HC Deb 09 March 1830 vol 23 cc26-53
Mr. W. Horton

then rose to make his promised Motion for a Committee of the whole House to inquire into the State of the Poor in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member commenced by observing, that he preferred moving for a Committee of the whole House rather than a Select Committee, because he thought it would be more satisfactory to the sufferers to hear the course of the proceedings as they occurred, and the nature of the evidence offered in their favour, than if the subject were to be examined in the usual manner by a Committee especially appointed for the purpose. He thought it necessary to premise, in the outset, that he wished to confine his inquiries solely to the distress prevailing among those poorer classes whose labours were the most productive, and who received at present so small an extent of remuneration in proportion to the labour which they were called on to employ. After all the attention he had been able to give the subject, he was convinced that the distress of this class was to be found in the superabundance of the number who required employment in proportion to the demand for labour; and that the class most materially interested in the removal of this evil was that on which the maintenance of the labourers principally fell, he meant the landed interest of the country. When he heard so many discussions, night after night, on the subject of the reduction of general taxation, he confessed he was at a loss to understand why the House should allow the Poor-laws to escape consideration, and why it did not direct its attention, in settling the balance sheet, to the reduction of the seven or eight millions of taxation which pressed on the landed interest, through the poor-rates, just as ardently as the Members applied themselves to procure a relief from those other taxes which pressed on the industry of the country. In entering on an inquiry of this kind, it would be well worth while to look at the opinions entertained with respect to the distress of the labouring classes at different periods of our history. In the year 1796, Mr. Whitbread introduced a bill into the House for the purpose of regulating the Wages of Labourers in Husbandry.* This, be it recollected, was before the Bank of England was authorised to refuse payments in gold, and before any of those changes which were afterwards introduced into the monetary system had been carried into effect, and yet even then the people were, as now, suffering under that redundancy of labourers, which he maintained to be the great cause of the distress. Mr. Whitbread, in the discussion on the bill, used some language which was peculiarly remarkable with reference to this fact. He said, "In most parts of the country the labourer had long been struggling with increasing misery, till the pressure had become almost too grievous to be endured, while the patience of the sufferers under their accumulated distresses had been conspicuous and exemplary."† These were praises which, if applied to the manner in which the great body of the people bore their distresses and sufferings, could scarcely be too highly coloured. Ever since, the people had continued in the same state, and had borne their sufferings with equal patience. Mr. Whitbread observed on the same occasion, "That by the pressure of the times, marriage was discouraged; and among the labouring classes of the community, the birth of a child, instead of being hailed as a blessing, was considered as a curse." ‡ To remedy these evils Mr. Whitbread recommended a minimum of wages to be fixed; and he argued that the Act of Elizabeth had established a maximum of the price of labour, which was good against the labourer, but that it had established no minimum which would be good against the employer. Mr. Pitt, in the same debate, admitted, instead of denying the extent of the distress; but he argued against the fixing a minimum of wages, as contrary to all general principles, and concluded in these words:§—"What measure, then, could be found to supply the defect? Let us (said he) make relief, in cases where there are a number of children, a matter of right and an honour, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt." And Mr. Fox and Mr. Whitbread concluded by recommending the Government to provide a liberal premium for the encouragement of large families. If the principle that a surplus of labourers produced a redundancy of labour; and that the principle of demand and supply was applicable to that as well as to other commodities, had been then known and recognized, he believed these distinguished statesmen would have been induced to recant their errors. But the assertion of Mr. Pitt, with respect to labourers, was about as rational as if he had proposed to cure a glut of sugar by increasing the quantity in the market. After observing that Mr. Whitbread proposed two bills subsequent to the year 1807, when the book of Mr. Malthus appeared, and that they were not free from the errors of the * Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxxil,p. 700. † ib.703 ‡ib. 704. § ib. 709. former, for one of the clauses proposed a premium to the father of a family of six children, the hon. Member proceeded to say, that Mr. Ricardo was the only person who seemed, on the discussion of those bills, which were afterwards lost in the Lords, to have any idea that a redundancy of population diminished the amount of wages, and that the bills were calculated to increase the evils they proposed to cure. When, therefore, they saw that, in the year 1796, the same complaints were made as at present, and that the poorer classes were suffering the same privations, he thought it must be admitted, that the evils did not flow altogether from an increase of taxation. In the work of a gentleman named Barton, with which he thought nearly all the Members of the House must be acquainted, and which contained more information than almost any other on these subjects, he found it observed, "that if it could be proved that in Switzerland and other countries the same distress was suffered as in this country; if the people of countries of the Continent, where there was no paper currency, and where there had always been a free importation of grain; if countries inhabited by a people poor and agricultural, were labouring under the same evils as a country rich, manufacturing and luxurious; did it not show that there existed some cause for that distress, common to all, and independent of those local circumstances to which it was generally attributed?" Now he would ask the House to say, whether that cause was not the redundancy of population, which rendered the wages of labour insufficient for the maintenance of the labourer? The laws of those countries involved principles much more severe than we dared to resort to in this country; principles, however, the result of which was to maintain the labouring classes in a state of comparative ease and independence; a state to which pauperism was almost, if not altogether, unknown. With respect to the bills which at various periods had been introduced into that House, for the purpose of establishing a better system of regulations for the poor, they had all failed; they had all been abandoned by their original promoters; and no material alteration had taken place on the subject. The bill which was introduced in 1822 by Mr. Nolan, in a very