objected to the measure, as calculated, by the introduction of a stipendiary magistracy in that county, to cast a reflection upon the conduct of the local magistrates. In his opinion, the business of the county of Chester had been as well conducted as that of any other county in the kingdom, and he regretted to see the right hon. Secretary in the House at that early hour, as he had apparently come down for the purpose of exercising the influence of ministers upon a mere private bill. He felt it his duty to move, that the bill be read a second time this day six months.

denied, that the bill was entitled to the appellation of a private bill. He found in the preamble, that it was a bill for the better prevention of crime in the county of Cheshire, and he really thought that that circumstance afforded a sufficient reason for his now appearing in the House. As one of the Secretaries of State, he felt himself bound to take a part in the discussion, and to declare, that if the county of Chester was willing to bear the expense of this improvement, he saw no objection to the magistrates making the trial. The hon. member had asserted, that justice was well administered by the local magistracy; but when he looked to the increasing expenses attendant upon the conviction of criminals in the county of Chester, he could not believe that some reformation might not be effected. It had, indeed, been in his contemplation to apply a measure somewhat resembling that contained in the bill to all the counties of England; and he had even wished the hon. member for the county to postpone the bill for some time with that object; but it was found, from the nature of the subject, and the number of concurrent jurisdictions, that the previous inquiries must necessarily be very extended, and would occupy a very considerable period. Feeling, therefore, that the present bill would be an improvement, and recollecting the number of applications which were constantly made to the Home Office for the assistance of the Bow-street officers, he willingly gave his support to an attempt to organise an efficient local police. He begged, however, to say, that although he did not acknowledge this to be quite a private bill, he should abstain from voting upon it, lest he should be supposed to interfere with local interests; although he strongly recommended the hon. member to permit the bill to pass through its pre- sent stage, in order that its provisions might be thoroughly examined in the committee.

was anxious, that the bill should be postponed, till the general measure respecting the police should be introduced.

was anxious that the bill should at least go into the committee. The provisions of it were, he thought, highly necessary, and calculated to facilitate the administration of justice.

The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill read a second time.

took occasion to contradict a statement which had gone abroad, that he was adverse to the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland. What he had said was, that the Poor Laws should not be introduced into Ireland, unless the laws of the three kingdoms were assimilated upon that subject; and that he undertook to prove when the subject should come under discussion. While he was on his legs, he begged to express a hope that the hon. member for Newark (Mr. Sadler) whom he saw in his place, would be present at the discussion of the 7th of May, in order that he might become sensible of the scandalous manner in which he had misrepresented the opinions and the objects of the Emigration Committee [cries of hear!].

observed, that the hon. gentleman, who had been a member of that House so long, could not but feel, that he was acting in a manner highly disorderly, when he ventured, in the first place, to request the attendance of any other member at a discussion which he announced as about to be entered into; and, in the next place, when he commented upon observations which it was presumed had not been delivered in that House.

said, he was never before called to order in that House, and would bow to the chair; but he still thought, when expressions were uttered charging him with conduct and principles which he disavowed, some allowance might be made for the warmth of his manner. He would not, however, then pursue the subject, and meant to give no offence.

said, he would be in his place on the 7th of May, and would be ready to meet the right hon. gentleman in a discussion of the subject on which the right hon. gentleman had risen to address the House. He thought the right hon. gentleman had not sought the proper place to reply to observations which had been made elsewhere.

presented a petition from the Attornies and Solicitors practising in the Court of King's-bench, Westminster, complaining of the inconvenient construction of that Court. The petitioners stated, that there was the greatest Want of Accommodation for the judges, the officers of the court, the profession, and the public. They complained, that there were no exclusive seats in that court for the attornies and solicitors, that they had no place for conferring with their clients, unless in Westminster-hall, without seats, and, in the depth of winter, without a fire; they suggested the appropriation of rooms for the use of the attornies and solicitors; and they stated, that the attornies and solicitors, amounting to upwards of two thousand in the metropolis, and six thousand in the country, contributed more largely in personal taxes to the state than any other class of his majesty's subjects; having paid in stamp duties, within five years, upwards of a million sterling,—a greater sum than had been paid, during the same period, for the salaries of the judges, and all the expenses attending the other officers of the courts, and the administration of justice in England and Wales. The learned gentleman strongly supported the prayer of the petition, and contended, that measures should be adopted to improve the Courts of Westminster, particularly the King's-bench, which was a disgrace to the metropolis, and in which the accommodations were not so good as in any court of assize in any county in England.

supported the prayer of the petition.

also supported it. He said, that in the court of Chancery he could not complain of want of accommodation for the counsel, but even there accommodation was wanted for the attornies and solicitors, and for the public.

said, that a small sum would be sufficient to make the alterations and improvements which were required.

maintained, that the court of King's-bench was so badly constructed, that it would require to be altered completely to make it at all suitable for the accommodation of the profession and the public. He agreed, that the solicitors in the court of Chancery did not stand so much in need of accommodation, but that arose from the circumstance, that one cause might occupy the court of Chancery for a day, or an entire week, and that therefore the attendance of solicitors was not so numerous as in the other courts.

rose to make his promised motion. He began by saying, that when he considered that he was bringing forward the great question of the Silk Trade before that House—a question which had, on various and repeated occasions, undergone so much discussion,—when he considered that he should be obliged to enter into a great variety of those intricate and complicated details which had given rise to so many opposite and contending opinions,—when he considered the immense importance of the interests involved in the question, and the capital embarked—he might say irrevocably embarked—in it,—and when, above all, he considered the unfortunate situation of the suffering population connected with this manufacture, who were now in the deepest distress, and who were anxiously looking to that House for relief,—he felt unfeignedly how incompetent he was to treat so extensive and so important a subject as it deserved. If, connected as he was with a large manufacturing district, he should occupy a considerable portion of their time, he hoped that the situation in which he was placed would be viewed as giving him some claim to the indulgent attention of the House, while he made those remarks which the subject and the occasion might suggest.

Whatever opinion might be entertained of the causes which led to the present distress, on one particular point he was sure there could be no diversity of sentiment,—he believed that one general feeling of sympathy prevailed for those who were suffering under the severity of distress, and that an equally strong desire was cherished, as far as was practicable, to alleviate and relieve it. He was perfectly convinced, that such was the general feeling in that House, and he was equally well convinced that it was not more strongly entertained by any individual than by the right hon. gentleman opposite, the member for Inverness (Mr. C. Grant), whose name he should have frequent occasion to mention in the course of these discussions. He was aware that, in considering this question, there were many points of deep and grave importance, which he might fail to urge efficiently; and he knew that what he should state might be replied to by the talent, ability, research, and eloquence of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, and by the industry and ability of those gentlemen opposite, who might be considered, as the founders of this new system: yet he was quite confident, if the committee for which he should this evening move was granted, that he should produce before it such a mass of evidence, such a body of incontrovertible facts,—facts deposed to by practical men,—as would leave no doubt, that the principle of free trade, as applied to the Silk Trade, had entirely failed—that it had absolutely done mischief, and that, so far from its operating beneficially, it would, if it were continued, effect the annihilation of the silk manufacture in this country.

He felt that there were a great number of most important topics which, if not immediately, were collaterally, connected with this question; and though it was impossible for him to state the turn which this debate might take, yet, so far as he could, he would disembarrass himself of those collateral topics, and confine himself to the main subject. He would not now enter into a discussion of the principles of free trade generally, but consider how far those principles appeared to be, from experience, applicable to that particular branch of manufacture, the state of which it was now his duty to present to the attention of the House. The only remark, he would make, in passing, was to say, that though he considered the system of free trade very beautiful in theory, yet in a country like this, which was in an artificial state, groaning under a heavy load of taxation, and oppressed by a large debt, he did not think, in such a state of things, that there could be a free trade of manufactures, while, in every other respect, there was a system of monopoly. How could a free trade in manufactures co-exist with a monopoly of corn? He was certain that a partial system of free trade never could be beneficial to the manufactures of this country; and he would further say, that if there was any one trade more likely to be particularly injured than another, by the adoption of this system, the trade the situation of which they were now discussing was that trade. If they considered the great disadvantages under which this trade must labour when placed in competition with our neighbouring rivals,—if they considered the different nature of the soil and climate,—if they considered the comparative ease with which that rival could procure the best material, and the great difficulty, however great his anxiety might be, which the British manufacturer encountered in bringing it into this country,—when he looked, besides, at the disproportion in the price of provisions, and, in the same ratio, the disproportion in the price of labour in the two countries, he was not at all surprised at the failure which had been experienced in that unequal and ruinous race of competition, which, for three years, had pressed so heavily on the trade. One of the greatest commercial authorities in that House, the hon. member for Callington (Mr. Baring), though an advocate for free trade himself, when he presented the Merchants' petition, stated what would probably be the effect of this system ultimately, with respect to this trade. Perhaps the time to which that hon. member looked forward had not yet arrived; but certain it was, that this trade, once so flourishing, was in a state of lingering decay;—nay, he might assert, that it was now fast verging to utter ruin.

Before he proceeded further into that part of the question, it might not be irrelevant to the subject to give a slight sketch of the measures which had been proposed by his majesty's government, and adopted by parliament, respecting the Silk Trade, commencing with the year 1824. When the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson) first introduced the principles of free trade, as applied to the Silk Trade, he reduced the duty on thrown-silk from 14s. 7½d. to 7s. 6d.; and on raw silk from 3s. to 1s. 6d. The next year, the same right hon. gentleman reduced the duty on thrown-silk from 7s. 6d. to 5s.; and that by a Treasury Order—an act which had been justly complained of. The right hon. gentleman's intentions were, in 1826, to take off all other duties, and to impose an ad valorem duty of thirty per cent. The right hon. member for Inverness, however, who succeeded the right hon. member for Liverpool in the office of President of the Board of Trade, although participating in his right hon. predecessor's admiration of the principles of free trade, nevertheless found it unwise to persevere exactly in the line which had been chalked out by his right hon. friend, and therefore got rid of the thirty per cent ad valorem duty, and substituted for it a gradual scale of duties, founded on the basis of thirty per cent ad valorem duty, and accompanied with certain limitations. It was for the two right hon. gentlemen to contradict the statement which he was about to make: his object was, to show that, for the last five years, the Silk-trade had been the victim of the various experiments, the different shades of policy, the doubts, the vacillations, the want of confidence, which had been manifested on the part of those to whom he had been alluding. To show that the supporters of the present system considered it in no other light than as a trial, or experiment, he would, with the permission of the House, read extracts from the speeches of the two right hon. gentlemen. The right hon. member for Liverpool, in introducing his measures, said, "Let this system be fairly and fully tried, for the benefit of the country, and for the sake of those who support it." The right hon. member for Inverness observed, "It was due to the consumer, it was due to the country, that this experiment"—always treating it as an experiment—"should be tried." Again, the right hon. gentleman asked—"But has this experiment been tried? It is foolish to talk of the effect of this experiment, since the time for making it has not arrived." The right hon. gentleman then said—"Try the experiment fairly, bring your goods into the market, and if you then fail, you will come to the House with at least a case of justice as well as feeling." Now, he would call on the right hon. gentleman to redeem his pledge. The trial which he recommended had been fairly made; the experiment had been tried; and, what was the result? What was the state of the country? Let gentlemen look at the state of distress which prevailed in all the districts where the silk-manufacture was carried on. They could read that distress in the amount of capital lost; they could read it in one-third of the population out of employment, and those employed unable to obtain the necessaries of life. They could read it in the mills now idle, and in the looms that were not at work. In the metropolis they could read it in the sup- plications of thousands of starving manufacturers. He therefore called on that right hon. gentleman, from whose speech he had read an extract—he called on him in the name of feeling and of justice to redeem his pledge.

He felt that he came with a strong case to the House, and he was sure the House would not fail in its duty. It would not allow this trade to be sacrificed to plausible theories and delusive speculations; it would not suffer those who were embarked in it to be victims, as hitherto had been the case, of fanciful but ruinous experiments. He believed that every gentleman who heard him was aware that distress existed in every branch of this manufacture; but he did not believe that they were acquainted with the appalling, the unparalleled, extent of that distress, not only in this country, but he might add, in Scotland and in Ireland. However painful, therefore, it might be to animadvert on such a melancholy subject, yet he considered it necessary to point out what was the exact state of the distress now felt in the silk-manufacturing districts. For that purpose he should lay before the House extracts taken from accounts furnished by the principal large towns that were connected with the manufacture; and if the House thought it important—as they must think it important—to obtain information on this head, they; would allow him to read, as shortly as possible, some of these statements, He should first read an extract which was sent to him yesterday morning in a Letter from Coventry. It ran thus:—"At a general meeting, convened for the purpose, of examining into the exact state of the Silk-manufacture, it was resolved, that in the opinion of this meeting there is an increase of five-hundred silk-weavers out of employ since the meeting of the 17th of March; and the number of winders, warpers, and spinners out of employ has increased in the same proportion same period.

"The inhabitants of the undermentioned places in the county of Warwick" (he would not enumerate them), declare, that they are in a similar situation. With respect to wages they stated, that the rate of wages paid for labour in the frame trade is so bad, that it does not enable them to procure a sufficiency, even of the commonest necessaries of life, and rather than agree to a farther reduction of price, it was deemed advisable to put those hands that are employed on half-work; but that it is not practicable to go on in this way, because their situation was every day becoming worse. The fancy and ornamental branches, they observed, "were superseded by the immense importation of foreign goods—so far, indeed, has the evil extended, that the masters have given up manufacturing those articles, and have engaged in a regular foreign trade." Now he would say, that if any thing could prove more than another the low state to which this trade was reduced, it was, to find that those who formerly carried on the business of manufacturers found it better to abandon their old pursuit and to become importers. The communication went on to say, "that although some persons are continued in employment, yet they undergo a reduction of wages every week. Many of the friendly societies have been obliged to give up their articles from the inability of the members to keep up their payments; and those members were obliged to part with every disposable article to procure food for themselves and their famishing children." It was emphatically observed, "that all these statements are strictly true, and, if necessary, can be confirmed on oath."

He should now proceed with some more of these heart-rending details. It appeared that there were twenty-six mills standing still in Congleton. In 1824, the average wages were 12s. 8d. per week; in 1828, 4s. 7d. In Paisley, there were two thirds more mills at work in 1824 than in 1828. The average rate of wages was 15s. in 1824, and only 8s. 1½ in 1828. In Macclesfield there were fifty-two mills employed in 1824, in 1828 there were sixteen standing still. At Taunton, in Somersetshire, of seventy mills that were employed in 1824, fifty were now standing still, and wages were reduced seventy per cent. In Spitalfields, in 1824–5, Gros de Naples was paid for at the rate of 10d. a yard, it was now 6d.; lustring was 1s. a yard, it was now 8d.; other fabrics that were paid for at the rate of 1s. 2d. a yard, were now 9d. Now let gentlemen look to the number of looms which were employed in 1824–5, and compare them with the number at work at present in Spitalfields. In 1824–5 there were seventeen thousand looms employed, while at the present day there were only nine thousand. The rate of wages averaged at the former period 17s., at present it amounted to only 9s. Figured and fancy goods, in 1824–5, produced an average of 22s. a week wages; that rate was now reduced to 14s. Here it should be observed, that in 1824–5 one third of the whole manufacture of Spitalfields consisted of fancy goods; but now of nine thousand looms employed, only two thousand are engaged in the manufacture of fancy articles, which was that branch of the trade from whence the greatest advantage was derived.

