Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IV.

Customs Bill-Discussions in the House of Commons upon various Articles in the New Tariff-Mr. Plumptre opposes the Reduction of Duty on Hops-After some Debate, his Motion is negatived by a Majority of 47-Mr. George Bankes moves the omission of articles of Silk Manufacture-Remarks of Mr. W. Ellis, Mr. Brocklehurst, Mr. Hawes, Lord George Bentinck, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Disraeli– Mr. Bankes's Motion is rejected by 220 to 114-Mr. W. Thompson opposes the Reduction on Foreign Spirits-After a short Discussion, the Amendment is negatived-Mr. W. Miles moves an Amendment for exempting Live Animals from Reduction of Duty-A desultory Debate takes place, which ends in a Division in favour of the Government by a Majority of 39-Timber Duties-The Marquis of Worcester leads the opposition against the proposed Scale-Remarks of Mr. H. Hinde, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. A. Chapman, Mr. G. Palmer, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Hume, Lord George Bentinck, Sir George Clerk, and Mr. C. Buller-The Resolution is affirmed on a Division, by a Majority of 123-On the Third Reading of the Customs Bill being moved, Lord George Bentinck moves that it be read a third time on that day six months-He is answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer— Speeches of Mr. G. Bankes, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Hudson, and other members-Lord George Bentinck withdraws his Amendment, and the Bill is passed-Debate on the Second Reading in the House of Lords on the 4th of June-Lord Dalhousie introduces the measure-The Duke of Richmond moves that it be read a second time on that day six months-Speeches of the Earl of Wicklow, Lord Ashburton, and Lord Monteagle, after which the Bill is read a second time without a Division-The Duke of Richmond, on going into Committee, moves that Counsel be heard against the Reduction of the Silk Duties-The Earl of Dalhousie opposes the motion, seconded by Lord Ellenborough and the Duke of Wellington-Lord Brougham supports it-It is negatived by 78 to 74-Lord Stanley opposes the Reduction of the Timber Duties, but without success-Other Amendments are proposed and negatived-The Bill is read a third time, after an ineffectual opposition by the Duke of Richmond-The Budget-The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Financial Statement on the 29th of May-Various Comments upon it by Lord George Bentinck, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Hume, Mr. Hudson, and other members.

THE

HE debates in the House of Commons upon the Bill for reducing the Customs Duties, which formed one branch of Sir Robert Peel's great scheme of commercial reform, were not very protracted, the efforts of the Protectionist party being mainly directed to the opposition to the new Corn Law, which has formed the subject of the preceding chapter. Upon a few only

of the articles included in the Tariff a stand more or less vigorous was made; but none of these attempts to defeat the Ministerial scheme proving effectual, resistance to the principle of the measure was felt to be useless. We shall give a specimen of some of the discussions which took place in both Houses upon particular items in the new Tariff.

Upon the article of hops, Mr. Plumptre first took the sense of the House. He alleged that the homegrower could not maintain his position upon a protecting duty of 45s. per cwt., the amount now proposed. It would throw much land out of cultivation, and many persons would be deprived of employment. If the Excise duty were remitted, the hop-growers would be satisfied.

Sir Robert Peel reminded Mr. Plumptre of the alarm which was felt in 1842, when it was proposed to reduce the duty from 97. to 4l. 10s. The cry was that land would go out of cultivation owing to foreign competition; but it appeared that, during the three years since 1842, only two cwt. of foreign hops had been brought in, and the whole amount of duty received had been 107. in the three years. He could not consent to repeal the Excise duty. As to foreign competition, he did not think there was anything to fear from it,

the English hops were so superior.

Mr. Plumptre's views were supported by Colonel Austen, Mr. Knight, Mr. A. J. B. Hope, Mr. Frewen, and Lord George Bentinck; and opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On a division, 91 voted for the resolution, and 44 against it; Ministerial majority, 47.

