HC Deb 15 June 1841 vol 58 cc1520-46
Mr. Scholefield

said, he had to apologize to the House for his own inability to do justice to the motion he had to make. He could assure the House there was vast and extensive suffering in the manufacturing districts of the country, although the word distress was as seldom heard within those walls as was the mention of the national debt, yet it was doubtless owing to the national debt that so much distress existed. Not only had the distress been extensive, but it now affected the home trade as well as the foreign. In fact, so much money was required to procure food at the present high price of corn, that there was little left to buy clothes with, and consequently, the demand for the home trade was proportionately curtailed; nor was the foreign trade in a better condition than the home trade. We had now competitors in every market with which we traded, and unfortunately were undersold in too many of them. The German manufacturers of hardware could take their goods to all parts of the globe, and there undersell the English; they could even introduce articles of cutlery at Sheffield on lower terms than our own manufacturers could supply them. And what gave the advantage to our foreign competitors? We had equal industry, equal skill, and as much capital as foreigners possessed; but our industrious artisans could not buy their bread and the necessaries of life so cheaply as they were sold in other countries. Whilst our workmen had to pay 9d. for a loaf that was to be purchased for 5d. or 6d. on the continent, and while he had to pay more than half for tax on his tobacco, tea, and beer, and one-third tax on the little sugar he could obtain, he was unable to live so cheaply as those in other countries who had not such heavy imposts to pay, He was not able to say how far the pressure of taxes bore upon agricultural labourers, but doubtless, with their very limited wages, they could not spare money for scarcely any other object than for the necessaries of life. There was one feature in the existing distress, as it affected the commerce and manufactures of the country, which was, that distress had fallen upon the shopkeeper and the master manufacturer, on whom it pressed almost as severely as it had done, and then did, upon the workmen. He would read to the House some letters which had been transmitted to him from several of his constituents, showing how prevailing the distress of trade was in the borough of Birmingham:— The condition of the inhabitants of Birmingham is more deplorable than ever. Cruel mortgagees are disposing of property on which they have advanced money for less than one-third of its value, or rather, I should say, they are purchasing buildings at that rate. In consequence of trade being so bad, and levies and taxes so high, mortgagers have not been able to be punctual in the payment of interest; their property has been advertised to be sold, and no sale being practicable, a legal process has been gone through, and the property been transferred from the legitimate owner to the mortgagee, and this has been the case lately in a great many instances. Trade is daily getting worse. Whilst the number of bankrupts is less, the number of insolvents is greater, in all the manufacturing districts, and the poor debtors are crying ' make room, the prison is too small for us.' This was actually the case in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, when the commissioners held a Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and those miserable men have been sent forth into the world pennyless, and nothing but an alteration in trade can prevent their coming to the workhouse. Although it was so recently emptied of its inmates, there is a fresh succession of unfortunate debtors, many of whom have lived respectably, and contributed largely to the payment of taxes and poor-rates, to the benefit of the community, but who are now about to perish in obscurity. Tradesmen, with very few exceptions, are in jeopardy every hour. They apply to the pawnbrokers in vain, for these have granted loans till they have no money to lend, and the consequence is, all the heads of families are in ill health, and medicine is of no avail. ' Hope deferred maketh the heart sick,' and one need not be skilled in phisiognomy to be able to discern, by a man's countenance, that he considers himself standing on a quicksand, and, unless he his unexpectedly supported, that he must shortly Sink. The working classes, too, as might be expected, when the manufacturers were going to decay, were sustaining a most painful degree of suffering, and the description of those unfortunate persons who had recourse to the aid of the pawnbroker is truly affecting. He would read a statement to the House which had been made to him on the subject. The hon. Member here read the following documents, in order to prove the distressed state of various parts of the country:— A list of one week's pledges at one shop, containing sixty-five pledges, out of which only two lots exceeded 3s. each. Upwards of thirty pledges are gowns, shifts, women's petticoats, and children's frocks; the rest are shawls, men's waistcoats, and jackets, a bedcover, a pillow, a wedding ring, and other small articles, the whole averaging only 1s. 9d. each in value. Birmingham contains ninety-four pawnbrokers, and if each has sixty-five pledges per week, the weekly number of the town, of small pledges, not exceeding 3s. each, exceeds 6,000. A former statement sent him shewed that the master manufacturers had so many goods in pawn, already, that the pawnbrokers are unable to find further money to advance upon them. As an instance of the great distress in Birmingham, he would refer to a letter that had been written to a Clergyman of that town:— A week has passed, and you have vouchsafed us no reply. Nine weeks have gone since the Committee concluded its labours, reporting, that they had found above 40,000 individuals so miserable as to be grateful— yes, humbly grateful—for a donation of less than 1¼d. per head per week. Nine weeks have passed since that report; trade during that period has actually grown worse, and nothing has been done! no attempt has been made to relieve ! We pray you to consider bow ill such poverty brooks delay; how many miseries and anxieties, crowding in each successive hour, have made each week an age. Some victims of our neglect have, in that period, found refuge in the grave. No ministration of earthly comfort soothed their last mortal agony; the aid, for which affection yearned, a necessitous poverty denied—they rest—but, to the living is left the undying regret—that the thousand appliances which might have restored health, or softened pain, were all denied. The productions of every climate, tributary to our industry, and plastic to our skill, fill every store with the means of enjoyment, and yet, English poverty is as unequalled as English wealth. Workmen, with