presented a petition from the marquis of Westmeath, complaining of partial and unfair conduct on the part of the Subsheriff of the County of Westmeath of which the noble petitioner was governor, The petitioner stated, that in consequence of the sub-sheriff refusing or neglecting to enforce a decree that had been decided in his favour, he lost the sum for which he had sued. He also complained, that though the law of Ireland forbad a sub-sheriff continuing in office for more than three years, the individual whose conduct he was bringing before the attention of the legislature had filled the office for a series of years, under different high sheriffs. He called upon the House to enforce the law; the rather, as the Irish government had neglected to do so.

contended, that the noble petitioner had a remedy under the existing law, if he felt himself aggrieved, and could establish his accusation.

agreed with his learned friend, and maintained that parliament could not afford the noble petitioner a remedy; because, if the collusion of which he complained could be proved, the present law was sufficient for this purpose: if it could not, that House could not legislate merely for the purpose of redressing personal grievances.

thought the prayer of the petition entitled to the serious attention of the House.

also thought the existing law should be enforced.

said, he had given the subject alluded to by the hon. member for Limerick his serious consideration, and had brought in a bill, after mature deliberation and inquiry, to amend the sheriff law of Ireland. The grievance complained of by the noble petitioner was as capable of being redressed under the existing law, as it possibly could be by that House.

Ordered to lie on the table.

rose to present several petitions, praying for the repeal of the Sub-letting Act in Ireland. In doing so he could not avoid expressing a hope, that the noble lord, the chief secretary for Ireland, would, before the close of the present session, bring forward some measure for the purpose of amending that act. In the discussion which had taken place upon it early in the last session, it was agreed, on all hands, that though the principle of the act should be steadily adhered to, there were a number of points contained in several clauses of the act, which required revision and amendment. The very first section of the act operated as an ex post facto law, and went materially to alter the law in Ireland respecting the tenure and conveyance of property. An instance had come to his own knowledge, which demonstrated that the operation of that part of the act was ex post facto. Early in the last century, in the year 1720, a lease was made by a landlord of a quantity of land to a tenant, for lives renewable for ever, with a clause against sub-letting or assigning. After the execution of the lease, the landlord suffered the tenant to assign the property, without giving his consent in writing; he received the rents from the assignee, and gave him receipts for them in his own name. By doing so, under the operation of the present act against sub-letting, the landlord waved the covenant against sub-letting and assigning which was contained in the lease. That lease, so assigned, continued during a great part of the last century. It was assigned from hand to hand; in some instances mortgages, and in others, marriage-settlements, were assigned out of the property. At length it came into the hands of a highly respectable merchant in the north of Ireland. He purchased it for full and valuable consideration in money; and, at the time, if he had consulted the best lawyer in the land, he would have told him, that the lease, as he held it, was perfectly freed from the covenant against sub-letting which had been originally inserted in it, as much as if that covenant had been erased from the parchment on which the lease was drawn out. This gentleman having become embarrassed in his circumstances lately, he was desirous to mortgage or dispose of his property. He had to take the lease before counsel, who reported that the title was in every respect good; but they added, that as the lease contained a covenant against sub-letting, there must, under the existing law, be a consent in writing from the landlord to the purchaser, who was a party to that covenant, before he could mortgage or dispose of the property held under such a lease. Under such circumstances, the lands could not be sold, as that consent could not be obtained, and the purchaser of this property, amounting to about five hundred acres, was, by the ex post facto operation of this law, prevented from mortgaging or otherwise disposing of his property. Here was an undoubted proof of the ex post facto operation of this law, and he conceived that the case which he had stated was an instance of the cruel and unjust operation of this act. He trusted that the secretary for Ireland would have that clause repealed or considerably modified. The third clause in the act, though not ex post facto in its operation, was equally objectionable and mischievous. It enacted, that there should be introduced into every lease for a less term than ninety-nine years, and not for lives renewable for ever, a penal covenant against assignment or sub-letting, and which rendered all the agreements null and void, if that covenant should be violated. Landlords who wished to commit frauds might take advantage of this clause, and after letting lands to tenants who might be ignorant of the effect of this clause, in the vicinity of towns, for the purpose of building on, might come down upon them, after they had assigned them or sub-let them to lodgers, and, declaring that the tenant having done so in violation of the covenant in his lease rendered all the proceedings under that lease null and void, could take them into their own possession. The act was altogether calculated to produce great mischief, and should be either repealed or greatly modified. This act not only affected the lower orders, but also the higher classes. A gentleman in Ireland, who held perhaps a thousand acres under the kind of lease of which he had just spoken, would be prevented from letting a single acre of them to con-acre tenants; and if he did so, he would forfeit his lease under which he held his lands. Something should be done before the session was over, to amend this act. One of the greatest evils of it was, that it went to establish a new law respecting the tenure of property in Ireland, entirely different from the law under which land was held in this country, and totally different from the old common law of the country regarding the leasing and tenure of property. This would constitute a new separation between the people of Ireland and England after all others had been removed, and the people of Ireland would probably be inclined to look upon it as a grievance calling for redress, somewhat like to those from which, he was rejoiced to say, they had at length obtained redress.

Ordered to lie on the table.

rose. He said, that when he entered the House yesterday evening, he had no intention to take any part whatever in the discussion of this important question, being determined to give his silent vote in favour of the views taken by the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade, and against the motion of the hon. member for Coventry. But, in the course of that discussion, certain statements were made, and certain positions were laid down, which appeared to him to be so objectionable in principle, that, thinking it proper that those points should be set right before the final settlement of this question, and not wishing, at so late an hour of the night, to press on the House the particular objections which he entertained against what had been stated by one or two gentlemen, he had, under these circumstances, deemed it necessary to move the adjournment of the debate, in order that the House might have a better opportunity of considering the subject. He was very sorry that the hon. member for Callington was not in his place; because it was not in his power to proceed without noticing what had fallen from him on the preceding evening, seeing that it was important that the opinions of an individual standing so high as he did in the commercial world should be fully examined, and their correctness or their inaccuracy pointed out. Any thing falling from a man of so much eminence was of great importance; since, if it were erroneous, it was calculated to mislead those who had not a proper opportunity to consider, and to decide on the justness of the arguments which he might advance on subjects of great interest.

With regard to the concoctor of this motion, the hon. member for Coventry, he had but little to object to the statements which he had made, but he entirely differed from him as to the inferences which he had drawn from them. He admitted, that the distress which the hon. member had described did exist, not only in Spitalfields, but in various other places where the silk-manufacture was carried on. He admitted, that there was a great stagnation at the present moment in that branch of industry; and he admitted, in short, every proposition which the hon. member had advanced in support of his motion for a committee, save and except one or two. He could not admit, that the trial of a system of free trade which had been made in 1826, with reference to this trade, had completely failed, and that ruin was thus brought on the manufacturer, as the hon. member had stated. He was decidedly at issue with the hon. member as to the cause which he had assigned for the great loss that had taken place. He admitted the loss that had been experienced, and the stagnation of trade which now prevailed; but he denied altogether the conclusion which the hon. member had drawn,—hastily, as he conceived, and in direct opposition to his own figures and facts; namely, that the silk-manufacture had suffered from the experiment tried in 1826. It was only necessary for him to prove this fact; and that he would do, by a reference to a number of years; because, the seconder of the motion had very justly stated, that it was not fair to take any one particular year for the purpose of proving what effect was produced on this or any other trade by any change or alteration of system. In order to meet the objection which had been advanced, and which was urged over and over again yesterday as the cause of this distress, he had taken a series of fifteen years, from 1814 to 1828 inclusive, which he divided into three portions; and he begged the hon. member for Coventry to note the result of the average of those three periods. The first period was from 1814 to 1818; the second from 1819 to 1823; and the third from 1824 to 1828; and two curious facts would be elicited from the calculation. The average quantity of raw and thrown silk imported in the first five years was 1,526,000 lbs.; in the second five years, 2,185,129 lbs.; and in the third five years, 3,716,842 lbs. Now, if they compared the aggregate amount of the first period with the aggregate amount of the two last periods (as they had been stated by the right hon. gentleman opposite), it would appear, that there was an increased importation of 3,000,000 lbs. in the five years ending in 1823, over the five years ending in 1818; an increased importation of 7,000,000 lbs. in the five years ending in 1828, over the preceding five years ending in 1823; and an increased importation of 11,000,000 lbs. in, the five last years, as compared with the five years ending in, 1818. Now, whichever way the figures were placed, the hon. member for Coventry must admit, and the hon. member for Callington could not deny, that a great progressive increase had taken place, and that the figures were decidedly against them. This, therefore, he considered as a complete answer to the assertion, that the trial of 1826 was a failure.

There was another curious fact, which had been already mentioned, which, as it seemed to him, ought to allay the apprehensions entertained by the silk-throwster. He had made a calculation of the importation of thrown silk for the last fifteen years, and it had not varied more than to the extent of 50,000lbs., taking the average, whereas the variation in the importation of raw silk had been more than doubled in that period. Now, what conclusion did he draw from this? Why, that though in 1814 the protecting duty was 14s. 7d., which in 1824 was reduced to 7s. 6d. and in 1825 to 5s., yet that no alteration had taken place in the amount of foreign thrown silk imported into this country, notwithstanding the decrease of the duty. He stated this to satisfy those gentlemen who had an interest in throwing silk, that they were not injured, nor likely to be injured, by the importation of thrown silk, in consequence of the reduction of duty. With respect to the alarm which was expressed, as to the probability of a great quantity of thrown silk being sent into this market, he thought it was completely groundless; for he was informed, that the foreign machinery of the mills for thrown silk was nearly in the same state as it was thirty years ago; and any increase which might have taken place in the demand for thrown silk was referable to the northern states of Europe, to which quarter it was sent. In some parts of Poland, Russia, and Germany, attempts had been made to introduce the silk-manufacture. In those places they did not use the raw silk, which they had not the means of working, but the thrown silk; and therefore, if there were an crease of machinery in Italy, it was called for by the extended demand for thrown silk from those northern countries. He therefore held, that if the whole duty were taken off to-morrow, the silk-throwster would not be injured by it; and he could not but express his hope; that the individuals themselves who were interested in the trade of throwsters would came to the government and say, "You gave us a protecting duty of 2s. per lb. on singles, 3s. per lb. on tram, and 5s. per lb. on organzine (averaging about 3s. per lb.), which may be calculated as a protection of 60,000l., and we really wish you would remove those duties altogether." He would ask, whether it was worth while to encounter so much trouble and inconvenience, for a paltry pittance of 60,000l., and that too, carried over so great an extent of business. He thought, for one, that the throwsters would show a disinterested feeling, by coming forward and requesting, that all those duties should be taken off. If they did so, he was satisfied that their loss would be scarcely worth naming.