able and argumentative speech,* was more analogous * Hansard's Parl. Deb. vol. vii. n. s. p. 1560 to the principles maintained by him (Mr. Horton) than any of the measures which had been proposed with similar views; but still it did not suggest any practical remedy for the existing evil which appeared to him to be of sufficient efficacy. After all the attention that he had bestowed upon this subject, and he could assure the House that he had bestowed upon it the most anxious attention; he would suggest to any one who should in future wish to undertake an amelioration of our present condition with respect to the poor, the advantage that would be derived from considering them under four separate heads. First—the poor who had real employment, and who maintained themselves by the actual wages of their labour; such persons were free from pauperism; privations they certainly suffered as compared with other parts of the community: but for that there was no remedy. The next class was the helpless poor; who, however they might wish to labour, were destitute of the power to do so, either from too great age, or too great youth, or sickness, or accident; and who must be supported by charity, whether that charity was compulsory, and prescribed by law, or whether it flowed spontaneously from the benevolence of individuals. The third class consisted of those whom he was desirous especially to distinguish by the appellation of "the pauper class;" being able-bodied men, willing to work, but who could not get employment, and who, if not assisted by others, must perish. That was the class which now demanded the most serious attention of the legislature, in order to endeavour to discover the best means of disposing of it. The last class was beggars; persons who preferred living on charity to supporting themselves by honest industry, and who, while they could find any individuals in the country prepared to relieve their necessities, would look to no other means of subsistence. Every one conversant with the laws of production knew that no capitalist would go on producing any article unless he could obtain a remunerating price for it. But the labourer had no choice. He must continue to offer his labour, not while he could obtain a remunerating price for it, but while he could prevail upon any one to employ him at whatever price. In the large classes supported by charity must be comprehended those who received money for anything but for their labour. If, therefore, a man received money from the parish to make good the deficiency of his wages, the mere fact of his receiving wages did not take him out of the pauper class. Such a practice, however, was productive of the greatest evils. It operated specifically against the interest of the strongest and the best labourer; for it brought society into competition against him; diminished the average price of labour; and, finally, reduced him to a state of poverty to which all hope was denied. On these grounds it was, that he highly approved of the bill which an hon. friend of his had introduced, for preventing any part of the wages of labourers from being paid out of the poor-rates; or, in other words, to prevent the private employers of labour from being assisted out of any corporate funds. One modification, however, he wished to see of his hon. friend's bill, namely, that in the case of any labourer having a large family, which he was incapable of supporting on his wages, if those wages were such as would be sufficient for the support of an unmarried and unencumbered labourer, that then the parish should pay to the married labourer the balance necessary for the maintenance of his family. Without entering into the consideration of the mode of levying the poor-rates, the first suggestion which he would take the liberty of throwing out upon the subject was, that in the accounts of every parish the sums paid to the helpless poor should be kept separate from the sums paid to the third class which he had described, or the pauper poor. By such a regulation, they would obtain an account of the redundant labouring population. His next suggestion would be, to empower parishes to employ the able-bodied poor in concentrated labour, instead of employing them in their separate parishes. It appeared to him that in many instances, labour, which afforded no return when employed in separate parishes, would be productive, if the labour of several parishes were concentrated. Another suggestion would be, to frame some regulations for restricting the erection of cottages in parishes where it was shown that a great redundancy of labour existed. A check of this description would be most advantageous. He was also decidedly of opinion, that to give the able-bodied poor, the natural labourers of the country, a small quantity of ground for their own cultiva- tion, would be attended with highly beneficial consequences. In support of his principle of the existence of a large redundance of the labouring population, he would refer to a petition from one of the hundreds of the county of Bedford, presented to the House towards the close of the last Session of Parliament. In that petition it was stated that 4,000l. was paid yearly by that hundred for labour, for which there was no return; and that the system was productive of serious crime and of every variety of shade of moral turpitude; and presented a picture of pauperism of the most deplorable character. The petition proceeded to state what proportion of the able-bodied labourers of the hundred would be sufficient to perform all the ordinary and habitual labour of the hundred. The number of able-bodied labourers in the parish was 2,177. After making every due allowance for harvests and other casual demands, it appeared that 1,496 would be sufficient to perform the work of the hundred; and, consequently, that in the hundred in question, containing thirteen parishes, 681 able-bodied labourers might be advantageously spared. He was persuaded that if by the means which he had recommended an account of the redundant labour-population of the country were to be forthcoming, it would create much astonishment. He by no means meant to say that much of this redundant labour might not, at a future period, be again absorbed; but he contended, that while it continued to press upon the food of productive labour, it occasioned the most serious evils. He had, as might easily be supposed, received numerous letters and other communications, anonymous and otherwise, on the subject to which he had paid so much attion; and among them one from an enlightened individual, a man of the highest possible character, who, speaking of his own neighbourhood, stated that a strong desire for emigration prevailed, that the labouring population were sinking with an accelerating velocity into the jaws of pauperism, and that the funds of the parish were insufficient to remedy the evil; or, to use his own forcible expression, "to relieve the wretchedness of the labouring population, breeding and starving in a paroxysm of hopelessness and fatuity." The state of Ireland afforded a sufficient proof of the evils which resulted to the labouring classes from the absence of all check on the increase of population. The existence of a state in the most wretched pauperism was not in itself a check on that increase. This was clearly established in Mr. Barton's letter, to which he had already referred. Mr. Hodges, a