large families, are receiving from six to eleven shillings per week, and would be able, if they could work full time, to earn from 15s. to 30s. per week. How these families live and pay rent can only be answered by the poor creatures themselves. I know they are obliged to crowd together in dwellings not fit for hogs to litter in. I know places called Chambers, wherein different families of both sexes, and of all ages, are compelled to pass the night at the same time. Is not this enough to make Chartists? Is not this enough to demoralize the people? At the Board of Guardians, yesterday, a young woman applied for relief, whose husband had been three weeks in prison for a debt due for provisions; he has nine weeks longer to remain; himself and his wife are steady people; they have two small children. The Guardians thought the woman appeared almost lost for want: they allowed her three shillings, and two loaves, per week, for nine weeks—not sufficient, after paying for lodgings, to keep body and soul together! more could not be allowed to her, as levies are so high, and many persons who pay them stand in need of parochial relief. Last week a young wife died in childbirth; her time was come, but, for want of strength, she was not able to bring forth-—a physician was called in but his assistance was unavailing—he said, he had no doubt her death was occasioned by deficiency of nourishment.', An hon. Baronet lately said to him (Mr. Scholefield) that he had never been paid his rents better than at present. He (Mr. Scholefield) replied that profit to the merchant and manufacturer was the same as rent to the landlord, and he assured the worthy Baronet that profit had long fled from the tradesman. He was told that no sooner was a farm vacant than a tenant applied for it. How different was the situation of the owner of dwelling houses and manufactories, too many of which were empty and profitless to their owners! He would remind the House of an entire new state of things with regard to the conduct of persons constituting public meetings. They, too, had their motions of "no confidence" in either party. They disliked both Whig and Tory equally, but would prefer voting for the Tory now, and would doubtless duly reject them when their own proper time came. At a recent meeting at Birmingham, a resolution was passed not to vote for the abolition of the Corn-laws. The majority preferred a very different measure; they considered the Corn-law question delusive, and would be satisfied with nothing less than univertal suffrage. Exactly similar was the result of a meeting at Sheffield, at which the "no-confidence" in either party was the prevail- ing feeling. A meeting had recently taken place at Liverpool, which proved how well informed the persons were who were present on the occasion: a working man of the name of Jones addressed the meeting in a manner which testified strong sense and showed how much he felt the hardship of the severe suffering himself and persons of his class were subject to from (as he said) the oppressive effects of the Corn-laws. What Mr. Jones spoke was so much to the purpose that he should take the liberty to read it to the House:— At a late meeting at Liverpool of the working classes, the chairman said, that the next speaker, Robert Jones, though a man well able to express his views on this great question, was unable to read, and he, the chairman, would therefore move the resolution for him: 'That these laws, which wring from the wants of the poor, in order to support a monopoly to the wealthy, are cruel, unchristian, and unjust; alike opposed to the word of God and the happiness of man.' Robert Jones, in moving the adoption of this resolution, said, that like some hundreds, if not thousands, of those present, all the property that he had in the world he had with him—all the estate that God and his father had left him on the earth, and that English landlords would allow him, he held up to them (holding up his hands). These were all his property, and he found that, in consequence of the Corn-laws and other wicked laws, he was robbed of so much of the produce of his estate that he and his children had to rise many a time from the table with half-filled bellies. This was not a cause of party or faction, it was the cause of the whole human family—it was the cause of justice and truth, of God and of humanity. A tax upon bread; a tax upon life itself—a tax upon the very existence of the working man—a tax on Eternal Justice and on the providence of God! God sent untaxed rain to water the earth; God brought untaxed corn out of the earth; God had spread a bountiful table for the whole family of man on the face of the earth—but man put his avaricious hand on the bread, and snatched it from the hungry lips of the people of England. It had been said, that poverty had made philosophers of the suffering artisans, and the speech of Mr. Jones proves how intelligent an uneducated man may be. To show how general is the interest felt by all classes and sexes, he would mention the petition from 450 females of Bridgenorth, presented by his hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, describing the severe distress which their husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers were undergoing from want of employment and low wages. How great is the contrast between the splendid ap- pearance which Hyde-park, Regent's park and street, and such like places of fashionable resort, and the miserable abodes of the distressed manufacturers ! Truly was it said by the writer of the letter to the Rev. Mr. Garbett of Birmingham, "English wealth is as unequalled as is English poverty." How just was the observation ! how painful the reflection that arose from it! The question which naturally presented itself in considering this striking contrast of splendour and the most squalid misery was, what remedy can be applied to so mighty an evil? Doubtless, where wealth was so abundant as in this country, it would be no difficult matter to spare out of their superfluity rather than require a portion of the poor man's means of existence to be taken from him. A property tax would relieve this cruel oppression upon those who are unable, under their great privations, to pay taxes at all. This would at once be an act of justice and of mercy. He had been told, that the present motion could lead to no practical good; but he felt satisfied that, if it excited an expression of sympathy for the poor sufferers, it would not be without its use: if it did no more than keep hope alive in the breast of the afflicted, it would at least do some good. He should conclude by moving That the extreme suffering of the industrious classes, from want of employment, low wages, and high prices of provisions, renders it the imperative duty of Parliment to devise means for the alleviation of the great misery which now pervades all the manufacturing districts of the country.''

