The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-07 00:00:00

which ought to be derived from gloves to the smuggler, and
to permit lace and embroidery to be sent into this country
under circumstances which no vigilance can control; or i 5
it not the wiser plan to facilitate the legal import by-lower-
tug the duties, and enabling the trader here to know at any
rats the nature and extent of the evil he has to contend with?
-(Cheers.) Let us take the case of foreign manufactures
imported in brass, copper, and cutlery. I have not forgotten
the speech of the lion. Member for Birmingham, in which he
described the state of Birmingham to be such that the Bir-
mingham manufacturers in brass, copper, cutlery, and but-
tons, could not find a sale for their articles; that their trade,
was greatly depressed, and that the quantity of German and
other foreign cutlery and buttons imported interfered with
the Birmingham market. But is it not marvellous that the
Birmingham manufacturer should be beaten in Birmingham
by the foreigner, when he can heat the foreigner in all the
other markets of the world ?-( Hear, hear, and a cry of
" No," from Mr. Muntz, we believe.) Being aware of the
deep interest which the Hon. Member takes in all that con-
cerns Birmingham, and of his general knowledge of the ma'
nufactures of that town, I was startled by his declaration,
which elicited some cheers, and I said to an Hon. Friend of
mine, "Let us know the truth ; let us hare an account of all
the metallic articles brought into this country; and in the
same return, also, a statement of the amount of manufactured
articles precisely of the same kind sent out of the country;
and then we shall know what is the foundation for the asser-
tion that the Birmingham cutlers and button-makers cannot
sell their own goods in their own market."-(Hear, hear.)
Well, here is a return which was moved for, and includes
brass, copper, zinc, &c., manufactures and buttons, and
lacquered goods. It gives the amount of all these articles
imported from abroad. If you tell me a great many other
articles are smuggled in, my answer is-then let us reduce
the duty again.-(Hear, hear.) If you tell me this return ii
not a fair return of the total amount of imports, that assess
tion constitutes anything but an impeachment of the reduc'
tion of the duty; tor the legitimate conclusion is, that the
duty, then, is too high.-(Hear, hear.) If, en the othe;r
hand, you say that there is no smuggling, but that this
return contains a true account of the imports of the articles
I have referred to, then let us compare the import 01,
these manufactured goods for the last three years
with the amount aN hch we sent to other countries
In 1846, 1847, and 1848, the aggregate average amount
of all these imports into England from Germany and ever/
other country was worth 102,00 C/. or 34,0001. a year on the
average of the last three years. Now, if we had exported
only 20,000/. worth, that might be a proof that our me:
nutacture was depressed and interfered with, and the,
it was impossible for us to contend with these foreign rivals
in neutral markets. But in the same three years in which
we imported this 102,0001. worth of metal goods we eV,
ported annually to the amount of 4,400,0001. worth 13
exactly the same articles; the total aggregate amount-of the
imports in the three years being 102,000/. worth and the
total aggregate amount of the exports for the three year!
being 13,372,000/. worth, being on the average 4,420,000
ort h a year ; while only 34,00'.1. worth was imported a year'
-( Hear.) Now, what must these unfortunate foreigner,'
who have not half our skill, or the advantage of half Or
mechanical inventions think, when we denounce themans
terlopers interfering with our industry for sending /I"'
34,000/, worth of metal goods in the year, while we feel tie
scruple, at the same time in interfering with their domestic
manufacture by sending them at the same time 4,400,000°
worth.--(Hear, bear.) What a grasping, exacting people 0
must seem to them !-(Cheers.) Will you tell me then holr
it is possible that the changes made in the tariff either lit
1844 1845, or 1846-that the free import of raw material,'
and such an import of manufactured goods as I have do'
scribed, can be justly made responsible for the manufacturill
distress of this country?-(Cheers.) That is my answ:.
to that part of the speech of the Honourable Gentian.'
which attributes the misfortunes of this country to our her
ing attempted to contend by free imports with hostile tariff!:
-(Cheers.) I come no* to view the second ground on whil
• the Hon. Gentleman impeached our commercial policy.
