DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.

HC Deb 01 July 1842 vol 64 cc861-936

The Order of the Day for going into committee of supply,

Mr. Wallace

rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, upon the distress of the country. It was his anxious desire to bring forward the information he wished to communicate in the way least likely to lead to any sort of excitement amongst those most deeply affected by the object of his motion. His object was, that there should be a discussion in that House with a view of bringing out the actual state of the distress which pervaded the kingdom from one end to the other. Whilst he would devote his attention chiefly to the localities with which he was acquainted, and which had, in a manner, entrusted him with their cause, he would invite other hon. Members, representing constituencies similar to his own, to state the extent and particulars of the distress which they knew to exist. He would illustrate his statements by examples which could be denied, so as to enable the Government to take into their consideration the present wide-spread and unprecedented distress. He thought he should best discharge his duty by entering at once upon the task which he had laid down for himself. In the first place, he would call the attention of the House to the state of the mercantile metropolis of Scotland. He would bring forward no information, verbal or documentary, respecting which he was not prepared to give the name of his informant to her Majesty's Ministers, or, if it were required in a manner respectful to the individuals, he would not withhold the names of his informants from any Gentleman at either side of the House. His only object was, that the whole truth should be known. He might state, in the first place, that he believed no class, nor any locality con- nected with the trade of the country, enjoyed, in any degree, that prosperity, or that degree of employment, without which society in the country could not continue to exist. But it would be better to confine himself as much as possible to the documents on the subject. The first was a letter from Glasgow, dated the 11th of June. It stated— That trade is in a much worse state than it was here in January last. The number of unemployed has been increasing steadily during the last six months, and the number of persons upon the relief fund here, at present amounts to 12,000. This, however, does not show the numbers who are out of employment, as individuals do not, generally, apply for relief, while they have the means of support by selling or pawning their furniture or clothes. Wages have fallen in every department of trade, and the prospect is that they will continue to fall. The mill owners and manufacturers have very recently discharged a large portion of their workers, and the general feeling is, that they will continue to do so to a much greater extent. The next was a letter dated the 18th of June:— This town is wofully stricken; for to-day 4,250 rations of bread and soup have been furnished, which, on a moderate calculation, may be partaken of by from 8,000 to 10,000 individuals. There are 1,000 men employed, but there is reason to believe that ten times that number in the city and suburbs are out of employment. Still there has been no efficient inquiry instituted by the authorities. Great and unobtrusive suffering exists among orphan families, widows, and aged spinsters. I am indeed sorry I cannot render you more efficient service in the way of information, as the mystery preserved by the relief committee renders it impossible. The nature of the work given is found to be a complete barrier to numbers who are emaciated and weakened by hunger. The next was a printed document respecting the employment of the poor in Glasgow; and its statements, he believed, were perfectly correct. We have experienced considerable difficulty in procuring anything like accurate information on this important but painful subject. A want of hearty and necessary interest at first, gave place to a defective and ill-organized mode of granting relief; add we believe it is only within this day or two that a probably efficient system has been adopted. There are about 1,000 men engaged in all—300 in removing a hill near the lunatic asylum, 500 at stone breaking, and 200 supplied with webs. Those on the hill have been paid, until able to earn the amount, 1s. per day, besides, in numerous cases, being supplied with butter- milk, soup, and bread. The stone-breakers have been less fortunate; they have had no shilling a day granted to them; many soft of hand and weak in body not realizing above 4d. per day, although individuals with families have been materially assisted with rations of soup and bread. Other workmen, however, have no difficulty in making 1s., and even 1s. 3d.—which last is the highest amount allowed for a day's wage. Now, he must say, that he concurred in the observation that the House was not sufficiently informed on the subject of distress that existed in the country, and it was in that situation, because there had been no authorised inquiry into the state of the inhabitants of the country. Throughout the country there was a general anxiety to conceal the state of matters, and to prevent them from being known to her Majesty's Government. It was his belief, from the numerous letters he had received, that the fact was as he had stated, that there was an anxiety in many quarters to conceal the unparalleled distress that now prevailed. He in reference to this subject, should read another communication from Glasgow:— During the last week there have been several large meetings of a portion of the unemployed in the Green, where the causes of their present distress, and the best mode of alleviating it, having been amply discussed. At a meeting of this kind on Thursday, it was resolved that, on the following day, they should proceed en masse to the city, for the purpose of soliciting charity. On Friday afternoon, accordingly, several hundreds of them assembled at the Royal Exchange, with a view, it appears, of commencing their tour of mendicancy through the city, by soliciting assistance from the gentlemen who attend the room. A benevolent gentleman, whose sympathies were excited by the appearance of so many of his fellow-creatures seeking bread, resolved on spending a sum of money for the purchase of loaves, and proceeded, accompanied by the greater portion of the unemployed, to a baker's shop in Argyle-street, where he bought a considerable number of loaves, and handed them out to the crowd, by whom they were greedily accepted. The pressure, however, became so great, that the police were forced to interfere, and for the protection of the gentleman himself, who was pressed on all hands by the crowd, he was taken to the police-office, where he was of course at once set at liberty by the lieutenant on duty, The unemployed again returned to the Exchange in considerable numbers, and loitered about for some time, when they were informed by the superintendent of police that they could not be allowed to congregate together in the streets, but that if they wished to hold any communication with the authorities they had better repair to the City Hall, which would be opened for their reception. The entire body then moved off to the City Hall, from whence they sent a deputation to wait on the Lord Provost, to whom his Lordship explained the measures which were taking by the relief committee for the supply of their wants, and urged the impropriety of their assembling on the streets in the tumultuous manner referred to. The deputation expressed themselves satisfied with his Lordship's statement, and promised to use every effort in their power to prevent a repetition of the scene which had that day been exhibited. This promise, we have reason to believe, the deputation fulfilled to the utmost; but, in spite of their solicitations, it was resolved, at a meeting afterwards held, to assemble again on Saturday at the Royal Exchange. On Saturday forenoon, in terms of this resolution, a large number met in front of the Exchange, but, upon being remonstrated with by the police, they went away. In the paragraph he had read would be found a fact that was unprecedented in the annals of Glasgow, namely, that a gentleman, moved by the misery of which he was an eye-witness, should go into a shop in the city of Glasgow, put his hand in his pocket and purchase the contents of a baker's shop to distribute them to the poor. He had now to call their attention to the numbers of unemployed in Glasgow. The unemployed are still increasing, notwithstanding the vigorous efforts of the relief committee to continue them at the miserable employment which great numbers of them eagerly compete for. There are, altogether, upwards of 1,000, with daily applications from scores of other miserable wrecks of men. The following may be considered as a fair estimate of those engaged at work, such as it is:—

Working as labourers on the Milton
Estate	300
At the Quarry Hogganfield	20
Breaking stones, &c, at Duke-street	240
Breaking stones, &c., at Parliament-road	180
Point Look-out—Garscube-road	70
Weaving	250
Cleaning Gallowgate-burn	20
Cleaning March-burn	13
	1,093