He would now put the situation of the throwster on a different footing; and he thought the House would see, that there was no necessity for the alarm which that body of men seemed to feel. In order to simplify the question, he would take the quantity of silk imported in bales instead of pounds. In the year 1828, there were 22,400 bales of silk imported into this country, of which 2,171 were bales of thrown silk, leaving 20,229 bales of raw silk, every ounce of which was to be converted into thrown silk by the manufacturers of this country. The result of this calculation was, that instead of affording any ground for alarm or complaint with respect to foreign silk, it showed, that the balance was ten to one in favour of the British throwster; only one-tenth of the whole silk introduced being in a thrown state. The throwster had the undoubted manufacture of 20,000 bales, while only 2,000 bales were admitted in a thrown state. Therefore, he contended, that the alarm was much greater than the throwster had any right to feel. He was convinced, therefore, that when the measure proposed by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade was carried into effect, the silk throwsters would look back with surprise to the alarm which they at present felt. After this statement of indisputable facts, he trusted the hon. member for Coventry would no longer assert, that a trial had been made of the principles of free trade, and that it had failed.

Before he proceeded further in noticing different parts of the speeches of the hon. member for Coventry, and of the hon. member for Callington, he really wished that he could come to an understanding with them, as to the meaning of certain terms which they had used; and he regretted that the hon. member for Newark was not in his place, as he had some observations to make on certain positions which he had advanced. He wished to arrive at a clear definition of terms; because he knew it was very easy to declaim for years, and yet not to come to any decided conclusion, if the parties arguing did not understand the express meaning of the positions advanced, and the phrases used. What the hon. member for Newark could mean by some of his statements last night, he was perfectly at a loss to conjecture. In a publication by that hon. gentleman, he had distinctly and truly stated "that the greatest blessing which the different countries in the world could enjoy was the free exchange of the produce of each country from the one to the other." And yet last night, the hon. member had talked of "those theorists who were disposed freely to admit foreign articles," and he had coincided in the horror at the introduction of foreign goods expressed by the hon. member for Worcester, who maintained, that every article of foreign produce or manufacture introduced into this country displaced an equal quantity of the industry of that country, and, pro tanto, created want of employment, idleness, and distress. Now, did not these hon. gentlemen know, that for every pound's worth of foreign produce or manufacture which came into England, an equivalent amount of English produce or manufacture must be exported to pay for it? He was exceedingly surprised also to hear the hon. member for Callington say, that money must be sent out for the purchase of the foreign silk, for that the French would not accept our goods, as there was no existing reciprocity. Good God! could it be contended at that time of day, that the export of gold was an evil? He considered it to be the greatest blessing, provided there was enough retained to carry on the circulation, to exchange gold for what we were able to consume. He was astonished to hear the contrary doctrine maintained by the old authority of the hon. member for Callington, and the new authority of the hon. member for Newark. The hon. member for Calling-ton especially, who was an extensively practical man, astonished him exceedingly. The hon. member for Newark, was a practical man too. Was it not lamentable to hear those two hon. gentlemen lamenting that we were under the necessity of sending gold abroad to pay for the foreign goods which we were desirous of importing? He begged to ask where our gold came from? Did we raise it from any mine here? Did we not send our goods, our hardware and our cottons, to the Rio de la Plata—have the advantage of a freight thither and a freight back—and exchange the gold which they produced, with the additional advantage of a third freight, for the silk or the luxuries of the continent? What did it matter to us, if France would not accept our manufactured silks, or our hardware, if she took the gold which we obtained for our goods elsewhere? He had often on the same principle, been astonished at hearing the objections made to the importation of foreign cron in exchange for gold. It was a principle applicable to every description of trade. Honourable gentlemen might say, that there was no reciprocity on the part of France; but the fact was, that in spite of her, a reciprocity must go on. For every ounce of French goods, raw or manufactured, which we imported, France must, in fact, take back our goods in exchange. We had no means of paying but by our produce and manufactures; and by our produce and manufactures, therefore, we must pay. He wished, therefore, to understand what it was which the hon. members for Callington and Newark could possibly mean.

He admitted that he was one of those who were called "political economists," and "theorists;" and he felt it desirable, when he discussed these subjects, that individuals should know what he meant. With that view, he had extracted the shortest definition he could find of the science of political economy; and he found that that horrid science, with respects which, some gentlemen got up and exultingly said, "Thank God! we are no political economists!"—he found that political economy, was "the science of those laws which regulate the production, distribution, and consumption of those articles or products of exchangeable value, that are agreeable, necessary, or useful to man." Now, what constituted wealth? Why, the possession of all those articles that have an exchangeable value. What an enviable state it was to know nothing of those laws that were of so much importance to the welfare of the country! And yet they every day heard persons, standing in the situation of legislators, thanking Heaven that they were ignorant of those laws, the great importance of a thorough knowledge of which must strike every reasonable mind.

The hon. member for Newark ought to define what he meant by the words "free trade." Now, the clear and simple definition of it, as he understood it—a definition which, he believed, could not be mooted—was, that it was the unrestrained exchange of articles the produce of different countries. What was there so horrid in that? The charge against the political economists was, that they were friendly to the free interchange among the various countries of the world of those articles which were necessary for the comfort and enjoyment of all. If the hon. member for Callington were present, he would put it to him that if the opposite principle were asserted, it ought to be followed up to its fullest practicable extent. The whole civilized world ought, in his opinion, to be converted into a series of commercial states, exchanging with each other whatever was found to be superfluous in the one and necessary in the other; just as the various counties in England exchanged with each other their various products. If the hon. member for Callington said, that it was desirable to put an end to this or that trade with a foreign country, he should be prepared to show, that the trade between the different counties of England should be put an end to, and that this island should be assimilated to the state of Sicily, at the time when the latter island was divided into seven or eight provinces, none of which were permitted to have any commercial intercourse with the others. On the same principle, all commercial intercourse, with Ireland ought to be put an end to. Unfortunately, that was, for a long time, actually the case. In 1808, the legislature, on the recommendation of a right hon. baronet, removed that reproach; and from year to year we had been gradually getting rid of the absurd fetters on our commerce. In no point of view could he consider those who were opposed to the principles of free trade justifiable, unless they were prepared to, go, back I to former state things and to throw each country on its own resources;—and then a pretty state we should be in! Look at the contributions which the industry and ingenuity of this country levied upon the other countries of the world! We paid by out labour for all the articles which we obtained from them. Were the opponents of free trade prepared to go back, and to say that we should have nothing but what our farm-yards produced? It was true, there might be individuals absurd enough to go so far; but he did hope, that it was too gross an absurdity to find supporters in that House.

The friends of free trade had also been blamed, and he might say taunted, by the hon. member for Coventry; who had told them, that their theory was good, but that the practice of it was bad. He was astonished to hear the hon. member for Callington countenance such a fallacy. It was morally impossible that a thing which was good in theory should be bad in practice. But he remembered, on the last occasion on which the hon. member for Callington had addressed the, House on this subject, that, as well as last night, he had commenced by stating his approbation of the principles of free trade; but, before he sat down, he had gone directly round to the opposite doctrine. There was another point on which he wished to say a word. The hon. member for Coventry had asked the House if they would, by adopting the proposition of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, ruin the silk throwsters, who had embarked their capitals in the construction of mills and of other buildings necessary for their manufacture? He (Mr. Hume), had, however, already shown, that the fears entertained by the throwsters were entirely unfounded, They were told that in England the silk manufacturers laboured under great disadvantages, and that those of France were in possession of great advantages; and, consequently, that it was folly to carry on the trade. The late Mr. George Rose was the patron of restrictions and protections above most men; and the hon. member for Callington, whilst he urged the getting rid of the restrictive system of Mr. Rose, nevertheless stated, that such were the disadvantages under which the Silk Trade was labouring, that the English manufacturer was beat in every part of the world by foreigners; and that, unless the market was protected, this country could not carry on the trade. He had called it a condemned trade—a trade lost to the country—and had predicted, in 1826, the utter ruin of the trade, and of all engaged in it. If it were true, that the British manufacturer could not compete with the foreigner, then he would say "give the British manufacturer the raw article at the same price as at Lyons." The fallacy of the hon. member's reasoning deserved particular notice. He had argued that France had a great advantage in being the grower of her own silk. France manufactured fifty thousand quintals, or five million pounds of silk of which from twenty-eight to thirty-five thousand quintals were produced in France, and the remainder was imported from Italy. Turkey, and India. Now, the hon. member had put it to the House, that a great portion of the silk worked up in France being of French produce, the English manufacturer, whose country produced none, could not compete with him. But did the circumstance of France producing the raw material protect the French manufacturer from foreign competition? No; for there were importations of manufactured silk into France from Turkey and from India. He would, therefore, say, remove the seventeen per cent which continued to shackle the English manufacturer, and there was little doubt that he would be able to produce his fabric as cheap as the Lyons manufacturer could do. When there was a strong competition between the English throwsters, silk was imported from Lyons to England, and when the trade was slack, silk was sent from England to Lyons. This was a proof that the difference in the prices of the two places was not so great as the hon. member had stated. It was erroneous to suppose, that the silk grown in France could bear a very different price from that imported. As England had the market of India and of other places, as she could manufacture cheaper, and as her manufacturers were not afraid of competition, if allowed a short time to bring machinery into work, all that was wanted was the taking off the duties from the raw article, In fancy articles the English manufacturer was excelled; but in all articles in which machinery was very much used, they beat all foreign competition.

They had been told that silk was an exotic, and upon this point both the hon. member for Callington and the hon. member for Newark had strongly insisted; but so was cotton also an exotic, and he like to know what there was to prevent our silk manufactures from equaling our cotton manufactures. Why, our manufacturers were positively ashamed now of articles which they made five years ago, and they looked back with astonishment upon the progress they had effected. He would say, then, open the door wider, give them the fine Italian silk, which was what they wanted, at the rate at which the French procured it, and they would compete with the French in fancy and in fine articles. If France beat us in these articles, it was because France was free, and we were shackled with restrictions. He admitted the great distress in England, but on this point he would beg leave to read a Lyons newspaper under the date of 25th February last. It set forth the particulars of a meeting of the mayor and inhabitants of Lyons, for the purpose of a subscription for the weavers. It was stated in that paper, that there never had been so great a number of workmen out of employ; and the mayor having subscribed five thousand francs, he called upon the people to relieve the distress of the weavers. A letter of a very late date stated, that out of twenty-two thousand silk looms at Lyons, on the 5th of February last, one-third alone were in work; whilst wages was reduced from 8½d. to 5d.; which was a greater ratio of reduction than had taken place in this country. Were he a member of the Chamber of Deputies in France, he might bring forward the distressed state of the silk weavers in the different manufacturing towns, to prove that France was not competent to carry on the Silk Trade, without protecting duties and a system of prohibitions. He denied, therefore, that any argument in favour of restriction could be founded upon distress, and that any conclusion as to the success of the trade could be drawn from the distress which prevailed. If the argument which had been founded on that distress were worth any thing, it would prove also that France was unfit to carry on the Silk Trade.