gentleman from Kent, who gave evidence before the Emigration Committee, said that in proportion as the labouring population became more miserably poor, they became more reckless, and married at an early age, without the slightest regard to any consequences. This was a fact established by experience, and by communications from other quarters. He was one of those who thought that if the poor-laws were properly regulated, they would be very beneficial. He conceived that the existence of judicious poor-laws indicated a high state of civilization in any country. But of this he was certain, that a country in which there was a free circulation of labour, as well as of other commodities, must be everywhere under the same law respecting the poor. If twenty counties were without a poor-law, and twenty counties were with one, that would be productive of great evil. For his part, he could see no reason why, now that our union with Ireland was cemented, the interposition of the ocean should prevent Ireland from having the same poor-law as England. But he should be very sorry to see the poor-laws inflicted on Ireland, unless she possessed the means of getting rid of her redundant labouring population. The object of the legislature ought to be to distinguish between that class of the population which lived upon the produce of the labour provided by private employers, and that class which lived upon other sources. If the House wanted to introduce a prudent and effective check to increasing population, it must make a substantive distinction between the two classes which he had described. The labouring classes must be taught to feel the disgrace of pauperism, and they would then anxiously avoid it. At present no such anxiety existed. Until it revived, every effort would be hopeless. It was impossible to consider the situation of the poor in this country, without adverting to the effect produced by the influx of the Irish poor. He by no means intended to say that the Irish poor ought not to be allowed to come over to this country. But the potatoe of Ireland was one of the substantial causes of the increase of popu- lation in that country. This potatoe-fed population came over to this country to enter into competition with our labouring poor, because there was no law in Ireland calling on the rich, under any circumstances, to provide for the poor. So little were the poor of Ireland relieved by the rich of Ireland, that whenever there was a failure in the potatoe-crop of Ireland, exposing the poor of that country to starvation, English benevolence always extended its assistance to them. Thus, however, a bonus was given to the increase of distress in both countries. All he asked was the extension to Ireland of the laws on the subject which were established in Great Britain; and then the potatoe-fed population of Ireland would prove beneficial to the empire. He wished he could see an attempt made to separate the pauper population from the labouring-population of Ireland. The Report of the Committee of 1825, to inquire into the state of the Irish poor, stated that, of the former class, no fewer than a million were strolling over the country. It would be a most beneficial policy to introduce into Ireland a National Mendicity Association. The reports of such an Association would distinctly exhibit the amount of the redundant population of Ireland. Until that was ascertained, all legislative proceedings respecting the poor would be premature. If it should be afterwards found, on experiment, that the redundant population might be advantageously employed at home, after the example of the Dutch, let that be tried. If, on the other hand, it should appear that the advantage of the community would be more promoted by national colonization, some plan for carrying that colonization into beneficial effect should be devised. All he contended for was, that something must be done to put an end to a system which, if not checked, would multiply misery to an. indefinite extent. Until, however, the day arrived when the labouring classes of the community should be convinced of the truth of what he had stated, and that the misery of their present situation, proceeding from redundancy, could be remedied only by removal, he was convinced that the Representative Body could never take any salutary step. He therefore called on the intelligent part of that class of the community, on the labourers and mechanics who had received the benefits of education, and who were competent to the consideration, to investigate the subject, and to determine if there was not truth in his statement, that where the numbers of the population were redundant, no legislative measure, no remission of taxes, or any other proceeding, could effectually put down pauperism. In 1826, a small experiment had been tried at Manchester. In the year 1825, the population of that town, 200,000 in number, was in a state of the greatest possible distress. The richer inhabitants determined to give work to all, at low wages. He had been told by an intelligent individual, that many persons supposed that there was a redundant population, others that there was no redundant population, but nothing certain was established on that point. The people were put to work, however; they were taken back into the general demand as they were required, and at no very distant period they were all absorbed. No one could deny that there was a great difference between the condition of the agricultural and the condition of the manufacturing population. The fact was, that whereas the demand for manual labour required in agriculture diminished, the demand for manual labour required in manufactures increased. In agriculture the improved processes had occasioned a greater produce, with less manual labour; but in manufactures the improvement of machinery, were it not for the introduction of Irish labourers, would have greatly increased the demand for, and bettered the condition of, the workmen. For the last thirty years, however, the latter had been kept down by the influx from Ireland. He could not avoid saying a few words on the subject of the currency. Many hon. Gentlemen appeared to be of opinion that a change—a depreciation—in our currency would operate to remove the national distress. Never, in the history of mankind, however, had the depreciation of the value of the money of any country produced any thing but misery to the labouring classes. This was undeniably true; and ought to enter into all the considerations of the legislature, when we were contemplating measures for the relief of those classes. The people at large ought to know that if, by a change of the standard, or by the introduction of paper, money were depreciated five-and-twenty per cent, the consequence would be, that every shilling received by a labourer or an artizan would be practically reduced in value to ninepence. It was true that time would afford a slow remedy for this evil, and that wages would gradually increase in the proportion of from one shilling to one shilling and threepence; but it would be then, and then only, that the situation of the labourer or of the artizan would be upon a par with his situation before the depreciation of the currency. When, therefore, he heard a depreciation of the currency described as a means of relief for the labouring classes, he only wished that those who so described it would consider the