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

creased—but you argue that you cannot compete with
the foreigner, in, conseqUonee of his command of a
cheaper supply of his home consumption of provisions.
—( Hear, hear. 1 Now here is a statement contained
in a pamphlet which I believe is c msidered a high authority,
for it has been quoted by several lion. Gentlemen opposite—it
is the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and he here gives an account of
the quantity of cotton manufacturied in this country in each
year since 1824; then states the quantity exported bothingoods
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 particular years of that period is
hardly fair, but that to judge of their effect, and to make a
comparison, it is better to take three or four consecutive years,
in order to judge of the effect of any law or system of laws. 1
have never said that the price of provisions has nothing to do
with the home consumption of manufactures; for if I take
as an imetanee' 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 than in
any one preceding year. But you say to me, that the high
price of provisions prevents the consumption of manufactured
artictes—that the people must buy corn, and there-
fore they have nothing to expend in the purchase
of clothi, g, and this accounts for the depression that has been
felt in our manufactures. But wl at do I find here? It is
stated that in 1824 you consumed 6-1,000,0001 be. of cotton by
the herne demand ; in 1827 you consumed 78,000,0001b5,
an I, you went on advancing till you came to 1840,
when the consumption was 175,000,00011a5. of co t t on-
grods.—( Hear.) You begin, according to Mr. Greg, with
64,000,0001b5., weep on to 78,000,0001b5., and 175,000,0001b5.
But last year the consumption fell to 103,000,0001b5. But how
let us t.ke the average of .the last four years, during which '
you say that trade was the most prosperous. 1 recol-
lect 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. fhcy considered that there wag never a period of four
consecutive years during which the cotton manufacture Lad
been more prosperous,; during three four years there was little
or no importation of foreign corn. Now, is it not remarkable
that if the inq °dation cf foreign corn • that is, the
exchange of foreign grain for your manufactured goods—
is necessary to manufacturin,z prosperity, that during the four
years, which or, your own showing were more prosperous
than any others,- there was the least amount of importation ?
--(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) From 1833
to 1836 inclusive, the whale amount of foreign wheat imported
into this country, did not exceed 130,000 quarters on the
average.—(Cheers ) Tine, that the manufacturing interest
was then prospering ; it is true that then, also, there was no
foreign importation . but you prove that the advantage of a
cheap comrnatuto7 provisions is of importance to the manufac-
turer, by selecting. these four years, because the price of
wheat did not then exceed 475. 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 Chamber of Commerce shows
you that the four years of the greatest prosperity
were the four years of the least amount of importation.
—( Hear, hear.) But then you say to sue, and
apparently with great force, that this is true, but that
you did not want such an importation of foreign corn during
those years, because in 1835 the price of corn was only
395. 2d. a quarter ; and though there might then be
great agricultural distress, yet still the cheapness of
rain supplied the deficiency of the foreign importation.
Now let rite meet ',he argument that as corn is
cheap, so is the increase in the consumption of
internal manufactures. I will • take from .111 r. Greg's pam-
phlet the years 1533, 1834, 1835,., and 1836, and compare
these years of cheapness with the last four years, during which
the price of corn h s been extravagantly high. During these last
four years three has been no such increase in the population as to
warrant any great increase in the consumption of manufactures
on that ground, so that nothing can be more fair than such a
cernparison.—( Hee', 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-
aump'ion 190,000,010 the.. —( (mast cries of "Hear, hear.")
Dm trig the last four years, during which provisions
have ben high. there were manufactured instead of
27,4,0(10,000.b5.1 369,000,C001b5 (Cheers)—there have been
ex pnrtett, hist ead of 160,000,0001b1., 227,000,00011a5. —( Hear.)
