Commons Sitting of 22 July 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Lunacy:
2o. Joint Stock Banking Companies.
Committed.—Bonded Corn (No. 2); Grand Jury Presentiments (Ireland).
Reported.—Assessed Taxes (No. 2); Manchester, Bir-
492
mingham and Bolton police; Stamp Duties; Game certificates (Ireland).
3o. and passed:—Poor Law Amendment; Licensed Lunatic Asylums Customs Ads amendment; Exchequer Bills Preparation; Fisheries (Ireland).
Private.—Reported.—Pilkington's (Swinnerton's) Estate; Mostyn's Estate; Marquess of Tweedale's Estate; Duke of Bridgewater's Estate; Calland's Estate; Lord Southampton's Estate; Lord Lorton's (Countess of Rose's) Estate; Verconsin's Naturalization; Bishop of Derry's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Lockhart, from Burghs and Parochial Schoolmasters of Hamilton, for ameliorating their condition.—By Dr. Bowring, from Bolton-le-Moors; and by Mr. Parker, from the Secretary of the Provincial, Medical, and Surgical Association at Worcester, for Medical Reform.—By the Solicitor-General, from Islington, and the Eastern district of St. John, Clerkenwell, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo and the other Metropolitan Bridges.—By Mr. Archdall, from the Grand Jury of Fermanagh, for the revision of the Law of Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland).—By Mr. Barclay, from Sunderland Union, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. J. O'Brien, from Limerick and the Foreman of the Grand Jury of Sligo, against placing Medical Charities under the control of the Poor-law sub-commissioners Mr. O'Connell, from Leeds, for the Repeal of the Union with Ireland, and from Kilkenny, for Regulating the hours of Labour for Bakers in Ireland).—By Mr. Gregory, from the Churchwardens of St. Mary's, Dublin, for the Alteration of the mode of Assessing the Wide Street Tax.—From Thetford, for Inquiry into the course of Instruction pursued at Maynooth.—By Mr. S. Crawford, from Nottingham, for the Issue of the Writ for that Town.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from a Public Meeting at Sheffield, for a free Pardon for all Political Offenders.—From James Nelson, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—From Samuel Gordon, for an Inquiry into the Court of Chancery (Ireland).—From Samuel Clark, against the Tobacco Regulations Bill.—From Samuel Dickson, for revision of the Report of the Expenditure on the Shannon Navigation.

NEWCASTLE - UNDER - LYME.
Lord Ashley,as chairman of the committee appointed to try the merits of the petition in this case, appeared at the bar with their report, stating that they found John Quincy Harris, esq., was not duly elected to serve in Parliament for that borough, and that John Colquboun, esq., was duly elected, and ought to have been returned.
Report to be entered on the journals.

LUNACY BILL.
Sir J. Grahammoved that the Lunacy Bill brought down from the House of Lords, be read a first time.
Mr. C. Buller: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is one of the bills which the Lord Chancellor has brought in for the reform of the law in the House of Lords; and whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed in this House with those bills introduced at a very early period of this Session into the House of Lords, which were laid on their Table without having anything done in them until now, that House having little or nothing else to

493
do. I do not make any objection to this bill, for I am not acquainted with its provisions, but I see amongst the Lord Chancellor's bills a County Courts Bill, and a bill with respect to bankruptcy. Both of them are of great importance, and effect great changes in the law. One of them, certainly, creates a change of great benefit. I only regret it has been so long postponed. But after giving up so many measures, and at this period of the 8ession, when suppose, three-fourths of the Members have left town, and when almost almost all the Members of the legal profession, particularly of the common law branch of it, are engaged on circuit, I wish to know whether the Government really intend to pass these bills.
Sir J. Graham: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in supposing that this measure is more or less connected with the important bills to which he has referred. The hon. and learned Gentle- man must be aware that the subject of the County Courts Bill has been discussed at various periods, both in this and in the other House of Parliament. A committee to inquire into it sat last Session, and I think in a former Session; and a measure was subsequently introduced, discussed at great length, and matured with great care. The measure in its present shape is the result of the inquiry of the committee last year. It is the intention of the Government to submit these measures, as now brought forward, to this House. I have great confidence they will meet with general acceptance; but if any serious opposition should arise (which I do not anticipate), I shall not press them. At present I believe the general opinion of the House to be that they are decided and clear improvements of the law, and that being my conviction, I think it very desirable they should be passed.
Bill read a first time.

