gcntloniau had aUo referred to the subjci-t of wages. Upon no (ubjcct was it more difficult to obtain accurate information. With regard to the silk trade, he Wliored tliat all, with- out exceiitiou, were paid by piece work ; and nothing could be more erroneous than to oompare the prices paid to a weaver for a particular piece of goods twenty years ago. and the price paid him at the present tuae ; for the improvement made in looms enabled a workman to execute now a far
nter quantity of work than he could irenty vcars ago even with the assist- ance of a boy. From the evidence taken before the Committee of 1 832, it appeared that up to that time not the slightest im- provement bad been made in the looms of Spitalfiehla, and that they were in the same state aa those wliich had been introduced by the French refugees more than a cen- tury previous. On referring to the Report on the Slate of Trade he found it stated, that immediately after the reduction of the duly in 1824 a greater stimulus was given to the manufacture, and that, during 1824 and 1825, the number of mills or spin- dies were more than doubled. Since that time improvements had been made by which the same number of spindles per- formed double the work they did previously, and on that account there had not been any great addition to the number of mills. But the hnn. Mcmlier for Dotsetshirc had asked, " Where hul the silk trade gone, aa he could not find any new silk mills in the north?" Why, the moment the fet- tore were taken off that trade, in 1824, a rory great Htiniulus took place, and, at Macclesfield, advert i.scments appeared, stat- ing that new mills had been erected, and that large numbers of hands were required ; indead, more mills were established than were required ; for the improvement in the machinery was such that the mills were enabled to do double the work they did before ; and, therefore, there hod been no necvasity for more mills ; for the Report of Mr. Saunders, the Factory Commis- sioner, stated, that in 1843 the mill occu- tnert oomplained that they could not got luuids enough, and that in Derby no fewer than 3,009 were employed. The Report went on further to say, that in March, 1844, four additional mills were sot to work^-that the total numltcr of persons Umb Mnptojred in Derby amounU>d to 4,000 penoM — Mtd, that thore was a difficulty ezpMMBoed in obtaining a supply of hands,
in consequence of the millowners showing a preference for those persons whose la- l)Our was more valuable from previous ex- perience. It was, therefore, clear by this Report, that, whatever might have been the state of the silk trade fifteen years ago, that in the j-ears 1843 and 1844 the mill- owners could not procure enough of hands to meet the demand for their manufactures. Having thus referred to the j)08t and pre- sent state of the silk trade, he confessed he was at a loss to know where he was to look for evidence to prove that the silk trade was at this moment depressed. Trade had of late years, beyond all question, con- siderably increased ; for since the reduc- tion upon thrown silk, four times the quan- tity of raw silk had been manufactured ; and, consequently, an increased number of persons had been employed. The hon. Members for Dorset and Macclesfield had maintained that, because silk was a luxury, and because it was extensively used in its n)anufactured state by the wealthy, it ought to be subject to a high duty, in or- der that a large revenue might be derived from it. He admitted that silk in its ma- nufactured state was in a great part con- sumed by the wealthier classes ; but he did not infer from that fact that the revenue would be benefited by the imposition of a high duty. Under the former system an ad valorem duty of from 25 to 30 per cent, had been charged upon aome articles, while upon others 40 and even 50 per cent, had been charged ; but the imposition of those heavy duties failed to increase mate- rially the revenue, while it encouraged smuggling, and tended to tlie evasion of the duty. It was his impression that the proposed reduced duty would produce a larger amount of revenue than hod hitherto been obtained, because the imports would be greater, and on cfliective check would be put upon the contraband trade. He was sure that the Coventry and Maccles- field silk weavers would not apprehend any injury from an ad Dalorem duty of 15 per cent. ; but that on the contrary, the im- petus which their trade woidd receive from a relaxation of the prohibitory law would have the elTcct of making that important branch Af industry more prosperous than it had hitherto been. The House had been told, that since the year 1826 the silk trade had been injured by the reduction of duties that hod already taken place ; butthis was not so, for upon the best authorities it had been proved that the silk trade was at present in a more flourishing condition
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAKCH 16, 1846.
