The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-05 00:00:00


11111 lOW MIA *lt 14it 11,11. ". W -1011
441441""i '1".1-Q ;bet ,I 0,41. ,44-4 4144 t 04,4O4,4 40
never heard of it. Why, thin mode of reasoning on a poll •
tical question is the strangest that was ever heard of, and see
how easily it may be otherwise applied. The food in New
' York is-cheaper than in England, while the wages of the
labourers are higher ; therefore, it follows demonstrably, ac-
cording to this mode of reasoning, that the lower the price
of food the higher the wages will be. But, in troth, it is
idle to look at the cause, and to compare nations in this sort of
way. It is not one single cause that makes either the pros-
perity or misery of nations.—( Hear, hear.) None of us are
idiots enough to say, for instance, that difference of religion,
difference of government, security of property, internal
peace, or security against foreign invasion, has nothing
whatever to do with the prosperity of nations ; and that
everything is to be resolved simply into the question of
cheap bread. But then, gentlemen, take the most miserable
country in the world. They take the case of unfortunate
Poland—a country which had for ages, till the independence
of their country was lost, the vilest of all Governments, mere
anarchy above, mere weakness in the Sovereign, and below a
vast population in a state of absolute personal Alavery.
Trade they had none, their capital was gone, and tHT whole
of their commerce in the hands of a few Jew p:dlars. And
then we come down to the time when the foreign invader
pouncedupon them, and when their country was partitioned,
then re-partitioned; it was conquered, and re-conquered;
and it was utterly enslaved, and is exiting at the present
moment under a-Government of which I will not trust my-
self to speak, because I do not wish to say anything which
it would be unbecoming an Englishman to say regarding the
proceedings of a foreign state. But they take this country—.
the most miserable and oppressed; they take a country in a
condition of political slavery; and then they take another
country, which, for centuries, undoubtedly was the best
governed of any country in Europe—a country where per-
sonal slavery has been unknown for ages—a country which has
had the advantages of pure religion, a high state of morality,
and an enormous capital—a country which is secured by sea
against foreign invasion—.a country which knows not what
it is to see au enemy, for I believe the oldest man alive has
never seen a foreign flag in this country, except as a trophy
—(Loud applause)—and under these circumstances, they pa-
rallel the two, and say that the inhabitant of Great Britain is
better off than the serf of Poland; and what can this be
owing to,but that the serf of Poland has cheap bread.—( Loud
laughter, and applause.) Was there such a way of reasoning
ever heard in the world? Is there a single blessing which,
in this way, I could not prove to be the greatest curse, or a
single curse which I could not prove to be a blessing?—
(I Lear.) Take lameness, for example. I could show you
that lameness is a benefit ; for is not many a lame man better
off in the world than men with two legs?—(Laughter.) In
the same way I could prove blindness to be a benefit; for
certainly we have all knox n many blind men whose condition
on the whole was more enviable than the man who had two
eyes.—(Renewed laughter.) Absurd as this may appear,
these men reason in this way. But the question is, would
not the blind man be better off if he had two eves?—and
whether the lame man would not be better off with his two
legs ?—and whether the Englishman would not be better off
if bread were as cheap in England as it is in Poland?—(Ap-
plause.) I am glad to allow that the common people of
Great Britain are infinitely better off than the Poles ; but
I say they would be still better off if bread were as
cheap here as it is in Warsaw; and I say, that if the Poles
bad the same price to pay for their food as we sometimes
have to pay, they would be a great deal more miserable ; or
rather, they would not be miserable long, for they would
starve in millions, and perish.—(Hear, hear.) The real way
of deciding such a question is, by comparing the same coin-
munity under a system of cheap bread, and a system of dear
bread ; and this we have ample opportunity Of doing. We
have only to look over your history for the last ten years,
and if that history do not suffice to teach us, we are
past all teaching. Take the year 1845. Food was cheap
then, and the capitalist prospered greatly; but was the
labouring man more miserable than he is? Is it not the fact
that he was better employed, and that wages were higher?
