The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-24 00:00:00

~=►

\

creased—but you argue that you eann.i er-
4*n7,e-
pete with
the foreigner, in consequence of his .01 • and of a
cheaper supply of his home consureptin ts.)l
—(Hear, hear. ) Now here is a rate• --'scentairsed
in a pamphlet which I believe is c esidered a thority,
for it has been quoted by several Hoe. Gentlemeteopposite:---it
is the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and he here gives an eeceunt of
the quantity of cotton manufactured in tins country in each
year since 1824; then states the quantity exported both in goods
and yarns, and then adds the quantity reserved for the home de-
mand. Now, during by far the greater portion of that
period the Corn-laws were in operation. Now I think it is
admitted that to select any partieular years of that period is
take
d three or four consecutive years,
effect,
system of laws. Irect. and to make a
ihoaor
comparison,dr(liyerto fair,
obidtugites tohhfeattttheetro,t
offj
effect
t ofe oany
t their i
have never said that the price of provisions has nothing to do
with the home consumption of manufactures; for if I take
as an iastance, the year 1840, during which the price of corn
was very high, I find that in that year there was a greater
consumption of manufactured cotton in this country
the
in
any one preceding year. But you say to. me, ttt Te ligh
price of provisions prevents the consumption on_tmanufactured
•
articles—that the people must buy corn, a d there-
fore they have nothing to expel i n the purchase
of clothing, and this accounts for the depression that has been
felt in our manufactures. But weat do I find here? It is
stated that in 1824 you consumed 64,000,0001b5. of cotton by
the home 000
10814bos:
"t
san 1, you t,le.ennatndo,n inadlynnyz.outiclionsymedea7mBe,
when the consumption was 175,000,0001h5. of cotton-
goods.—( Hear.) You begin, according- to Mr. Greg, with
61,000,00011)s. , and go on to 78,000,00011;s., and 15 ,0000001bs.
let us take the average of the last four years, eluting which
But last year the consumption fell to 10.1,00e,0001b5. But now
Von say that trade was the most prosperous. I seeol-
feet that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce pre-
sented a return to a Committee of this House, in
which they stated, that up to the end of 1836,
both commerce and manufactures were in the most prosperous
state. They considered that there was never a period of four
consecutive years during which the cotton manufacture had
been more prosperous ; during those four years there was little
or no importation of foreign corn. Now, is it not remarkable
that if the importation of foreign corn that is, the
exchange of foreign grain for your manufactured goods—
is necessary to manufacturing prosperity, that during the four
years, which on your own showing were more prosperous
than any others, there was the least tessount of importation ?
_.(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) From 1833
to 1536 inclusive, the whale amount of foreign wheat imported
into this country, did not exceed 139,000 quarters on the
average.—(Cheers.) True, that the neinufacturing interest
was then prospering ; it is true that then, also, there was no
foreign importation ; but you prove that the advantage of a
cheap command o; provisions is of importance to the manufac-
turer, by selecting these four rears, because the price of
wheat did not then exceed 4'7s. a quarter. That is
your argument—and you are obliged to abandon your
argument, that the importation of foreign corn,
is essential to your manufacturing prosperity—(Loud Tory
cheers)—for the Manchester Chamfer of Commerce shows
you that the four years of the greatest prosperity
were the four years of the least eament of importation.
—( Hear, hear.) But then you say to site, and
apparently with great force, that this is true, but that
you did not want such an import shun of foroan corn during
those years, because in 1835 the price of corn was only
395. 2d. a quarter ; and though there might then he
great agricultural distress, yet still the cheapness of
grain supplied the deficiency of the foreign importation.
Now let me meet :he argument that as corn is
cheap, so is the increase in the consumption of
internal manufactures. I will take from Mr. Greg's pam-
phlet the years 1833. 1834, 1835, and 1836, and compare
these years of cheapness with the last four years, during which
the price of corn has been extravagautly high. During these last
four years there has been no such increase its the population as to
warrant any great increase in the eonsumpt:on of manufactures
on that ground, so that nothing can be more fair than such a
comparison.—( Hear, hear.) I therefore take these four years
of cheap provisions, and I find, on the average of those years,
there were manufactured 279,000,000 lbs. of cotton ; there
were exported 160,000.000 lbs, and reserved for home con-
sumption 190,000,000 lbs..—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
During the last four years, during which provisions
have been high, there were manufactured instead of
279,000,0001b5.1 369,000,0001b5—( Cheers )--there have been
exported, instead of 160,000,00.01b5., 227,000,0001b5.—( Hear.)