Mr. Williams

seconded the motion. He did not intend to have spoken, but being well aware of the prevailing distress, although no practical benefit could result from the motion with the present prospects of the House, he could not refrain from giving it his support. The cause of the existing destitute condition of the lower orders, and especially of the manufacturing classes, was the excessive burden of taxation they were compelled to sustain. They were taxed by the State, and they were taxed also by the landed aristocracy to an amount very nearly equal to the taxation imposed by the State. He had himself been an astonished witness of the rapid progress of manufactures in some parts of Europe, and the same remark would apply to America. He could not, there fore, help looking forward with great apprehension to the competition to which this country might in a short time be exposed. Unless something were speedily done to relieve the lower orders from the load under which they now groaned, it would be impossible for them to contend against the manufactures of foreign countries. In Switzerland, the greater part of Germany, and in the United States, the price of provisions and the other necessaries of life was scarcely half as much as in Great Britain. A great change was inevitable; but when he saw the late proposition of Government for the relief of the people as regarded sugar and corn rejected by the House, what hope could he have of any benefit proceeding from such a source? He had shown, on a former occasion, that in Switzerland, Germany, and the United States, in the article of sugar only, the inhabitants paid 100 per cent, less than the inhabitants of this country. The recent decision of the House had convinced the people that nothing was to be hoped from it: discontent was, therefore, increasing in every quarter amongst those who were unable to procure even the bare necessaries of life. Something must be done to improve the condition of the millions of the working classes, or property and the valuable institutions of the country would be endangered. Most of the historians of the time attributed the first French revolution to the undue pressure of taxation, because the aristocracy relieved themselves at the expense of those who were much worse able to sustain the burden. The present state of taxation in this country was much the same. Of the fifty-two millions raised by taxes, not far from the whole was obtained from the middling and industrious classes. True it was, that the higher orders paid taxes upon certain articles, but in many instances, from 100 to 200 per cent, less than was paid upon the articles by the lower orders. The reason was, that taxation was regulated, not by the value, but by the quality of the article taxed, and the aristocracy having the power of making the laws, took care to exempt itself from the chief part of the weight. Moreover, the tax paid to the landowners upon corn only, was much larger than the whole amount of taxes those landowners contributed to the State. He had felt it necessary to make these few remarks, but he was aware that the House was not disposed to treat the matter with that seriousness which its importance demanded.

The question having been put,

Mr. Hindley

Mr. Speaker, It is because I agree in the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Williams) that the resolution of my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, is not sufficiently practical, that I am anxious to propose the addition of which I have given notice. For, Sir, if the distress at present existing arises from no fault of this House, however warmly we may express our sympathy with the industrious classes, it will be useless, if we cannot by legislation, give them some relief. Believing, however, that much of this distress arises from the present system of legislation, I am desirous to have the proposition I have advanced, adopted by the House. And though this addition itself embraces no practical details, it appears to me that its adoption by the House at the present time would have a practical effect. When the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel,) proposed his motion of want of confidence in the Government, he neither proposed to address her Majesty for the removal of her Ministers, nor for the exercise of her prerogative of dissolving this House, though it was certain, that one or the other of these results must follow his motion, if successful. In the same way, I conceive that if the House adopt my addition, the practical result must be a revision of the whole of our taxation, whatever party may be in office. Sir, there are two great parties in the State struggling for power; and I fearlessly tell them both, that it would be utterly impossible for either to hold the reins, except they act on the principle that taxation should be just to all classes of the community. The present system of taxation presses most unequally on the different classes of society, and, most unjustly on the middle and lower classes. The duty of removing this injustice at the present time is exceedingly increased by the extremely depressed state of these classes. The House has heard the melancholy and lengthened details of the hon. Member for Birmingham; and it is unnecessary for me to do more than to confirm their truth from my own personal knowledge. Representing as I do, an extensive manufacturing district, and intimately acquainted, as I am, with the state of the labouring classes, I must say, that never within the period of my recollection, have I witnessed such severe and such general distress. I may be allowed to add one fact in proof of the extreme depression which prevails in trade, that the cotton-mill property near Manchester, alluded to the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, (Mr. Brotherton), which originally cost one hundred and twenty thousand pounds has, since that debate been sold for twenty-six thousand pounds! Sir, I am not about to complain at present of the amount of taxation, although that is excessive, so much as of the unequal manner in which it is levied. The Government of the country cannot be considered in a state of safety as long as the taxation of the country is regulated, not according to the principles of justice, but according as certain class interests preponderate, more or less, in this House. I have been much struck with a passage in the able report of "The Hand-loom Weavers' Commission," which I will venture to read to the House. Alluding to the political theories of the present day, the commissioners say, We feel that the state of mind which they indicate, deserves serious attention. The Government of this country resides in a minority, and a narrow minority; the owners of land, a small portion of the community, constitute, almost exclusively, one House of Parliament, and form a large majority in the other. Such a Government can be safe only while it is popular; and popular only while it is believed to be impartial. Its first prudential duty is to avoid even the appearance of selfish legislation. Now, Sir, let us inquire how far this principle is acted upon, with reference to the middle and lower classes of society. It it well known to the House, that, in the year 1833, the late Mr. Cobbett exposed to the House and the country, the injustice occasioned by the existing stamp-duties. That injustice was admitted by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised it should be remedied. Has this been done? Has any attention whatever been paid to it? No. Eight years have elapsed, and the injustice continues to the present moment. That the House may judge of the amount of this injustice, permit me to call its attention to some particulars of the various stamp-duties. The rate of duty upon a conveyance of property of ten pounds value, is ten per cent.; while it is only one per cent, on a con- veyance of property of two thousand pounds value! The rate of duty on mortgages is ten pounds per cent, upon the raising of ten pounds; whilst it is only six shillings per cent, on a loan of two thousand pounds, and sixpence per cent, only upon a mortgage of one hundred thousand pounds! And the low amount of stamp-duty upon large mortgages, as compared with that upon large conveyances, cannot but excite a suspicion that this had been purposely done by the landed Gentlemen, who rarely sell their property, but who, from family engagements and other causes, have frequently to raise money upon it. The stamp-duty on bills of a low amount, say, twenty pounds, is ten shillings per cent.; on ten thousand pounds, it is threepence-halfpenny per cent.; and three-fourths of the amount of stamp-duty on bills, is raised from bills averaging seventy-five pounds. Can anything, Sir, show more clearly the unequal pressure borne, in this particular, by small tradesmen? The same remark applies to the stamp duty on receipts, which is five shillings per cent, upon ten pounds, and five farthings per cent, on ten thousand pounds ! It appears, therefore, that the man who sells ten pounds worth of property, pays, on the conveyance, ten times as much in proportion as the man who sells one hundred thousand; that the man who borrows on mortgage ten pounds, pays four hundred times as much in proportion as the man who borrows one hundred thousand pounds; and that the man who gives his bill or receipt for ten pounds, pays four hundred and eighty times as much in proportion as he who gives his bill or receipt for one hundred thousand pounds ! These are but specimens of similar unjust disproportions in stamp duties, on annuities, insurances, probates, auctions, &c, &c. Nor is the injustice committed by the present system of taxation less on the lower than on the middle classes. And, allow me to remind hon. Members, that this portion of the community is not represented in this House. Out of five millions of the adult male population, four millions have no votes. I am not now going to inquire into the justice or injustice of keeping this majority of our fellow-countrymen out of the pale of the constitution, however strong my opinion upon this point may be; but I do call upon hon. Members to admit, that the fact of their not being represented in this House, renders it doubly the duty of the House to be careful not to do them injustice. If the House lakes advantage of its power, to draw more in proportion out of their pockets than out of the pockets of other classes, it adds injustice to insult, and inflicts upon them a double wrong. Now, how stands the fact? If, Sir, I were to ask hon. Members, individually, whether the shilling of the poor man ought to go as far as the shilling of the rich man, I am sure every hon. Gentleman would answer in the affirmative; and that, if there should be any difference, it ought to be in favour of the poor; and I cannot believe, that the House, collectively, would express a different opinion. I feel persuaded that hon. Members are not aware of the extent of the injustice done to the lower classes, by the present system of taxation. In order to give a practical illustration of this injustice, I have furnished myself with a statement which I requested a highly respectable grocer in this city to prepare, of the various articles he is in the habit of supplying to rich and poor families, with the prices of those articles, and the rates of duty on each. I confess that I read the statement with much surprise, in which I think the House will participate; but, after a careful examination, I cannot discover that its truth can be invalidated. He writes, A poor woman, a widow, earning her living by washing for families at their own abodes, and having two young children to support, generally purchases, weekly, the following articles, and this is about the usual proportion which poor persons of that class consume in a week;—

