The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-10 00:00:00

• 41,
.K rN'b'

LONDON:
SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1841.

Till we saw the Tory Morning Papers yester-
day, joining in one chorus of praise, we deemed
Lord STANLEY's speech, at the nomination for
Lancashire unworthy of remark. A more corn-
pi4teCollection of fallacious common places, put
into'wU sounding phraseology, is scarcely to
be ii#t-with. is matched, indeed, but not
on
tuirthiasTsed,ii the aiticle in the Quarterly Review
eltudget,•in which there is on the subject
orthe:AFtlaws a gr ea want a sense, except
in the proofs it affords that a fixed is quite as in-

jurious as a sliding duty. Our present business,
however, is with Lord STANLEY, and, in the first
instance, with one passage of his speech. We
shall return to his Lordship. Among other
things, he said—
One word to the manufacturing labourers. They tell
you that their foreign trade will be greatly increased by
cheap bread. Why? Because they can produce the ar-
ticle Cheaper. Why? Because they will have to pay
lower wages. What other earthly reason?—(Loud cries
of " Hear," and cheers.) The only mode in which
cheapness can benefit the manufacturing community, is
by enabling them to produce their goods cheaper; and
they will so produce them, because, on their own show-
ing, they will give a smaller amount of wages.—(Hear,
hear.) If they don't, the labourer obtains the benefit ;
but then the increase of manufactured goods will not
follow. Is nut this the manufacturer's own argument? I
defy any man to come forward and say that this is not
the manufacturer's argument.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") Reduce the cost of production, and you increase
the production. How else, in the name of plain common
sense, but by lowering wages ?—(Cheers.)
For Lord STANLEY to misrepresent his oppo-
nents' arguments is nothing new—it is his usual
tactics. The manufacturers have never said that
they could produce the article cheaper solely be-
cause they would have to pay lower wages; on
the contrary, they have throughout argued the
question of the Corn-laws on the ground that the
abolition would be equally a benefit to them and
the labourers. Lord STANLEY has not taken
their argument, he has stolen the fallacy of the
Chartists, and palmed it off on his hearers as the
manufacturers' argument. They disclaim it, but
Lord STANLEY made it his own, and professed
his belief in it.

The Noble Lord roundly asserted that cheap
bread and the abolition of the Corn-laws would
lower wages. Only by lowering wages, lie said,
could the cost of production be decreased and
production augmented. Lord STANLEY
ut-
tered that sentiment with the smoke
of hundreds of tall chimneys rising in his
view. He spoke these words surrounded by the
most ingenious machinery for supplying the
wants and ministering to the comforts of life
that ever the art of man invented. He spoke
them surrounded with masses of fixed capital,
much of which is standing idle, some of which
is going to ruin, and all of which is falling in
value because it cannot be employed. Speaking
these words so surrounded, it is impossible for
Lord STANLEY to plead ignorance of the fact that
machinery does the greater part of the manufac-
turing process, and that the price of every piece
of cloth consists of the cost of the machinery, or
the remuneration of fixed capital, and the wages
of labour. In what proportions the price is di-
vided between these two, we pretend not to
guess; it is different in different manufactures;
but this we know, and this we state—and if Lord
STANLEY do not know this, or, knowing it,
blinked it, he is in the one case from gross igno-
rance, or in the other from more vicious insin-
cerity, unworthy of his station—that in propor-
tion as the remuneration of machinery enters
into the price, so may the manufacturer, or the
owner of fixed capital, lessen the cost of pro-
duction by producing more, without lowering

wages.

What is at present the case in Lancashire ?
The mills are working four days in the week,
and several of them are shut up. On two days
the manufacturers gain nothing on all their fixed
capital which is unemployed; but on those two
days their mills, like those always shut up, are a
source of expense and loss. Now suppose, by the
abolition of the Corn-law, trade should be so
much extended that all these mills were working
full time, for all that portion of the large pro-
cess which is performed by machinery, no in-
creased expense, or a very trifling one, would
arise for working six days more than for working
four. Suppose that 10,000 pieces of cotton cloth
are produced by one mill in four days, then in
six days it will produce 15,000 pieces. Now sup-
pose, as we do not know exactly the proportions
in which the price is divided between the remu-
neration of machinery and the •wages of labour,
that it is equal—machinery has half, and wages

half. Suppose further, then, the cloth sells for
203. a piece, then in the former case there will be
10,0001. to be equally divided between the manu-
facturer and the labourer, and in the latter there
will be 15,0001. ;"each will get 7,5001. though both
will be paid in the same proportion as when only

10,000 pieces were made; but in the latter case

the manufacturer, without incurring anything
like a corresponding expense, will reap an addi-
tional profit of 2,5002.

