The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-20 00:00:00

II SUN, LONDON, WED

when we enter into any comparison with other countries,
and we constantly hear these persons talking of the
necessary excellence of British skill and British
productiveness as to utterly put out of question any competi-
tion of foreign producers. But to all these speculations the
petitioners wish to oppose their facts, and it is that upon which
they ground their case. That we are supposed to be beyond
the reach of our foreign competitors, the first fact that
may be stated in opposition to these views is, that al-
though we have had all the advantages which we
possessed at the close of the war, and these ad-
vantages have been extended, that our exports have
declined twenty per cent. when compared with the
five sears subsequent to the peace, and the five last
years.—( Hear, hear.) And, Sir, I do not doubt but
some quibble may be made with respect to the currency at
that time and at the present. I say, supposing the exports
have not declined, as we say, 50 per cent., which they
appear to have done when vou compare their clear value—
yet if they only remain stationary it seems to me as much
to establish the case which I stated as if they had declined.
For why have we not increased ?—( Hear, hear.) That is
the question. But when I refer to the authentic accounts
which we possess of the increase of the foreign trade of
other countries, I find that whereas we have not increased,
the export trade in other countries has increased—in
France, to the amount of 50 per cent., and in the United
States to the amount of 75 per cent. But to de-
scend from generalities to particulars, let us take
any trade to illustrate the position, that
whereas other countries have engaged in trades of
which we formerly had the monopoly, and have suc-
cessfully entered into competition with us, that they
are increasing their trade in a greater ratio than
we are ours. Take the instance of the cotton
trade : when we consider what hangs upon that gi-
gantic business in this country—everything con-
nected with it, everything calculated to alarm us in
its danger and deterioration, must be of the der pest im-
portance. Now, Sir, we had a morteriuly of this
trade from 1770 to 1914, and up to that year we had no-
thing to apprehend from the competition of any country.
in that branch of our commerce. The only country
which had ever made any advance in that trade was the
United States, and that was to be ascribed to another
erroneous part of our policy, the Orders in Council.
_(lean hear.) In 1814 America imported only one
hundred bales of the raw material and that was the great-
est quantity then consumed by any nation. Now we
find that in America, there is a consumption
of 320,000 bales of the raw cotton—in France,
350,000—in Switzerland, 30,000—and other countries
150,000. making altogether 870,000, and 370,000 is about
the consumption of this country, so that we have no longer
a monopoly of the trade. Other countries have entered
into competition with us, and we have now to start in an
equal race. Now, those who assume that we must
always excel in those branches of trade in which we have
engaged are bound to show why it is that other countries
have made such great progress in this trade, of which
wa formerly had the monopoly, and why we have
not kept pace with them, and I think those who expect
that we are to maintain the present state of our ma-
nufactures avid trade, must show that we arc not
labouring under the same disadvantages which
have already led to a more rapid increase in
those of other countries. It is for us to institute
a comparison of the advantages under which these
trades are carried on in different countries, in order to ac-
count for what has been done in past times, and what we
have to expect. Now, as regards the United States, we
have to observe, that they have two great advantages iu
the cotton manufactory--; Cries of " Hear, hear")
proximity to the raw material, and cheapness of the power
by which it is manufactured. Now, the value of these
two advantages has been distinctly ascertained, and in
every pound of cotton it amounts to about a halfpenny, that
is, 7 per cent. advantage to the producers in the United
States. The difference between the water power, of which
they have the greatest advantage, and the steam power in
this country, is 31. 104., and 121. 104. per horse
(as we understood), and this would lead us to
expect that in all those articles into which the raw
material chiefly enters America would have the
advantage. But arc we on an equal footing with
America, even supposing she has these natural advantages.
What do we find in our own country ? We ere at a dis-
tance from the raw material, and as soon as it ar-
rives at our shores, it is taxed—the price of corn,
one important element in the cost of our ma-
nufactures" is greatly enh ene, d, and labour is
dearer in this country than in any other. Now, under
these circumstances, we should.sey that in all those articles
into which the raw material chiefly enters, America would
have the advantage; and I say that all the elements
that we have to offer in this respect strictly corre-
spond with our exportations, and shows that the
Americana are making very great advances, and are
excelling us in a very large class of m inufactures.
I hold in my hand a work published under the autho-
rity of all the leading persons engaged in the
cotton trade, and not finding- that its authority
has been shaken by any statements worthy of credit, I
venture to state from it what we could prove relative
to the American manufactures. The evidence that I will
first allude to is that of a manufacturer in Massachusetts,
and he is asked whether the export trade of America is un-
derstood to ba profitable. His answer is Yes, and
on the increase. I should mention that this evidence
was given before the Commissioners appointed to
inquire into the factory system. He is asked whether the
American goods could be had at a lower price than the
English goods ; his answer to which was, that their house
had sent goods to India, where they undersold the English.
He also Stated that they could compete successfully with
British manufactures of a similar kind in the same
markets. • The next gentleman was Mr. Wiggins, who stated