s. d. Duty out of s. d.
2 oz. of tea, at 4s. per lb. 0 6 which is 0 3¼
1 lb. of sugar 0 6 do. 0 2½
2 oz. of coffee, 1s. 8d per lb. 0 2½ do. 0 1
1 oz. of pepper, occasionally 0 1 do. 0 ⅜
1 lb. of raisins 0 4 do. 0 1⅜
Total 1 7 ½ 0 8¾
Being at the rate of 44 percent., or; 5½d. out of every shilling. The same kind of articles supplied to persons of the higher classes would be as follows; —

s. d. Duty out of s. d.
1 lb. of tea 8 0 which is 2 2¼
1 lb. of the best sugar 1 2 do. 0 3
1 lb of coffee 2 6 do. 0 8
1 lb. of Muscatel raisins 1 6 do. 0 1⅝
1 lb. of while pepper 3 0 do. 0 6
Total 16 2 3 8⅞

Being about 23 per cent, or 2¾d in every 1s.

So that the House will perceive, that when the poor woman places her shilling upon the counter of the grocer she receives back 6½d. worth of goods, and the the Government takes the remaining 5½d. When the rich man pays his shilling to the same grocer for the same description of articles, he receives 9¼d. in goods, which is almost half as much again as the poor woman receives, the Slate being content with 2¾d. out of his shilling, though it had just before taken 5½d. out of hers. And the evil does not end here, for the grocer is obliged to have a profit on the extra capital which the duty requires him to employ. This disproportion in taxation is a slate of things not to be endured; and, until a change be made, there can be no safety for the State. It is all very well to talk about Chartism, or any other symptom of discontent with the present state of things, but they are the inevitable consequences of the wrongs inflicted upon the masses. Let justice be done to the lower orders, and there will be nothing to fear. But of all the injustice which is committed on the labouring classes, that caused by the Corn-laws I hold to be the greatest. It is not my intention to enter into the whole of the argument on this question, or in any way to interfere with my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, (Mr. Villiers,) whose zeal, ability, and discretion, in its management, entitle him to the highest praise. But I cannot let the Session close without expressing my opinion upon the subject, seeing how the expected debate in this House was cushioned by the motion of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) which motion was obviously brought on for that purpose; and also, because I see the most asiduous efforts are made out of doors to impress the working classes, that they are not interested in the repeal of these laws. I deeply regret that the expected debate did not come on in this House. I had hoped, that even after the debate on the motion of the right hon. Baronet, it would have been in the power of the Government to bring forward the question. On more mature consideration, however, I felt convinced that they ought to enter on no new business, but appeal to the country at the earliest possible period. I do think, however, that it would have been much better that the discussion should have taken place here, than out of doors. In this House, error would have been corrected; falsehood refuted; exaggeration reduced to (act! misrepresentation exposed; and the truth, elicited by the collision of facts and opinions, would have been prominently placed before the country. But now exertions of the strongest description are being made out of doors to inflame the public mind by gross exaggerations and ex-parte statements. Amongst these efforts perhaps the greatest is, to make the labouring classes believe, that they are in no way interested in an alteration of the present Corn-laws. A greater fallacy was never attempted to be palmed upon them; and I have too much faith in their good sense, to believe, that such an assertion could have any weight with them whatever. I think one of the greatest advantages to be derived from an alteration in the present system, would be steadiness in price. It is evident, that the more you extend the field of production, the more likely are you to have steadiness of prices. If, for instance, you confine your production of wheat solely to the county of Buckingham, there would be great unsteadiness of prices. In the same manner, if the production were limited to light soils, in some years the produce would be small, in consequence of bad seasons; whilst, in the same way, if its production were limited to heavy soils, the same result would follow. Whereas, by adopting all soils, all climates, and all countries, you secure the bounties of Providence to the utmost possible extent. The advantage to the labourer of steadiness of price can scarcely be fully appreciated. If he buy bread one year at 1½d. per lb., and another year at 2d., and a third at 2½d., it signifies not, to tell him that the average price has been 2d.; for the effect upon his comforts and habits has been very injurious. With such fluctuation in the price of the main necessary of life, it is utterly impossible, Sir, that you can ever expect the labourer to be prudent and thrifty, because it is out of his power properly to accommodate his expenditure to his fluctuating income. In order to exhibit to the House the intimate connection which exists between the prosperity of the manufacturing population and a moderate price of corn, I beg leave to read to the House some statements which I have prepared from my own practical knowledge as a man of business. In the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, the prices of wheat were 84s. 9d.,84s. 1d., and 73s. per quarter, and trade was in a deplorable condition. In 1821, 1822, and 1823, the prices were, 56s. 1d., 44s. 1d., 53s. 5d., per quarter, and trade was good. In 1829, and 1830, the prices were 66s. 3d., and 64s. 3d. per quarter, and trade was again depressed. In 1833, 1834, and 1835, the prices were low, varying from 52s. 11d. to 39s. 4d., and trade was extremely flourishing. In 1838, 1839, and 1840, prices were 64s. 1d., 70s. 8d., and 66s. 4d. per quarter; and I need not tell the House how deplorable was the state of trade. It is not to be wondered at, that these were the results of the fluctuations in the price of corn. I have obtained an account of the expenditure of a man and his family, in London, whose weekly wages amount to 20s. Of this amount 8s. 6d. are expended in bread and meat; 2s. 6d. in