And now I come to the impunkatit question of home consump-
tion, and I find that during the cheap years there were
119,000,0001b5. of cotton reserved fur home consumption►
while in the last four years there have been reserved for
home consumption 142,000,000: by.--( Loud 'fory cheers.)
In each year the quantity was as follows;--in 1833, there
were reserved for home consumption, 116,000,0001b5. ; in
1834, 108,000e0001b3. ; in 1835, 121,000,00011)5. ; in 1836,
131,000,0001b5. I will now read the home censumption of the
last four years; in le3B, there were reserved for home con-
sumption 173,000,0001b5. of cotton ; ill 1839, 117,000,0001b5. ;
in 1811, 103,000,0001h5., or 142,000,00011e5. on the average,
as compared with the years of cheap provisions. Mr. Greg,
also, says that the internal consuineti -is does not bear a proper
proportion to the external export --hut is this a fair test ?--
( Hear. ) I show that the exports hare been great, but that
you say is not the question ; but is not the progress of the,
home consumption a fair test? In those years Ido not find(
that there has been an annual increase in the population ro
account for the annual increase in the consumption; but do we
not find, from the documents before us, that taking the
average of two, three, or four:years, the consumptiors of cotton
goods has greatly exceeded the proportionate increase of the
population? It is true that last year it has fallen off to
103,500,0001b5., to a certain extent fors'sfying the argument
that an increase in the price of provisSons may have led to a
diminished consumption.—(Cries or ‘• Hear," and cheers. )
But you must bear in nsitel what the ordinary consumption was
before 1840, 175,000,0001b5., and let them make allowance for
that effect which always follows an extraordinary or more than
usual demand, which always leads to a depression in the years
following it; 1838 and 1840 were the two greatest
.yeers
of consumption of foreign cotton ever known ;in 1838, was
173,000,0001 W., but in the next year it fell to 117,000,0001 be.
In the next year there was again a stuldrii rise, and it again
reaelied the enormous amountof I 75,000,0%) lbs., but
in the following year it was again diminished. All
I can say is that by a reference 14 tl..ese papers, as far ae
documents are concerned, while 1 ado-is the distress that pre-
vails, while 1 deplore that distress-- while I deplore it, above
all, on account of the state of the labouring classes,
they may blame me as they will, they may burn
me in effigy if they please, but alt these re anifestatious of opi-
nion will not in the slightest degree abate my deep sympathy
for their sufferings, ner my sincere is isit to relieve them..
Sir, it is on their account that I take the course which they ee
violently condemn ; but allow me, Sir, just to read whec the
Chamber of Corm-tierce of Manchester says of the ejects of
over-production. In the parer signed by the President of
that Chamber, I find the assertion that over-exeitement had
occasioned speculations in that district to a. loss of more
than 40,000,0001.—( Ileer,hear. ) Can we say to what amount
of national loss over speculation may have led us in the
vast number of railway and other undertakings in which
our capitalists have plunged, if, in one district alone,
40,000,00:q. have been injudiciously expended)?—( Hear, hear.),
I come now, Sir, to the most painful part of this
discussion, but I am bound by a senso 'of duty
to say that it is a necessary condition for a hie.' a
state of prosperity in a manufacturing country 'At! this,
great demandfor labour and great emplow.ent should be eon.
current with great partial -distress, ii,lemen have referred
to the condition of hand-loom wear,. Now take their con-
(Rion in 1836, when there wo-,, as acknowledged upon all
hands, so much prosperity it almost every part of industry. In
"usced in the Speech from the Throne
that year it was ally,
that the state of trade and manufactures was in the highest
prosperity. T` re mover of the address, Sir J. Wrottesley
to
and
Mr. Parke -6 the Member for Sheffield, both bore testimony
the floc e. arishin state of trade. Sir J.:Wrottesley said that never
WV. a period of greater prosperity, and Mr. Parker added that.