He should only advert to one other document, and he should then leave gentlemen to draw their conclusion from these facts. The paper from which he was about to read an extract, was put into his hands, this evening, by the hon. member for Dublin; and it showed the decay of the silk manufacture in that city. In 1824–5 it appeared that there were twelve hundred broad-silk looms employed, and there were now only two hundred. In 1824–5 there were nine hundred and ninety-six riband-engines employed; that number was maw reduced to two hundred and forty-four. In 1824–5 the total number of broad weavers in employ was two thousand one hundred and ninety-six; in 1828 the number employed was only four hundred and forty-four. In 1828, the wages were thirty-five per cent less than in 1824. In 1824, there were ten mills at full work; at present there were only two, and those only partially employed. In 1824, the hands employed in throwing were two thousand two hundred; in 1828 there were only one hundred and thirty-eight. In 1824, the wages were 8s. per week, in 1828 they were only 5s.

Now, although he might be expected to apologize to the House for entering on so dry a detail, still he conceived it to be his duty to state these unpleasant facts, for the purpose of proving to the House the ruinous, the disastrous situation, in which the manufacturers were placed at this moment; and he could assure gentlemen that the picture was not overcoloured or exaggerated. But some per- sons would argue, that this distress must be temporary, and had grown out of temporary causes. He could not assent to that proposition; but, whatever might be the cause, it was the duty of parliament to remove the pressure which weighed so heavily on the industrious but starving poor of the country. When wages had descended fifty per cent, and when even then English labour could not find employment, it was impossible not to see the utter hopelessness of carrying on such a competition as had been entered into with any prospect of success.

There were a few other points that well deserved the attention of parliament. It was quite clear, that under the existing system, there was a redundant labour that could not be called into action; and even those persons who chanced to be employed did not receive sufficient to enable them to procure the necessaries of life. They had, however, been told the other evening, that the distress was not confined to this country, but that it was felt in an equal degree at Lyons. Now, there was a great and manifest difference between France and this country in that respect. France manufactured for export;—not one third of her silk was intended for home consumption; which was not the case here. Now, the markets for foreign orders—the markets of North and South America, &c.—were glutted with silks; and whenever these markets were glutted, not only by the introduction of French goods, but by the increasing intercourse between America and China, the consequence would be, that a large quantity of those commodities would be poured into this country. France would do her best to transfer those cargoes, which she could not dispose of elsewhere, to England. That was the point which we ought to guard against. Our manufacturers ought not to be suffered to become the victims of contingencies, which grew out of the regulations of foreign countries; and if there were any reason which, more than another, proved that this particular trade ought to be protected, it was the relative position in which we stood towards France.

But, various causes were assigned for the existing distress. Over-trading and other causes were, referred to as the occasion of the evil. When he saw six thousand looms out of employ in Spitalfields, he was told that that event was produced by competition elsewhere. If he found distress and misery in the manufactories at Congleton or Coventry, or Manchester, that was attributed to the extensive introduction of machinery. If he observed the same desolate state of things in other places, he was told that it was the effect of over-trading. But it appeared to him, that that which was the obvious cause of all this distress was studiously kept out of sight; and that that was the enormous amount of foreign silk goods which was imported into this country. The right hon. gentleman, the member for Inverness had stated, that one proof of the great advantage of the measures which he had sanctioned in 1824, was the revival of this trade. The right hon. gentleman did, if he mistook not, declare, that those measures had called a new trade into existence; that, so great was their efficacy, that the salvation of the trade of this country might be said to have arisen from their operation, since the year 1824. Now, he did not consider it fair to take any one or two single years to support a proposition of that nature. He would therefore take an average of years, from 1815 to 1824—a period during which the Silk-trade was steadily and progressively improving; and then he would look to the effect which the subsequent regulations had produced. In the years 1815, 1816, and 1817, the aggregate amount of the import of raw and thrown silk was 4,007,000lbs., being equal to an average in each year of 1,336,000.lbs. In the years 1818, 1819, 1820, the aggregate amount was 6,592,000lbs. being equal to an average in each year of 2,194,000lbs. In the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, the aggregate amount was 8,072,000lbs. being equal to an average in each year of 2,691,000lbs. The imports, therefore, of raw and thrown silk had been increasing every year from 1815, to 1824, until, in the year 1823, and the two preceding years, the amount was 8,072,000ls.; and it must therefore be obvious to hon. members, that the Silk-trade could not be fairly said to have flourished in consequence of the introduction of these new principles. It had been gradually and perceptibly increasing every year, and it might be fairly said, that if the new measures had never been introduced, it would have gone on increasing in the same ratio. The right hon. gentleman had taken the quantity of raw silk cleared inwards at the Customhouse in the preceding year and in the year 1827, in which years there was certainly a very large importation of the raw article, and, resting upon that, had said that the Silk-trade was in a flourishing state in those years. But the quantity cleared inwards at the Custom-house in one single year would give no idea of the consumption; that could only be obtained from the average of imports in various years. Now, if the right hon. gentleman would take the average of the importation of raw and thrown silk in the years 1826 and 1827, he would find that there was a decrease, as compared with the average in the years 1824 and 1825, of 1,149,1531bs. The years 1824, and 1825, were years of prohibition the others were not. But there were peculiar circumstances which caused the large imports which took place in 1827. It would, perhaps, be in the recollection of hon. members, that in 1826 there were great alarms excited, in consequence of the intentions of his majesty's ministers, without it being known what the effect of the measures to be introduced by them would be: and, therefore, only a small quantity of stock was taken out of hand in that year. The trade continued in a depressed state till the early part of the year 1827; but, in the latter part of that year, confidence revived, and the prices of silk being low, large quantities were taken out of hand for consumption. If the right hon. gentleman would look at the excess of silk on the 5th January, 1828, over 1827, he would find it about 600,000lbs. Now, the difference of raw silk, cleared inwards at the Custom-house in 1817 over 1824 was only 215,878lbs. It was of great consequence to state what had been the increase in the quantity of raw and thrown silk imported, as arguments were built upon that quantity, in order to prove the flourishing state of the Silk Trade of this country. In 1828, the total increase of the imports of raw and thrown silk 754 over the imports of 1827, was 78,5501bs. In 1828, the imports amounted to 4,547,8121bs.; from this however must be deducted 380,0001bs.; so that, infant, the amount was 4,167,812lbs. In 1827, the imports amounted to 4,209,2571bs.; but, by a similar deduction to that in the last account, the amount was reduced to 4,089,2571bs.; so that the increase was, as he had stated it to be, 78,550lbs, in the imparts Of 1828, over the imports of 1827. This bore no proportion, however, to the large amount of stock on hand; and when they talked of imports, they should deduct from them the excess of stock in hand at the end of the year, and not called into consumption, but which, without the importation of the foreign article, would have added life and activity to the trade. Now, in the imports of the present year there had been a most alarming increase. In 1828, they amounted in value to 676,973l.19s.6d., which was a most rapid increase; for, in 1826, they amounted only to 445,000l., and in 1827, to 555,087l. Now, if he took one third of the quantity as the amount brought into the country by smuggling, and left two thirds for legal importation, it would give him 2,000,0001bs. weight, which, at a fair calculation, would give him 1,000,000l. of money, the amount of money displaced from the work of this country. Then, following up this remark, he would add, that, by a reference to the difference between the price of labour in this country and in France, there was lost to the industry of this country, in depriving our labourers of the manufacture of the raw article into an article of use, no less a sum than 1,066,233l.

He was aware that he had entered into a very dry and tedious detail. It was not his wish to do so, but he had thought it his duty to state the exact facts of the case, in order to show the real state of the trade in this country. There was one branch of the trade which seemed to be totally leaving us—he meant the manufacture of fancy and figured articles. He found that this was entirely given up to the foreigner, and that important fact led him to remark, that, in some branches of the trade, the number of yards, and not the number of pounds of silk, was the only fair criterion of the trade being in a flourishing or decaying condition. These articles, in particular, were of a very heavy nature, taking a large quantity of silk; and yet this, the most lucrative part of the trade, was given up to foreigners. It would not be sufficient for the right hon. gentleman to tell them the amount of the imports; he must also demonstrate to the House the advantages of the new system. He would ask, what advantages had we derived from that system? He did not know what measures the government intended to propose. Report, however, stated that they meant to do their utmost to prevent smuggling. This must be prevented, not by the preventive service, but by a strict attention to the duty imposed; and if that duty were not brought to a level with the premium, the trade of the country would be destroyed. It mattered little whether silk were introduced by legal importation or by smuggling, if the trade of the country was to be overborne. He spoke without authority, and on mere report, when he said, that it was understood that the government intended to decrease the duty on foreign thrown silk. One argument in favour of this proposition might be, that while raw silk had increased, thrown silk had decreased: but let them consider the number of persons who had been, for some time past, employed in throwing, and that, too, at extremely low wages. Those wages must now be reduced still lower. The plan proposed would therefore be a certain and positive injury to one branch of the trade. The cause he pleaded, then, was not connected with that of the throwsters; but he was sure the persons for whom he spoke did not wish to obtain any advantage at the expense of the throwsters.

Let the right hon. gentleman bear in mind, that the remuneration of the unfortunate, throwsters was already reduced from 7s. 6d. to 5s., by the arbitrary and speculative measures of which the trade had been the object. Let him bear in mind, also, the large amount of capital that was locked up in machinery necessary to that manufacture; and let him consider the various other hardships he would inflict on the manufacturer, by measures tending to a still further competition with the foreigner. The question he therefore asked was, were vested rights to be obliged to yield to the influence of political or experimental opinions? If the duties should be reduced in the manner reported to be intended, that on thrown silk would amount to one per cent only; and that trifle, spread over the whole manufacture, would scarcely be felt. What, he would ask, must that system be, which could only be maintained by the bankruptcy of the manufacturer, and the absolute starvation of a hundred and fifty thousand men? He must consider as an argument against the further maintenance of that system, that a new proposition respecting it had become absolutely necessary. But then they were told that these were the triumphs of free trade! If they be tri- umps they are triumphs, like many other results of visionary and speculative innovations, which have entailed privation and suffering upon hundreds of thousands of previously happy and independent individuals. Instead of deeming the proposed measure of the right hon. gentleman an attempt to improve upon the system, he should rather call it a struggle to evade and to ward off the blow by which, in the end, it could not fail to be overwhelmed.

With respect to the objections which the right hon. gentleman might make to his intended motion for a committee, he should only say, that when distress was so extensive, so extreme, and so urgent, something should be done, and expeditiously done, to terminate it. The proposed measures for the discouragement of smuggling, and the reduction of duties on thrown silk, would not be sufficient for that purpose. We should have, in autumn next, a repetition of the distress which at present so lamentably prevailed. It was high time that something should be done—that the Silk Trade should be placed upon a firm basis. If the right hon. gentleman should give a negative to his pro-position, then indeed, he should tremble for its effects upon the Silk Trade of the country. He trusted, however, that such would not be the case. The eyes of the country had been long and anxiously rivetted upon this question. The right hon. gentleman himself must feel, that if he rejected the motion for a committee, he would be entailing on himself a heavy responsibility. Half a million of men were at the bar of that House, representing the distress that had been brought upon them. Let those unhappy persons be no longer the victims of speculative legislation. Let him hope, that the right hon. gentleman would not identity himself with the acts of his predecessors—that he would not take for his motto "vestigia nulla retrorsum." Let him hope that, taking into consideration the situation of this particular branch or trade of the country, the measures he should propose to the House would be every way suitable to the emergency. He would now move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the State of the Silk Trade."

, in rising to second the motion, said, he could not refrain from offering a few observations to the consi- deration of the House, although the important nature of the case, and the peculiar circumstances connected with it, obviated the necessity for any powerful display of oratory. The House would recollect, that, in the year 1826, the silk-manufacturers, who were then labouring under great distress, put forward certain claims, requiring that the importation of foreign manufactures should be prohibited, and that they were rejected, on the ground that they had made out no case, and on the representation of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the then president and and vice-president of the Board of Trade, that they would propose measures which would be found to contain a satisfactory remedy for the distress complained of; one of the right hon. gentlemen in particular, the member for Inverness, adding, that if that distress should not be obviated by the proposed measures, the petitioners would come before the House with increased claims on its attention. His hon. friend, the member for Coventry, had gone so much into detail as to render it unnecessary for him to apply himself to all the points of the question; but there was one, and an important branch of the Silk Trade, to which he could not help particularly to allude. He meant not to dilate upon the sufferings of the thousands of persons who were brought to distress and ruin by the decrees of that branch of the trade; but he should not be doing his duty, did he not state that at Macclesfield, Coventry, Manchester, and other places in England, and in Ireland and Scotland also, the utmost distress in that particular branch prevailed. He did not believe that all that distress had had its origin in the measures of the right hon. gentleman opposite; but it had been so much aggravated by them that, if the importation of foreign silks was not to be restrained, it was impossible that any measures the right hon. gentlemen could propose would have the effect of removing it. We were told, that we must have foreign silks, either legally introduced or smuggled; and, therefore, the petitioners were asked, which are we to admit, those which pay a duty to his majesty or those which are smuggled, by which the revenue is consequently defrauded? If that were the only question for consideration, he should not hesitate to concur in the obvious argument founded on it; but, if he found that smuggling increased with the relaxation of the duties, from the difficulty of distinguishing in the mass the legal from the illegal article, it could not be denied that the relaxation aggravated the distress of the home manufacturer. It had been contended also, that the distress now existing resulted not from importation, but from over-trading. He admitted that overtrading had occurred, in that as well as in other branches of manufactures and commerce; but he would ask, was not the mischief produced by overtrading increased, by allowing the importation of foreign manufactured goods, by which the possibility of recovering from the consequences of overtrading, was effectually prevented? He was also told, that this, like all other branches of manufactures, was liable to alternations of prosperity and adversity; but he would ask, could that distress be termed local or temporary, which had been prevailing since the year 1825? He confessed, therefore, that, although he admitted that there had been overtrading, and that it had had a part in producing, the existing distress, still the principal evil was the importation of foreign silks, which rendered it impossible for the home manufacturer to meet his opponent. The importation of manufactured goods had been permitted to an extent and under circumstances which precluded the idea of competition on the part of the English manufacturer. He had taken much trouble to inform himself, under what circumstances the system of what was called Free Trade was first recommended by government. He found that the first recommendation was in a celebrated speech made in that House by a noble lord, then the chancellor of the Exchequer (lord Goderich). That noble lord had held out to the country a prospect of great advantages, in consequence of the relaxations of the restrictive system. He had predicted a vast extension of the export trade, and that foreign ports would reciprocate the system with England. Every prediction had been falsified. Had foreign states followed the example of England, in any one instance? France, Russia, the United States—all the great trading nations of the world—had continued their almost prohibitory system against England. The foreigners stated, that they were not in a situation to cope with the great resources a England; and that they would, therefore, abstain from the Free Trade system of England until they were. The Americans had equally argued, that their manufactures were in a state of infancy. A distinguished Frenchman had also stated, that the liberal system of England was admirable, and that, when the French were able to compete with us, they would adopt it, but that, for the present, they would abstain from imitating us, and stand by their restrictive laws. He did not deny that advantages might result from the removal of restrictions; but what he would contend for was, that we gave advantages to foreigners; and he defied the right hon. gentleman opposite to point out one instance in which the country had derived any benefit from those relaxations. How lamentable was it, therefore, that those poor persons, the silk-manufacturers, should not only suffer, but that their sufferings had originated in measures which had produced no benefit to the country at large! He would ask the right hon. gentleman, whether it would not be wiser to reconsider the whole question than persist, and, by persisting, continue to inflict great evils upon the country? It was quite impossible, for reasons well known, that the labourer of this country could compete with the labourer of France. It would, moreover, be important to bear in mind the certain consequences that must result from an incapability to supply a sufficiency of labour for the poor. Machinery had, both in manufacture and agriculture, already done a great deal in abridging labour. What would, therefore, be the state of the country when a large proportion of its population should he destitute of employment, and driven into prisons and poor-houses by crime and poverty, instead of being industriously employed? A motion similar to that before the House had been brought forward in 1826, which was opposed by his majesty's government, principally on the ground that that was not the proper moment. He did not call upon government to retrace its steps; but he would say, that the distress of 1826 continuing to exist in an exaggerated degree formed the strongest ground for inquiry. Reports, false or unfounded, frequently reached that House, and, being put forward unexpectedly, passed without contradiction or refutation. He confessed that he had been greatly surprised when he heard the right hon. gentleman, the member for. Liverpool, last year, when the shipping question was under discussion, read a letter from the agent of cer- tain shipowners in the north of England, which stated, that there was no want of employment for shipping, but, on the contrary, they had more than they could undertake. In a few days afterwards, he met the writer of that letter, and asked him how he could think of putting such a weapon into the hands of a right hon. gentleman already so formidable an enemy? The writer replied, that if the right hon. member for Liverpool had read the context, the letter would have set forth a totally different statement. What the writer had said was, that although the persons engaged in ship-building were employed, they were working at the lowest rate of wages, and under circumstances that did not make a return upon the capital of their employers.—One argument used by honourable members against any alteration in the regulations a the Silk Trade was, that there was plenty of employment to be had in the manufacture of that article. And he particularly remembered the right hon. member for Inverness last year, quoting the great increase of import of the raw material as a proof of that fact. But the right hon. member was mistaken in his opinions upon that subject: he should have recollected, that the alteration in the fashion required a greater quantity of the raw material to be used, in the manufacture of the article; but even if the increase of manufacture had been doubled, still it would be no proof of the prosperity of the trade, so long, as the prices afforded no profit to the manufacturer. It was not his intention to enter into a detail of the principles of free trade; but he contended, that nothing was more absurd than to apply those principles to one branch of our manufacture to the exclusion of the others, and without anything like reciprocity on the part of foreign nations. If the principles of free trade could be permanently established in this country, and at the same time acted upon in our intercourse with other nations, he would most gladly support those principles; but he could not consent to apply those principles in the abstract to one isolated branch of our trade.—Another prediction had been hazarded by a right hon. gentleman; namely, that we should, by the regulations recently introduced, be able to compete with foreign markets in the manufacture and export of silks. Nay, my lord Goderich went so far as to say, that we should furnish silks to the whole world. But how, he asked, had that prediction been verified? The trade was at that moment at a stand-still. The hon. member, after reading an extract from a speech made by an hon. member in 1826, upon this subject, repeated the remark, that the prediction of the noble lord (Goderich) had not been in the slightest degree verified. There was one other remark which he wished to make upon this subject. The right hon. member for Liverpool had, in 1826, founded his arguments upon a petition presented by the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Baring),—a petition containing as sound principles of political economy as any he had seen presented to that House; but he did not think that that bore out the right hon. gentleman in the deductions which he had drawn from it. He did not see why we should allow foreigners to interfere with the Silk Trade of this country, unless they adopted the principles upon which our government thought it expedient to act. If proper regulations were introduced for the due protection of the Silk Trade, the capital and industry of this country were such as to secure its success. But he would ask, whether we were prepared to continue the system of free trade after France and America had refused to adopt similar principles, and met every effort of ours by a continuance of their prohibitory system? We might go on with our system; but, by doing so, we should add to the distress and misery to which the Silk Trade was reduced in every part of the country. Upon these grounds, he felt bound to support the motion of the hon. member for Coventry. That motion was only for a committee of inquiry; and, if inquiry were to be resisted at present, the time might come when it would force itself upon them, and that too at a period when it would be much more difficult to enter upon it, or to provide a remedy, than at present. It was not his intention to detain the House any further; and he should conclude with expressing a hope, that after hearing the statement pronounced by the right hon. The President of the Board of Trade, they would consent to the motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the distresses which were on all hands admitted to exist in the Silk Trade.

