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

The

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 over 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
166,000,000 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 1840 not increased one-fifth, 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
speaks ! 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
causingdistress. 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 then, 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 Standard says, 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 great body of shrewd, calculating
men going on year after year competing with
one another to their own ruin. Some other
explanation of this is required than the assertion
that the manufacturers have ruined themselves
while actively-engaged in conferring, for the sake

• of money, the blessings of cheap clothing on a
shivering population.
The competition of machinery with labour is
of a different description; but if that had injured
the labourer, it must have enriched the owners
of the machinery, who, however, complain as
much as the labourers. It has been stated at
more than one public meeting, and in Parlia-
ment, that the value of machinery has fallen
more than cent. per cent. The fact which tells
against the assumption of the Standard, " that
the competition of machinery with labour has
produced the distress" is, that as machinery has
come into use the population has increased in the
manufacturing districts faster than ever before.
The working population understand the matter
better than the Standard. One of them, of the
name of BARROW, at the Salford meeting on
Friday, said he did not wish to pull down ma-
chinery, but to extend it, while he watched it. He
knows that the more machinery is multiplied
the more hands will be required to attend it. It
is neither the competition of capital with capital,
nor the competition of machinery with labour,
which causes the distress, but the want of com-
petition on the part of the producers of food.
Mr. FIELDER, in his unspoken speech, added
that in 1815, when the manufacturer got 965., he
could with that buy 11 quarters of wheat, and
now when he gets only 245. he cannot buy
with that two-fifths of a quarter of wheat.
But the principal article for which the ma-
nufactures are made to exchange is food,
and it is because the manufacturer cannot
now get above one-third as much wheat in ex-
change for his cotton as in 1815, to divide be-
twixt himself and his workmen, that he and they
suffer distress. Why is this? Because food has not
increased in the same ratio as cotton cloth ?
Why has it not, at least that food which would be
given in exchange for the cloth? The Poles are
unclad, or clad only in skins, and have food
which they are anxious to give for cloth. The
fertile valleys of the Mississippi only require the
hand of man to cultivate them to supply food
faster than it could be consumed. Already they
supply an immense quantity, which the inhabi-
tants would readily give for our cotton and hard-
wares. According to a statement we recently
met with in an American Paper, the United
States now produce . above 38 bushels of bread
stuffs annually, including all kinds of corn
and potatoes, for each inhabitant of the United
States, which is probably a full third more than
is supplied by England.
At the same time it is part of the case of the
Corn-law people that a large portion of England
is yet uncultivated. Why, then, we repeat, has
not food increased in the same ratio as cotton
cloth ? Is there not a law to prohibit its in-
crease ? Is it not the express object of the Corn-
law to prevent the manufacturers from buying
food in Poland and the United States? By this
law competition on the part of the producers of
food is prohibited. This narrows the supply
of food, and, narrowing the market for
the manufacturers' productions, it is the cause
why food has not increased in the same ratio as
cotton cloth—why the manufacturers cannot get
enough food in exchange, and why there is over-
whelming distress in the manufacturing districts.
The Corn-laws limit and destroy the manufac-
turer's market, and is it necessary, to seek out
any other cause for his distress ?
It may be said that the law has been in opera-
tion with some modifications for twenty-five
years, that the manufacturer ought to be aware
of its effects, and that he is to blame for manu-
facturing too much for the narrow market to
which the Legislator arbitrarily limits him. But
one of the cursed effects of the arbitary and un-
just limitation, is to make the markets so irre-
gular that the manufacturer cannot foresee or
calculate effects.

The great reductions which occur oc-
casionally in the price of grain, stimulate
population, stimulate enterprise, make the manu-
facturer engage in new works, and then comes
a dearth which destroys his market and
plunges him into distress such as he now suffers.
Whether the price of wheat were high or low,
there can be no doubt if we could draw our
supplies from the whole world that it would then
be much steadier than at present. Now it is the
unsteadiness in the price of food which causes the
alternations of prosperity and distress in the ma-
nufacturing districts.
The price of wheat, for example, was in 1822
down to about 435., and that low price was fol-
lowed by the excessive trading of 1824 and 1825.
In 1835 it was down to 365., and that was fol-
lowed by the prosperous years of 1836 and 1837.
The increase of trade which takes place after
such years is a matter of necessity. The cheap-
ness of food, not only stimulates population, but,
leaving the industrious classes with a surplus,
which they expend on clothing, it also stimulates
manufactures. The manufacturer extends his
establishment only to meet the demand. At
the same time that the home demand increases
the fall of prices encourages exportation.
Foreign trade extends. But the cheap years of
1822 and 1835 were followed by the dear years of
1826 and 1838; then the high price checks foreign
trade, checks home consumption, and plunges
the manufacturers into distress. What the
Standard calls over-trading was the necessary con-
sequence of •great fluctuations in the price of
corn : those fluctuations were caused by the
-Corn-law limiting our people to the soil of Eng-
land for food, and therefore the Corn-law is
the cause why the ~ingenious manufacturers and
their industrious workmen, who have so multi-
plied the conveniences of life for their fellow-
men, instead of obtaining large profits and ample
wages, are plunged into deep poverty and distress.

