The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-02 00:00:00

in those districts had stopped work. That might be true, of
course, with respect to some districts, yet still it was a remark-
able thing (he did not state this for the purpose of denying the
existence of the distress—the indications were too manifest
to admit of denial)—still it was remarkable—it did suggest
some considerations to the mind, when they heard of this uni-
versal distress in the manufacturing districts, and the immense
extent to which the closing of mills had taken place
—that the quantities of cotton. taken out for home
manufacture this year, as compared with last year,
:awl not decreased. From the Government returns,
up to the 24th of June, 1842, it appeared that in the first six
months of the year 1841 there were 464,000 bales of cotton
token out for home consumption. From the statements of the
extent to which industry was paralysed in the cotton manufac-
ture
in the present year as compared with last year, he had ex-
caest endo
tto t
hfien
cdaas
ed.i m in
Theut
quantity " ()n 'in
the
takenquant otyu tt atkheenfi first six monthsat
out.
tßut
the 24th of June, 1842, was 533,000 bales. So that of last year was 464,000 bales. The quantity consumed up to
notwith-
standing the distress and the closing of the milk, yet the whole
quantity taken out for consumption in the first six months• of
184') exceeded that taken out in the first six months of 1841,
and he doubted whether it did not almost equal that
taken out during the first six months of any preceding
year, with one or two exceptions. lie knew that
that did not prove that the profits were great and that the
distress was diminished. Still the fact was remarkable.
He had taken, in one respect, a more desponding view of
the condition of this country than Honourable Gentlemen op-
posite. fie firmly believed that if they repealed the Corn-
lass, and if that measure produced the effect they anticipated,
they would net give a guarantee against the recurrence of se-
vere distress in certain localities. He was afraid, even if they
repealed the Coin-laws, they must look forward to occasional
severe local distress. At the present moment of severe distress
there were in some parts of the country new mills in the
course of building, and being filled with improved machinery.
It must always happen that in certain localities manufacturers of
smaller capital should have imperfect machinery, yet still
employing a great mass of population not capable of easy re-
moval, who would find it difficult to enter into
competition with those who could command capital, and
adopt the most approved machinery. To resist the progress of
those wonderful inventions was impossible, but though there
should be increased demand at present for manufactures, still
there must be simultaneously existing with that demand se-
vere distress on account of the sudden application of new ma-
chinery to the process. He could prove: that to be the ease,
but he would not dwell upon the matter. He could show that
the immediate application of improved machinery to manufac-
tures was the production of distress-a tendency to throw out
of employment adult males, and substitute for their labrur that
of females and children ; and that the result was, that men of
twanty-five or thirty, who up to that age were employed in
cotton manufacture, found it difficult to turn their hands to any
other occupation. They sheuld not make the Corn-laws responsible
laws for this. lie did not, however, make that an impeach-
ment of those inventions. Those inventions might cause em-
ployment in mechanical industry of another nature, but still
commercial prosperity might be great ; yet in certain districts,
from which it was difficult to remove men with large families,
distress would arise from this cause. Looking at this state of
things, he could not anticipate that absence of distress which
some Hon. Gentlemen calculated upon. They had applied
harsh terms to the measures which Government had taken to
alleviate the distress. They talked of " begging boxes " and
charitable relief," and said that such remedies were not
satisfactory. lie admitted they were less satisfactory than any
mode of providing employment ; less satisfactory, in every re-
spect, in a social point of view, to the honest and independent
feeling of those who dreaded temporary assistance, and who pre-
ferred 'that labour which enabled the poor man by the sweat of his
brow to gain an honest subsistence. But when pressure came
could any man say that even that unsatisfactory mode of relief
ought to be refused ? Was it wise to disparage that mode of re.
