The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-01 00:00:00

him, that nothing- made men invent machinery like

want.

The Corn-laws had been the great inventors of

machinery.

The profits of the masters and the wages

of the men had been reduced. And the great cause
of the invention of machinery had been the urgent
wants of masters and men, sharpening their genius, for

it was said. " necessity is the mother of invention," and
so increasing the natural progress by which machinery
would have otherwise advanced.—(Cheers.) He
wished he could impress on that society, that machinery
was the least likely thing for mom to agree to prohibit.
They all used machines. A plough was a machine, a

spade was a machine, and so was a small-tooth comb.—

(Laughter.) He did not see any chance of persuading
men to revert to their former practice of doing without
them. It would be returning back to the habits of a
savage state. So far as foreign commerce 'was con-
cerned we should be cut down in the scale of nations.—
(Hear.) He thought there was a great mistake in
talking of the comforts of our ancestors. He doubted
those same comforts of our ancesters. True, there was

more of the land capable of cultivation, and fewer
people living on it; that was a good reason why they
should live in more comfort than under their present
restrictions.—(Cheers.) What was required was the
opening of the commerce of the world to honed industry,
the ceasing to prevent the manufacturer from carrying
his goods abroad, or what amounted to the same thing,
to prevent him bringing back the goods which would
pay. Then he thought they should sae a cessation of
the present misery. It was almost useless to talk of pri-
vate charity, or of public charity either, with a ntarv,ni

Population. ne constartt compliant was, that the.
tuen who paid the poor-rates were as. poor as those
who got them, and that it was only by the most stre-
nuous exertions that they kept themselves on that side
of the mark line, as a hair which separated them from
paupers.—(Cheers.) Had he (Colonel Thompson) a
thousand pounds to spare, it should be given in this
way. He would go and pay the tax on a portion of
American flour in Liverpool, and then he would bring
it to Huddersfield, or Leeds, or Manchester, and sell
it at the natural prices, and tell them, " Here you have
the corn for 2s. that would have cost you 35., hut I
have paid the Is. for you into the landlord's pocket."—
(Loud cheering.) He could not but think a system of
charity of that kind would place the monopoly in a
strong light, and might shame their legislators into
taking off the tax.—(Loud cheers). They would see
that he had purposely avoided all questions of a poli-
tical nature. He was known to hold as strong poli-

