HC Deb 03 July 1832 vol 14 cc7-28

26. That without attempting to draw conclusions from such co-incidental circumstances, certain it is, that periods of the greatest fluctuation, depression, and distress, have occurred at times when certain legislative measures have been under consideration or in operation, of which the following are instances.

£
27. That in the three years up to 1818, there was great distress and embarrassment; the reasons assigned for which were, a revulsion from war to peace, and the preparations made for the resumption of cash payments; and the depreciation in the real value of the Exports, compared with the official, was 9,130,825
That, in 1817, a bill passed to prolong the Bank restriction two years, and in 1818 the depreciation became less than that of the former year by 2,103,827
28. That in 1819, measures were adopted relative to the currency: prices declined, great distress followed, and, in 1824, the depre ciation had fallen below that of 1818 to the amount of 13,644,526
That in 1822, the Small Note Bill passed; and in 1825 prices had advanced, and the depreciation had lessened, compared with the previous year, by 2,049,239
29. That in 1826, measures relative to the currency, and other measures said to be for the improvement of trade, increase of manufactures, and extension of commerce, and the removal of public distress, came into operation; but, not withstanding the confident assurances held out, distress and embarrassment followed, and continued with more or less severity; and the year ending 5th January, 1830, compared with 1825, the depreciation further in creased to the amount of 11,887,158

30. That from that period the depreciation has further increased to the amount of several millions, and a consequent depression of trade, and distress among the labouring classes.

31. That under such changes and fluctuations, and the alarming depression of the trade and manufactures of the country, affecting so deeply all its productive interests, it is become imperiously necessary to devise the most efficacious means of remedying these evils.

32. That without at present giving any opinion as to the causes or remedies, this House cannot but express its confidence that his Majesty's Government will satisfy the just expectations of the country, by devising such measures as may be best calculated for the removal of the existing distress and embarrassment.