rose and addressed the House to the following effect:—I have listened, Sir, with the greatest possible attention to the statements of the hon. member who introduced the motion, as well as to those of the hon. member who seconded it, but nothing has occurred to shake my opinions as to the soundness and good policy of the existing regulations. Although I cannot be insensible of the many and peculiar difficulties which embarrass and which surround this question, nor unconscious of my own inability to treat its various topics, and to enter into the complicated details which belong to it, with that clearness with which it would be my wish to bring every subject under view of the House,—although I feel how additionally painful it is, under circumstances of suffering such as the hon. gentleman has painted, and in the midst of that distress which affects those districts in which the silk manufacture has been established,—although I feel, Sir, how difficult, as well as how painful it is to resist the sympathy of the House, and to oppose the motion for inquiry which the hon. gentleman has made,—I am yet not sorry that an opportunity is at length offered to me, when I may be permitted to vindicate the principle and the policy on which parliament has acted with respect to this trade,—when I may be allowed to show that the distress and suffering of those engaged in it, deeply as I must feel and deplore its existence, is yet not imputable to those causes to which it has been ascribed,—that, on the contrary, it has flowed from causes, over which neither the government nor the parliament has had control,—and when I may be enabled to submit to the House the outline of those measures which it is the duty of the government to recommend, as the only means of restoring to a sound and wholesome state this important branch of the national industry.

Before, Sir, I enter into so extensive a consideration of the subject, I am bound to meet, in the first instance, the immediate proposition of the hon. member for Coventry, and to state the grounds—the only grounds—upon which I should have opposed his motion for inquiry, had his speech been confined to a recommendation of that course alone, and had he not made it the vehicle of other arguments and other statements, which it will be impossible for me to leave unnoticed. In the course of what I shall have to offer to the House, I shall be obliged to comment on those passages of the speech of the hon. gentleman; because, in the view which I take of the causes of that distress which exists, I shall be led to combat his reasoning, and to prove, not only that he has ascribed it unduly to the causes to which the petitioners throughout impute their sufferings, but that the very measure which he recommends would be only the primary step to an aggravation of that distress. And first, Sir, I can assure the hon. member, that if I could persuade myself that the appointment of a committee could tend to alleviate the suffering of those who have approached the House with their petitions, I should feel much more reluctance in resisting the motion which he has made. It is because I am convinced that the appointment of such a committee must increase the difficulties in which the manufacturer is placed, must add to the stagnation of his trade, and encourage an opinion which has been so industriously circulated, that parliament was likely to change its policy, and to recur to a prohibitory system,—it is because I believe that if you leave them to that slow relief which a committee could afford, you would aggravate, at this season particularly, when the trade requires impulse, and the manufacturer employment,—you would aggravate, to an intolerable degree, the sufferings of every branch of it. I cannot complain, Sir, that the hon. gentleman, or the petitioners, have concealed the object with which they press for investigation. The avowed object is, to induce parliament to recur to a system of prohibition. To those who are decided against such a system, not on general principles alone, but from a conviction that it would he fatal to the manufacture itself, I need no arguments to dissuade them from acceding to a motion, which, professing to inquire, avows the ulterior object which it has in view, and the intentions of its authors. I lament to say that the petitioners have been led to think that a departure from that system has caused their distress and that, a return to it would remove the cause. This has been impressed upon them by too many who are capable of reasoning better, and who ought to have disabused them. I would ask of the hon. gentleman what inquiry before a committee of the House of Commons would establish for him, or for his clients, such a proposition? He has told us, indeed, how prohibition has acted. To the amount of acknowledged foreign import he could not recur. That amount has not been such—he knows it has not—as, by affecting the consumption, could affect the interests of the manufacture. It is, he tells us, to the illegal importation, to the unequal competition of the domestic manufacturer with the smuggler, that the extinction of the English manufacture is owing. Extinction! Has the hon. gentleman referred to the amount of English production also? Do not the very petitions and representations made to the House convince him, that there never was a period at which the supply has so far exceeded the demand? Or does he, or those who urge this inquiry, believe, that if by a system of enforced prohibition, they could exclude foreign competition, if they could, by the protection which they seek, raise the price, and the value of the domestic manufacture, securing to the merchant those profits which they say he has lost, restoring to the operative those high wages which he formerly received, and which rivalry at home, as well as abroad, has tended to reduce,—if these gentlemen could guarantee to the augmented number, both of manufacturers and throwsters, the same profits and the same monopoly, which, under another system, and with more limited numbers, to the prejudice of the great body of consumers, they enjoyed,—do these gentlemen persuade themselves, that that extension of the trade which has been produced by cheapness and competition will not be affected by the withdrawing of those primary incentives, or that such is the fashion or the patriotism of this country, that its public and its consumers would be content to pay for our domestic manufacture the augmented prices which monopoly would claim? Does it not occur, Sir, to the hon. gentleman, that the immediate result of a return to a prohibitory system, if it produced that increase of price which he contemplates, must produce also the most fatal effects upon all those places to which the manufacture has been extended, on individuals as well as bodies of men who have embarked in it? He is of opinion, that there are no limits to the price and profits of monopoly,—that by such minor considerations the consumption of the country is not likely to be affected. But is he of opinion also, seeing that at present there is not a remunerative price, as he contends, for any branch of the trade, that the large stock cannot be disposed of,—is he of opinion, that if, by recurring to prohibition, he shall raise the profits of the throwster, in the first instance—the wages a the ma- nufacturer in the second—there is no danger that the consumers of this country may take to cotton, or to some other fabric, which has not prohibition to protect it, and thus add to the distress—if not of the industrious constituents of the hon. mover—of those establishments which have grown up precisely since prohibition was at an end?

I leave here, Sir, this part of the argument, only warning those who deem that for every piece or yard of cheap manufactured silk, whether produced at home or abroad, which has been recommended by that very cheapness—which, if foreign is to be displaced by prohibition, if domestic is to be raised in price to the consumer—they may not be able to secure purchasers to an equal amount; and that while they hope to encourage those who are now dejected, they may in fact be creating permanent causes of their ruin. But, Sir, it is to the contraband trade—it is to the illicit and immense importation of foreign silks—that the petitioners have universally ascribed their present distress. I believe that the amount of what has been smuggled into the country has been exaggerated. But of that hereafter. I would here ask of the hon. gentleman, whether no smuggling existed under the system of prohibition? Is it not notorious and undeniable, that at that period French silks were to be seen in every house, and in every society? The extent of the smuggling, and the mischiefs of it, were the subject of universal complaint. In the evidence taken before a committee of the other House of parliament, it was distinctly referred to, and suggestions were made there, with a view to meet and to suppress it. But five years, Sir, before that time when the manufacture in the capital was suffering under one of those visitations by which it has been periodically afflicted—when, though the trade had the benefit of prohibition, it was said that two thirds of the looms were unemployed—the distress was universally ascribed to the smuggling in foreign silks. The same was stated in the year following, and I believe that it was as true then as it is now. If you would encourage the importation of smuggled goods, prohibit them; if you would confirm the caprice of fashion and give to the foreign article a fancied superiority, recur to prohibition! But the petitioners require it—that they may distinguish, it is said, between the foreign manufacture and that of this country and that they may pursue the foreign goods, and make the owner of them responsible for them, wherever they might be found. I believe that they will be disappointed if they hope to distinguish them. Under the paralyzing effects of undue protection, the goods of this country were distinguishable at first sight, by their inferiority from those of France; but imitation and improvement, under the stimulus of competition, have been at work and it has been more than once difficult to maintain a seizure after it has been made. Then allow me to ask the hon. gentleman by what means, by what authority, could that system of prohibition be enforced—that system so impolitic in itself, so impracticable in its operations, and so injurious in its effects to the morals of the people? Taking it for granted that such an ineffective system were revived, are you ready to resort to the only means by which it can be enforced? Are you ready to authorize domiciliary visits? Are you ready to grant again to the common informer the power of visiting the house of every Englishman of every tank in society? Are you prepared to arm your revenue officers with such authority, for the purpose of enforcing a fiscal law? The practical effect of that law was, to establish in the minds of the people the idea that the violation of it was no violation of morality; and this violation of the people's morals made them, by a natural re-action, the more ready agents for the violation of the law; so that the general result of the system was, to render the provisions of the prohibitory laws ineffective for the purpose for which they had been intended; and on this ground alone, namely, the moral and unconstitutional tendency of the laws, I can never consent to see them replaced on the Statute-book, even though the present system were less effective than it has been actually found to be. In fact, I am sure that when the House recalls to its recollection all the facts and circumstances connected with the system of prohibition, they, will never sanction the revival of it.

In resisting this motion, it gives me much relief that I am disembarrassed of the necessity of adverting to much collateral matter by the hon. gentleman's admission, that the object of his motion is, to obtain relief for the existing distress of the Silk Trade. Now, against the position that the present distress has been caused by the existing system of less restricted importation, I am enabled to place the authority of the hon. seconder of the measure, who, on a former occasion, admitted, that the distress of the domestic Silk Trade did not arise from the measures of 1826, but from prohibition before that period, and from overtrading after it. I do not think the House will suppose it necessary I should confine myself in this statement to the task of answering the arguments of the hon. mover in the precise order in which he delivered them. With the leave of the House, then, I shall here proceed to some general facts tending to render more clear and intelligible the general state of the argument. I shall first explain the causes, as they appear to me, of the stagnation and distress of the Silk Trade; then proceed to the state of the trade, as it stood for the five years immediately preceding the alteration of the laws in 1824; and then the state of the trade for five successive years following the alteration of them.

As to the state of the trade before the year 1824, the nature of the prohibitory system may be traced by reference to the history of the Silk Trade in France, and by the effects of the system on that trade as well as on our own; the result of which will show, that the distress of the Silk Trade arose from overtrading as well in France as in this country. There are many facts connected with this subject which are features, and proofs of overtrading; first, the immense increase of the raw silk imported; secondly, the high prices at which, owing to the competition of throwsters, the raw silks have nevertheless been purchased, even up to the sale at the East India House at the end of January; thirdly, the numerous new mills and works which have been established since 1823; and, fourthly, the simultaneous distress in France, to which I before referred. The facts, alone, of the great increase in the consumption of the raw material, as well as the increase in the number of persons, buildings, and works, employed in the manufacture, would sufficiently prove this over-trading. Dating the change of system at the beginning of the year 1824, five years of the new state of the Silk-Trade have elapsed. In those five years, the importation of raw and thrown silk has been 18,584,213lb. In the five years preceding 1824, the impor- tation was only 10,925,646lb., making a difference of 7,650,567lb. in favour of a later period. I do not mean to contend, that the increase of manufacturing employment has been equal to this increase of the raw material, because, since the reduction of the duty on raw silk to a nominal sum (1d. per lb.), coarser and heavier fabrics have been made, and silk has been more freely used in many ways not connected with the silk manufacture in its proper sense. But if one fourth of the increase be deducted, the silk manufacture, properly so called, will still have been increased by full one half, on a comparison between the last five years the former state of the trade, and the five years which have elapsed of the altered state. The following is an account of the importation during the ten years in question:—

During the first period, the duty on raw silk was 5s. 6d. the pound, and on thrown silk, not dyed, 14s. 8d.; the duty on dyed silk was totally prohibitory. There was at the same time, a large bounty on silks exported; whereby an exportation was forced, the amount of which must be deducted from the importations of raw and thrown silk, in forming an estimate of the consumption at home. The importations of 1817 and 1818 average that of 1819. During those three years, the trade appears to have been stationary. For some time prior to 1817, the trade had been suffering under one of its occasional visi- tations of distress; and any further retrospect carries us back, either into the time of the war, or to that of the immediate termination of it,—both periods unfavourable for any just comparison. Now, I put it to the House whether by these calculations alone I have not overturned the deductions of the hon. gentlemen opposite.

