or rather the case which he ought to have attempted to prove-namely, that there was either in the present or in the past condition of the British silk trade any ground for the great reduction of duties which had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government. If his noble Friend had proved anything it was this-that our silk trade was at the present moment in a most thriving condition-that our importations and our revenue, and our exports, had gone on largely increasing, and, consequently. that the trade was in a condition in which a prudent Government would say, "In God's name let us leave this prosperous state of things undisturbed." But when his noble Friend had attempted to prove what he (Lord Stanley) thought he had not succeeded in proving, that our silk trade was at present in a most prosperous condition in consequence of the adoption of the free-trade principle, had not his arguments upon that point completely negatived his statement with respect to the prevalence of smuggling? His noble Friend had gone on to state, that, in his opinion, the proposed reduction of duties would not injure the producer in this country. Now, first of all, he (Lord Stanley) differed from his noble Friend as to his facts; he also differed from him as to the effect produced by the change of 1824, in the prosperity of our silk trade; and he differed from him more especially upon a point which he ought to have proved, or else he had proved nothing-namely, that the results which he had stated had been brought about, not by a diminution of the duty on the raw material, but by a concurrent diminution of the duty on the manufactured article. No man could doubt that the removal of duties on a raw material would naturally lead to a great increase in the consumption of that raw material; and he certainly was not surprised that after the changes of the year 1824 there had been a considerable increase in the importation of the raw material into this country. But that increase had not been so great as his noble Friend would have their Lordships suppose; and, moreover, the increase had not taken place at the time, or in the manner, or to the extent, which his noble Friend would lead them to believe. His noble Friend had been extremely ingenious in the statement he had made to the House; and by any one who had not looked into the facts of the case before, he could easily understand that the statement of his noble Friend would be accepted as nearly conclusive. What had his noble Friend told their Lordships? He had said, "Look to decennial periods I will not trouble the House with the details of particular years—but look to the immense improvement which has taken place in decennial periods. In the ten years before 1823, the average importation was 1,520,000 lbs., while in the year 1844 the importation was 4,021,000 lbs. That certainly sounded exceedingly well. But he hoped his noble Friend would not be offended if he addressed to him the words "Now mark how a plain tale will put thee down." He (Lord Stanley) also would show the average increase of importation in a series of years before the alteration of the duties, as contrasted with the average increase in a series of years after the alteration; and that, he thought, would be a fairer test of the advantages of the change than that to which his noble Friend had had recourse. He would take an average of three years, and not an average of ten years. He found that the average importation of the three years 1815, 1816, and 1817, of the raw material, had amounted to 1,388,000 lbs.; the average importation of the three years 1818, 1819, and 1820, had amounted to 1,844,000 lbs.; and the average importation of the three years 1821, 1822, and 1823, had amounted to 2,325,000 lbs.; and in 1824 it was 3,884,000 lbs. There had, therefore, been an increase before the principle of free trade came into operation from 1815 to 1824 - a decennial period — from 1,388,000 lbs. to 3,884,000 lbs. The duties were reduced on the 1st March, 1824. An increase had thus taken place, in the three triennial periods which he had mentioned, in the importation of the raw material of about 1,000,000 lbs. each. He found that in the year 1824, in which the change of duties had been effected, the importation of raw and thrown silk had amounted to 3,800,000 lbs.; and that the importation in 1844 had amounted to 4,400,000 lbs.; which did not give an increase of 1,000,000 lbs. in six years; but an increase of 800,000 lbs. in the course of twenty years under Mr. Huskisson's measure. So much for his noble Friend's decennial periods, and the results of the measure of 1824. But his noble Friend had gone on to state what he admitted to be true, that there had been a very large increase in another article of manufacture; and he boasted that our manufacturers had achieved a great triumph of skill by converting an article which had previously been "a waste" into a beautiful manufacture. Now he (Lord the pound when manufactured, would proStanley) said that, whatever they might duce an article worth from 60s. to 70s., do with those knubs and husks, it had no- which would leave a balance in favour of thing whatever to do in the calculation of employment, not of 2s., nor of 10s., but the increase in the silk trade. Had their of from 30s. to 40s. He asked, then, were Lordships ever seen these knubs and they to be told that it was a matter of husks? He thought there were many of indifference what description of silk should their Lordships that had not, and there- be introduced into this country, provided fore he would take leave to show them to only it produced employment, without any them. [The noble Lord here produced a regard to the profit which might arise small parcel, from which he took three from that employment? When they got small bundles, and then proceeded.] Here ten times the employment and ten times was a beautiful article that was called Italian | the remuneration for the labour of one arsilk, and worth from 20s. to 27s. a pound; ticle which they got by the labour of anhere was another description of silk, but of other article, should it then be a matter of an inferior quality, and worth only from indifference whether the article consisted 10s. to 12s. per lb.