It was a remarkable thing that the attention of the House had not been called to the extraordinary fluctuations pointed out by these Resolutions. If it were said that lowness of price was an advantage, he replied that it produced lowness of wages and distress among the working classes. It produced, too, privation among their employers, which involved them in still greater distress. A depreciation of price, full 50 per cent, had taken place since 1819, and the effect of that was, to depreciate all stock in trade half its value. How was it possible with that, that the country could be prosperous. In proportion, too, as the value of their property was decreased, the value of all fixed incomes rose; so that the suffering traders were actually ruined, that the public servants might live in comfort and splendour. Those who formerly bought into the funds at 60l. or 70l., were now able to sell at 80l. or 90l.; and those who were engaged in trade had to make up the difference. Often as he had brought forward this subject, he must take the liberty of saying, that though he had been replied to, he had never been answered. No one had ever ventured to say, that this depreciation did not affect the industrious classes, or that it was not attended with a great sacrifice on their parts. And he challenged any one to get up and make such ail assertion. He had been accused, too, of not holding our export trade in sufficient esteem; but there was no man more desirous than he was of promoting the interests of that trade. The great mistake of the theorists was, that they thought they could force it—an attempt which had always ended in ruin and destruction. If they wanted an instance of this, they need only refer to the attempt to supply Buenos Ayres, and other places, with our manufactures; the result of which was a most ruinous failure. He had always understood, that the most beneficial intercourse which could be carried on with foreigners was, to exchange our surplus commodities for their surplus commodities; the great advantage lying in the barter of dissimilar productions. But this had not been the aim of the theorists; on the contrary, what they had recommended was, to receive from foreign countries those very things which our own manufacturers were able to produce in great abundance. He did not know with what arguments he should be met on the present occasion; but, when this subject was last under discussion in that House, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade took upon himself to say, that the labouring poor of this country were in a better condition than they had been formerly; and he was sorry to observe, that Gentlemen who ought to have known better, seemed inclined to adopt that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the poor-rates of 1819, 1820, and 1821, and stated, that the average of those years amounted to 7,500,000l.; while the amount of the rates for the year 1831, was only 6,800,000l. That was but a trifling difference. Before he proceeded, however, he must take the liberty of complaining of official Gentlemen quoting documents which they refused to lay on the Table, by which means they were able to make partial extracts; while the whole, if regularly before the public, would probably afford a very different result. With respect to the quotation of the right hon. Gentleman, he either advanced what he knew was not correct, or he betrayed very great ignorance. It must be remembered that the year 1819 was the dearest year known in our times; for corn sold from 80s. to 100s. per quarter. This, however, was the year to suit the right hon. Gentleman; and he, therefore, jumped over all the intermediate space between 1831 and 1819. Was that a fair way of dealing with the House of Commons? A correct result could only be obtained by taking the average of several years. He had done that; and he found, that the average for the poor-rates, for the seven years previous to 1824, was 6,900,000l.; and the average from 1824 to 1831, was 7,700,000l.; so that there had been an increase, in the latter period, of 788,000l. But that was not all. In the price of things there had been a depreciation of fifty per cent; and by taking this into the account, 8,000,000l. now was equal to 12,000,000l. formerly. In many places, the rates, on this account, had been lowered from 3s. to 1s. 6d., because there were many poor now employed, under the Highway Act, in breaking stones at 1s. a day. If he wanted further proof of the general distress of the empire, he need only turn to Ireland. There the people were almost starving, on potatoes purchased by subscription; and yet that country sent a large supply of corn to the English market: so that Ireland was unnaturally wretched; its unfortunate people were not even allowed to consume that which nature had given for their support. Another proof of the distress of the country was the frightful increase of crime; and it ever was the case, that misery and crime had gone hand in hand together. He knew that speculative gentlemen extolled the cheapness of our manufactures, as the means of increasing-our exports; but he challenged any one to show that a trade so conducted could be beneficial to the real interests of the country; on the contrary, it was most detrimental to those interests: any loss produced by it fell on the industry of the country. From a document in his possession it appeared, that 26,000,000l. of money was probably taken out of circulation by the want of employment which was felt in the country, and which amount was thereby prevented from getting into the hands of the farmer, the merchant, and the manufacturer. He did not wish to go into the question of free trade, but he must say, that it was evident that, if they reduced the circulating medium one-third, they reduced the activity of trade to the same extent. The intercourse of money transactions in this country had been calculated to amount to 800,000,000l. per annum, which, it was supposed, was performed by 60,000,000l. of circulating medium: if, therefore, one-third were taken away from this circulating medium, it was clear that the efficiency of commercial operations must be impeded to that extent, and distress inflicted on the great mass of the people dependent on those operations. He did not pretend to attribute the present distress to any one cause; it was owing to a complication of circum-stances, such as the introduction of foreign goods, the reduction of the circulating-medium, the mode of administering the poor-rates, and the allowing foreign labour to compete with our own in the markets of this country. So, in remedying this evil, he did not believe that any one mea- sure would be sufficient. Even if they could entirely do away with poor-rates, or take off all taxes, he did not apprehend that adequate relief would be afforded. He might be told, that what we took from France was taken back again in cotton twist, and in colonial produce. But that was not a beneficial exchange; because the effect was roundabout and doubtful, Mr. Pitt, in one of his speeches, exposed this argument, and yet this was the sort of free trade the House was now called upon to support. He had sufficiently elucidated his resolutions relative to official and real value; and he would proceed to compare the imports and the exports. He might be told, that the price of the goods did not signify one farthing provided we got a proportionable increase in return. That might be true, to a certain extent; but he must remind the House of what he stated in the 17th Resolution;—" That it might be said, that the giving of increased quantities for a lower money nomination of value would not affect the nation, provided increased quantities were received in exchange, at equally diminished prices. But it must be perceived, that if this were the case, that giving increased quantities for increased quantities of foreign wines or luxuries at diminished prices, however advantageous to the consumers of those wines and luxuries, would be quite otherwise to those who, by their labour, and with reduced wages, produced those increased quantities. It would be seen, however, that no such equivalent had been obtained, comparing the imports with the exports. In doing which, both must be taken at official value, as the real value of the import was not stated." His argument was this—suppose that, instead of 100 bales of cotton, we had to give 150 bales, and got back as before 150 casks of wine; then it was the wine-drinker that got the benefit of a depreciation of price, while the cotton-dealer suffered by it to the like extent; so that here was a want of