83
than it had been for many years. Under those circumstances, he trusted the Uouse would, by a large majority, support the Resolution proposed by Her Majesty's Go- vernment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE remarked that the impression among those connected with the silk trade seemed to be that of deep re- gret that the Government felt it necessary to propose a reduction of duty upon foreign silks. Such were the expressions of the petitions presented from Coventry, even when in favour of free trade. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk) had quar- relled with the hon. Member for Dorset- shire (Mr. Bankes), because he quoted from the evidence taken before the Select Committee in 1842 ; but in liis opinion the present discussion savoured very much of the spirit of that Committee ; and he thought that tlie conduct of Sir Henry Parnell, who voted on the Report of that Committee without hearing the evidence, was strictly analogous to the present con- duet of Her Majesty's Ministers. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet had proved that an increase of wages had taken place since the rela.\ation of duty. In his opinion, so far from there being an increase, there had been a very considerable reduc- tion. How could those who were anxious for the relaxation of prohibitory duties im- prove the state of the silk weaver, by re- moving the slight protection that was at present extended to his industry, when their French competitors set the fashions which ruled the trade, and had almost at their doors the raw material ? But they said the trade was at present in a flourish- ing condition. He would grant that ; and in doing so would ask whether there could be any better argument for proving that protection ought to be continued ? The hon. Member for Leicester bod re- marked, that in 1824 he advocated pro- tection for silk, because the Corn Laws were then in existence ; but as they were to be removed, and other duties on articles of food were also to be removed, there would be a fairer competition amongst manufacturers, who would prosper in con- sequence. That was certainly a character- istic argument. Did it not prove that tiie hon. Member looked to the repeal of the provision laws as a means for reducing wages ? He (Mr. Newdegate) had no doubt that object had great weight with master manufacturers, and that they would not be slow in the reduction of wages. He admitted that be felt roused when he Vol. IL
heard hon. Gentlemen maintain that the silk weaver's would not be affected by the reduction of duty upon foreign silk manu- factures. He lived among them, and had continual opportunities of knowing their sentiments upon the subject ; and one of those millowners, who had lately erected a largo factory, informed him, that had he known, twelve months before, the intentions of the Government, not one stone of that building should have been laid. He would now allude to the aggregate quantities of silk entered for consumption in decennial periods, with a view to show that the in- crease of the quantity imported, without relation to its quality, was not the fair cri- terion of prosperity which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would have them believe. The right hon. Baronet's (Sir Robert Peel's) explanatory statement of quantities of silk entered for home con- sumption, from 1814 to 1834, showed —
|
InUwtcn yan. |
Raw. Knul»,&c |
Thrown. |
AlliorU. |
|
1814— ll)» IBM— 1833 1834—1843 |
I5.SI4,!4S 1 585,906 33.9I63» 9,8»l,515 37.426,114 1I,«M,8U |
3.«oe,87J 3,87S,8i8 |
l9.4M),0n UfiUlMB. |
But of what quality was this increase con- stituted ? Why, almost entirely of waste knubs and husks, as he (Mr. Newdegate) would show. The aggregate quantities entered for consumption for ten years, ap- peared by the table he held in his hand to be as follows : —
Total from 1834 to 1843 62,007,118
Knubs, die, 1834 to 1643 11,924,810
Raw and Thrown 41,082,303
Total from 1824 to 1833 39,681,248
Knubs from 1824 to 1833 2,891,515
Raw and Thrown from 1824 to 1833... 36,789,733
Raw and Thrown from 1834tol843... 41 ,082,303 Raw and Thrown from 1824 to 1833... 36,789,733
Increase of Raw and Thrown 4,292,670
By this statement it appeared that the great increase had been in the inferior articles, waste knubs and husks, which only contained 25 jier cent, of real silk, but which, by peculiar industry, had been wrought up in the consumption. The proportion of knubs, iic, as compared with raw and thrown silk, was, in the ten years of the' protecting period ending 1823, l-40th of the whole quantity entered for homo consumption ; whilst in the latter
D
S4
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
period ending 1843, it had riBcn to l-5th of the whole qtmntity entered for home eoBsamption : and in thnt proportion had the Talue of our trade deteriorate*! since 1823. Those were the happy results of ft«e trade ; and he would ask whether, after this deterioration of their products, the ribhon wearer was in a fit condition to be exposed to further competition ? It bad been asked how was it that they then cotn- peted with the foreiffner, whilst more highly taxed, and labourinp; under burdens their rirals had not to bear ? His answer was simplT the fact, that the English operative worVed harder than the foreigner. They thus compete<l, whilst France set the fashions against them ; and in proof of their exertions he adduced this fact, that at the present moment, when for once they had fashion on their side in the manufac- ture of the seven-inch ribbon, the Coventry men had outdone their foreign rivals, with all their advantages of home-grown silk and light taxation. Lot him not, then, be taunted with the empty assertion, that the energies of the ribbon trade needed bracing to exertion by further exposure to the breeze of unequal competition. The right hoo. Baronet who had last addressed the Hoose (Sir G. Clerk) had dwelt upon the difficulty of collecting these duties. That might well be the case, for he had heard that •ome of