IMPORTATION OF CORN.
Mr. Haweswished to know from the right hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whether he intended in the course of the present Session to introduce any bill amending the act passed with reference to the importation of corn. He did not of course mean any bill touching the general question, but as there was great ambiguity in many of its details, and as panties were put to expense in litigating questions arising out of them, he wished to
494
know whether an act to correct those errors would be brought forward in the present Parliament.
Mr. Gladstonewas not about to defend the wording of the present act, or that part of it which led to litigation. But there was no intention, in consequence of what had occurred, to amend the act in the course of the present Session.
Mr. Hawes: Then is the clause relating to importation from Malta to remain as it is?
Mr. Gladstone: Yes.

POOR-LAW.
Mr. Fieldedsaid, that seeing the notice of the third reading of this bill on the paper, he put it to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, whether he could with propriety proceed with it. He need not say that he took a deep interest in this bill, but lie could not say what it at present contained. It was cut down to four or five clauses, and the right hon. Baronet had introduced some amendments into it; but no Member knew what the exact words of each clause were. As he thought it would be very unfair it to press it under such circumstances, should feel it his duty to move that the bill be printed.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, if he had made any important alteration in this bill he should feel the fore of the hon. Gentleman's observations, to every one of those clauses had been before the House and the public for three or four monies. He had stated when the bill was in committee, that after the first four clauses were agreed to, he should not press the others. He stated the nature of those clauses which lie meant to propose; the chairman of the committee had omitted the others, and the clauses which he desired to pass were left, word for word, as they originally stood. He could not think that any hon. Gentleman was taken by surprise at this stage of the bill. There never was a measure more deliberately and fully discussed. If the hon. Gentleman impeded the further progress of the measure, he should take the sense of the House on the proceeding.

Custom AcT—PROVISIONS IN BOND.
On the question that the Customs Act Amendment Bill be read a third time,
Mr. C. Bullersaid, he had heard with; some astonishment, of an extraordinary change of purpose on the part of the Government. He was told in the City,

495
a few days ago, that an order came down from the Treasury, stating that provisions were to be taken out of bond for the purpose of victualling ships free of duty, and two days after another order was issued that provisions were to pay duty up to the 10th of October. The large ship owner who had given him this information stated that he actually took out a considerable quantity free of duty, and in the space of time he had mentioned was prohibited from having the remainder with a like freedom from duty. He did not know how the law was to operate in regulating those duties, but it was certainly necessary for the Government to explain this apparent vacillation of conduct.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that it was a mistake to suppose that any such order as the hon. Member had alluded to had been issued. Notice had been given to the parties engaged in the provision trade, that the duties on foreign provisions would be continued for a year longer by the Customs' Acts Amendment Bill, which stood for a third reading that day. The object of that regulation was to allow our own provision dealers to get rid of the stock which they had on hand. It was owing solely to an oversight the provision was not made for the circumstance in the tariff.
Bill read a third time and passed.

EDUCATION.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, he would take this opportunity of asking a question relative to the intentions of Government on the subject of education. Some time ago the President of the Council presented a petition in the other House of Parliament from the classes at Exeter-hall, and the noble Lord accompanied the presentation of the petition, with a speech, which, for the liberality of sentiment, and enlightened views embodied in it, reflected great honour upon himself, and the Government of which he was a Member. In the course of his speech the noble Lord stated, that the House of Commons would not do its duty if it did not increase the annual grant for the purposes of education. Of course, the general impression created by the noble Lord's speech was, that it was the intention of the Government, of which the noble Lord was a prominent Member, to increase the grant for education by proposing an additional estimate for that purpose. As the committee of supply was DOW drawing to a close, he hoped the
496
right hon. Baronet would permit him to ask, whether it were the intention of the Government to propose any additional grant for the purpose in question? He, at the same time, begged to assure the right hon. Baronet, speaking for himself, that it would give him the greatest possible satisfaction to support any such proposal, if it should be made by the Government.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he was to have met his noble Friend, the President of the Council, that day, to communicate with him on the subject, but had unavoidably been prevented. He feared he could not give any assurance that an additional grant would be proposed this Session