subject a little, and they would perceive that the sole tendency of such a depreciation would be, to benefit the debtor at the expense of the unfortunate creditor. He protested, therefore, against such a proposition; which, instead of relieving, would only add to the distresses of the labouring classes, and would not add a single grain of value to the wealth of the country. As to the changes which had already taken place in the currency, he did not pretend to say that the landed interest had not been affected by them. But if those changes were now to be renewed, and all the evils attendant on the alteration of the real terms of contracts were again to be produced, and that not only without benefitting, but very much to the injury of the labouring classes of the community, such a proceeding would experience his entire condemnation. Nor could the labouring classes derive the slightest relief from any such remission of taxation as would render it impracticable to keep up the necessary establishments of the country, and at the same time preserve faith with the public creditor. He should grossly deceive the people were he to tell them that they must look for relief to such a remission of taxation. There was another sound principle which he wished to inculcate on this subject. It was impossible that any remission of taxes could materially affect the situation of the paupers. Those who had to dispense charity might certainly, by a remission of taxes, have their means of doing so increased; but those who were to be maintained out of that charity—in other words, the redundant labouring population—must be benefitted in a very small degree by the remission of taxation, since it would not increase the amount of employment. He alluded especially to this part of the subject, because it had been said that the remission of the Malt and Beer Tax would do the pauper population good. It was impossible to do that portion of our population good while it remained in a state of pauperism, because its existence involved a constant competition among the labouring population. The remission of taxation could not reach those who were in a state of actual pauperism, and a large class, both in this country and in Ireland, were approximating to that class. All he was anxious for was, to excite attention to the state of pauperism. If any doubt remained on the minds of hon. Members of the soundness of the doctrines which he had laid down, inquiry would convince them that that doubt was unfounded. If he were successful in his Motion, and were allowed to bring the subject before a committee, the propositions which he should be prepared to maintain, and which he would endeavour to prove, would be as follow:— 1. That the sums raised and applied for the relief of the poor in England and Wales, though mainly bearing on one particular class of the community—viz. the landed interest—ought to be considered, after the deduction of that portion which would otherwise be paid as wages, as much in the nature of a tax as any of those taxes which are to be found in the balance-sheet of the Revenue and expenditure of the country. 2. That if a pauper population, for whose labour there is no real demand, can be prosperously colonized (with their own consent) at a less expense than would be necessary to be incurred for their maintenance in the mother country, a national outlay for the purpose of such colonization ought to be considered as an economy rather than as an expense. 3. That if a redundant population were removed by a national effort of colonization, there would be but little danger to be apprehended from what is called 'the filling-up of the vacuum.' 4. That if the United Kingdom were relieved from its redundant labourers—that is, those labourers for whose labour no real and natural demand exists in society; the remaining labourers might permanently remain in a state of comparative comfort and independence. 5. That it is expedient to effect such reparation and abstraction of forced from unforced labour as would accurately measure the extent of the redundancy. 6. That to enable parishes to raise money upon mortgage of their poor-rates for a period of years; such capital being specifically applied towards the emigration of voluntary candidates who may prefer independence in the colonies to pauperism at home; would be a measure highly favourable to the landed interest. 7. That in the event of home colonization, the ratio of danger as to the filling-up of the vacuum must be double as compared with foreign colonization. 8. That if the vacuum were to be filled up, the policy of a measure of colonization must be governed by a comparison of the increment of the expense of maintaining the new pauper population, with the decrement of the expense of maintaining the removed population, supposing them to have remained at home. 9. That there are no means of producing wealth more effective than the combination of an able-bodied population, with uncultivated land of the first degree of fertility. 10. That, independently of the special advantage to the landed interest, and to the labouring classes, the expenditure involved in such a measure of colonization would not be, in any degree, prejudicial to other classes possessing property in society. 11. That, as a pauper, while he continues a pauper, receives necessarily only a bare subsistence, he can neither suffer from taxation, nor be relieved by its remission. 12. That the application of any portion of surplus revenue for the purpose of raising a capital to be applied in the first instance in the home employment, and secondly, in the colonization of the poor, would be more beneficial to the labouring classes of the community, than if the same sum were applied in the reduction of public debt, or in the remission of any class of taxes to the same amount. An examination would enable him to convince the House that what he had stated was the fact; and then only, when the House were really disposed to make the experiment, would it be able to afford substantial relief to the labouring and suffering classes of the country. He begged to offer the House his best thanks for the attention with which they had heard him, and he would now no further trouble them than by quoting an aphorism of Lord Bacon, who was the enemy of colonization in general, but whom he considered the best defender of the principle which he had endeavoured to recommend to the House. Lord Bacon had said, "Things will alter for the worse spontaneously, if they are not remedied decidedly; and then who can say what will be the end of the evil?" In the same manner he would say, that if things were not altered speedily and decidedly, they would go on getting worse spontaneously, and there would be no end of the evil. The population would be unemployed, distress would increase; and if a year passed on without Members being convinced of the truth of what he had said, the period would arrive when they would see there was no other measure but a well- planned system of emigration, which could reach the intensity of the evil, and then they would feel the mortification of disappointment, until opinion universally pointed to the true remedy; to that which he had endeavoured, though imperfectly, to describe. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving "that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the State of the Poor of the United Kingdom."