tied! opinions as most amongst them, for he had always
held his colours out.—(Cheers.) He came there,
moved, perhaps principally, certainly in a great degree,
by the belief that. to put down this prominent evil would
be the most effective way of striking a blow against the
evils that oppressed them elsewhere. What did it
spring from, but the circumstance of a particular set of
men having seized upon, and become possessed of, power
to legislate for others.—(Cheers.) Let them have
something like equality of leeislation.—(Loud cheers.)
They would net then see mischief like that he was en-
deavouring to expose. Still they must hear Leith
if, in the exercise of his private judgment, he did what
they t wrong, in believing- that this was the point
upon which, to speak in the laueu iee of Cromwell, "the
Lord had delivered them nib; our hauls."—(Loud
eheers-) Take linen on this sore point, and be believed
they could tarn them as easily as a blacksmith slid a
piece of heated iron.—(Loud cheers.) Having these
strong opinion=, do not let them blame him for uttering
them ; do not let them quarrel With him, if they found
they did not entirely agree with their own. (Colonel
Thompson concluded his lecture by repeatini, his offer
to answer any question, and sat down amidst loud' cheers.)
Mr. EDWARD CLAYTON said, he had a book in his
hand which stated that if all the foreign corn grown
were insured into England, it would not satisfy the
people of England for twenty•one days.
Colonel TtiostrsoN said, they had never asked to
get what they could not, b.& what they could. The
question was not what quantity of corn was produced
abroad, hut "hat quantity could be procured.—(Hear,
hear.) It it was as the gentleman stated, then the
agriculturists had nothing to fear ; if not, he thought
it was still better. It was stated that in America
there was land that would produce food enough to feed
two worlda7suah as the pthseni—(Cheers)—but they
did no p' sir ;,-wil:,ae)(o4es• r simesbe reasaww,
that. would dot.l;uy it of them.—((;beers.)
Mr. CeavTox—lt was Mr. Fawkes,' the Chairman
of Morpeth and Milton's Committee, who stated it.
He found that •the silk trade of Dublin from 1801 to
1819 was in a prosperous condition, but in the latter
year the protection duty was-reateeere-esir. -and there was
a free trade in and the effect was that the Dublin
silk trade was ruined. There was one effect of free
trade. He would say, first let them feed and clothe
themselves, and then let the residue go abroad.—(Loud
cheers.) Three acres were stated to be competent to
produce food for five persons. We had in round num-
bers on this island thirty-one millions of human beings.
These statements were taken from Porter's progress of
the nation. If they had sufficiency of land in this
country to grow food for one hundred millions of peo-
ple, why should there be such an outcry for an increase
of foreign trade, seeing that as fast as foreign trade had
increased, so had the working-man's wages decreased.
Col. THOMPSON—There appeared to be three ques-
tions included in what the speaker had said. As to
the putting down of the silk trade in Dublin, he never
denied that it was possible to get up a trade by means
of monopoly, but the trade in that case was kept up at
the public expense.—(Hear, hear.) Here they- had a
trade of this kind. That was no reason why they who
wished to drive an honest trade, should be compelled
to submit to support a dishonest one.—(Cheers.) He
did not exactly collect the terms of the second ques-
tion. The third was on the subject of land. It had
been said there was land enough to find food for a great
number of people ; he (Col. Thompson) would ask
them—Why did it not do so ?—(Loud cheers.) Were
they to suppose that through some strange defect of
intellect the agriculturists were not able to cultivate
their land ? Was it to be supposed that they required
the manufacturers of Huddersfield to go and tell them
bow to produce more ?—(Cheers.) It they produced
it, there were plenty to eat it ; and if they did not, they
would take the liberty to believe it was because they
could not.--(Cheers.)
Mr. CLAYTON—He has not given a straightforward
answer us.the last. question.—( Hisses.)
Col. TitomPsoNs-LPerhaps I have mistaken the
question. 'lf you will repeat the question I will try to
amend it. •

Mr. ULAN-Tort—The Hon. Gentleman seemed to
doubt his statement as to the resources of England.
The speaker then read from a work he had in his
hand a detailed statement of the number of acres in
England of different qualities to prove his assertion.
•He asserted, that if the people had the power to
get on the land, they could make it produce what
he had stated. How was it they could not get
there I—(t:beers.) They had the resources to make
them happy and comfortable, but class legislation had
degraded them below the level of brutes.—(Loud
ehoere,)„,,Thp,.. 2,41 mactiinerv. In the year 1796
we exported from this country more than twenty-three
mdlion pounds of cotton, while in 11-11 we exported
more than four hundred and sixty millions, yet when
we exported the smaller quantity, in 1797, the wages
of the hand-loom wcaver were 26:.. Bd. per week, while,
when we exported the largest quantity, in 18.10, they
were only lid.—(Shouts of " Shame, shame.) Mr.
Clayton then read some statistics to show that in 1820,
we exported one hundred and thirty-four million pounds
of cotton, for which we received seven million pounds
sterling, while in 1834 we exported two hundred and
seventy-one million pounds of cotton, for which large
quantity we only received between seven and eight
millions of pounds sterling. These were from Porter's
Tables.