It has of late years been customary, when any
derangement occurs, to talk glibly of overtrading,
of the fluctuations of commerce as inevitable, and
to express something like blame that nature
has exposed man to this inconvenience. We
always hear and read such opinions with mis-
trust. The true business of the merchant is to
equalize the variations of the seasons and prevent
fluctuations. Accordingly, great as may be the
fluctuations in modern trade, it is an undoubted
fact that the ups and downs of society have be-
come less and less as trade has been extended.
There are no absolute famines now in trading Eu-
rope as there were in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, when Europe knew little or nothing of
commerce. Nor does the price of food vary
by one-tenth now so much as it did then.
Trade is only liable to fluctuation because it is
interfered with by Corn-laws, by bank monopo-
lies, by sugar-taxes, by discriminating timber
duties, and a thousand other similar enactments
which continually- derange the markets, and
continually render vain the calculations of the
most expert and careful merchants and manu-
facturers. Free trade, causing extensive trade,
is the cure for fluctuations, which are not natural
to commerce, and are to be traced to the
Imeddling of selfish and ignorant law-makers.

The remarks we made on made on Saturday,
relative to the part now taken by the clergy, are
confirmed by the facts, that one clergyman was
the leading character at a great Pro-Corn-law
meeting recently held at Dorchester, and
another clergyman was the chief hand in getting
up a Pro-Corn-law petition at Wolverhampton.
The bulk of the priesthood are enlisted against
free trade. They are standing up for monopoly
and injustice. Hired by the nation to teach mo-
rality they have ranged themselves on the side
of wrong, and inculcate by their example a
shameless disregard of the precepts of religion.
There is no class of monopolists, no class of the
oppressors and enemies of the people, no class of
all the mighty hosts of corruption, who do not
now make common cause, and join the Tories in
taxing the people for the benefit of the land-
lords, the sugar planters, and the rotten-ship
owners.
What the bulk of the people complain of is
monopoly, monopoly of legislation, monopoly
monopoly-
of wealth by taxation, and of poli-

tical power. Lord PALMERSTON expressly stated
in his eloquent speech, that the dispute between
the two parties
,in Parliament was for the main-
tenance or the abolition of monopoly. The
Queen's Government is for the abolition, and
there is now an excellent opportunity for the
people, who are sufferers by, and the enemies of;
monopoly, to put it down.

There are, however, some amongst them who
fancy that if they put down the landlords' mono-
poly they will strengthen the monopoly of the
factory lords—that they will only enable the
manufacturers to lower wages, and only debar
themselves the longer, a:N.I the more effectually
from political power. Is that opinion borne out
by experience ? Has the suppression of one
monopoly strengthened another? To use Lord
PALMERSTON'S examples the suppression of the
monopoly which Churchmen had of political
power, as against Dissenters, by the abolition of
the Test Act accelerated the suppression of the
monopoly which they had against the Catholics,
and facilitated the lessening of the mono-
poly which a few persons had of the repre-
sentation. Since the Parliament was reformed
the monopoly of corporations has been destroyed,
and now the greatest of all monopolies, that of
the landowner, is successfully threatened. The
course of modern experience proves that one mo-
nopoly is not strengthened by the abolition of
another, and that to abolish one is to weaken
another, and hasten its destruction. All the
working classes, then, all the Chartists, who are
the determined enemies of monopoly of every
kind, would act in complete opposition to their
own principles if they were not to embrace the
opportunity which is now offered them to de-
stroy the landlords' monopoly.
We say emphatically destroy, for we are no
advocates for the Bs. fixed duty ; and if the Minis-
ters, who have proposed that because they have
no hope nor see any possibility of carrying any
thing better, even if they can carry that, saw a
strong, a hearty, and an almost universal demand
for the destruction of the monopoly, they would
assist in destroying it. We trust, therefore, that
all the working men, whether Chartists or not,
will, for their own credit's sake, rise up against
the monopoly of the landlords, and demand its
destruction.

