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

Chat being the case, the manufacturers are now crying out for
more foreign wool, and the more foreign wool they obtain,
the more home-grown wool they consume, and the more ma-
nufactures flourish.—(Cheers.) A letter from Nottiughamis
in these terms :

" Nottingham, June 11.
`"Both in the hosiery trade at Leicester an d Nottingham
an advance of wages has taken place, and a second advance
is now demanded by the workmen ; and at the present time
I should suppose that about one-fourth of the hands have
now struck work in Nottingham for a second advance. In
my experience I have never found workmen turning out for
an advance of wages but in times when they were compara-
tively in tolerable or better circumstances, and they have bad
full work now since May, 1848, and the prices of bread and
meat as well as clothing so cheap, that for many years past
the operatives have not been so well off. I have no mills
working short time, but all fully employed. The silk facto-
ries who spin silk fur the lace trade cannot supply the pre-
sent demand ; the lace trade is much improved, particularly
in black silk lace and black silk shawls."
The letter from Dundee said :

"In re to state
P to your letter of the 9th inst.,
a Duedleeh,eJgune 11.
that at no period for several years past have the mills in my
district been so actively- or fully employed
as at preent. I
good
have every reason to believe that trade
flourishing; and it is the general opinion that ishealthy
th
ere ts a
r
prospect of a continuance of this state of matters for some
time to come. There is, consequently, great demand for la-
bour, not only in the mills but in all the occupations con-
nected with our manufactures. Provisions and all other
potatoes and butchers' meat necessaries are extremely cheap,.excepted-
little
the latter comparatively.
the former of which articles is always scarce at
this season of the year, and
used by our working classes. t
h the condition of our labour-
population and of the manufacturing districts generally is at
present very satisfactory.'
I have read these thelettersfOrmay have been a reduction in the
purpose of encouraging the
hope that, althoughthat
there
manufactures exported, it does not neces-
eerily followthe condition of the manufacturers is
worse than it was.-(Hear, hear.) I think that those letters
furnish conclusive proof that the of the labouring
condition
population in three large towns, separated from each other
by great intervals, and the seats of different branches of
manufucture, is better than it has been for many preceding
years.-(Loud cheers.) These are the main grounds on
which the Honourable Member impeached the commercial
policy • which has been adopted of late years, and I submit
to the House that the charges which he brought against
that commercial policy have not been sustainedunder a
rigid examination of the grounds on which the
based. The House must be aware of the deep ywere
interest I
naturally take in this question.-(Loud cheers.)taeeithout the
I cannot
forget--although I allude to the circumstance
slightest feeling of asperity- that I have been exposed to a
good deal of misrepresentation and obloquy.-(Cheers re-
newed.) I bear not the slightest ill-will. to any
account; I merely wish to put in my claim to vindicate
the policy which I believe to have mainly contributed to
preserve this country from great
cheering.) The Honourable Member disasters.-(Prolonged
said on Monday night
that the doctrine which he had repeated en former occasions;
namely, that we cannot fight hostile t ariffa by free imports,
had never been contested. I am goingto contest it now,
and I utterly deny the assumption. If I refrained from
disputing the proposition on
Honourableany Members's ability or
previous occasion, it was
atom no disrespect to the
station, but because it was brought forward at the close of
a debate, when I had no opportunity of entering
into an argument of a not very inviting nature. I now
conic to the Honourable Gentleman's argument about the
poor-law, and I am going to draw, from the facts which he
referred to, a conclusion exactly opposite, to that at which
he arrived. The Hon. Member said, " See how the poor-
rate has increased-look at the charge per head for maintain-
ing paupers-see how many more able-bodied labourers are
paupers in 1848 than there were in 184 ti ; and, with those
results before you, can you refuse to join in condemning the
policy which has produced them ?" Now, with respect to
the argument derived from the poor-rate. The Honourable
Member adopted, and I am not at all surprised at it, the
paper I hold in my hand, which is a return contained in the
report of the Poor-law Commissieners, giving the cost of
maintaining the poor for seven years when the price of
wheat was lowest, and the cost of maintaining them for
seven years when the price of wheat was highest. The
Hon. Member drew from this return the inference that whets
wheat was low poor-rates were high, and that when wheat
was high poor-rates were low. I cannot blame the Hon.