Well, then, we come to that change when, like Phareah's
dream, the thin ears devoured the full ears; when the lean
kine devoured the fat kine; when the years of famine de-
voured the years of plenty; we come to the time when
food was dear. The condition of the capitalist in 1841
was bad. He suffered ; but will any person tell me
he was the only sufferer, or the chief sufferer ? Do
we remember what the condition of the labouring po-
pulation was in 1841? Was not their condition such,
that philanthropic men were unwilling to enter a manu-
facturing town for fear of seeing the squalid naked-
ness of the masses ? Was not their condition such.
that politicians who never in their life were alarmed
trembled for the very foundations of civil society.
The pressure came on heavier; the mills were at first put
on short time; the mills then ceased to work at all; and the
people were thrown out of employment, and they went to
pledge the little property they bad. First they pledged
their little luxuries ; then their comforts ; then their ne-
cessaries : then their hovels were stripped, until they were
as bare of furniture as the hut of the dog or the red Indian ;
while every shop with its three golden balls was literally
crammed from the cellar to the garret with the clothing and
Bibles of the poor. Don't we remember what a formidable
symptom of another kind was produced? I recollect the
strong effect which was produced in London that day, when,
for the first time, huge pieces of cannon were seen rolling
northward, not to encounter a foreign enemy, but to our
manufacturing towns. Well, you have had cheap bread
since that time. The capitalist plaited by it, I know,
as certainly he ought to do ; but has the condition oe
the labouring classes been getting worse? Have they not,
on the contrary, been getting better and better? Have we
not seen their goods coming back from the pawnbrokers—
have we not seen in their faces, in their clothes—have we
not seen in their very looks in the street a difference between
time of cheap food and a time of dear food? Take their
innocent pleasures, or their pleasures not merely innocent—
take their pleasures of intellect. There is your own intelli-
gent and useful citizen Mr. Robert Chambers. Ask him what
sale his works had in the year 1841 as compared with the
year 1845. I believe there is no exaggeration wheel X say,
that on a careful calculation which I know to have been
made, it appeared that within twenty miles of Manchester,
in one particular week in 1845, the sum issued in wages was
1,500,000/. sterling greater than in the corresponding week
in 184L—(Applause.) This is undoubtedly a great im.
provement, and all must have seen it with heartfelt setisfae-
lion. They have gained by this, as a Government will always
gain when the people are prosperous. But I am convinced
it was an improvement which they did not bring about—
that it was an improvement which theirpolicy directly tended
to prevent. That prosperity was the effect of a cheapness
which our rulers have attempted to make dear. Under the
pretence of making this country independent of foreign
supply, they have given us a system which, instead of
making us independent, makes us dependent in the worst
possible form. As the Lord Provost has justly said, there is
a natural dependence between nations which we ought not
to forget. Providence has given different productions to
different nations for the due interchange o commodities,
and in that manner to establish a beneficial commerce. But
not only are different productions given to different climates ;
even in the same climate there are stages of civilise ion
which are favourable to !particular states of production.
There is a state of society which is best fitted for raising raw
material, and in which it would not be proper for men to tura
their attention from the cultivation of corn-fields to the
manufacture of stockings, and there is another state in which
industry and capital take other forms, and in which they are
in a condition to supply vast extents of country with manu-
factured products. The intercourse between these countries
is the most natural and healthful mode of dependence which
can be conceived. There is no injury in that dependance—
there is no degradation in it. There is thus a mutual depend-
ence, and it is exactly as important to one side as to the other.
Even if there were any injury in it, we could not escape it.
We must be dependent on other countries for our supplies of
food. That question was decided when England ceased to be
an exporting country, and the question that remains is, how
are we to be dependent? The question was answered by the
Lord Provost. Go to Lancashire, and see those immense suc-
cessions of buildings, many of them so great as to be equal
in size to the capitals of some European kingdoms ; go in
and see the warehonses, with their stocks of goods, and look
at that machinery so wonderfully exact and exquisite. Look
at those great nurses of human beings all employed in pro-
ducing articles adapted for giving comfort to the people on
the banks of the Columbia River—to the population of the
Cape of Good Hope, or to that of Java and China. And
then, amidst all this condensation of industry, you will in-
quire, how are all these people to be fed ? But go to the
Ohio, and there see a change of scene. There you see a
new species of industry, equally extensive and equally
flourishing. There you see the desert everywhere receding
before the advancing tide of civilization ; there you see
the pioneers of civilization raising their log-huts, and
speedily surrounded by corn-fields that are capable of
supporting whole provinces ; and in every field the black
trunks of the forest are standing. And you cannot but
think of the concourse of population at 'home when you
see such forests which must in the coarse of a few months
be covered with food sufficient to support all Huddersfield.