It had been said, "let a fair trial of the two systems be made;" and, in his opinion, it had been made. At present, a duty of even five per cent was too much for the trade to bear. The hon. member for Callington had said, that he had presented a petition to the House immediately after the war, containing the same opinions which he had stated upon the subject last night. Now, he denied this. The petition was presented in 1820, five years after the war, and its principles were diametrically opposite to those now set forth by the hon. member. But consistency was something, even in that House; and although he had listened with great attention to the hon. member, he did not know whether he would vote against the present motion, or for it. If any man could ascertain it from the hon. member's speech, he must have a power of drawing conclusions which he (Mr. Hume) had not. The petition in 1820 stated, that free trade was the source of the wealth of nations; and yet the hon. member for Callington would now impose trammels upon this branch of our trade. The hon. member then went on to read the petition, passage by passage, in order to show the discrepancy between it and the speech of the hon. member for Callington, delivered last night. The hon. member then proceeded. In France, the restrictive system had been carried to an extent scarcely credible. He would leave it to the hon. member for Dover to show what the effects of that system had been on the wine trade; whilst he would show its effects upon the cotton trade. He would allude to Tarrare, the Paisley of France, where the cotton manufacture had been carried to the greatest extent. The manufacturers claimed a protection for the spinners of yarn. A very large duty was imposed upon all English yarns, and the consequence was, that the manufacturers of muslin and fine calico, who could not do without the fine yarns, which the French manufacturers could not produce, were obliged to have our yarns brought in by smuggling, at the rate of between sixty and seventy per cent. Now, when it was recollected in what mode the French guarded against smuggling,—that there were military cordons in all parts of the country, through three or four of which, at least, smuggled goods must pass,—it would be easily believed how difficult it was—nay, how impossible it was,—to put a stop to smuggling, where the incentive was sufficiently great. This place was now in a state of complete destitution; not one out of ten of their looms were in employ. English cloths and muslins had been introduced; the smugglers beginning to sell as soon as they had passed one cordon, and so on. He would give another instance. An ingenious and well known individual obtained a patent in this country for machines for the manufacture of bobbin-net, which effected a complete change in the manufacture of lace; as it made the article a hundred per cent cheaper. That individual, finding that he had secured the markets in this country—which he had by the privilege of his patent—removed to France, for the purpose of making bobbin-net there. Finding, however, that he could not do without English yarns, he obtained them by means of smuggling, and had them conveyed to Paris at the rate of forty per cent. He did this for a time, merely to introduce the article. Since then, the same individual had removed some of these machines to a town on the frontier—he would not mention the name of the town,—and there, in spite of all the French government could do, he continued the manufacture at the expense of twenty per cent. So it was with Swiss jewellery. Though Swiss jewellery was prohibited in France, yet jewellery bought in Switzerland was actually delivered to the purchasers, if they pleased, without risk, at Paris. These instances ought to be a lesson to France as well as to this country, and teach them that a system of restrictions and prohibitions would not do. He believed there was a disposition, on the part of the French government, to change their system; but, whether there was or was not, they must change it at last. The prejudices of the people were against it; and it was not to be wondered at that those prejudices should exist in such a quarter when they saw intelligent and enlightened men—men who had the means of information—entertaining them.

What did the hon. member who made this motion for inquiry propose to gain by the inquiry? What did the hon. member ask, which he did not concede to him? He conceded to him the distress, and the superior advantages of the French. It must be the remedy, then, which the hon. member had in view. Well, then, the hon. member would continue the distress which now existed during the prosecution of the inquiry; nay, he would increase it by throwing all the individuals employed in the trade out of work, in consequence of the uncertainty which would prevail as to what would be the recommendations of the committee. This would be creating a positive evil. Then, how would the hon. member come out of the committee? The hon. member could come out of it only in three ways,—with a recommendation for prohibition, or for modified, or free trade. He need hardly tell the hon. member, that that House would not agree to the first. It had been tried, and it had failed. As to raising the duty, that would be adding new inconveniencies to the manufacturer, by burdening him with an extra duty upon the raw material. This, he thought, the House would never consent to, any more than the hon. member would consent to the third recommendation. As to the proposition respecting the throwsters, that would be to give one man employment, by throwing four men out of work. He looked forward to the Silk Trade of this country being a great export trade; which he had no doubt it would be, when the affairs of India were settled. Under these circumstances, he did not see what good would result from the appointment of a committee. The trade had doubled itself. Let the restrictions be reduced, and the progress of the trade would be in proportion to that reduction. No doubt also something must be done to lessen the burthen of taxation, to which the depression in this as well as in other branches of our trade was, in a great measure, to be attributed. The ministers must do this before long, and the country gentlemen must join in the cry for retrenchment.

said, that notwithstanding the declaration of the right hon. gentleman who had spoken last night, he would not be deterred from stating, that the parties before the House as petitioners ought to be heard. Living as he did within a few miles of the largest silk manufacturing town in Lancashire, he must be supposed to know something on the subject; and he could assure the House, that the situation of the people engaged in that manufacture was one of deplorable distress. A great many of the manufactories were perfectly still, and the machinery going to decay. The distress arising from want of employment was not, however, confined to these poor people themselves; forming the great majority of the consumers in the town, their inability to become purchasers affected, of course, the dealers in articles of consumption, who were, in consequence, in their turn, incapacitated to pay rent or taxes. These poor industrious, well-behaved, well-conducted people looked up to parliament for redress, and, unless—as had been ably argued last night by the hon. member for Callington—something was done for their relief, the trade must be lost to the country. The throwsters were still more distressed, if possible, than the manufacturers; because their machinery was not applicable to any other purpose.

begged to assure the House, that he would most cordially support the motion for the appointment of a committee, if he thought it would, in any way, lead to an alleviation of the distresses which, it was admitted, existed in the Silk Trade; but it was because he felt that the appointment of such a committee would injure rather than advance the interests of that trade, that he considered it to be his duty to oppose the motion. The proposed measure would have the effect of checking the silk manufacture, and would cause a return to those slovenly and ill-digested laws, under which we had formerly acted, and which would give the contraband a superiority over the fair trade of the country in our markets. If the laws at present existing were continued, he thought that our Silk Trade would, in a little time, extend itself over the world. He had a right to assume that it would attain the same success, that our cotton trade had; which, since 1780—a period of little more than forty years—had increased a hundred fold. The political principles upon this question, laid down by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, were, in his opinion, the best that could be adopted. If the law were to be altered in the manner proposed by the hon. member for Coventry, it would only give the smuggler all, the advantage at present enjoyed by the fair trader. The hon. member for Newark (Mr. Sadler), that advocate of exclusion, civil, religious, and commercial, had yesterday stated, that government proposed to give the preference to the manufactures of slaves over the manufactures of our countrymen. He Would tell that hon. member, that the natives of India, to whom the hon. member had, in using that expression, alluded, were his fellow-subjects; and that some of the persons whom he had so described were perfectly his equals, and as capable of reasoning upon, and judging of, the question before the House as the hon. member himself could be supposed to be. He must candidly confess, that he had seldom heard arguments so irrational as, those used hon. member. It was the duty of this country to extend to India every protection which was compatible with the safety and prosperity, of the trade of this country. He thought that the right hon. gentleman opposite, in giving the boon he intended to our fellow-subjects in India had conferred a signal benefit on his country. The House should recollect, that the people of England had no right to use the inhabitants of India merely for their own profit; and, after inundating India with muslins, to the ruin of many thousands of Hindoos, deny to that, people any reciprocal advantage.

assured the House, that he had not expressed, not did he entertain, the sentiments imputed to him by the hon. gentleman. He had never called the inhabitants of India slaves; but had only regretted that the English artisan, who was taxed to a higher, amount than the. Hindoo, should be subject, to a ruinous rivalry with the, native of India. He certainly must confess, that until these discussions commenced, he never knew that the people of India were the, subjects of the British Crown. He had always considered them as the subjects of the East India Company.

Informed, the hon. member, that if he would look to the acts of parliament, he would find that the East Indies were the possessions of the British Crown, and that the people of those countries were the fellow-subjects of Englishmen.

supported the motion of the hon. member for Coventry; and he did so, because of the great distress existing generally in the Silk Trade, but which he was a particular opportunity of observing, in Macclesfield and Congleton. He regretted the proposition made by the right hon. gentleman to reduce the duty on thrown silk, because he thought it would add to the, distress already experienced by the throwsters.

bore testimony to the very able speech which the right hon. gentleman opposite delivered last night. He had not heard a single argument urged in favour of the motion before the House, except by the hon. member who made it. The hon. member for Worcester Who seconded the motion, had not shown that the distress now existing among the silk-manufacturers was connected with the law of 1826. The hon. member for Callington had, indeed, stated that a great increase of consumption place since 1826. Then came the hon. member for Newark, who told the House, that he had strong reasons for objecting to the principles of free trade, not only in the particular article of silk, but every other article whatsoever; but he did not produce them. He must confess that he had looked, with not a little curiosity, to those vehicles by which, by some means or other, what passed in that House was conveyed to the public, to see if he could find, as he had on a former occasion, any argument in it not urged in that House; but he must confess that he was disappointed. The hon. member for Newark, besides making use of mere declamation, and warning the House of the danger of adopting the measures proposed by government, ought also to produce arguments to bear him out in his statements. The hon. gentleman had, however, thought proper to keep his arguments to himself; and he was not disposed to give the hon. gentleman credit for having any; because, in the few speeches which he had heard the hon. gentleman deliver, he had not heard him make use of one argument.

He admitted, that much distress existed in the Silk Trade, and most willingly would he consent to the appointment of a committee, if he thought it could have the effect of alleviating the distress. But he believed that the reverse would be the case. What! were they to tie up the Silk Trade for six weeks or two months, by the appointment of a committee?—Were they to stop the whole of that great trade?—Were they to impede the work already so successfully introduced and acted upon? If they were to consent to the appointment of a committee, it would cause a stagnation in the trade. Even the intimation last year, that ministers intended to recede from the recent regulations was productive of the most injurious effects. What, then, would be the effect of appointing a committee this year, without any definite object? The hon. member who introduced the motion had no definite plan to propose: he did not tell the House in plain terms, but he hinted at the re-establishment of those prohibitory laws, the removal of which had been so beneficial to the country. The hon. member must be aware that between a prohibition and an extension of these laws there was no middle course. They must go on, or resort to their former system. He sympathised fully in the distresses which existed in the Silk Trade; although he thought that they were, in a considerable degree, exaggerated. He would read to the House an extract of a letter received by a gentleman of the first respectability from his brother, a silk-manufacturer at Manchester. The Writer stated, that the silk mills in that neighbourhood were in full work, he and added, that he did not fear anything for our throwsters from a foreign competition, in consequence of the restriction of duty, or of their inability to compete with those markets. It was true, that the demand for silks had fallen, but then it should be recollected that other trades were also reduced: besides, the stagnation in the Silk Trade was, in a great degree, attributable to the delay of ministers in declaring the course which they meant to pursue with respect to it. He did not mean to quote the returns which had been so ably alluded by the right hon. gentleman last night; but he would ask the hon. gentleman, whether those returns had not made out his statements? Did the hon. gentleman conceive, that the immense quantity of machinery now employed in the Silk Trade had no relation to the distress produced? and did it not become him and the hon. members for Callington and Newark, to ascertain the real causes that might produce that distress?—He would not allude—because it had been dwelt on by the right hon. gentleman—to one of the principal causes of that distress—namely, over-trading. But were there not other causes of complaint, that had existed so long ago as 1765, 1766, and 1773? and Was there not a meeting on the same subject at the Mansion House, in 1813? and, as all these things occurred under the prohibitory laws, did if not strike the hon. gentleman, that there might be some causes of distress contained in them? Did it not occur to him, to examine what was the state of other trades, when he heard that the cotton interest, the wool interest, and all those trades which could not have been affected by the law of 1826, were greatly depressed? Did it not occur to him, that at least some portion of the distress might have been occasioned by the removal of a particular branch of trade from one quarter to others, and that some local causes might affect it? It was Well known to him that the book prices, had been repealed by act of parliament; but he might also have been aware, that, amongst these deluded men, there was a species of book prices which existed on their trade statutes. There were, surely, some facts that would tell on such a question, and it was one that was to be determined by facts only. He would tell the House what sort of combination existed, from a circumstance which happened to a person with whom he was acquainted. That gentleman was a manufacturer, and goods of a particular description had been ordered from him: and as that circumstance happened about two months ago, and during a period when there were accounts of the greatest distress in the manufacturing districts, the manufacturer sent for some of the distressed operatives, and asked them, whether they would undertake to do the work. They asked what he would give? He said 7d. a yard: they observed, they wanted time to consider what answer they should give, and asked for two or three days. He agreed; and they went to the parliament, in. Spitalfields, and there was a discussion whether or no they, should accept the work at a reduced rate. That discussion was carried as it was to be hoped the present discussion would be—in the negative. They, came back and refused to take the work: and, what did he do?—why, he sent it down into Essex, and got it done at 5d. a yard. Now, on that fact he would ask whether there was not something in combination among the other causes of distress at Spitalfields? But the case was stronger at Manchester, where the weavers had turned out for four months in the year, and yet were able to support themselves all that time.