Mr. Portman

, in seconding the Motion of his right honourable friend, said, that he considered some plan of this kind of the utmost importance to the labouring classes of the country. He was convinced that the redundancy of the labouring population was the great cause of their distress. That fact was shown in the state of the county of Dorset. In the short time he was in that county during the Easter recess, no less than 370 persons applied to him to procure them the means of going out with their families to the Swan River, for they were all without the means of procuring a passage. The right hon. Gentleman had made four divisions of the poorer classes of this country. He thought he could make two divisions that would be as nearly accurate as those of the right hon. Gentleman. He should, he said, divide them into poor and paupers. Of the whole of this country the portion north of Warwick, or, perhaps, north of the Thames, might be stated to be that in which the majority of the people were poor; while in that portion of the kingdom south of Warwick, or south of the Thames, the majority of the people were paupers. These latter might he sub-divided also into two classes; those who were paupers in consequence of age or infirmity, and those who were reduced to that situation from the want of sufficient wages to maintain their families. Those who were reduced to pauperism by age or infirmity were supported by poor-laws, and with respect to them no alteration was required; but for those who sunk into pauperism either from the want of work, or from want of sufficient wages, it was necessary that something should be done. The House ought not to interfere with the wages of labour. Mr. Burke had truly said, that to attempt to establish a maximum or minimum of wages was mischievous in the extreme; for labour was a commodity, and every interference with the laws of trade for such a purpose must be injurious. The profits of labour, not the subsistence of the labourer, was the object kept in view by the capitalist, and the labouring classes were, therefore, only fully employed when their employment would afford a profit to the men who engaged them. His right hon. friend seemed to think that a diminution of taxes would not produce any very favourable effect. On that point he differed from him; because he thought that a reduction of taxation would put money into the pocket of the agriculturalist, which would enable him to take some additional pauper labourers out of the market. Unfortunately, in such a population as ours, every married man was an evil, for the market for labour was regulated by the bachelors, and the married men must descend to their terms, for the bachelor could not rise to that of the married man. The evils of tampering with this subject arose from the endeavour to legislate for each parish, and he thought there ought to be one general measure, declaring that in each parish the will of the majority of ratepayers, assembled in vestry, should bind the minority. The laws of settlement which erected a wall round every parish, and converted it into a prison for the labourer ought to be altered, and then only would the labourer have the means of carrying his labour to a free market. He recommended that a small portion of land should be given to each pauper, and he was convinced that the poor-rates would then be materially diminished. One great means of alleviating the wants of the poor man would be, to allow him to have a small portion of land to cultivate. Encouragement of that kind would prevent him from falling into the condition of a pauper. He believed that the multiplication of very large farms, which prevented the poor man from getting a small quantity of land to cultivate, had been attended with very injurious effects. As the law of settlement now stood, the poor man could not procure land; because, if he rented land to the amount of 10l. a-year, it gave him a right of settlement in the parish, a circumstance which induced the landholder not to let his ground. The consequence of this, and of what he might call the destructive monopoly of the land, combined with the poverty of the people, were most afflicting. It happened to him lately to be present at a Quarter Sessions, where a person was indicted for stealing haulm or bean-stalk, to place under his father's feet. Another was tried for stealing a truss of straw to make a bed. In the former instance the jury refused to convict, because they said the practice of taking haulm for such a purpose, and to make litter for pigs, was universal in the county. In the second case, they did convict, but the man was strongly recommended to mercy, on the ground that it was also customary for the people to steal straw to make beds. If men were allowed a small piece of land, they could themselves cultivate it, and they would then obtain litter for their cattle, and beds for themselves, which they were now unable to buy, and which it seemed they were compelled to steal. He knew, however, that what he now proposed could not be adopted without a change in the law of settlement. He hoped, that should the committee be appointed, the currency question would be kept out of view, for it would only excite a difference of opinion, and detain the House from matter that was much more important.

Mr. J. Smith

supported the plan of giving each pauper a small portion of land. He had done so three years ago, to a certain extent, in the eastern division of Sussex, and the result had been most satisfactory. He had allotted to a number of poor persons rather more than one acre each, and not only were they kept from demanding parish assistance, but, beyond his utmost expectations, the result had been most beneficial to himself. A Quaker gentleman, of the name of Allen, who also had property there, adopted the same plan; and he could assure the House that every one of those individuals who took these small portions of land paid their rent regularly; and they procured by their labour on the soil from 3s. to 5s. 6d. a-week. The consequence was, that they did not receive any parochial aid, and the poor-rates in the parish had been reduced nearly one-half. If, instead of this, individuals were compelled, as they were in many parts of England, to work on the roads at 6d. and 8d. a day, and to sleep in barns and out-houses, there could be no wonder that they forgot their duty to society, and that when temptation came in their way, they fell into the commission of crime. He implored the attention of the House to this subject.

Mr. Benett

could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to many of the principles he had stated. Among the rest he could not possibly concur with what the right hon. Gentleman had said respecting the currency. He did not wish to introduce that question unnecessarily into this discussion, but he must make one observation upon what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He was not friendly to a depreciated currency; but he could not help thinking that the adoption of the present currency had taken from a number of persons connected with the productive classes of society the same means of employing the labour of men that they before possessed. He thought, therefore, that a limited return to our former currency would provide a greater means of employment, and consequently a greater demand for labour. He must confess that he was quite astonished when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the reduction of taxation could have no effect on the labouring poor. Why the reduction of taxation would afford increased means of consumption to the higher and middle classes, and consequently increased opportunity of employment to the labouring-poor. Without a large reduction of taxation, he was convinced that emigration would afford but very little relief; for though many might be removed, numbers would soon spring up to fill up their vacant places in the class to which they had belonged. In a parish near him, a clergyman had nearly done away with the poor-rates, by apportioning the glebe land for the poor to cultivate. This could not be done to a sufficient extent to relieve the whole country, but relief might be effected by a return to the former currency, united with a diminution of all the taxes that pressed upon country labour.

Mr. Courtenay

thought it would be extremely unadvisable to go into a committee, which would only occupy time without the least expectation of coming to any practical result. He had still higher ground on which to object to a committee. It would be an abuse to the country to appoint a committee to take into consideration the state of the labouring poor, unless the House felt confident that that committee would be able to devise something which would administer to the suffering classes extensive relief. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there had been a great redundance of the labouring poor, but he could not bring himself to believe that that redundance had been caused by the poor-rates. He had reflected much on this subject, and he was satisfied, that all the House could do would be to amend the poor-laws; and if that were not sufficient, then to have recourse to emigration. But to attain neither of these objects did a committee appear to him to be the most desirable mode of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman approved of the bill introduced by the hon. Member, for Shrewsbury, and had proposed amendments to it, a course which he thought more likely to promote the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view than that which he now wished the House to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that of many select committees not one had produced any good; but he must remind him of one exception; for one committee had produced a bill which had certainly checked the progress of the poor-rates. The evil of the poor-rates had not increased in any thing like the proportion that had been expected twelve or thirteen years ago. There was not a single term used by the right hon. Gentleman, respecting the impossibility of the country continuing to so on as it had done, which had not been used and applied over and over again in the same manner during a century and a half. The right hon. Gentleman wished to know how much of the poor-rates were paid to those who were willing to labour, but could not get work, and he had recommended a classification of paupers, but neither of these objects were proper to be debated in a committee. If a committee upon the subject were to consist of thirty-five Members, he was sure there would be thirty-four plans and a half started, each of which would require to be debated. The letting of lands to labourers would be facilitated by the bill then in the House, which gave a power to parishes to let out land for the employment of the poor. He could only say, that whatever improved the prosperity of the country must improve the condition of the people; but it would be impossible to get rid of the poor altogether, unless they could have a constant progressive prosperity without any check, and keeping pace with the increase of the population. The right hon. Gentleman's Resolutions were a sort of reasoning pamphlet, and he could not expect any committee to agree to his Resolutions; they would cause an endless discussion. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to abandon his measure, and proceed with his bill for emigration.