-it was called Beugal of rubbish or of a finer description? But silk; and here, said the noble Lord [pro- when they began to deal with the question ducing a bundle which somewhat resembled - when they looked at the exports of undressed flax], "is the valuable article the manufactured goods, and compared which goes by the name of knubs and them with the imports of the foreign silk husks; this article is worth from 6d. to manufacture, they were told to look at the 10d. per pound-which you must take into imports of the raw material, and that was consideration when you are told to look at adduced as an argument to show how the amount of the gross weight of your much was consumed; but let him say, that importations." In the year 1824, the total the amount of consumption depended altoimportation of raw silk, thrown silk, knubs gether on the description of raw material. and husks, had amounted to 4,000,000 He had already shown their Lordships lbs. ; and in 1844, it amounted to that there had been a large increase before 6,200,000 lbs., showing a total increase 1824; but that, comparatively speaking, of 2,200,000 lbs. But out of that increase there had been but a small increase bethe increase in knubs and husks had tween 1824 and 1844. He stated the amounted from 133,000 lbs. in 1824, to other night, that, on the whole, the trade 1,775,000 lbs. in 1844; so that out of the had not materially increased in the last increase of 2,200,000 lbs. there had been fifteen years. The exports, as stated by an increase to the amount of more than the noble Lord, since 1826, after a great 1,500,000 lbs. in the article of knubs and deduction of duties, no doubt had increashusks. Now, when they endeavoured to ed; but let the noble Lord show him estimate the advantages of the silk trade, (Lord Stanley) any other branch in which they ought not to consider its amount in there had not been a much larger increase: mere pounds weight, but they ought to look take, for instance, the cotton trade, the to the amount expended by the making up woollen trade, and in any or either of of the article. These knubs and husks were these they would find a larger increase worked up into coarse yarns, or were than they would discover in the exports used for mixing with and adulterating the of the silk trade. The noble Lord consialready inferior Bengal silk in making dered it as a triumph that they sent goods "bandannas" which were exported princi- to France; but what was the fact? The pally to France. A mixture of equal quan- greatest proportion was manufactured from tities of Bengal silk, and of "waste" silk, this rubbish, which he had shown them. would be worth about 5s. 6d. per pound; The noble Lord did admit that a great and the value of the article manufactured part of the exports to France consisted of from that mixture was about 7s. 6d. per an inferior article produced from an inpound; that was to say, there would be ferior description of waste silk; indeed the left for the manufacturer of that article in whole of the exports to France, in which this country a balance of about 2s. per the noble Lord prided himself, were compound. Whereas the Bengal, when work- posed of an inferior article-a cheap deed up by itself, would produce a value of scription of goods; and were it not for 20s., leaving a profit on employment to the that description of exports to France, the amount of 10s. or 12s. The Italian silk, exports of silk would have been very conthough it would cost from 27s. to 30s. in siderably diminished within the last two VOL. LXXXVII. Third Series 2 G years. He said, then, it did not bear in the slightest degree on the argument, when they came to discuss the question of competing with the French producer of an article, inasmuch as they sent to them that which they never dreamt of making up at all. There was a great disparity in this reciprocity. They sent them that which was produced from an inferior material, while they took from them an article of a higher priced description. He could not exactly state what the value of the goods might be; but it was a well-established fact, that the imports consisted of the finest class of goods. In 1826 the quantity for the home consumption was only 48,000 lbs., while in 1827 it was 115,000 lbs.; and it had been rising since, until the imports of French goods had risen from 115,000 lbs. of waste to 310,000 lbs. in 1845; while our export trade had been almost stationary. Our exports of raw material were trifling; but the imports of the foreign manufacturer, of the highest value and of the most expensive description, had greatly increased as he said before, from 115,000 lbs. to 310,000 lbs. He said, therefore, upon the very face of this, there appeared no evidence that our trade was on the increase there was no evidence to prove that any material increase had taken place in consequence of Mr. Huskisson's measure of 1824, though he admitted that the taking off the duty of the raw material did tend to effect an increase; but no proof had been adduced to show that we could compete with the French importer, and who sent us the more important article; and there were far less grounds to show us that we ought to reduce the existing duties on silk by one-half -and this was the proposition which was brought forward by Her Majesty's Government. His noble Friend had stated that it had been impossible for our manufacturers to obtain silk fast enough for their purposes; and to that cause he attributed the stagnation in the trade. Now, he held in his hand a circular of undoubted authority which was drawn up by a well-informed and experienced person in London, in which circular there was given the stock of imported raw silk in hand on the 1st of January last, when it amounted to 15,720 bales. The previous year it was 13,000, the year before 11,00, the year before that 12,000, and on preceding years 11,000, 12,000, and 10,000; but since 1838 there was not so large a stock on hand as there was on the 1st of January, 1846. He be lieved there were only three years