ceieing contributions, when they themselves must feel that no
immediate improvement, according to their own views, of com-
mercial policy, could result from their measures ? He gave
credit to the patience and forbearance with which the people
had borne their distress, and, he believed, if left to themselves,
they would continue to manifest that patience. He thought
them entitled to a higher degree of credit, in consequence of the
persevering efforts made to inflame their minds by wicked per-
sons, who, he had conclusise proof, attempted to indispose them
to honest industry. While on one hand their admiration was raised
by the forbearance of the people, on the other their indignation
must be excited against those who, by violent language, attempted
to urge the people to courses which, for the preservation of the
best interests of all, would give the present Government no
alternative but their firm repression, the repression of disobe-
dience to the law, and the maintenance of peace against any
efforts at disturbance.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that, notwithstanding tbe
regret expressed by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the opinion
to which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) gave utterance on a former
occasion, that subscriptions to the Anti-Corn-law League were
more humane subscriptions for the relief of charitable
objects than any other, yet he still adhered to
that opinion. With respect to what had been sail,
in answer to the arguments of the Hon. Member for White-
haven (Mr. M. Attwood), ho (Mr. Gibson) thought that
gentleman had expressed himself consistently, rationally, and
wisely, as he held that.protection was a source of national pros-
perity. Because he was in favour of protection and opposed to
relaxation, he was consistent in voting for an inquiry. 'What
course was formerly pursued with agricultural distress? Why,
Committees of Inquiry were appointed. There was tbe Pay-
master of the Forces looking with tranquil indifference at the
distress of the manufacturers, who seconded a motion in 1321
for an inquiry into agricultural distress.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
It was then said that mere sympathy was not enough—
that they wanted more from the priest than his blessing—
they wanted his pence. Such was the language used then,
and they were right, for though an inquiry might be productive
of no real good, it would show the people that they were ready
to inquire into their distress.—( Hear, hear.) It was upon the
Caine grounds that they now asked for inquiry. It was true
there were different opinions on the cause of that distress ; but
that was the very reason why an inquiry ought to be instituted.
—( Hear, hear.) He begged of the House to favour him
with its attention, while he read some statements respecting
Manchester, the metropolis of the cotton manufacture. The
lion. Gentleman then read a letter from the proprietor of the
Oxford-row cotton manufactory, in which the writer stated
that, in consequence of the state of the trade, 260 workmen had
heeis discharged, and that he was afraid he would be obliged to
turfs a great number out of employment. The Hon. Gentle-
roan then read a statement, signed by Mr. Herbert, the Dean
of Manchester, in which it was stated that 1,200 persons in
Manchester were dependent for their support on the soup
which they received from the charity fund; and that 7,500,
who were making small wages, were partially dependent
on it.—( Hear, hear.) The writer then went on to
detail particular instances of distress. One family were
without food for two days; a father of a family shed tears when
a ticket was given him; and another, with a wife and five
children, lived on a pound of bread for two days. Such facts,
the enter continued, might easily be multiplied. 1,500 quarts
of soup were at first distributed, but, during the four last
weeks, 3,700 quarts were given. Such was the state of things
in Manchester. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department regretted that the lion. Member for
Bolton had raised unnecessary alarm by stating that they were
likely to hay* a delcient harvest. But if that were so, was it
not better to state the fact, that it might not come upon them un-
provided -( Hear, hear.) If he were desirous of the charac-
ter of a cautious statesman, he would rather yield to the fear
of such a calamity, than depend ors the expectation of the
other.—( Hear, hear.) But what did the Farmer's Journal
say upon the subject ? He would quote from the " Corn-
trade letter" of the 20th of June. The writer stated his
opinion to be that there was little corn in the hands of
the farmers, and that the coming harvest was not
likely to yield the average crop. He stated the de-
ficiency in 1840 was calculated to be 4,600,000 quarters,
but that Ireland and the Continent were open to them, from
which 6,218,817 quarters were obtained. But, now that Ire-
land was herself bankrupt, and that the Continent was not
likely to grow wheat for them, they would not be able to ob-
tain more than 2,000,000 quarters from them ; so that four and
a quarter millions of quarters were to be supplied.—( Hear,
hear. 1 That was the statement in the Farmer's Journal, and
it was confirmed by the dark-lane Express. This subject
was germane to the question before the House, because
the distress wai occasioned by a deficiency of
food. Charitable contributions would do no good whatever.
There were numbers in the country who wanted food, and he
did not see how they were to obtain it, if the Corn-laws were
maintained. It was true the Corn-law would net pravide im-
mediate relief, and the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir J, Graham's
had misunderstood the argument of the lion. Member on
that point. What the Hon. Gentleman said was, e'ees the
Corn-law would not be of itnmediate efficacy, end that it
would require some years to bring the country to that healthy
state in which it would be if the Corn-laws had never existed.