think he said that the average official value of all exports, i 4
, 1845 and 1846, was 133,000,000/., and that the average dc'
Glared value in those two years was 59,500,0001.; that, it
• 1848, the official value which signified quantity did not feli
, very far short of the official value in 1845 and 1846, but th_set
the declared value, in 1848, fell by 6,500,000/.; and amounted
to only 53,000,000/. ; and the Hon. Gentleman drew
..sthT
conclusion-that the working classes had received 6,500,0
less, in 1848, than they did before. The Hon. Gentlel
also instituted a comparison between four months of 18
' and four months of 1848. He said that there is a depreetor
tion in cotton goods exported, comparing 1849 with 18V'
to the amount of 646,000/, and he added that consequentlj
the English workman has been 'obliged to receive for le
labour 646,0001. less than in last year. I totally deny tot
inference which the Honourable Member drew from tli
circumstance. I deny, because there was a falling otr to
the declared value of exports, in 1848, as compared vity
the average declared value of those of 1845 and 1846 ~,
the extent of 6,500,000/., that therefore the working class':
received, in 1848, 6,500,000/. less for their labour the
they obtained in 1845-6.-(Cheers.) It would be melee'
choly, indeed, if that were the case; but my consolatiob is
that nothing of the kind has taken place.-(Chen's ail
laughter.) First, let me observe, that nothing can beint;
fallacious than any inference drawn from a falling off in t",
declared value of manufactures exported. Owing to tb
ig
manner in which the accounts are prepared, all argumen
drawn from that source must be exceedingly fallacion,e;
'fake the case of cotton manufactures; the official value
drawn from the aggregate quantity of' the goods export:l
without any reference to that most important element et
value-quality.- (Hear, bear.) If you are to argue rhes
because the declared value of manufactures exported at on,
period is below that of another period we have sustained ;
national loss, I will prove to you that this country ouer
long since to have' been completely ruined. - (Hest;
hear, and laughter.) It would, indeed, be a Mu;
wonderful circumstance if, with our recent impred
ments in machinery, and with a reduction of the price
lt,e
not cotton alone, but of all the raw materials which e/
into manufactures, there had not been a corresponding
off in the declared value of all manufactured articles.- (Iset4
cheers.) The Hon. Member for Bucks was not in ParliargePt '
at an earlier period, when a controversy raged with resPe9d.
to this very question.-(A laugh.) The Hon. Member said'
if I recollect aright, towards the conclusion of his very et".
speech the other night -" Nunc guidon novo quodam floortffl
civitas morit
g hterur;"
) ! now I want to show that this is an old dig;
ease-(Lau- and I undertake to progethat it has,
fernier periods, afflicted the country under a much more se;
gravated form than it does at present- (Cheers and laughter',
The doctrine which infested the late Alderman Waithret
-(A laugh)-and which he carried with him to his gritt,
was this, that there had been a vast diminution in t"
declared value of articles exported, and that the count'
therefore, was rapidly consuming its own atrengtheel
approaching utter extinction.-(Laughter.) The 000,,.,
Member for Buckinghamshire would have been sue
prised at hearing how eloquent Alderman Waithman could
, be upon this point.-(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I
was the worthy Alderman's argument: he said, that the yr,
vernment forgot that every branch of our trade le';
founded on prohibition-that the country was struggling
with dreadful difficulties-that 3,000,000 quarters of et.,
and .4000,0004 worth of silk manufactures bad been n
ported into this country, and although it was argued th.. 10
the money paid for all this would come back, he could Ph;
the House it was no such-thing, for that, whatever we nil 6"
import, our exports would not increase in consequence:o
that in the course of the last twelve years preceding that of
which he spoke we had lost 120, 000000/. of our export trad
and he proved it by the paper which I now hold in
hand.-(Cheers and laughter.) This only shows how mu
s,a
more aggravated the disorder was in those days,-(Che%
and laughter repeated.) Observe that this fatal decliti;
took plsce in the time of protection.-(Cheers.) Alderman
Waithman took the exports from 1814 to 1828, with tilt
official, declared, and real value, and divided them into 0';
periods, one from 1814 to 1820, and the other from 1820 t
1828. He showed that in the first period the excess of yea
over official value was 41,521,0001, and in the second per'
namely, from 1820 to 1828, 83,243,000/., making a tot!'i
amount of depreciation in value of 124,764,0001. He 000
that the yearly value of exports from 1814 to 1820 led,
45,262,000/a and from 1820 to 1828 36,462,000/. He Me se
the annual decrease amount to 8,800,00 W. To which 7
added decrease of colonial and foreign produce, 4,524,0°
making together 13,325,0001. Finally the worthy Aider_nlllB/,
made out that there was a depreciation in value of 28,000,0 n, •
on 48,000,0001., or 60 per cent., and then he prophecied,
doubtless, he would have been justified in doing if his 010,1
had been correct, that we could not continue in that cow'
• without being overwhelmed by bankruptcy and roil;
Ought not this to suggest to the mind of the Honourau lg
Member for Buckinghamshire the possibility of his behill
wrong in the deduction which he has drawn from tn
• falling off on the declared value of exports ?-(Hear, he?''k
Having diminished the cost of cotton, oil, and everthlke
which enters into the composition of manufactures, it is
natural result that there should be a diminished cost of PI,
duction, though not a reduction in the amount of wages Polo
It is a totally erroneous conclusion to state that beeett;
the declared value of exports happens to be 646,000/. le,
at one period than another, therefore the workmen ev:,
ployed in manufacturing the exported articles have I`,.