grocery; 1s. in butter; 1s. in vegetables; 1s. 3d. in beer; 3s. in rent; and 2s. 9d. only in clothing. But, if the price of food rises beyond the ordinary level, he is unable to spend even this sum, and the demand for manufactures falls off to the extent of the advance. I need not tell the House how large a sum this would make in the aggregate of all the labourers in the kingdom. But the evil of the manufacturing labourer does not end here; not only is he unable to spend the ordinary sum in clothing—not only does he suffer from the diminished demand of the rest of the community, in consequence of the high price of food, but he is frequently unable to obtain any employment. Every manufacturer is intent on reducing his expenses by doing away with all superfluous hands. He couples his spinning-wheels, improves his machinery, and takes every possible means of lessening the number of persons in his employ. Thus a large number are thrown out of work, and are obliged to depend on the precarious subsistence furnished by charity. Individuals have frequently applied to me in a most distressed condition, stating that they had been discharged from their employ in consequence of these circumstances; and many instances I could name in which the parties had been twenty-four hours without tasting bread. Now, if a regular importation of corn were allowed, many of these evils would be removed, and many of the temporary inconveniences arising from the improvements in machinery alleviated. It is unjust that the labourer should be prevented from exchanging his productions for the corn of other countries; and I fully believe, that an alteration of the Corn-laws will effect that which all must have in view; namely, the maintenance of the people of this country in a state of comfort and independence, instead of the deplorable condition to which numbers are reduced. One word as to the condition of the agricultural labourer. The demand for his labour is necessarily limited by the fact, that land is incapable of enlargement. The census of 1831 showed a diminution of upwards of thirty-five thousand persons employed in agriculture. My opinion is, that the census of the present year will show a similar result. It becomes the landed Gentlemen, then, seriously to consider what is to be done with the surplus population of the agricultural districts. The evil arising there from led to the passing of the present Poor-law; a measure which was certainly intended to raise and improve the value of land, and it has had that effect. But I candidly declare to the House my firm conviction, that had it not been for the large expenditure occasioned by the formation of railways, which have absorbed the unemployed agricultural labourers, it would have been impossible to have carried into effect this harsh and oppressive measure. But, when the forty millions of capital raised by the railway companies, which by the way has all been derived from the manufacturing and commercial interests, and the expenditure of which will prove so beneficial to the landed interest,—I ask, when all this capital has been expended, what do you intend to do with the surplus agricultural population? Do you intend to have another migration scheme, by which you may transport them from Buckinghamshire to Lancashire? I tell you, there is not, and will not be any employment for them there, because you will not suffer the produce of Lancashire labour to be freely exchanged for the produce of other countries. Sir, I have always considered that the Poor-law ought to be viewed in connection with the Corn-law. To punish poverty as a crime, is at all times unjust; but to punish it after it has been caused by your own legislation, resembles the tying of a man's hands behind his back, and then whipping him because he does not earn his own subsistence. I think that the country has a right to know from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel,) whether he intends to continue the present Poor-law—the restrictions on trade—and whether he intends to abide by the present Corn laws? The right hon. Baronet, whom I am sorry not now to see in his place, should tell the House whether he is encouraging Sir George Murray at Manchester in advocating a fixed duty, or his agricultural supporters in the counties in their adherence to the present Corn-laws. In his absence, perhaps, the right hon. Baronet, (Sir James Graham,) who is no doubt in his confidence, will inform the House of his intention on these subjects. For my own part, I will say sincerely, that if the right hon. Baronet should come into power, and will bring forward measures in conformity with the views which I have stated to-night, however much I might oppose him on measures of a less liberal character, on these he shall have my decided support. It was said the other night, that party spirit was beneficial to the country, and the right hon. Baronet, quoting from a book published by the noble Lord, said "that the collision of party gave vigour to the constitution." With this sentiment I cannot agree; for in the heal of party, hon. Gentlemen are too apt to forget that they are natives of the same land, and ought to endeavour to promote the common good of their fellow-countrymen. I call upon hon. Members to forsake and forget party strife, and to let the love of their country prevail over every selfish feeling, making it their constant aim to promote the happiness and well being of the great body of the people. From the terms of the motion, I have spoken chiefly of the labouring classes of the community. I have said little of those who have hazarded great stakes in the manufactures of the country. One word, however, I will add respecting them. You may, by a bad course of legislation, involve these individuals in ruin; you may diminish the value of their property; you may cripple and destroy the trade and manufactures of the country; but who will suffer in the end? The burden of supporting an unemployed and impoverished population must eventually fall on the land. The agriculturists will become chargeable with their maintenance; and neither by your Poor-laws, nor your schemes of migration, or emigration, will you be able to save yourselves from falling under the burden of supporting the suffering masses around you.