I shall now, Sir, go a little more into detail, for the purpose of showing, that the lamentable distress with which the Silk Trade generally is afflicted, and more especially so much of it as is established in the metropolis, is owing to the over-extension of the trade. Sir, previously to 1824, the silk manufacturer had begun to extend his establishments, not from any wholesome impetus of trade, but on account of those impolitic laws which have been since repealed, but which found advocates to the last day of their existence. It is remarkable, Sir, that in all the petitions since presented to the House, in all the publications which have been addressed, and can answer for all the which presentation addressed to the Board of Trade, there is not now one expression of regret at the repeal of laws, which, by fixing the value of labour, without reference to the demand, caused the manufacturer to leave a place where such an unwise restriction prevailed, and to remove to another where persons were ready to work at a remunerating price. It has been said, that occasional stagnation in the trade did not formerly produce in Spitalfields so much distress as that which is felt upon the present occasion, because the work-people, having been previously in the receipt of high wages, were in possession of some savings which assisted to support them, until full employment could be again obtained. This may be true in some degree; but it is far more true, that the stagnation was caused by the high wages, in co-operation with duties and other high charges, by which the consumption of silks was nearly confined to those classes amongst whom the caprices of fashion have most sway. Perhaps, to change in fashion, more than to over-production, the former seasons of distress may be attributed; and it is clear that to Spitalfields those season would become more and more, disastrous, in proportion as competition with the operatives of the country was extended. In those times it was not possible to force a trade by low prices: cheapness was not a material object with the regular consumers, and the degree of cheapness which could then be possibly attained was not sufficient to bring in a new class of customers.

I will now refer to the three or four points as to the extension of the trade to which I have alluded, and which I consider myself bound to enter upon some-what at length, on account of what has fallen from the hon. gentleman opposite. I hold in my hand a memorandum connected with the city which the member represents. Before read this document I will ask, whether I have not a right to call upon the hon. gentleman to say, whether it is the opinion of all his constituents, that the trade of Coventry has suffered to the extent he speaks of by foreign competition? I am told that, in one particular branch of the Coventry trade, the riband branch, the competition of the foreign goods has improved the manufacture to an extent that is the boast of the manufacturer himself. I speak on the authority of one of the hon. gentleman's most respectable constituents. That gentleman has stated to me, that the ribands they manufactured previous to the introduction of the foreign goods were of a fabric which they would now be ashameed of. His expressions on this point are so strong, and so convincing, that I cannot forbear quoting them:—"No one would know," said he, "that the ribands we now turn out come from the same place the same hands as those we made before the introduction of the French goods." This gentleman admitted to, me at the same time, that the difficulty and expense attending the first change in their machinery were great, but that it was absolutely necessary that it should be made, as there was not one of old looms that would now be fit to work for the home-market.—The hon. gentleman has stated to the House the number of persons out of employ in Coventry; but he has omitted to state one very important fact connected with the consideration of this subject. Let me here, however, once for all state, that I do not question the number of persons out of employ, or the extent of the distress they suffer, although, for the purposes, of argument, I must say that that distress is highly coloured; but I will not be guilty of making little distresses of any portion of my countrymen, however mistaken they may be as to the causes of that distress. The hon. gentleman, when he informed the House that there were so many hands unemployed at Coventry, did not state at the same time that the number of looms since 1824 had undergone an increase of nearly one thousand. Surely the hon. gentleman will not deny that that is a great element in the consideration of the distress prevailing in that city, particularly when he states so large a number of persons to be unemployed on account of a relaxation in the prohibitive laws. In 1823, previous to the adoption of the measures inculpated by the hon. gentleman the number of silk-manufacturers in Coventry was about one hundred. Is the hon. gentleman aware of what the number was at the end of last year, or in January of the present year! The number at the period I mention, Sir, was between three and four hundred. Again, I ask the hon. gentleman to say, whether this is not a proper point to take into consideration, when speaking of the distress prevailing in the Silk Trade? Let him ask himself, whether it is not mainly to be attributed to this self-destructive system? Let him look round at other manufactures, and he will see that the distress is not occasioned by what he supposes. In Manchester, the distress is great; for, I am sorry to say, it is not confined to the Silk Trade alone, the same causes being at work in other trades—and some of them trades in which the baneful influence of my right hon. friend's free system could have had no effect, as they have not been the subject of any of his reformations and amendments. In Manchester, the silk manufactories have, as elsewhere, much increased since 1823. In 1823 their number did not reach twenty; according to the best information I have been able to collect, the number was not more than fifteen or sixteen. In February, 1829, the number had increased to sixty. In 1823, the number of looms was only about five thousand; that number is now doubled. Three years ago there was scarcely a silk-loom in Leeds, and now they are innumerable. I have in my hand a letter from a gentleman at Manchester, not addressed to myself, but furnished me by an hon. friend of mine, who received it in answer to some queries put, by my request, to that gentleman, who is well known for his real knowledge, and whose name, were I to mention it, would not fail to command respect. [The right hon. gentleman here read a letter from a gentleman at Manchester, which stated, that the silk-manufacturers of that place had increased tenfold since 1818, and that a great increase took place between the months of April and December, 1825, and that the distress was occasioned by over-production and excess of capital seeking employment.] Now, Sir, Manchester is one of the places alluded to by the hon. gentleman. What will he say of it, after the conclusive evidence as to the cause of the distress in that place? My noble friend who sits in the seat above me has made communications which have given me the greatest pain as to the distress which prevails at Macclesfield, but the cause, Sir is the same there as at Manchester. In 1823, there were at Macclesfield three thousand looms at work, whilst in October, 1828, the number had increased to six thousand, and in February, 1829, the number was still more than four thousand. There is another part of the country to which the hon. member for Coventry has referred. I mean the towns in Scotland, where silk manufactures have been also established. In those towns the trade has been greatly extended, and they furnish another proof of what I have before said. In Glasgow, there were three thousand looms in the year 1823: but since that period the silk gauze trade has increased to a considerable degree; and, in February, 1829, the number of looms employed amounted to seven thousand. At Glasgow, in 1823, there were only four silk-manufacturers: at present there are six; and of silk and cotton-manufacturers there are ten. In 1823, the silk-manufacturers of Paisley did not exceed eleven, whilst now they amounted to thirty, and, where one bale of raw silk was consumed in 1823, twenty are now used there.

I would now touch upon a part of the subject to which I shall have to advert more at length immediately his one connected with the state of the trade generally, with the causes which have caused this want of employment, and with the measures which I shall have the honour to submit to the House. I allude to the state of the law as it regards the throwsters. Prohibition for their protection never was proposed at any time, nor in any state of the trade, nor, in point of fact, have they ever had it. But if we are now to believe the representations of the throws- ters, and those interested for them, they require high duties more than the manufacturers, and that to a degree which must, if their wishes were complied with, extinguish the manufacture itself. The throwster and those interested in his behalf contend for an increase of the present duty, and complain of its reduction from 7s. 6d. to 5s., by a Treasury order, which the hon. member represented to be a cutting off at one fell swoop of a third of the throwsters' vested property, which I must confess is an assertion I do not very well understand. But the throwsters, who now ask for a higher rate of duty, were unable to keep out the foreign thrown silk when protected by a duty of 9s. 2d. [An hon. member here suggested, that the duty was not so great.] Yes, it was, taking the difference between the thrown and the raw silk. The duty on raw silk being 5s., left a protection to the throwsters of 9s. 2d. The importation of thrown silk was much greater under the high duty than it has been under the low duty. It is plain, from this fact of the duty previous to the alteration in 1824 not keeping out the portion of foreign thrown silk then and still imported into the country, that a certain quantity of foreign thrown silk, which cannot be supplied by the English throwster, is indispensable to the manufacturer of the finer order of goods. I know of no other way to account for the increase in the importation of raw silk since the reduction of the duties, without a corresponding increase in the import of foreign thrown silk. It is said, that the throwster, under the former system, had large profits, and was able to pay high wages. I admit the fact. I admit that, at the period alluded to, it was a valuable and productive trade; but I think it is evident, that the decrease in his profits has not been so much occasioned by the reduction of the duty, as by the extension of his establishments; which was the natural consequence of the great profits many were making in the business. When the change of the law was first mentioned, in 1824, it was uniformly represented, that it must produce the destruction of all parties connected with the Silk Trade. I will ask, Sir, can the House understand, or can those who expressed that apprehension, and who now approach the House as petitioners, explain how it happened, that immediately upon that change taking place it was marked by the extension of the trade in all its branches,—equally in the manufacturing and throwing establishments? These individuals said also, that the French manufacturer would undersell and ruin them; and they asked, therefore, for two years to make their preparations, and during which they might have the advantage of having the raw silk imported at a low duty, and of being protected by a prohibition against the importation of foreign manufactured goods. I will not ask how the French manufacturer happens to be a sharer in the distress of our own: but I shall show, that those very persons who applied for an indulgence of two years were the first to be guilty of the extension to which their present distresses are owing—an extension proved by the importation of an additional 1,500,000 pounds of raw silk immediately upon the reduction of the duty, as I before mentioned. But this, Sir, was not all. Great apprehension existed on their parts, that the introduction of the foreign manufactures into our market would ruin them, and they promised, if two years were granted them, to make preparations to meet the expected danger, and they also suggested a contrivance which, as they supposed, would be greatly to their advantage, but which, ultimately, much aggravated the state of the case. When the period arrived, in 1826, when the foreign goods were to be imported they addressed parliament, and stated, that they could not meet the competition that was about to oppose them in the English market, on account of the immense quantity of foreign goods that would be poured in upon them, the French manufacturer being prepared to glut the market. They prevailed upon parliament, by this representation, to adopt a measure they suggested, which was, the prohibition of the importation of the goods prepared for this country, unless they were of certain lengths, being well aware that the goods manufactured in France were not of the prescribed length. The French manufacturers, however, were not without notice of this, and accordingly prepared another, and a larger, stock to introduce into this country as soon as the market should be open. What was the consequence? Why, that the stock previously prepared by the French manufacturers fell in price, and was sold for the purpose of being smuggled into this country, which it was in large quantities; so that the English manufacturer, who had asked for two years to prepare to meet the dangers of French competition, had not only his own increased stock in the market, but contrived to bring two foreign stocks into the market to compete with his own. I put it to the House whether there ever was a suggestion that operated more against the persons who urged it than this suicidal recommendation?

In 1825, the manufacturer found, that the English throwster was not in a condition to supply him with foreign thrown silk [a laugh]. What I mean is, that the circumstances of that year encouraged the throwster to extend his establishments; and, there being a difficulty in obtaining foreign thrown silk, it was found necessary to admit it from countries not of its growth, by a relaxation of the navigation laws; and the duty was reduced from 7s. 6d. to 5s. per pound. I will endeavour to state as shortly as possible the grounds on which I have come to the conclusion, that it is over-trading in the different branches of the trade in England and France, that is, in point of fact, the great cause of the present distress. The latter part of my observation has brought me back to the subject of thrown silk and the interest of the throwster. It certainly was expected by me and by parliament, that the English throwster would be enabled to work so cheap, as to exclude foreign thrown silks from our markets. It is quite obvious, that if that was not the general opinion, any expectation of an export trade was quite absurd. I remember that the hon. gentleman, the member for Callington, did state, and I think justly, that as long as the duty on foreign thrown silk continued at 7s. 6d., and I think he further stated that, unless we placed the manufacturer upon an equality with foreigners, it was hopeless to expect any export trade. That reduction of the duty upon thrown silk was accordingly made for the encouragment of the manufacturer; but it was not that, as is asserted, which has occasioned the distress among the throwsters, but their own improvident competition. I have in my hand a statement of the number of throwing-mills erected since 1823, of the number of spindles then at work, and of the number now at work. This statement is founded upon a report that was made some weeks ago, and which has since been confirmed to me by communications received from the places to which its different parts allude, and by other most satisfactory sources. But I received the most important information of the correctness of these reports at a meeting held at the Board of Trade with a large body of throwsters and manufacturers, who attended there to make a representation of their case. They came in a body of upwards of one hundred persons, interrupting, as they thought themselves called upon to do, the sale of the East India silks that the India-house. It is right that I should here state, that their withdrawing themselves from the sale on that day did not affect the prices of the East India silk, which sold at the usual rate. On the following day, I saw at the Board of Trade a deputation of thirty gentlemen from the body who had attended at the board on the day before. I had then the advantage of hearing from them, in detail, circumstances which were painful to me from the state of suffering some of them seemed to be in; but which, with other of their representations concerning their business, the extent of their establishments, the number founded or enlarged since 1824, confirmed the truth of all the leading facts of the statement I am now about to make. I have taken a certain number of considerable towns; but I assure the House without any view to produce an effect in a statement, but as being the largest on the list of those from which I have received returns. I have taken eighteen towns; they are Sandbach, Congleton, Manchester, Macclesfield, Glasgow, Paisley, Leith, Newcastle, Middlewich, Eccles, Newton, Middleton, Frome, Bruton, Taunton, St. Alban's Watford, and Coggleshall. I find that, previous to 1824, there were seven hundred and eighty thousand spindles at work, whilst, in 1829, they had increased to one million one hundred and eighty thousand, being an increase of four hundred thousand. I admit that, previons to 1824, the whole were employed: indeed, I think that fact may be considered as placed beyond a doubt by the large profits they made. The number this year unemployed is three hundred thousand, showing no diminution of those employed in 1824, but, on the contrary, still an increase in that period of one hundred thousand. In that same year, too, a number of mills were erected. Previous to the period to which I allude there were one hundred and seventy-five mills; while, in the present year, the number amounted to no less than two hundred and sixty-six. Is it necessary to add more to prove the over-trading in this branch of the trade?

Sir, it may be said by some, and I believe it has been said by the hon. gentleman, that the competition of the throwsters was advantageous to the manufacturer; but the fact is to the contrary; for it has been found, that the competition of the throwsters has added greatly to the difficulties of the manufacturer. In point of fact, the throwster became a competitor in the purchase of the raw silk, instead of being; a dependant upon and coadjutor in his manufacture. Indeed, I know not upon what principle it is said, that the interest of the manufacturer and the throwster is the same. Were we not bound to attend equally to the interest of all, the course for the House would be clear and simple. What we should do to preserve the home market and obtain the foreign one would be to recur to the simple principle of giving to the manufacturer of this country that which is his raw material upon the same terms and of the same quality that it is obtained by the manufacturer of France. I should not fear any competition if we were able to take that step. When I look to the enterprise of this country, to its capital, to its machinery, to its successful termination of the works it undertakes, to its spirit of improvement, which we have seen so well exemplified in the riband manufactory, I cannot See that we have any thing to fear. I know that this is the most difficult part of the whole subject. I admit the importance of union between the throwster and the manufacturer—of the advantage attending the latter having the choice of his silk, and the superintendence of its throwing; but I know not that they are advantages which ought to be paid so dearly for. Those who support what they call the protecting duty contend, that reducing it would totally displace the English manufacturer in the market; but I think the result would be, to displace the French manufacturer inasmuch as the reduction of the duty on thrown silk would afford to the maufacturer, the means of meeting foreign manufactured silk in the market. I am, therefore, prepared to recommend the reduction on foreign thrown silk.