The reduction being proposed on articles of silk manufacture, Mr. George Bankes moved their omission from the list. He was prepared to meet Sir Robert Peel's challenge to show that any material interests had been injured for any length of time by reductions of duty. In 1832, six years after the reductions made by Mr. Huskisson, the silk trade urged such grounds for inquiry, that the House, then under the control of a Whig Government, could not refuse the appointment of a Committee. The Committee sat for five months, but the inquiry was brought prematurely to a close by a new election, and no report was presented to the House. The Committee, indeed, divided upon a report submitted to it; but Sir Henry Parnell gave a casting vote against it. The facts, however, proved that Mr. Huskisson's experiment had been productive of much injury to the operatives. The manufacturers might be satisfied with the change; but wages had been reduced one half, or more, and the poor-rates had been largely increased, in Coventry, Macclesfield, and other seats of the silk manufacture. The means of employment, too, had been largely dimnished. Mr. Brocklehurst, of Macclesfield, stated, that in 1824 there were 276,000 spindles in that town, and that the mill-people engaged in the trade were 10,000. In

1828, two years after the completion of the alteration of the duty, there were 159,000 spindles, and the mill-people had been reduced to 5,254. In 1831, the spindles were reduced to 122,000, and the millpeople to 3,000. In 1824, the wages of able-bodied men in Macclesfield were 188. per week; in 1828, 8s. 6d.; in 1831, 4s. 7d.; and the wages of the women and children exhibited a similar reduction. These results ought to be a warning to the House not to interfere further in the way of reducing duties. He denied that the working classes were in favour of the change, and quoted from several reports to show that the number of silk-mills had fallen off of late years, while other kinds of factories had multiplied in number. He referred, also, to the fact that many of the Spitalfields weavers had been obliged to betake themselves to other employment. In Dorset, there used to be two very large establishments for the manufacture of throwing silk, but now there was only one. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade might say that the silk trade was now in a flourishing condition; but Mr. Bankes's reply would be, if that be the case, do not interfere with it.

Mr. W. Ellis, from an experience of thirty-five years, undertook to say, that it would be very much to the interest of the Spitalfields weavers that all protection were abolished: thus would persons of large capital, with skill and enterprize, be induced to enter into the trade; and the Spitalfields manufacturers would then be found not only the rivals, but the superiors of the French manufacturers.

Mr. Brocklehurst was not at all surprised at the observations of the

last speaker, inasmuch as it was the interest of the wholesale dealers in silk to repeal all the duties which now prevented the free importation of foreign silk manufactures. He entered into details.

Sir George Clerk met these and Mr. Bankes's figures by a counter array. Reference should have been made to the state of the silk trade during the time that it enjoyed the highest state of protection, as in 1812 and 1816. In those years the utmost distress and misery prevailed at Spitalfields and other districts. The manufacture had not prospered under prohibitory duties. From the year 1765 down to 1817, including the first triennial period referred to, the silk trade had only doubled the amount of the raw material worked up in it in a period extending over more than fifty years; but since 1817 the amount of raw material had been trebled, leaving out of consideration the waste silk, and the "knubs and husks." In 1824, an impulse was given to the silk trade by taking off restrictions. In 1825, the number of mills and spindles were more than doubled; and since that time the quantity of work which the spindles were enabled to accomplish was greatly increased.

Something had been said about wages: but upon no subject was it more difficult to obtain accurate information. He believed that silkweavers were paid for their work by the piece. The improvement in looms during the last twenty years had made a great difference. The invention of the jacquard loom itself enabled the workman to dispense altogether with the assistance of a boy, which was formerly necessary. In 1844, Mr. Saunders, one of the inspectors of factories, stated in his report, that the mill-owners

complained that they could not get hands enough, and that children who worked only half time were making as much wages as men did formerly who worked for ten hours.

Mr. Newdegate assured the House, that mills had been erected on the faith of the protective principle being maintained, not one stone of which would have been laid had the owners, a year ago, known what would be the policy of the Government.

Mr. Hawes entered into a variety of details, to show that the progress of the silk manufacture clearly illustrated the soundness of the free-trade principle. With regard to the Spitalfields weavers, the remark of Mr. Deacon Hume was, that their trade was invaded by Manchester before it suffered from the competition of Lyons; in fact, that the free trade which prevailed among the Manchester manufacturers gave the first blow to the fettered and restricted trade of Spitalfields.

Mr. Adderley and Mr. E. Ellis supported the reduction.