Sir F. Burdett

said, that after the long and discursive speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he should certainly endeavour to condense what little he bad to address to the House, into the smallest compass possible. The hon. Member for Birmingham seemed to him to have proposed a motion, which could have no other object but that of being a mere vehicle for the expression of his own peculiar views and sentiments with respect to the distressed portion of the population of this country; and he must confess that he concurred in those expressions of sympathy, and he believed that every man, in and out of the House, lamented the existence of that distress as much as the hon. Member himself. But all that could be said in reply to them was, "Will you point out the means by which that distress can be removed? Will you offer some remedy, or some suggestion by which the House may be led to guess at a remedy for the evils complained of?" While, however, he was quite willing to join the hon. Member in his expressions of regret at the condition of the poor, inasmuch as it might afford some consolation to those, at least, who thought that their grievances might be redressed, if the attention of Parliament were directed towards them; and while, in that view of the subject, he might express his readiness to agree with the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, still he thought he had some reason to complain of the practice of hon. Members coming down to the House, and delivering speeches generally containing unfounded insinuations against the upper classes of society, and making it appear, that landlords, and proprietors of large estates were bloodsuckers of the poor, and persons devoid of all feeling, living upon that which was unjustly taken away from the produce of the labour of the lower classes. He deprecated the fashion, too of citing, as the hon. Member had done, cases of which it was impossible to know anything at the moment, and repeating calculations which could not at once be examined and tested, and of giving a colour to those sentiments which persons, calling themselves Chartists, had put forth in their petitions, in which they demanded of the House whatever they thought themselves entitled to. He thought it would be much better for the hon. Gentleman to bring forward some distinct proposition for the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the truth of all those allegagations and computations, in order that it might be ascertained, beyond a doubt, which were facts, and which were not, and how far it was in the power of the House to devise means of relief. But as the hon. Gentleman had not done so, and as his motion was something like the dying recommendation of a person whose conscience smites him to some friend, to do an act of justice or of benevolence, he could only express his anxious wish that the attention of the House should be turned to these subjects after the approaching elections. Even then, however, it could only be done by bringing a proper and definite motion before the House. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Line seemed to have brought the question into the narrowest compass, because he had stated, that all the evils which he mentioned were owing to the present system of taxation and the corn laws. How far he had made out the truth of that assertion, he would not pretend to say; but still the subject was worthy of consideration. He did not believe that taxation was unjustly laid upon any one class of society more than another. But if it could be shown that such was the case, then the whole complicated system of taxation ought to be inquired into, and it might, perhaps, be found to be capable of great amelioration, even while means were adopted for producing a considerable saving to the country. But these were matters which should not be mixed up with the corn-laws. That, however, seemed to be the whole purpose and gist of the discussion; the object appeared to be, to make the corn laws assume a mighty importance, which did not properly belong to them, by connecting them with what was called the regulations of our national trade and commerce. One single fact showed the effect of the present protection of com. Within the last three years, more corn had been imported into this country from abroad, than was imported previously to the passing of the corn laws in 1815, before which year there had been a free trade in corn for twenty years at least. From public statements which he had seen, it appeared that 3,800,000 quarters of corn had been imported, so that the foreign corn trade, instead of being diminished, had actually increased. He was surprissd to hear it repeatedly asserted, that the distress of the manufacturing districts was to be ascribed to the corn laws; it was almost as absurd a declaration as the saying which was attributed to some of the people of Kent, that the formation of the Goodwin Sands was caused by the erection of Tenterden church. Nothing could be a greater delusion than to suppose that the corn laws were the cause of the present distress among the manufacturing population, and that they were beneficial to none but landed proprietors. If hon. Gentlemen would know the causes of that distress, let them look elsewhere; let them look at the manner in which our commercial interests had been neglected for a long time; let them remember how foreign markets had been lost to this country, by the neglect of the Government, and their heedless mode of making treaties. To that cause must be attributed the loss of all the trade we formerly carried on in Poland, and in central Asia, by the interdictions of Russia, which he maintained had no right to interdict our commerce. The monstrous fallacy, that to the existence of the corn laws must be ascribed all the mischiefs that had been depicted by the hon. Members who had just addressed the House, could only have been invented for the purpose of creating ill-will between the agricultural and manufacturing interests, and to set them contending with each other. It could be for no other purpose, unless indeed it were intended to influence public elections, and to serve party designs. But he did not believe that the manufacturing classes were so insensible as not to feel that the agricultural interest was their main prop and support. The agricultural interest was the parent of every other interest; without it there could be no other interest. Out of the agricultural interest all the ramifications of trade and commerce originally sprang; for by reverting back to a state of nature it would be clear at once that agriculture must be the preceding cause and source of all other kinds of wealth and employment. It was putting the cart before the horse to say the reverse, to say that agriculture sprang out of manufactures, and must be secondary and subservient to them; whereas, the truth was, that manufactures and commerce were superinduced by agriculture, and were very greatly improved and promoted by it. He knew not what notions might be entertained by certain political economists of the present day upon the value of our agriculture in a national point of view, but of this he was sure, that the landed interest was the only stable, the only substantial interest of the country. It resembled the tortoise in the fable, that supported the elephant which sustained the world; it was at the bottom, and was the foundation and support of all, and to its influence and existence might be attributed the prosperity that had attended the country for so many years. The arts, the sciences, our manufactures, and everything that adorned and cheered human society, might be said to have originated in that source, and if you cut up that interest, all other interests must fall with it. The home trade of the land arising out of the transit and purchase of agricultural produce, that eternal interchange between town and country, was the channel and food, as it were, of our manufacturing interest amongst our own population; and so it was with regard to foreign trade, for though we had been deprived of many markets abroad of which we had been long possessed, it could not be said that the corn trade had deprived us of them. It was pretty clear that such an assertion was not true, from the fact that higher duties were fixed for the prohibition of trade in several instances than for the protection of corn; and after all, he must say, that he thought the duty on corn was little or no protection. The real subject in debate, however, was not the Corn-laws, but the existence of the Ministry. That was the question; the Government were put to their last shift, and the Corn-laws were seized hold of to create a mistaken feeling in their favour; but the agitation and the object of it would alike prove to be nothing better than an empty bubble. Attempts were made to excite the public mind by calling the duty on corn a bread-tax, and the agricultural interest a monopoly. In the first place, the duty could not be a bread-tax, because it was not a tax paid by the consumer; the foreign merchant, by bringing corn to this country, did not raise the price of corn, but he paid the amount of duty necessary to bring it up to the market price here, because it would not be admitted under that sum. Therefore it was not a tax paid by the consumer but by the importer. [Hear], He should be very happy to hear those hon. Gentlemen who cheered him, show by sound arguments, that the protection given to agriculture was the cause of all the distresses experienced by the manufacturing classes. He should be glad to hear them show how it was dependant upon the importation, or non- importation of foreign corn. He must say, that he thought it impossible that the abolition of the Corn-laws should remedy the distresses of the manufacturing and commercial community. If a free trade of any kind must be established, it should not be done without first having a review of the whole commercial state of the country. He was one of those persons who were convinced that much advantage would result from free trade. But then he would have free-trade established under those wise provisions which had been suggested to the House by the right hon. Baronet, who declared himself no enemy to free trade. The truth was, that we had been going on with prohibitions and restrictions upon trade, and, most absurdly for a manufacturing country, with heavy duties upon raw materials. Whatever his own views upon this point were, representing a large agricultural district, he should feel it his duty on a subject which his constituents felt to be of vital importance to them, not to vote against their wishes. He remembered that when he was Member for Westminster, he could not convince the shopkeepers that they did not pay the shop-tax, but their customers; and he was not surprised to find that it was equally difficult to make some people see the real operation of the Corn-laws. He protested against this subject being made the ground of political warfare; if hon. Gentleman sincerely desired to promote the welfare of the country, let them approach this question in a calm and dispassionate manner. Let not those on one side say, "O you are a monopolist, because you think the Corn-laws ought to be continued;" nor let those on the other retort, "You are a very fine liberal fellow because you think otherwise." Instead of all that heat and animosity which was shown, and which it was attempted to spread far and wide, but unsuccessfully, as he believed, this was a question which should be treated with the greatest coolness and deliberation, and was one upon which, of all others, any Ministers, be they whom they might, ought not to endeavour to excite the popular feeling in the least degree. Therefore he sincerely thought that in doing so the present Ministers had incurred a very great responsibility, and that under all the circumstances it was not at all impossible that some day or other they would have cause to repent it.