Now if the manufacturer desires to force or
extend his market he may lower the price of his
cloth 2s. a piece, sell the 15,000 pieces for 18s. a
piece, and still gain a clear additional profit of
1,000/. without lowering the wages of his work-
men a farthing; on the contrary, by obtaining
more employment their remuneration will
be, on the whole, increased one-third.
We do not make this statement, as a
correct pounds, shillings, and pence state-
ment, but a correct outline of the means by
which an increase in the demand for the manu-
facturer's cloth, the result of the abolition of
the Corn-law, would be advantageous to him,
though accompanied by a considerable fall in
the price of the article, enabling him to under-
sell his competitors in the market, without at
all lowering the rate, and largely increasing the
whole amount of wages. But this case of a
single mill is an epitome of all our manufac-
tures, and shows that the more machinery is
extended the more production may be increased,
and the more it is increased the more the price
of production may be lowered without lowering

wages.

We cannot imagine an excuse for Lord
STANLEY making such an erroneous state-
ment, speaking in Lancashire, and overlook-
ing, or forgetting, the employment and ef-
fects of fixed capital, or our superb ma-
chinery, in lowering the cost of production.
We can easily forgive Mr. LOVETT, the author
we believe of the fallacy that Lord STANLEY has
filched, for overlooking these effects, because he
has not lived in a manufacturing district; but for
one of the great landowners there, whose wealth
is mainly enhanced by the increased price given
for sites for this machinery to overlook it is
wholly inexcusable. Seeing that Lord STANLEY
had a base party purpose to serve by it, the
Noble Lord will excuse our straightforwardness
if
rr
to
we add
add that he blinked this designedly, in
gull and blind by his great authority,
the ignorant freeholders he was addressing.
One of the peculiarities, or rather the pre-
eminent advantage of England is, the possession
of machinery in unheard-of masses and of
tex-
quisite superiority. If
- we say that at present
one
o c s
ohalfremunerate of the
of
ownersall our manufactures
t he machinery,
g
and the other half to pay the wages of the
labourers
using it, we shall not be,
pel•haps, in using
manufacturers and the
erh
farenal wrong. The i 1
owners of that machinery wish to
bring it into
full operation; they wish to erTt and us more;
they wish to exchange its pro ace for the corn
and flour of the United States and of Russia.
No, says Lord STANLEY ; No, say the landlords,
you shall not do that, nor shall the nation be
enriched by all the wealth which would be
employing the existing ma-
created by fully
elainery, and by erecting more, for that would
put our land out of cultivation. Was there
ever anything more absurd ?
It is clear the manufacturing labourers
would have more to do, and more pay b the
abolition of the Corn-laws and the calling more
machinery into operation; it is clear that owners
of machinery would derive great advantages
and obtain a great increase of wealth, from em-
ploying it ; it is clear that an additional demand
would arise for that machinery which only our
own people can supply ; it is perfectly clear that
the corn imported, however large the quan-
tity, could by no possibility keep out of the
market anything like an equal quantity of Eng-
lish corn, because the importation implies a cor-
responding extension of manufactures, more than
at present. There would be more articles manu-
factured. But, under this preposterous, idle fear,
the landlords condemn to idleness this beautiful
and advantageous machinery, condemn to com-
parative idleness those who use it, and those who

make it, and deprive the community of its im-
mense advantages, and the immense accession of
wealth, which using its powers fully would
bestow on its owners. Unfortunately for the
reputation of law-makers, this example of their
depriving the country, by their gross ignorance
and selfishness, of one of the many advantage,
which the ALMIGHTY has conferred on it, is not
singular. The statute book abounds with evi-
dence that they are some of the most mischiev-
ous men that ever existed, and the curse of their
fellow-creatures.

It is at present the object of the Tory Journals
to represent all the difficulties of the country as
the result of mal-administration, and to kindle the
wrath of the public against the Ministers. We
have on more than one occasion insisted on the
fact that the distresses and difficulties of the
people are not the consequence of maladmi-
nistration, but of incorrect and unjust legislation.
The practical importance of the distinction is
very great, and as one or other view is correct,
relief may be obtained by changing the men, or
can only obtained by altering the laws. We do
not conceal our chagrin that the electors have too
generally adopted the Tory view. They believe
the laws are good and just, and therefore they
have given their support to men who have de-
clared they shall not be changed ; and have with-
drawn their confidence from men who affirm that
a remedy for our distress and difficulties can
only be found in altering the laws. We very
much regret the decision of the electors, but if
the majority, instead of being a mere measuring
cast majority, constituted four-fifths of the House
of Commons, we should still maintain, respec-
fully but firmly, that its decision is equally erro-
neous, and injurious to the public.
The great and pressing difficulty for the Go-
vernment is the financial deficiency. How has
that been brought about by mal-administration ?
No persons are more sensible than we are of the
folly of wasting public money, but the large al-
lowance made to the QUEEN by the Whigs had the
approbation of the Tories; and the extravagant
grant they would have made to Prince ALBERT
not having been completed can have had no in-
fluence on the financial deficiency. It is as easy
to say that the Ministers have perpetrated jobs
as that the Times is remarkable for its strict ad-
herence to truth—and both assertions would be
false. We confess to the MONTEAGLE job; but
the utmost expense of that was the pension to
Sir JOHN NEWPORT, and it was connected with
a considerable saving in the Exchequer, made by
the Whigs. The Whigs, we admit, have cre-
ated a great number of Commissions to settle
the claims of the slave-owners to compensation
—to carry the Factory Act into execution—to
carry out the New Poor-law—to execute the Tithe
Commutation Act. But most of these ar•e Par-
liamentary Commissions ; they all have im-
portant duties to perform ; nor has anybody
shown that those duties are worthless, or that
they could be performed in a more economical
manner. Supposing them to have been unneces-
sary, the whole expense of them would go but
a very little way to account for the excess of the
expenditure over the revenue. Two extrava-
gancies the Whigs have undoubtedly been guilty
of, which the Tories vehemently reprobate.
They have appropriated a sum of money to ex-
tend education, and they have given up some
revenue to facilitate communication. Never will
the Tories do the like.
The Administration has involved us in ex-
pense by the assistance given to expel Don CAR-
LOS from Spain, which, being achieved, and
Spain saved from being either the vassal of
France, or the tool of Russia, is, according to
the ordinary course of State policy, and states-
men's prudence, a great benefit to England, pur-
chased at a small cost. The Syrian expedition
was another subject of cost, but the Tories have
approved of it. Since it was ascertained that M.
THIEns had a particular object in view, detri-
mental to the interests of England, no other
objection has been made to Lord PALMERSTON'S
policy by the Tories than that he might have
spoke the Frenchman fairer. But whatever the
cost of the expedition, it grew out of the Tory
neglect, prior to 1830. The Tories allowed the
Turks to be placed at the mercy of Russia, and
every subsequent act was the consequence of
their policy. They have, accordingly, both pub-
licly and privatly, approved of thepolicy of Lord
PALMERSTON.