If that were to lead, as some of them now
say, to the reduction of wages, whose fault
would that be? If they are now able by union
to destroy the monopoly of the landlords, will
they not then be able by union to destroy any
other monopoly by which they may be op-
pressed ? The priests are now united with the
landlords to support the Corn-laws. Both are
rivals, if not opponents and enemies of the
factory lords. Deprive them of their present
monopoly—destroy the Corn-laws—and the whole
army of priests and landlords will side with the
people in any quarrel they may have with the
factory or any other lords.
There is not one clergyman who will not be
immediately filled with the most moving charity
for the factory children. They will be the pa-
trons of a Ten-hours' Bill, or a Six-hours' Bill, if
the people ask it. They will take the working
classes under their protection, if the working
classes desire it; and invoke religion against any
injustice on the part of the manufacturers. We
do not fear that the manufacturers will practice
any—the people do; but having, as they will then
have, the landlords and the priesthood on their
side, they will be guaranteed against any injustice,
and be much better able to protect themselves
than at present. Common sense now commands the
whole of the working classes, whether Chartists
or not, iu order to obtain their own ends, to unite
heart and soul, in the great movement towards
liberty now begun, and aid, in the first instance,
in destroying the monopoly of the landlords.

A great deal has been said about the landed
gentlemen who have deserted the Ministers, but
no notice has been taken of the representatives
of towns who deserted the Tories. For example,
the Hon. WM. LASCELLES, a son of the Earl of
HAREWOOD, and Member for Wakefield, voted
with the Ministers. Mr. LASCELLES is a strong
instance, and unfortunately a rare one, amongst
the Tories, of rectitude prevailing over interest
and party ties, because he is not only connected
with the laud, but his family are connected with
the West Indies. The Earl of HAREWOOD is
one of the leaders of the West Indian body.
How far Mr. LASCELLES was influenced by his
abstract love of the principles of free trade, or
how far by respect for his town constituency, we
cannot say; but it is an encouraging ex-
ample for all the towns which take an interest
in the repeal of the Corn-laws to exert their in-
fluence over their present representatives, and to
take care, in future, to place none in Parliament
but such as are determined friends to repeal.

We may not, perhaps, add the name of Mr.
BARING WALL to that of Mr. LASCELLES, for he
has, on more than one previous occasion, op-
posed, by his votes, the rabid and mischievous
policy of the Tories. At the same time it is
highly gratifying to find that there are some
men amongst the Tories honest in their inten-
tions, and open to conviction. The deserters
from the ranks of the Whigs, such as Mr.
H A NDLEY, Lord WORSLEY, Mr. HEATHCOTE,
Mr. HARLAND, &c., we make light of, because
their motives are obviously and avowedly of the
most interested, and, for legislators, of the most
unworthy and sordid character. But there being
some honest men among the Tories, we are not
without hope that the number may be increased.
There is much more discrimination and more
honesty amongst the electors, and throughout
the community, than the habitual jobbers in elec-
tions, whether Whigs or Tories, reckon on ;
and we anticipate, therefore, when an appeal
shall be made to the people on principle, a
very different result from that expected by
Whigs and Tories. In the counties the free-
holders may want some bold man to lead them,
and when he is found, many a Tory who fancies
himself safe in his seat will be overthrown. At
any rate no chance ought to be thrown away, for
in the counties cheap sugar and cheap bread will
be as welcome as in the towns.

Never, throughout the history of Great Britain,
did the working agriculturists suffer so much, and
complain so much, never were they so impo-
verished and degraded, as during the last twenty-
five years, when they have been living under the
landlords' corn-tax. Over and over again, the
farmers have been sold up; over and over again,
they have lost their capital ; over and over again,
they have received eleemosynary relief in the
shape of remittances of tithes and rents, which
never happened before the Corn-laws were passed.
Such facts warrant us in hoping that even the
farmers, when they are stirred up by a general
election, may be brought to vote against those
who have degraded their honourable and useful
occupation into that of tax-gatherers for the owners
of rent.

Since the above was written we have received the
Moniteur of yesterday, with advices from Madrid of the
16th instant. The French Chamber of Deputies adopted
on Saturday the Commercial Treaty with Holland,
which M. THIERS considers will give great political as
well as commercial influence to France upon the Rhine.
From the Spanish capital the only news of interest is the
announcement of the formation of a new Cabinet, under
the auspices of Senor 0 LOZA.GA, late Spanish Ambas-
sador at the Court of France. The arrangements wore
not completed, but it was, said in the best informed.
circles that Senors QUITO, CoRTINA, CHACON, FRIAS,
and CANTER°, had all offered to accept office, and that
their offers had met with the approbation of the RE-
GENT whose popularity daily increases.

