The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-24 00:00:00

LONDON:
MONDAY, MAY 24, 1841.

Some of our Tory Contemporaries, unable to
deny the existence of unparalleled distress in our
manufacturing districts, eagerly seize hold of a
somewhat remarkable statement in Mr.
FIELDEN'S unspoken, but published, speech,
showing a wonderful increase in our cotton ma-
nufactures, and ascribe the distress to over-
trading and competition. Mr. FIELDEN'S re-
marks are themselves curious, and we therefore
borrow them, with the comment on• them, from
the Standard :

We lately, following the opinions and adopting the
words of Mr. Huskisson, ascribed the periodical visita-
tions of inaction and distress in the manufacturing dis-
tricts to otvr trading, the result of a too rapid increase of
capital. This view has a remarkable corroboration in
the speech which Mr. Fielden has caused to be printed,
videlicit:—

" There were four articles of cotton manufacture, of
the prices of which he had kept a record from 1815.
And he would now state to the House the average sum
the manufacturer had had, after paying for the cot-
ton required for them, for making these four articles,
one of each, in the year 1815, and the reduction per
cent. he had to submit to in the following years.
Also the estimated consumption of cotton in the
United Kingdom in each of the said years. In 1815
the manufacturer had 965. for making these four arti-
cles one of each, and the consumption of cotton was
80,000,000 lb. In 1820 he had 34 per cent. less than
1815—consumption of cotton 120,000,000 lb. In 1825
51 per cent. less than in 1815—consumption of cotton
106,000,000 lb. In 1830 55 per cent. less than in 1815—
consumption of cotton 247,000,000 lb. In 1835 70
per cent. less than in 1815—consumption of cotton
318,000,000 lb. In 1840 75 per cent. less than in 1815—
consumption of cotton 451,000,000 lb. And now, at the
present time, these articles of cotton manufacture (and
they are a fair criterion whereby to judge of the state of
the cotton trade), are not saleable in the Manchester
market, except in limited quantities, at 78 per cent. less
than the manufacturer had in 1815."

• The -increase of exports from .80,000,0001 b. in, 1815,
to 451,000,0001 b. in 1840, an increase nearer six fold than
five fold in 25 years, demonstrates that the diminution of
profits, be it great or small, has not arisen from a nar-
rowing of the foreign market, or from foreign competi-
tion. This, we suppose, is beyond dispute. The articles,
says Mr. Fielden, have been the same; so that the quan-
tity of British labour taken by the foreigner has
been multiplied more than five-fold, but the price
given for that labour has been reduced three-fourths.
Why ? In consequence of competition ?—Yes.
What competition foreign competition ? No.
We have answered that question already. The
competion has been all at home, competition of machinery
with human labour, of capital with capital. It is a pro-
position laid down by Adam Smith, a proposition to
which we have more than once referred, by increasing
supply one-fifth beyond demand, you reduce prices one-
half, and so in an augmented ratio ; but here we have
supply in IA4O not increased one-.Mh, but multiplied
more than five fold beyond the demand of 1815. What
a prodigious enlargement of the markets must there have
been, then, to support even the prices of which Mr. Fielden
speilts ! Why, such over-trading would account for ten
times the distress that exists ; and would create it, too,
were it not for the Corn-laws, and for so much as remains
here and there of the old Poor-law.
It must at once strike every unbiassed ob-
server that the facts mentioned by Mr. FIELDEN
are most extraordinary proofs of overtrading
causing distress. What is Mr. FIELDEN'S state-
ment ? Why, that the manufacturer has so ex-
tended his operations since 1815, that he now
works up six times as much cotton as he worked
up them, and he 'receives for his produce 78 per
cent. less than he did then. He has ad-
ded six times to the quantity of useful
clothing that he produced in 1815 he
requires and receives a great deal less pay-
ment per cent. for his production, and the Stan-
dard would have the world believe that this vast
increase of useful things at a cheap rate is a
cause of distress in the community. The con-
clusion is so completely at variance with the pre-
mises that it is worth while to examine them in
detail, and show, if we can, where the error of
our Contemporary lies.

The Standm:dsays, competition at home, com-
petition of machinery with human labour, that
this very increase of production, by degrading the
price, leads to this distress. But the competition
indicated is a competition between English ma-
nufacturers themselves, who do not constitute the
market for each other's produce. Some of them
might ruin others, but the phenomenon is un-
exampled of a ?Feat body of shrewd, calculating
men going on year after year competing with
one another to their own ruin. Some other
explanatidu of thia isretwired than assertion