Lord George Bentinck thought that the true test of the prosperity of a trade was the general rate of wages in it. It had been shown to demonstration, that wages had been greatly reduced in every branch of the silk manufacture since the alteration of the law from protection to free trade. The number of the Spitalfields weavers had also been reduced from 14,000 to 9,000; that fact was a pretty strong proof of the injury inflicted on the silk manufacture by free trade. He had lately conversed with three Coventry manufacturers, who told him that since free trade in silk only two mills had been erected in Coventry. In fact, that

town had stood still, while St. Etienne, its rival in France, had flourished beyond all other towns in France. The same gentlemen told him that the rate of wages at Coventry had been reduced 20 per cent.; did the House expect to grind down these weavers any more?

But in the amendment proposed to the House, the silk manufacturers and riband weavers were not the only persons concerned: it included milliners and dressmakers; and he told the House that the dressmakers amounted to no less a number than 106,000. The House was going to reduce the protection on silk dresses from 21. 10s. to 17. 108., which affected 106,000 dressmakers in England; the number in London only, he was informed, was 15,000; the persons affected were more than one-third of those engaged in the cotton trade. These helpless females could not make themselves heard in the House; and it was probable that dismissal from their employment would be the first notice they would receive of the existence of

the measure. In 1831, many of them were thrown out of employment; some of them were driven to the workhouse, and others to prostitution; and this, they might depend upon it, would be the consequence of the proposed reduction.

Sir Robert Peel asked the House to contrast even the present state of the silk trade with the aspect it presented under a system of total prohibition. He quoted evidence to show the miserable condition of the Spitalfields weavers in the years 1812 and 1816, when protection was complete. The local Committee charged in 1816 with giving relief mentioned, that "they have

witnessed an extremity of suffering of which those who are not themselves accustomed to explore the abodes of poverty can form but an inadequate idea. They find numbers who had been accustomed to support their families respectably, reduced, from long want of employment, to sell or pawn their furniture, which had been purchased with the savings of former years, to obtain food. Sir Fowell Buxton, who bore an active part in relieving this distress, spoke of the great anxiety displayed by the sufferers to get into a workhouse; and in one of his speeches he made an appeal to the ladies of England against giving an undue preference to the French silks, to the great discouragement of the home manufacture. This showed that at that period of perfect protection French silks were largely imported, in spite of the strict revenue laws which existed. Let the House compare the state of matters in 1816 with what they were in 1845. Mr. Howell says, Throughout the entire district a general scarcity of hands is noticed, and a consequent rise of wages. In the silk districts particularly hands are very scarce; and I have been informed that instances are not wanting where children working half time have got as much wages-and in some cases it is said that they get more than they did when they worked ten hours. I am told that a rise has also taken place in the wages of those who work ten and twelve hours respectively."

66

The test of the prosperity of the trade was the importation of the raw material. From 1814 to 1823, the importation of raw silk averaged annually 1,521,000 lbs. ; but under the moderate duty substituted by Mr. Huskisson, the

average consumption between the years 1834 and 1843 had risen to 3,742,000 lbs.

[ocr errors]

"We see that the import of raw material has in creased. 'Yes,' you say, but we include waste silks, knubs, and husks.' If you want a conclusive proof of the beauty of your machinery, you will find it in the fabrics wrought from these very articles. The terms may be vulgar-they may not suit the refined lips of some honourable gentlemen-but, with your skill and capital, you have converted them into beautiful fabrics, and added greatly increased value to the raw material,"

If the feeling of the trade was taken as a test, Sir Robert claimed it as favourable to his scheme. He had received no hostile representations; and he ventured to say, that had Coventry itself felt any alarm at the lowering of the protection from 30 to 15 per cent., silence would not have been maintained. From Spitalfields the Government had not received many representations; and, altogether, Ministers had a right to believe that the trade in general was satisfied with the measure.

The test adopted by some of the Protectionists- the declared value of the exports during the last five years-was altogether fallacious.

"The cost of production has been diminished-during the last five years, greatly diminished; the improvements in machinery, and the greater skill of our workmen, have caused a diminished cost of production: during the last five years, also, the duty on the raw material has been much diminished; it would be strange indeed if the declared value of our exports had not diminished. During the last five years, there

« AnteriorContinuar »