since the year 1830 when the stock had been larger than on the 1st of January, 1846; and yet his noble and learned Friend told them that it was only the exhaustion of the foreign supplies that prevented a greater amount of manufactures being prepared in that country. His noble Friend had not brought forward very prominently the question of smuggling as a ground for the reduction of the duty; but on a former occasion it was stated that it did appear, from the returns of the French customhouses, that a much greater quantity of silk was shipped for England than was received there, and that, therefore, there must have been a great amount of smuggling. Now, although he did not mean to deny that smuggling took place, he believed that there was less " running" of silk goods than of any other article; and their admission took place through the instrumentality or connivance of their own custom-house officers, who permitted them to pass without payment of duty. He held in his hand a return of the committals and convictions for smuggling in the year ending 1845; the number was 755; and of course it was to be presumed that a large proportion of these must have been for smuggling silk from France. Of these 755,538 were for smuggling tobacco, 176 for smuggling spirits, 31 for smuggling tea; and the total number for smuggling silk was 10 out of 755 persons. He could only suppose that the officers of the Customs were equally vigilant with regard to silk as other articles; and if the same amount of smuggling took place in silk as in the articles of tobacco and spirits, the number of offenders would have been in proportionate amount. He did not, however, believe, that there had been a great amount of silk goods run. Since his noble Friend had last spoken, he (Lord Stanley) had referred to the evidence of Mr. Deacon Hume, and he found that Mr. Hume had fixed an average of 25 to 30 per cent as the amount of duty which might fairly be imposed without the risk of encouraging smuggling. In 1832 Mr. Deacon Hume expressed his opinion on the subject of silk, and he stated that as the maximum for protection and the minimum for smuggling would encourage smuggling. Therefore, so far as Mr. D. Hume might be considered an authority, there was no ground for the reduction of duty now proposed. He did not mean to enter into any details which should have been given to their Lordships by the agents themselves. But what did | been induced to depart from his printhe silk manufacturers complain of? They ciple of uniformity by some great insaid, and they had said so to himself, while you profess to give them nominally a duty of 15 per cent, practically you only give a duty of 7 per cent, or 8 per cent, or perhaps 9 per cent and not as you state 15 per cent. In all former statutes and tariffs there was a distinction observed as to silks, gauzes, velvets, and so on, which was not the case in the present Tariff. In the Tariff of 1842 the duty on plain silk was 11s. the lb.; on figured silk 15s. the lb. They reduced these now, but on what principle? They reduced the figured and plain silk to the same level of 5s.—that is, while they professed to give a protection of 15 per cent, they reduced both to 5s.5s. was not a protection of 15 per cent to any description of goods. He (Lord Stanley) had a case brought before him that morning which he should mention. There were 24 pieces of silk, amounting to 444 yards, which weighed 50 lbs; the value of this was 1701.; it was a valuable description of silk, although but plain, worth 7s. 9d. a yard. Upon that a duty of 15 per cent would be 251. 10s.; but the duty being taken by the weight, that being the mode now proposed to levy the duty according to weight, instead of its being 257. 10s., it would be only 127. 13s. 10d., which would be a duty of 7 per cent, instead of 15 per cent. If that had been brocaded silk, the expense would have been still greater and the duty higher. Now when his noble Friend made an average of silks, satins, and velvets, he wanted to know why he had departed from the system with regard to ribbons alone, and why they had been excluded from the system of averages? His noble Friend had told them that while the measure was in progress a deputation had waited on the Board of Trade, headed by Mr. Ellis, the Member for Coventry, and had shown that a protecting duty of 58. on the pound was not equal to 15 per cent. They showed further that with regard to ribbons a different system of classification should be adopted, and accordingly the duty on ribbons was raised from 58. to 6s. per lb. upon plain ribbons, 8s. per lb. upon plain satin ribbons, and 10s. upon silk or satin ribbons, striped or figured, brocaded, or of more than one colour. Why was that discriminating duty to be kept up with regard to the ribbons of Coventry? The noble Lord must have been induced to comply by some powerful persuasion; he must have fluence. He abandoned his duty of 5s. ; but more than that, he abandoned so far his principle of uniformity. But he would now on this subject refer to the amount of wages and employment. From 1826 to 1832, they had it in evidence that a large and progressive decrease had taken place in the number of spindles which were employed, and there was also an increase in the number of mills and spindles which began to stand still; also the accounts he had received from private individuals were at variance with the statements of the noble Lord, who mentioned to the House that all hands were now fully employed, and that there was also a considerable rise in wages, and that this rise was going on; but he (Lord Stanley) was informed that, with the exception of one article in the silk trade, and that one article was figured velvets, there was a very material decrease in wages. On that one article the highest duty was paid, a duty of 11. 7s. 6d., and which produced the highest wages; but the present measure must affect the wages of labour on that article, as the duty was to be reduced from 17. 78. 6d. to 9s. a lb. First, they were going to reduce that duty which, according to Deacon Hume's calculation, should be 30 per cent, to 15 per cent; and next, they reduced this duty of 11. 