Besides the above, about 2,000 persons are supplied with bread and soup daily, at the premises in St. Enoch's Wynd. For the poor miserable souls reduced to these sad alternatives, we are entitled to state, that those in employment at manual or other labour are assiduous and attentive, while all are grateful and thankful. We may also state that the above does not by any means include all the unem- ployed of Glasgow. There are hundreds starving in misery and rags, who could not bear the thought of being marshalled up to the soup kitchen, for an allowance of the pauper's fare, and thousands besides, who could neither break stones on the highway, nor rake the mud out of such filthy drains as the Gallow-gate-burn. That, he believed, to be a true and just picture of the condition of the people. It had appeared in the public papers printed in that city; and he had now to read a letter from a friend of his, who had good means of ascertaining the truth. The letter was dated the 14th of June:— Trade is much worse since January. Many mill-owners, &c. dropping their hands, and more expected to do so. Many persons think that matters will be even worse yet, and a general heavy and gloomy feeling pervades society. In the home trade, something has been doing lately, arising from the usual demands at this season of the 'year, but this demand is now over, and the home trade has also become heavy. On applying to-day at the office of the relief committee for the unemployed, I find about 3,000 heads of families for the city and suburbs, out of work, and the rough calculation is that about 12,000 persons are dependent on this fund at present. Besides these, many individuals are supposed to be without employment, but who have not applied for relief, having some small means of support left, by pawning their clothes, furniture, &c. Such is the state of things, which it is the pleasure of two-thirds of your honourable Houses of Parliament should exist in this once flourishing community. Our trade is drying up, its foreign springs being in a state of gradual diminution, and our home trade will decay along with it. We are a doomed people. The curse of aristocracy is upon us. He believed that to be a true, and brief, and very faithful account of the situation of Glasgow. Glasgow was surrounded by many manufacturing districts, and he was prepared to state that in all of them there was the greatest distress amongst the manufacturers, shopkeepers, shippers of goods, and in all the various trades connected with the manufacturing interest. He had now to turn to a community which had once been very thriving. In Kilmarnock the carpet trade had hitherto been very thriving—as thriving as any in the kingdom. He meant now to read to the House a description from one through whose hands the funds passed for the relief of the distress. The letter was from Kilmarnock, dated June 18:— During the time I was engaged lately to distribute some 40l. among the unemployed, it was heart-rending to hear in detail the amount of misery and destitution related by some of the recipients, who declared they had neither meat, coals, nor clothing for a long time, having sold every saleable article they had previous to making application for relief. I shall only give one shade in this picture of human misery. One day a person applied to me to lay his case before the committee. He had been out of employment since January. His wife had been badly for some years with asthma, and had not one bit of meat either for her or himself. I knew the man to be a respectable resident in the place, and he was well known to the whole of the committee to be so. He received 1s. 6d. They could not give him more owing to the pressure of the applicants, the place being sometimes literally mobbed. This case is but a fair sample of scores of beings who were served with nine-pence each, the most ever given to adults, and 3d. for each child, and I am conscious that scores of them could be found at the present moment who are dragging out a miserable existence,' who have no kind eye to pity, nor hand to help;' who cannot find work, and who are unable to break stones, or work at outdoor labour. These are but the outlines of a true drama in living character, and if presented to the optics of our aristocracy, would tell them a tale which, if not calculated to promote sympathy, might induce fear. The next was a letter from a person well acquainted with the working classes, it was dated Kilmarnock, 20th June:— At no former period were the working classes here so ill clad and ill fed, and so utterly unable to pay the rents of their houses, or the little debts which they have contracted; and I am informed by the captain of police (who knows the state of the people better than any man here) that an immense number of the working classes have sold or pawned every article they could bring into the market—that now they have nothing in the shape of personal property to fall back upon, and that the most precarious employment, and the most scanty wages, alone stand between them and starvation. An immense number of emigrants have left this place, and many hundreds are anxious to go, if they had money to pay their passage, to Canada. They are willing to risk any conceivable calamity, rather than remain where evident starvation awaits them. May God grant that your attempt on the present occasion may be attended with favourable results. A letter from Kilmarnock, dated the 14th June, runs thus:— The working classes every where are now completely sunk into a state of heartless apathy, as regards their hopes of parliamentary benefits. He said that the working classes ought not to be allowed by Government to fall into such a state of destitution, that they should have abandoned all hope of relief from a united Parliament. Now, it would be his endeavour to bring their case in such a way before the House that, if the poor could not have relief, they might at least know there was some sympathy entertained for their sufferings. He came now to that ill-fated class, of which they had heard so much, and yet had not heard all the truth, as to its sufferings. According to the petition which had been presented the other day it would be seen that the poor people of Paisley felt that their situation had been badly considered, however good was the intention. The letter he had now to read was dated Paisley, the 19th of June: I see from the papers the manner in which the Government have shuffled out of their conduct, in the Duke of Wellington's answer to Lord Kinnaird. It is quite clear that unless some great effort be made to secure provision for the starving manufacturing population, during the approaching winter, by such a motion as yours, Parliament will be adjourned, and they will be allowed to starve and die, or to have their lives preserved by the bounty of their neighbours in any way it can be attained. Here things are looking worse and worse at present, the time for making preparations for the autumn trade is at hand, and our most experienced manufacturers assure me there is no prospect whatever of the great mass of the unemployed being taken up this year. The next letter alluded to the funds of the committee, Great King William Street, and their disposal of them was dated Paisley, June 20:— The stocks of coarse goods made for the manufacturing districts and American market are still heavy, there having been no sales in these markets for long, and no appearance of any. The clergymen's committee was formed at the beginning of winter, to meet a special case. The members of churches had, in general, been able to maintain themselves. They are generally thoughtful and well doing. But the distress had been so long continued—no hope of amendment—the winter intense, many of them suffering very severely, and yet ashamed to go down to the level of a common pauperism. They had always been a rampart against pauperism, and we wish to maintain their spirit of independence, and furnish supplies in a way as little likely as possible to interfere with it. The clergy of the various denominations agreed to issue a circular to the churches, to enable us to make collections. Our application met with a liberal response. It was designed at the outset, that we should act independently of the general relief committee. This was departed from, to avoid any appearance of schism. We agreed to pay over to the general committee the sums which we received, on the understanding that we should from time to time receive such sums again as we needed, after having stated our case, and when the committee had judged and determined in the matter by a vote. On the whole, the arrangement wrought well, and an immense deal of good was done. The ministers in this way distributed upwards of 3000l., assisted by all the sessions of the various churches, established and dissenting. Some express surprise that the young men here generally do not enlist. They should know that Scotchmen never do so when sober. They are too reflective for that. If they wish them to enlist, let them furnish them with work and good wages. The more thoughtless will get drunk and then enlist, but not till then. The very lowest of the people are getting more civilized in reference to war than some who rule over them. This letter, it would be perceived alluded to a very curious fact, that enlisting was not going on in Scotland. The letter was written by a most pious clergy man, beloved and respected by all who knew him, and who in his charities and demeanour made no distinction between his own sect and that of others. He could give the same high character to the clergyman whose letter he was about to read. This gentleman was a clergyman of the established church of Scotland, and his polities, he believed, those of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The letter he was about to read was dated the 25th of June:— 1. My opinion of the whole scheme of the Government interference with our local charity has been from the beginning (and every day confirms it), a most uncalled for thing—that it has done much mischief—that it has increased greatly the expense instead of lessening it, and that the persons at the head of it here have showed themselves totally ignorant of the habits of the Scots. 2. I have all along contended strongly against the plan of stores, because they degrade the minds, and condition, and feelings of our more respectable operatives. Because there are many very necessary articles for families which the stores do not and perhaps cannot provide, and because the articles in the stores are often of bad quality, while the superintendence—a very expensive thing, too—can never be so strict as that of an honest man over his own concerns. Moreover, the villages do not get anything from the stores; and why should their inhabitants be put upon a different footing from the town?—3. With regard to the recipients from the stores I may say, with perfect accuracy, that they are thankful for what is given them, while they feel that it is given in an ungracious way, and I am certain that the difficulties of winter were conquered, and the peace of the community preserved by a system precisely the reverse of what is now going on—a system, more economical by far than the present, and a system which consulted the feelings of the people as human beings, while it sympathised with them under distresses for which they assuredly were not responsible.—4. Any reduction in point of numbers on the lists, as effected by the new men, is more ideal than real. The result of two scrutinies, made for the very purpose of finding fault, has confessedly confirmed the substantial accuracy of the whole.—5., A grievous act of injustice has been done by the commissioner, and is going on, viz., the refusal to give in any case, above 6s. a-week to one family, however large, coupled with the rule, that a lad above sixteen counts as an additional case, though living under the same roof. The effect of this has been, that in some cases 16s. has been drawn by one family, while another, larger far, but all under sixteen, gets only 6s. This was stated to me yesterday by two magistrates.—While the men at out-door work have been provided, very properly, with barrows and other implements, their repeated petitions for shoes have been harshly rejected. The more I reflect on the state of our town, the more I am convinced that nothing will save it and the commercial interests of the country but a total revolution in the commercial tariff, and a sweeping away of all restrictions. He had also to read the following, and to bear testimony to the sentiments of gratitude entertained for what had been done by her Majesty with respect to the Paisley manufacturers. The letter was dated Paisley, June 20:— From a return just made up and shown me to-day, the number of cotton-spinners, machine-makers, and so forth, idle, in John-stone, is 1,254. The number employed is only 993. About seventy persons have been transported to Canada from Johnstone, by subscription, to lighten the pressure. Trade here has been going back for some weeks, and still continues to do so. A shawl merchant told me to-day he usually employs 500 weavers for the American market at this season; this year he has not one, and does not expect to have one for some time. The prospect of the new American tariff, he assures me, has completely closed that market against Paisley goods. The Queen's shawls were the principal cause of our slight revival in spring. That class of goods affords to the weavers good wages, if they are continued at the same pattern. They have not been continued in general, and in consequence the weavers' wages have been eaten up by the changes in the mountings of their webs. The condition of the people here is most alarming, and the House of Commons should be implored to do something for them, and others similarly situated, before it breaks up for the season. He had now to call the attention of the House to the fact that he had a few days before presented a petition from Paisley, signed by 6,000 persons. This was the petition to which he had now to call their attention. The hon. Member read the petition, which set forth— That, owing to a long and severe depression of trade, thousands of the most industrious of the inhabitants of this place have been subjected to great privation and suffering; a large portion of them have been compelled to part with every article that would sell or pledge, to sustain the lives of themselves and suffering families. For these ten months past many thousands of them have been entirely dependent on public contributions received from the humane, in this and other countries, by a committee, composed of the magistrates and other influential gentlemen belonging to the town and country, and which contributions were given to the sufferers in tickets, bearing the value of 1s. 2d. per week to each individual, or the small sum of 2d. per day, being less than one-half of the allowances given to common felons in prison. So inadequate is the small sum given, that many parents, to suppress the calls of their starving children, are obliged to want food two days in the week; yet, under these painful circumstances, they are compelled to labour ten hours in each day. That your petitioners take this opportunity of informing your honourable House, that the inadequacy of the allowances given to the operatives of Paisley, and which has been the cause of so much suffering, is a disgrace to a civilized people; it is undermining the constitutions of the sufferers, and hastening them and their families into untimely graves. Such treatment is at utter variance with that noble maxim laid down by the Founder of Christianity, and ought to be the ruling principle with all Governments, 'What ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them. That your petitioners cannot stand silently by and witness such cruelty, which, if not speedily counteracted, may drive the people to desperation, and by so doing endanger the peace of the country. That it cannot be expected an intelligent, industrious, and brave people, will continue well affected to a Government which allows them to be treated worse than convicted folons. That while the unfortunate inhabitants of this place have been thus denied a sufficient allowance of food, they have also suffered much from the want of bed and body clothing, and although several hundred pounds were expended by the relief committee in procuring for them those articles, it did but little to mitigate the sufferings of the destitute thousands. [The hon. Member next referred to a notice of a contract for provisions, which having been issued without a name, led the people to a belief that this course had been adopted with the view of obtaining provisions of bad quality, mere trash, because no person was signified on whom the responsibility for the quality of provisions accepted should fall.] He now came to a petition adopted by twenty-three men, heads of families, stone-quarriers to the provost of Paisley. The petition stated:— The under-mentioned fathers of families, employed at the stone quarry, having to maintain their wives and from four to eight children under sixteen years of age, without any other income than the supply-line of 6s. weekly, being not more than 1¼d. per day for each individual, if paid in money in place of the store line, which makes it much less—less than what is necessary to maintain healthy existence, being, in fact, a state of constant punishment. Then followed the names of the petitioners, forming a list of twenty-three persons, having 116 children under sixteen years of age, being an average of five children to each, who, with their parents, making seven in each family, were supported upon the pittance of l0d. per week each. He would now read a letter from a clergyman of different political opinions from the worthy minister whose opinions he had before cited; this letter was dated the 2lst of June. [The hon. Member read the letter, which confirmed the statements made in the petition, and added]— The simple fact that whole families, of from six to ten persons, are compelled to subsist upon 6s. a week, averaging the miserable pittance of 1d. a day for each individual, in some cases a little more and others a little less, many of them wanting food for two days in the week—should of itself be sufficient to obtain the effective interference of the Legislature. I have visited much among the an-employed, and I can truly say, that I have beheld in one short hour, in the homes of honest and industrious men, loyal subjects of the British throne, more misery from unrelieved destitution than ought to exist in any community where there is not an actual famine. I have seen suffering in every form to such a fearful amount as to render more than doubtful the intentions of those who have hitherto professed to help us by their committees and other agents, whether their object is to keep the people alive, or to starve them inch by inch—if they have not in reality, like the poor man in the fable with his horse, got the notion into their heads, that by a little skilful training they can, in these hard times, teach the people to live upon air. The treatment of the people, when their condition was perfectly ascertained, by successive governments, has confirmed an opinion very generally held, that neither of the two great factions are capable of holding the helm in the present emergency, and if the vessel of the State is to be carried safely and without a revolution through our 'sea of troubles,' it must be by an extraordinary exercise of the regal power by our brave and patriotic Queen, or by a large infusion of the popular will into the councils of the Legislature. Let me then say, what we need, and must have if you would prevent fatal consequences, is an immediate and sufficient provision for the destitute, either by an order in council, enforcing a local assessment, with instructions for a fixed and specified relief, for which I believe there is constitutional authority—or by a similar aid from the public purse. The documents which he was now about to read were of a most distressing nature to him; they referred to the town with which he himself was connected, and which he had the honour of representing. That town had long been a pattern, both to Scotland and England, for the industry of its inhabitants, and the skill which they brought to bear upon the various branches of labour carried on there. It was renowned for ship-building, and last year no fewer than six steam-ships, intended to navigate the Atlantic, were to be seen there upon the stocks at the same time. The town was once full of business; it would have been difficult to have found an idle man in it: but now many of the artisans had emigrated to distant shores. They were there employed in building ships and steamers for those nations who were our most dangerous rivals in commerce; but they would find in the countries to which they had emigrated that prosperity which was due to their industry and skill. He would read to the House a letter which he had received from the chief magistrate of Greenock, on the subject of the distressed state of that town. It was dated 14th of June, and was as follows:— I am sorry to say that the distress among the working classes here continues unabated, and there is no immediate prospect of amendment. The number of persons employed by the relief committee at present, chiefly in breaking stones for road metal, exceeds 400. These, with few exceptions, are men who have families depending upon them, and including such dependents, the total number upon the relief fund may be about 1,700, exclusive altogether of the ordinary poor receiving parochial aid. Among those who are thus compelled to throw themselves upon the public for support, there is a considerable number of mechanics, such as carpenters, joiners, and others, who have been quite unaccustomed to apply for or accept charitable aid in any shape, and who, by pawning their clothes and furniture, kept off the public fund as long as they possibly could. The wages paid the workmen may average about 1s. per day. The sum which has been raised by subscription for the relief fund is about 1,700l., exclusive of fully 600l. which we contributed a few months ago to the relief of Paisley, before the pressure came to be so severely felt at home. Of the money that has been raised, we have not at this moment enough remaining to pay the low rate of wages above-mentioned for the current week, and how we are to get on afterwards I really cannot say. The prospect is distressing in the extreme; for the numbers of unemployed, instead of diminishing, seem to be on the increase, the relief committee being daily pressed with fresh applications, which, from want of funds, they are reluctantly compelled to reject. As to the probability of improvement in the general trade of the country, the prospect of an early and good harvest seems to be the chief, if not the only ground of hope; at least, so far as I can learn, there is no favourable change in view beyond the revival anticipated from that source. The departments of trade in which this town is more immediately interested, ship-owning, ship-building, foundries, and the trades connected with these, viz. ship-carpenters, rope-makers, sail-makers, joiners, blacksmiths, &c, are, in the meantime, in a state of great depression, and without any the slightest symptom of amendment. It is impossible to contemplate such a state of things without feeling great alarm for the consequences. The situation of the respectable mechanics and artisans was most deplorable. Numbers were upon the list of destitute, who, by pawning their clothes, had hitherto helped to keep up the general fund. These artisans, skilful and intelligent men, were employed in breaking stones—no other employment being open to them. He had had another letter from the same gentleman, dated the 16th of June. It stated— Since I wrote you on the 14th instant, we have had some meetings of the committee for the relief of the unemployed, and have resolved upon re-opening the soup kitchen immediately, that we, may be enabled to afford some little relief from that source to the poor people, for whom we cannot do better. With regard to the distress here, if we could hope that it would wear off in a few weeks, I would be very unwilling to apply for aid from any other quarter than our own resources, and for my own part would subscribe over and over again rather than make any such application; but if the pressure is to continue much longer, we may find ourselves quite unable to raise from our own resources the requisite amount of relief. He received another letter from the same gentleman, dated the 18th of June, which he would also read to the House. [The hon. Member read the letter, which was of the same tenor as the preceding letters.] He had now to call the attention of the House to a memorial addressed by the provost, magistrates, and town-council of Greenock, to the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was dated the 27th of June, 1842, and stated— That for some time past, but more especially during the last five months, great distress has existed among the working classes of this town, in consequence of the depression of trade and the want of demand for labour. That in the month of March last, with the view to afford relief as far as practicable, a public meeting of the inhabitants was held, at which arrangements were made for raising funds by subscription for the benefit of the unemployed. That upwards of 2,000l. have been accordingly so raised, and distributed among the most necessitous, chiefly in the shape of wages, of about 6s. per week, in return for labour in breaking stones, and such other public work as could be devised. That the number of labourers and artisans who have been thus supported during the last three months is from 400 to 500, making with their families and dependents an aggregate of about 1,700 of our population, which by the late census is about 35,921. That, exclusive of those who have been thus supported, there are many who are equally necessitous, and who are pressing for employment in the same way, but whose applications to that effect have been from time to time reluctantly rejected for want of funds, and to whom no relief can be afforded beyond an allowance of soup from a soup kitchen, which has been put in operation, as an auxiliary to the work system. That in addition to those who have thus been compelled to bring their destitution under public view, there are many families of the more respectable of the working classes who are silently submitting to extreme privations, and in order to obtain for the present a scanty supply of food, are obliged to resort to the melancholy expedient of pawning their furniture and clothing. That from inquiries which the memorialists have made, they find, that from thirteen establishments in this town, viz., three foundries, eight ship-building yards, and two chain works, there have been discharged since the month of June last year, 1,960, out of 3,287 workmen, who were then employed in these works—being very nearly three-fifths of the whole number, and that a considerable portion of the remaining two-fifths could be dispensed with, but are kept on for the present from feelings of humanity on the part of the masters. That if to the number of hands discharged from these more extensive works there were added the number discharged from other establishments which are also sharing in the general depression, the aggregate would be such as to excite surprise, that the claims upon the public for relief in this locality have not been to a greater extent, and such would undoubtedly have been the case, were it not that many of the discharged hands have dispersed themselves to seek for employment, at the risk of swelling the amount of distress in other localities, and that another, and a large portion, still remaining here, are, as already stated, submitting to extreme privations, rather than obtrude their distress on the public view. That the contributions which have been made by the middle and upper classes of the town have been upon a liberal scale. In December last, before the pressure became so severe here, they contributed 550l. to the relief of Paisley, which sum, added to the 2,000l. subscribed as above stated, makes in all, 2,550l. of voluntary contributions within the last six months. That while they have been thus called upon for voluntary subscriptions to so large an amount, they have been, at the same time, subjected to an increased assessment for poor-rates, as appears from the following statement;—

NUMBER OF POOR RECEIVING REGULAR AND OCCASIONAL RELIEF FROM THE PARISH FUNDS.
Year 1839	1,968
1840	1,691
1841	2,061
1842	Amount not made up till the close of the year.

Gross amount of Assessments.	Voluntary Sub
Year 1839	£4,100	scriptions	£2,550
1840	4,170	Assessed	5,814
1841	4,715
1842	5,844		£8,394

That the memorialists have hitherto refrained from bringing their case under the notice of Government, in the hope that some symptoms of improvement in trade would ere now have appeared, but seeing that they have been disappointed in this hope, that the funds which they have been able to raise towards the relief of the existing distress are exhausted, while the distress continues undiminished, and likely to increase, and having no expectation of being able to obtain further contributions from merchants and others, whose means are daily diminishing under the general pressure, they feel bound in duty to submit the statement now made. The memorialists cannot contemplate the probability of the longer continuance of the existing depression of trade and destitution of the working classes, without feelings of great uneasiness, and great alarm for the peace of the country. The memorialists, therefore, earnestly pray that her Majesty's Ministers will adopt such measures, as in their wisdom they may deem best fitted to promote a revival of the general trade and manufactures of the country, and that in the meantime the pressing claims of this town to a share of whatever public funds may be appropriated towards the immediate relief of the more distressed localities may be kept in view, and the memorialists shall ever pray, &c, &c, (Signed) Walter Baine, jun., Provost, for himself and the other members of the town-council of Greenock. Before he sat down, he would read a list of towns, in all of which distress more or less existed, and in some of them it prevailed to a most frightful extent. The list had been principally gleaned from the statements of newspapers. In England there were—Manchester; Huddersfield, one-third of population idle, poor's-rates doubled; ditto Rastrick; Accrington, only 100 out of 9,000 employed; Stroud; Longton (Sir J. Graham's) estate; Prescott, Walsall; Ilkeston, poor's-rate quadrupled; Darlaston; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 12,000 out of work; Barnoldswick in Craven; Birmingham, 20,000 out of work; Mansfield: Potteries; Snares-brook; Holmfirth (Yorkshire); Nottingham, rates doubled, 8,000 unemployed; Sheffield, all bankrupt; Dudley, 15,000 out in district; Todmorden, rates quadrupled; Beaminster, wages paid out of rates; Halifix; Mirfield, near Dewsbury; Burnley, 12,000 on parish books, rates trebled; Clayton, near Halifax, wages reduced 50 per cent, bread dearer; Staley-bridge, paupers 2,000, or one-tenth of 20,000; Nantwich, the fifth spring of failure in trade; Knaresborough, one-half of the people unemployed; Haslingdon, neither work nor meat; Sunday meetings on the hills, 26,000 persons at one meeting, resolved to relieve themselves before winter; Bradford, worse than at Christmas; Stockport, 25,000 population, pay 10.000l. a year in rates; 15,000 paupers; Wolverhampton, every market is set down as still declining, and has declined during the whole winter; Marsden, near Bromley, 2,000 totally unemployed; Colne, in an awful state, mill burned; Westbury, 354 looms unemployed, 322 employed; Carlisle, quarter of the population in distress; Belper, capitalists see no chance of improvement; Oldham, rates quadrupled; Hyde, ditto; Leicester, cavalry sent down, but no money. In Scotland, distress existed in Glasgow, 10,000, besides dependents: Edinburgh, 3,000 starving; Dundee, people unemployed; Letham (Forfarshire), pauperism four times greater; Greenock, Johnstone, Kilmarnock, Beith, New Mills, Airdrie, Dumbartonshire, Stirling, Hawick, Falkirk, Linlithgow, Aberdeen, Dumfries, Newtown Stewart, Kilburvie, Largs, Dumbarton, Kirkintullock, Lanark, Strathaven, Cunmock, Mauchlin, Dunfermline, Forfar, Montrose, Arbroath, Alloa, and Perth. Then came the great sea-ports of the country, in all of which so much distress existed. They consisted of Liverpool, Sunderland, Bristol, Hull, Shields, Newcastle, Leith, Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Greenock. The shipping interest had never been so depressed before. It was more depressed than almost any other branch of industry, and unless trade should soon experience some revival, he feared that the star of this kingdom was set. In the long list of towns which he had read, not one could be found flourishing. These towns represented every interest, commercial, manufacturing, and shipping. They represented the cotton manufacture, the linen, the woollen, the silk, and mixtures of all these. They represented the iron trade, the shipping interest, ship building, coal trade, and the whole of our home trades or callings, including merchants, shopkeepers, and handicraftsmen of every description. Throughout the country trade was destroyed or decaying, capital was decreasing, expenditure was increasing, taxation was increasing, want of employment was increasing, discontent was increasing, misery was increasing, and public danger was certainly increasing. He would be glad if the Government could contradict the statement he had now made. He would not attempt to point out a remedy. He had made a statement of distress which he could prove before any committee of the House, and that even to a larger extent than be had yet stated. He trusted that her Majesty herself would be able to appreciate the condition to which her people were reduced. The country was now in that state to which many wise men had predicted that it should come, although they shrunk from naming a time. But surely the period had arrived when the scale must be turned, unless, indeed, some measure of relief not yet before the House should be promulgated to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolutions, the last was, of course, the one on which he put most stress:—

1. "1. That the trades and manufactures of this country are labouring under great embarrassment and difficulties.
2. "2. That the industrious classes are also suffering many privations and severe distress.
3. "3. That this state of things has been gradually advancing for several years past, and is now extending in a most alarming degree.
4. "4. That the alterations made in the Corn-laws, and in the duties on imports and exports, coupled as these have been with an Income tax, to add nearly four millions of taxation to this already heavily burdened country, cannot be expected to afford that relief which the continually declining state of trade and the distressed condition of the people so urgently require.
5. "5. That the welfare of her Majesty's faithful people and the future peace and security of the country, imperatively demand that effectual measures shall immediately be taken to rescue the working classes from the privations and sufferings they have so long borne, with a degree of patience and fortitude which specially entitle them to the affectionate sympathy of their Sovereign, and to the respect, commisseration, and assistance of this House.
6. "6. That therefore an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to refuse her consent to the prorogation of Parliament until a diligent and searching inquiry shall be instituted into the causes of the unprecedented distress existing at present all over the kingdom; and thereafter, until her Majesty and this House shall have been assured by her Ministers that effectual means are secured to provide sustenance for the unemployed and their destitute families, until their sufferings shall be terminated by a demand for their industry, and wages for their labour."