the Custom-house officers were so ignorant that they were unable to a-sccrtain the difference between plain silk and fancy silk. He had made an application to GoTomraent upon a former occasion, that they would appoint com|>etent officers to examine these goods, but his applica- tion had not been attended to. The late disclosure respecting the extensive frauds in the Custom House, however, clearly showed that if the Government had l>ecn anxiou to collect the duties they might hare aooomplished it. If a direct taxation (towards which ho recognised a loaning on the part of the Government) were substi- toted for indirect, he did not think it would bo much more easy of collection ; •t ieaat, previous experience did not lead than to iiidulge in the hope that it would. He eoofcaaed he felt it a heavy tax upon hia patience when ho heard it asserted that the lilk and ribbon weavers had not la- bowvd to improve their products, when ho knew of his own knowledge such was not the truth. In Coventry and its neighbour- hood thoy hail labounnl to meet the spirit of competition that was abroad ; and the mannfaoturera lh««ri» had been eniincntlv
successful, as the evidence of the hon. Member for Leicester testified. He would not detain the House further than to im- plore the Government, as it was about to dc|)re8s the agricultural intercj*ts, that it would not add to the difficulties of the la- bourers of his neighbourhood, by n>nioving protection from the labour on which the subsistence of his family depended. The Government .seemed actuated in this matter by a false feeling of consistency ; and he thought that before sacrificing his consti- tuents for such a reason, they might as well remember that it was not upon their consistency they could base any very strong claim to the confidence of the country.
Mr. HAWES would not trouble the House with any lengthy observations ; for though he attached much importance to the inconvenience which delay would undoubt- edly be productive of to the various branches of commerce interested in the settlement, still he rejoiced at it, because it would tend to show that the principles held by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Go- vernment (Sir R. Peel) were safe and va- luable measures, and likely to promote the prosperity of the country at large. He confessed he had looked forward to the de- bate of that night witli more than onlinary interest, because he fully expected that the challenge which the right hon. Baronet had offered would have been met on the silk question. The right hon. Baronet had challenged any hon. Member of the House to instance a single case in which either the consumer or the producer had been injured by the withdrawal of protec- tion; and he (Mr. Hawes) therefore thought that, in the course of a debate which had already lasted three or four hours, some hon. Gentlemen on the protection benches would have adduced evidence to show that either the consumer or the pnxlucer had been injure<l, and that the progress of trade, had been retarded by the relaxation of pro- hibitory duties. But no hon. Member had accepted the challenge, and up to the pre- sent moment no facts had been adduced in support of the protective system, or tend- ing to invalidate the assertion made by the right hon. Baronet. What, ho would ask, were the tests of im])roving manufactures ? Were they observable in tlie im]>urt of tho raw material, or in the export of the manu- factured article? If they wore, all returns upon the subject showed that the imports of raw silk had greatly increased, and that the exports of the manufactured article had also increased. Did hon. Gentlemen re-
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846.
35
member the statements that hail been made with respect to the probable amouut of injury that would be inflicted upon the silk trade when Mr. Huakisson reduced his tariff? Upon that occasion it was said that every thing would be in farour of the foreigner, and that the English manufac- turer would have no chance in competing ; for the moment that the relaxed duties came into operation the French would take possession of the market, and the English manufacturer would be ruined. But what hatl been the case ? The imports had not de- creased, neither had the e.xi)orts decreased ; but on the contrary, all the evidence that could he collected, and all the facts that could be brought to bear upon the subject, showed that trade had prospered more under a relaxation of duties, than ever it had done under tlie system of protection. The hon. Memberfor Macclesfield (Mr. Brockle- hurst) had alluded to the low rate of wages received by eilk weavers in this country as compared with foreigners, and liad accounted for it by the relaxation of duties that had already taken place. This was an important subject, and deserving of the fullest consideration. He was willing to admit the state of things that with re- gard to all traders which depended more or less on handloom weaving, a consider- able reduction had taken place, but that distress was caused by comjtctition between handhxjm weaver and handloom weaver. If the hon. Gentlemen who occupied the protection benches had read the Report of Mr. Muggeridge, the Commissioner ap- pointed to inquire into the condition of the silk weavers, they would find that the evi- dence adduced went to show that the cause of distress was not foreign competition, but com|)ctition among themselves. They were struggling against one another. The Report of the same Commissioner set forth that the loss of time caused by going to the masters for work, very much tended to re<luce the wages of the opera- tive, and that the defective state of their looms was another direct cause for their impoverishment. The factory system enabled millowners to improve their ma- chinery, and thus successfully to compete with the foreigntT; but the handloom weaver was not able thus to keep pace with the improvement of the ago, and con- sequently suffered materially. Official re- turns showed that the declared value of British exports of manufactured silks had increase*! threefold since 1826, which was a strong argument for showing that the re-