Member for making use of this bad return, but I am surprised
that public officers like the Poor-law Commissioners should
ever have made such a return. It is really the most foolish re-
turn ever drawn up. Every one would suppose, of course,
that t
years in he Poor-law Commissioners had selected seven conse-
v each case, and although the Hon. Member
did not state that they were consecutive years, I naturally
imagined that they were, and I confess I was startled when
I heard him state that in seven years of a low price of wheat
the cost of maintaining the poor was greater than during
seven years when the price of wheat was high. I looked at
the return, and I found that this is the order in which the
Commissioners have taken their seven years of low prices-
-1839, 1840, 1841, 1848. 1842, 1847, and 1838.--(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) Having made this extraordinary see
lection, the Poor-law Commissioners state the conclusion at
which they arrived was this-that when wheat was lowest,
the
whilst it cost of maintaining the poor, per head, was 6s. 3d.,
was only 6s. lid. when wheat was highest. It is
absurd to attempt to draw any conclusion from yearsselected
in such a manner. Could it be supposed that the influence
of the high price of wheat in 1801, when it rose to 106 s. a
quarter was not felt in the succeeding year?-(Cheers.)
What useful purpose could be served by taking a parcel of
years in this way, and making no allowance for the effect
have
ch two bad or two good harvests in succession must
cn the industry of the country? Take the very P%-:
An which this return of the Poor-law Commissioners
l do not like -to state in plain t erms
what 1
think of it-(A laugh)-and there appears a list of prices year by ear from 1834 to 188. Des tht justify
the conclusion, that when the price of 3 wheato is low the cost
of maintaining the poor is enhanced? By the way, I will
here refer to one of the Hon. Member's arguments which
has just occurred to me. I was surprised to hear him state,
on the authority of Sir. Jones, that when the farmers' in-
come was 100,000,000/_ they spent it all in manufactures,
ojand that when it was reduced by 25 per cent., their power
e encouraging our manufacturing industry was abridged in
h same proportion. According to that theory it would be
a_gpod th ing to have corn at 100 s. a quarter.-(Hear, hear.)
Only make it apparent that the well-being and comfort of
the manufacturing population is dependent on a high Rrice
of wheat, and it would be the most
_gentco argument m favour
of high prices ever adduced. (Hear, and laughter.)
Taking the average of the years 1834, 1835, 1836, and 1837,
the price of wheat was 475. There had been a cycle of good
years, and at the end the country was left in a state of com-
parative ease and
was 51s. Ild. prosperity. In 1834 the price of wheat
; in 1835, 445. 2d. , in 1836, 395. sd. •• in 1837,
52s 6
• d. At the commencement.of the period, in 1834, the
sum expended in the relief of the poor was 6,317,000/. The
beneficial influence of low prices during four years re-
duced the sum expended in the relief of the poor to 4,044,000/.
in 1837.-(Cheers.) The er was from
Bs. 9d. in 1834, to ss. sd. inrate 18p37.-(Cheerheadingreduced repeated.)
I will not attribute the whole of this reduction to the
cheapness of corn, because some portion is, doubtless, refer-
able to the improved administration of the poor-laws. What
was the case under the high cycle? In 1838 there was no
material change; the total sum expended was 4,123,0001. ;
the rate per head, 55. asad. Four years of high prices suc-
ceed ; in 1839 the price is 695. 4d.; in 1840, 68s. 6d.; in
1841, 655. 3d.; in 1842, 645.; the average price being
665. 9d. The average price, which at the end of 1837 was
475., rose in the four years from 1839 to 11 t2Oll.
1.
18 63.93; wasdln
1843 the poor-rate, which had been 4 0
5,208,000/. ; the rate per head, which
in 1837 was ss. 5d., was
in 1843 6s. 50. The next three formed a cycle of good years
-1844-45-46. In 1844 the price. ,
of wheat was 51s. sd. ; in
1845, 495. 2d. ; in 1846, 535. 3d. the average being 50s. 9d.
There was a corresponding effect on the poor-rates and on
the rate per head. The total sum ,
The rate per
from 5,208,000/. in 1843, to 4, •
expended was reduced
954 000 . in 1846.
head was reduced from 6s. 5,12 d. in 1843, to ss. 10d. in 1846.