Question put on the first resolution.

Mr. Walker,

who was inaudible, was understood to contend that the present distress could never be removed, unless the restrictions on trade were abolished.

Dr. Bowring

said, that if Parliament were suffered to be prorogued without endeavouring to alleviate the distress of the people, he must participate in that despair which was fast taking possession of the minds of suffering, laborious, and deserving multitudes amongst the working classes. How could they venture to separate in the present condition of the country? There never was a period when the interference of the Legislature was more urgently re- quired. There never was a time when a stronger appeal could be addressed to their benevolence as Christians, and to their duties as citizens. When the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government urged on his financial measures, on the ground that the supplies for the year could not be dispensed with, surely he must have felt that there was a far more important claim upon the attention of Parliament—a case of still greater urgency—namely, the case of the suffering, starving millions. No unreasonable claim was put forward on their behalf. They asked at his side of the House for no privileges—no monopolies of trade. All they required was, when the people asked for bread, that our ports should be opened for the produce of those countries that were ready to supply it; and when they complained of an absence of demand for their labour, that the markets should be opened which would give our artisans ample employment. Not only was the distress at present unquestioned and apalling, but it was perilous—perilous to the peace of the country—perilous to its property. At this cheerful season men, except when goaded to the last extremity, abstained from acts of violence: but he ventured to say that no man, amongst his hon. Friends around him, could answer for the tranquillity of the country, if the present state of things were continued until the winter. Human patience must become exhausted. What was the state of the town of Bolton? At this moment, one-third of the rated property was paying the poor-rates, and there were 10,000 persons who had not 1s. each a-week to live upon. Is this state of things to be disregarded? Are all these elements of distress and danger to be turned away from? Could it be possible that the people should be left by Parliament in so deplorable a condition? It had been asserted by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, that there were 1,200,000 paupers in the country. It would be judging of the Government with severity and harshness, if it could be believed for a moment, that it would willingly allow the continuance of so much misery. More than a million of paupers—increasing suffering—and no attempt to lighten the burden which pressed the working people to the earth. A fearful responsibility attached to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. He held the reins of power with as absolute a power as ever Minister enjoyed. The principles he had often enunciated, and which he believed he desired to carry into effect, would be supported most cheerfully by the Opposition, and the right hon. Baronet's own supporters, however anxious some of them might be to do so, dare not oppose him if he embodied his views in some large measure of relief to commerce. But whatever might be the determination of the right hon. Gentleman, a country like this ought never to be allowed to despair. Were they not industrious, intelligent, active? Was there not a glut of capital, which there was no means of applying? Did we not exert a sovereignty over the ocean? Keep out of view the state of the working classes, and our position must appear most enviable to other nations. It was a matter of astonishment to those who read our history, and watched the progress of our wealth and prosperity, that with all our boasted pre-eminence, a great part of the masses were sunk in hopeless misery, which the Government never made an effort to relieve. He believed the measures of the present Government would give no adequate relief. The Income-tax was a direct burden. The tariff was only advantageous as it rested on sound principles, which must be carried much further to show any perceptible advantage in the change. The changes in the Corn-law were worthless, and would not bring relief. But that law, whose professed object was to keep up the price of food, was doomed. It was perfectly clear that the Poor-law and the Corn-law could not long co-exist. The great means at the right hon. Baronet's disposal were to enable the people to obtain food on cheaper and better terms, and to go to the markets of the world with the products of their industry and skill. He wished the attention of Parliament were more steadily fixed on this momentous subject. He found the House willing enough to engage in costly and unjust wars abroad, but most unwilling to provide remedies for domestic evils. We could vote millions for interferences and invasions from which we should better have abstained, we could apply the wealth of the country in reckless profusion to purposes wholly indefensible, but we left the representatives of labour and the producers of wealth to darker and darker misery.

Mr. Aglionby

said, he should support the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock, though with some hesitation, as he saw no immediate relief that could be afforded. The present was no party question; he could not say that the Government were responsible for the present distress, and if the late Administration had been still in power, he should have adopted the same course that he now intended to take. He hoped that neither the House or the country were so unjust as to charge upon Government the distress which was so much to be deplored, or not to think that the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues felt as much anxiety to relieve it, and as much sympathy for those who were suffering, as any other persons in the country. The expressions that had been more than once used by the right hon. Baronet on this subject did equal honour to his heart and head, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman deeply deplored the distress, and was disposed to act to the best of his judgment for its relief. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman and himself differed upon that which would be the most effectual means of producing the relief desired—the means being a fair adjustment of the Corn-law. But, notwithstanding this, he was ready to support any proposition from either side of the House which tended to promise a hope of relief, and did not wish that they should, by a too early prorogation, show their belief that the evil was remedy-less. Hon. Members who witnessed distress in their own districts, and the patience with which it was borne, should testify thereto from their places in the House, as a great deal had been said about the exaggerated statements in petitions. He wished now to testify to the truth of the statements made in a petition presented from Carlisle in February last, and he would take the opportunity of adding that the distresss which existed in Cockermouth also was not perhaps exceeded by that suffered by any of the manufacturing population of the country. Funds had been raised by local subscription, but the charitable relief fell short of what was needed, and did not give that which the people looked for to the acts of the Legislature—the means of obtaining a livelihood by their industry. The hon. Member read a statement from a document in his hand, to the effect that the number of families in the town, without any visible means of existence whatever, was 389; of families, the weekly earnings of which did not exceed one shilling a head, 419; of which the earnings exceeded a shilling and did not reach one shilling and sixpence, 362; below two shillings, 212; and below three shillings, 279; making 1,661 families, including 6,000 individuals, whose average earnings were not more than one shilling and twopence. These 6,000 persons included more than one-fourth of the whole population of the town. The petition to which he had alluded entreated the House to take some steps during the present Session of Parliament to prevent the continuance and recurrence of such general and dreadful destitution. Such representations as these were entitled to the deep attention of the House. There was one subject to which he must advert: that the agricultural prospects of the year were not such as to justify them in the expectation of a harvest so good as to make a delay of another year of little consequence. From what he had heard amongst practical men, he was sorry to say that great fears were entertained that the ensuing harvest would not yield average crops. This was a matter that ought not to be lost sight of, and he did hope that they would not separate without having done something to allay the feverish expectation which existed throughout the country.

Sir j. Graham

spoke as follows: I am glad I gave way to the hon. Member who has just sitten down, because, although I have no reason to complain of the language of the hon. Members who preceded him, the hon. Gentleman has, in a more pointed manner, done what I am conscious is no more than justice to the present Administration. In the first place the hon. Member frankly admitted that, for the existing distress, the present Government is not immediately responsible; and in the next place he avowed, what I am sure is strictly true, that no one felt more deeply for that distress than her Majesty's Ministers. I can assure the hon. Member, on the part of myself and my Colleagues, that our compassion for the distress which prevails in many parts of the country is only exceeded by our admiration of the manly fortitude with which it is borne. I strongly deprecate the use, in this House, of any language which has a tendency to create public despondency. I am quite satisfied that the inevitable effect of such language is to shake public credit, and, by that means, to aggravate the existing distress, to diminish in every respect the greatness of this country, and to shake the foundations of its prosperity. Doubtless there are great distress and sufferings in many quarters; but, on the other hand, it is distinctly admitted that the country possesses within itself great wealth and power. When I reflect upon the manly fortitude, the public virtue, and the great patience of the people of this country, with a people thus constituted, and governed by a representative body, with the representative system entering largely into all their institutions, I think there is scarcely any amount of adversity which would justify us in giving way to despondency. I cannot avoid particularly referring to one expression which must, I think, have fallen inadvertently from the hon. Member who spoke last. The hon. 'Member spoke of the prospects of the coming harvest in terms approaching to despair, which, I hope and believe, the event will not realise. One of the most providential circumstances which could happen at the present moment, and one which would tend more directly than anything else to the relief of the country (inasmuch as I reckon amongst the main causes of its present distress the occurrence of three bad harvests successively) would be the gathering in of an abundant harvest. I am happy to say that the information which has reached me induces me to believe that the hon. Member for Cockermouth is quite wrong in his forebodings respecting the present crop. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton introduced topics into the discussion which were very properly avoided by the hon. Mover. The hon. and learned Member spoke of the large expenditure which had taken place upon unjust and unnecessary wars. I will studiously avoid entering into topics of that nature upon the present occasion, but I may be allowed to observe, in passing, that it is one thing to enter into a war, and another to recede from it hastily and without regard for the honour of the country; and I am satisfied that the Government would desert its duty, and not act up to the spirit of the gallant people whom it is called upon to govern, if we hesitated to call upon those classes who are best able to bear burdens, to endure the imposition of them for a short period, in order to enable the country to sustain, in remote parts of the globe, the honour and glory of the British name. Anything that we have proposed in the shape of taxation, in the present distressed state of the country, has been done with reference to those considerations. Having made these observations, I will now proceed to deal more particularly with some of the matters brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Member for Greenock. If, on the one hand, it be dangerous to aggravate distress, and create feelings of despondency in the country, so, on the other, it is no less dangerous to hold out expectations of relief from the public revenues which never can be realised. If a warning were required of the evils which must result from granting relief out of the public funds, a striking one would be furnished by what occurred in the case of Paisley, to which the hon. Member for Grenock referred. That was a case of remarkable distress pervading a community of considerable extent. I am not sure that it would be profitable, at this moment, to trace minutely the causes of the distress at Paisley. As one of the principal causes, however, I would assign a change in taste with respect to the peculiar manufacture of the town. It was a manufacture confined almost entirely to the production of one commodity—a mixture of cotton and silk. Then again the export trade of Paisley being chiefly directed to the United States, the monetary disturbance in that country caused a cessation of demand for Paisley goods. In the third place the Scotch banks drew in almost simultaneously the advances which they had made to enable the Paisley manufacturers to carry on their speculations; thus causing failures and bankruptcies amongst those who had been the employers of the manufacturing population. The distress at Paisley, arising from the causes at which I have glanced, was, at the commencement of last winter, very severe. The hon. Member has spoken of Christian people not having been treated with respect. I am surprised the hon. Member should have made use of such an expression with reference to this case. Respect is a cold term to designate the warm Christian charity with which the distressed manufacturers of Paisley were treated. To the honour of the people of Scotland, they raised the large sum of 25,00l. by subscriptions amongst themselves for the relief of the Paisley community. This sum, however great, became exhausted; and the local funds also failed. The hon. Member for Greenock referred to a system of relief which was adopted by the inhabitants of Paisley, namely, that of issuing tickets to the poor. When the case of Paisley was brought under the attention of the Government, this system was closely investigated; and we had every reason to believe that not only was it open to abuse, but that it must necessarily lead to it. The tickets were issued nominally for articles of the first necessity, but irresistible proof was furnished that not only did shopkeepers obtain undue profits by charging extravagant retail prices when they took the tickets for articles of the first necessity, but they also furnished in exchange for them spirits, tobacco, and other stimulants of various descriptions. The subscriptions and local funds having, as I before observed, become exhausted in Scotland, it became necessary to seek elsewhere for further charitable assistance. Her Majesty's Government, in consequence, endeavoured to promote a public subscription in this metropolis, and as we thought it advisable that a change should be made in the mode of administering relief, a government officer was employed to see the alteration carried into effect. I will show what misconstruction was put upon the acts of the Government in this matter. It has been said that that officer, Mr. Twisleton, abused the powers vested in him, and, in the words of the petition which has been referred to, that Government meant to take the superintendance of the operatives and other sufferers into their own hands. This is a remarkable proof of the liability to misconstruction to which a government is exposed when it interferes in any way in such cases. I hold in my hand the report of Mr. Twisleton with respect to these transactions, and I will read a passage from it which will put the House in possession of the whole of the facts:— From my first arrival in Paisley up to the 9th inst., I invariably stated, in reference to those of her Majesty's Ministers who had subscribed to the relief fund, that I acted in their behalf as individuals, and not as Ministers, and that I could not hold out to the committee any expectations that any assistance would be given to them by Government. I stated this in every possible form of language. Notwithstanding all my assurances that I acted in behalf of those Members of Government solely as individuals, and not as Ministers, sanguine expectations would be formed (in spite of all that I could say) that it was the intention of the Government to aid the relief fund at Paisley, in case all other resources failed. But any expectations of this kind were formed not in consequence of language used by me, but in spite of it; and, although they might naturally have arisen from what I did, in pursuance of my instructions, they were certainly in direct contradiction to everything that I said. I conceive that, as private subscribers to the relief fund, the Members of the Government had a right to attach what conditions they pleased to their subscriptions; but the mere circumstance of a public officer being employed to see that the conditions were fulfilled, excited a false expectation that the parties engaged in distributing the charitable fund had public money at their disposal; and that, in fact, the Government of the country had undertaken the maintenance of the poor of Paisley. Nay, more, a memorial from Greenock, to which the hon. Member referred, was presented to me two or three days ago, in which a direct demand was made to admission to— A share of the public funds appropriated to the relief of distress. I answered this memorial by expressing what I feel, the deepest compassion for the distress of the applicants, but stating, at the same time, as in the discharge of my public duty I was bound to do, peremptorily, that all cases of distress must be relieved by local subscriptions—that the executive Government had no funds to apply to such a purpose, and that to hold out the expectation of such a thing being done, would only aggravate the existing evils. I am bound to admit in the broadest manner, and in the most distinct terms, that in several of the places to which reference has been made during this discussion, distress to a great extent exists amongst the manufacturing community. I never denied the fact, and I feel the deepest compassion for the sufferers. I have listened with the utmost attention to the Gentlemen who preceded me. The hon. Member who seconded the motion, a gentleman well versed in all that relates to the manufacturing districts, and a dispassionate judge in the matter, a gentleman, too, who, from the high character which he bears in his own neighbourhood, as well as his general demeanour in this House, is worthy of consideration—declared his deliberate opinion, that nothing which it was in the power of the House to do could immediately and suddenly put an end to the existing distress. On the contrary, the hon. Member said he was quite sure that the distress could not be removed sooner than in six or seven years from the present time. Is that opinion irrational in any degree? Have not the causes of the distress been in operation for some years? Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to run through the list of thos causes. I have already glanced at the great misfortune which befel our best customer, the United States, in the disturbance of its monetary affairs. I cannot, also, conceal from myself that the war with China has a great deal to do with the prevailing distress; nor can I dissemble my conviction that the disturbed state of Central Asia has also had a pernicious influence upon our commercial interests. These circumstances have been in operation for some years, and have caused the distress to reach to its present extent. I was curious to hear what remedy the hon. Members who have spoken would suggest. I look to the motion with which the hon. Member for Greenock concluded, and I see that it suggests merely that— An humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to refuse her consent to the prorogation of Parliament, until a diligent and searching inquiry shall be instituted into the causes of the unprecedented distress existing at present all over the kingdom; and thereafter, until her Majesty and this House shall have been assured by her Ministers that effectual means are secured to provide sustenance for the unemployed and their destitute families, until their sufferings shall be terminated by a demand for their industry, and wages for their labour. The hon. Mover has no remedy he proposes an enquiry. The hon. Member who seconded the Address has declared that it is not possible to remove the distress at any very early period. The hon. Member for Bolton, though he praises the alterations made in the tariff, thinks that they can have no immediate effect. Upon that point I differ from the hon. Member, for I am of opinion that that great measure will produce a speedy and most beneficial effect upon our foreign trade and commerce. But after all, what is the single mode by which hon. Members opposite propose to better the condition of the working classes? It is by making further alterations in the Corn-laws. Having listened attentively to all that has fallen from the hon. Members, I must say that their whole scheme of relief is concentrated in that proposition. I declare unfeignedly, that my heartfelt compassion for the working classes is so deep and sincere, that if I could bring my reason to assent to the belief that a further change in the Corn-laws would conduce to the general good, and would operate to produce the advantages which hon. Members on the other side of the House believe would flow from it, no personal considerations should, for one moment, deter me from pressing for that change. But I solemnly declare my belief, that any sudden change in the Corn-laws which would effect a great displacement of agricultural industry, which would operate adversely on agricultural labourers, by diminishing the demand for their em- ployment, and would in time reduce them to a condition any thing approaching the state of suffering of the manufacturing labourers, would, so far from being conducive to the general good, involve all the labouring classes in this country in one common ruin, and aggravate a hundredfold all the evils of our present position. I have reflected carefully, deliberately, and constantly upon this subject, and I have been able to come to no other conclusion than that which I have stated; and this being my opinion, I should betray my duty—I should act falsely, if I were for one moment to hold out the expectation that the prolongation of the Session for the purpose of making a change in the Corn-laws other than that which her Majesty's Government have already effected, would have any other effect than that of creating disappointment, and adding to evils whose existence we all unite in deploring. It now only remains for me to express my decided opposition to the motion, being satisfied that its rejection will most conduce to the re-establishment of public confidence; and I trust that, under the blessing of Divine Providence, the course we have pursued, and are about to pursue, will lead to the speedy alleviation of the sufferings of the working classes, whose condition we so deeply deplore.