AMENDMENT OF THE POOR-LAW.
Sir J. Grahammoved the Poor-law Amendment Bill be read a third time.
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid, this bill was utterly barren of any provisions for the relief of the poor from the oppressive working of the present law; its only effect would be to continue the commission for five years longer. The question then was, would the House consent to a bill with such an object, in the face of all the objections brought against the arbitrary character and proceedings of the commissioners? He would remind the House that to those objections no satisfactory answer had been given. The commissioners, it was proved, had been guilty of the unnecessary and unreasonable forcing of the in-door test in cases where it was clearly absurd to attempt this—where there was sufficient accommodation for the poor, and they could not be relieved in the House. The next charge against them was for obstinately directing the use of unwholesome or inadequate diet for the paupers, and commanding it to be continued, although they knew that it produced disease. The facts brought forward to support these charges had never been disproved, and the charges accordingly remained in full force. The next charge against the commissioners was, that they permitted extraordinary and excessive punishments;—that was not denied. Another charge was, that the rules of the commissioners affecting aged persons were inhuman and cruel; the aged and infirm were put under the same roof with the able-bodied, and kept in such a condition that life could not be sustained. He challenged any hon. Mem-

497
ber who supported the bill to show that these charges were false; the only answer to them was, that such things had been done in other places and at a former time, but that was no justification of the present conduct of the commissioners. Another strong objection to the bill was, that it gave no power of appeal to the poor man against the acts of the guardians or cone missioners. Again, the distance of the poor from the workhouses was generally so great, that it was impossible for them to make their wants known. The House was now asked to renew the commission for five years, under a promise from the Government that they would introduce a remedial bill next Session. That was a pledge on which no reliance could be placed, as its fulfilment entirely depended on circumstances. After the conduct of Ministers, in dividing the bill, and taking only the clauses affecting the commission, in the face of their declaration that it must be passed entire, how could the House rely on the pledge now given, to bring in a new bill in the next Session, when the intentions of Government might be defeated? He had little hope from a change of Ministers, for those who should succeed the present Government were even more hostile to the interests of the poor, and he should be even more distrustful of them than of the existing Administration. He might be told that if the House refused to pass this bill everything would be left in confusion. He was not of opinion that the affairs of the poor would be worse ad ministered if the commissioners were to die a legal death. But there was another remedy. If the House refused to pass this bill a new bill might be brought to continue the commission for another year. The present measure was framed on the principles of Malthus, and was designed for the purpose of lessening the population of this country by reducing the poor to such a condition of hardship that they could not live. The poor considered that this bill originated in a desire to oppress them, that it proceeded from a conspiracy of the rich against the poor; and was it safe in the House to give them ground for such an opinion. The double effect of the New Poor-law had been to raise rents and reduce wages. This had been proved by the most incontestible evidence, adduced in that House by the hon. Member for Oldham, and also by several most respectable witnesses before the Wages Committee. He had
498
another grave objection to this bill, founded on its unconstitutional character. The 1st, 15th, 21st, 25th, 26th, and 32nd clauses gave the most arbitrary and unconstitutional powers to the Poor-law commissioners. They were invested with power to tax the people and to make laws; indeed, every power which the Legislature itself possessed had been transferred to these commissioners. He could not conceive on what grounds those who professed to be the friends of the people and the advocates of public liberty could give their assent to such a bill as this. It not only destroyed all the local boards of guardians, but it struck at the very root of all representation. If this bill passed, representation would be a humbug. They heard much in recent debates of the distress prevailing in the country, and it was fit that the House should properly investigate that subject. The greatest relief, however, which could be administered, at least to those who most required it, would, he was convinced, be afforded through a humane and charitable Poor-law; but he was sorry to find that those who talked most loudly of the prevailing distress were sup porters of the present bill. The most effectual mode of alleviating distress would be to give the poor an effective claim against the rich for maintenance and support, and then the rich would be glad to repeal the Corn-laws, in order that the labouring classes might have a chance of supporting themselves. He deeply lamented, notwithstanding the detailed account he gave the other night of the distress and starvation which prevailed in Ireland, Ministers had not allowed a word of consolation or comfort to escape their lips. He implored them to break their silence, and tell the country what they meant to do to relieve the agonizing distress which in some parts existed in Ireland. lie did not speak on this subject with anything like party feeling; he did not expect that a large number would support the motion he was about to make; but he was not ashamed to appear in a small minority on this question. At all events, he would rather glory in being in law a small minority supporting the rights of the poor, than in the largest majority against them. He begged to move, that the bill be read a third time that day three, months.
Mr. Fieldenseconded the motion. His hon. Friend, in taking the course he had