But, without arguing further on the particular causes of distress, he would say, that as long as the hon. gentleman did not show that the amount of work to be given to the manufacturer was less than before, he would shew nothing; and it would come at last to this, that he would ask, as the means of reducing that distress, for a prohibition that the government would not give, nor the country allow. It would be of no use to increase the duty as long as the smuggler could bring in the silk at a lower rate. He now came to the case of the throwster, on which he would agree as much as he could with the right hon. gentleman who seemed inclined to do as much as he could. He should shew, that the throwster's trade not only was not injured by the reduction of duty on the importation of foreign, thrown silk, but that he would be benefitted by being totally relieved from the duty. The hon. member for Callington had mentioned the reverse, and had said that their trade must fall. He had, in fact, condemned the trade; but he had said the same thing three years ago, and what had been the result? Why, that it had increased in the proportion of two to one. One great proof against the supposition that the throwsters required a protecting duty was to be found in the fact, that the quantity of raw silk was greatly increased, while the thrown silk was greatly diminished, since the alteration of the duty., That fact was proved by the statements made by his right hon. friend last night; but he would put it more strongly than the right hon. gentleman, for he would take the proportion in which the diminution had taken place. He found that, in 1821, long before the alteration of the duty, the proportion of Italian thrown silk to Italian raw silk imported, was fifty-six and a half per cent; in 1822, it was fifty-nine per cent; in 1823, it was fifty-five percent; in 1827, two years after the alteration, it was thirty-five per cent and in 1828, when the law was in full operation, it was reduced to twenty-five per cent. This calculation shewed, that after every gradual reduction of duty there was a corresponding gradual reduction in the proportion of thrown to raw silk. There was, therefore, no case for the hon. member for Coventry to stand on; or if there was any, it was this, that the reduction of the duty greatly; benefitted the throwster. He must say, that it was the duty of every man to make himself acquainted with the subject on which he addressed the House and he, must fearlessly accuse the honourable gentlemen, the, members for Calington, Newark, and Coventry, of not having made themselves acquainted with it. If the subject was inquired into, it would he found, that one of the great causes of the distress was the want of capital—not that capital which was invested in machinery, but in the. purchase of silk at a time when they could not otherwise get it, The practice now was, for the throwster to apply to the London broken, who purchased and paid for the silk his own name and then sent to the throwster; by whom it was returned after it was thrown, and who was credited for a part of the balance, after the silk, thus thrown had been disposed of. As long as things went on prosperously, that practice was well enough; but if they went on badly, the credit of the throwster fell, and he had nothing to keep his looms going. On this ground it was, that he asserted, that no throwster who had capital to adopt the improved machinery could be in distress; and he believed that in no business could capital be better employed, or would it bring a better return. The thrown silk necessary for the finest sort of work came from Italy, and to the throwing belonged something that was peculiar to that country—not because we had not better machinery or cheaper labour, or other artificial advantages, that this country was not able to produce it. He had the authority of a most eminent throwster for saying, that the throwsters did not like the finer quality of silk for their business—the profits on throwing coarse silk were greater; and they would not employ their machinery on fine silk, if they could get any of the coarser kinds. But besides this, it was impossible, from the nature of the climate of this country, to throw the fine sorts of silk. During the dry cold winds that prevailed in this country in the month of March, the coarse silk mills could scarcely work but the change of weather had put them into employment. If, therefore, the fine thrown silks were burthened with a higher duty, it would amount to prohibition altogether, and the manufacturers must give up the manufacturing of articles in which it was used. As long as it was wished to have the finest articles, they must have silk of the finest quality to make them; which could only be thrown in Italy. The tax on that peculiar article could not benefit the throwster; who would not be able to throw one single pound more because of an increased duty, nor one pound less because of a diminished duty. The advantage of any manufacture arose from the quantity of goods manufactured. If the quantity had been as one, and was increased to ten, the amount of benefit to the country was tenfold. The rate of profit was the same that prevailed in all. The advantage derived to the throwster was from the quantity of work he got. To benefit him, therefore, the true way was to introduce an article into general consumption. What was the course to be followed to do this? It the article was fashionable it would prevail; but fashionable people must set the exam- ple. If the lady at Almack's wore silk, the lady in St. Giles's would wear silk too. For as soon as the superiors wore any particular dress, their inferiors had a great desire to wear it too.

He thought he had successfully shewn, that the throwster would be benefitted by the reduction of duty. To talk of free trade as applied to this country, was almost ludicrous. He looked round to see what were the free trades in this country. Almost every article imported into or made in Great Britain was loaded with heavy duties; and at that moment they were discussing, not whether a duty should or should not be imposed, but whether a duty should be reduced from thirty-five to twenty-five per cent. He knew no standard by which the wealth of a country could be better estimated, than by its power of consumption of the necessary articles of life; and it was by that he wished, not the principle of free trade, but the approximation to that principle, should be fairly and correctly judged. He must say that he had always doubted the statements of the hon. member for Callington; who, for some time past, had found that this country was really, though not rapidly, going to ruin. Now, he would take the standard just referred to, and he found, that by the returns on the table of the House, the five principal articles which entered into the greatest degree of consumption among all classes in this country, had increased. If there ever was any thing like free trade in this country, it was in 1825; but he excluded that year from his calculation, because it was one of great speculation. Now, the five most important articles of consumption were sugar, coffee, cotton, flax and tallow, and the returns he had alluded to gave the following amounts:—In 1823, the amount of sugar consumed was 3,127,000 cwt.; in 1824, it was 3,267,000 cwt.; in 1827, it was 3,574,000 cwt.; and in 1828, it was 3,340,000 cwt. In 1823, the coffee consumed amounted to 8,742,000 lbs.; in 1824, to 8,584,000 lbs.; in 1825, to 13,556,000 lbs.; and in 1827, it amounted to 15,972,000 lbs. The cotton consumed in 1823, amounted to 187 millions of pounds, and in 1827, to 249 millions of pounds. The flax consumed in 1823, amounted to 546,000 cwt.; and in 1827 to 898,000 cwt. The amount of tallow consumed in 1823, was 758,000 cwt.; and in 1827, it was 1,191,000 cwt. Between the years 1823 and 1827, there was, therefore, in these various articles, an increase in the amount of consumption, in sugar, of seven per cent; in coffee, of ninety per cent; in cotton, of thirty-four percent; in flax, of sixty-five per cent; and in tallow, of sixty per cent. These were the mischiefs of that horrible free trade system, which had been introduced by modern philosophers and theorists! and these were the disastrous and lamentable consequences produced by those persons upon the productive industry of the country!