ceived 646,000/. less wages at one time than anothert
(Here Mr. Disraeli made an observation which did n
reach the gallery.) The Hon. Members words were-" th°,
cotton goods exported in 1849 were 646,000/. less in declare
value than the same quantity of goods exported in 1,84 s
/,
and, therefore, the English workman had received 646,ur,,
less for his labour." That is what I understood the Hof.'
Member to state-( Hear, hear)-rand I say in reply that
is totally erroneous to infer that " because there has bees
diminution in the declared value of export, the labourers
,0
who produce the articles exported suffer any loss. I lei'o
give another proof of the fallacy of conclusions drawn film
tine declared value of manufactures. In 1815 the nuM4
of yards of wove cotton manufactures exported from %is
country was 252,000,000, and the declared Ws"
18,158,000/., and in 1845 the quantity of wove cotton rnan's°
tactutes exported was 1,091,000,000 Ards, and the declare
'_'s
value was 18,09,000/. Thus it would seem that 100 pieces.er;
calico cost 18s. in 1815, and that PO pieces cost no more I,
1845. This circumstance alone is sufficient to show how 0..6
tremely unsafe it is to draw inferences from these accounts
of declared values. The Hun. Member for Bucks contend
that the loss which he assumes to be exhibited in the falittlv
seta
off in the declared value has fallen mainly on the lithos! is
rn
and be drew from that circumstance the most elanchou
inferences with respect to the future condition of the coulatgP
I beg to observe that, being desirous of meeting his sr%
ments fairly and dispassionately, I will as far as pneel 0,
comply with his suggestion, that in the course of this dish ,
sion we should refer only to official documents, but it is 11,
possible to do so altogether when we come to deal with t.,„
state of the country. Like the Chancellor of the Exneb`o
quer, I must be permitted to refer, upon this point, to
,the
most recent information which I have received, and on 1,1,0
credibility of which I can fully rely. After all, by far N,
.nost important part of the question is the condition of L„.O
labourer.-(Hear, hear.) 1 have received accounts from
three manufacturing towns in different parts of the kinir°,4,
-from Chippenham, representing the manufacturing 11.`„‘
rests of the west of England ; from Nottingham, representl"t„,
the central part of England; and Dundee, representing Sec'e„
land. The letter from Chippenhain, dated the 30th of Jul/ is as follows:-

" Chippenham, June 3!' (If
"My dear Sir,--My statement to you this morning 1510,13
in rFterence to our books, to be correct. In the six tiloP„`l6
ending this day we have paid to the same number of pe°,tfig
twenty-five per cent. more wages than in the corresponol4l,
period of 1847, and fully twenty per cent, more than in 18,,f,
and I believe the people in this place generally are better fed
Lis-Ater clothed, and in every way more comfortable than t 1)„ •
have been for years. The general trade of the town is I'd;
very fb•urishing state ; poor-rates about 3s. 4d. in the polo
the number of people in the union workhouse, 97- it
West of England cloth trade is unquestionably better tbaliwo
has been tor years. I have reason to know that in the Woe
of TrowbriC
ge more goods have been made and sold in oid
last six or nine months, and a larger amount of wages Ppe
to the people, tb‘n were ever before known, and th s I belted
is the case in the whole clothing district of the Nest
England; the Parliamentary returns of the consumcWhire
cotton and wool prove it to be the same both in Yorks"
and Lancashire."
In the West of England and other parts of the clothing flo.•
trict one complaint prevails. What is it? The Ins' uov"
&niers cannot get a sufficient quantity of- foreio .°t
(Cheers.) When we reduced the duty on foreign wool lancer
said that the measure would interfere with demestiepr° hos
and reduce the value of the wool grown at home. So far'