Mr. Slaney

willingly acknowledged the services rendered by the right hon. Gentleman in bringing the subject before the country, for there never was a period which mere imperatively called upon the House, as a matter of policy and duty, to consider the question of population in relation to the means of employment. There had now been a period of fifteen years of peace; and instead of having improved the condition of the labouring classes of the community, the peasantry of the southern counties of England had decidedly deteriorated. Mansions had been built, and riches spread throughout the land; the higher classes possessed enjoyments which they had not possessed before, and the middle classes had enjoyments which their forefathers had not; but the working classes, by whose labour they attained their enjoyments, instead of advancing with the progress of civilization, had fallen back. No man who looked to the consequences could contemplate the effects of this continual deterioration without alarm. Was not this a case to call on Government, and upon that House, calmly and sedulously, but firmly and steadily, to look at once at the nature and extent of the evil, and at its probable consequences. The great body of the working classes might be divided into two sets perfectly distinct—he meant the agricultural and manufacturing population; but of the latter it was not his intention to say a single word. With reference to the peasantry, they might be divided likewise into two classes, perfectly and clearly distinct from each other. An hon. Member had spoken of the redundancy of the population, which certainly might exist in the south of England, but it could not be said to exist in the northern counties. The greatest distinction existed between the southern and northern parts of the kingdom, as much, indeed, as between the people of any two distinct kingdoms; and it was for the House to trace the causes of the difference. In twenty counties of the north the poor were well off, with plenty of work and good pay for their labour, and the parish rates were lower than in the South; whilst in the South there was an immense body of the poor depressed and degraded, as compared with their brethren of the north. The poor rates in the county of Sussex were as high as 7s. in the pound, whilst in the north they did not exceed 1s. 6d. In the north the poor-laws had been kept to their original intention, whilst in Sussex they had been wrested completely from their purpose. In the north only one person in forty applied for relief out of the rates, whilst in Sussex the proportion was as one to three. In 1793, the price of food to the poor man was proportionate to his wages, but now things were regulated by a new principle. In the interim, the prices of wages and food had oscillated; wheat in one year had varied from 60s. to 150s. the quarter. It had been utterly-impossible in those years for the labouring man to support himself, and in the north the temporary expedient of subscriptions had been resorted to; whilst in the south the expedient had been adopted of paying the wages of labour partially out of the poor-rates; and of all schemes ever invented, never had there been one more detrimental. A scale of these drafts from the poor-rates had been fixed according to the prices of breach. This had commenced in Sussex. Was not Government bound to consider the effects of this system? A few years ago the proportion of paupers in this kingdom had been as one in twelve; soon after as one in nine; soon after as one in seven; and now he believed it to be as one in six. He could refer to documents to prove that throughout this kingdom one person in six received aid from the parish. The period which had produced this was that of the oscillations; but now that the cause had passed away, why not revert to the old practice? In the northern counties the poor labourer received twelve shillings a-week, whilst in the south he received five or six; and yet it was infinitely cheaper to pay a man good wages, and stimulate him to use all his energies and exertions; for when the peasantry were degraded they were lost to the country and to themselves. It was both the policy and duty of the landlord to elevate the humbler classes. The Report of the Committee of 1815 had stated in the most plain manner what had been the cause of the abuse of the poor-laws in the South of England. Five different committees had agreed in the same opinions, and they had recommended the same remedies; namely, to go back gradually and cautiously to the system of the poor-laws which had existed before the abuses had been introduced. They had the experience of various parishes, which had returned to those laws with the happiest effect. The success had been uniform, and where wages had increased pauperism had diminished. It was in consequence of the abuses of the poor-laws that the redundancy of the population existed in the South of England; but all remedies were useless that did not tend to restore the proportion between employment and capital. All that was necessary, however, was to take away the existing stimulants to population, and to leave the natural laws which regulated population to their own operation. The poor would be then more industrious and cautious, and take better care of themselves. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) was not insensible to the sufferings of the multitude; and he saw the necessity of assisting the classes that were distressed and degraded. It was evident, indeed, that unless something were done, the country would go on from worse to worse. Turn which way they would, from, the House in which they then were—go into whatever county or place they would round the metropolis, it would be found that one person in every five or six was a pauper. The noble palaces—the splendid mansions that surrounded them—stood upon an insecure foundation and a tottering base as long as the labourers were miserable. He believed there was only one feeling in that House upon the subject, and that was, to improve, by every possible means, the condition of the poor. That was now fortunately acknowledged to be the only way to spread happiness, and to diminish that frightful catalogue of crimes which had increased of late years, and which was the necessary consequence of the destitute and degraded condition of the lower orders.

Mr. E. Davenport

denied that there was an overpopulation in the country; and he thought it would require great abilities to show that a country, capable of producing subsistence for all its inhabitants, and even capable of producing double what it now produced (were agriculture but improved), could be overpeopled by its present population. The chain which had connected capital and labour had been dissolved; but no person had a right to arraign the wisdom of Providence, until he had found out that he could entirely exculpate the folly of man. Providence might have made man with less of folly, which would have dissolved the argument. He would only say a word as to the proposed remedy by exporting part of the population. When the numbers had been thus thinned in Ireland, for instance, what security was there that the vacuum would not be soon supplied? and certainly there was no country of the world that had a better reputation than Ireland for multiplying the species with rapidity.