I have no doubt I shall be told, that, to effect the object which I have in view, the proposition which I am about to make does not go far enough. I admit that if I could deal with this subject as an entirely new one—if I could look at it without regard to the different interests of those who are concerned—and if I were not satisfied, to a certain degree, with maintaining what I conceive to be a sound principle, and with making a gradual advance towards ends which others would endeavour to attain, as it appears to me too suddenly, I might have some difficulty in meeting the charge which an hon. gentleman opposite, and others, will be likely to make against me, of my proposition not going far enough. I am willing to plead guilty to this charge; but I cannot admit the justice of the charge of the hon. member for Coventry, when he said, that the same measure which the hon. member for Montrose considered as inadequate to its purpose, and destructive of the interest of the English throwster, would be of no benefit to the manufacturer. This argument is the more unreasonable when it is used before the hon. gentleman knows the extent of the proposition which I am about to make. It is not, I conceive, unimportant to make an advance towards a great principle. It is not unimportant, on a question of this magnitude, to shew to those who are interested, that the legislature is desirous to go as far as it can, to accomplish the ultimate object; and I request that those who have turned their attention to this subject will not consider the government as binding themselves, by the present proposition, to any permanent and decisive measures. They are unpledged as to any final course, and I wish that I should not be hereafter told that, on the faith of a duty which is now to remain, further extensions of establishments may take place, or that persons may be induced to embark in an unproductive trade. Persons, with whom I have had consultations in reference to their establishments, have told me, that they considered themselves entitled to the protecting duty of 7s. 6d. per. lb. and an hon. gentleman in the course of this evening has said, that the reduction of the duty to 5s. robbed individuals in the trade of a third of their property. It should be considered that parliament, in legislating upon a great question, is bound to take all the circumstances attending it into consideration, and to adopt that course which shall appear best calculated to promote the general advantage. I think the throwsters are under a mistake in believing that the reduction of the duty will affect them in the manner they suppose: some persons may go even further, and say that it does not affect them at all. I know that there are some who think that the throwsters could go on very well without any protection at all, and others who say that 2s. at most would be a sufficient protection. But if it were hereafter found, that the home-market was destroyed and extinguished by the protection to the throwster, it would be necessary to go further, and to give protection to the manufacturer, not against the throwster, but for the advantage and protection of both. I will endeavour to show why I consider that they are mistaken who suppose that the measure of the price of throwing is the measure of the protecting duty. They say that 5s. being the amount of duty, 5s. is their protection. But they forget, that to that duty is to be added all the expense of the Italian throwster. The amount of protection, therefore, is considerably more. It amounts to about 8s. 1d. I believe that the expenses of throwing silk in Italy amounts to about 2s. 9d. in the pound. I have seen statements in which they are calculated at 2s. 6d., and others, again, where they are made so much as 3s.; but the fair average is 2s. 9d. Now, some throwsters whom I have conversed with on the subject, have asked for a protecting duty, amounting to 9s. 6d. I shall not, Sir, be expected to urge many arguments to justify myself for not encouraging an expectation so rash and improvident as this. At such a rate of duty the throwster might go on prosperously enough, but the manufacturer could not survive; I think it but justice, however, to the throwsters, who made these applications, to state, that they concurred with the manufacturers in this—that this was the bond of union between them—that the throwster, who asked for a protection of 9s. 6d., concurred with the manufacturer, who demanded a prohibition. I am authorised by a gentleman who has made a calculation on this subject—a gentleman of great commercial experience and ability, who is by no means an advocate for the principles upon which I am now proceeding, but a stern and rigid advocate for prohibition, and who has made very elaborate calculations of the different prices of labour in different countries; I am authorised by that gentleman to state, that Italian thrown silk becomes charged with 3s. 1d., in addition to the import duty. Such, Sir, is the fact, with respect to the finer order of silk. With respect to tram, I will state a fact of which I have been informed, but for which it will not be necessary to give my authority, as it is not, perhaps, quite fair to quote names on occasions like the present. A gentleman lately purchased some raw silk in London, one half of which he caused to be thrown into tram in Italy, and the other half here; and he found, on computation, that when the duty was added, his Italian tram cost him Is. 10d. in the pound more than that which was thrown in this country.

I shall now, Sir, state to the House, the proposition which I mean to make for the reduction of the duties, which was founded upon calculation of the price of labour, and the other points necessary to be taken into consideration in dealing with such a subject. I propose to reduce the duties on fine thrown silk from 5s. to 3s. 6d.; on tram to 2s.; and on singles to 1s. 6d. I know I shall be told that many throwing establishments will suffer from this arrangement. Various calculations have been made upon this subject; but the whole resolves itself into this short point;—under present circumstances, the legislature is bound to protect the home-market and the home-manufacturer by the highest protecting duty which can properly be levied, but it would be vain to impose any excessive duty, and thus to hold out to the smuggler temptations which he colud not resist. It is against the contraband trade that the home-manufacturer most requires protection. If, out of the highest duty which can be levied for the protection of the home-manufacturer, there should be any which can be extended to the throwster, the House is bound to support him to that extent, but further than that they cannot go. To go further would be to increase the duty of the manufactured article, so as to hold out a temptation to the contraband trader, to the destruction, of the home-manufacturer. With respect to this branch of the subject—I mean the reduction of duties upon foreign thrown silk imported—it is necessary to attend to the question of an export trade. I have stated the principle on which I propose to give to the throwsters a protection, to the extent to which circumstances will allow. I have stated the principle upon which it is necessary to protect the domestic manufacturer and the home-market. I shall now proceed to lay before the House the scale of duties by which I propose to effect these objects. The first point connected with this branch of the subject, and the reduction of duty on foreign silk, is the state and prospect of our export trade.

I am about to propose to admit the principle of drawbacks, on the export of home-manufactured silks, to an amount equal to the duty on foreign thrown silk employed in its manufacture. It is quite obvious, that if it be intended to protect the manufacturer at home by the duties levied on foreign thrown silk, if we expected to have any export trade at all, it is necessary to do something more. It is represented, on behalf of the manufacturer, that he has great difficulty in competing with the foreign manufacturer in the same market. If this be the case it is idle to expect that he will be able to contend with him in foreign markets. Those who have heretofore brought forward measures upon this subject have been taunted with holding out encouragement for the extension of the trade, by representing the wide field which would be opened for English goods, and promising that they would find their way all over Europe. This, Sir, is an injustice to the gentlemen who were concerned in the former measures; for, in fact, they represented these effects as not likely to be of immediate or certain occurrence, but as remote contingencies. I recollect very well the illustration used by a right hon. friend of mine, as to the length of time which a commodity will take to force itself, under such circumstances, into general consumption. And I am astonished that those who complain of having been induced by such expectations to extend their establishments, did not reflect that, at the price at which foreign thrown silk came into this country, it was impossible to expect to obtain possession of foreign markets. It is a principle of our export regulations to discharge goods exported from the duties paid on the importation of the material. The duties on foreign thrown silk are duties of this nature. It is true, that I may be met by an objection as to the identity of the silk exported; and so much have I felt the force of this objection, that when the principle of drawbacks was first proposed, I negatived the proposition as impracticable. Until lately I have retained the same opinion; but I think the House will now feel with me, that it is immaterial if a substitution be made of other silk for foreiga thrown silk which has paid the duty. Nay, under some circumstances, I am of opinion at present, that this would be an advantage. If, by the allowance of drawbacks, we can possess ourselves of a foreign market, that silk which is not exported will be employed in some other article of manufacture which will be consumed at home. In fact, parliament has already acted upon this principle of allowing drawbacks on the article exported, without reference to its identity. The sugar refiners, by a late act, have been allowed to purchase foreign sugar for exportation, and are not obliged to export the same identical article when manufactured, but an equal proportion. When an act was passed for allowing foreign wheat to be ground for exportation, which act is now expired, it was the quantity of the article exported which was looked to, and not the identity, But it may be said, that if persons are allowed to avail themselves of such a regulation at present as they have done of drawbacks before, great frauds will be practised, and the drawbacks may be made to amount to more than the duty; but what I propose is, to preserve the right of drawback to the person who has paid the duties; so that the quantity exported may be written off against the duty paid. The drawback will be payable only to the importer, when he becomes also the exporter; or to his nominee, when another is the exporter. As I anticipate, that some objections may be urged against this plan, I entreat the House to consider the particular circumstances under which the proposition is made, and to give to it their serious reflection before they come to any ultimate determination upon it. The amount of drawback will be equal to the duty paid upon the foreign thrown silk consumed in the manufacture of the article. It is obvious that if, by the aid of foreign thrown silk free of duty, we can raise up an export trade, the interests of the trade must derive a proportionate advantage. I am aware, and shall not be surprised at the, opposition this plan may meet from those who take the same view of the subject as I did when it was first mentioned to me; but I must beg of those gentlemen to bear in mind the peculiar circumstances of the country. This is a manufacture which, in the home-market, yon are bound to protect; and if you would have an export trade at all, you cannot hope to obtain it in any other way than by concurring with an arrangement of this nature. The arguments I have stated will, I think, take it out of the class of those propositions which some hon. members characterise as the visions of political economists.

I come now, Sir, to a not less important branch of the subject—a branch which embraces most of the considerations urged by the hon. mover. I consider it more important than anything else I have offered. I allude to that part which regulates the competition in the home-market between the foreign and domestic manufacturer. To that regulation of the duty I confess I look as the best, as the only, means of putting down contraband trade in this country. We are told by the hon. member for Coventry and by others, that the danger to the English manufacturer and to the interests of all parties concerned, arises out of the great quantity of smuggled goods imported into this country. The hon. mover referred to the amount of legal importations, as they appear from the Custom-house returns; and he truly represents, that they increased last year to 600,000l. He told us likewise, that he thought the amount of smuggled silk three times as great; so that the whole quantity imported, legally and illegally, was about two millions. I was prepared to contend, that the common opinion as to the amount of smuggled silks was far beyond the reality; but the statement of the hon. member on this point is so extravagant, that what appeared to me before exaggeration now actually assumes the appearance of truth.

—The right hon. gentleman is mistaken: I said, that the smuggled goods were to twice the extent of the goods legally imported.

—I understood the hon. gentleman to say, that the whole amount was two millions; and as the amount legally imported is only 600,000l., his argument must go to the extent, that the smuggled goods were three times the value of those which paid duty. He added, that every shilling of this sum was subtracted from the pockets of the manufacturers of this country. His opinion as to the degree to which smuggling is carried seems to vindicate all that I had, previously thought exaggeration; but there is every reason to believe, that so far from the fact being as the hon. member stated it, it is not by any means to the extent of the ordinary and prevailing opinion. I know that, in a petition from the city which the hon. gentleman represents—and with reference to an article there manufactured—the contrary is asserted; but it is the belief of a most respectable manufacturer, that on this subject there is much over statement. Various suggestions have been made at different times, in speeches in this House, and in publications out of it, for putting an end to this contraband trade; and there is not one of those suggestions which has not undergone the most patient examination; but not one has been presented to the consideration of government, which has not been found calculated, in fact, to increase the mischief: they all went either to legalise smuggling, to afford it a cover under which it might be more successfully carried on, or to give to the smuggled article a fancied superiority over the manufactures of our own country. Let me allude to one in particular, which was pressed upon government from every quarter; and yet I never met a deputation on the subject that, by stating strongly the objections, I did not stagger the opinions of those who formed it—I refer to the project for stamping foreign goods. In the first place, if it were adopted to-morrow, I know not how it could afford any security to the home-manufacturer. It is said, that you might make the forgery of the stamp felony; but although you may make it a felony in this country, can you make it a felony at Calais? Do you not think, to use a familiar phrase, that whatever you may do they will act up to your mark? But I object to a stamp on another principle; namely, that it would give to the foreign article the positive advantage of preeminence in the market. The sale of silks depends much upon fashion and caprice; and nothing would be so likely to give a notion of superiority, as to affix a stamp proving it to be foreign. I am sure that we should soon have the whole trade complaining of what they now recommend. In fact, the experiment has been tried. Some time since, an act was introduced to protect the lace manufacturers of Buckinghamshire; and it required, that a stamp should be placed upon foreign lace coming into this country. Who were the first to ask that it should be repealed? The lace-manufacturers themselves; and on what ground? "For God's sake," said they, "remove the stamp; for it prevents our selling our lace for French lace." The act was therefore repealed, at the instance of those for whose protection it was first adopted. The amount of protection to be extended to anything the subject of home-manufacture, to prevent the unfair competition of goods illegally imported, ought to be governed by one principle: it ought to be measured by the difference of the price of labour in the two countries, and by a reasonable reference to such other disadvantages as may affect the manufacturer in this country. There is no other ground on which we ought to apply the principle of protection; and I say "a reasonable reference to other disadvantages," because the degree of protection to be afforded in consequence ought, I think, to be very limited. What protection has been afforded to the silk manufacture at different periods? When the inquiry took place before the committee of the House of Lords, the proposed protection was, I think, fifteen per cent. The amount proposed by my right hon. friend was intended to be thirty per cent ad valorem; but it was represented to him by the trade, that difficulties might arise, and the ad valorem duty was altered to a rated duty, calculated, I admit, on a principle of thirty per cent of value, but varying so much in part of the scale, that on all articles it amounted to more than thirty per cent, and on some to forty-two and even forty-four per cent. The consequence has been, that the principle has not had fair play, and it has not been a duty of thirty per cent which has been levied: in whatever degree it is greater, you have offered an additional premium upon smuggling. I propose, therefore, to return to that principle. I have had an opportunity of ascertaining—and I wish to state this particularly, because it is totally contradictory of, and irreconcileable with, some statements that have been made—from a source of the greatest authenticity, and which I cannot doubt, the real expense of smuggling into this country. I have read in publications, and have been told verbally, that the smuggler could introduce goods at ten, twelve, or fifteen per cent; but I deny it, and we are to remember, that a single case of successful contraband adventure will not establish what is the case with the general trade. Many circumstances must be taken into the calculation, and particu- larly with reference to the silk manufacture. I allude to the importance of having a supply of foreign silks at the very moment when consumption calls for it: every article dependent on the caprice of fashion must be furnished with the utmost celerity; and a single case, where the supply has been suddenly made from Calais or Havre, will establish no rule. Another circumstance deserves notice: those who calculate the expense from Lyons or from a French port, do not take into consideration the guarantee as well as the expense of smuggling, and nothing is proved when it is said, that one dealer risked the whole of his adventure without such guarantee. It has been stated by the hon. member for Coventry, that the average amount of silk smuggled into this country is worth about two millions, and the average rate of the expense of smuggling from 24l. to 30l. per cent. If, then, there be any truth in the principle I have stated, or any justice in its application, we may control smuggling in a large class of articles, by imposing an import duty, ad valorem, of twenty-five per cent. I refer particularly to articles which are not injured by compression, which are not hurt by package, which are in general consumption, and not applicable to general seasons or times, and therefore are easy to be smuggled. I do not propose to reduce the duties on articles which are not compressible, which are not liable to be hurt by package, or which lose a great part of their value by carriage; I speak particularly of velvets, gauzes, and those articles which are more difficult to import, and which come also from the countries with which we are much engaged in competition—I mean Switzerland and Germany. In proposing as the lowest duty twenty-five per cent, I must say, with respect to some articles which cannot be easily smuggled, that I shall not propose to reduce the duty; but I wish to recommend to the consideration of the House, instead of the ad valorem duty, a duty with a rate. I take twenty-five per cent as the basis of the import duty on foreign silk goods; but I will take it, in certain cases, as a rated duty, for the convenience of the importer and all parties concerned; and, therefore, I propose, that the officer shall have an alternative for the duty ad valorem on foreign goods of higher value. It is quite obvious, that the present mode of taking the duty, at the rate of fifteen shillings per pound on foreign manufac- tured silk, did create a duty, which it was not the intention of the legislature or of the government to impose. If it was to have been equal to an ad valorem duty of thirty per cent, it should have been eleven shillings per pound on those articles, instead of fifteen shillings.