all reciprocity. Another point to which he must call the attention of the House was, the mode in which we received payment for our exports. Goods sent to New South Wales were paid for by Government bills, which, being payable in this country, gave us no external value for our manufactures. And so with respect to France, the amount of our invoices was paid by orders on this country. He had, at the conclusion of his Resolutions, shown the particular periods at which the great depreciation of value in this country had taken place; and he, therefore, contended, that he had sufficiently proved a depreciation in value, a falling off in trade, and no adequate substitute in the shape of returns; and he, therefore, was justified in saying, that these were adequate causes for much of the distress of the country. He was satisfied that something must be done with respect to the currency. He did not, however, ask the House to come to any immediate determination on the subject. All that he wished was, that the facts should be fully before the Members, in order that they might be able to form a correct judgment. Reference had been frequently made to the petition presented to Parliament in 1820, in which he found the following passage:—'That a policy founded on those principles would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state.' * * * * 'Revision of the restrictive system was, then, peculiarly called for, as it may, in the opinion of your petitioners, lead to a strong presumption, that the distress which now so generally prevails is considerably aggravated by that system, and that some relief may be obtained by the earliest practicable removal of such of the restraints as may be shown to be most injurious to the capital and industry of the country.' * And in the Report of the Committee granted on that petition, was the following statement;—' Your Committee are, however, sensible that at once to abandon the prohibitory system would be of ail things the most visionary and the most dangerous. It has long continued—it is the law, not only of this kingdom but of the rest of the European world, and any sudden departure from it is forbidden by every consideration of prudence, safety, and justice. No sudden change is in the contemplation of your Committee, nor indeed the adoption of any change without the utmost circumspection and caution.' Again, in the debate on the Treaty of Commerce with France, in 1787, the then Marquess of Lansdown—a profound statesman, and particularly conversant with all matters relating to trade and commerce—said, What floated in his * Hansard (new series) vol. i. pp. 179,181, mind was, to give article for article of all manufactures where the first materials were equally attainable—any momentary superiority being of no account. Some unreciprocal articles remained on both sides; wine, brandy, vinegar, and oil, on the side of France; and coals, lead, and tin, on ours. Theirs are luxuries 'which we can get elsewhere; ours are necessaries which they cannot get else where to equal advantage. We had, consequently, a right to expect an equivalent for both.'* We were wrong, in the first setting out, in suffering our supposed superiority in certain manufactures to be set for a moment against the solid, permanent advantages of France. France had, in her produce, four extensive articles of commerce—against which we had nothing to reciprocate, for it was ridiculous to listen to any argument in regard to our manufactures; they were transitory and fleeting. Nothing could be more precarious than an estimate founded on our present real or pretended superiority in this respect. Our boasted cottons were the growth of a day: we saw manufactures rise up almost instantaneously.' * * * To talk, therefore, of the excellence of our manufactures, and of their superiority, was ridiculous, but the advantage in the produce of France was positive and eternal; as long as the earth endured it remained to France. Ought not the Ministers, then, to have claimed something in exchange? * * * What had we done? We had stipulated for no one thing.' † In Dr. Brewster's Encyclopædia also, under the head Political Economy, he found the following-admirable passage:—' If Government should propose, as an object, the advantage of any class in the nation at the expense of the rest, this class ought precisely to be the day labourers. They are more numerous than any other class, and to secure their happiness is to make the great portion of the nation happy. They have fewer enjoyments than any other, from the construction of society: they produce wealth, and themselves scarcely obtain any share of it—obliged to struggle for subsistence with their employers, they are not a match for them in strength. Hence the riots and combinations among workmen for ob- * Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxvi. p. 561. † Ibid. p. 576. taining increase of wages. Their conduct is often violent and tumultuous, and often merits the chastisement which it never fails to receive; but scarcely an instance occurs where justice has not been on their side. It is become necessary for every State to think first, not of the comforts, but of the existence of its subjects; and to maintain those barriers which have been so imprudently erected; an important part of the population might otherwise be cut oft' by penury. The discovery of mechanical arts has always the remote result of concentrating industry within the hands of a smaller number of rich merchants. Thus—small merchants—small manufacturers—disappear; and one great undertaker supplies the place of hundreds, who, altogether, were as rich as he. His expensive luxury gives far less encouragement to industry than the honest plenty of a hundred households, of which his house-hold supplies the place. The trade or manufactures of a country are not to be called prosperous because a small number of merchants have amassed immense fortunes in it: on the contrary, their extraordinary profits almost always testify against the general prosperity of the country. When the low price of workmanship arises from the poverty of the day labourers, forced by competition to content themselves with what is necessary, or less than necessary, for life though commerce may profit by the circumstance, it is nothing better than a national calamity. Surely none will maintain, that it can be advantageous to I substitute a machine for a man, if this I man cannot find work elsewhere, or that it is not better to have a population composed of citizens than of steam-engines, even should the cotton cloth be some-I what dearer. When the savage hunter dies for want of finding game, he yields to a necessity which nature itself presents; and to which he knew, from the beginning, he must submit, as to sickness or old age. But the artizan, dismissed from his workshop with his wife and children, has beforehand lost the strength of his soul and body. He is still surrounded with riches—he still sees beside him, at every step, the food which he requires; and if society refuses him the labour by which he offers, to his last moment, to purchase bread, it is men and not nature that he blames. Even when persons do not actually die of hunger—even when the aids of charity are eagerly administered—discouragement and suffering produce their evil effects—the diseases of the soul are communicated to the body—epidemics are multiplied—children die in a few months after birth—and the suppression of labour causes more cruel ravages than the cruellest war. Another course is given to trade—another direction to fashion—and, even after death has cleared the ranks of workmen, those who remain are no longer in a condition to support the competition of foreigners.'This extract seemed to him to be founded in good feeling; but, he must repeat, that the removal of taxation would not be sufficient—labour must find its proper support; and unless they could put the labouring classes in a different position, they would do no good. The money that had been taken out of circulation would be sufficient to give them food and comfort. Formerly the labourer used to earn 15s. a week; at present, even when employed, he could only get 10s. Let him not be told that 10s. now are as much as 15s. were formerly; the man of 1,500l. a year would think it very hard if, on the same principle, his income was to be cut down to 1,000l. a year; and why, therefore, were they to deprive the poor man of all chance of the comforts of life? He had only, in conclusion, to apologize for the length at which he had addressed the House, and move the several Resolutions which he had already read to the House.