Sir F. Burdett

said, if the right hon. Mover had not yet made much way in his project, he had at least succeeded to the extent of persuading the House that the subject was worth consideration. Nevertheless, he could not yet encourage him with the expectation of a beneficial or speedy result. He wished, on that occasion, particularly to avoid inquiring how far the alterations in the currency might have occasioned the redundant population; and he should, therefore, only say, generally, that on this point he was inclined to agree with his right hon. friend. As to filling the vacuum to be occasioned by emigration, it seemed to him that nothing was more easy than to prevent a rapid increase, when once the numbers were thinned. In the same way, it was easy at any time to stimulate population, but not so easy to revocare gradum, and to lessen it after it had been so stimulated. There was the difficulty; and hence arose the question, what was to be done with the present superabundant population? The existence of that superabundance must, for a time, produce great suffering and misery; and whether it were or were not the fault of the legislature, there the people were, and the country was bound to provide for them, and could not allow them to starve. The great feature of the subject was Ireland—get rid of what he might call the annual Irish invasion—of the competition of the Irish peasantry with the labourers of England—and the latter would be left in comparatively easy and comfortable circumstances. The Irish were an honest and an industrious people, and they had a full right to bring their labour to the best market. While the Irish peasant could obtain more for his labour here than in his own country, he must and would come; and the necessary consequence was, that the English peasant was reduced very nearly to the same condition as the Irish peasant. Thus in truth, and in fact, the English country gentleman had his estates burthened to provide for the poor of Ireland. In Berkshire, the mere passing of the Irish poor in a single year had cost from 1,200l. to 1,400l. The question was, could any effectual remedy be found for this great evil? He was sorry his right hon. friend had involved himself in such a complication of Resolutions, containing many positions upon which no two men perhaps could be found to agree: the more his right hon. friend had advanced into his subject, the more comprehensive his views seemed to be; and it would have been far better if he had limited himself to his original general and simple proposition—that it was expedient to send part of the redundant population to the colonies. As the Motion now stood, it could lead to no beneficial practical result—whereas, if his right hon. friend had brought in a bill to carry his intentions into effect, a substantive proposition would have been made, upon which the legislature would have been called upon to decide. At present the estates of Irish gentlemen were hot-beds of population, and this was an evil that loudly called for remedy. In order that England might continue the sphere of laudable enterprise, he wished to get rid of those who were merely burthensome; they might be removed with advantage to all parties to some of our magnificent colonies, the chief difficulty being to determine, of the good, which were the best. The exportation of a comparatively small number would have a great effect upon those who were left behind; as a small overplus of any commodity depreciated it greatly, so a small overplus of population caused an accumulation of misery. The subject of relief could be no topic of dispute—all were anxious to accomplish one end; amicable discussion might lead to the most beneficial results, and Ministers would, he was sure, be grateful for any useful suggestions. He would confine the view of the House simply to the point, whether it were not possible to remove to the colonies a large portion of the population of Ireland, and of Ireland alone? In that country there were no poor-rates; and as the present management of Irish estates produced the evil, a rate, not in the nature of a poor-rate, might perhaps be levied upon them, to aid in the accomplishment of the object. He could not agree with his hon. friend (Mr. J. Smith), that to give every poor man an acre of ground would remedy the evil. First, how would it be possible to give every poor man an acre of ground? and secondly, if it were given, was not that the very system that had prevailed in Ireland, and which had occasioned the redundant population? What had happened in Ireland would then happen in England; and the mischief, instead of being amended, would be increased. There were two ways by which the lower orders might be benefitted. 1st. By giving them higher wages; 2nd. by reducing their numbers—though the second was, in fact, only another mode of accomplishing the first. Then as to the introduction of machinery, it was undoubtedly true, that it might, for a time, throw hands out of employ, but in the end the increase of the branch of trade in which machinery was used would require the active exertions of many more men than had in the outset been temporarily injured. When he talked of a rate for Ireland, he was ready to admit that the subject deserved grave consideration: colonization must be attended with a heavy expense; but the present state of the poor also caused an enormous expense, and the expense of emigration would not be great if those parishes that were relieved contributed their due share towards the attainment of relief. From the effect of those contributions the parties would soon recover when once the superabundant population was removed. He hoped that his right hon. friend would not press his Motion to a division, because it would lead to no beneficial practical result.