laxation of duty had not injured the trade. The hon." Member for Slacclesfield had quoted from Deacon Hume with respect to the state of trade up to the time the alter- ation in duty took place ; but he had not continued the quotation to the next sen- tence, where a statement was made of the effect which followed in the three subse- quent years. The hon. Gentleman had re- ferred to the evidence of Mr. Deacon Hume, showing the amount of imports of raw and thrown silk in triennial periods from 1 785 down to 1823; but the hon. Gentleman omitted the following sentence, in which Mr. Hume said — "I then take the three last years, 1829, 1830, and 1831, and find that in these years the raw silk was 3,075.000 lbs. against 1,900,000 lbs., and the thrown silk 374,000 lbs. against 3.5.5,000 lbs." He would venture to say that no trade had been so miscliievously protected as the silk trade. With regard to the Spitalfields weavers, Mr. Deacon Hume said they were invaded by Man- chester before they were invaded by Lyons. The Spitalfields weavers were ruined by the competition of Manchester and Macclesfield, when in point of fact they had a protected trade. The whole of Mr. Deacon Hume's evidence must be taken as adverse in the highest degree to the view of tlic hon. Member for Macclesfield. Mr. Deacon Hume was a public officer and a disinterested party ; and therefore his au- thority was greater, and his opinion less pre- judiced, than those of a silk manufacturer. Mk. ADDERLEY said, that he did not think the principle on which hon. Members wished to ujihold protection to agriculture, was at all applicable to the question before the Flouse. He had re- ceive<l representations from his own county requesting him to support the Government measure of free trade. Amongst them was a letter from a manufacturer in Leek, who stated that he did not think those measures were calculated to do any injury to the manufacturers of the country; and that taking them altogether he thought they would prove highly beneficial. The writer also said, that it was supposed that Mac- clesfield was more likely to suffer than other towns, owing to the circumstances of its raaniifncturing so much fancy goods, for the manufacture of which France was so renowned ; hut having conversed with seve- ral of the manufacturers of Macclesfield on the subject, his correspondent stated, that without exception they all declared that they did not apprehend any ill result from
D 2
36
cusroin and corn impobtation report.
tlw wapMOil BUMorM of the Oorcrament. At the rlotc of hU comiuuniration, bo rc- eominnndcd tlic adnption of »to|>» for pro- mf*«»g tchooU of dcMgn ; many niiuiufiic- torera, he obterred, being of opinion tliat if M much pMD> were t«Een in thin coun- trj to tierelop native tAlcnt aa in France, they would toon he able to compete with the Fn-nch in works of design. lie was in favour of protection to aj^riculture ; but with ouch a letter as tliat lK>f<)rc him, and with no counter rt'prcsentation from the manufacturing interest, he could not con- •ent to vote for the Amendment.
Mk. ELLICK would not go minutely into the tabject of this debate, which had been so well treated by those better versed in detaila. He had always stated his l>e- Uet, even from the commencement of the <Btfimionf with regard to the silk manu- facture, that it would be necessary to take the utmost care as to any measures that were applied to that trade. Ho never thought, nowcvcr, that it would be possible to maintain the prohibition which many hon. Gentlemen thought to be indispensably nc- cciiary for the preservation of the trade to this country. In the original discussions he had always hinted it as his opinion that the silk manufacturers ought to look for relief rather from the peculiar burdens which affected them, and not their foreign eom|>ctitors, than to the farther continu- ance of any great amount of protection. They had first the benefit of prohibition, and next of a large protecting duty ; and they found neither one nor the other any ■eonrity against the inroad of tlio smug- ger. The time had arrived when the Go- vernment of the country proclaimed a great rolaxatiim of the duties on provisions, and on other articles which porticularly affect the producers in this as in all other indus- trial occupations. His constituents, though they had some apprehension as to the re- sult, wcpo still of opinion that it was their dutT, in conformity with the general wishes of tnc country, rather to concur in the mea- sures for the relaxation of the restrictions on trade, than to {tersist in requiring a protection which it would be impossible to •eeniv against the inroad of the smuggler. It wa« verj- true, notwithstanding the nc- eonnts which were given from several quar- ters, that the condition of the artisans in •one braoehes of the silk manufacture was far tnm that which he shnulil wish to see. He was also aware that amongst his con- stitnenl* reruin branches of the ribbon manufactare had given way before the su-
perior art of the foreign manufacturer. In atldition to that foreign comp<'tition. our manufacturers had to contend with a heavy exi>ort duty on the materials of finer de- scriptions of silk. All these considorations tended to make him less sanguine as to the immediate effects of the relaxation of duties on this peculiar branch of manufacture. But, on the other hand, his constituents felt they were about to receive a great mea- sure of relief with respect to various orti- clcs ; and he was happy to be able to ossure the Government that they w^ere perfectly willing to do the best they could to meet the new circumstances in which they were placed. They expressed their general sa- tisfaction with the relaxation proiMsetl, and more particularly for the removal of the duties on food ; and in conformity with their wishes he should give his sujiport to the measures of the Goveniment.