Mr. Poulett Thomson

thought, that it would best suit the convenience of the House if he declined following the worthy Alderman through his lengthened statement. He presumed that the chief anxiety of the worthy Alderman was, to put his Resolutions on the Journals of the House, and so to give them circulation, though that was not the first, the second, or the third time, that he had brought this subject before the House. The worthy Alderman said, that he had been replied to, but not answered. He was satisfied that the general opinion of the House was against the hon. Alderman. The worthy Alderman had also said, that his Resolutions contained nothing but facts, and that he had abstained from all opinions; but though, in the Resolutions, there were many figures from official documents, yet there was also a series of opinions, pro- fessing to be founded on those figures, and in which, he thought the House would hardly agree; for instance, he would ask whether there was any means of arriving at the value of our exports, as stated by the worthy Alderman in his 7th Resolution? In his 18th Resolution, also, he stated that the deficiency of our imports, as compared with our exports, was 22,000,000l. How was that calculation made? Was it on the official value? [Mr. Alderman Waithman: Yes.] Then there lay the worthy Alderman's mistake, for it was a mistake to think that the official value showed, in any degree, the money value of the exports; and, consequently, the whole of his theory was founded in error, if he had taken the official value for anything that had to do with the real value. He, therefore, put it to the House, whether they could receive this document, and solemnly record their approbation of it? Whoever looked to the official rates, even as evidence of quantity, would not be perfectly accurate, because different rates were taken for different commodities. Another objection also was, that things came into this country paying no duty, and, being re-exported, immediately acquired a different value. The worthy Alderman might say that this applied only to his official value; but his actual value was no safeguard whatever. In comparing the year 1819 with 1830, the worthy Alderman had forgotten that our chief exports consisted of manufactures which had been previously imported, as raw material; and had he taken into consideration the difference of the price of that raw material? For instance, the price of cotton was, in 1815, 2s. a pound: it was now only 6d. or 7d., and did not that show that the relative value of the manufactures might have materially diminished? He did not, however, consider it worth while to argue this question over and over again. He was sure that the House, while giving due credit to the worthy Alderman for the pains he had taken in preparing these Resolutions, would be satisfied that it was not advisable to give their sanction to the document. One word as to the question of poor-rates. In the first place, he had to say, that the documents from which he had quoted were on the Table of the House. And further, if any one would take the trouble of examining these documents, he would find that his statement respecting them was perfectly correct. Under these cir- cumstances, he should content himself with moving the previous question.