Mr. Ward

disliked this general motion to sit without specifying what they wer to sit for; but he should vote for the motion, in order to get, if possible, a farther alteration of the Corn-laws. The salvation of Sheffield depended upon it. He regreted, however, that this question should have been mooted now, instead of in the coming week, as he believed that there then would be data in town, from all the principal sects of our manufactures, that would force the Government to take this question into more serious consideration than they were now disposed to do. He had heard little that evening, that had not been repeated before, until it had become notorious. As to subscriptions, pity, and compassion, that was not what the people asked for. What they asked the House for, was, to let them live by their own honest industry, and not to place itself between their labour and that which ought to be its legitimate return. And he believed that the delegates about to assemble were prepared to lay before the House facts, which would make hon. Members tremble if they undertook the responsibility of meeting the coming winter, or autumn, without doing what Parliament could do—without at once proceeding on the basis of the new tariff, because the principles upon which that was founded were the principles upon which alone relief could be afforded. All the people asked for, was the honest application of those principles which the right hon. Baronet had adopted as the basis of the tariff, and which the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had on many occasions in that House most soundly, and ably, expounded. In Sheffield a state of things was growing up, which it was impossible for any description to exaggerate. He believed, in fact, it would be impossible to do justice to it. The men there, of whom he spoke, had known better times; they had not been ground down by distress, like a large portion of the manufacturing population,—they were in the possession of all their powers, mental and bodily, and he did not believe it possible, if they were without employment or a remedy for their distress, for the coming winter to pass over quietly. He stated that distinctly. He believed that in Leeds nearly one-fourth of the population were more or less in the receipt of public relief. He knew that in Sheffield one-third were out of work; and the poor-rates were increasing in a way, which the depressed state of the town could not in any manner supply. They would then have the population scattered over the country by thousands seeking employment, coming into collision with other unemployed operatives, and going into the agricultural districts, hoping to get there that scanty pittance which they could not obtain at home, and to save themselves from the ignominy of parish relief, which they could not consent to receive. Every one of those men thought, and said, and knew that their distress was occasioned by a free exchange not being allowed between their produce and that of other countries. The tariff alone would do no good. Either there must be a change in the Corn-laws, or the tariff would be comparatively worthless. In fact, certain branches of trade which had never been interfered with before would be affected by it, and that was unjust, so long as they did not allow to those who were thus affected a free-trade in the first necessaries of life. He did not approve of the form of the resolution now before the House, but he put it to the right hon. Baronet, whether he would not be glad to hate the shield of Parliament between him and a people so situated? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) said he could not see what Parliament could do. Now he did see what Parliament could do, for he firmly believed that if Parliament would reconsider the subject of the Corn-laws—if Parliament would do its duty, and the Ministry would divest itself of the idea that it was indecorous in the Government, after taking one course at one part of the Session, to eat their own words, and propose a different course at another period of the Session—and in spite of the clearest proofs of its necessity, he said, that if they did that, he firmly believed they would establish commercial prosperity. He was perfectly convinced that nothing else would do, and if they did that, all their quibbling disputes as to whether Mr. Twisleton had, or had not, a right to do what he had done would be at an end. All those things too were like a drop of water in the ocean, a mere blind in comparison with the distress which they had to deal with. They were blinking the real question, and for the sake of their consistency the country would be ruined; for he could not believe that the right hon. Baronet could have heard the facts that were pressing upon him from all sides, without having arrived at the positive conviction that if he allowed the House to depart without reconsidering the Corn-laws, he would be forced to open the ports during the coming winter, and to admit the whole supply of foreign corn now in bond free of duty, and that his first motion next Session must be for an alteration in the Corn-laws. The Government might feel it very awkward to propose such a change; but he believed that it must be made, or that some substitute for that impulse to trade, which a free-trade in corn, or a very low fixed duty, would give, must be found, in order to employ the capital of the manufacturer, and the crippled industry of the country. If they suffered Parliament to separate without providing this alleviation for the present distress, they would, in his opinion, be neglecting their duty, and he was perfectly convinced no such alleviation could be afforded by the Executive without the aid of Parliament, he should vote for the motion of his hon. Friend, though not altogether approving of its wording.

Mr. D'Israeli

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed them (Mr. Ward) had laid it down as an axiom, that the repeal of the Corn-laws was the only method by which an impulse could be given to the languid trade of the country. The hon. Gentleman laid that down as a position incapable of dispute. He added even that there was no other mode which could be suggested. He did not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman; he believed he had correctly stated his position. (Mr. Ward assented). Now he would put a case for the consideration of the hon. Gentleman. Suppose it were in the power of the Government suddenly to secure at this moment to the distressed operatives of the town which the hon. Member represented, the supply of some large European market, would the hon. Member maintain that such a boon would not be productive of the desired effects, and reanimate the industry of that town? The hon. Gentleman could hardly do that? He could hardly deny that such a circumstance must necessarily relieve that overwhelming depression which he had asserted a repeal of the Corn-laws could alone remove. Suppose for example the French market was suddenly opened to the trade of Sheffield, the most populous and civilized market in Europe, who could deny that such an event would necessarily and materially revive the industry of the town? All agreed to that proposition. Well, in the treaty of commerce with France, the negotiations respecting which had been entirely completed, a treaty which was really engrossed for signature, and which the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been pressed by the French government to execute, there was a provision for admitting the cutlery of Sheffield at a very moderate duty into France. Again, the hon. Member complains of the great distress prevailing in Leeds, and appeals to the hon. Member for that town to corroborate his statement. Now, in the same treaty which had been all but formally signed and ratified, it was stipulated that the woollens of this country should also enter France at a low rate of duty. Let the Members for Leeds and Bradford remember that circumstance when they hear their constituents attributing all their distress to the Corn-laws. So with respect to the hardware of Birmingham now prohibited from entering France, the French market was secured also for that article. What say the Members for Birmingham, who constantly favour us with such piteous accounts of the state of trade in their town? Let the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who brings forward annual motions for the repeal of the Corn-laws, as the only specific to revive the trade of his constituents, recollect that however great and varied may be the ingenuity of the French people, there is assuredly one thing they cannot do, they cannot make a lock. Now Wolverhampton, if this treaty had been signed by the noble Lord opposite, might have supplied all France with locks. Well, then, there were the potteries, they were in a state of distress: the Corn-laws prevented them from having a market. The French treaty secured them in spite of the Corn-laws, one of immense and increasing demand. A good deal had been said about the recent ordonnance which had considerably raised the duties on British linens and linen yarns. Some said it was only an electioneering manœuvre, others thought, on the contrary, it was a heavy blow and great discouragement to British industry. When he remembered that one-third of our present commerce with France consisted of exports of linen cloths and yarns he was of the latter opinion. Now in that very treaty of commerce with France to which he had referred, there was contained a clause, that in no case should the duties on the import of British linen yarns into France exceed 10 per cent., and cloths were admitted at a very moderate duty, which are now virtually prohibited. And why, it would naturally be asked, why was that treaty of commerce not signed and ratified? Because under the auspices of the same Minister another treaty, of a different character, a political treaty had been entered into for objects and under circumstances which had changed the disposition of France towards this country for increased commercial intercourse, and so had England lost the vast advantages derivable from that increased commercial intercourse. But was this all? On the contrary, while the treaty of July for the settlement of the Levant, the political treaty to which he had alluded, had deprived England of the commercial treaty with France, that same treaty of July had disturbed the markets of England in the eastern division of the Mediterranean sea, and ruinously affected our Levantine markets. So the House would perceive there were other causes which could affect our trade besides the existence of Corn-laws, and perhaps the House, after their intimations, might be induced at length to consider the effect for good and for evil of diplomacy upon commerce. Unquestionably commercial distress in a country like this could be produced by no single cause. It must be occasioned by complicated circumstances, and it was as fallacious to charge the present Corn-laws with all the present evil, as to give them credit for all the prosperity of other days. One thing was, however, manifest, that our foreign trade was inseparably connected with our foreign policy. Yet this was a subject never investigated in that House, as if it were one which bore no relation to their commercial questions which continually engaged our attention. Yet in the present instance, had the character of the political treaty been foreseen by the Parliament, the benefits of the commercial treaty might, perhaps, yet have been secured for the people. What happened in the present case? It was a curious illustration of the mode in which any attempt at Parliamentary control over Ministerial conduct was successfully suppressed in that House. An hon. Member opposite hearing by public rumour only of that treaty of July which had cost us the treaty of commerce with France, came down to the House, and required the noble Lord, then the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to lay a copy of that treaty on the Table. The noble Lord replied that the request was altogether irregular, and could not for a moment be listened to, because the treaty had not yet been even ratified. Would the House believe, that at that very time a reserved protocol had been signed, providing that the treaty in question should be acted on before it was ratified? The House waits until the treaty is ratified to discuss its policy, and that policy is carried into effect without its ratification taking place. So in other instances, but in the same spirit documents are refused under the pretence of pending negotiations, yet a year afterwards when those documents are produced, they themselves show, that at the period when they were required, absolutely no negotiations were "pending." This notably happened in the case of the Boundary Question with the United States. Such a farce—such an utter delusion was the theory of Parliamentary control over Ministerial conduct! The most momentous treaties were never heard of until too late—if they were favoured with papers it was always after the events. But when the policy of the noble Lord had thus lost us the invaluable market of France, lost it too by a line of conduct which had at the same time ruinously affected our Levantive market, then came the noble Lord and his free-trade friends, with their cries of commercial distress and their denunciation of the Corn-laws as its exclusive cause. But was this all? Were the injurious effects of the noble Lord's policy on our Eastern commerce confined to the shores of the Mediterranean? It was not merely our Turkish, Syrian, and Egyptian markets that were disturbed; others were involved in confusion—others of far more extensive character and important interest. In impressing upon the House the importance of our Eastern commerce, he had not in his mind the limited and somewhat exhausted markets of the Levant. It was to India he looked under a wiser system of intercourse than we had as yet pursued, but especially to those portions of the Eastern hemisphere which offer a new field for the maritime energy of England, China and its contiguous kingdoms and the islands of the Eastern Archipelago. In extending our commercial relations with these regions, we appealed to the necessities and the tastes of illimitable populations: 100,000,000 of British subjects in India consume annually 6d. per head of British manufactures. Our late slave population consume 5l. per head; our new colonial population 12l. per head. If the hundred millions of our fellow-subjects in India were to consume per head one-tenth of the quantity required by one of our late slaves, India alone would take 50,000,000l. of goods annually from Manchester and Sheffield and Birmingham. Extend this market to the empire of China, Japan, Siam, Corea, and the other kingdoms, even at a much reduced ratio, and the results baffle the most extensive faculty of account. The Chinese are eminently a commercial people. This is proved, if proofs were wanting, by the; fact, that there is no nation that supplies a demand with much celerity—no nation that adapts its productions to the commercial wants of its customers with greater tact and quickness. At the commencement of the present century the total quantity of tea exported from China did not probably exceed 30,000,000 of lbs. At the termination of the first year of the open trade, England alone took forty-three millions, and the United States seventeen millions. In silk the same facts are observable. In 1824, the East India Company exported barely 94,000 lbs.; in 1834, the export had risen to 1,322,666 lbs. Moreover, there never was a country with which we carried on a trade with less risk and less loss than with China. None of our markets ever exhibited a more sustained character, its only alteration being its genuine and gradual expansion. From the commencement of this century only to the present time, the revenue paid into our Exchequer, from the duties on tea alone, amounts to 150,000,000l. sterling, an amount equal to one-fifth of the national debt; yet these are the countries which the noble Lord selects as the scene of his military achievements. The demand for British goods from Persia, Tartary, and the countries beyond the Indus, had entirely ceased. So great was the depreciation of British goods in the Indian markets, that Manchester manufactures might be purchased at Bombay at a lower rate than in Lancashire itself. Such were the fruits of their foreign policy who now denounced our agricultural system as the sole cause of distress, and depression of our trade. But the calm sense of the nation would not be misled by so obvious a delusion, and it could no longer be denied that to the mismanagement of our foreign affairs must be attributed infinitely more of evil than to our Corn-laws.