And now I come to the important question of home consump-
tion; and I find that during the cheap years there were
1t9,000,000110. of cotton reserved for home consumption,
while in, ,the last four years there have been re.erved for
home consumption 142,000,00011. e.—( Loud Tory cheers. )
In eaclt.year the quantity was as follows:—in 1833, there
were reserved for home consumption, 116.000,0001b5. ; in
1634, 108,00D,000:b3. ; in 1835, 21,0C3,0001b5. ; in '1836,
131,000,00f11b5. I will cow read the home cstoumption of the
last four-years ; in 1a33, there were reserved for home con-
sumption -173 000,00:)lbs of cotton; in 1639, 117,000,00011 as.;
in 1341, 103,000.00011 re., or 142,000,0001b5. on the average,
as compared with the years of cheap provisions. Mr. Greg.
also, says that the intern -I consumpti n-does not bear a proper
proportion to the external export —but is this a fair test ?--
( Hear.) I show that the exports have been great, but that
you say is not the question ; but is not the progress of the
home consumption a far test.? Ira those years Ido not find
that there has been an annual inerea-e in the population to
account for the annual increaae the consumption.; but do we
not find, from the documents before us, that taking the
. average of two, three, or four-years, the consumption of cotton
goods has greatly exceeded the p oportionate increase of the
population? It is true that last year it has fallen off to
103,500,0001 W., to a certain exert fortifying the argument
that an increase in the price of provisions may have led to a
diminished consumption.—(Cries of " Hear,' and cheers.)
But you must bear, in mind what the ordinary consumption was
before 1840, 175,000,0001b5., and let them make allowance for
that effect which always follows an extraordipary or more than
usual demand, which always leads to a depression in the years
following it; 1.33 and 1840 were the two greatest years
of consumption of. foreign cotton ever known ; in 1838, it was
173,000,Qt albs... but in the next year it fell to 117,000,0001 b,.
In the next year there was again a sudden rise, and it again
reached the enormous amount of 175;000,00u •lbs., but
in the following year it was again diminished. All
I can say is tha• by a reference to these papers, as far as
documents are concerned, while 1 a,huit the distress that pre-
vails, while I s'eplore that distress—while I deplore it, above
all, on account of the state of the labouring classes,
they may blame me a; they will, they mry burn
.me in effigy if ihey please, but all these Manifestations of opi-
nion Will not in the slightest degree abate my deep sympathy
for their sufferings, nor my sincere wish to relieve them.
Sir, it is on their account that I take the course which they so
violently condemn ; but allow me, Sir, just to read what the
ChaMber of Commerce of Manchester says of the effects of
over-oroduction. In the paper signed by the President of
that Chamber, I find the assertion that over-excitement had
occasioned speculations in that district to a loss of more
than 40,000,0001.—(Hear,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'/. have beets injudiciously expended]?—( Hear, hear. )
I come now, Sir, - the most painful part of this
'discussion, but 1 Ore Itound by a sense of duty
to say that it is -a itecessary conditions for a high
state of prosperity in a raahtffacturing country like this, that a
great demand for labour and great employment should be con-
current with great partial distress. Gentlemen have referred
to the condition cif hand-loom w eavers. Now take their con-
dition in -1836; when there was, as acknowledged upon all
Mods, se much prosperity in almost every part of industry. In
that year it was announced in the Speech from the Throne
that the state of trade and manufactures was in the highest
Proven rity. The mover of the address, Sir J. Wrottesley and
Mr. Parker, the Member fur Sheffield, both bore testimony to
the nourishing state of trade. Sir J..Wrottesi.ey said that never
was 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 manu'act urea, that to complete
the orders already received, it would be necessary, in the next
. few
,years. to construct additional engines to the amount of
70,060 horse-power to meet the demand. Now in:that year there
was, Sir, a very huge extent of partial and local distress, and
my proposition is that concurrently w ith great gene-at -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-
rence.—( Hear, hear.) I think that the greater the prospe-
rity of rnanufactures--the greater the development of skill—
the greater the improvement in' machinery, the greater must
fie the demand for manual labour.—( Bear, hear.) If you