Colonel Torrens

was iuclined to attribute the confusion in the hon. Alderman's views and statements to his not having formed to himself any distinct conception of what was meant by official value and real value. Official value was only another name for quantity; real value was only another name for price. Since the year 1808 the quantity of British goods exported had more than doubled, while the price of this double quantity was now less than the price of half the quantity formerly had been. This was the simple fact, as shown by the official returns upon the Table of the House; and this fact, perfectly intelligible in itself, was rendered perplexed by the maze of figures in which the worthy Alderman had involved it. The value of the precious metals in relation to the commodities we exported had doubled since the year 1819, or in other words the prices of British goods exported had fallen fifty per cent. This was the fact, and it was not difficult to explain the manner in which it had been brought about. In 1819 the difference between paper and gold was about five per cent., and consequently, when the paper was brought to par with gold, the currency rose in value from this cause to the extent of five per cent. But many other and more potent causes were brought into operation. By the return to cash payments, a new demand for gold, to the amount of from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 was created, while the contemporaneous changes from paper to metallic currency, which were effected in Russia, Austria, Denmark, and the United States, occasioned a still further demand for the precious metals to the amount of 25,000,000l. The whole of the increased demand for gold could have scarcely been less than 50,000,000l. sterling. But all the gold supposed to exist in the commercial world was only 500,000,000l.; while the annual supply, before it was reduced by the troubles in South America, was stated by Humboldt to be 1,600,000l. Now, if there had been no diminution in the annual supply of the metals, the increased demand for them for coin, would have materially enhanced their value. But, while the demand increased, the supply diminished. The civil wars in South America suspended the working of the mines, and by the dispersion of the miners, and the destruction of machinery and other fixed capital, rendered many of them wholly unproductive. Instead of obtaining supplies of the precious metals from South America, we for some time actually exported specie thither. From these cooperating causes the value of gold throughout the commercial world had advanced, or, in other words, the prices of commodities had fallen. Mr. Tooke, in his able work on high and low prices, has shown that a great proportion of the fall in the price of commodities has been occasioned by the increased facilities of production, and the larger quantities in which commodities have been brought to market. But this fact does not disprove a rise in the value of currency; on the contrary, it shows another cause of that rise. Value is relative, and a rise in the value of gold, as compared with other articles, may be occasioned either by increasing the cost of obtaining the metals, or by diminishing the cost of obtaining other articles. The facts brought forward by Mr. Tooke in his elaborate and very able work, go to establish this, that the value of the precious metals has been enhanced by a twofold cause. These causes of the rise in the value of the precious metals were common to the whole commercial world; but other causes, peculiar to this country, had contributed to reduce the price of British goods. Whatever might be the advantages of free trade, and of reducing the duties of Customs on the importation of foreign goods, these advantages were in some degree counterbalanced by an enhancement in the value of money, and a general fail in the prices not merely of the goods imported, but also of British goods. On this principle the reduction of taxation should commence with the duties of Excise and not with the duties of Customs, except with respect to the necessaries of life, upon which no duty should be permitted to exist, and gold and silver were, to alt intents and purposes, admitted duty-free; therefore, in proportion as they reduced the import duties on other commodities, the more they changed that relation between gold and silver and other commodities, which might be expressed by saying that the untaxed (gold) could procure less of the taxed (other imports) in proportion to the amount of the tax—in other words, gold could obtain more of the commodity, and by that additional quantity the price of the commodity might be said to fall; or, if they preferred the correlative, by so much might the standard of the currency be said to rise. And yet this important fact, like the other, the increased value of the currency, owing to the causes he had specified, had been wholly overlooked by the advocates of free trade principles, though it was obvious they had only to be stated to be at once recognised. There were other errors which he would take an early opportunity of exposing with respect to free trade principles. He need not say that he was an advocate of free trade, but he denied that its official promulgators had seen or even now saw the whole of the question. They said, for example, it mattered nothing whether another country took from us our commodities for theirs or our money, because, say they, we must send our commodities somewhere else in order to procure that money. Now the error in this case sprang out of another of still more universal acceptation; namely, that great maxim of the Ricardo school of economists, that as the value of a commodity in the home market depended on the cost—the labour—of production, so must it be in a foreign market. He would maintain, that though this principle was true of domestic policy, yet that it was not it that regulated the exchangeable value in a foreign market. What we received in return for our goods in foreign markets did not depend on the cost of producing those foreign articles, but on the demand that existed in the foreign market for our commodities. To the extent of that demand every country supplied itself, but it could not be increased but on one condition, which involved the whole question of our advantage; namely, that we gave them our goods at a diminished price. If they applied this principle to the case of our trading, say with France, they would see that all the advantages which the advocates of free trade had predicted could not be realized but on terms of perfect reciprocity. If France required our money instead of our goods for her commodity, we could only obtain that money by giving our goods to—say the South Americans, at a reduced price;—for otherwise, on the principle of supply and demand, which he was contending for. South America could not take a greater quantity of British goods unless they were offered at a reduced price. Suppose that France takes from us 1,000 bales of muslin in exchange for wine, while America takes 1,000 bales in exchange for gold, then we get our supply of wine and gold for 2,000 bales. But should France, as is the fact, refuse to take our muslin and require gold, then we must send 2,000 bales to America instead of 1,000. This would necessarily reduce the price of the British manufacture in the American market, and 2,000 bales would no longer procure us the same supply of wine and of gold as before. On these principles, he contended that it was an error in our commercial policy to encourage the import of wine from France, which would not take our goods in return, and to discourage the wine trade with Portugal, which opened her markets to British fabrics. Such of our financial and commercial policy required not merely to be reformed, but to be reversed.