Sir G. Murray

said, he should only offer a few observations, in consequence chiefly of what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, to whom he had listened now, as always, with great satisfaction. He concurred entirely with what his right hon. friend (Mr. W. Horton) had said on the subject of emigration to the colonies: that opinion was not new to him, for he had entertained it when he was in the Canadas, and he had stated it in a paper he then drew up, on a means of forming a better defence for those provinces. He thought now, as he had thought then, that the only certain and permanent means of providing for the defence of the Canadas was by directing to them a stream of population from the mother country, attached to her interests, and resolved to maintain her possessions. The difficulty of holding out Much, encouragement on the subject of emigration arose from the strong prevailing disposition in favour of it. If much encouragement were given, that disposition would be increased to a dangerous, or at least to an injurious extent. With a view practically to promote this benefit, he had turned his mind with great attention to the question, and the mode in which he thought the object might be obtained was this:—First, by establishing in the colonies themselves a well-considered system, with reference to the grant of land, and then by degrees, when that system was brought to maturity, to establish in some of our ports, agents to whom persons desirous of sending out emigrants might address themselves, in order to facilitate or provide passages, and to make those arrangements in detail which landed proprietors, societies, or parishes, would find it difficult to make themselves. But in considering this plan, it had always appeared to him impracticable for the country to go to any great expense in order to convey emigrants, to our North American Colonies, for instance. Therefore, in order to give a commencement to the plan, when applied to, he had held out that, on the arrival of the emigrants in the provinces, they would receive land free from any expense but the usual fees on making the grant. The outline of the plan was this:—That those who came out with money ready to make purchases of land, should be provided with it; that those who on coming out required no assistance, but, at the same time, were not able to pay for the land, should have it on discharging the ordinary fees for the survey, &c.; a third class were those who came out and required aid; besides having their land free of any expense, it was doubtful whether it might not be fit to give them assistance in the first instance in the erection of log-houses. Whatever was done, caution was necessary, or such a tide of population might be poured into the provinces as would overflow the country, and be attended with great inconvenience. He stated these views to show that he had not neglected the important subject, and he would only add one word as to the invasion from Ireland of which the hon. Baronet had spoken: that was, that in his opinion, the most certain, and he might say, the most legitimate mode, of getting rid of that evil was, by promoting the prosperity of Ireland. He would conclude by merely adverting to what he had already done to carry into effect a plan of emigration. The Duke of Hamilton had applied to him on behalf of some persons who wished to emigrate from his estates: land had been given them for the mere expense of the survey—the settlers were sent out, and they had been provided for to their entire satisfaction. A similar application had been made by the hon. Member for Ludgershall with reference to emigration from Ireland, who was informed that he (Sir G. Murray) was ready to act on the same principles that had guided him with respect to the settlers from the estates of the Duke of Hamilton.

Mr. Baring

had always been of opinion, from the time he was a member of the Committee, that relief might be given by emigration, and it was the interest of parishes in the southern parts of the kingdom, which were suffering so severely from the pressure of the poor-rates, to contribute to this desirable end. With respect to the fact of the redundancy of our population, he wondered how any Gentleman could entertain a doubt upon it. Experience had proved that the theory of Mr. Malthus was correct. Those who in this country were in a state of abject pauperism, in the colonies would be in a condition of comparative comfort. Only two remedies worth consideration had been suggested:—the one was Emigration, and the other was an alteration of the Poor-laws, reverting to what had been properly called a sound interpretation of that system of enactments. An union of these remedies might perhaps be effected. Let relief be refused to the able-bodied, but there must be at the same time the means of conveying them to the colonies. This arrangement would remove all the dangers apprehended from a transition from the present system of parish relief to that of refusing relief to the able-bodied. If the poor-rates were applied only to relieve the aged and infirm, and an opportunity were afforded to the young and able-bodied to proceed to the colonies, much might be accomplished for the benefit of this kingdom. He thought, therefore, that the members of the legislature ought to make up their minds whether they would or would not try the experiment of revising the poor-laws, instead of having every year a debate upon the subject, which debate always ended in nothing. He, for one, was ready to make the experiment; but he should make it with greater confidence if, at the same time, the surplus population could be provided for by emigration.

Colonel O'Grady

denied that in Ireland there was a redundant population, if the waste land were brought into a proper state of tillage; and he maintained that England had no right to complain of what was termed the Irish invasion, because the absentee nobility and gentry spent in this country much more than the Irish peasantry took away.

Lord Althorp

thought a Committee of the whole House—not for the purpose of examining witnesses, for that would be absurd, but for the purposes of discussion—might be attended with very beneficial effects. He thought also that no new measure ought to be introduced affecting the state of the people, or applying to the administration of the poor-laws which would not have the effect of making those who contracted imprudent marriages, at an early period of life, find themselves in a worse situation than if they had exercised a greater degree of foresight and discretion.

Mr. A. Baring

explained, that he was quite averse from returning to the old system.

Mr. Slaney

observed, that the great principle of the old system was to find employment for the able-bodied labourer.

Mr. Hume

said, that he disapproved of charging emigrants any thing for land. The county ought rather to be at some expense to remove the paupers, than to throw impediments in the way, by seizing on the land, and not allowing it to be occupied unless its fees and exactions were paid.

Sir George Murray

said, he had given directions to diminish the fees as much as possible. It was his wish to diminish the impediments to emigration.

Mr. W. Horton

rose to reply. He said it was the duty of the House to assert distinctly whether or not it were prepared to relieve the country from the effects of that redundant population now pressing upon its resources. It was indisputable that the population of Ireland, as compared with the demand for labour, was prodigiously redundant, and he saw no means of relief from that redundancy that could be at all considered effectual except those which he had recommended, and which he should feel it his duty to continue to recommend, notwithstanding the apathy with which they appeared to be received. It was in vain to talk of the Colonial Secretary affording facilities for emigration— he had not sufficient funds at his disposal. He was recommended to bring in bills, which he could very easily do, but they would prove of little use, unless money were provided to carry their provisions into effect. Bills without money were but so much waste paper. The House might rest assured that 1,000,000l. applied to the purposes of emigration would do more good than any reduction of taxation which could possibly be effected. He knew the House received with distaste much of what he thought it his duty to say upon that subject; but he should persevere—more for the effect that might be produced out of doors, than for any thing he hoped to effect within the walls of that House. He hoped that the influence from without would urge forward some energetic means for ridding the country of the incubus of population by which it was oppressed—means for spreading English feelings and English institutions over the fertile plains of the new world. He should feel great pleasure in consenting to withdraw his present motion for a committee, but he was determined soon again to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, either by moving a resolution, or by introducing a bill, when he should take the sense of the House upon a distinct question, whether or not it would look at the difficulties of the country with a view to provide an adequate remedy for the existing evil.—Motion withdrawn.