LoiiuG. IJENTINCK said; The right hon. Gentleman asked us, what our opinion is of the prosperity of any trade ? I think we may say on this side of the House, that we think the best test of the prosjK'rity of a trade is a general rise in wages ; and we have it shown to demonstration, that in every branch of the silk trade the wages have been grodually reduced since the al- teration of the law from protection to free trade. The hon. Gontleman the Member for Leicester admitted at once that the number of Spitalficlds weavers had been reduced from 14,000 to 9,000, through the effects of free trade. I think that fact affords pretty strong evidence of the injury inflicted on silk manufacturers by the ope- ration of free-trode meosurcs. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, in answering — which, in my opinion, he did not do in the slightest degree — the most able speech by which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire proposed the Amendment, jumbled up the whole of the trade from 1816 to 1845. He mixed up the trade during the ten years of protection with that which occur- red during the twenty years of free trade; and then ho said, " .See how under free trade, <luring the last thirty j-ears, the trade of the silk manufacturer has pros- pered. For fifty years before 1816, the silk trade had only doubled ; while in the thirty years subsequent to that period the silk trade had trelded." Why, good God! the first fifty years were years of war ; and is it fair to compare the state of a trade carried on during war, and which depends, for its subsistence on the raw material im-
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 16, 1846.
37
I
ported from a country which, during a great portion of that period, was in the hands of Napoleon — in the hands of an enemy of this country — is it fair, I ask, to compare the state of a trade carried on under those circumstances with the state of that trade during a period of peace ? Is it fair to compare the state of trade during a period of war, when we wore pay- ing 70,000,OOOJ. of taxes, with the state of that trade during a period of peace, when we were only paying 50,000,000?.? Taking the nine last years of the thirty referred to, which nine years were years of protection, and, comparing them with the former years, it will be found that, in si-t of those years, the silk manufacture had prospered and progressed at the rate of ninety per cent., while under the twenty- one years of free trade that manufacture had only increased a hundred per cent. Can any man contend that a trade which, in twenty-one years, had only increased one hundred per cent., had prospered in an equal degree with a trade which increased at the rate of ninety per cent, in six years ? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lam- beth has appealed to the inmiense increase in the exportation of silk manufactures ; but I cannot ascertain from the Paper lately laid on the table of the House, where he finds that great increase in tlie exportation of silk manufactures. I will take two periods of five years each. I will compare the last five years with the five years preceding ; and what do I find to be the result ? I find that the average ex- portation of silk manufactures for the five years ending 1840 was 771,908?. in value; while in the last five years, during which the hon. Gentleman told you that the exporta- tion of silk manufactures had so largely increased, the average amount of exporta- tion was but 709,582?., showing a decrease of 62, .326?. in the average value of silk ex-
{>orted from this country. Now, let us ook how the matter stands as regards the importation of silk manufactures from the countries in Europe. And here I must take leave to say that, whilst ller Majesty's Government have given us the amount of the exportation to all the countries in the world, when they professed to give us the importation of silk manufactures, they excluded the importation from the East Indies. Notwithstanding that, however, on comparing the same periods of five years already mentioned, I find that the average weight of silk manufnetures im- portc«l during the five years ending 1840,
was 220,000 lbs., the value of which, esti- mating them at 3?. the pound weight — which I am sure is under the mark — w^ould be 660,000?. ; but during the last period of five years the value of the silk, estimating it at the same rate, was 715,586?., showing an increase in the value of the silk imported of 55,586?., which is exactly within 5,000?. a year of the decrease in the exportation of silk manufactures from this country. You perceive, then, that the increased importa- tion of silk manufactures from abroad, and the decrease in the exportation of silk ma- nufactures from this country, travel on pari passu, and afford pretty strong proof that the silk manufactures of this country are not in a condition, even with a protec- tion of