But in 1848 there is a difference. There is a vast
.n the
increase
is a great increase i
in the aggregate poor-rate. There
rate per head at which the poor are maintained. What in-
ference do 'you draw from that-from a comparison of 1848
with 1846? You had the price of wheat in 1847 sometimes
at 925-(Hear, hear)-you had it varying from 67s to 755.
and rising to 88s. and 925. • in 1848 yon had distress, you
had an increase of the nurn'ber of able-bodied poor, you had
the workhouses full, you had the poor-rates increased. Why,
is not the obvious inference that dearness of provisions is
1a
84 great misfortune ?-(Cheers.) How can you argue from
8 unless you draw that conclusion? In 1848 there was
severe distress. In 1847 such was the pressure of scarcity
that you repealed the navigation-laws, you sent ships to col-
lect corn from every quarter of the globe. Your whole con.
dition was abnormal. In three years you expended
51,000,000/. sterling in the purchase of food. In 1846-47-48
you expended 51.000,000/. It was a sudden demand, ob-
serve. Of course it is natural to suppose that there might
not be a corresponding amount of export of manufactured
goods when the demand was so suddenly made. But always
remember that not only had you suffering at home from
scarcity, but every country of continental Europe was suffer-
9eging at the same time, not equally, but to a very considerable
re been are you surprised that your foreign trade should
Itiave depressed, when the demand for your manufac-
ure had diminished. and when every country was com-
pelled to purchase food at extravagant prices? You had a
home pressure with a pressure to nearly a corresponding
degree i '
n foreign countries which used to be customers for
Your goods. Yon must, of course, expect diminished trade ;
you must expect diminished demand ; and can you say of
thattt distress, which you were suffering in 1848, that free
as the cause of it ? The high price of provisions and
the continental nwtinental convulsionswere the real cause-(Cheers), and
by the free import of provisions it was softened, and not in-
creased
.-f T k,oud
increa • cheers.) The argument drawn front the
se ot poor-rates is not conclusive. I draw exactly the
9pposite deduction, that if low prices continued for any num-
Per
.o!years for which the trial can be fairly made, the pro-
bability is that •ou would have an increased demand for
labour; in th 3
higher, and note manufacturing districts you would have.
condition t lower wages ; you would have an improved
o the people- (Cheers)-and the argument of the
Ren. Membe
price of provisio
Member, that ;tour poor-rates will increase when the
solid foundation._ fa
--s
3 , is an argument which rests on no
mercial policy of(Cheers.) The impeachment of the coin-
now come to co thed last five years has entirely failed. I
non. member nsi er the merits of the proposition which the
now by far th 'would. substitute. 1 believe we are discussing
milted to the he
mo.st important question that can be sub-
cipies
wilieb
acronsideration of Parliament-I mean the prin
ster rnay are
govern your commercial legislation. A
but an error in the .blunder, and that may be corrected;
(eLseour likely to
egigatioo i 8
an principles which direct your commercial
series of years.
be perpetuated for a long
in one sense avesare all
che I am glad to hear that
We have
all the
settellobE.t Lie but let us clear the ground.
our domestic industry. ja w--the encouragement of
who dissent from me with aaresfirruir believe as any of those
object is tot f attained, that litecl. to the mode in which the
country. Unless our domestic s t ' question for the
cannot expect peace, contentment, industry lie encouraged, we
fair question for us calmly and dispaesrsiPrtrelitY. That is a
(Cheers.) What can we do most eflecetuaall Y to consider.-
industry ?-(Cheers.) We should greatly tairritT promote that
portance of the question if we supposed thaetrlate the only the the accumulation of material wealth. It it concerned
which affects the comforts of the people, which is
social progress-by which I mean their progress i affects their
19 the enjoyment of life, in refinement of taste and nci'n''ll:al;
mimes
lion concerns all those at least as much as it d
accumulation of wealth. The doc • oes the
II u trine propounded by tl
s • Gentleman is supported by a powerful artyof 10
whatever causes of dissension may have arisen I ' which'
n, never will
speak without sincere respect ; and I have never said
anything but ' this, that their
be, is produ error, as I believe it to
actuated b caed by no interested motives, that they are
the Workingy ssincere a desire to promote the interest of
dissent Butthe as
classes
as any of those from whose opinions they
views to
Pounded by the head of the which I refer have been pro-
Mistake I shall give th • party ; and that there may be no
entertained and supported their proposal in their own words. It is
'who are prens d pported by men of great ability, by men
I,„_
ez eto have their doctrines practically carried
into ecut if the Noble 149 rd and hie Monde are die-