Mr. Hume

agreed with the hon. Member in many of his remarks on the highly impolitic conduct of the late Foreign Secretary, and his mismanagement of our foreign relations. In his opinion, however, all the distress which the people of this country at present endured, was to be imputed to an obstinate refusal to repeal the Corn-laws. Those who so earnestly and so justly complained of these laws, prayed to be heard at the Bar of the House, in order that they might have a fair and full opportunity of showing how they were affected by the operation of the Corn-laws, and how they interfered with the trade which we might otherwise carry on with the United States. He was enabled, from the communication of an extensive manufacturer of hosiery, to illustrate very clearly the manner in which that piece of evil-legislation produced its effects. The English manufacturer of hosiery, when he sent out his goods to the United States, had there a formidable opposition to encounter—two prices could not be obtained for the same sort of article in one place, and accordingly all that the British manufacturer could get for a given quantity of hosiery was 216 barrels of flour. Of that quantity, when given to an American manufacturer, it required 70 barrels to pay for his materials, and 84 to yield him a fair profit, giving to the American workmen 132 barrels. The materials of the British manufacturer cost 41 barrels of the flour, his profit was but 6¾ 107 barrels were required to pay freight, insurance, and other charges, 42 as duty, &c, and therefore 34 barrels was all that an English workman could receive for his labour. That was four to one against England. He would repeat that the distress of the country was owing to the Corn-laws—it was a distress which had been coming on for many years; from the time that the duty on corn had been imposed there was a gradual depression of wages, and moreover the existence of our Corn-laws led to commercial restrictions abroad, which still further injured our manufactures. Let the House only look at the way in which this matter was felt in other countries. At the present moment there were three bills before the Congress of the United States, the objects of which were to retaliate on us for our restrictive system. In Germany the same principle was in active operation. The League were about to prohibit almost all British goods, in consequence of our inflexible resolution to maintain the Corn-laws. On that point a question to this effect was frequently raised:—If England should agree to relax her Corn-laws, what security had we that other countries would follow that liberal example? He should answer that by reminding the House of what took place in the year 1825, when a negociation was on foot between the Prussian Minister in this country and the Foreign Secretary of that day (Mr. Canning). The Prussian government offered a free-trade in every thing, except playing-cards and salt. It was on that occasion justly observed, that according to the system then in force, and which had unhappily not since been altered, two duties were paid instead of one, and that the trouble and injustice of that would be put an end to by admitting Prussian corn, not free, but under such a duty as would admit of a fair remunerating price to the continental grower. When this matter was referred by the Foreign Office to the Treasury, they at once declared that they could never entertain such a proposition. He was led into making these remarks by what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite, and he should now apply himself to the subject of the distress prevailing in all parts of the country. At length it was admitted that distress did prevail; but it had been said that the present fashions had proved injurious to Paisley. Now, if Paisley were the only place labouring under distress, he should say that possibly there might be some foundation for the statement, but the cotton trade, the woollen trade, and the iron trade were all in a state of the utmost distress; the people of Birmingham, of Stockport, and of Sheffield were all suffering, and the causes were neither local nor temporary, and every class was affected by them without exception. What was the state of the district which he represented? The linen trade there with America and France, the best customers formerly, had considerably decreased. A letter from a merchant at Dundee, which he held in his hand, stated that in the year 1840, the whole amount of the poor-rates was 5,652l., and last year it was 7,087l., being an increase of nearly 1,500l. in one year; and, besides this, 1,200l. had been subscribed by voluntary contributions since January last for the relief of the distressed population there. But even that did not afford a full picture of their misery, because, by the Scotch law, no able-bodied person had a claim to relief. Four mills had altogether stopped work, throwing out of employment, one 85 men, another 100, the third 150, and the fourth 360, making a total of 695 persons thrown out of employment. The rate of spinning and weaving wages had greatly diminished, having fallen 10 per cent, since January last, and the remuneration for other labour was proportionally low. Many instances of lamentable destitution existed; and large numbers of workmen were entirely unemployed in that district. Looking at that district alone, he was compelled to conclude that there was no prospect of relief from the present Government. The Income-tax would only add to the evil. The tariff might do some good, but not immediately; and, in the interval, the people were starving, and the peace of the country endangered. He wished to know, then, whether Parliament would do its duty. Having the means of employing the people at hand, would they not apply them—would they not endeavour to avoid the melancholy results of leaving the country in its present state? If they separated without providing a remedy, would they not be responsible for the consequences? Let the ports be thrown open, and an impulse would be given to our trade which would at once relieve the people. If the Corn-laws were repealed and the ports thrown open, from that moment foreigners would begin to prepare for our market, and orders would be given for our goods; and our manufacturers, knowing that such would be the case, would instantly set their workmen to labour, in order to be prepared, by the time the demand came, to meet it. That was the way in which immediate relief could be afforded to the distressed manufacturers. If the Government and the House refused to apply the remedy, he saw no chance of peace being preserved in the country. Though the people had exercised a most exemplary patience under their sufferings, and had exhibited all the virtues which the right hon. Baronet had attributed to them, they had received but little attention from that House. Never was so much privation so patiently endured; never had an afflicted population conducted themselves so well. But what was the consequence? All their petitions had been rejected. If they had been the very worst crew that ever disturbed society, they could not have been treated worse; their requests were laughed at, and their prayer for an inquiry into their condition spurned. Why, what had been done for them? Had the Corn-laws been repealed? Would any hon. Gentleman rise up in his place and say, that the new tariff would relieve them? Was food cheaper? Had not the new Corn-law aggravated the evils which it was pretended it would cure? What the people complained of was, that food was high and wages were low; that food was rising in price and wages falling, while thousands and tens of thousands had no wages at all. The Government and their supporters were driving them to depend on poor-rates and charity; they were doing all they could to demoralize the people of England. True, the conduct of the people was deserving of all praise; but that was not enough. The Legislature was not acting like Christians having a sympathy for their fellow-men; for they passed them by in their suffering; and when bread was asked they gave a stone. Let them not separate then without doing something to relieve the people. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would see the necessity of reconsidering the Corn-laws. As to the responsibility of finding relief for the distressed population, he would tell the right hon. Baronet that the responsibility rested upon him. Nay, more, every man who died of famine under the present Corn-laws should demonstrate to the right hon. Baronet the necessity of repealing them. He thanked his hon. Friend for having brought forward these resolutions. Let the right hon. Baronet agree to an inquiry, or let him adopt the remedy of a repeal of the Corn-laws. At all events, let him not consign a large part of the population of England to misery, destitution, and death.

Mr. Attwood

considered that the hon. Member for Montrose had exhibited a want of candour in attributing the adoption of a new tariff by America to the present Corn-laws, because that tariff was as applicable to France and other nations not having Corn-laws as to England. The fact was, that America was led by those doctrines to which, he was sorry to say, our Government had given way too much, and by those theories which never had any other foundation than the airy dreams of political economists, it had made the experiment of acting upon them, and the result was, that she was now placed in embarrassments and difficulties second only to those which England was suffering. America had been carrying out the principles of universal competition and free-trade, and had been buying at the cheapest markets; and, if the sentiments so often reiterated by the supporters of free-trade in that House were true, she ought to be now a most prosperous nation. But the reverse was the case; and therefore America had determined to revert to the ancient policy which had been the policy of every prosperous nation. The hon. Gentleman said France would not come to our ports because of our Corn-laws. Why, when free-trade principles were first introduced, we were told that other nations would follow our example when they witnessed the successes that would accompany the experiment we made. That was the opinion of Mr. Huskisson, of whose speech on the subject he had a perfect recollection, and he followed it by saying, that Mr. Robinson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would find that foreign nations would give us a reciprocity, and, therefore, he must come down to the House year after year with an increasingly liberalized commercial code. What had been the result? The present Chancellor of the Exchequer could boast of nothing but an impoverished treasury, which was to be replenished by an Income-tax upon a greatly impoverished people. There was the reason why France would not adopt the same policy, and other foreign powers not follow our example. Already British produce could be purchased at a cheaper rate, not only in China or Bombay, but in other parts of the world than it was manufactured at in this country. If we wished to make France to admit our manufactures from Sheffield and Bradford, we must consent to a tariff by which the gloves, silks, and brandy of France would be imported into this country; and thus, though we might benefit one portion of the community, we should injure others. The right hon. Baronet had said, that he did not despair of the safety of the country, nor did the learned Doctor, the Member for Bolton. He joined with them both in that opinion to some extent, but he confessed that the state of the suffering millions caused more serious apprehensions in his mind than the state of public credit and the trade of the country. He felt inclined to despond and despair when he thought of the famishing multitudes. He wanted to know what was to become of the tens of thousands of paupers, and the thousands who had but a shilling a-week to subsist upon. Did her Majesty's Government hold out any prospect of relief for them? He must seriously urge upon the House and the country that those people ought not to be left in their present state. Their condition ought to be fully investigated, and a remedy adopted for their relief. It was due to the country—it was due to a suffering people, that a measure should be proposed for the amelioration of the distress at present prevailing. It had been urged by the right hon. Baronet, that her Majesty's Government had taken possession of office during the prevalence of the distress which had been complained of; but it was not enough for the Government and those who supported it to say, that the distress was not the result of any course of policy which they had adopted, and that they were not responsible for it. He cared little whose act it was. He did not envy the position of the Government if it took possession of power when the country was suffering under great distress, without being prepared to state their views to Parliament in a straightforward manner, and to ask Parliament to assist them in carrying into operation remedial measures of relief. If no remedy was to be proposed for the adoption of the House—if Parliament was to separate without having suggested for its consideration some means of relief, then he apprehended the worst consequences to the peace and welfare of the country. He certainly thought that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would have brought forward a proposition with that view. Allusion had been made to the distress at present prevalent being the natural effect of the present Corn-laws. He denied, that such was the fact. The Corn-laws had been in force at periods when no distress was complained of, and during times of great commercial and general prosperity. He did not think, that a repeal of the Corn-laws would have the effect of reviving the trade of the country, or of improving the condition of the people. He had witnessed a revival of prosperity under Corn-laws quite as stringent in their operation as those now in existence. He could not consider the present state of the manufacturing districts without feelings of great fear and apprehension. The House had no right to leave the people in their present condition. He looked forward to another winter with fear and alarm.

Lord J. Russell:

Sir, I am not one of those who take the most favourable view of the measures of her Majesty's present Ministers; and although I have no great reliance upon the wisdom of their councils—no great confidence in the efficacy of their plans, for the relief of the distress which now exists; yet I shall hardly take so hostile a course as that which has (been taken by the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. I must say, I think he was hardly justified, from anything he has said, in taking so hostile a tone towards the Government which he generally supports; because, after giving a very alarming account of the existing distress—after saying everything that was calculated to inspire alarm and despondency—after raising an apprehension for the tranquillity of the country, the hon. Gentleman has himself suggested no remedy-has not proposed any great scheme of relief, has done nothing more than say there ought to be an inquiry into the cause of the existing distress. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that there would be an advantage in the inquiry. I admit, that there would be an advantage if hon. Members were to go into that inquiry with somewhat similar views and similar principles; but to go into an inquiry with an hon. Gentleman who has only spoken against the theory in which my hon. Friends on this side of the House are entirely agreed—to go into an inquiry in which he would contend, that free-trade, and the establishment of free-trade principles, is at the bottom of all the mischiefs of the country, whilst those on this side of the House would contend that it is because free-trade has not been extended far enough, that we are now suffering—to go into an inquiry differing so entirely in principle at the very commencement of such inquiry, would, I think, be holding out no reasonable expectation to the country of any relief from the plans which we might adopt. The hon. Gentleman has not proposed his favourite scheme of the 1l. notes. [Mr. Attwood: I never proposed any such scheme.] Well, then, that favourite scheme of the 1l. notes, which has sometimes been propounded by hon. Gentlemen with whom I thought the hon. Gentleman agreed in opinion. If I am mistaken in that opinion, I am glad of it, because I rejoice to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not one of those who would have recourse to the issue of such notes. Sir, with respect to the matter of the present discussion—a discussion which must be as painful as it is important, there are some things, at least, that we may allow to those who plead on behalf of the Government. We must allow, in the first place, that they are not originally responsible for the causes of the distress that now exists. We may allow, in the second place, that they feel as much as any other men for their fellow-countrymen, who are now suffering from the effects of that distress. We may allow, I think, thirdly, that there is no scheme which you can say at any particular period will have the certain effect of at once relieving that distress. Having made so much of admission, I must say that I entirely disagree with the course they have taken in the present Session, I agree, so far, with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—and I think I have on former occasions expressed that opinion—that her Majesty's Ministers were mistaken in considering that the financial difficulty was the primary evil with which they had to deal. I admit the continued deficiency of the public income to meet the public charges to be an evil; but I consider the primary evil with which they had to deal in the present Session was the depressed state of trade, and that the financial deficiency was only a secondary consideration. Now, the whole of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, concocted by the Government with great care and deliberation, was evidently formed with the view, that the first and principal object should be to make the income equal to the expenditure; and after that, and as a secondary object, to endeavour to relieve trade from its embarrassment. I have no doubt, that with respect to that which they made the first object of their endeavours they will be likely to succeed. I do not think that this country is yet reduced to such a state that if you impose a considerable amount of direct taxation, that direct taxation will not so far answer its purpose as to produce a considerable increase of the public revenue. I will say still further, that although I differed from her Majesty's Government, and thought the Income-tax, which they proposed was not necessary, and therefore was not to be justified, that I think the spirit which the country has shown upon being told that such a tax was necessary of its readiness to bear the tax, is a presumption that the spirit of the country is unbroken, and that it is ready to encounter any difficulties with which it may have to contend. If I am right in my opinion that the country was called on without necessity to encounter that tax, that does not diminish, but rather increase the presumption that additional taxation can be borne. But with respect to the second, which I consider the greatest evil of the country with which we have to deal, namely, the embarrassment of trade, and the present state of distress, the hon. Member for Whitehaven considers that we were altogether mistaken in adopting the plans of Mr. Huskisson; that these plans have entirely failed, and have been the cause of all the financial difficulties of late years. Sir, I cannot see that there is any proof of that proposition. I do not think that the alterations that were made with respect to cotton and woollen goods, and with respect to that which was more likely to bring us into competition with foreign countries, namely, the alteration with regard to silk goods,—I say I do not think that these alterations have been in any manner the cause of the deficiency of the revenue, or that there is any proof whatever that the country has suffered from that change. On the contrary, more than once I have been told that the consequence of these measures have been favourable to the industry of the country, that the general wealth of the country has been improved by these changes, and we therefore ought not to be deterred from adopting similar measures founded upon similar principles. But, Sir, where I think the case of the Government fails is, that, agreeing with the principles we hold on this side of the House—agreeing with the principles held by Mr. Huskisson, some of them having been his Colleagues at the time these measures were introduced, they rely upon certain changes which they have made on small articles, and they refuse to apply the same principles to other and greater articles. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department tells you that he thinks the changes which the Government have made in the tariff will give renewed vigour to the trade of the country—that they will produce increased exports, and thereby augment the industry of the country, and that that will not be a late or a distant, but that it will be a speedy effect of the changes which have been made by the Customs Bill, which we have recently passed. If that be the case—if the right hon. Baronet be correct in that supposition, even to some extent, how can it be that measures founded upon these principles should be right with respect to cattle, with respect to ores, with respect to seeds, with respect to oils, and various other articles in the tariff; and yet when you come to corn and sugar, that these principles should not be equally good? particularly when these are articles of much greater importance. The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, said that if you could introduce 50,000 head of cattle, and other articles, you would thereby have an export trade commensurate with that, and would, consequently, increase the employment of labour. Well then, if such be the case, while there is corn and flour in America ready to be sent over, how can you maintain that that which you have already stated to be true with regard to the articles you propose to admit, should be false with regard to other articles of still greater importance? You tell us that there are two grounds upon which you have made these changes—the one is, to increase the trade of the country, to give general facilities and a general improvement to your commerce; the other is, that by admitting a great number of these articles at a moderate duty, you will generally reduce the cost of subsistence in the country, and will thereby improve the quantity of your productions and the general wealth of the country. Why, on both these grounds, corn is a much more important article than any you have named. On both these grounds the admission of corn would produce a greater amount of exports in your cotton, linen, and woollen goods from your manufacturing districts; and with respect to subsistence, can there be any change, can the admission of cattle, or any one of the articles you name, be so important in at least preventing a rise in the price of subsistence, if not in reducing it, as a freer admission of foreign corn? The right hon. Gentleman, when I urged this on a former occasion, said, "Yes, but you on your part have proposed an 8s. duty, and that is not free-trade." It is quite true that that was my proposition. But although others may prefer a free-trade in corn, I believe that if last year, while these embarrassments in trade existed, you established an 8s. duty on foreign corn, the producers of foreign corn both in Germany and in America, being certain what the amount would be—being certain that it would not exceed 8s.—would have sent very large quantities to this country, and thereby very materially have improved its condition. And I entirely believe, with the hon. Member for Montrose, that you might consume a far greater quantity of corn than you now consume, without injury to the agriculturist. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State says it is his belief, that if you admitted foreign corn in large quantities, you would thereby reduce all the persons engaged in agricultural pursuits to a similar state of distress as the manufacturer, and consequently the condition of the country would be made worse instead of better by such a change. I cannot believe that any consequences of the kind would follow. You at present have deficient exports to foreign countries. The amount of exports has been very considerable during the past year, and has been, probably, very considerable up to the present moment; but the workmen employed in producing these articles for foreign export are paid very low and insufficient wages, and with these low and insufficient wages they have to pay a very high price for food. If you admitted foreign corn, their means of purchasing food would be increased, and I believe that wages would be augmented at the same time. You would thereby improve their condition, you would increase employment, and you would benefit the country generally. I think the right hon. Gentleman who apprehends these consequences might have derived some benefit from the experience of the measures of his own Government. Let us recollect what was the case some two or three months ago, when the proposal was made for the introduction of foreign cattle. It was said that was as bad, if not worse, than the proposal of the late Government with regard to corn—that those who fed cattle for the purpose of manure, and the graziers throughout the country, would be ruined by that measure. There was a panic, and somewhat to confirm the apprehension entertained, a great fall took place in the price of cattle. I heard of men in Suffolk and Norfolk who, having bought cattle in the autumn, were obliged to part with them, after having fed them for a considerable time, at a less price than they cost. The apprehension then entertained seemed to be confirmed; the alarm appeared to be very reasonable. But you went on with your plan. The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, had confidence in his own principles, and he relied upon those principles and the justice of the measures which he had propounded; he carried his plan by a very considerable majority in this House. And what was the consequence? When it became certain that every head of cattle might be admitted at 20s., did it produce an increased panic? Far from it. Gradually men recovered their senses—they made their calculations—they found there was no such danger as they had apprehended; and what we have now to complain of is, not that agriculture is in a state of distress from the low price of cattle, but from every quarter—from the west of England, from the north, and from Ireland—we hear of a higher price of cattle than is consistent with general prosperity. I believe that if you had proposed—if you were now to propose—a more reasonable system as to corn, there would be a similar panic at the first moment, similar apprehensions entertained; but after it had been calculated what this country was likely to produce, and what was likely to come from foreign parts, that panic would be dispelled, those apprehensions would vanish, and you would find that while you improved the state of your manufactures, while you did much to relieve distress and give vigour and activity to commerce,—your agriculture, instead of being ruined, would stand upon a far sounder basis than it ever stood upon before; not upon the basis of the law which you have made to exclude foreign corn until a very high price is reached—but it would stand upon the basis of the capabilities of your own soil, of the skill of your own farmers, of the means which men would then apply, and the advantages which they would then have in supplying a rich manufacturing and commercial community, being at their own doors, in competition with men in the centre of North America or the middle of Poland, with all the expenses and drawbacks of transit. I therefore think, Sir, differing entirely from the Government in this respect, that very considerable relief—not instant prosperity, not an immediate and sudden change from distress to wealth—but considerable relief would be afforded to the country by the change of your Corn-laws. Then hon. Gentlemen say, "Do you mean to say the Corn-laws are the sole cause of the distress? Do you mean to say that prosperity has not co-existed with Corn-laws more restricted than the present?" Certainly I do not mean to say so; but as Mr. Canning said, when introducing one of his measures, though only a temporary measure, as to the admission of foreign corn, "I may think that for a certain patient rhubarb or senna would be a remedy, but I am not saying that the want of rhubarb or senna was what originally caused the evil." The hon. Member for Whitehaven spoke as to the policy of our foreign treaties, and said that the cause of the distress was not having formed a commercial treaty with France. The breaking off of the commercial treaty has not deprived us of any advantages we before enjoyed. It has not deprived us of anything that we had. It has certainly prevented this country, and I believe it has prevented France, from obtaining a trade which would have been for the benefit of both countries; but it cannot be said that this is an advantage we have ever enjoyed, and is therefore the cause of the distress. But what is very singular is, that the hon. Gentleman points to that as the cause, and asks us to make the treaties a remedy, while he refuses to consider the laws over which we now have power. He says, make a commercial treaty with France. There is a foreign government to be consulted—a foreign government to give its consent. I should be glad to hear that our Government had succeeded in commercial treaties with France and other foreign States, and that the provisions they introduced were beneficial; but I cannot answer, nor can they answer, for governments which may be influenced by the prejudices of their own people, by national feelings of hostility, and by a thousand causes which we cannot control, and which may induce them to come to determinations which we cannot alter; but this I know, with respect to the admission of corn, and other articles of import, that we have the power in our own hands, that legislation is within the compass and jurisdiction of Parliament, that this is a matter over which we have control, while that which the hon. Gentleman proposes, is that over which we have not control. The hon. Member and the hon. Gentleman who spoke after him say, it is in vain to hope, that by making concessions to foreign nations with regard to the import of articles of their production, you can thereby induce them to adopt a more liberal policy. That may be, or may not be, I believe that by giving an example to those nations, you are more likely to induce them to adopt a liberal system than you are by pursuing an illiberal system of your own. Of this I am quite sure, that if each nation says, "I will never give way till other nations give way; I will fight the battle of excluding what is useful to us till other nations admit what is useful to them," we can scarcely hope to see a liberal system established. For my own part, I consider such a system of retaliation is not only illiberal and injurious, but is utterly unfair to your own people. What is the case with regard to any one of these articles? You suppose, that they may be had more cheaply, and of a better quality, from foreign countries. Your people would thereby gain an advantage, if they were admitted; but you say, "No; the silks and brandies of France might be of great benefit to our people, they might be of great advantage to them, but then the French government deprive their people of the benefit of our linens and linen threads, and therefore, as the French government punish the people of France, we, the Government of England, will punish the people of England." I think, that mode of reasoning on this subject is utterly fallacious; and I think, that on the night of the introduction of the tariff, the right hon. Gentleman showed conclusively, by practical examples, how great was the mistake into which you fell, for the right hon. Gentleman showed, that the consequence was with respect to us as it would be with respect to them, that whilst you by law excluded those articles, you could not prevent the smuggler from introducing those articles without duty into this country. What is the case of this very article? I think, that as to silk, two or three witnesses from the Board of Trade were examined before the import committee, who stated, that in their opinion, according to all the calculations they could make, one-half of the silks introduced into this country were without paying any duly whatever. The right hon. Gentleman himself read a letter which showed that for 8 or 9 per cent, a smuggler would introduce any article of silk into this country, and, at the same time, you are keeping up a duty of 30 or 40 per cent on these very articles. Would not the same thing happen to those foreign nations who, you say, would act on this illiberal system? Supposing, which is not impossible, they were to say in France and Germany, "We find that England has risen to prosperity while she kept up restrictive laws, that is the mode in which manufacturing prosperity is to be attained, let us imitate the example and have high and prohibitory duties;" supposing you admitted articles into this country which would form large articles of import, would you not be send- ing articles which would be admitted in spite of their tariff? If you found it happen to you, would it not happen to them? Do you believe you could keep a trade of this kind, such as the hon. Member for Whitehaven has spoken of, that you could send abroad articles which would be sold at a cheaper rate than they could be sold in this country? That may be the case, but he said, at the same time, that articles imported from foreign countries were sold here at a cheaper rate than they were sold in those countries. I cannot believe that countries would consent to be carrying on a trade continually at a loss; that our merchants and manufacturers should be so entirely helpless, so much in want of the aid of legislation, as to go on year after year losing 10 per cent., instead of making 10 per cent.; that they should require any legislation, however wise and enlightened, to tell them that they were pursuing a false course, and would be ruined if they did not change their system. I believe, therefore, that the Government, while they have gone upon right principles with respect to many of the articles in their tariff, have not adopted that course which would be most likely to give relief to the distresses of the country, or most likely to revive prosperity. I have stated that opinion on more than one occasion. I have stated and recorded, by a resolution of this House, at the time the Corn-law was brought forward, that seeing the evil of the then existing Corn-laws, and especially of the sliding-scale, that the law which at present is in force was founded on a similar principle, and would probably be followed by similar results. I cannot see that there is anything in the experience of the Corn-law which has at all contradicted that opinion. On the contrary, I was disposed to think that when we had a 10s. duty, and prices rose to 62s., we should have had a large quantity of wheat admitted; but I am not aware that even that is the fact, or that we have, even during the time the present Corn-law has been in force, had a quantity of wheat admitted equal to that which was admitted under the law of 1828, with a much higher duty than at present exists. I cannot, think, therefore, that you have adopted a sound principle with respect to corn, and I must still hope that you will consider the subject, and that if you apply to that very great article of trade and of subsistence the same prin- ciples which you have applied to other articles, and on which your reasoning has been so just and your majority so triumphant, you will make a material and most useful alteration in those laws. I shall, therefore, be ready, if any one proposes it, to give my vote in favour of an alteration of the present Corn-law, but I must consider that the House has made up its mind with respect to the plan of the present Session. The hon. Gentleman who made this motion has not pointed out any definite remedy. He only states in his resolution that it is the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to advise the Crown not to prorogue Parliament until some remedy is found for the present distress. Knowing what the duties of Government are, how inadvisable it is, and, as I think, how unjust, to place upon them, without giving a clear and definite alternative, the whole responsibility of not finding a remedy for the present distress, I own I cannot refuse to go into the ordinary committee of supply upon such a motion as the hon. Gentleman has made. I believe that the principles which I have stated upon former occasions, and which I have stated this night, with regard to the commercial policy of the country, are those principles upon which the Government must ultimately act. I lament that they postpone the consideration of the remedies, but I must leave upon them the responsibility of considering the time at which they will propose such remedies, and I will not, by any vote for a vague and indefinite remedy, tend in any way to augment their embarrassment. My vote, as I have said, would be given for a proposal to alter the existing Corn-law. That is a subject on which I have a clear and definite opinion, and therefore I can give a decided vote upon it. Upon the present motion I cannot, with equal satisfaction to myself, give that vote, and therefore I must refuse to concur in the amendment, which sets aside the ordinary motion by which Government seeks to obtain the supplies necessary for the service of the year.