Mr. Labouchere

observed, that when the hon. Baronet rose, he was anxious to hear his sentiments upon matters of trade, knowing that he had not spoken upon such subjects in that House for many years, and recollecting what the hon. Baronet's opinions were when he represented Westminster. At that time he declared himself the uncompromising opponent of those who supported the Corn-laws; for he was then a disciple of the free trade school, and prepared to go any lengths for the promotion of free trade principles. The hon. Baronet, however, had gratified his curiosity but very little; after listening to the hon. Baronet with that attention which he always deserved and obtained, he was at a loss to understand what were the hon. Baronet's present opinions. The hon. Baronet had said, that these were not matters of mere abstract opinion; that he represented Wiltshire, and that therefore he must qualify his views by the feelings of his constituents; he gave one-half of his speech to his former constituents, and the other half to his present, and, though he did not divide his speech into two equal parts, he gave sentence by sentence, one for, and the other against protection. But, whatever the hon. Baronet's opinions might be upon the Corn-laws, it was a new thing to hear it said that they were a subject of little importance. "Why raise a flame about the Corn-laws?" exclaimed the hon. Baronet, "it cannot affect you much—it cannot affect the manufacturing interest much—and, in fact, it does not even affect the agricultural interest." That was an extraordinary doctrine; he had always thought the Corn-law question was generally acknowledged to be a most important question to this country. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that it would be a partial proceeding to deal with one branch of trade, and not to apply the principle to all the branches of our commerce which required correction; and that was the very course which was contemplated by her Majesty's Government, for they had brought forward a series of improvements in the corn, the timber, and the sugar trades, and the alterations which they proposed were not rashly, or recklessly, or unpremeditatedly, resolved upon, as had been imputed to them, but upon mature deliberation, and whether right or wrong the measures they had advanced had originated in an earnest desire to do justice to the community, and to promote the welfare of the coun try. He therefore boldly repelled the accusation that those measures were brought forward for party purposes, and without any real wish to have them carried. For six weeks or two months previously to bringing forward the budget, his room at the Board of Trade had been crowded with deputations from all parts of the great manufacturing districts, representing the necessity of some such changes as had been proposed by her Majesty's Government, and he was quite satisfied that if those alterations had been received by the House as they deserved, this Session would not have closed without measures being carried of more importance for the benefit of the public generally, than it would be possible to carry in ten Sessions spent in mere party struggles, when measures of general political advantage and amelioration might be passed without adding much to the comfort and well-being of the population. With regard to the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he (Mr. Labouchere) fully agreed with the terms of that motion; the facts stated therein formed the justification of the late measures of the Government; and he also agreed with the hon. Member, that in part at least, the prevalent distress might be removed by wise legislative measures; but he must say, that he doubted the wisdom of affirming a proposition of this kind, especially at this period of the Session; and he would put it to the hon. Member whether he thought that full justice could be done to a subject of this kind when so many Members were absent, and so little time remained to investigate it. He had also another objection to the motion; he had a general objection to affirming a general resolution of this kind in the House of Commons, unaccompanied with any steps of a practical kind. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not press this motion to a division. For his own part, notwithstanding the result of bringing forward the measures which had been proposed by the Government, he did not regret that they had been brought forward. He was convinced, that it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to lay these measures before the House, whatever might be the result and effect with respect to them as a Government, and as a party. As President of the Board of Trade, he could not have sat upon the Treasury bench or risen up in the House, he should have felt it too humiliating, if these measures had not been proposed, knowing as he did, from the representations that had been made to him in his official situation, that according to the representations of practical men, the Government had it in their power to relieve the prevalent distress by means of legislation. He therefore thought it was the indispensable duty of the Government to bring forward these measures, whatever might be the result to the party. Nevertheless he was not insensible to party ties; he had always been a warm supporter of that great liberal party whom he had seen during the last ten years bringing forward measures of incalculable benefit to the country. He did not know what might be the immediate result; but he was certain, that having brought forward the measures to which he referred, her Majesty's Government had greatly assisted their final triumph. He said this with the utmost confidence, because he had never known a just and righteous cause, which, when once it was fairly brought before the people of England, the people of England did not finally carry out; and whether those measures were to be carried by the party to which he belonged, or the other, was to him of comparatively little interest.