never was there a more cheering state of trade, and that
such were the prospects of manufactures, that to complete
the orders already received, it would be necessary, in the next
few years, to construct additional engines to the amount of
70,000 horse-power to meet the demand. Now in:that year there
was, Sir, a very large extent of partial and local distress, and
my proposition is that concurrently with great general pros-
perity such distress may and will co-exist. But, Sir, at the
same time, it is my opinion that any attempt to interfere with
the progress of ingenuity would be futile and mischievous, and
I am not one of those who would be parties to such interfe-
renee.—( Hear, hear.) I think that the greater the prospe-
rity of manufactures—the greater the development of skill—
the greater the improvement in machinery, the greater must
be the demand for manual labour.—( Hear, hear.) If you
take into account the immense trades and occupations which
derive indirectly a benefit from any improvement in machinery,
it must be allowed that the aggregate of human labour em-
ployed is increased by every improvement; but it is no answer
to my assertion that there may be the greatest possible partial
suffering, and that great numbers may be involved in the
steepest distress during suds a period of general prosperity.
Take the case of the hand-loom weavers In 1835, which was
a year of great prosperity, I find this melancholy account, that
great numbers of them were unable to pi ovide for themselves
and their families the means of sustaining life—that they were
clothed in rags—that they were unable to send tht:ir,
children to Sunday schools from want of decent clut
them worked for 16 hours and more, and were driven lit, have
ing ; although their labour was excessive, and many,. of
recourse to ardent spirits to recruit their bodies.--(llear,
hoar.) Now, Sir, this was at a period when corn was cheaper
than it hail been for 20 years.— ) This leads the
to think that I cannot encourage the delusive hope, that by
reducing the price of corn we shall increase the detuana
for manufactures.—( Ilear.) Sir, I cannot hope that a re-•
duction in the price of corn will exempt this country from
occasional and most severe suffering amongst some portion of
the population. Sir, let us take the ease of the United
States, where the demand for labour is great, and
wages are generally high. Evert there, there is.
occasionally severe suffering. Sir, let us take the.
statements of Mr. Buckingham. That gentleman says
that in the state of New York he was surprised to meet
with numerous cases of destitution, and even of actual loses of
life from starvation. Mr. Buckingham states his surr.ise at
the number of charitable institutions, and at the vasi extent
of distress which rendered them necessary, and this in a conntry
where there was no restriction upon corn, and the necessaries
of life were cheap.—(Hear.) Therefore, Sir, I must still
retain the opinion which I have expressed already, that the
Corn-laws have attributed to them an undue share in producing
the distress which unquestionably exists.—[ The Bight Hon. Ba-
ronet then paused for some tinse, and, looking over sonic papers,
put into his hand by an Hon. Member said )—Sir, ray Right
Hon. Friend behind me has found the passage in Mr. Buck-
ingham's book to which I have referred, it is this, " I wsts
surprised to find so mach indigence, and so many instances of
deaths from destititution ; they were more numerous than I
could have thought possible, and they would be unaccountable,
but for this fact, that the cultivators of the soil had given up
their occupations for speculations in railroads and canals, and
wasted therein so much of the national capital, that, the:
country being neglected, its own cultivators were obliged
to import coin instead of supplying other countries."
Sir, I have been charged with believing, which I utterly
deny, that no good can result from the measure I proposed.
I felt no such thing. I deprecated extravagant expectations
that any immediate benefit would result from it. I depre-
cated such expectations because I as little expected them
to be realised as in a total repeal ; but I dis-
tinctly stated that I expected these benefits would result—
first, that agriculture would be exempted from the ill effects
of having an enormous quantity of corn poured in at a sudden,
rate ; and I stated also that the Bank of England would be•
less subject to a demand fur bullion, as the demand
for corn would be more regular under my plan than it was under
the present system. It was, therefore, not just to state that Ih:dt,
brought in a measure that would effect no real good. Ithae
been told that it would do no good as far as American
de'
could be no extension of trade. Now a
ulriLte
was concerned, because while the sliding scale existed, thr east
tbleemcaaunset:ali staid, tleman with whom I haul a conversation prepo
, that the averages,
remedy to me, which
with
aA'.nkne ow,
evreagryet:b.
tshwteuliltiel sbveeetkask'ease.
then be able to bring corn fron,?„;
I will wait the. first
ledge of the six weeks' a
veilrlains no material alteration i that
six weeks' average, United States,
there will
to brine corn front
time, and I
be beena proved by facts. Aninsteadof six,have or der had
sent to the United States r a thousand barrels, of flour
been
sent off on the lit of Au
that order was gust
, an(-. al rived at
on the 13th of September, 1
Liverpool whit an rdrder sent to