There yet remains (continued the hon. member) one more argument which has been much urged by some of the opponents of free trade. Those who use it are the most dangerous, because they are the most moderate and the most specious—because, whilst they grant the truth of the general principle in words, they depart from it in spirit—because their argument is at once the most popular, the most apparently sensible, and yet the most fallacious—I mean the argument of the absence of reciprocity, brought forward by his hon. friend the member for Kirkcudbright. "We are friends," say they, "to free trade—we grant all the benefit which you tell us will arise from an unrestricted interchange of commodities between different nations—we agree to all your reasoning; but, in order that there should be a free interchange is necessary that the amount of our restrictive regulations should be met by corresponding measures on the part of other nations. If this be not the case, we are giving away the advantage which we possess of supplying at least ourselves with our own productions—we throw open our ports to receive the produce of the industry of foreign countries, whilst they shut their gates to ours; and we destroy our national industry, in those articles in the production of which foreigners excel us, without their becoming in their turn customers for ours." The fallacy of this reasoning lies in this—these gentlemen misunderstand the nature of trade. In order to buy, we must also sell. We may open our ports to the silks and wines of France, to the corn of Germany and Russia, to the drugs of Asia and of India, but we can get no pound's worth of any commodity without giving in return a pound's worth of our own productions. Our manufacturers will give away nothing; they will not send their goods to foreign ports without getting an equivalent, in return and I will venture to say, that the producers of foreign commodities, of French silks, and German cloths, with which, according to the statement of these gentlemen, this country has been and will be overwhelmed, are as little likely to make a present to the British consumer of their hard-worked produce, without taking in return the staple articles of this country. Foreign nations may, as we have seen, and as we are told be inclined to meet our liberal policy by tightening still more their restrictive system. The effect can only be the prevention of their own export trade, the curtailment of their own commerce, and the suffering of their own people. If, by some magic wand, the nations of the continent could suddenly surround their dominions with the wall of brass fabled by bishop Berkeley—if, they could effectually exclude every article of British produce, whilst their ports opened to permit the free egress of all their own—not a vessel of theirs could find its way to our shores; or, if did, its cargo must be made a present of to our people. They would deprive their own subjects of the benefit of mutual interchange they would deprive us likewise of it, but they could do no more: they would impoverish and ruin their own country; they would injure us in a less degree—they would reduce us to what I consider an unhappy condition, but which the hon. member for Coventry, and those who think with him, have described as a happy and a prosperous state—the necessity of producing, within ourselves all that we stand in need of. But, thank God, it is not the power of governments to carry into effect so desolating, so pernicious a principle. There is, in economical as in political affairs, a point beyond which it is not possible to go—a point at which legislation becomes ineffectual, and power powerless. Governments may enact laws, but mankind will successfully resist them. Thus it is with these attempts. The smuggler becomes, in such a case, the corrector of faulty legislation, and the friend and the defender of mankind. Under his exertions, exertions the acts of the legislature become void, and the laws of your ports and your custom-houses dead letters. Do we want the experience of mankind to illustrate the truth of this great principle? You have it within your own times. The man whose power was never surpassed in modern, and scarcely equalled in ancient times—he whose career of victory the bounds of Europe could scarce restrain, whose look was a word, whose word was a law-in vain attempted to counteract this great principle. Bonaparte, when at the height of his power he fulminated his decrees from the Duomo of Milan, which was to annihilate his only rival, little thought that his orders could be contended, or his will disputed. And yet, what was the result? He, whose armies successively occupied every capital of Europe—who made and unmade kings with a breath, was set at nought by the lowest of his subjects. The smuggler bearded him in the streets of his capital, and set his power at nought in his own ports and cities. The goods which he refused to admit found their way through the frozen ocean into the heart of France. I speak from personal knowledge when I say, that an uninterrupted line of communication was established between Archangel and Paris; and goods, even the bulky articles of sugar, coffee, and manufactures, were conveyed with as much ease and safety, though at a proportionably increased cost, as from London to Havre. Insurances were then as safely effected at Brody and at Leipsic as Lloyd's or New York. But, need we go farther than the very trade before us for an illustration of what I say? Do gentlemen, who make no difficulty respecting the importation of raw silk (whatever they may think of thrown) know, that Italy rigidly excludes all our manufactures from her ports; and yet we take from her annually to the value of two million sterling? How do we pay for it, then? Her custom houses are shut to our produce, and the objects of our industry are as strictly prohibited as the works of Voltaire or of Rousseau. I have had the curiosity to endeavour to trace this; and what will the House think of the result? Upon a careful examination of the bills which are drawn from Italy in payment of this silk, by several houses in the trade, at least three fourths of them are remittances from Austria and the German states, which have been made to Manchester and Glasgow for British manufacture. It is hopeless, then, for any nation to attempt to exclude the productions of another. They may insure their own subjects by enhancing the price; but exclude them they cannot. But, the advantage to a country in first adopting the principle of freedom of trade, is not merely relative, but positive. Under a system of restriction with us, other nations may make and uphold corresponding restrictions; but, if we set the example of free intercourse, they may make, but I defy them to uphold them. They may struggle for a time to comply with the wishes of the ignorant and interested producers in their own country, but they cannot do so long. The ruin of their own trade—the destruction of the property of all those who are not immediately interested in the monopoly—the outcry of the whole mass of consumers, will drive them into a better and a wiser course. If we wait till they grant reciprocity, we are the slaves of their will: if we give free admission to their produce, they become the servants of ours. What is the case with France at the present moment? No one can more deeply regret than I do the illiberal policy which guides, and, I fear, for some time must continue to guide, the commercial councils of that great people; and I speak in sorrow, not in anger, when I refer to it. But I am induced to do so, not only because I think it a happy illustration of the errors of such a system, but because I find, if not in the speeches of hone. gentlemen, at least in the petitions of the silk-throwsters, especially that from Macclesfield, her example is quoted, and her conduct held up as wise and just, and worthy of imitation by us. "She continues," say the petitioners, "wisely her prohibitive laws." "Look," they say, "at France: under her wise regulations, her manufacture of cotton has increased tenfold, her industry has flourished, her prosperity has augmented." How does the case stand? I will not speak of her cotton mills—she may raise printed cottons at a dear rate—she may raise iron, instead of taking it from us, at double the cost: but, what effect does this have upon the general industry of the country? What do those branches of producers say to this system, who find that there is no longer any demand for their produce? Are they satisfied? Do they find that other nations can buy their produce of them, when France refuses td take any thing in return? Are they not with one voice besieging the doors of the Chambers to induce them to return to a system less ruinous to their interests? It is a Case so completely in point, that I cannot help referring to it. What is the situation of the wine growers—an interest five times as great as any other within the French dominions, employing three millions of persons, and a capital ten times greater than any other in France? Listen to their language—thus it is they address the Chamber:—"What," say they, "is the basis of the prohibitive system? A chimera. To sell without buying. A secret still to be discovered! If we shut our ports to the productions of other countries, it is good at least to know that theirs must be shut on our industry: this kind of reciprocity is inevitable—it is in the nature of things; and what are the results? The destruction of the power of interchange, the destruction of all emulation, the obtaining a worse article at a dearer cost." And how is this statement supported? By a document, showing that the decrease in the export of wines from Bourdeaux and other places, has been from one hundred thousand to thirty thousand hogsheads. They must follow our example. It is no more in the power of governments to uphold for long, than it is for the interest of nations to suffer, such a system. I am no rash theorist.—I am not desirous of carrying a favourite principle into operation at the expense of existing interests; but I assert, that your only course is a gradual, a progressive, but a steady approach to a free system. I maintain, without fear of contradiction, that the very essence of manufacturing and commercial industry is freedom from legislative interference and legislative protection. Attempt to resist its course by protective enactments, you arrest its progress, you destroy its vigour. Unbind the shackles in which your unwise tenderness has confined it—permit it to take unrestrained its own course—expose it to the wholesome breezes of competition—you give it new life, you restore its former vigour. Industry has been well likened to the hardy Alpine plant; self-sown on the mountain side, exposed to the inclemency of the seasons, it gathers strength in its struggles for existence, it shoots forth in vigour and in beauty. Transplanted to the rich soil of the parterre—tended by the fostering hand of the gardener—nursed in the artificial atmosphere of the forcing-glass—it grows sickly and enervated; its shoots are vigourless, its flowers inodorous. In one single word lies the soul of industry—competition. The answer of the statesman and the economist to his sovereign, inquiring what he could do to assist the industry of his kingdom, was—"Let it take its own course." Such is my prayer. Relieve us from the chains in which your indiscreet tenderness has shackled us—remove your oppressive protection—give us the fair field we ask, and we demand no more. The talent, the genius, the enterprise, the capital, the industry, of this great people will do the rest; and England will not only retain, but she will take a yet more forward place, in the race of competition for wealth and improvement, which, by the nature of things, she is destined to run amongst the nations of the world. Place us in that condition is our prayer—not by any violent change, but by slow and easy transition. Here we shall find security for our enterprise and reward for our labours—

"Hic patet ingeniis campus: certusque merenti Stat favor: ornatur propriis industria donis."

said:—I am anxious to offer a few words upon this question, and to take the opportunity in the outset of saying, that but one single argument has, in my mind, been brought forward against the motion of my hon. friend. We have had a long discussion on free trade, political economy, and a variety of important topics of that kind; but, to the specific motion of my hon. friend I have heard but this one objection, stated by the right hon. gentleman in the commencement of the debate; namely, that the appointment of a committee would produce delay, and that that delay would be attended with a stagnation of trade—that country shopkeepers would abstain from their customary orders, until they saw the issue of the inquiry. It seems to me that this argument comes with but a poor grace from the right hon. gentleman, because, if government had wished it, a committee might have been appointed on the first day of the session, and its report would have been ready before this time. It is, however, but fair and candid to admit, that I concur in the opinion, that the investigation might be attended with inconvenience, and produce stagnation. But, if the petitioners are correct in the view they take of the subject—if impending ruin threaten them—I say that the evil of stagnation is secondary to the benefit that may be derived from the consideration of the subject. My motive for wishing for investigation is not any positive desire to return to the principles of restriction, but that justice may be done. I know not how it may be with others, but my memory is not strong enough to embrace and follow the long tissue of figures employed in this debate, and upon which the question depends. The observation made by a right hon. gentleman was exceedingly just—and I have found the justice of it more than once since he made it—that honourable members, instead of taking the result of the whole, selected such of the figures as answered their purpose. The right hon. gentleman gave a curious illustration of the truth of the remark: his object was, to compare five years of restrictions with five years of free trade, and he selected, as the turning point, the year 1824. No doubt, it appeared to many honourable gentlemen, that the new law came into effect in 1824. No such thing. What is the fact? The law -did not come into operation until the year 1826; so that his comparison gave us five years of restriction, and five years, two of which were years of freedom. The right hon. member for Liverpool had another object when he selected part of the figures: he wanted to shew, that the throwster was not injured, and he compared the two years preceding with the two years succeeding 1826. I take his argument to be this: "you tell us that the throwsters are in distress, and that it has been occasioned by the measures of 1826; but I tell you this fact, that the quantity of thrown silk imported in the years 1824 and 1825 exceeded the quantity imported in 1827 and 1828." It is for the purpose of critically and closely investigating broad and plausible statements of this description, that I wish a committee to be appointed. We forget in the rapidity of debate, what in a slow and prolonged investigation we should remember; and nothing can be so unfair as to compare those periods—the one being a period of abundant capital and boldness of speculation, while the other was equally remarkable for sluggishness of trade and for the caution wit which capital was invested.—I now come to the argument itself; and I must confess that, admitting the facts, that argument seems to prove not much. He contends, that the quantity of thrown silk imported was greater before than after the restricted system was abandoned; but he forgot to tell the House, that the operation of the new system excluded thrown silk. It is evident, that the manufactured silk pre— vented the necessity of introducing thrown silk; and it is only necessary to press the argument of the right hon. gentleman to an extreme, to shew its error. The House will recollect also, that upon this point the right hon. gentleman depended mainly for the proof of the fallacy of what was contended on the other side. I will put it thus—Suppose next year we should be so inundated with French silks as totally to prevent the employment of British workmen; the inevitable effect would be, that the throwster would be thrown out of employment, and yet, under those circumstances, the argument of the right hon. gentleman would be better than at present; he might then say, "Look at my returns—the quantity of thrown silk imported last year was, we will say, a million of pounds, and in 1830 it was nothing: we may therefore infer, that the throwster is thriving, because there has been no importation." The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat read a letter from Manchester; he did not state by whom it was written, but no doubt by some highly respectable person. I, too, have a letter from an individual, of all others capable of giving a sound opinion upon the point, as will be acknowledged when I mention his name. He is not a man who had old machinery and small funds, but the most improved and perfect machinery, and abundant capital: I mean Mr. Bernard Royd. He writes in these terms: "We have to tell you, that we wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald, on Saturday, merely to show him the condition of the English throwsters, when compared with those of Italy and France, and to ask him to obtain permission of the government to take ourselves and our machinery out of the country. We have received no answer, and we expect none now. We made no complaints, except telling him how the taxes affected us; and it would surely be too hard upon the throwster, first to destroy his trade, and then to deny him the liberty of going elsewhere to seek his bread." There is one part of the statement on which I wish to say a few words. The hon. gentleman who spoke last has told us, that although there is distress in many districts, it has been greatly overstated.

—I said, that the picture of distress had been too highly coloured.