The Paris Journals of Friday and Saturday last have
been duly received. The Journal des Debats, a great ad-
mirer of Sir ROBERT PEEL, has a long article on the
Right Hon. Baronet's spech. in the House of Commons
on the Sugar Duties, whtell it pronounces the finest ever
delivered by him
either in or out of Parliament. But the
Debate miscalculates the effect of that speech upon the
people of England. It. has answered the expectations of
no party here, and yet no speech was ever more charae-
teristic of the speaker. The country demanded an expo-

sition of the Right Hon. Baronet's piinciples, and he
answered it by a piece of special pleading from whieh
he excluded principles altogether. The only pledge
he gave was that his first year in office would be spent
in doing nothing. Sir ROBERT PEEL is a clever political
actor, but he is no Statesman. His position, too, is a
false one. Liberal and tolerant himself he has accepted
the leadership of all that is illiberal and bigoted in the
country: -But notwithstanding the Debats admiration of
the Tory leader's speech, both it and the other Paris
jourtpals support Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S anti-monopoly
policy.' They are all for the abolition of the Corn-laws
and the sugar and timber duties.

The Co;nmerce has a long article on the enormously
high price of butchers' meat in Paris. If the duty on
the importation of beef be not speedily reduced the poor
of Paris will be famished.

The following petition, signed by 5,000 persons, was
presented to the Chamber of Deputies on Friday :

" Gentlemen Deputies,
" Letters which convey the expression of the most cowardly
and infamous treason have been attributed to Louis Philippe.
" The Judges of the land have acquitted the journal by
which they were published.
" Ministers have replied by vague denials to the imputations
cast by them upon the Chief of the State.
" Public confidence demands an investigation of their au-
thenticity.
" We accordingly invite you to call the Ministry to account
for a fact which so deeply affects the honour, liberty, and inde-
pendence of the nation."

The following paragraph from the Commerce was
deemed in Paris worthy of credit :
A Cabinet Council was held at Neuilly on Thursday, for the
purpose, it was believed, of examining the propositions of se-
veral French capitalists relative to the loan. However, as M.
Hamann was to have interviews with other bidders on Friday
and Saturday, no resolution was adopted by the Council,
which was again to meet and discuss the subject on Sunday.
Tux PRINCE DE JOINVILLE.—The Quotidienne states that
the contemplated cruise of the Prance de Joinville had not for
its object to protect French whalers on the Banks of
New-
foundland ;—" The campaign which the young Prince is about
to undertake being less naval than matrimonial, for he contem-
plated the conquest of Princess Sophia, daughter of the King
of Holland, now aged 17."
The life of the Duke de Chartres, the second son of the Duke
of Orleans, was on Friday pronounced by his physicians to be
in imminent danger.
FRENCH AFRICA.—The last intelligence from Algiers is
dated the 14th inst. The Moniteur publishes General Bugeaud's
account of the last expedition to Medeah and Miliana, the
occurrences and results of which are already known to our
readers. On the 15th, the Governor-General was to embark
for Mostaganem, the rendezvous of the next expedition. He
is to march from thence with 1-2,000 men, against Mascara, and
after the occupation of that place, the army will advance on
Tekedempt, whilst another column of 5,000 or 6,000 men is to
proceed from Medeah, to destroy the military establishments of
Abd-el-Kader. General Duvivier, who was to command the
latter, having taken umbrage at some expressions of General
Bugeaud, tendered his resignation.
M. Thiers intended leaving Paris for Lille immediately after
the Session, in order to spend some months in the family of
his wife, and to be at leisure to complete his History of the
Empire.'
Darmes and his two co-accused, Duclos and Considere, were
removed to the prison of the Luxembourg on Monday last.
The trial, which was to commence this day, would, it was ex-
pected, occupy four days.
Several Journals have announced that Viscount de Germing,
Prefect of the department of Seine and Marne, was to be
appointed as Postmaster-General. We are authorised to de-
clare that this statement is completely false.—Moniteur.
The following notice has been communicated to us :
" A Journal announces this morning a piece of intelligence,
the consequences of which mast invite the attention of Catho-
lic France. According to this account the Bishop of Lvreux
has baptized in the Tuileries the child of the Countess of
Hautpoul, the Duke and Duchess of Orleans being sponsors.
As the Church does not permit heretics to be received as spon-
sors, it follows that the Duchess of Orleans must have returned
into the pale of the Catholic Church. A Bishop would not
have permitted himself to commit such a violation of the laws
of the Church."

It was asserted yetterday evening in a political circle that the
signature of the Protocol of London, by Baron de Baurqueney,
was to take place on Tuesday last. The official copy of that
document may be expected every moment to reach M. Guizot.

A letter from Madrid of the 15th has the following passage
—Notwithstanding the manifest intention of the Chamber to
continue the 'sittings, it has been forced to suspend them for
want of business to go on 'A ith, and likewise for want of a suffi-
cient number of members to come to a legal decision. The
formation of the Ministry continues to engage general attention.
It would probably be already settled if it had been possible to
procure a Minister of Finance. The Chambers will probably
not resume their sittings till the new ministry is formed.—Le
Commerce.