Mr. Robinson

did not agree with the worthy Alderman as to his Resolutions, for it was impossible that the House should pledge itself, by adopting those Resolutions to many doubtful points requiring much patient inquiry. He was glad that the opponents of the free trade policy of Mr. Huskisson and his successors, could count the hon. member for Ashburton (Colonel Torrens) among their allies. That policy had been pushed to a ruinous exten, andt though Ministers had refused inquiry, he was sure that a Reformed Parliament, would not sit for many weeks, before it resolved to investigate the subject.

Mr. Hume

, in opposition to the hon. Member, would contend, that Mr. Huskisson's policy was the best that could be pursued, so far as it went; the just complaint was, that it did not go far enough. He differed from the hon. member for Ashburton as to the disadvantages of a circuitous trade with a country which would not take our goods in return; for it was all the same to us to whom we sent our goods, so as we obtained what we wanted—the produce of other countries.

Mr. Courtenay

would merely observe, that the supposition that Mr. Huskisson and his followers had always referred to the official value of commodities, as a test of prosperity, was a mistake. The increase in that value had been referred to, even in the King's Speech, as a proof of the activity of our commerce, but not as indicating its prosperity. The worthy Alderman was quite mistaken in assuming that value as any thing but a test of quantity. It was taken considerably higher than the real value on several articles, such as cottons and woollens of large consumption, and the difference was sufficiently great to account for the excess of official over actual value, last year, to the amount of 13,000,000l. He would not then hazard an exposition of the fallacy of the hon. member for Ash-burton's reasoning, but should take advantage of the first convenient opportunity, to show that he was in error as to his premises, and consequently, as to his conclusions.

Sir Richard Vyvyan

said, the hon. member for Middlesex now argued against the arguments he had used in 1828 respecting India. Upon that occasion the hon. Member contended, that to place India under such restrictions as to oblige her to give bullion for our produce was most injurious to that country, and yet the hon. Member now said that it was no injury to this country to compel it to pay bullion for the produce of France. He was decidedly of opinion that the late Parliament had looked rather to the interests of the capitalists than of the laborious and industrious classes. They were told that they were about to enter upon a new system, but he could not but remark, that those who were now in the full stream of popularity had been the greatest opponents of all inquiry into the state of the country. Many who had opposed the Reform Bill, because they thought it injurious to the country, and had lost their seats for so doing, had been among the most active and zealous in endeavouring to forward the interests of the people. He mentioned those circumstances because it was right that the country should know what were the facts, and who were truly its friends. The people had been led to believe that the supporters of the Reform Bill were their best friends, although many of those hon. Members had opposed all inquiry, and advocated the cause of the capitalist against that of the people. He hoped those remarks would go forth to the country, for it was but right that Members, who, like the hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler), had laboured for the amelioration of the labouring classes, should have their conduct justly appreciated.

Mr. Hume

defended what he had said on a former occasion, by observing, that India was not like France, an independent country, but was one of our possessions, and suffered considerably by being obliged to send us bullion, not in exchange for our goods, but as tribute—a circumstance which completely rendered consistent the observations he had before made and those which he made now. With respect to France, he should take that opportunity of saying, that every shilling's worth of French goods that came into the country took out a shilling's worth of English goods, either directly or indirectly, and so far was a benefit to the country.

Mr. Hunt

said, there never would be any good done to the country till the Corn was were removed, and rents and taxes were reduced. It was cruel to admit a free trade in the luxuries of life, when a free trade in the necessaries of life was refused.

Mr. Attwood

wondered how the hon. member for Middlesex could ask for any particular favour to be shown to India, at least if he had any sincere belief in the doctrines that he sometimes professed in that House. The hon. Member often told them, that England sent out her manufactures all over the world to seek for bullion: and having bought it by her manufactures, she then sent it to France to purchase the produce of that country; so that it was the same thing in the end, as if she had sent her manufactures to France in exchange for French produce. Now, if that argument was true with respect to England trading with France, it must be true with respect to India trading with England; and consequently, if England was not injured in the one case, India could not be injured in the other', and no change could be required. He (Mr. Attwood), however, did not agree that it was true with respect to France and England; and he insisted, that the state of things was such now as to require immediate attention from the Legislature.