—I will take it so. The hon. member admits the existence of distress, and then be turns round and asks, "Was there not distress at other periods?" and he reminds us of the meeting at the Mansion-house in 1816. I admit the prevalence of distress in an unfortunate district. Then, as now, the weaver was out of employment, and dependent upon charity for subsistence. Then, as now, the cause of his distress was the introduction of French silks, promoted by the facilities afforded at the termination of the war. But there was then an alleviation, and I should be happy to hear that it existed now. This was the alleviation—that the distress was temporary, that it began with the winter, and with the winter it terminated; whereas, to my certain knowledge, the distress now prevailing began last autumn, went through the winter, and has now reached the spring. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to find, that the distress was likely to terminate with the spring. It would really be too painful if I were to state the degree of distress now raging in that miserable district. I am sure the hon. member did not mean to underrate the fact; but I must say, with all who have had the means of observation, that the degree of misery existing cannot possibly be overstated. Thousands in that wretched district are suffering every privation. I will not say that they are starving, but their condition approaches that of starvation, and they would have starved, but for the efficient liberality of the public: they have been supported by the Soup societies, and others of the same kind in that district. I cannot give an adequate description of the total destitution of the population, without going into details that would too much distress the feelings of the House. I shall vote for the committee, because I feel for the afflictions of these unhappy people; five hundred thousand souls, hitherto living by the Silk Trade, are now in the utmost distress in various parts of the kingdom; and, right or wrong, they ascribe that distress to the measures of ministers. Are they not, then, entitled to the satisfaction of an inquiry? and is not the government also entitled to the justice of convincing the public, by this means, that it is not the author of the present calamities? I shall, therefore, support the committee; first, because, right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable in their notions, they are entitled to inquiry; se- condly, because I am not yet convinced that they are not right. I cannot forget the predictions uttered when these measures were first introduced: we were told that one benefit we should surely receive from them—that others might follow, but this was certain—it would extinguish smuggling. Has it extinguished smuggling? Does not smuggling continue? Next we were informed, that we should create an export trade. Have we created it—or rather have not the French deprived us of all the export trade we once had? It was also predicted, that the weavers would have full work and abundant wages; but they have neither work nor wages, or what work is done, is performed at half the former price. I am not sure that the principles of free trade are not sound, as relates to this branch of manufactures; but I do not think our time would be ill employed, in considering a question affecting so large a body of people, involved in such acute misery. I say, I am not sure that the free principles are not sound with reference to the Silk Trade; but I have considerable doubts upon the subject. It has some peculiarities that perhaps entitle it to be an exception. If the employment of machinery would here give us the same advantage it gives in other manufactures, I should say go on with the competition; but we are to recollect that the Silk Trade allows only of a very limited use of machinery; that the cost of manufactured silk consists almost entirely of the value of the raw material, and of the expense of the labour bestowed upon it. Can we compete with France in the raw material when she grows it? and is it not equally vain to expect, that we should be able to compete with her in the cheapness of labour? Therefore, it appears to me, that there are such strong doubts whether we can apply to the Silk Trade the general principles of unrestricted freedom, which are advantageous in other branches of manufacture, that I shall vote for the committee, in order that the whole subject may be investigated.

said:—After the question has been so ably treated by honourable gentlemen who have spoken on each side, in the discussion it has undergone, and especially after the very clear and eloquent speech of my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, I should feel very reluctant to obtrudes myself upon the attention of the House, if I did not consider myself, in some degree, bound personally, by my former official connection with this subject, to say some thing in vindication of the policy of my right hon. friend, which I supported. I for one, entirely agree in the propriety of the course suggested by my right hon. friend: but I own I do feel a deep interest in the case of the petitioners, as I have had some personal acquaintance with many individuals of their class; and I know how to estimate the great propriety of their conduct, and the zeal they have shown inculcate on their workmen the duty of resignation under the reversal of their hopes and expectations. I am deeply grieved to have occasion to speak of their distress, even in the humbler capacity of an individual; and if I vote against the committee for which they are desirous, I cannot do it without an attempt to express my reasons for opposing the motion. I will take the hint thrown out by an hon. member this evening, and confine myself to the precise point before the House. I agree so far with that hon. gentleman, that I will not go the length of agreeing to a committee of inquiry: but as the petitioners desire to have the subject fully discussed, and the reasons shewn why the committee should not be granted—on that point, I think my right hon. friend's opinions very satisfactory. What, let me ask, are the grounds on which the committee is recommended? These are the grounds:—that distress existing in the Silk Trade, we ought to inquire into it, and also into the mode of relieving it. That is the main argument; but there is another, which I consider a subsidiary or auxiliary argument, but which is not avowed; and this is, that the result of the inquiry of the committee will be, to prove that the distress is owing to the policy of my right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), and that in order to afford relief to the Silk Trade, there must be a recurrence to the former system of prohibitions. My hon. friend is very ready to disclaim his share of the responsibility of recommending a remedy in the latter way; but I appeal to the House, whether that is not the only useful result that can be produced by a committee. In the very first place, I shall consider the subsidiary argument. I say, that there is no ground for attributing the origin of the distress of the Silk Trade to that policy; and I say further, that there is no ground for imagining that we can relieve that dis- tress by recurring to the former system.—Having disposed of the subsidiary argument, I proceed to consider the main argument; and I say, that admitting the distress to be as great as it is described, it is, so far as I conceive, affecting the Silk Trade in common with every other trade, and therefore it is not a subject for a committee on the Silk Trade peculiarly. If it could be shewn that the distress has a distinct operation on the Silk Trade, that, might, be a good reason for the inquiry; but if we cannot be satisfied that this cause presses with peculiar force on this particular manufacture, there is no ground for a committee of inquiry. If I succeed in shewing, that these reasons do not go far enough to compel the House to grant a committee, then I come to the final argument, that the stagnation which would ensue in the Silk Trade on the appointment of the committee, and which has been admitted by the hon. member for Coventry himself, constitutes a most decisive argument why we should negative this motion. I contend, that there is no ground whatever for imagining that the existing distress is owing to the policy of which the petitioners complain. I might go very much into detail as to this part of the subject, but I have been anticipated by my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, who triumphantly vindicated every prediction I may have made. What were those predictions? It was said by those who opposed the introduction of this policy, that the manufacture of silk would be destroyed in this country, because the consumption of the country, it was asserted, would be supplied by the foreign manufactures; or, at any rate, if not wholly destroyed, that the throwing branch would be utterly destroyed, because foreign thrown silk would be introduced in place of the English. Now, what has been the result? I will not go into the details, because they have been clearly stated by my right hon. friend. The trade of the throwing branch has increased in an extensive degree; and I observe that those hon. gentlemen who wish for the committee are not willing that those who oppose the motion should choose the years in which they should compare the state of the trade.

The hon. member for Weymouth accuses my right hon. friend of including his statement, the year 1824 unfairly, as it was under the old system. What will he think of his case, when he finds, that this year, which he claimed for the old system, was really under the new one? I ask if the hon. gentleman is not totally mistaken. For the year 1824 was, in truth, the very year of the commencement of the new system, when the first impulse was given to the increase of the Silk Trade, and when the duties on raw silk were reduced to 3d. per lb., and on thrown silk to 7s. per lb. I will take the liberty to show what was the effect of those reductions. They were made in the session of 1824, and took effect immediately. When my right hon. friend is charged with unfairly using that year, I think my hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, when I state the effect of the alteration in the duties in 1824—for the prohibition was not removed until 1826—will not be disposed to support his accusation. My right hon. friend told you, that the redaction of the duties would not check the importation of raw silk. The question is—whether it has prevented the consumption of raw silk? My right hon. friend says, that he can prove it has not done so by a series of years, turning upon the year 1824 as a pivot. Every body who is acquainted with the state of the Silk Trade, knows that a powerful impulse was given to it immediately, and that that was the first year of the over-trading system, which grew up to so enormous a height in the years 1825 and 1826. By contrasting the two parts of the series, we shall see the effect of the law up to that period. In 1823, the total import of raw and thrown silk was 2,432,286 lbs. That was strictly the last year under the old system; there were then both prohibitions and the old duties unreduced. In the first quarter of 1824, the old system was still in operation; and there was then imported, of raw silk 580,400 lbs., and of thrown silk 44,000 lbs., making together a total of 552,400 lbs. Before the 5th of July following, the new system came into operation, and the duties were reduced. The quantity of raw silk imported during that quarter was 949,312 lbs. and of thrown silk 135,700 lbs., the total quantity being 1,085,000 lbs. in that year. We shall thus see the progressive difference of the whole quantity of 1824 and the antecedent year. In the whole of 1824, the quantity of raw silk imported was 3,540,910 lbs., and of thrown silk 452,460 lbs., making a total quantity of 3,993,000 lbs. imported in that year, whilst there was only a total quantity of 2,432,286 lbs. in 1823. This is alone a decisive proof of the beneficial operation of the new system.

I need not follow the steps of my right hon. friend in order to prove the great increase in the importation of raw and thrown silks, and I will not do it. In the subsequent years, the importation continued to increase in a similar proportion. My hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, in his comparison of the years 1825 and 1826, against those of 1827 and 1828, has, I think, acted unfairly, for this reason, that the year 1825 was a year of excessive speculation, and in 1826 there was a notorious depression, in consequence of the excessive supply of the preceding year. It is not fair, therefore, to compare the years 1825 and 1826 against those of 1827 and 1828. I will just remind the hon. gentleman, that in 1825 there was a total import of raw and thrown silk of 3,589,300 lbs. and in 1826 a total import of 2,244,000 lbs. including both raw and thrown silk. In 1827 the total quantity of imports was 4,209,000 lbs., and in 1828, 4,547,550 lbs., making a total quantity for the two years 1827 and 1828, amounting to 8,756,550 lbs., and for the two years 1825 and 1826, only an amount above five millions and under six; the exact sum being 5,833,300 lbs.

I will not dwell on this point, because there can be no question respecting it. But I will dwell for a moment on the effects of the state of prohibition. The hon. member for Coventry says, that if the returns of the amount of raw and thrown silk were united together, what I stated as to the reduction of these duties would be disproved. My argument was, that the importation of raw silk would increase, and that of thrown silk decrease; and he answers me by uniting both together, and saving it disproves my argument What will be the result of his assertion, when he finds that the very fact is realized as conjectured, and that the import of raw silk has increased, while that of thrown silk has decreased? The hon. member for Coventry stated that I had said that this manufacture was, in fact, created by the law of my right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool. When I used that expression I was but speaking of the throwing branch, and I beg to repeat here what I then said, I said, that many of the throw- sters themselves, who are a highly respectable body, were in favour of the reduction of the duty, and that from what I had learned from them, I should say that if the duty were reduced, it would not be so much that their trade would be improved by the act as created by that great change of policy, which consisted in removing those restrictions on their co-operation and enterprise, and this branch of the trade would be a striking example of the permanent effect resulting from that wise policy, which would remove all restrictions, and allow a just freedom of operation in fair and honest competition. In the state of contempt and mediocrity to which the Silk Trade was formerly sunk, there was nothing of the spirit which had inspired other manufactures. There was no application of the natural or mechanical advantages belonging to the country to the improvement of the Silk Trade, up to the time when the change of policy was adopted. The machines were built of wood, where they now are iron; and there was nothing that gave a stronger proof of the advantages to the trade, resulting from throwing it more open to competition, than the dread it evinced before that took place, to make the boast of every other trade in England, that this country could compete with every other country successfully in its manufactures. The machinery now employed in the silk-factories produces at least double what it did before. The improved motion of the spindles is alone a great achievement. Eight hundred or one thousand revolutions in the course of a minute, were the usual number formerly; but two thousand five hundred, or three thousand revolutions, are now the common number in one minute, and there is one manufactory in which the velocity is increased to seven thousand revolutions in one minute; and I have no doubt that many will go still further, by the discoveries that will be made. But if they go beyond eight thousand revolutions in a minute, it will make a great alteration in the exiting manufactories, and compel many of those who are unwilling to make any changes in their operations, and who cling to their old machines, to adopt the improvements, that they may not be beaten in the field by those who will use the new ones.