7s. 6d. to 9s.: that is, they made a reduction equal to two-thirds. It might effect the desired object, but it did not so appear to him. He was assured, and he was assured of it in opposition to the statement of the noble Lord, that in the silk trade wages had fallen, and that they were falling in Macclesfield as well as in other places; and this he could have proved to their Lordships, had they not refused to hear counsel and evidence by which those facts would be proved one way or the other. The noble Lord had also stated that this measure would give an immense impetus to the silk trade. Was that so? On the contrary, there had been a decrease in the wages paid to those employed. In London, the reduction had been from 1s. 2d. to 1s. a day. Although he could hardly agree in the opinion that great advantages would be derived to the trade from the free introduction of the raw material, yet though it were so admitted, the principle was fully reconcilable with the doctrine of protection-it was a part of protection; for one principle of protection was, to obtain the raw material as cheaply as possible, and to place as high a duty as possible on the competing article of foreign manufacture. But that was not the question now; no reduction could take place on the raw material, as it came in perfectly free of duty; that was the case, while he thought a duty even on the raw material would increase the silk manufactures of this country. He had shown their Lordships that the foreign imports were increasing, while the exports to foreign countries were in a measure at a stand-still. How were they called upon to meet that state of things? They were called on to meet it by the blessings of an increased competition. They were called on to meet it, not by giving greater facilities, or protection to native industry, but rather by diminishing the one and retarding the other. They were about to diminish that protection under which the silk manufacturing operatives had prospered. By diminishing that protection, they would encourage the import of foreign goods, and thus incapacitate our silk manufacturers at home to maintain that position which hitherto they had occupied. This alteration in the Tariff was not called for by public policy: it was not founded in wisdom, it was not based on justice, nor had it been decided by argument; and he would only add, although it might be an inferior and a very unimportant consideration, by reducing the duty one-half there would be a great reduction in the revenue derived from these imports, which at the present moment produced an annual revenue of 323,000l. On Question, House divided :-Contents 50; Not-Contents 75: Majority 25. The Schedule was then agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, June 23, 1846. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1°. Sugar Duties. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from an immense number of Places, complaining of Refusal to grant Sites for the Building of Churches for the Free Church of Scotland.-By Mr. Raikes Currie, from In habitants of the Town of Northampton, for the introduction into all Railway Bills of such Provisions as may appear sufficient for securing the Observance of the Sabbath according to the Commandment.-By Sir Robert Harry Inglis, from Inhabitants of the District of St John's, Fulham, for Repeal of Maynooth College Act.-By Lord Charles Manners, from Dean and Clergy of the Deanery of Framland, in the County of Leicester, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester.-By Sir Hugh Campbell, from the Presbytery of Lauder, against the Abolition of the existing Religious Tests in the Universities of Scotland. -By Mr. Poulett Scrope, from New Sarum, for rating Owners of Small Tenements to the Foor Rates in lieu of Occupiers.-By Mr. Christie, from several places in the County of Hereford, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act. By Sir Thomas Acland, from the Board of Guardians of the St. Thomas Union, for Alteration of the Poor Removal Bill.-By several hon. Members, from various places, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse. From Ministers of Lancaster and Chester, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.-By Mr. Hume, from Daniel Toner, of Woolwich, alleging Embezzlement at Woolwich Arsenal. NEW SOUTH WALES-MR. MANNING. MR. HUME inquired whether any further information had been received from New South Wales respecting the defalcation of Mr. Manning, the registrar of the court there, and whether the Government had taken any means to repay the creditors on the funds in that court? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER replied, that proceedings had already been instituted against the sureties of the defaulting party, and that the sum for which they had rendered themselves liable by bond had been recovered. As for the payment of the charge which might devolve upon the Colony, that was a question of colonial revenue, to be determined in New South Wales. THE SUGAR DUTIES. On the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means on the Sugar Duties, MR. B. ESCOTT called the attention of the House to a subject on which there had been a misunderstanding in the House and in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make a reduction of the duties on sugar to the amount of 3s. 6d. It subsequently became necessary to bring in a Bill, with the acquiescence of all parties in the House, to continue the sugar duties for one month. The proposition which the right hon. Gentleman first made to the House was, that he would bring in a Bill to continue the sugar duties for one month, not the old duties, but the duties reduced according to the proposition of Government by 3s. 6d. When that proposition was formally made by the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Montrose suggested that it would be better that the Bill continuing the duties for a month should continue them as they had previously existed, and not with the reduction proposed by Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at once acquiesced in the proposition of the |