Lord Althorp

must say, that he thought the hon. member for Middlesex had sufficiently defended himself from the charge of inconsistency, by referring them to the fact that India was tributary to this country, and was not an independent nation trading with us, but a country paying a large part of her bullion to us in the shape of tribute. The hon. Member opposite then raised the question of sending our manufactures all over the world to get bullion, and afterwards paying that bullion to a neighbouring country for her goods. Now, if the expense of procuring the precious metals ultimately fell upon the country selling the goods that these metals purchased, and not on the country that procured the metals and bought the goods, it was evident that the latter would be carrying on the more advantageous trade. The question, therefore, came round to this—Which of the two countries did in the end pay for the expense of procuring these precious metals? If that question were fully examined, he rather thought it would appear, that the expense did not fall as a loss upon the country procuring the metals in the way he had mentioned. He gave the hon. Alderman great credit for the attention he had shown to this subject, but could not agree with that hon. Member as to all his conclusions. If two hon. Members, starting from exactly opposite principles, yet arrived at the same conclusion, that fact would show, that what they both agreed on was worthy of the consideration of the House; but he much suspected, that the hon. Member and the hon. and gallant Member would not be found to agree together. Indeed, he believed the results to which they came would be seen to be quite different from each other. What, then, did the hon. Alderman require? He required the House to give a sanction to certain opinions embodied in the Resolutions he had produced. Now, there was, perhaps, hardly one Gentleman in that House who would wish to pledge the House to all those opinions; and, under all those circumstances, there seemed to be no course left but that of supporting the previous question.

Sir Charles Forbes

took that opportunity of complaining that India was not well treated. She was too highly taxed. Her produce ought to be admitted here almost free of duty, and ours ought to go out to India equally free from taxation, India had long been drained of her bullion for the use of this country, and she could stand the drain no longer. Within the two last years, no less than three millions sterling had been sent here from India. That system could not continue. In every part of the country that was under our Government, the situation of the native Indians was worse than it had been under that of their native princes. They, in fact, Were longing to be back under their ancient princes. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Poulett Thomson) for the reduction of duties he had made on certain Indian commodities; that would do a great deal of good; and he only regretted it did not go further. By reducing the duties still more, he was sure no injury would be done to the West-Indian property. He should, in conclusion say, that the praise bestowed by Mr. Canning on the gallant Officer (Colonel Torrens) on entering the House, had that night been proved to have been well bestowed; and he must express his belief, that it would be well for the country if the doctrines the gallant Officer advanced were more attended to.