that the cotton manufactures of the United States were pros-
perous, and that themanufacturcrs found a demand for certain
Boods in South America, Smyrna, and Constantinople. Mr.
ates, who was a partner with Messrs. Baring, stated that the
exportation of manufactured cotton goods from America
was very considerable. Mr. Graham from Glasgow, a
British manufacturer, stated that he found competition in
trade in all foreign markets with . American manufac-
turers. The next gentleman was a manufacturer who
had a house at Glasgow and also in America, who stated
that he had been in the habit of manufacturing cotton
goods, but had met with a great competition-at Chili, and
had latterly been obliged to abandon the manufacture of
such goods, after having persevered for some' time
unsuccessfully with the manufacturers of th,r United
States, although he comprised in his works the
operations both of spinning and weaving, by
which he was able to ship his goods at the lowest prices.
This work, Sir, was published under the advice of all the
principal manufacturers in Glasgow, and abounds with
statements to the same effect taken on oath. I will not
weary the House with reading more than necessary, but
the work is published for the purpose of showing the ire-
policy of taxing the raw material. It is full of the most
striking statements of the advance of cotton manufactures
in America. I will, with the permission of the House,
refer to one statement made by a Glasgow manufacturer, who
has also a house in America. He stated there was ano-
ther direct duty which, came heavy on them--the duty
on foreign wheat and flour used in their manufactories.
" What do you suppose is the increased cost to your ma-
nufactures arising from the duty on corn ?—I think we pay
in duty fully six or 7001. a year." Then there is ap-
pended to this a note, to the effect that during the
ten years prior to 1802, the cost of manufacturing
cotton in this country above what it cost in the United
States or the Continent of Europe, estimated ac-
cording to the difference in price betweee the seve-
ral countries, amounts to 175,000/. per annum. Sir, I have
referred to this document merely to show that every-
thing which we might expect from the advantages
which we enjoy from the superiority and skill of our
workmen is more than counterbalanced by those dis-
advantages which the Corn-laws impose upon us. It
appears that they have certain advantages, while we are
labouring under great disadvantages, and that they are
progressing in a much greater ratio than we could possibly
expect, and that although those manufactures are still in
an infant state, they are not only supplying themselves,
but beating us in the foreign market.—( Hear.) There is
no reason whatever to suppose that if they can manufacture
these articles, they should not in time be able to manufac-
ture the other articles by availing themselves of the diced.
vantages under which we labour. But to return from the
United States to the Continent of Europe. I shall
now refer to those States, which labour under even greater
disadvantages than we could, but not under that peculiar one
by which we are oppressed, and first, with regard to Swit-
zerland, which is wanting in that great advantage of locality
by being placed 800 miles from the coast-800 miles
from the raw material which must reach her factories.
It is within 20 years that we exported to Switzerland both
the raw material, and its first process in being
o nxinaenputftahce-
tured. Switzerland was a good customer of ours. What
is the ease now? We hardly export anything now,
result of the most refined processes of our manufactures, and
not only does Switzerland supply herself, but site exports
show this
three-fourths of the whole of' the manufactures she pro-
inquiry, what
duces.—(Hear,
petitioners s —I
ea r
hear)
to
i 3 to
)If you want
you that this
country, which was among our best customers, is now
meeting us in the markets of Italy, the Levant, and North
America, and meeting us successfully._(
Let us now look to those countries from which we will
not take the products they offer to send us in exchange
for our manufactures. And first, look at Russia. Now
Russia is inclined to send us her corn and timber, and we
refuse both on the terms on which they would produce us
a fair remuneration. In 1820 we exported to Russia
13 000,000 yards of cotton manufactures, and in 187
we exported only 850,000 yards. There is the result of
our restrictive system. 13 000,000 yards were exported
to Russia in 1820, but we refused her corn and timber in
exchange, and in 1837 we exported only 850,000 yards.--
( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Hence, I say, that such
a case as that offers matter of serious reflection
to persons who have considered how much e,,e
have suffered since that period, either from want of em.
ployment of our labour and capital ; and how much alarm
we have experienced from the political hostility of that
country.—( Hear, and cheers.) id.
we been engaged
with that country in free cemmercial intercourse, whet
would
have been the employment we should have
expected to have gained for our artisans and capita.
lists in that country, in order to have kept pace
with the increase of our population, and how much
greater our interest would have been in continuing
to supply that country with the produce of our manufac-
tures, must be obvious to any one, and she would have
been bound to us by the ties of mutual obligation, and by
her receiving those articles which she is now manufactur-
ing. I shall now refer to the case of Germany, which is,
perhaps, the country of all others which we ought to have
supplied, instead of her now manufacturing for herself, and
from whom we have moat pertinaciously refused to receive
its produce. We find that there has been It gradual dimi-
nution in all those articles in which the cost of living
enters into the cost of production. In 1833, we ex-
ported to that country 29,500,000/. worth of manufac-
tures. In 1834, 11,000,0001. ; in 1835, 10,000,0001.';
in 1836, 7,000,000/. ; in 1837, 5,800,0001, ; and in
1838, 5.500,0001.—( Hear, hear.) Why, Sir, it is no
consolation to hear that official documents have beet; re-
ferred to prove that the whole amount of our exports has
increased when we fied that these exports are only swelled

ESDA Y ,-EVENING E