The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-27 00:00:00

711 E FRENCH PRESS ON THE

BUDGET.

The Prptectionist organ, the Moniteur Industriel,
has a long article on Mr. Gladstone's financial expo-
sition in the House of Commons on the 15th. It
says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

"Has worked a financial miracle which has disconcerted
his adversaries and stupefied even his friends. The former
awaited that critical moment with malicious impatience.
The short harvest of last year, the embarrassments of trade,
the bad results of exportation in the most important markets
of England, the financial crisis, the expenses of the Chinese
war, the reduction of the revenue caused by the Anglo-
French commercial treaty, were regarded by anticipa-
tion as se many circumstances which certainly could
not have prepared a bed of roses for the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. What was the deficit ? Huw was the Minis-
ter to provide for it ? Such were the questions asked
everywhere in England, and, in spite of the ability and
undoubted capacity of Mr. Gladstone, public expectation
was anything but favourable to him. Mr. Gladstone has
issued from this critical position with marvellous address.
Not only is there not a deficit in his Budget, but, on the
contrary, and with a talent which places him in the fore-
most rank of his country's statesmen, he has exhibited
before the House of Commons, surprised and charmed, a
Budget with a surplus." _ _

After these praises, and after examining Mr.
Gladstone'a calculations, the Moniteur Industriel
concludes thus
"But when we descend from the heights of this arith-
metic, a little too decorated, to look at facts, what do we
find ? In the first place, the confirmation of the immense
preference accorded in England to other foreign wines over
French wines. It is, under the action of the treaty, in the
proportion of 9,878,000 gallons, or 449,000 hectolitres to
2,631,000 gallons, or 119,990 hectolitres. The alleged pro-
portional augmentation in French wines, compared to other
wines, is, if we look closely, but another illusion. It is evi-
dent that the wines of other than French origin absorbing
the great mass of English consumption could not augment
their proportional importation in the same measure as the
French wines, occupying a place much more humble in Bri-
tannic predilections. To arrive at a correct conclusion we
must consider the real numbers, and not proportional
numbers. Now, these last show that the consumption of
wines other than French, comparatively so consider-
able already, increased by 1,857,000 gallons, whereas
the consumption of French wines has increased only by
1,475,000 gallons, which gives a proportional advantage of
nearly 30 per cent. to wines not French in the comparative
consumption of the two sorts. Wines other than French
have thus maintained in the English market, and even in-
creased, their relative superiority. In fact, all the advan-
tages for us up to the present are limited to an importat ion
of 67,000 hectolitres of wines, on a production of 60,000,000
of hectolitres—that is to say, cne thousandth part. Let us,
therefore, not be surprised that the House of Commons re-
ceived this result with unanimous applause. We would
not even inquire if that importation has not been somewhat
artificial, provided it were advantageous to us. Neither do
wo desire to recall the bitter deception which last year fol-
lowed the greater part of our wine exports to England. Be
this as it may, it is on wines that our neighbours seem to
count for finding from us a slight compensation, necessary
for the vast importations they have from us. Mr. Glad-
stone stated that before 1701, before the Methuen Treaty,
French wines enjoyed much vogue in England, and that
they lost it only when the interests of commercial policy
required that Portuguese wines should-be substitute) for
them ; Portugal now being exhausted and ruined, the
same commercial policy requires that what has been done
with Portugal should be commenced in France. The les-
son is remarkable; it teaches us how England throws
away the orange peel when she has sucked it to the last
drop:"

Mr. JARVIS, plasterer, having been called to
the chair, opened the meeting with a few observa-
tions soliciting a patient hearing for all speakers,
even if they were opposed to the object of the
meeting.
Mr. ALLCROFT rose to propose the first resolu-
tion :—" That in the opinion of this meeting, the
payment by the hour introduced by Messrs. Kelk,
Lucas, and Smith is objectionable, because it opens
a wider field for competition, jeopardises the
Saturday 4 o'clock, does away with the payment
of time-and-a-half for overtime, and destroys a
recognised day ; therefore we pledge ourselves
to oppose the system until it is withdrawn." He
said they were met to protest against the proposed
system of payment by the hour. They did
not:like it, believing that it would tend to
lower their position as working men, would
destroy a recognised day's work, and be as de-
grading to the master who offered it as to the man
who accepted it. (Hear.) The master builders hoped
by appealing to the selfish nature of the workmen
to carry out their object, but they bad been disap-
pointed. The men felt that if they once acceded to
the hour system there was no guarantee that the
masters would not exact fourteen, fifteen, or even
sixteen hours a day in summer, and go back to five,
six, or seven hours in the winter. He entreated his
fellow-men to struggle manfully against the hour-
system, in favour of the nine hours movement,
and to support the men who were locked out.
Mr.IVEIRELER, plasterer, seconded the resolution.
He ridiculed the idea of foreign workmen being
brought in ; the masters knew their own interests
too well. The speaker then entered into various de-
tails respecting the lock-out at Messrs. Kelk and
Lucas's works. In his own trade, out of 86 men
locked out two thirds were non-society men, and
not one had gone back. The men in the provinces
were with them ; none were coming up from the
country, and this in itself was a great support. He
was prepared on behalf of his trade to say that if
the masters would pay 6s. per day of 10 hours for
five days, and 3s. for half a day on Saturday, the
men would accept it. He condemned the policy of
the masters in throwing as much labour as pos-
sible into the market, to starve them into submis-
sion. _ _

Mr. GROSSMITH supported the resolution, which
was put from the chair, and carried unanimously,
amid loud cheers.

Mr. WRIGHT moved the second resolution,—
" That the men thrown out of work by the new
conditions of the master builders, being willing to
resume their employment, providing the employers
recognise a fixed day, we pledge ourselves to render
every assistance to those at present locked out, and
we urge upon our fellow-workmen of the United
Kingdom the necessity of assisting us to successfully
combat the destructive system of payment by the
hour."

Mr. LEAKE seconded the resolution, which was
carried unanimously.
Mr. POTTER then came forward and was loudly
cheered. He said the labour and anxiety he had
lately gone through had so far affected his health
that he was unable to address them at any length.
He felt so strongly the justice of the cause he was
advocating that he cared but little for the want of
sympathy on the part of the press or the public;
he knew that he possessed the confidence of the
thousands of his fellow-workmen, and felt that they
had only to persevere and they must succeed in their
object. (Cheers.)
A vote of thanks to the chairman and the com-
mittee concluded the proceedings.