Mr. Gaily Knight

said, that he perfectly concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that, in all future measures with regard to India, they ought principally to direct their attention to the promotion of the happiness, the instruction, and the prosperity of the natives; but this was not the point to which he desired to advert. The only point relating to the vast subject which had been introduced by the worthy Alderman, upon which he should presume to say a word, was, the effect which the promulgation of such doctrines as had been promulgated by the worthy Alderman was likely to have upon the minds of the industrious classes; for it appeared to him that nothing could be more pernicious than to impress the industrious classes with erroneous ideas of the causes of the distress under which they laboured, and to impress them with the belief, that a vote of that House could set all to rights in a moment. He was far from meaning to say, that such was the design of the worthy Alderman; on the contrary, he gave him full credit for his disinterested motives and patriotic intentions, but such a mischievous delusion as the one to which he here alluded was, he feared, too likely to result from the course which the worthy Alderman had adopted this evening. What was the real end and aim of the worthy Alderman's statements and assertions? What, but that which he did not venture openly to proclaim—the depreciation of the standard, and the extinction of free trade? He would not deny that distress had existed since the new system was introduced, but there was no more common error than to assign as a cause, that which had only preceded. There might be a bad harvest next autumn, and it will have been preceded, but will it have been caused (though, if it should be so, he dared to say there would not be wanting persons who would say that it had been caused) by Parliamentary Reform? and yet Parliamentary Reform would have as much to do ill the one ease, as free trade in the other. He was not going to enter into the general question. The principles of free trade had been sufficiently vindicated on former occasions. He recollected no occasion on which the opponents of the system have opened their fire, when their batteries had not been silenced by as provoking replies of facts, and figures, and documents, as ever overwhelmed incautious assailants. All he wished lo suggest was, a few of the various causes which might interfere with commercial prosperity, and might create commercial distress, though the commercial system itself be conducted, as he contended it was conducted at present, on the soundest principles. Could any system prevent the proverbial vicissitudes of trade? Could it prevent the fluctuations of foreign demand? the effects of home competition? Could it prevent the consequences of the increased power of production, or of the voluntary error of over-production? Was the system to be charged with the calamities which proceeded either from unwise speculations, or from the migration of capital? And yet any one of these causes might produce distress to a great amount. Even a change of fashion might throw towns and districts out of work; but could they prevent the changes of fashion? Should they prohibit the use of cotton gloves; and, if they did, would trade flourish the more? These were a few of the ruinous causes which were in continual operation; it was these which, under the very best system, might produce, and would ever produce, an abundance of individual, and of local and temporary distress. But where would be the advantage of continually altering general laws to meet particular cases? What would be the consequence of our saying to the capitalists, "You shall never remove from the scene where you first begin your operation; you shall remain in Spitalfields; you shall not go to Manchester or Leeds?" Would not such legislation be as futile, as it would be barbarous and absurd? Again, if to favour the silk mills of Macclesfield, they were to surround the island with the brazen wall of prohibition, should they be doing good or harm to the whole community? Would the loss of foreign trade be no detriment? Would the migration of British capital to other countries (and such would be the inevitable consequence) be no evil? For the hundreds whom we might benefit, should we not injure hundreds of thousands? Would not the clamour which the alteration might allay, be succeeded by an outcry far more general, far more loud, and far more just? He was anxious to make these few observations, because he was aware that the Reform Bill would give a great increase of influence to the manufacturing towns; and, unless the people were rightly informed on these particulars, a formidable power might be directed to promote objects which, eventually, would not be advantageous to the people themselves. The great towns might combine. "Assist us this time," it might be said, "and we will assist you next time;" and, by these means, it might happen, if the people were left in error, that one of the first exploits of the reformed Parliament would be an attempt to effect the destruction of the free trade; and this, he should regret to see, not only on account of the harm that would ensue, but also on account of the legitimate triumph it would afford to the opponents of Reform. He was also anxious to make these observations, because his belief was, that in a country so highly commercial and manufacturing as this, distress must necessarily exist somewhere, at all times. There would always be local distress, and general inconvenience at periodical intervals—this they must expect—cycles of prosperity, and cycles of depression; and, if the people were not rightly informed on these subjects, they would be constantly exposed to being made the gulls and tools of interested demagogues. Men who had words at command would at all times have the opportunity of exciting and inflaming a deluded multitude—or placing before them some frightful picture or other of local distress, which would occupy a larger space than it ought on the convex of imagination—which might morbidly excite the public mind, And what would be the result? Why, that the industrious classes would often believe that the fault lay in the Government—perhaps in the form of Government—when the grievance was, in fact, one which no Government, and no form of Government, could by possibility avert. And what would be the result of this continual dissatisfaction with the Government of the country? Why, the next step would be, desire of change—attempt at change—yet in what manner would trade and commerce be relieved by this alteration? In what manner was the trade and commerce of France relieved by the first revolution? In what manner had they been affected by the second revolution—a just revolution—a bloodless revolution? Why, at that moment, trade was languishing in every part of France, and the chief employment of the National Guard was to keep down the operatives who were out of work, and whom they knew to be starving. He repeated, that there was nettling more pernicious or cruel, than to mislead the industrious classes on subjects so immediately connected with their interests. He repeated that, in so highly a manufacturing country as this was, there would always be local distress; and, under those circumstances, was it not their bounden duty, instead of misleading the people, to tell them the truth, and endeavour to make them perceive that all that any Government could do was, to put them in a good course, and that the rest must be done by themselves? It was not because he was insensible to the distress of the industrious classes, that he expressed these opinions. On the contrary, he would do anything in his power to assist them. But he said this, because he knew that it was only by their own prudence, by their own forethought, by habits of regularity, and by putting something aside against a rainy day, that they could ever be secured from, at least, the occasional pressure of want. It was because he thought that the adoption of the Resolutions proposed by the worthy Alderman, would rather tend to disturb and mislead the public mind than provide any relief, that he felt himself compelled to support the previous question.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

, in reply, expressed his astonishment that observations like those of the hon. Member near him (Mr. Gally Knight) could have come from a Reformer. Reform would be useless, if its effects were not to remedy the grievances of the people. The hon. Member spoke of the Resolutions as mischievous; as if taking notice of the people's distress, and encouraging them to rely on the Legislature, were more likely to produce discontent, than the distress itself, and the refusal to make any inquiry into it. In his opinion, the great distress which existed among the labouring manufacturers of this country, made it incum- bent upon Parliament to institute an inquiry into its causes.

Resolutions negatived.

Forward to