On this point of smuggling, if the House will permit me, and if what I have already said has not tired it—for really on this subject there has been so much misconception, that I wish to shew I have not rashly adopted these principles as the basis of the duty, because, if the extent of smuggling be what it is stated to be, and we do not meet the smuggler in the market by reducing the duty to twenty-five per cent, we have no alternative worse than the existing system—I have a letter in my possession, dated from Calais, in the course of last autumn, written with reference, and in answer to, some questions put to the writer as to this subject. I should state, that it is written by a smuggler and was never meant to meet the eyes of those who would turn it to the injury of his trade. The right hon. gentleman then read the following extract:—"The only article that yet passes by contraband is broad silk; but there is no chance for gloves and ribands. The lowest rate for broad silk is about thirty-one per cent, including all expenses; but exportation by contraband has been much diminished since the reduction of the duties in 1825. We send no longer gloves, ribands, or silk in pieces, except some not of the legal length, and in pieces, not with the parallel mark at the end. But there is little or no profit made by contraband exportation."

By a singular coincidence I have another letter from another smuggler, bearing the same date, in which there is this passage:—"The expense of the sending gloves is from thirty to thirty-two per cent, but there is now very little of that sort of traffic carried on, for it has ceased to be profitable. There is some exportation from Havre and Dieppe, but the clandestine intercourse is nearly stopped. The goods are rubbed, and their value much injured, by the pressure they sustain in packing." These two letters were written last year; I will now read one written as recently as it could well be written; for it is dated the 11th of April. In this letter it is stated, that "the present rate of smuggling for gros de Naples pieces value over 8l. is twenty-eight per cent. The rate of smuggling pieces value under 8l. is twenty-nine per cent. Fancy silks is also smuggled at the rate of twenty-nine per cent, and ribands at the rate of twenty-four per cent; gauze and sarcenets at the rate of twenty-five per cent, and gauze sold at the rate of twenty-eight per cent. Crapes are not now sent, because of the rate of insurance, some houses charging twelve per cent on the cost price, and others from fifteen to twenty per cent." The writer concludes by stating, that he has not been lately in the trade himself, and therefore cannot give as full or exact information as others whose names he mentions. On grounds which I will not now calculate, it appears to me, that the cost of the smuggling trade is not so low as it has been thought to be, and that the only way effectually to beat down the smuggler is by such a reduction of duty as will prevent him from coming into the market.

I have now, Sir, stated my reasons for the difference in the duties I propose on those articles which admit of compression, and on those which do not. My object is, not only to lay down as a basis a duty of twenty-five per cent, but to give the officer the alternative of taking a rated duty, in such cases as in his discretion he may think fit, in order to prevent articles of high value from coming unfairly, as they have done, into this country, at a duty much lower than was intended. Some of those who have made representations to the government on this subject, have made such dear and able statements, that I feel the less difficulty in acceding to the recommendations they have suggested. It is obvious, that if the principle of a duty ad valorem be established, and if the alternative be given to the officer to change this duty to a duty by rate, that the exercise of this power will require a person of competent ability; and, with this view, I propose to adopt one recommendation, which was strongly urged by one of the silk manufacturers. I myself might have not approved of the principle of employing a competent officer; but I readily acquiesce in the suggestion, as I think it will not be inconvenient to the trade, to mate a limitation of the ports of England. This very important concession is due to the judgment of those who regulate so great an interest. I agree to it, because I think it will not be an inconvenience; but, on the contrary, a great convenience, in some respects, to the trade. In the alteration of the ad valorem duty, we ought not to admit foreign silk goods where there is not an officer competent to distinguish their value. I propose to limit the importation of foreign silk to the ports of London, Dover, and one or two other principal ports in England, and to one port in Ireland. Another proposition which has been made by the manufacturers, is one, in adopting which I shall only revive part of an act which lately expired, and by which silk may not be imported in any vessel of less than seventy tons burthen. This regulation of tonnage can produce no inconvenience, and if it gives satisfaction to those who are engaged in the trade, I see no objection to the proposition; and I approve of it the more, because it will throw difficulties in the way of the smuggler. It has also been suggested, as an inducement to seizures, that the rate of reward to the seizing officer should be increased; and as I conceive it would tend to the due enforcement of the revenue, I am disposed to be favourable to this suggestion also. I agree that the amount of reward to the seizing officer is not at present sufficient; and I will say at the same time, that I see no objection to give every inducement to enforce the collection of the revenue by giving a higher reward. I have only to add, that there were no other recommendations among those offered to the consideration of government, which were consistent with the principles which we maintain, and which I hope the House will not at this hour abandon. To no recommendation that is consistent with those principles—to none that is conformable with the due execution of those principles—to none that does not violate them—will the government be found not anxious to accede; and I can assure the House, that the Board of Customs will be ready to give its full co-operation in carrying them into execution.

There is one branch of the subject connected with the trade with India—and I have no doubt the House is already impressed with the importance of the proposition of the right hon. gentleman who sits on the bench below me—I mean what he said arising from the petition which he presented from the silk manufacturers of India. I do consider the prayer of that petition to be an exception to the general rule. There is no principle to justify us in continuing as high duties on the produce of our fellow-subjects, and on the manufactures of bur own dominions, as on those of foreign countries, for the benefit of our home-manufacturers, at a time when, as it was justly said by the right hon. gentleman, we compel these people to receive our manufactures, which we send to India duty free, with all the advantages of our capital, skill, and experience, against them. It is only necessary to state the fact, to shew that it is impossible to maintain any longer such a principle; but, though I am most reluctant to expose the silk manufacturers of this country to contend with the continental manufacturers, they cannot expect the same principle to be applied to our own manufactures in India. I hope they will only act on the same principle, with regard to other parts of the empire, which they wish to apply to themselves. In the last session of parliament this House gave almost a complete approbation to this principle. It has been owing to an assurance given them, and wisely kept, that the trade was not interfered with at that late period of the session. I propose to go now further than his proposition then; which was, that the silk manufactures of India should be admitted on paying a duty of twenty-five per cent. We cannot lay on the manufactures of India a duty of thirty per cent, while we only lay on those of the continent twenty-five per cent. I think we ought to admit them at twenty per cent. My right hon. friend, who presented the petition, will see that, in departing from the proposition of last session, I make great progress towards the principle which the House has affirmed, and I think therefore that he will not call on me to go beyond the proposition I have stated, under all the circumstances. On a former evening an honourable baronet stated a fact, in illustration of the success attending the competition which the opening of the Silk Trade has produced; namely, that since the introduction of Bandana handkerchiefs into this country from India, there has been such an improvement in the English manufacture of them, that four-fifths of those now sold in Europe are made in this country. I have also some papers giving similar results; but I will not read them, as they are not requisite to the discussion, and the House might not be pleased if I were to go further into details.

I will venture, however, to submit the reasons why I deprecate the endeavour of the hon. member for Coventry to refer this subject to a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. gentleman knows that nothing has been so fatal to the Silk Trade for the last two months as the opinion—the unjust, the unfounded opinion,—that there was reason to expect a change in the principles on which the Silk Trade has been conducted. I know not why, or by whom, that opinion was so studiously circulated; but I am anxious for an opportunity to disabuse those who have been so deceived. With respect to the benefit of the trade, to put an end to the stagnation of which the hon. gentleman complains, and to give an impulse and encouragement to the manufacture, nothing is so undesirable as what he now proposes, namely, that we should agree to such a committee as he asks for. I pass over the arguments of the hon. member for Worcester, and apply myself to the motion of the hon. member for Coventry. I object to that motion, because it is only intended to lay a ground for new protecting duties; for abandoning the principles on which parliament has acted; and for preventing that fair play in the operation of those principles, which has not yet been allowed them: for the circumstances of the country for some years have been such, in consequence of the excessive speculation of one year, followed by the panic of the next, and succeeded by the re-actions of the third, that they have prevented those principles from having a fair experiment. It is in vain to appoint a committee to inquire into the cause of the distress of the Silk Trade. I know not how a committee could proceed to inquire, whether it results from over-production or the evils which over-trading produce. I have been lately called on to reflect on the principle on which I have always acted, and which I have recommended to the House. In the support I have given to these measures before, I gave only a silent acquiescence; but I will tell him, that since I have had my attention called to the subject, and have given to it that examination which was imposed on me by my office, I am the more strongly confirmed in the opinions entertained.

I do not know whether there are any other points in the explanation which I have offered on which any hon. gentleman may not be satisfied; but I do entreat the House to consider the propositions I have made, as the best and only ones which, under the circumstances of the trade, I can now suggest. I will not pretend that I have treated it as if the whole question were perfectly new, and could be considered without reference to existing interests. The hon. member for Worcester referred, at the conclusion of his speech, to the petition of the merchants of London, presented some years ago by the hon. member for Callington; and he said, that we ought not to adopt those principles, unless other countries would act on principles of reciprocity; and he expressed his doubt as to their ever admitting us into their markets, as we admit them into ours; and the hon. gentleman, in the presence of the right hon. gentleman and other members who had argued that petition, accused them of adhering steadily to principles, on which other countries would not act. I will, therefore, read a passage from that petition, and let it be a reply to what he has said:—"That although, as a matter of mere diplomacy, it may sometimes answer to hold out the removal of particular prohibitions or high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other states in our favour; it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions, in cases when the desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained. Our restrictions would not be the less prejudicial to our own capital and industry, because other governments persisted in preserving impolitic regulations." This is the petition to which he referred, in exculpation of those who have acted upon it. It is not necessary to say more, in reference to that part of the hon. gentleman's speech. I beg pardon for trespassing so long on the attention of the House. The hon. member for Coventry has reminded me of the responsibility I incur. I assure him I know it well; and he added, that as I was not the author of these measures, I was not bound to them. It is true—I have no declarations to make—I have no pre-conceived opinions to which I can appeal—I have given no pledge from which I cannot depart. Will not the hon. member feel, then, that my support of these principles is the more unsuspected, when I have no motive of a personal nature to bias me? I am ashamed to have trespassed so long on the patience of the House, but I should have been more ashamed if I had shrunk from the responsibility which my office imposes on me, and sheltered myself under the acts and authority of others, for pursuing that course which my own sense of duty leads me to follow.

said, he had listened with great attention to the speeches which had been made that evening, and especially to the very able and eloquent speech of the right hon. gentleman. It afforded evidence of the rapidity with which a man of good sense could make himself master of any subject he investigated; for a clearer or more perspicuous statement could not have been made than that of the right hon. gentleman. But he could not help remarking, that the right hon. gentleman had nothing to suggest in the way of relief for the distress of the Silk Trade, in any way. He was not prepared to argue, that relief was in the power of government; but he could not help remarking, that it was no subject of congratulation, that all the talent and attention of his majesty's government had ended in the extension of that general principle, which might be necessary, but which nobody: could pretend to regard as a remedy for the existing distress of the Silk Trade. The silk manufacturer was unable to stand, at present, in competition with the foreigner. And what was the right hon. gentleman's remedy? To let in the foreigner on easier terms. It might be necessary to counteract the smuggler by lowering the duties; but he saw no hope for the manufacturer. The right hon. gentleman had glanced at no remedial measure, except the drawback. He owned he expected nothing, else: he had taken, from the beginning, a different, view of this question from his majesty's government. Arguing upon the principles declared by the right hon. gentleman, and upon the measure now proposed, it clearly appeared to him, that the Silk Trade stood condemned as a manufacture; and that, sooner or later, it must perish. Certainly, he had, some years ago, presented the Petition of the: Merchants of London, and in its general principles he entirely concurred. It was necessary, at that time, that some changes should be made; for the commerce of this country had been, for a series of years, under the management of Mr. Rose, a gentleman who, whatever might be his other excellences, was of limited views with regard to trade; and he had so fettered the commerce of this country, with, restrictions, that though it Was not much affected by them during the war, which gave us the monoply of the world, yet at the peace it became absolutely necessary to take off these fetters, and give some latitude to freedom of trade. Perhaps too much was done, and an impetus given to our commerce which ended in the throwing, it into a state of greater depression.

It has (continued the hon. member) been thrown out against me somewhat in a sarcastic manner, though I think un-meritedly, that, having given my support to the general principle of free trade, I objected to include this article in it. The fact is, that when I looked into the circumstances of the case, I felt convinced that, whatever good might result from the application, a this principle to other branches of the manufacture of this country, it could never he justly applied to the Silk Trade; but that, if it were persisted in, that trade in this country was gone for ever [hear, hear!]. In looking at the other leading manufactures of this country, I found that they had a decided preponderating advantage, from one circumstance or another, that would enable us to stand up against the great difficulty that a rose from the difference in the price of food and clothing between this country and the continent. Take iron, for instance: there was no country that possessed so many advantages for that manufacture as England: the same might be said with respect to the potteries of this country; and our cotton manufactures also possessed a great advantage, from the, circumstance of our being the nearest European country the New World. All those manufactures have gone on making great advances towards success; and it is only these silk-manufacturers upon whom these experiments operated so unfortunately [hear, hear!]. I may be open to reproach for looking at the subject in this manner, but I am not ashamed to say, that I cannot contemplate the ruin of thousands and tens of thousands engaged, in this trade, without shrinking from the responsibility of participating in the experiment. I must also say that what has since taken place has not tended to alter my opinion on this subject., I repeat, that the manufacture of silk is the, only one in which a foreign country has a decided advantage over us: in the first place, we are very much behind the French in the recent inventions of machinery upon which so much depends; and not Only, does that nation surpass us in that particular, but they have also much easier means of access to the raw material: the silk of Provence is near at hand, and the consequence is, that that part of France which is nearest derives the greatest advantage. One circumstance particularly worthy of observation is, that there are occasional disturbing causes and circumstances, which make the general principle inapplicable in those particular instances, and the man who attempts to apply them, without looking at the details of each individual branch, will run the risk of bringing a most mischievous engine into operation, Another circumstance connected with the French trade is, that they have the start of us in every respect. Their colours in particular are much superior to ours. Why they are so I cannot say. have been told by dyers that it is probably attributable to the climate—a thing that cannot be got over: at, all events, I know that dyers from this country have gone over to Lyons, and paid considerable sums to obtain the secret; but when they have brought the whole chemical process back to this country, they have still found that they have not been able to produce the French colour.

Another point is, that, with respect to articles of this description, the French have always set the fashions to the rest of the world; to dress like an English gentleman is the rule, but it is equally the rule to dress like a French lady. These are advantages which, if the legislature act without duly considering, will lead to disastrous results, and, involve them in continued darkness and mistake. If these theories are pushed to the extreme, we must necessarily find ourselves in a dilemma; for how is it possible that we can bear up against such a complication of circumstances? Compare Lyons with Coventry, for instance. Lyons has the advantage over Coventry in dying, fashion, and in the proximity of the raw silk of Provence, to which may be added the no small advantages of being able to procure labour at half the price [hear, hear!]. How is it possible but that of two manufactures, thus standing in competition with one another, the one where the cheapest fabric can be procured will beat the other out of the field? Whether, after this, it will be prudent, or indeed practicable, to devise a remedy for this, is altogether a different questions but I must confess, that the result which I have stated appears to me to be entirely without a remedy, and that it is impossible to look at this manufacture in any other light but in that of a condemned trade [hear!]. I certainly know of no other way of looking at it; and all that I regret is, that, by the manner in which the subject has been spoken of, persons have been induced to persevere, expecting, by the false lights which have been held out to them, that they would be able to fight the battle against other countries. With respect to the throwster, it is quite clear that the manufacturer cannot stand if he is protected. I do not want to go into the reason why the throwster ought or ought not to be protected, but shall content myself by stating, that if we put a duty of 3s. 4s. or 5s. per lb. on foreign silk, it will be impossible for the English weaver to stand against that, in conjunction with the other disadvantages against which he has to contend. The chief complaint I make is, that protection was afforded to the throwster the first instance, by which he was induced to lay out his capital in mills and other machinery, which, as I understand; are not now worth more than the bricks, and timber employed in their erection; the consequence of which is, that while they have been expecting, by means of protection, to be able to beat all the world out of the field, the poor people have been dupes, and by setting to work on the faith of that expectation, are doomed to disappointment and ruin.