There is, therefore, I contend, no grounds at all for going into a committee; and I ask why it should be granted with a view to the result desired by the hon. member for Coventry, namely, the recurrence to the old system of prohibition? Is there any ground for believing that it is desirable? What was the old system? It was a system providing for the regulation of wages, with many heavy duties on the silk throwster, and a monopoly of the home-market for the silk manufacturer. I leave it to the House to decide whether there is the slightest reason to believe that this would be a remedy for the present distress. The very proposition has surprised every person of enlightened mind; and they are not only surprised but they deeply regret, that the persons engaged in the Silk Trade should labour under a delusion so extravagant, as that they should be willingly persuaded that if they could again obtain the prohibition of foreign silk goods, it would relieve all their distresses. I feel that those who encourage such a delusion deserve the severest reprobation, and that the manufacturers and throwsters who share in it shew extreme ignorance of the history and interests of their own trade; for, unless they were under the grossest delusion, they never would teach their workmen to believe, that prohibition could secure them against foreign competition, or prevent the recurrence of distress. It is scarcely ten years since this favourite system of prohibition exposed them to all the evils they now dread from competition. In 1816 or 1817, while the laws of prohibition were in existence, the advocates and friends of the Silk Trade declared, that the distress was owing to the inundation of foreign silk goods. There was a subscription raised of, I think, about 40,000l. and there were at that time said to be forty thousand persons unemployed in Spitalfields. The whole, distress was then ascribed to the increased import of foreign silks. What protection then was their prohibition, for which they now call as the remedy for all their distress?—It has been suggested to make a distinction between figured silks, in the way of protection, because it is said, that more labour is employed in working the figured silk. But it really takes no more; for it is now worked by a machine which is placed above the loom, and moved by the treadle, and the factual labour of making figured silks really not greater than the labour of making others. At Lyons, when ever there was a cessation of demand for the figured silks, the workmen agreed to use the machines at the direction of their masters.

I might advert, also, to another deviation from the old system—I mean the abolition of the regulation of wages by law. We have not heard any thing of it this night in the House; but I must mention it because I understand it to be a favourite scheme of the weavers themselves. They formerly had an act for regulating the amount of their wages; that act has been repealed; but last year they presented petitions to both Houses of parliament, praying them not only to return to the old law, but to give it a general extension to other trades—such as the cotton and the stocking trades. The weavers ought to be made aware, that that act, which has been very properly repealed by the legislature, had driven the capital employed in the Silk Trade from Spitalfields into the country; and that the same reason which had induced the capitalists to remove from Spitalfields, would, in case that act were made of general extent, drive them also out of the country, The next point on which I ought to dwell is the heavy duty upon thrown silk; but, as my right hon. friend has already touched upon it, I will not take from the effect of his arguments by attempting to repeat them. All that I shall say upon that subject is, that I see no reason for departing from the improved system which my right hon. friend has introduced, I now come to the distress in the Silk Trade, which gentlemen on the other side of the House deem a sufficient ground for inquiry by a committee. I admit the existence of that distress; but when the House is called upon to go into a committee upon the declining condition of the Silk Trade, I am bound to inquire, whether the distress of that trade is not owing to the pressure which weighs at present upon every other branch of trade. If it be owing to a pressure weighing generally upon all branches of trade, then there will be no ground laid for granting a committee to inquire into the state of the Silk Trade. The general pressure of distress may be a good ground for examining into the condition of all branches of trade, but it forms no ground at all for examining exclusively into the condition of the Silk Trade. I believe that at the present moment nobody can deny that the pressure is general—that there is a remarkable stagnation in every department of manufacturing industry—and that the farmer, the agriculturist, and the retail dealer are all feeling the pressure of distress. There is a want of confidence in every class of the community. The power of consumption, if I may use such an expression, appears to be paralyzed: we are prosperous to all outward appearance; but still there is a sort of groundswell at work, which makes the vessel labour prodigiously. The pressure, I repeat, is not confined exclusively to the Silk Trade. When I know that the pressure affects all the staple trades of the country, can I be surprised that it also affects the Silk Trade? Why, then should we have a committee on the Silk Trade alone? The cotton trade is, I believe, still worse off than the Silk Trade. We should find details of distress among the cotton weavers fully as afflicting as those of which we have heard an account among the silk weaver. If the cases of the distress which presses on the Silk Trade were not notorious, they might require investigation by a committee: but they are notorious, and it is well known, that great part of the pressure on the Silk Trade is owing to that suspense in which the trade has been placed for the last four or five months, owing to its ignorance of the regulations by which it was to be permanently governed. That was no slight cause, and yet it was one that could not be avoided; for my right hon. friend could not be immediately aware of the course which it would be most expedient for the government to pursue. That this suspense created distress, is undeniable; for many orders have been withheld from the silk manufacturers at this season of the year which would have been given had the parties been able to ascertain the conditions under which they would be executed. The next cause operating severely on a part of the Silk Trade is the condition of the throwsters. No parties have complained more loudly than the throwsters: and my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, has stated clearly the reason of their complaint. He has proved that there is an excess of competition in that branch of the trade, by showing, that though the consumption silk by the country has increased, the number of mills in the country has increase in a much larger proportion.

As to the distress of the weavers, I must remind the House, that there are local causes which tend very mush to increase the distress in Spitalfields. The population of the district of Spitalfields does not consist entirely of weavers. This is not my own declaration merely: it is a declaration made by a very respectable gentleman of the district, I mean Mr. Head, the advocate of the weavers—who, in a pamphlet which he published some time ago, referable to the distress which existed in Spitalfields in 1816, uses these expressions—"The distress which we are suffering in this district is not occasioned so much by a want of demand as by our local situation; and this will be more intelligible, when I state, that from the cheapness of lodgings, Spitalfields is the general resort of all the working population bowed the metropolis, when they are out of employment. It thus happens, that thousands of mechanics, whoa are not Spitalfields weavers, swell so disproportionately the increase of our poor". From this statement it is clear that there are particular causes operating upon the district of Spitalfields. The persons who are unemployed in their own trades seek lodgings in Spitalfields, from their cheapness, and whilst there, resort to weaving as the best means of getting a pittance to support existence. These persons, on the first pressure of distress in the trade, are again thrown out of employment, and thus aggravate the distress, and increase the numbers of the unemployed weavers of Spitalfields, Another cause, which produces the same effect, is a mistaken notion which prevails there respecting the regulation of wages. Although the act for the regulation of wages in that district is repealed, a committee is still in existence there for the same purpose: and I will just mention to the. House an instance of its baneful, effects. In the year 1826, a very large order Las given for work in Spitalfields. It was offered to the weavers at 8d.a yard. They refused to accept the order on those terms, because the book of rates said they ought to have 10d. a yard. The consequence of their refusing it was, that a manufacturer in the country took the order, and executed it at his own factory for 6d. a yard. It is painful to make such a statement: but it is, still more painful to consider the delusion which has given rise to it.

I have now stated some of the peculiar causes which operate on the Silk Trade exclusively. I have attempted to prove, that there is no ground for attributing to the measures of my right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, the distress existing in the Silk Trade—that a recurrence to the former system would not remove that distress,—that as the distress is general, it will not warrant the House in going into a committee to examine the distress of the Silk Trade,—and that where the distress of the Silk Trade is peculiar, the causes which have produced it are notorious. I therefore think that I have established a right to look at the other side of the argument, ant to consider whether the granting of a committee would not tend to the increase of the present distress. I conscientiously believe that it would have that effect, from the stagnation which it would credit in the trade; and for that reason I am of opinion, that it would be most unwise to consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Coventry. The hon. member for Coventry, in the course of his speech, referred to some expressions which I formerly used, and he called upon me to redeem the pledge which I then gave to the country. I do not. recollect what those expressions were, neither do I consider myself responsible for them. What I said on the occasion to which the hon. member for Coventry alludes was, that if the experiment of a liberal policy in the Silk Trade was fairly tried, and was eventually unsuccessful, the persons engaged in that trade would come to the House with a claim founded, not merely upon justice, but also upon feeling. Now, upon my view of the case, and, I may add, upon the more extensive view of it which has been taken by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, the time has not yet arrived when I can be property called upon to redeem my pledge, for as yet the experiment has never been fairly tried. It has been tried under a year of excessive speculation, followed by a year of panic and jeopardy; and yet I will say, that even under all those disadvantages it has succeeded. The hon. member for Coventry must therefore wait some time longer before I come forward to redeem the pledge which I am said to have given.

I intended to have gone more at length into the subjects connected with this motion; but, keeping in view that this motion is for a committee of inquiry, I conceive that it is unnecessary. I cannot, however, resume my seat without referring to the language which has been used in the course of the debate. I am rejoiced to hear my right friend the President of the Board of Trader declare his determination to adopt the same principles as those which have been previously adopted by my right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool; and I am rejoiced at it, because I conceive restriction to he injurious to the interests of commerce. I am therefore glad to find that the country is not going to return to the antiquated system of prohibitions and high duties, which my right hon. friend has abolished. But though I am inclined to give my tribute of applause to government for its determination to pursue so useful a course, what am I to say of those gentlemen, who, disapproving of restrictions discountenance the importation of foreign commodities unless they are subjected to high duties. I shall not trespass further upon the House than by stating that I must oppose the motion for going into a committee.

said, he would support the motion, ands for this, amongst variety of other reasons, that the hon. members who had taken part in the present discussion were at issue with each other on matters of fact. Even those who concurred in supporting the policy of his majesty's government could not agree upon the facts which formed the grounds of that conclusion at which they had arrived. One gentleman got up, made a series of assertions, and concluded by declaring, that he was an enemy to prohibition; another, shortly after, got up, contradicted him on many important points, and made independent assertions of his own, but would still oppose prohibition. All the gentlemen of that class stood in need of the information and correction which inquiry alone could furnish, and the rest of the House were anxious for inquiry, that the real truth of the case might be made apparent. He confessed, then, under circumstances such as these, his total inability to appreciate the objections to inquiry. The hon. member for Dover had represented trade generally as in a most flourishing condition. Representations to the contrary had not only been made in that House, but from every quarter of the country. Did not that make it almost imperative upon parliament to institute an inquiry? Was it to be endured that in the Silk Trade alone that inquiry was to be refused, which was so readily granted in all cases of a similar nature, affecting other branches of the national industry? When the cotton trade, or the agricultural interest, was in a state of embarrassment and difficulty, inquiry was readily granted; but in the Silk Trade it was refused, upon no legitimate ground that he could discover. Inquiry had never been denied in other cases. Was it decorous—was it prudent—to deny it in that? It had been contended, that the causes of the present distress were notorious. For himself, he candidly confessed that he had very considerable difficulty respecting them; and, in his apprehension, they were the very reverse of notorious. From the year 1826 to the present moment the Silk Trade had not only been in a languishing condition, but suffering during the greater part of that time the utmost degree of distress. It was alleged—strangely enough—that no portion of that distress was owing to the relaxations which had been made in our commercial code, but that want of prudence—want of capital—in those engaged in the trade—any thing rather than the measures of his majesty's government; was the cause of the present unhappy state of things. It might be, that the origin of the distress would be found where honourable gentlemen opposite asserted it to exist; but, so long as any considerable portion of that House denied, and so long as a considerable portion of the country doubted; that the present distress arose from other causes than the relaxation of the prohibitory duties, it became the legislature not inquiry. If their views were correct they would have nothing on the development of them truth—if they were otherwise the public interest their correction events, for the satisfactions of the public, inquiry ought to be conceded. It was contended that over-production was amongst the causes of the existing evil. Could any man admit that such an assertion was consistent with the fact, that mills and looms were now idle, and had been so for the last two years, which, antecedent to 1826, were in a state of full and constant activity? If that single fact stood alone it proved the necessity for inquiry The hon. member then adverted to the circumstances in which the throwsters stood, and recurred to the contradictions which had taken place amongst those who had participated in the present debate; thence inferring the pressing necessity which there existed for immediate, minute, and comprehensive inquiry. There were honourable members who would not hear of prohibition. He hoped he was wrong; but he wished for inquiry, were it only for the purpose of ascertaining how the truth really stood. It had been but too much the practice to decry other nations, and on this subject to assume that we alone were right. Yet it was scarcely to be denied, that the French were an enlightened nation, and that the inhabitants of the United States at least knew something of their own interests; and yet they still continued to act upon the prohibitory system, and even in this country none but the philosophers and the political economists were found to advocate what were called the principles of free trade. With respect to what was called free trade, it involved a principle evidently inapplicable to the complicated condition of an old commercial community. It might do in a new country, or in a small and isolated state; but it could never be practicable in an old community, with engagements and connexions wrought into the long-established system of other countries. Extremes of all kinds he deprecated, both in theory and practice. He was just as far from adopting the principle of what was called free trade, as he was of desiring to recur to the old prohibitions. A medium course would be the best for the country to steer, avoiding alike new theories and obstinate prejudices. It seemed to him clear, that it was utterly incompatible with the state of trade in this country to expect that the free system could be generally acted upon; and that whoever proposed it must be suspected of strange miscalculations. He did not intend to charge the right hon. gentleman, or the right hon. member for Liverpool, with any such intentions; for, in his opinion, those who could go the whole length of those principles, instead of being politicians, must be set down as madmen. "But," said those who opposed the appointment of a committee, "at least let us wait a little longer, and see what changes may take place, and how the system really works," forgetting that, all this time, the people would be starving, and that in that trial so much heart's blood of the country would be expended. Whatever might be the event of the labours of a committee, he was at least sure, that its appointment would prove satisfactory those who were suffering most severely under the state of trade, and at the same time shew that the government were willing to do something to alleviate that distress.