Is not this, then, a natural and healthful dependence ?
Shall we not expect men will avail themselves of this beno•
ficent arrangement? And can it be doubted that, in sewn*
of scarcity, it would be highly desirable to see the maiac..
turing labourer of our own country breaking his fast on corn
of Ohio bread, and that it might easily be supposed that the
corn-grower would have an inclination to exchange a por-
tion of his produce for a Manchester cotton frock or shirt, a
coat of the woollen of Leeds, a Sheffield knife, or a Bir-
mingham spoon? Instead of this, the object of our Legis-
lature has been to make that sort of independence, that
while the people on this side of the Atlantic must submit
tihnopsesuoiniamtheenot,thanerdsiwdeillawreartievabdi:
marvelling at your pathantadst;wettedtfrohseur wltihiesllesotalf,onfrTidugn,p-office,
igno-
rance of the principles of free trade.—(Laughter and ap-
plause.) These, however, I believe, are the merits of bee
Majesty's present Ministers, as respects the prosperity which
the country has lately enjoyed. Good harvests have pre-
vented bad corn-laws proving very bad. The Govern-
menthasbeensa
vedifnroni spite of these laws.—(Applause.) It
has had a run of good luck; and those who have not observed
them closely, have confounded that good luck with good
laws. But good luck will not last for ever.—(Applause.)
Providence will not send the rain and the sunshine in the
quantity which will be necessary to save the reputation of
short-sighted statesmen.—(Great applause.) I have reason
to believe we are on the verge of very unprosperons times.
I wish, however, to say nothing that can prejudice the minds
aatntyemopthtienrgktoindrasioset
of the public, or excite undue alarm. I observe that the
itisle eeulsestrnhocafoyn grain,
ds
languageeucut
eionr
defenders of the present Administration say there is no chance
provisions ; but that the Whigs and the Anti-Corn-law Le e
nusgei.—(nformA.paptliaonnsei.n) mbuytsewlfhagatatihnestmstrah_
iahomfapvpaaeunntaybi
-etei great
onni:tuhriseliitsiryeae
shall
olonfruetst:l
ehi etenhpovar
reflerehonleed intomythheantediunta leoft-
Ns,teerrnsmthenemt,sedlesvehis
ter from Sir Thomas Fremantle, Secretary to the Irish Go-
the potato crop in that country. The view he gives of the
prospects of the coming year in that part of the United
Kingdom is worthy of attention. He says...." Her Majesty's
Government, in seeking to learn the opinion of judges awl
well. informed persons in every part of Ireland regarding
the possibility of the supply being sufficient for the support
of the people during the ensuing winter and spring, pro-
vided that care should be taken in preserving the stock, and
economy used in its consumption." Now, observe in this
letter, it is not even suggested that there is a stock, which,
with care and economy, will last even throughout the winter
and spring. Now, I ask you, when any Government can say
this at a time when the duty on corn is 15.. (when that
letter was written it was 175.) is it necessary to say more
about the merits of the present system. When that system
was first brought before us, it was alleged to have that woo.
derful sliding faculty which would epic us from sacrificing
our interests ; but you see just when it required to fall it
stands stiff. You have the Irish population crying famine.
while the index of your corn-law is pointed to pl.enty. It la
possible
Sir Thomas Fremantle may be able to give some ex-
planation of this in the House of Commons, but what that
may be I confess lamat a loss to conceive. He proceeds to
recommend certain measures for securing the crop, and thus
they quietly leave the ports closed. But this brings me
round again to my main argument. You see we are um
again approaching a dear time—a time when food vat be
dear. Already, I believe, it is no exaggeration to, fty that
the price which the labouring man pays for itc and tip:lied
is half as much again as it was a few rumba ago. ,
here
we can bring to the test the doctriales oftliese 7
ho :this is
a capitalist's question, and We "
the labourer has ue