But the system of a sliding scale would not produce that
effect. Nothing less than a total abolition of the
Corn-laws would produce that result. ( Hear, hear.)
They could not stop short of free trade. It was a fallacy to
talk of levying a moderate protecting duty, and doing away
with prohibition. They could do no such thing, lf, under a
system of free trade, they would import twenty quarters of
wheat, while under a moderate protecting duty they would
only import fifteen quarters, that moderate protecting duty
was, to all intents and purposes, a prohibition as far as re-
garded five quarters of wheat.—( Cheers.) The only proper
judge of the wants of the community, of the quantity of food
which the community ought to consume, was the community
itself. For any statesman to pretend to know what the wants of
the community were better than the community itself, appeared
to him to be one of the wildest and most visionary ideas in the
world.—( Hear, hear.) He was justified in saying this boy the
conduct of the Bight Hon. Baronet. The Right Hon. Baro-
net had never been able to give any good reason whys in the
alterations in the tariff, he had gone no further, The Right
lion, Baronet, and the Right Hon. Gentlemen the Vice-Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade had, in their speeches, laid down
free trade principles as clearly as any Anti-Corn-law lecturer
could have done.—(Hear, hear.) The only difference between
the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite and himself was as tattle
practical application of those principles.—(Hear, hear,) ne
Right Hon. Baronet said that they ought to buy in the clttai )est
market, and that it was to manufactures, and not to the Corn-
laws that the prosperity of the landed interest was owing
(Cheers.) The Vice President of the Board of Trade said if they
imported cattle to the value of 500,600/. a -year they must ex-
port commodities of an equal value to pay for them. Here
they had the two great principles of free trade conceded—
( Loud cheers)—first, the right to.buy in the cheapest market ;
and secondly, the principle that if there be an impost trade
there must be an export trade—( Cheers)—and that principle
fur which they contended was also admitted—that it was not
corn-laws, or beef-laws, or mutton-laws, that were the founda-
tion of the welfare of the landed interest, but the prosperity of
manufactures.—( Cheers. 1 Could anything be more reason-
able than what was asked for by the present motion? It was
admitted that the country was in a state of unparalleled distress,
and all that' was asked for was an inquiry into the causes -
of the distress, lie would not quibble about the wording
of the motion. If he shirked the proposition the only excuse
he could give for so doing was some quibble about wording of
it. He sheuld be laughed at and be told by his constituents
that he was shirking the question if he were to avail himself
of such a subterfuge, If the Hon. Gentlemen opposite voted
against the motion solely upon such grounds,
they would be
adTeh They r wouldinqui r merelylt.
nt understand
pausesstnad
misunderstood out of doors, People out of doors knew
o
"an g motion t otinle hiradqubiebebnlesm,
thatno t h
of the distress, and calling upon the Exeleugtivie
remedy. Af next session the Executive were to beo InOoldviofe a
diroir.ishing trade, arid of the continuan • and ' t
continuanceincrease of
distress, what would be said? Why, they would at once be told
that they had made no motion for • •
inquiry.—(Loud cheers.)
—that they had sat, like the 114,-ht Hon. Gentleman the Pay-
mas'er of the Forces, with tranquil • -1T
indifference—(Cheers erence—(Cheers and
laughter) -and had never exerted themselves to draw attention
to the subiect,—( Loud cheers.) If they had acted in such. H
they would be undeserving of
being returned to 'seat
—(Cheers.) They did not ask the House to foi'erfere
with the rights of others ; they onl • asked to be permitted to
exercise their own industry,' t should
and that those smpe irnen s
be -- • retooted which prevented them from earning their bread.—
( Cheers.) When the agricultural interest complained of dis-
tress, did they content thenseelves with merely asking this.
No ! they interfered with the rights of others—(Cheers)—
they asked that the trade of the country should be checked by
Act of Parliament.—( Cheers.) They asked that they should
bo,s ctmstituted the sale shopkeepers, provision merchants, 3Ma
porveyors of the United Kingdom.—(Cheers.) Tlla atanu.,
factorCrs asked nothing of this sort. All they wanted was to
he permitted to exercise their industry without impediment. That
was a measure of justice, and (night not to be postponed
on account of the vested interests of those who had coramitted