499
adopted from the first with reference to this bill, bad ably discharged his duty to his constituents and to the country at large. If this bill were passed, he would not be answerable for the consequences which might follow. Its tendency undoubtedly was to render the labouring classes desperate and drive them to acts of madness. If he were a labouring man, and required relief, he would not go into one of these workhouses, which he contended had been most properly designated dens of murder. If they continued in this way to grind the faces of the poor, acts of insubordination would follow, and, although they might repress them for a while, they would find the spirit of resistance too strong for them ere long. If they attempted to carry out this bill for another five years, they would find their own reign would be short indeed. He felt strongly on this subject; it was his duty to speak out; and he should be doing the greatest injustice to himself, and those who sent him there, if he did not do all in his power to oppose this bill. He could regard it in no other light than as an act to starve the poor, and reduce the wages of the labouring man. He had that very morning received a letter, from Bicester, Oxfordshire, which he would read to the House. The hon. Member read the letter, to the following effect:—
"I have just read, with astonishment, Sir J. Graham's statement relative to the beneficial effect of the New Poor-law in rural districts. The fact is that the Corn-law and the Poor-law together have reduced tens of thousands of field labourers in the rural districts to a state of abject slavery, starvation, and nakedness. It is really heartrending in this once flourishing, but now suffering country, to hear its rulers, who profess to be the guardians of our peace, comforts, and prosperity, talk like Sir J. Graham, in the face of so many facts, which declare that the field labourers, at this moment, are starving for want of work. Two days ago I met a person in the street, and asked him how it was that he was not working. The poor man, who is well known to me as a sober and good workman, answered, I cannot get a day's work. I have walked fifty miles, but cannot meet with any employment. I have made application to go with my family to the workhouse, but they would not receive us. They said there was plenty of work about.' This is the very best time of year for work in this neighbourhood, and yet there are many good labourers, with large families, without work; and when they apply to the workhouse for workhouse room, they are told there is plenty of work. Between the New Poor-law and the
500
Corn-law, the industrious classes are in a wretched condition. May God, in his mercy, avert the national calamity which the words and acts of some of our rulers are calculated to bring about I"
It appeared, front this letter, that this poor man had been walking fifty miles for work. They treated the poor worse than dogs—worse than the animals they kept in their stables. If the land was properly cultivated—if labour was employed to cause the land to yield its full produce, there would then be no further dispute about the Corn-law; but they first passed a Corn-law to keep up the price of bread, and then they passed a Poor-law to keep down the rates. It had been undeniably proved, before a committee on which he sat, that, when the poor man entered the workhouse, he was obliged to give up his goods. Therefore it was only the severest possible distress that could force a man to the workhouse, after he had disposed of everything belonging to him. When the Poor-law was originally introduced, there was a clause in it enacting that out-door relief should be refused to able-bodied men, after the 31st of July, 1835; but this clause was withdrawn. Now he asked, why did not the Government do what they got the commissioners to do? This was a cowardly course of proceeding. He did not expect his opposition to the bill to be successful. Nearly all the Liberal and Conservative Members would vote for the third reading. Still he would discharge his duty. The conduct of that House was oppressive to the poor. They passed laws to make food dear, and then they passed other laws to reduce the rate of wages. If they thought the labourers of the country would bear this, they were mistaken. He had been warning them for ten years of the approach of distress; and now that distress had come. He would now endeavour to impress on the minds of the Government what must be the consequence of continuing the commission for five or six years. The labouring men of England hoped, when a Conservative Government came into power, it would act on Conservative principles, and that their condition would be bettered. They had been disappoints, and a feeling of revenge was springing up in their bosoms, and would be manifested in a way which all would have to deplore. To what condition were they, reducing the poor? They were driving them to steal, or, per-