We know not how some expedition to China
could have been avoided. The seizure of British
property by the Chinese authorities was not Lord
PALMERSTON'S act, nor provoked by him ; but
had he not taken measures to procure redress all
England, particularly Tory England, would
have rung with reproaches. But the Spanish,
the Syrian, and the Chinese expeditions, with the
altered relations of France—are the great sources
of expense in our army and navy ; and unless
the Tories can show that those expeditions were
uncalled for, or injurious, it is all nonsense to
grumble at the cost.

It is not our business, however, to defend the
Government from the charge of being costly.
We have always inculcated economy, and depre-
cated that eternal meddling and extension of the
sphere of government which makes it more
vexatious and more expensive. But the Tories
take a different view. They complain perpe-
tually that the Government does not do enough,
and if their suggestions to extend the Church,
to increase the instruments of coercion, to pro-
voke the Irish, had been attended to, the expen-
diture would have been increased a million a-year
more.

Without defending every act of the-Go-
vernment we affirm that it has fairly and tem-
perately administered the laws, and that, conse-
quently, the present difficulties of the Govern-
ment and the country are owing to bad laws, not
to their being badly administered.
One of the charges now made against the Mi-
nisters is that, having had a large majority in
the House of Commons for several years, they
inexorably maintained the system of protection,
and did nothing to remedy the defective legisla-
tion. The writer who makes the charge must
be either ignorant of the history of the Whig
Administration or he wilfully mis-states the
case. Not now to notice the number of reforms
which the Whigs carried, and those which they
proposed without being able to carry, we will
just remind our readers that during the ten
years the Whigs have been in office it has
been a standing reproach to them that they were
casting everthing loose and fastening nothing.
If they had, in addition to altering the Poor-
laws, and reforming the municipal corporations,
commuting tithes, &c. &c., also proposed a great
and sweeping reform in our commercial system,
who could have set bounds to the indignation of
the Tories, and who can measure the exhaust-
less vituperation with which they would have
assailed the Whigs ?
But in fact our system of commercial legisla-
tion, though it be, demonstrably, speaking scien-
tifically a great error, and, speaking morally, a
great crime, was not attended practically and
immediately with the disastrous effects which
recent sufferings have convinced the public ne-
cessarily belong to it. In 1828 only, or two years
before the accession of the Whigs to office, the
present Corn-law was passed, with the approba-
tion and support of both the great parties of the
State. It was certainly opposed in its progress
through Parliament b 3 some agriculturists like
Mr. BENETT and Lord WESTERN, because it did
not give protection enough ; by some Liberals,
like Mr. HOME and Mr. WHITMORE, because it
gave too much; and by Lord KING, whose ex-
cellent protest we publish elsewhere, as iniquit-
ous : but both the great parties of Parliament
acquiesced in it. What would have been said of
the. Whigs, had they, from a heedless zeal for
change, proposed at any time before 1840 an
alteration in that great, most erroneous, and
most criminal part of our legislation ? At
only one period, within a few months after
the passing of the Bill, did the price of
corn rise to 70s. prior to the year 1838.
The years from 1832 to 1830 inclusive, were
years, prices were down below 505.,
all good
and the only complaint made against the Corn-
law was by the Duke of BUcKINGITAM and Mr.

V, - •, - -.-
." ,
lb . .
'''' '
'44
• ' rti ..:4,,, - au
;,,_..7.‘„....„,...,..z,......, 4,,, Ai* 10,4.00
. • ..,
~ 1
-v.,- ..• - v -