Sir R. Peel

said: Sir, however various may be the opinions of Gentlemen on different sides of the House, with respect to the commercial policy of the country—however various their opinions respecting the measures which ought to be adopted for the purpose of mitigating the distress which all of us admit to be too extensive—still I trust no Gentleman present will feel inclined to give his vote without attending to the proposal which he is called upon to sanction by the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock. Let me call the attention of the House to what the proposal is. In most of the first five paragraphs of the hon. Member's motion, but more especially in that portion of them which relates to the patience and fortitude with which the people have borne their sufferings, I entirely concur; but then I come to the sixth paragraph, which contains a proposal to which the assent of the House is invited, and it is a proposal to which the House must in my opinion, for the sake of its credit and character, give close attention before it decides. It is to this effect: That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to refuse her consent to the prorogation of Parliament, until a diligent and searching inquiry shall be instituted into the causes of the unprecedented distress existing at present all over the kingdom, and thereafter until her Majesty and this House shall have been assured by her Ministers that effectual means are secured to provide sustenance for the unemployed and their destitute families, until their sufferings shall be terminated by a demand for their industry and wages for their labour. Now, Sir, what a shabby way is this of evading any discussion of the difficulties of the country! I am now speaking on the 1st of July, and up to this moment no notice has ever been placed upon the books for any inquiry into the distresses of the country. Even to night such an inquiry is not asked for; the House is only asked to concur in praying her Majesty not to consent to the prorogation of Parliament until a searching inquiry shall have been instituted into the causes of the distress. Sir, if any such inquiry were desirable or necessary—if the hon. Member for Greenock think that such an inquiry could be brought to any useful or practicable result—why has he not called the attention of the House to it long before this time? But you are called upon not to be contented with merely resisting any prorogation until this diligent and searching inquiry shall have been made. In what mode is this inquiry to be made? Are you to inquire by evidence at the Bar into the causes of the distress? If into such a complicated inquiry the hon. Member wishes to lead you, let me ask when would it be completed? How is it to be conducted? Or are we to have a select committee? We really know nothing of what are the intentions of the hon. Gentleman; he has carefully evaded all explanation on these points, and the House is literally in the dark concerning them. But, even after the diligent and searching inquiry into the causes of the distress, you are to have no prorogation! You are to have no prorogation of the Parliament until her Majesty and this House have been assured by her Ministers that effectual means are secured to provide sustenance for the unemployed and their destitute families,—until their sufferings shall be terminated by a renewed demand for their industry and increased wages for their labour. We are not called upon to create a demand for their industry by a revival of commerce; no, but to provide sustenance to all in distress for an indefinite period. Now, Sir, let me ask what does that mean? what is it but the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough in another shape? It is the very same in substance, and I should like much to know who will undertake to discover the remedy; and after all, her Majesty and this House is to be contented with the assurance from the Government— Until her Majesty and this House shall have been assured by her Ministers that effectual means are secured to provide sustenance," &c. What Government could undertake to give such an assurance? The hon. Member clearly means that we are to provide sustenance for the people. Again, let me ask whether that is not the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, against which the hon. Member for Greenock voted? Whatever may be the opinion of the House on the Corn-laws, I do hope it will never affirm such a proposition as to call upon her Majesty not to prorogue the Parliament until a time which is left indefinite in the resolution. The hon. Member has not shown that it would be either wise or prudent in the House, or consistent with its character, to encourage expectations which can never be realized; and, as I understand the hon. Member for Whitehaven means to vote for the inquiry, I confess I am astonished that a Gentleman of his knowledge and experience should sit in this House until this day, the 1st of July, without ever having mooted the question before, if he now thinks it of such importance. The hon. Member is going to give his vote for the motion although he sat down, much to my surprise, without intimating any opinion as to the causes of the distress or suggesting any remedy. Surely a mercantile and intelligent gentleman like him is as able to see and judge of the causes and the remedy as her Majesty's Government; he can form as correct a judgment upon them, and perhaps more so, than we can. Well, then, was it not surprising that he should sit down without offering one word to us or the House in the way of suggestion? [Mr. Attwood: I am not the doctor.] The hon. Gentleman takes exactly my course—he is not responsible, and, therefore, he will not prescribe. I undertook the responsibility. I was called in, and her Majesty's Government have taken the responsibility upon themselves, and with the utmost frankness we have proposed our remedies. All the hon. Gentleman will do is to attend a consultation of doctors, but he will offer no opinion of his own. We have taken the responsibility upon ourselves, and we have proposed those measures which we thought best calculated to relieve the distresses of the country. The hon. Member for Whitehaven thinks it absurd to expect any relief from a repeal of the Corn-laws; in that he is ready to give a decided opinion against the prescription offered by others. The hon. Member thinks that we are wrong in relaxing the restrictions of commerce. Now, will he propose to increase the restrictions on trade? [Mr. Attwood: No.] The hon. Gentleman will not alter the Corn-laws, and he is against any relaxation of the restrictions on trade, neither will he increase them; then, what are the remedies he would propose? Does the hon. Gentleman consider that any commercial intercourse on the part of this country with foreign nations is desire-able? I think the praise he has bestowed upon the policy of the United States clearly shows his opinion to be, that we ought to refuse to purchase from any foreign country articles which we can ourselves produce. How far will the hon. Gentleman push these principles? If he pushes them to their full extent, he will annihilate all commerce. Commerce is merely the interchange of the productions of different countries, and if there be no interchange, commerce will cease to exist. It may be advisable to relax restrictions with caution; but, as I understand the principles of the hon. Gentleman, he would push to its utmost extent the system of restriction on the import of all articles which we are ourselves capable of producing. That might be very well if the hon. Gentleman could adopt securities against the illicit introduction of those articles; but the hon. Gentleman would find that his attempt to encourage native production by a system of high duties would be defeated—he would find that the revenue would diminish, and that domestic industry would not be protected. I suppose the hon. Gentleman would propose as a remedy for the existing evils, the abolition of that law which renders paper currency convertible into gold—a measure which he has advocated on former occasions. He disclaims the intention of advocating the re-issue of 1l. notes, and I think it is clear, though he is not the doctor, that by exhausting his remedies he has placed himself in this dilemma. He thinks that the repeal of the Corn-laws would aggravate the prevailing distress; he considers that her Majesty's Government acts with great impolicy in proposing relaxations on commerce; he does not advocate the imposition of new commercial restrictions, he is not favourable to the re-issue of 1l. notes, and I apprehend, therefore, that he has no other remedy to suggest than that termed in familiar language "the little shilling;" making 9d. or 10d. pass as a shilling, and relieving those who issue paper from the obligation to convert that paper into gold or the precious metals. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has any other remedy to propose than this. Indeed, I think I have shown pretty clearly that he can have no other remedy. I am surprised, considering the loudness of his tone, that he shrinks from suggesting his remedy, and that he shelters himself under the proposal for a committee of general inquiry into the distresses of the country. Let him go into that committee, let him there meet the advocates for the repeal of the Corn-laws, and if he fights his battle for the depreciated standard, I should like to know what time will be consumed before the committee arrive at any—not to say an unanimous—conclusion for the recommendation of a practical measure. I now come to the arguments of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who says that he is I disposed to adopt a much less hostile tone towards the Government than that of the hon. Member for Whitehaven—a tone of hostility for which I can hardly account, considering that the hon. Gentleman has supported the financial measures of the Government, and did not offer any very vehement opposition to the tariff. The noble Lord says that her Majesty's Government have, in his opinion, attached too much importance to the financial difficulties of the country. The noble Lord thinks we ought to have treated somewhat more lightly those difficulties and embarrassments; considering, however, that a deficiency of revenue had existed for five years, and that that deficiency at length amounted to 10,000,000l., it might suit the noble Lord to make light of the evil, but I apprehend the country did not come to the same conclusion. The noble Lord says that the people have afforded a gratifying indication of their public spirit by cheerfully acceding to the proposal of an Income-tax. But why have the people shown this cheerful acquiescence? If it be wrong to propose an Income-tax in time of peace, what stronger indication of general confidence in a Government could a people evince than by submitting to such a measure against their own conscientious impressions? Why, what must the people have thought of the late Government, and what must be their opinion of the present Government, if—through distrust in one Administration, and confidence in the other—they are ready to acquiesce, against their own opinions, in the imposition of an Income-tax in time of peace? Could a stronger manifestation be afforded of universal confidence in a Government? Is it not probable that the people came to the same conclusion with her Majesty's Government, that the political circumstances of the country are such that it becomes a matter of great public importance to equalize the national revenue with the expenditure—that delay and evasion are no longer practicable, and that, grievous as an Income-tax is, unusual as is the proposal of such a measure in time of peace, objectionable as is the inquisition which it establishes, yet so convinced are the people of this country that some vigorous and decisive steps are necessary that they willingly submitted to the impost; and I can tell the noble Lord that there is a very prevalent impression that, upon my first proposal of an Income-tax, it was the intention of the Members of her Majesty's late Government to support the measure. That impression is very prevalent. I cannot know that it is true, but it is on no light authority that I state it. What circumstances induced her Majesty's late Government to change the view they entertained on my first proposal of the measure I cannot, of course, understand. As her Majesty's late Government abstained from intimating any intention of opposition when I first proposed this measure, as they said they would take time to consider it, the people may have been led to believe that—if the late Government, who were intimately acquainted with the financial affairs of the country, thus acted—there must be some good and conclusive reason for the proposal of a measure which was met in the first instance by such faint indications of opposition. But, looking at the general position of this country, seeing that on the north-west frontier of India we were engaged in hostilities of doubtful issue, and subjecting the East India Company to great expense—that, at the same time, we were involved in a war with China, the duration of which it was difficult to calculate—seeing that our differences with America had continued for several years, and that there was no prospect of their early adjustment—seeing that in another country, with which her Majesty's late Government endeavoured to cultivate an intimate alliance, there had arisen feelings of jealousy and hostility much to be deprecated—combining, I say, these considerations, the people came to the conclusion, and in my opinion a most wise one, that it was desirable to make a great effort to equalize the revenue with the expenditure, and that in making that effort the burden should fall on the property of the country, not upon those who are chiefly occupied in its productive industry. My belief is, that it was not an extravagant degree of confidence in the Government which led to the ready acquiescence in the proposal of an Income-tax, but a deep and conscientious conviction pervading the country that the time had arrived when a powerful effort must be made to put an end to the disorder in the finances. With respect to the tariff, the noble Lord, by his admission, has gone far to convince me that her Majesty's Government have pushed the principles on which the tariff is founded to as great an extent as is consistent with due protection to existing interests, The noble Lord says, "You have reduced the duty on oil, on seeds, on ores, on timber; you have affected a great many interests; all I complain of is, that you have not carried your principles much farther." Now let us take the case of cattle. For a long period the complaint was urged, that the commercial intercourse of this country was restricted by the operation of the provision laws. It was said, "True, you admit corn under certain circumstances, but what course do you pursue with respect to cattle and meat? There is an absolute monopoly. Remove the restrictions, and the consequence will be a partial revival of commerce." Up to February, 1842, however, no Government ever mentioned the article of cattle. The late Government will say, no doubt, that they would have proposed an alteration with regard to cattle, for that such an alteration was consistent with their principles. I only know, however, that I never heard the restrictions on the import of foreign provisions mentioned in this House, except when charges were made against the Government for not adopting some measure for their removal. I have proposed rates of duty which were scarcely objected to by hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, 1l. per head on cattle, and 1d. per pound on meat. During the discussions on that subject, the noble Lord, though he voted for my proposal, did not adopt a line of conduct calculated to smooth my course. He addressed himself, in plaintive tones, to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, telling them they had good reason to complain of the deception I had practised upon them; and his speeches had rather a tendency to aggravate the panic which existed in the country, and which might have produced most lamentable results. The noble Lord complained that no notice had been given of the alteration with respect to cattle, and stated that a great panic prevailed on the subject. He said cases had come to his knowledge in which farmers had bought cattle, had fed them, and had then been compelled to sell them for less than the sum they originally cost. This circumstance shows that the interference with such interests is not unattended with practical evils. The panics consequent on such changes are frequently productive of considerable hardships to individuals; and the farmers who, in consequence of the panic in this case, parted—perhaps not very wisely— with their cattle, had, I admit, some reason for complaint. The noble Lord says that, disregarding the panic, I had the firmness to adhere to my principles; I braved opposition; and I was eventually rewarded by finding that the panic was unfounded. But the noble Lord states that the reduction of duties I proposed has effected no good. Does the noble Lord think the same result would follow if his proposals were applied to corn? Now, I ask the House to judge of the position of the Government. One class of Gentlemen declare, that only one remedy can be effectual—the repeal of the Corn-law, and that nothing else will avail. The hon. Member for Whitehaven, who is practically acquainted with commerce, says that the Corn-laws do not, in the slightest degree, occasion the present distress; he says that commercial prosperity has coexisted with the Corn-laws, and that it would be absurd to expect any relief from their repeal; he implies an opinion that all commercial relaxations are unwise, and I should have thought his principle was this—that additional protection should be at once afforded to domestic industry; and he says that the grand remedy for the prevailing distress is to be determined by a committee of inquiry, proposed to be appointed on the 1st of July. What, I would ask, has been the practical course her Majesty's Government has pursued? We have reduced the duties on corn one-half. At this moment wheat is admissible at a duty of 9s., and if the old law had been in existence the duty would, I believe, have been 1l. 3s. 8d. This was a practical measure. We proposed no vague committe of inquiry, in order to devolve the responsibility from ourselves upon the committee. We proposed a practical measure in the first instance, and we reduced the duties upon foreign corn one-half. Then, in order to relieve the country from its financial difficulties, we proposed, and we staked the existence of the Government on the proposal, to equalize the revenue and expenditure by direct taxation. But did we appropriate the whole proceeds of that taxation to the payment of the public establishments? No; we proposed to apply a large portion of those proceeds to the remission of duties, in order to feed foreign commercial intercourse, and we revised, almost without exception, the whole commercial tariff of the country. It may suit the purpose of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to undervalue the efficacy of these measures, but the hon. Member for Montrose has not pursued that course. He has said that he thinks the tariff is a measure creditable to those by whom it was proposed, and that he believes that, on the whole, it will be attended with great benefit. But, in revising the tariff, we did not think it advisable to push to too great an extent principles which, abstractedly speaking, might be sound; or to create a panic, and to disturb the employment of capital, by too sudden and precipitate changes in the commercial laws of the country. My firm opinion is, that we adopted a proper course. I did not think we could be justly charged with an evasion of our duty, or with shrinking from our principles. We are blamed by some for going too far, by others for not going far enough. I ask you, however, to estimate all the difficulties with which we have had to contend, and I think any reasonable man will come to the conclusion that those difficulties have been fairly encountered, and successfully conquered. Then with respect to the Corn-laws, the motion before the House has no reference to the repeal or modification of those laws. It appears to me that any Gentleman who may be desirous of a further modification of the Corn-law, or of its absolute repeal, is called upon to resist this motion for vague and indefinite inquiry. If he considers that the Corn-law ought to be repealed, it is open to him to make such a proposition; but an inquiry of this nature can only delay the accomplishment of this object. I earnestly hope no such proposition will be made, for I trust a fair trial will be given to the law which has recently been adopted; but if any hon. Gentleman contemplates an alteration of that law, it is competent to him to bring forward the subject without voting for this practically delusive proposition of the hon. Member for Greenock. I maintain the opinion which I have formerly expressed—I do not think that any of the proposals I have heard with respect to the Corn-laws would have the effect of mitigating the distress under which the country is labouring, I conceive, indeed, that by too precipitate a change of such a nature, you would involve the agricultural population in distress, and thus add immeasurably to that suffering which already prevails to a lamentable extent among the commercial classes. I find that the commercial prosperity of this country has been co-existent with the laws restraining the import of corn. I learn, on the authority of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, that up to 1837, and for several years preceding, the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country had been in a state of unexampled prosperity, and yet that prosperity was co-existent with laws which prohibited the free import of corn. I know the answer to this will be, that during four years preceding 1837, the price of provisions in this country was unusually low, and that the lowness of price had the effect you anticipate from that import of foreign corn. But during those four years no foreign corn was imported, and consequently you had no demand for the manufacturing produce of this country in consequence of such importation. Your prosperity could not, therefore, be dependent on that commercial intercourse which depends on the import of foreign corn. But is the importation of foreign corn, and the consequent reduction of the price of food, necessary to enable you to compete with the foreign manufacturers? What said the hon. Member for Stockport? He said it was as absurd to demand protection for the cotton manufactures of England as it would be to demand protection for the coal trade at Newcastle; that is to say, that notwithstanding the comparatively high price of food in this country, we have still contrived to outstrip all our competitors in the production of cotton. I cannot deny the distress that prevails in many parts of the country—that it is most grievous in many districts where there are many cotton manufactories, and that it is severe in other districts. It is said that a great portion of the mills in this country have stopped working; that must be true, of course, with respect to some districts of the country; yet still it is a remarkable thing (I am not citing this paper for the purpose of denying the distress which prevails, the indications of which are too manifest), when we hear of this universal distress in a manufacturing district, and the immense extent to which the closing of mills has taken place, that the quantity of cotton taken out for home manufacture, as compared with last year, has not diminished. I have got from Liverpool an account up to the 24th of June of the quantity of cotton taken out for manufacture, and also of the quantity taken out during the same period last year. For the first six months of 1841 there were 464,500 bales of cotton taken out of the warehouses for consumption. Now, I certainly did expect to find, of the statements that were made of the extent to which industry has been paralysed in the present year, as compared with the last; a diminution in the quantity of cotton taken out for manufacturing purposes. But that is not the case. The quantity of cotton taken out in 1841 for the first six months, was 464,500 bales; and the quantity taken out for consumption up to the 24th of June, 1842, was 538,000 bales. So that, notwithstanding the distress and the closing of the mills, yet still the total quantity of cot ton taken out for consumption in the first six months of 1842 exceeds that taken out in the first six months of 1841; and I doubt if it is not almost equal to that taken out in the first six months in any preceding year, with one or two exceptions. I know that this is no proof that profits are not greatly diminished, and that distress does not prevail; but still it is a remarkable thing, that during the prevalence of that distress the quantity of cotton taken out has not diminished, but has increased, as compared with last year. Sir, I take, in one respect, a more desponding view of the position of this country than hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I firmly believe that, if you repeal the Corn-laws, and this should produce the effect which you anticipate, that this would not give you a guarantee against the recurrence of severe distress in certain districts of the country. It is my belief, I say, that giving you the repeal of the Corn-laws, and giving you the consequences you anticipate, yet such is the condition of the manufactures (and particularly in this country), I am afraid you must look forward to, occasionally, severe local distress. At this moment, when distress is so severe in some parts of the country, there are new mills in the course of erection. ["Hear, hear."] That is a fact. The command of capital induces men, even during periods of severe distress, to construct new mills, and to fill them with new machinery. Now, what must be the consequence of this? Must there not always be in some localities men of small capital, and with imperfect machinery, yet still employing large masses of the population, who would find it difficult to enter into competition with those who could command capital and apply it to the construction of the best machinery, and that ultimately labour would be thrown out of employment? To resist the progress of these improvements is impossible; and though there might be a demand for cotton manufactures, yet there might be simultaneously with that demand the existence of severe distress on account of the sudden application of new machinery to meet that demand. Sir, I won't dwell on this. I could prove it to be the case, and could show that the immediate consequence of the improvement of machinery and the application of capital to the construction of it, had been productive in certain parts of the country of extraordinary results—that the tendency of it was to drive out of employment adult male labour, and to substitute for it the labour of females and children; and the infallible consequence is, that the man of twenty-five or thirty years of age, who up to that period of life has been employed in a cotton manufactory, finds it difficult to turn his hand to any other employment. Now, you must not make the Corn-laws responsible for evils of that kind. It is no impeachment of the invention—the invention may increase on the whole the demand for labour, and may call into employment the mechanism and industry of other nations; the commercial prosperity may be great, yet in certain districts of the country, from which it is difficult to transfer a married man and his large family, the progress of these improvements may produce great distress, even in times when there is a great demand for labour; and in this state of things, even with an increased demand for your manufactures, I could not anticipate that absence of distress and suffering on which some hon. Gentlemen calculate. You apply opprobious terms to our measures for alleviating the distress. You talk of "begging boxes," and say that such things ought not to satisfy the people. I admit that it is a much less satisfactory mode of alleviating the existing distress than providing employment, in every respect. In a social point of view, I admit that it is less satisfactory to the honest feelings of those who derive a miserable subsistence from charity, than a demand for labour to enable them, by the sweat of their brows, to gain an honest livelihood. But when the pressure comes, can any one say that even this unsatisfactory mode of relief ought not to be resorted to. And is it wise to disparage such modes of relief, and to discourage such contributions when you yourselves must feel that no improvement—according to your views—in your own commercial system could provide immediate relief? I was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) say, that the contributions to the Anti Corn-law League were a more legitimate application of money. Why, even grant that the permanent effects may be so, yet still I do hope the hon. Gentleman and those who act with him—particularly after the admissions of to-night, that years must elapse before permanent relief can be afforded—will consider the length and extent of the temporary evil; and, if nothing but temporary remedies are applied, that they will not discourage the charitable contributions of those disposed by their liberality to administer this temporary—I admit, this unsatisfactory relief. Sir, I do give credit to the patience, the high spirit, and the forbearance with which the people of this country have borne their distress. I do believe that, if left to themselves, they would continue to manifest that patience; and I think them entitled to a higher degree of credit in COD-sequence of the persevering efforts that are made to inflame their minds, and provoke them into disobedience. There are men, it is perfectly true, in those parts of the country, I have conclusive proofs of it, where there is a disposition to patient submission under distress—there are wicked men who are attempting to inflame the minds of the people by the exaggeration of their sufferings and privations. Now, it is quite right for us, as legislators, to be dissatisfied with temporary remedies; it is quite right for us to look for the permanent reduction of these evils; but let us forbear from making these statements; it will not answer any good purpose; it will not be for the interests of the people themselves; it will not be for the interests of society, in times of severe suffering and distress, to goad those who are the sufferers into disobedience of the law, which must be repressed. Sir, I can only think those entitled to still higher admiration who, in despite of such provocation, continue to submit to the law, and to manifest contentment and gratitude for those imperfect modes of relief which are obliged to be substituted for more satis- factory and permanent ones. While, on the one hand, this increases our admiration for their forbearance and submission, at the same time it does on the other provoke our indignation against those who are attempting by violence of language to drive them into courses which must necessarily end, for the preservation of the best interests of society and of their own interests, in leaving to the Government no other alternative than the firm repression of disobedience to the law and the maintenance of the peace of the country against every effort to disturb it.