501
haps to become murderers. He entreated the House not to read the bill a third time. Had it been proposed to continue the commission for one year, so as to afford time to consider the condition of the poor, he would not have been disposed to interfere. He advised the House to beware in time. They could not carry into operation the Poor-law and the Corn-law at the same time. They sat there daily till three o'clock in the morning, like owls and bats; the House of Commons was like the tower of Babel: it had become a house of confusion, and nothing was done in it for the benefit of the poorer classes. He heartily seconded the amendment.
Mr. Muntzagreed with his hon. Friend that this was a measure of the utmost importance. It was of such importance that it had overthrown a strong and popular Government, and most probably would overthrow the present Government The delegation of the power to grant parochial relief' was a question of great delicacy. It required the persons intrusted with that power to have an intimate knowledge of the labourers and the working men in the manufacturing districts which the commissioners could know nothing about; it was worse than absurd to expect they should; but it was one of the consequences of an unsound principle of legislation. It went hand in hand with the Factory Bill, and the Emigration Bill, and other similar expedients which had been found necessary to resort to so many years after the conclusion of a disastrous war. He could do little against so powerful a majority, pledged to support a measure so unconstitutional, further than to protest, as he now most solemnly did, against adding this insult to exasperate the poor, already irritated and exasperated by distress and want of food. He would protest against it upon no other ground than this, that it gave to this irresponsible commission a power to overrule and overthrow all local regulations and laws on the subject of the treatment of the poor. Who could possibly be so competent as those elected by the rate-payers in each town to apportion relief and enter into the minute circumstances of each applicant's case? Without this there was no security for its proper distribution. What seemed to him to be the most extraordinary circumstance connected with this Poor-law of the right hon. Baronet's was, that it should, strange to say, have the support of the Liberal part
502
of that House, at least to a great extent. This was a mystery he could never explain or make out. That the Gentlemen opposite should support it was what might be expected. It was in perfect accordance with their professions, with their actions on all occasions; but that those around him, or a great many of them, should support a bill which went to destroy local government in distant towns on a point of so much importance as the appropriation of relief to the poor, astonished him, as being an act totally at variance with their principles and with their professions on other occasions. Local boards of relief were clearly best for the larger towns: to vest the power of granting relief in the commissioners residing at a great distance was a farce. The local authorities spurned that authority, they did not want these worse than useless commissioners. Their power was totally at variance with the principles of representative government to which the people of England were so strongly attached, In conclusion lie should remark that he and those guardians with whom he had communicated upon the subject of the poor of this country, and their treatment in their several parishes, had one and all expressed the wish that they might be left to themselves in these matters, and permitted to avail themselves of their local knowledge of the circumstances of those who applied for parochial assistance in the administration and management of their own local funds.
Mr. Rashleighsubscribed to the principle of the Poor-law Act, but could not help thinking that the cord had been drawn too tight. The operation of the law pressed extremely heavily, and even cruelly, on able-bodied labourers with large families. He thought the guardians might safely be intrusted with a discretionary power to relieve, and that the able-bodied labourers should not be obliged to give up their little all, and go with their families into the workhouse.
Mr. B. Escottsaid, he had been subject to such very great misrepresentation as to what fell from him in a former debate, there were some points on which he had been so entirely misapprehended, that he wished to say a few words on this occasion. He had been represented to have stated that wages in the county of Somerset were 6s. a week: he never said any such thing. What he said was, that he knew parishes in that county in which wages were se low