There is another consideration which has been touched upon by the right hon. gentleman, which is, I think, well worth a few observations. The right hon. gentleman has called upon the House to consider, whether these difficulties in the silk Trade are to be taken by themselves, or in conjunction with the difficulties under which the other manufactures of the country are at the present time labouring. It is certain, that at present considerable difficulties and suffering are existing in every department of the trade of the Country. I believe, that in most of the other cases, this difficulty is only temporary. At the same time, I must say and—I am sorry to be obliged to do so—that. I cannot conceive it possible that this country, as long as Europe remains in a state of peace, will be able, for any great length of, time, to continue a manufacturing country for the purposes of exportation. The more I see of the progress of the system, the more I am convinced that this will be the case. When I look at the difficulties which the labourers have to endure, with the low rate of wages afforded them:—when I look at the difficulties which the merchants experience in purchasing, so as to be able to meet the competition of foreign markets—I am sorry to find, that I am one of those who cannot see the possibility of this country continuing to be a manufacturing country for the rest of the world.

If, then, from this circumstance, it should follow, that the support of this country must necessarily be artificial, a question will arise, whether we shall be able to carry into effect the whole of the system of free trade; for we must not forget, that by and by we shall come to the same difficulties in the wool and cotton trades, though I do not think that they will ever arise in our iron manufactures or our potteries, because they are peculiarly fortunate in their circumstances. But I should like to hear from any hon. gentleman, how it will be possible for our wool and cotton trades to continue, if the present state of things go on? The cotton manufactories in the United States are pushing forward with amazing vigour; and their success must be certain, as long as cheap food continues to be (as it always will) the criterion. Every year evinces greater progress on the part of our rivals. All these are things in which we are mutually interested; and I therefore feel that I should not be doing my duty as a member of this House, were I not to state the difficulties as they strike me, and manfully court the discussion of them. I firmly believe that the difficulties we are labouring under, in other branches of our trade, arise from those fluctuations which are constantly arising from the mercantile situation of the country: a great deal of them are no doubt, owing to the many rash adventures that were some little time ago sent out to India, and to the uncertain state the markets in South America. As many hon. gentlemen must well know, the state of trade in Glasgow two years ago was such that traders were encouraged to take up goods at nine and twelve months' credit, to go into adventure of some sort with them: the return for these goods having failed they were unable to take up their bills, and the consequence was, that a, great deal of discredit pre- vailed—capital was drawn in, and general suspicion existed long enough to put a very severe check upon all commercial transactions. The unfortunate harvest of last year, by which corn was brought into this country, and gold taken out of it, has also something to do with it; and the whole of them led to some of those difficulties which have been experienced during the present year.

The right hon. gentleman has called the attention of the House a, good deal towards the smuggling adventures that are carried on between this country and the continent; and he has stated, that the expense of the traffic may be reckoned at twenty-four, twenty-six, or twenty-eight per cent. This may be correct in some instances; but, in the larger adventures that came from Flushing and other places, I should think that he has rated it too high; if I am not misinformed on the subject, from fifteen to sixteen per cent may be reckoned upon as sufficient, though I know that in the smuggling that takes place between Calais and this country, it may be rated higher. But, whatever the rate may be, the real fact is, that to obtain anything like a preventive for the traffic, the goods must be followed into shops and houses. Even then, I think, it would be found to a great degree ineffectual; but any thing short of that could answer no purpose. I agree with the right hon. gentleman, that the project of a stamp would be of little avail, and, indeed, with almost all his regulations, if I except that of the drawback which he has proposed; which, however, I should be sorry to pronounce decidedly upon, until I have had full time to consider the question maturely. Taking it, however, as it appears to me at present, and freeing, with the right hon. gentleman, that if the manufacturer is to be supported at all, it must be at the expense of the throwster, it seems that the right hone gentleman proposes, that, on the importation of thrown silk into this country, the importer should receive a debenture for what he paid in the shape of duty, and then be at liberty to dispose of that to any person, who, on making an export of foreign silk, would be entitled to receive a drawback, to the amount of that debenture. Now, this proposal of the right hon. gentleman appears to me to come to nothing; and might, therefore be just as well left alones, for whatever the importer pays, he can at any time sell his debenture for, by which means he would stand exactly as he did before.

With respect to the trade in India silk. I must also be allowed to say a few words. India silk, as the law now stands, pays a duty of fifty per cent. which the right hon. gentleman proposes to reduce to twenty per cent. It is true, that those who are engaged in the manufacture of these articles in India are our fellow subjects; and I am aware how unfair it appears, to make their manufacture pay any duty on coming into this country. Such an argument is undoubtedly a very specious one, and one which calls for a great deal of consideration, but at the same time. I cannot help feeling that we have fellow-subjects rather nearer to us, living in our own manufacturing towns, rand who may, perhaps, be harder pressed to make a living of it, than those who are in India and I must, confess, that I cannot help coming to the conclusion, that if we allow this class of goods to come into this country on so low a duty, it will be the means of breaking up the only portion of the trade which we had any chance of keeping—cutting away from under us the small hope that was left. A favourite argument in support of free trade principles is, that we are bound to pursue the right course; while, as to other nations, if they choose to go wrong, why let them. I must confess that I cannot go the whole length of this proposition; for I think that it will never do for one country to take any thing which others take nothing; the only remedy for which will be, that it will at length be checked from taking, by its absolute poverty and incompetence to do so. I have no doubt, that if all countries could be persuaded to adopt this system, much good would result from it, or even if a stoppage. In, it was only occasionally to arise from accidental and unforeseen causes; but I doubt, while one country pursues a policy at variance with all the rest of the world, whether any particular good can be effected by I have, however, nothing, to reproach the right hon. gentleman with on this head: he has treated the subject that he has had to handle with fairness, and it is now before the House for its decision. I do not say that I am prepared to recommend it to go back to the old system of entire prohibition; and unless I had made up my mind to that, I do not see how I could vote for the committee proposed by the hon. gentleman. If we agree to go into that committee, it will be leading the country to suppose, that we are going to effect some change in the system. For myself, I want no information; I believe that I am sufficiently acquainted with the leading facts of the case; and my mind is made up on the general principles which have been adopted by the government, though I am sorry to say that I cannot be so sanguine with respect to them as the right hon. gentleman. Further than this, it is clear, that even if we were to go into the committee, the figures are all against the petitioners; and I do not know how the committee is to form its judgment but from the constantly increasing importation into this country of the raw material. Against that, fact the manufacturer sets up as his excuse for complaining, the large stock that he has on hand, and the difficulty he experiences in finding a fair market for his goods; all this is very true, but still I think it would be difficult, not to say impossible to make out a case in a parliamentary committee against the fact of a continuing increase. I know that it is hardly possible to exaggerate the dreadful state of distress and difficulty in which the Silk Trade is at present placed. Petitions from all parts of the country evince that it is as general as it is serious; and, indeed, I hear but of one sentiment on the subject, whichever way I turn; but, at the same time, the facts as to the importation of the raw material do shew that there has been a considerable increase. I have taken up more of the time of the House than I intended; but, conclusion, I will only say, that I most sincerely lament the position in which these manufacturers are placed, and shall be extremely happy to find that the measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman will have the effect he supposes; thought, I must say, that. I do not look at it with such a strong anticipation of success as he appears to do.

said, that as he rose at so late an hour he would not detain the House more than a few minutes, but would reserve what he had to say on this important subject to another stage of the measure. He would, however, now add his earnest entreaty to those already urged upon this House and upon his majesty's government to grant committee for the purposes embraced in the motion now be- fore them:—a course which seemed dictated by every view of what was owing to this important question, which was due to the feelings of those whose interests were at, stake, to the character of the House, and to common justice itself. Pledging no one to any future policy, nor compromising any thing excepting inquiry, it could. only confirm the views of those who support the present system, if just, or rectify them, if erroneous; and, notwithstanding all that had been urged by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trader against the motion, it was still difficult to discern any thing approaching to a reason why those engaged in so important a branch of national industry, and who declare themselves to be deeply injured by the present policy respecting it, and are prepared to prove this to be the case, should not at least be heard by their own representatives; especially, as the testimony of anonymous smugglers had beep attended to by the right hon. gentleman.—But it appeared to him, that the real objection to the course recommended was, that it would involve something like a recantation of the principle of free trade—that policy, on which ministers had unhappily begun to act. Into that subject he would not now enter; other and more convenient opportunities for so doing would doubtless occur; for, the longer the system was persevered in, the more frequently would its advocates be called upon for its defence. He would merely observe at present, that when free trade, as it was termed, was principally confined to an interchange of those products which the bounty of nature had unequally scattered over the earth—when it, therefore,

"Gave the pole the product of the sun,

And knit th' unsocial climates into one"—

then it was pursuing a beneficial, and not unpatriotic, careers or when it even exchanged, different products of human labour to the mutual advantage of those countries engaged in it, it might be proper; but when it deliberately trod down those interests of the community which had grown up under a previous system, before they could be safely and advantageously transplanted—when it tended to depress and ultimately to destroy various branches of internal industry, by supplanting home labour by foreign, under some deep and doubtful: speculation of the benefits which might ultimately attend such a course—when it, pursued some distant and theo- retic advantage at the expense of present prosperity—then free trade became a curse, and threatened the ultimate existence of our internal trade altogether. Of all countries England was that in which its application. would be the most dangerous and destructive; loaded as it was by an enormous national debt, with the necessaries of life dear, the principle of free trade, as applied to England, would reduce its labouring population, not only to the condition of the most wretched nation of Europe with whom, she would have to compete, but finally with the countries of the east, the very climate of silk, and the seat of its manufactures, whose population were without any of what would be termed here the necessaries and conveniences of life. The principle of her trade, then, would ultimately conduct the country, by means of this competition, to the lowest degree of wretchedness. It should not be forgotten, that this great manufacture, which had given healthful employment and comfortable bread to many hundreds of thousands of hands—which was so interesting in its origin and introduction—which had been so long nourished and protected, and which had grown to so high a state, and spread its branches so wide amongst us, was yet an exotic, and still retained all the delicacy as well as the beauty of one. Your state horticulturalists have removed it from the sheltered spot where it long flourished, to a less congenial scene; and it already fades and droops: let them persevere and it dies. They will soon only have to clear the ground plat of national industry of its decayed trunks. Are they prepared for the consequences? But, to drop a metaphor where the reality is infinitely mote striking. While we are coolly legislating on this subject, the employment and the bread of hundreds of thousands are at stake. The victims of the free trade system cannot live upon the future. It had been made a matter of congratulation that the price of silks had been so much reduced. To him it was no triumph. Their costliness had never been a grievance, as so much of their value was derived from labour; and consequently it was the means of distributing the means of the wealthy amongst the lower and labouring classes of the community. Silks constituted not an article of necessity, but one which conferred distinction. If, then, they, could be rendered still more cheap, so as to spread their use more generally through the population, they would in that case only supersede some other branch of national industry. It would be no national benefit, then, though my lady wore her robe at half the cost, or even her servant dressed in silks instead of cotton, if that cheapness left the home-manufacturer and his family naked, and robbed his board of its daily bread. But, he had promised not to occupy the attention of the House, and he would keep his word. He only rose to urge one earnest entreaty, that a select committee might be appointed to take the condition of this branch of our national industry into its consideration, with a view to remedy its great and increasing distresses.