take into account the immense trades and occupations which
derive indirectly a benefit front any improvement in machinery,
it mw-t be allowed that the aggregate of human labour ems
ployed is increased by every improve Bent; but it is no answer
• to my assertion that there may be the greatest possible partial
suffering, anti that great numbers mayr
general prosperity. be involved in the
deepest distress during such a period o
Take the case or the hand-loom weavers In 1835, which was
• a year of great proaperity. I find this melancholy account, that
great nunere of them were unable to provide for themselves
and their fatuities the means of sustaining life—that they were
• rhyhed in rags—that they were unable to send their
children to Sunday schools flout want of decent cloth-
' although their labour was excessive, and many of
trig ;
them worked for 16 hours and. more, and were driven to have
'recourse to ardent spirits to recruit their bodies.—( Hear,
• hear.) Now, Sir, this was at a period .when corn was cheaper
•' than it had been for 20 years.—blear.) This leads me
to think that -I cannot encourage the delusive hope, that by
reducing the price of corn we shall increase the demand
for manufactures.--( Hear.) Sir, 1 cannot hope that a re-
daction in the price of corn -will exempt this country from
'occasional and most revere suffering amongst some portion of
the p0i...1a-ion. Sir, let us take the case of the United
' • States, where 'the demand for labour is great, and
wages are generally high. ' Even there, there is
occasionally severe suffering. Sir, let us take the
statements of Mr. Buckingham. That gentleniaa says
that is nthe state of New York he was suri.rised to meet
with numerous cases of
M destituti
ham kion, and a
states ven of ahisctua surprise at
ss of
life fro starvation. r. Bucng h
m
• • the number of charitable' institutions, and at t e vast extent
• of distress which rendered them necessary, and this in a country
where there wag no restriction upon corn, and,. the necessaries
•
of life were cheap. —( Hear ) Therefore, air, I must still
retain the opinion which I have expressed already, that the
Corn-laws have attributed to them an undue Aare in producing
the distress which unquestionably ex ists.7— [The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet then paused for some time, and, looking over some papers,
put into his hand by an Hon. Member said)—Sir, my-Right
lion, friend behind me has found the passage in Mr. Buck-
.
iegharn'sboek to which I have referred, it is this, " I was
surprised to find so much indigenes., and so many instances of
ale.th from destititutiort; they were mere numerous than I
could hate thought possible, and they would be unaccountable,.
hut for thmLeti that the cultivators of the soil had given up
their occupations fur spreulationein railroads and canals, and
wasted theta in so much of the national capital, that, the
country being neglected, its nit ii cultivators were obliged
to import coin , instead of supp'ying other countries."
Sir, 1 have been charged with believing, which 1 utterly
key, that no toed eau result ft's to the measure I proposed.
" I felt nn suit thing. .1 deprecated extravagant expe, tations
that any immediate ,benetit :would t c,nlt from it. I depre-
cated such expectations because I es little expected them
fa be realised as ie a treat • repeal ; but I eiS-
tined/
~tated• that I expected ttese beucfits would result—
Brat, that agriculture would be exempted from thin ill effects
of having en r norruoue quantity t.f cern poured in at a *mitten
I
rate ; and s stated "also
.- that the none of England would be
less sutject tit a de •and for Lonny% as the demand
for corn would be
more regular under my plan than it was under
the present system. It-was, tharefore, rnet.tust to state that. I had
brought in a
inea,ere that would elf, et no real meant. 1 have
• been told that it would itryo good as far as American trade
because while the sliding scale existed, there
Wit concerned,
tees en of t ade. New a
could be no a cony. rsation - Dosage",
tleman with whom -1
h
nas that the averages
"
whit:
remedy to me,
• that Gentleman said es
should be. take ev, ry twelve weeks ,
instead of six, because, shall
twelve weeks', averages be
Unitid"States, Wait a know.
I will .the first
then be able to bring corn rrokmen ithe
ledge of the six weeks' average; he, said,
alteration in that
id,
weeks'e average, there will be no material .
time, and- I shall be able to bring
corn from A
An or mericader had
Those statenierts have been
.proved by facts-
teen sent to the United States foi a thousand barrels of flour,
Tat ordert off on the Ist of August, and 111 rived at
Lies_, was smut
VC)01 on the 13th of September, while an order sent to