Mr. Baines

could not agree in the opinion of the hon. Baronet, that the discussion of the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, would lead to no practical result. He, on the contrary, thought that a subject which involved an inquiry into the true state and condition of the great body of the people in the manufacturing and commercial districts of the country, on the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, when the constituents and representatives were to be brought together, and when inquiries could be made by the latter into the circumstances of the former, and particularly into the alleged distresses that prevailed amongst them, and as to the cause of and remedy for that distress, was of the highest importance, and would be productive of consequences more beneficial than those which belonged to most of the discussions that took place in that House. For his own part, he was accustomed to judge of public questions more from their real importance, than from the sensation they made in Parliament and by the votes which they elicited. The discussion of the ques- tion of the extreme suffering of the industrious classes, for want of employment, low wages, and the high price of provisions, and the consideration how they were to be alleviated, was the more important, because the wishes of the people for the consideration of these subjects, particularly the price of bread and the deprivation of labour, arising out of the existing Corn-laws, had been defeated by a side wind; and it was fitting that a question of such vital importance to the nation at large should be considered in Parliament, though ever so late in the Session, and under circumstances however disadvantageous. And whoever might be Minister when the new Parliament assembled, it was proper that one of the first subjects to be brought under the consideration of the House, should be to devise means for the alleviation of the great distress and severe embarrassment which are endured by the mercantile and manufacturing classes, and by their workpeople. Upon this subject, he was prepared to speak from his own personal knowledge, as well as from the information of others, and he did not know how he could more forcibly describe the distress of the unemployed poor in that part of the country with which he had the honour to be connected, and he believed, he might say, in the manufacturing districts generally, than by a simple statement of facts, which spoke a language too plain to be misunderstood. Several months ago a number of the unemployed workmen in Leeds formed themselves into a committee, the object of which was to ascertain the condition of their fellow-workmen in the town by an actual survey, without any party object, but with the hope of exciting sympathy in the middle and higher classes of the inhabitants, and of obtaining relief for the distressed. The result of this survey and inquiry was communicated in a report to a meeting of the inhabitants called by the chief magistrate of the borough, at which almost all the ministers of religion in the town attended, and over whose deliberations the mayor presided. The following was the substance of the report:— The committee have entered the names of upwards of 2,000 persons, principally heads of families, varying from two to eleven in each family, and, taking five as the average, they find that there are no less than 10,000 persons (in this town) out of employment, or depend-1 ant on those who are in that situation. On the presentation of this report to the meeting, and after the cause of the distressed had been strongly advocated, the chairman of the committee of the unemployed addressed the meeting, and gave an account of the heart-rending scenes that he had witnessed, in visiting the dwellings of the poor:— In many cases which I visited," said he, "I have heard men declare, that unless by some means their children could be supplied with bread, they should be under the necessity of taking it from the common stock. In that opinion," said the speaker, "I myself cordially agree; for I declare before God and man I would take it where I could find it. These sentiments were received with applause by some of the workmen in the meeting, mixed with expressions of disapprobation from the bench. This language." he continued," may sound unpleasantly in polite ears, but let those persons come to have the naked backs and the hungry bellies that this useful class of society suffered from, and I am satisfied that they would not be contented, but that they would be amongst the first, when want pinches their stomachs, to take food where they could find it. Another speaker, of the name of George White, a Chartist leader, said. He would never tell a he about his feelings. He would assure the meeting that the sentiments uttered by Bottomley (the chairman of the Operative committee), were held by nine out of every ten of the unemployed workmen." He added, "It is a crime for a man to allow himself to starve in the midst of plenty. To relieve the distressed as far as relief could be afforded, the sum of 5,700l. was subscribed, and distributed principally in food. The visiting committee, in their report, dated in June last, say. That they had made inquiry into the circumstances of every applicant for relief, and that they found thousands of persons who were able and willing to work, but who could not find employment. Now, though it was undoubtedly a great exaggeration to say, that nine-tenths of the unemployed workmen were freebooters, yet their present condition had the effect of undermining the moral principles, and disaffecting them to the Government and institutions of the country; it was therefore desirable, as well for the safety of our public institutions as for the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes, that an end should be put to this slate of suffering.

Sir Stratford Canning

said, that a question of this nature was too important to be discussed in so thin a House, and moved that the House be counted. There being only twenty. four Members present, House adjourned.