confessed he had derived no small degree of satisfaction from finding that his right hon. friend and his colleagues had, after a careful examination of the subject, and of the various representations of the manufacturers and others concerned, come to the resolution to persevere in the measures which he, when in office, had recommended to the adoption of the House. Nor had this gratification been much diminished by the discouraging denouncement of the hon. member for Callington. Although that hon. member had predicted in 1824, the downfall of this trade, and now contended that the prophecy had been fulfilled, he nevertheless felt it necessary to prophecy a second time its reiterated ruin. In the same way he had seen the ruin of our trade in cotton and woollen inevitable, because from the high price of provisions in this country, it was impossible that foreigners should not supplant us in the market Now, from recollecting what had happened with respect to America, which was the most enterprising of our competitors in commerce, he saw no reason to apprehend the fulfilment of this part of the hon. member's prophecy; for though, in the year 1824, America placed a protecting duty of thirty or forty per cent on cottons, which, in 1828, was raised to seventy or eighty per cent. still she felt it impossible to maintain to herself the extensive supply of her own market.—I say, Sir, (continued the right hon. gentleman) when I see this, and know that the Americans are our most formidable competitors, I cannot enter into the desponding feelings of the hon. member. I agree with the hon. member, that we have as much to dread from America as any other country; but, if provisions are cheap there, labour is dear, machinery is costly, and other expenses are so great, that I have no fear that America will drive us out of other markets; much more drive us out of our own markets, which is the position of my hon. friend. Some weeks ago we were informed, on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade, that it was the fixed determination of his majesty's government not again to have recourse to the system of prohibition When I heard that determination, Sir, I felt it was my duty to attend in my place in this House to-night, and to give my support to government in any further alteration which it might be found necessary to make, to carry into execution that system, which it was now agreed should be held sacred. The hon. member for Newark has exhibited his propositions, as if he had no wish to return to the system of prohibitions; but his arguments went to show, that nothing but prohibition can save the trade from the difficulties and dangers in which it is involved. It is impossible that the House can enter into the consideration of any proposals not founded either on protection or on prohibition. It is protection which is proposed by my right hon. friend; but it is prohibition which is required by the throwsters and weavers. To this question there are three parties—the throwster, the silk manufacturer, and lastly the public; certainly not the least interested and least important party in this question, but who, as it has hitherto been argued, has been put out of view. The public are the great consumers of the article; they indulge in silk dresses and wear from which I do not wish to see them desist, like the hon. member for Newark. I cannot see without concern—not to use a stronger expression—the appearance in the hon. gentleman of pride and self-conceit which would think it a duty to forbid the lower classes from indulging in those luxuries which he would reserve for the higher. In a country like this, not divided into tastes and tribes by rigid laws; I cannot conceive that it is right to forbid any class of his majesty's subjects, or any persons in the state, any of those enjoyments which are laudable and innocent gratifications, which stimulate industry, and while they contribute to the innocent gratification of the people, do not diminish the national resources. I, for one, must say, that I consider the public benefitted by those facilities for obtaining a silk dress, so as to place this enjoyment and luxury within the reach of a greater number of persons. What formerly cost 12s. may now be obtained for 4s.; which has brought this manufacture within the reach of a greater number of persons; and I do not admit that any portion of his majesty's subjects ought to be excluded from the enjoyment of it.—With respect to the throwster, the right hon. gentleman then said, he should examine what distress had been brought on him by the alterations since 1824. Before the alteration of the law, he was protected by a duty equal to 14s. 7d. on thrown silk, and there being a duty of from 4s. to 5s. on the raw silk, he was protected to the amount of 9s. on the manufacture of his thrown silk. The hon. member for Coventry had referred to the situation of the throwster in 1824. In the March of 1824, the government announced, that at the end of two years and a quarter the prohibition to import manufactured silk should be put an end to. In this declaration the House concurred, and the act for carrying it into execution was passed into a law. The throwster, we were told by the hon. member for Callington, would be the first victims. He said distinctly that he was satisfied his prophecy would be a true one, and that the capitalist would disentangle his capital from the mills—he would cease to employ his people, and they would be left to perish, for want of employment. What, however, was the fact? The average of the silk worked up by all the mills of this country, for the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, was 1,947,000lbs. From 1824 to 1826, the throwsters knew of the change that was about to ensue in 1826; and they might have applied themselves, having the benefit of my hon. friend's advice, to remove their capital from the mills, and turn adrift their workmen. Did they— do so? Though they were aware of this change, the quantity of silk they worked up increased from 1,947,000lbs., the average of the three preceding years, to 2,738,000lbs. in the two following years. They benefitted then; by this change, very nearly one million of pounds a year, after the alteration was carried into effect.—It was in, July, 1826, that the act came into operation; so that we had only 1827 and 1828, as two complete years, to judge by; and what was the average consumption of silk in the silk mills of this country in those two years? Not less than 3,960,000lbs.; so that from the year 1824, the average had increased two million pounds. The first alteration during the three years that intervened after the change was first announced was an increase from 1,947,000 lbs. to 2,738,000 lbs.; and the increase during the two years subsequent to the change being carried into effect was 3,970,000 lbs.—So much for the work the throwster had performed. He would now speak of the quantity of thrown silk imported. Before the alteration of the duty, on the average of three years, there were 355,000 lbs. of thrown silk imported in the year; on the average of the two years after the change was announced, the quantity imported was 426,000 lbs.; and since the duty had been lowered from 7s. 6d. to 5s., the average of the two last years had been 476,000 lbs.; so that the quantity imported since, compared with the quantity imported antecedent to the lowering of the duties, had only increased a mere trifle. The result, then, of this was, that the throwster had had double the quantity of work; there had been no diminution of the quantity worked up before the notification; the throwster had not given up his mills; and his hands had not been thrown out of work. So much for my hon. friend's predictions.—The right hon. gentleman then entered into some statements to shew that the expense of manufacturing thrown silk in England was 5s., in Italy 3s.; a difference of 2s., while the English throwster enjoyed a protection equivalent to 8s. The fact, however, was, that the duty operated as a bounty to the French smuggler; who obtained all its advantages. A certain portion of fine thrown silk was required for our finer manufactures, and it was necessary that we should have this quantity. There was something either in the packing up of the silk, or in the distance from which it was brought, which rendered it impossible to manufacture this finer kind of thrown silk here, so well as it was manufactured at Piedmont it was therefore necessary to encourage to a certain extent the importation of this fine silk; and it would make the measures of his right hon. friend more effectual, if he could reduce the duty on this thrown silk. The right hon. gentleman then referred to the excessive specula- tion of the throwsters, which had plunged them into distress, and had injured the weavers, by enhancing, through the competition of the throwsters, the price of raw silk, which they were obliged to charge on the thrown silk to the weaver and he expressed his surprise at a statement of the hon. member for Worcester, that parliament was obliged to prevent persons who engaged in trade from meeting any loss. And while he was referring to that hon. member, he was obliged to notice the imputation of unfairness he made against him, in the early part of the evening An hon. member stated, that he had read a letter in a former debate, asserting that, at that time, all our shipping were completely employed—that, thanks to the consumption of this country, the imports of 1827 had even exceeded those of 1825, and that the shipping had more employment than they required. He had quoted this statement to shew that shipping were employed at that time; but the hon. member had accused him of oppressing the latter part of the letter, in which it was stated, that the shipping were employed without a profit. But he, found, on referring to the debate, that after reading the part of the letter which bore on the argument he was using, he had added, that the shipping were employed "without making any profit." He was sorry to detain the House with this personal matter but he could not allow the imputation to pass unnoticed. He was surprised to hear from the hon. member, that from twelve to fourteen hundred thousand pounds of silk were smuggled into his, France, and that if we did not mind have we legislated, we should have 2,000,000 lbs. smuggled. But he believed the whole silk manufacture of France did not exceed 3,000,000 lbs. a year; and though the gentleman had disposed of two-thirds of it, and at the same time stated that France manufactured only, for exportation, he could tell that hon. gentleman, that the people of France consumed a great quantity of silks themselves, and in that country the use of silk was not grudged, to the lower orders. He believed the accounts which had, been given of the quantity exported had been greatly exaggerated. It was true, as stated by the hon. member for Callington, that the French set the fashion in silk; but what said the Spital-fields weavers to this? One of the manufacturers stated, before the committee, that he was glad that the French did set fashion, for then a costly article was frequently brought into the country for the use of the higher orders, which the Spital-fields manufacturer was soon, enabled to imitate and bring, it to market at a cheaper rate than the French article, so that it came into general consumption. Surely the hon. member, when he recollected this, would not give, up his copes of manufacturers retaining possession of our own markets. When those who were then the members of his majesty's government determined, to put, an end to the artificial system which had so long made this country the laughing-stock of Europe, they that part of the system prohibition which was considered the most vicious, and which those who considered the subject were most heartily ashamed. And what, he would ask, had been the consequence? Why, by the removal of these restrictions, we were now able to rival the most successful of all the nations of the continent it their, own productions. Without saying, any thing of the effects produced upon the morals of the, people or of those laws which were found necessary for the purpose of preventing smuggling, and which might almost be considered foreign to the rights and liberties of the people, he would just observe, that the whole of the seizures, at the time that smuggling was at its greatest height, amounted to little more than 5,000l. a year, so that it was absurd to say, that a system of prohibition could have any effect in preventing smuggling, which it was known to every man in the House was at that time carried on to a very great extent.—The hon. member for Newark called the silk trade an exotic; but he would ask hon. gentleman was not the cotton trade an exotic? Might they not with great fairness call the cotton trade much an exotic as the silk trade? We imported it as we imported silk; we paid one as we paid for the other. The equalization of the capital and industry of the country, so much insisted upon by the hon. member for Newark was unattainable if the two exotics not equally prohibited from, or equally admissible into, the British market. Neither was the hon. member correct in his view of the mode in which cotton was obtained by the domestic manufacturer; for that article was no exception to the necessary law of commercial interchange, by which the produce of the capital and labour of one country was ex-changed for the produce of the capital and industry of another. It there was no other objection to returning to the vicious system of commercial prohibition which circumstances had hitherto enabled this country to persist in, he would object to it, because we should not only go back in one article but in others,—in woollens and iron for example,—from which we had removed restrictions that had impeded the domestic manufacture of those articles.

While he stated this, he did not mean to deny that individuals had benefited by the prohibitive system, and had met with losses, by the destruction of their monopoly. But the question for the House to consider was not what benefited or injured individuals or parties, but what promoted the general interests of the community at large—not whether this single branch of industry, would be advantaged or disadvantaged reducing of a prohibitive duty, but whether all the other branches of industry would be benefited or injured by it? That being the proper question for parliament to consider, he would confidently assert that the changes in our commercial system which he had been instrumental in bringing about, however they might have effected this or that single class, had contributed to the extension and culture, of the general industry of the country. The very fact quoted it those who had objected to those change proved his assertion. It was stated that commodities were to be had for one-third or one-fourth less now than in 1824. But what did this fact prove, unless that we could now procure an equal quantity of foreign produce with less labour, and that the difference was so much added to the capital and industry of the country, to he employed in other branches of commerce and manufactures? By what other way could the extraordinary increase that had taken place in our internal consumption since the prohibitive system had been altered be accounted for, but by the increased facilities of obtaining foreign produce, and the consequent addiction to the capital and industry of the country? phenomenon—for it was a phenomenon—could be accounted for upon no other principle. If, they looked to the extraordinary increase that had, of late years, taken place in the importation of the article of cotton, they would see a striking instance of the extraordinary increase that had also of late years taken place in domestic consumption. If they looked to the great demand for wool that had arisen within a few years, when not only more sheep were reared in this country, and, as a consequence, more British wool grown, but 40,000,000lb. of foreign wool had been imported to meet the demand, they would see a strong proof of extraordinary internal consumption. If they looked, in the same manner, to the increased imports and manufacture of iron, silk, and other articles they would see proofs of an immense internal consumption that could only be accounted for by the fact of increased facilities enabling them so to add to the capital and industry of the country, as to greatly increase the means of consuming domestic manufactures. It was true that some branches of industry had met with partial losses; but those losses were not consequent upon the changes that had been made in our commercial policy. On the contrary, but for them he was convinced those losses would have been greater. The state of our currency system—now fortunately settled—contributed much to those losses; for it contributed much to the ruinous speculations of 1825; in which the expenditure and loss of capital was greater than any year during the war, and from the sufferings of which the country was not yet relieved. But he contended, that those sufferings would have been greater but for the alteration that had been previously adopted in the principles of our commercial system. Notwithstanding those losses parliament had been enabled to remit many takes, and the manufacturing and commercial interests had made a rapid progress. He must, on that very account, lament, that so many persons had been induced, the more with the hope of quick and large profits, to embark in schemes which a little reflection must have shewn them, must have ended either in total or grievous disappointment.

When honorable gentlemen stated, that the commerce of the country was in state of decay, he begged leave to ask them where was the evidence to bear out their assertion? What did the official accounts say in relation to this alleged decay? He begged the House attend to one or two unquestionable facts derived from a very satisfactory test of the decline or increase the commercial dealings of the country; namely the exports. In 1827, the exports amounted in value to (in round numbers) 40,323,000l.; in 1828 to 51,000,000l.; and to the 5th of January of the present year, to 52,000,000l. shewing an increase of not less than 12,000,000l. sterling in the exports of 1829 over those of 1827; and of 1,000,000l. over those of last year. Again, let them look to the shipping interest—another most important branch of our commercial system—and they would see that though the profits were not equal to those of the monopoly enjoyed by the British shipping trade during the war, that trade had nevertheless increased, while the foreign shipping trade to this country had rapidly diminished. The contrary, he was aware, had been confidently stated, but he trusted it would not again be asserted in that House. The amount of tonnage of British shipping cleared outwards and entered inwards during the year ending the 5th of January 1828, was 27,700,000 tons; that of the year ending the 5th of January, 1829, was 31,003,000 tons, showing an increase of more than one ninth in one year. But perhaps hon. members would say, that the tonnage of foreign shipping trading to this country had increased in an equal or a greater ratio. What was the fact? The tonnage of all foreign vessels entering inwards or clearing outwards in 1828 amounted to 700,000 tons; that of the present year to 600,000, showing a diminution of 100,000 tons, or one seventh of the entire foreign shipping trading to this country in one year. Was not this statement decisive on this point?

"One word," (said the right hon. gentleman) "in relation to the position in which I stand individually towards the changes that have been made within the last few years in our commercial policy. My hon. friend the member for Callington has alluded to the vituperation, to the endless obloquy, to the calumny, that has been heaped on me, as the organ of the government by which those changes were effected. I assure my hon. friend, that when I felt it to be my duty to recommend the alterations that have been so beneficially made in the commercial and navigation laws of the country, I clearly foresaw that I should have to encounter all the obloquy and vituperation that have been heaped on me. I knew that individuals and parties would be prepared to visit on me the sufferings brought about by their own indiscretion, or by other causes, over which I could have no control. But while I clearly foresaw all this, I did not the less clearly see, nor the less forcibly feel, that I owed it to myself, as a member of this House, and as a minister of the Crown, to recommend a particular line of policy, however distasteful that policy might be to interested individuals, and however likely it might be to give rise to misrepresentations of my motives and the objects, when my conscience told me it was the one most certain to promote the general welfare of the country. I felt that no man was fit to preside over the commercial interests of a great country, who was not ready to sacrifice personal feelings to, the public benefit—that no man should be a British Minister who was not above all such individual considerations. Having felt this, I steadily persevered in what my conscience told me was my duty. Nor am I without my reward; for when I am told of the disadvantages which individuals have experienced from the changes which was an instrument in introducing into our commercial system, I say in reply; that those changes have tended, more than all other events or measures to impress the country and foreign states with just notions of the value of an unrestricted commercial intercourse, and with a conviction of the mischievous absurdity of commercial jealousies and attempts at commercial monopoly. The present wise system of commercial policy has inculcated an important doctrine in the pacific relations of one country to another, by showing, that one state is not enriched by the impoverishment of another, but that mutual interchange of their respective produce is the only sure basis of mutual prosperity. It has tended, and will daily tend, to prevent contests for objects of commercial selfishness—to avoid a recurrence of those wars which in the end injure the manufacturing greatness of all the parties engaged in it. It has given rise to just notions of commercial intercourse with colonies, by putting an end to the petty rivalries in which those colonies hitherto had involved the mother countries. Is this mere assertion? Let the extraordinary fact in the history of the country—that for fifteen years we have enjoyed a commercial peace with the world—that, for the first time during so many years, parliament has not been called upon by the Crown to protect with a naval and military force some colonial commercial right, or to resist some commercial outrage—answer the question. By the general principles of our present liberal system of commercial policy, we have disarmed other countries of their former usual resource of excluding our manufactures, by convincing them that they must, more than ourselves, suffer by a retaliation of their conduct. I will go farther and say, that if we had not altered our prohibitive laws, we should long since have been engaged in a mischievous war with some state equally blind to their own interests. The present repudiated free trade system, then, has not only tended to allay irritation and preserve peace to the colonies, but to prevent war with other nations.

The hon. member for Newark says, he will, at a proper opportunity, enter into a discussion on the principle of free trade. I shall not, therefore, anticipate that discussion, and shall only say, that whenever it takes place he will find me ready to meet him. May I, however, without entering upon the subject, ask the hon. member a question, which I have frequently asked in vain; namely, what does he mean by the terms, "free trade?" Will he tell me what object he wishes to see accomplished, what evils, remedied, which the present system fails to accomplish or fails to remedy? What would he permit, or what would he restrict, in our commercial system, that is: not now permitted or restricted? Will the hon. member, instead of permitting himself a to be led away by vague words, give a definite meaning of all the evils which he conceives to be involve in the phrase "free trade?" By acting on the principles of free trade, I understand that we ought to lessen or remove every restriction on our commerce, that tends unnecessarily to cramp the energies of individual enterprise, without benefiting the revenue. Those principles I have long advocated, and will continue to uphold; for I am satisfied by experience, that gradual relaxation of our restrictive system has been invariably followed by gradual improvement in our manufactures, our commerce, and our revenue. In those principles I trust my right hon. friend will persevere, despite of clamour, misrepresentation, and obloquy. He may count on my cordial assistance; for I will never cease to advocate the principles of the changes in our commercial system, of which I have been the official instrument, so long as I continue to be supported, as have been, by the general sense of parliament and of the country. So long as I uphold those principles, so long I am satisfied shall I be enabling the country to support its burdens, and to advance in commercial and manufacturing prosperity. Hon. members say, that those principles tend to place the country in an artificial state? But I ask, is not every country with which we are acquainted, in an artificial state? Is not the very institution of government artificial? Is not France, for example, an artificial country? Has she not debts to pay—taxes to levy—a police, an army, a navy, a court, a parliament—in fact, artificial institutions to maintain? In a word, must not every country be said to be in an artificial state, which is not shut up in itself,—dependent wholly on its own resources—without any interchange between it and other states—without, therefore, any benefit to receive or bestow? The charge, then, of an artificial state is meaningless. I feel proud in having had a share in establishing a system of commercial dealing, which I am convinced is the most advantageous to the general interest of the country that could have been adopted. By it the energies of the empire at large will be cultivated, its industry and capital most advantageously applied, and its resources placed in the most favorable condition for meeting the exigencies to which all great commercial nations are exposed, and which they should never be unprepared for. With respect to the motion before the House, I shall only add, that I entirely concur with my right hon. friend, that the best mode to preserve, and increase and improve the silk manufacture of this country, is to persist in the present policy of the government.

moved, that the debate be adjourned to to-morrow, in order that many hon. members, who were anxious to address the House, might have an opportunity of doing so.

The motion for adjournment was accordingly agreed to.