Colonel TllomPsoN—The gentleman produced state-
ments of the quantity of manufactured goods sent
abroad in certain years, and he then produced state-
ments affirming that wages of labour were less in those
years when the quantity sent abroad was greatest. He
(Colonel Thompson) should rather have wondered
under the existing state of things, if it had been other-
wise. Those years he supposed included in them the
Corn•law years. The very statement he had been
making there that night, was that the prohibition had
reduced the profits of the manufacturers, and the
wages of the labourers. The manufacturers were forced
to carry on a losing instead of a gainful trade.—(Loud
cheers.) Wages had always risen when corn had
fallen in price—(Hear)—and they had always fallen
when the price of corn had risen.—(Cheers.) The
argument put forth by the speaker was one that would
suit. Sir Robert Peel or the Duke of Wellington.
They brooded over lists, and they said, " We do
not find your trade has been diminishing." They
said, "Your trade must have diminished before the rob-
bery shall be stopped." That was to say, a man had no
right to complain at the Quarter Sessions of a robbery,
so long as the exports had been increasing.—(Laugh-
ter.) But what reason had been advanced against
hin, on the Corn-laws ?—( hear.) Supposing a great
quantity of goods were scut abroad, would they be any
worse if they were allowed to bring hack what they
wanted ?—( Hear. hear.) What strong inducement was !

there to endure hunger, and beg fora bad market ra-
ther than a good one?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAYTON—The years he had mentioned in-
cluded a period both before and niter the Corn-laws
were enacted. He quoted from Marshall's Statistics
the fact, that ten years before the Corn-laws were
enacted, a quantity of wheat was imported at -IL Ss. Bd.
a quarter, and ten years after the Corn-laws were
enacted a quantity of wheat was imported at 31. 18s.

How did this happen, if the Corn-laws were so great

an evil ? Colonel Thompson asked for a good market.
The best market of all was the home market. By re-

thaticg the working man's wages to send their goods
abroad, they reduced their best market at home. As
to machinery, he did not say it was a curse in itself, but.
he said it was a curse as now applied.—(Cheers.) H,
glanced at the progress of machinery in the eottonatnrtadoef
and said that now one man could do the work which was
Genoa,
formerly done by 6,14-2 men.—(Hear, hear.) It was by
the unlimited powers of machinery, and by the w
1 power in the working men to protect their own labour,
that they were in their present condition. As to free
trade, it appeared from what Colonel Thompson said,
that Genoa fell through free trade.—(Cheers,)
Colonel TifoMesos—With respect to
it
was
not free trade, but sconebody else ruined Genoa's free
trade—(Loud cheers)—and when Genoa's free trade
passed away from her, then she fell. —(Repeated
had
ccheers.) 0 Theymet o n
other hearddefinition
o nof
the home
theh
market. He
except that it was one that offered_ two o
qmuea
rmt
earrsk eot
f,
wheat for what, in another market, they could sell
for three.

Mr. CLAYTON—He would ask, what amount of
power would it take to obtain the repeal of the Corn-
laws? and if that amount of power would not also get
passed a certain law or enactment, by which the people
would be enabled not only to repeal this one single law,
but all others that bound them down in the scale of
s-r!;al exigtence ?
• •

Colonel Tito,ir.
non sos he was quite ',killing to give
of t
,at question. He looked at the House
ons wilich, a* thing:, stood now, was in coo-
,hiddrablc power and influence. It was reported that,
at this moment, Sir Robert Peel had a majority of 140
against the Corn-laws. In a House of 600, that made
about three in favour of repeal of the Corn-laws, to five
on the other side. When a late motion on the subject of
the suffrage was made in the House, thirty-nined voted
for it ; but there were some splits,and therefore say there
would be twice as many for it ; suppose there were
eighty, and eighty in a house of 600 made a propor-
tion of three to twenty, just four times as many against
the suffrage motion as the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Now, if anybody thought they could get the large
bolt into the hole, when they could not get the small
one, be should be glad to hear him. There was about
one-third of the aristocracy who had pretty strong
leanings to freedom of commerce. He could not see
the sense of refusing to follow up this line, because
there was another where the chances were worse. It no