said, he had heard a great deal upon the principles, of free trade and political economy; but, in his opinion, they were not applicable to the present case. It was contended that over-production was one of the causes of the present distress, and, therefore, he would say, import no more foreign goods. If he understood any thing at all of the principles of free trade, there ought to be something of reciprocity between the states which traded together But that was not the case between this country and France; for the advantages of the trade between the two countries were vastly in favour of the latter. We imported from France every year manufactured goods to an immense value, while we in return exported British goods to that country to the amount only of about 400,000l. As so much was said about the benefits of free trade, as respected manufactured goods, he would inquire why the same principle was not applied to corn—he did not mean to say that the landholders ought not to be protected; but he would inquire how they were protected. The legislature gave them what was called a remunerating price, and no importation was permitted until that remunerating price was very considerably exceeded—a provision in favour of the agriculturists which, in fact, amounted to an actual prohibition. In the Silk Trade, however, quite a contrary system of policy was pursued: there the manufacturer was protected by no prohibition. Then, again, the very goods which were imported were fancy and curiously manufactured goods: which were, of course, the most beneficial and the most lucrative to the country which manufactured them. Much had been said about the increase and importation of the raw material; but it should be observed that, as this was a manufacturing country, it was necessary that it should at all times keep up the importations of raw material to a great extent, in order that the importation of foreign manufactured goods might never flag for the want of material to go on with. The question now before the House was at all times a difficult one; but it became much more so when it was entangled and mixed up with all the arguments which had been advanced about the policy or impolicy of free trade. He had himself waded through the pages of so many pamphlets, and had endeavoured to apply himself to so many arguments, that he confessed he had almost become bewildered upon the subject, and hardly knew at times what ought, or what ought not, to be done [a laugh]. An hon. member, a friend of his, of great attainments, had described the throwsters as ignorant, their mills as bad, their machinery as wretched; and he had supported these statements by some fragments of letters, and some unauthenticated scraps. Now he also had some little experience in these matters, and he had heard very different accounts from those given by the hon. gentleman. He, too, if he were so disposed, could read letters, which would shew that machinery which had been brought from abroad was not successful. The inventions, of which so much had been said, had not succeeded. He might be told, perhaps, that he did not understand these things; but how was it that individuals at Paisley and other place—he alluded particularity to one gentleman, who had written a book, giving an account of this new invention, but had not been able to succeed; and, if he were not misinformed, had lately become a bankrupt, and had involved several other persons in his ruin—how was it, that he could neither succeed himself nor give instruction to others? He had heard, within a few days, of individuals who had stopped payment both at Paisley and Glasgow, who had been engaged with these inventions. The right hon. gentleman opposite had stated, that great distress existed in the country, and he had at the same time spoken of the great increase in the import of the raw material, and he adduced this as a proof of the increase of the trade; but it might be accounted for by the fact, that there was more weight of silk required in the heavy goods, which were now the only articles made; the light goods having left the country. The effects of the increase and extension of the trade might be accounted for: and he was surprised to find his hon. friend had overlooked the circumstance of the excess of speculation which had begun in 1824 and 1825, having been the friend of the new system—the increase in the manufactures, he said, might be accounted for by the reduction of the duty on the raw material. Until 1826, the introduction of foreign silk manufacture was prohibited. It was said, in opposition to the motion for the committee, that the trade was increasing; but this seemed to him a strong argument for inquiry; for it could not be denied, that with that increase great distress was now conjoined. One reason of the apparent increase was, that persons who had been engaged in the manufacture of light cotton articles, had engaged in the manufacture of silk; which was particularly the case at Paisley, Glasgow, and other places. Silk had been substituted for cotton in wear; and those who had manufactured cotton took to manufacturing silk. He was persuaded, if they went on trying these experiments for three or four years, and allowed the French silk to come into the country, that the whole trade would be ruined. According to the plan of the right hon. gentleman, the throwsters were to be thrown overboard, and the hundred thousand people—men, women, and children—they employed, were all to be thrown out of work. He held that it was quite impossible that we could go on under the present system. He had heard already that individuals had calculated the expense of setting up a throwing establishments in Italy; and if they did this, they would soon transfer the whole trade from this country. The distress which at present existed was very great, and its extent had been particularly ascertained at Macclesfield. A committee had investigated into the subject there, and they found that the wages, which on an average were eight shillings per week, had been reduced 50 per cent. In 1823, there were twelve thousand persons employed, and now there were five thousand out of work. The committee allowed eleven pence a week to each distressed person; but that was only given to those whose wages did not exceed 1s. 3d. each person. He had seen a gentleman who had examined the duplicates for which these poor creatures had pawned their clothes; and he found that one man had pawned his bed for 1l., but the greater number of the duplicates were for 3d. 4d. and 1s., the things pawned being clothes and tools. Under such circumstances, he thought it was the duty of the House closely to investigate all the circumstances, and allow the matter to undergo a serious inquiry. For his part, he should not fear the odium of defending prohibition, if it were found that prohibition was necessary. We must yield to circumstances; and particularly when the principle of yielding was founded in justice, as he thought it was; for the government and the legislature were bound to protect our own people and workmen. He would not trespass longer on the attention of the House, but he hoped that a committee would be granted.

rose amidst loud cries of "question!" He said, he hoped the House would indulge him for a few minutes. He assured them he did not intend to go into the general principles of the measure proposed; not that he did not consider the question a most important one, but because he did not consider it necessary now to enlarge upon it. He thought that the hon. member for Newark would admit with him, that unless there was a probability that something could be done in a committee to alleviate the distresses of the poor weavers, it would be better not to go into a committee at all. He was ready to concede many of the points which had been urged by the hon. gentleman; and he was also ready to grant, for the sake of argument, that great distress prevailed amongst the manufacturing classes. But, then, what was the remedy that was proposed? Why, either prohibition or protection, or some other expedient of which he had not yet heard. Now, it was almost the universal opinion of the House, that the principle of prohibition ought not to be adopted. Then, again, it was said, that if the principle of prohibition was not conceded, some protection ought to be granted. Now, with regard to protection, the question was only as to the amount. He, however, contended that we were, at this moment, giving the highest protection which it was possible for us to give. If it were possible to give any other protection, be felt quite sure that the petitioners would not be satisfied. They would be contented with nothing short of actual prohibition. He thought, indeed, that the measure which his right hon. friend was about to bring forward, would be the most beneficial for all parties. A committee of inquiry would be of no service to them; and he much doubted, whether the constituents of the hon. mover of the present motion would not now wish him to withdraw it.

said, he should vote for the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Coventry. He thought it was the positive duty of the House to appoint a committee to inquire into the universal distress which at present pervaded the whole of that class of persons from whom this application was made. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, had not attempted to solve the problem, why, when the other institutions of the country were in a flourishing state, this alone was in such singular and deep distress. It was surely, then, the duty of the House to investigate the cause. For his own part, he had formed an opinion, which he had stated, at various times, to the House. At present, he rose merely to say that he should give his vote in favour of the motion as he thought the distress of the petitioners demanded a speedy investigation.

expressed his determination to support the motion of the hon. member for Coventry. He spoke in terms of commendation of the patience and loyalty of the distressed silk-manufacturers; who had, on that account, strong claims on the attention of the government. The expectations formed of the free-trade system had certainly been disappointed.

said, that at that late hour he did not feel himself authorised to occupy the House for any length of time, in the observations which he might have to make in reply. He should reserve those observations until the subject should come to be discussed in the committee; when he should take an opportunity of remarking on the proposition of government. He begged leave to state distinctly, that he had heard nothing in the course of this debate, to shake him from the resolution which he had previously formed. On the contrary, every thing had conduced to confirm his belief the necessity of appointing a committee. He thought that, of all the arguments which had been urged against the committee, one only was worthy of observation; and that was the argument which was founded upon the delay that would thereby be occasioned. He was ready to admit, that it would necessarily cause some delay, and that that delay would be attended with many inconveniences. But when he made this admission, he should also make use of the language which had been used upon another occasion, and say, that as the matter was a matter of expediency, the House had only to choose been two evils. Of these evils he thought the delay occasioned by the appointment of a committee would be the least; and he should therefore persist in his motion. He thought, indeed, that unless some investigation were made, the scene of distress would be again presented to the House before the termination of next winter. It had been contended by some of the hon. members who had opposed his motion, that the object sought to be obtained by the appointment of a committee was, a recurrence to the old system of prohibition; but as nothing of that sort had been alluded to, either by himself or by those who spoke on his side of the question, he did not think that it ought to be drawn as a necessary inference. He thought it would be wise to appoint a committee, if it were only to appease the manufacturers; who would derive considerable consolation from the knowledge of the fact, that government had given their situation a full and ample consideration. There was one thing which had much surprised him in the course of the debate, and that was what had fallen from the hon. member for Callington. That hon. member had told the House, that the Silk Trade was a condemned trade—an expression which he thought was wholly misapplied. Now all that he asked at the hands of the House was,—strike, but hear him: investigate before you deny.

The House divided:—for the original motion 31; against it 149; majority, 118.—The House then resolved itself into a committee on the Silk Trade Acts, in which the resolutions proposed by Mr. V. Fitzgerald were agreed to.