Mr. Milner Gibson

said, that in spite of the censure thrown by the right hon. Baronet upon the sentiment, that subscriptions to Anti-Corn-law lecturers were more commendable, because more useful, than subscriptions for charitable purposes, he adhered to that opinion. He did not mean to say that it was right to inflame the lower orders—to use exciting language, or to be guilty of exaggeration—far from it; but if men were thoroughly convinced of the wisdom and soundness of any particular principles, they were justified in endeavouring to form a public opinion in support of those principles, and he knew of no more effectual mode of doing so, than by sending missionaries round the country to instruct the people. He begged to ask whether the friends of the Corn-laws had not, in former times, spent thousands in printing placards, circulating pamphlets, and forming clubs and associations, in order to make the community believe that a high price of grain was essential to national prosperity. Not less than half a million of money had been spent in forming agricultural combinations in order to keep up the price of corn, and to show that it ought to be kept up. The right hon. Baronet had said that the Corn-laws had co-existed with prosperity. It might be so, but what answer was that? The Corn-laws had been gradually undermining the sources of prosperity, and had brought the country to its present pitiable condition. A man in habits of intemperance might for some time appear in the enjoyment of health? but he must break down at last, and what answer would it be after his death to say, that it could not be owing to drunkenness, because formerly he had appeared to enjoy health. But to maintain that the Corn-laws were the cause of prosperity was nothing but the most monstrous perversion of argument. The right hon. Baronet had not dealt fairly with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Attwood). The course pursued by that hon. Gentleman, on the present occasion, was consistent and rational; he had long held that protection was the source of national prosperity—that restrictions were necessary; and therefore he was opposed to the tariff. But because he was in favour of protection and restriction, he was consistent in voting for inquiry. The hon. Member saw distress prevailing, and he thought that distress was owing to a particular cause; but because others were of a different opinion, he wished the point to be thoroughly investigated. It was now urged by the opponents of the motion that inquiry could lead to no practical result; but when agricultural distress existed, the House was absolutely dinned into the appointment of a committee to examine into the causes. The landowners would not be satisfied until they had carried their point; and the Paymaster of the Forces (Sir E. Knatchbull), who now listened with such tranquil and self-complacent indifference to the statements of commercial and manufacturing distress, in 1821 seconded a motion for a committee to inquire into agricultural distress. On that occasion, the landowners would not rest satisfied with the admission of distress—sympathy was not enough: they wanting not only the priest's blessing, but the priest's penny. The Paymaster of the Forces had then maintained that Government would abandon its duty if it did not consent to inquiry, and. the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), acquiesced in the demand. On the same grounds it was now insisted that inquiry into manufacturing distress ought to be made. The right hon. Baronet might inform the House that new mills were constructing—that a larger quantity of cotton had been taken out for home consumption; but how did those facts show that distress did not prevail? The right hon. Baronet was compelled to admit the existence of distress and want of employment to an unparalleled degree. Whatever dispute there might be as to the causes, as to the fact there was and could be no dispute. If, indeed, the opponents of the motion thought that distress was produced by the Corn-laws, they would not be called upon, to inquire. There would be no need of it, for all parties would be agreed; but because they did not think so—because they maintained the contrary, the enemies of the Corn-laws asked for a committee, that they might lay before it the proofs that the Corn-laws were the principal—he did not say the only cause of the prevalent distress. As he represented the metropolis of the cotton manufacture, he might, perhaps, be allowed to make certain statements founded upon communications he had received from Manchester. He would not trouble the House with any lengthened details, but would merely supply a few important particulars. He would first read an extract of a letter, dated the 27th of June, from a gentleman of high standing and great commercial experience, and not one of the heated political partizans of whom the other side seemed to stand so much in dread:— I regret to say that our trade is in a very unsatisfactory state, and apparently without any prospect of improvement. Our concern (the Oxford Road Twist Company) employ in spinning and weaving about 1,100 hands. Out of 1,064 looms we have at work, we have concluded to stop in the course of this week 400; this will throw out of employment upwards of 200 workpeople, many of whom have been in our service for fifteen years, and we fear have no prospect of finding employment elsewhere. We have been losing money by our business for some time, and are unable to dispose of our production, and apprehend we shall very soon have again to lessen it. I have confined my information to the state of our own establishment, but I may add that the distress in this town is such as I never before recollect, although I have been in business here forty years. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter you may think proper. The dean of Manchester had also put his signature to a statement respecting distress, with reference particularly to the distribution of relief arising out of charitable funds. It was as follows:— The inhabitants of Manchester and Sal-ford are respectfully informed that the funds of this charity are exhausted, and unless a liberal response be made by the public to the call of the committee, the soup-kitchen, in Bale-street, must be closed, at a time when it appears as much needed as ever, and when the poor are greatly alarmed at the prospect of such a calamity. The committee make a renewed appeal to the public on behalf of this charity, and testify to its extensive benefits. The poor are very grateful for the relief, as well as for the mode of its distribution; and hundreds have declared that it has been the means of saving them and their families from utter starvation. In a limited district, it is calculated that the number of persons who have come under notice as recipients of this charity, and who are principally dependent on the soup for their subsistence, being entirely destitute of employment, is not less than 1,200, and of those who have partial employment, but stand much in need of help, about 7,500 persons. A few cases are subjoined:— In one family, where there were three children, a few flocks on the floor formed the only bed, and a broken stool the only seat; they had been without food for nearly two days, and have since been mainly supported by the soup. A man out of work, with four children, was found in the evening beating one of his children, to force him out to beg, the family not having tasted food that day. He shed tears of thankfulness on a ticket being given to him. They had sold their bed, and lay on the floor. A woman and her son had had no food for two days, which was confirmed by a neighbour. She considers that they must have died but for the soup. A woman with several children, and no fire, in a cellar, have had only 1s. and the soup to live on for eight days. A man, his wife, and five children, had subsisted from Friday to Tuesday on a pound and a half of bread. Facts such as these might easily be multiplied; they need no comment. The kitchen has been in active operation about twelve weeks, during which time more than 200,000 quarts of very nutritious soup have been distributed. At the commencement, the average daily distribution was about 1,600 quarts; during the last four weeks the average daily amount has been upwards of 3,700. If such a supply be needed, what distress would follow were it suddenly withdrawn! That it is needed, is the conviction of your committee; and they have reason to fear that the distress arising from want of employment, and from want of adequate remuneration for labour, is not on the decrease. (Signed, on behalf of the committee), WILLIAM HERBERT, Dean of Manchester, Chairman." He would not trouble the House with other details respecting the alarming state of distress in Manchester, but would advert to the regret expressed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), had held out to the country the additional evil of a bad harvest. The right hon. Baronet had said that such anticipations were not only unnecessary, but injurious, as they excited unfounded apprehensions. What, however, was the evidence already obtained? Inquiries had been made in various parts of the kingdom as to the state and appearance of the crops, and the result was, that there existed grounds for serious uneasiness that the harvest would be deficient. Was it not, then, the duty of the Government and of the House to look the difficulty in the face, and not to wait until the winter, when the country might possibly be afflicted with absolute famine? Was it an argument becoming a wise statesman to say that, for fear of alarming the timid, it was unfit to investigate the best means of meeting the danger. As to the chance of raising vain hopes, was it not possible to run into a contrary extreme—to lull people into a perilous security, and to prevent them from being properly alive to their real situation? If he were to aim at the character of a cautious statesman, he would much rather have dangers overstated than understated, in order that he might be prepared for the worst. With regard to the approaching harvest, he would take leave to quote an authority, which he apprehended would have great weight with the opponents of the present motion—he meant the Farmer's Journal. The following was a portion of the Corn-trade letter in that newspaper of June 20:— As regards the state of our stocks, much depends upon what quantity of wheat remains in the hands of the farmers. I am led to believe that it is quite insignificant—very nearly approaching to absolute exhaustion. This state of things will be found out very suddenly, if it take place at all. Such has been the case in Ireland.—such may be the case in England, before relief can be had from the coming crop, and it behoves us narrowly to inquire what prospects we have as to the yield to be expected from it. Now, without going into the causes which have operated injuriously to the growth of corn, I will sum up the evidence I have received; and were I a juror, sworn to give verdict according to evidence, I should say, as far as quantity and yield is concerned, that under any circumstances as to weather, we cannot have a yield of wheat, oats, barley, or beans, at all equal to that of last year. The estimate of the yield of last year was, that it was deficient of the crop of 1840 by at least 4,000,000 of quarters, and this has unfortunately proved to be a fact. In order to come to a true knowledge of how we are placed at the present moment, we must consider that wheat once exhausted, we have no substitute to fall back upon; and, in the next place, examine to what extent our last three crops have received assistance from abroad as well as from Ireland—that Ireland is now bankrupt, and requires all that she has sent this year to be returned. The writer of the communication then went into some details of figures, which it was not necessary to repeat, and concluded in the following terms:— It appears, then, that we have yearly received of wheat and substitutes the enormous quantity of 6,218,817 quarters, and having received them we have consumed them also. This year from abroad and from Ireland, we have received 1,000,000 of wheat and 1,000,000 of substitutes. There remains, therefore, a deficiency to be made up of 4,250,000, to be had from some quarter. Where are we to seek for it?

The Mark Lane Express

confirmed this view of the subject, and several passages might be quoted, showing that the prospects as to the coming harvest, were unfavourable. It could not be urged that this question was not germane to the motion before the House; because it was evident that the distress of the country would be vastly increased if there were any serious deficiency in the supply of corn. Neither would charitable contributions do any good: they would only bring fresh customers for and consumers of the small stock of grain, and would reduce the class now immediately above pauperism to the condition of paupers. To give money would not introduce food into the country; and the operations of the sliding-scale and Corn-laws (to obtain which so much money had been spent some years ago) had been to discourage the growth of corn in foreign countries, where formerly more was produced than was necessary for their consumption. The time might therefore arrive, perhaps even this year, when Great Britain would be unable from any part of Europe to make up for the serious deficiency of her own crops. It had been said, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would afford no immediate remedy, and upon this point the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Walker), had been mistaken and misrepresented by the Home Secretary. That hon. Member had said, that the operation of the Corn-laws had gradually produced the mischief now lamented, and that it would not be for some three or four years after their repeal that the manufactures of the country would resume the position they would have held had there been no Corn-laws in existence. It was material to set this matter right, because all who advocated inquiries were of the same opinion, and that opinion was, that the only mode of meeting the present emergency and of re- lieving commercial and manufacturing distress, was a total and unconditional repeal of the Corn-laws. When once embarked on the principles of free-trade, he defied any Government to stop short of this point. All prohibition must be removed, for as long as it existed, something that ought to come into the country was kept out. If twenty quarters of wheat were kept out, and prohibition were so far removed that fifteen of those twenty quarters were admitted, there would still be five quarters excluded. In both cases, of total prohibition and partial prohibition, the wants of the community were not allowed to be the criterion of the amount of corn to be introduced; and those wants could only be judged of by the community. How were statesmen to pretend to know what food was wanted in the country? Nothing could be more wild and visionary than for them to affect any such information. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had given his assent to the principles of free-trade; but in all his speeches he had' never been able to assign a satisfactory reason why, in his alterations of the tariff", he only went to a certain point, and no further. He had laid down the principles of free-trade as broadly and as clearly as any Anti-Corn-law lecturer, and all the difference was in the application. From the right hon. Baronet the country had heard these important points admitted:—first, that we had a right to buy at the cheapest market; secondly, that if we import, we must export in the way of barter; and thirdly, that the prosperity of manufactures was the prosperity of the landed interest. What then could be more reasonable, when these principles were acknowledged, and unparalleled distress prevailed, that Gentleman differing in opinion as to the causes, should come to the House and ask for inquiry. He was not for any refined criticism on the precise terms of the motion; if he shrank front agreeing in the proposition, and his only excuse was that the motion was not worded in the best way to lead to a practical result, he should be justly laughed at out of doors, if indeed he were not worse treated for availing himself of this paltry ground for resisting investigation. He therefore begged leave to caution Gentlemen, that if they declined voting on this question, for such a reason their true motives would not be misunderstood in the country. Out of doors, people did not weigh and scrutinise all the "ifs" and "ands" of a substantive proposition, and they would not be satisfied with any such niceties of discrimination. They called upon the Government to take upon themselves the inquiry, and having completed it, to propose a remedy for existing evils. That was a legitimate proposition, and that was the fair import of the motion before the House. What would be said next Session if they complained of distress existing now? Why; "You never made any motions for inquiry. There was no motion before the House. You sat, like the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster of the Forces (Sir. E. Knatchbull) in perfect indifference, and never troubled yourselves about it;" and hon. Members would have a right so to say. For, what would be thought of them at Manchester and in the manufacturing districts, if they allowed the Session to pass by without inquiry? He said that if they did, they would not have deserved to have been returned to that House—they would be unfit to be the representatives of the great interests of the country. They did not ask the House to interfere with the rights of others—they asked only that they should be allowed to exercise their industry in the callings which were within their reach, and to earn, by labour, the bread to which they had a right. When the agriculturists came to that House, did they come for any such thing? Did they come to be enabled to cultivate their estates, and to apply themselves to the best means of earning a livelihood? No; they asked that foreign trade should be checked, and that they alone should be the provision merchants for the country. The manufacturers did not ask the House to check the agriculture of the country. They merely asked the House to remove impediments which never ought to have been allowed to exist, and they were justified in claiming that their rights should not be postponed. The immediate repeal of the Corn-laws was their right, and they expected to obtain it. Why should the repeal be postponed to protect the vested interest? If twenty men were imprisoned, accused of no offence, and for no cause whatever, would it be right to say, "We cannot let you all out, because if you are out you will compete with labour which is already in the market, and so we must let you out one by one?" What sort of an argument would that be? Yet that was the argument. They prevented the foreign trade of the country from being wholly free, and deprived thousands of their fellow-countrymen of the right to exercise their industry in their callings, to which they were entitled; and now they said that they must postpone doing justice, because they might interfere with the vested rights of those who commenced the original iniquity. One word with regard to the specious argument of the right, hon. Baronet, that we ought not reduce our duties till foreign countries were prepared to reciprocate. He admitted that this was a specious, and he knew not but that in some cases where there was a probability of effecting an arrangement, it might be a reasonable proposition; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that we were the parties whose interests would be sacrificed in this question. Let them, however, look at our tariff. He said that the tariff with the Corn-laws was the most hostile tariff to free-trade that existed in any country. A great deal had been said about the Brazils putting on 15 or 20 per cent. on our goods; but what had we put on their great staple article of production—sugar? We put on a duty of 350 per cent. And hon. Gentlemen opposite were the parties who talked about our giving way. They imposed upon the Brazils a treaty as unfair and prejudicial to both countries as ever existed. Then as to France: hon. Gentlemen talked much of the 20 per cent. put upon English linens, whilst we put a duty on French brandy, which was something enormous—nearly 500 per cent. The reason why we ought to be the first to make the change was apparent. He believed that it was nothing but the energy of our population and the natural advantages of this country that enabled us to keep up our great extent of foreign trade in spite of those restrictions. The hon. Member for Montrose had referred to the opinions of other countries with regard to our tariff, and he would also refer to a speech made by a distinguished individual in America with reference to the English commercial legislation, General Talmadge, who said:— We will take as many of your manufactures as you please, if you admit our beef, pork, and grain on the same footing. But no, says grandmother England; our books on free-trade are for you to read and obey, but not for us to act up to. England, with her commercial regulations, has again reduced us to the condition of a mere colony to her. Look at her Corn-laws. To name them is enough. She has, it is true, made a treaty of commerce and navigation with us; she has flooded us with her manufactures, and, in return, takes nothing from us. The noble Lord thought that was a point on the other side. We did flood America with our manufactures in 1836, but what was that trade? It was paid for in bad securities, and in bills that were not available. It was no trade at all, and for this very reason, that we attempted to get up a trade with a country when we refused to take her staple articles. The General continued, in reference to England, to say:— She drains us of our specie to the amount of 1,000,000 dollars a month, and yet prohibits every article that we can carry her in return, but cotton. Let political quacks put plans of finance and currency upon paper as long as they please; there is no commercial condition which can be sound and healthy, but to put this country upon an equality, in regard to commerce, with the country with which she trades. Look at our rice: if that goes to England, it is met with a duty of three or four dollars; and so it is with everything that they can grow in their colonies, and therefore we say, put their goods on the same footing as they place ours. On our pork there is a duty of six dollars a barrel in the West-India market, and is not some retaliation necessary? Let us do justice to commerce, agriculture, and manufactures, and we ask no favour of the world. He believed that he had quoted a gentleman of high authority in America, and he verily believed that an adherence to the sliding-scale by the right hon. Gentleman was looked upon in the United States as an attempt on the part of this country to perpetuate restrictions, and to give up, as far as possible, all commercial relations with America. He had to apologise to the House for detaining them. He could read to them further statements in support of his arguments, but he doubted not that he should have another opportunity of doing so before the end of the Session, for it was a subject which would be constantly rising up. He saw no hope of decreased distress. Although he approved of the principle that property should be called upon to pay our heaviest additional expenses, yet he did not believe when the income-tax came to be understood, that it would fall upon property. It would be payable out of the fund which gave rent, and wages, and profits. It would be a struggle between the receivers of wages of rent, and of profits; and as he knew that the receivers of wages were the least able to maintain that struggle, they would first fail, and the end would be, that the income-tax would fall upon the labouring classes of this country, and would make them worse off than they now were. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven said, in reference to America, that if free-trade were so good a thing, America ought to be the most prosperous country in the world. But the hon. Gentleman ought to remember what was prosperity. It was not because a few individuals enjoyed a splendid income, that the whole society was prosperous. Society was prosperous when the great mass of the community were enabled to obtain a large portion of the necessaries of life. That was the case in America. Let them look at the rate of wages in America—a dollar a day—and the price of food there; and then let them look at the rate of wages in England, and the price of food here. We called ourselves prosperous because we saw splendid equipages rolling along our streets, and our shops filled with the most costly articles, whilst a great mass of our population were unable to earn a living they were willing to work for, and 1,200,000 of our population were receiving parochial relief. He said there was something wrong, and some evil at the root, when he saw this state of things—when he found our clergy preaching charity sermons, and our nobles getting up charity balls. ["No, no."] Yes, charity balls and charity sermons were the means which the executive had adopted, in a time of unprecedented distress, to relieve the wants of the country. He considered these humiliating proceedings. He did not like to see the clergy drawn, as they must necessarily be, into a sort of political controversy. He was informed that, in many of the churches in this metropolis, and in one in particular, allusions had been made to the causes of this distress, and hints had been thrown out that it arose from a too large manufacturing system, so that there would be no hope of prosperity till the manufactures were reduced. What a system was that which set the clergy lecturing in favour of the Corn-laws, and of extirpating the manufacturing population! It would have been far better not to have imposed the duty of collecting these subscriptions on the clergy. He did not think it judicious, and under any circumstances, by this appeal to charity, they were only applying themselves to what appeared on the surface, they were not striking at the root of the evil.

Debate adjourned till Monday.