503
as 6s. a-week. He was also represented to have said that the rates throughout the whole of that county had been raised by the operation of the New Poor-law. He never made any such statement; if he had it would have been contrary to the fact. What he said was, that he knew many parishes where, under the unequal operation of the Poor-law, the rates had been raised. And now one word in parting on this bill. He, for one, should offer to the third reading no opposition whatever. He could not help congratulating himself, and he hoped he might congratulate the country, that there had been a great point achieved upon the debate he raised on his motion for out-door relief. The advantage which he felt had been obtained was, in his opinion, almost tantamount to having carried the motion he then offered to the House. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary then distinctly stated, and he had no reason to doubt the correctness of his statement, that the explanatory letter of the Poor-law commissioners of the exception which followed the prohibitory order against out-door relief still left a discretionary power in the boards of guardians to grant that relief in cases of urgent necessity. With that statement he for one was satisfied. The prohibitory order stated that out-door relief should not he granted to the able-bodied labourer—the exception stated that it might be granted in cases of urgent necessity. All he contended for was, that the boards of guardians might have the discretionary power to say what were cases of urgent necessity. Then came this explanatory letter which said that, in the opinion of the writer of that letter, cases of urgent necessity were confined to cases of fire or water; but when be was told that that was only a critical or philological explanation of the words of that order, and was not binding on the guardians, rejoiced that that point had been cleared up, and that the boards of guardians were at liberty to exercise their discretion upon what was or was not a case of urgent necessity. He would offer no further opposition to this measure. He still entertained the opinions which he cordially expressed upon a former stage of it but he hoped it would work better than he expected, and his desire was, that hon. Members might return home, not to use such language as the hon. Member for Oldham had used that evening, but that those who thought it a bad measure
504
might make the best of it, and that those who thought it a good one might endeavour by their administration of it to prove that it was so: and that, above all, they might instil habits of industry into the people, which would prove to them the greatest blessing, and that by the example of hon. Members themselves throughout the country, and the humblest of them had some influence in that way, the people might be enable; to obtain the fruits of their own industry, and raise the rewards of their labour, which at present were much too low.
Mr. Aglionbywould vote against the third reading of the bill, but he was desirous of guarding himself against its being supposed that in doing so, he adopted either the arguments or the conclusions of the hon. Member for Rochdale, or of the hon. Member for Oldham. The ground on which he should vote against the bill was this: that having opposed the clause which went to continue the commission for five years, he could not consistently give his support to a bill in which that clause was retained. He would not consent to give to the commission for six years longer, which, in fact, it would be, a power in regard to the Poor-law, and a control over the poor of this country, the extent of which, until the other details of the law, which were postponed for future legislation, were settled, lie was necessarily ignorant of.
Captain Pechellalso expressed his intention of supporting the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, in opposition to this bill. He was, however, gratified in so far as he should be enabled to inform his constituents, that the Gilbert unions were safe for a short period, at least until October next, for an hon. Friend of his had a motion to bring forward, which, if carried, would compel the Government to call Parliament together again in that month.
Mr. R. Yorkewished to know from the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it was to be understood that he had, in regard to the explanatory letter of the commissioners which had been alluded to, expressed an opinion, that notwithstanding that letter, the guardians had still a discretionary power in granting relief to able-bodied labourers?
Sir J. Graham: I am bound to say, that if I had consulted my own personal con-

505
venience—if I could have been swayed by I any sinister motives, considering the short time the Administration of which I am a Member has been in power, nothing could have been more agreeable or easy to me than to have yielded to the, I will not say menaces, but very forcible appeal made to me by the hon. Member for Oldham, not to proceed with this bill; but, having been no inattentive observer of the laws with regard to the relief of the poor, having taken for many years a part in the local administration of this measure, having been a party to the introduction of it in 1834, having watched and marked its operation with great anxiety, I should be guilty of the most serious dereliction of duty which could disgrace any public men, were I for one moment to be led away by the threats or arguments of hon. Member opposed to it, and not ask the House to agree to the third reading of the bill. I have nut the slightest hesitation in declaring that the whole scheme of the Government of unions would be impossible if they were not controlled by some central power. If we put an end to the central authority we must resort to local. Government, and then comes the question whether we would have such a system, with local passions and prejudices of that narrow circle without appeal—or if the power of appeal be given, where should it lie—except in the local magistrates? I have heard none advocate a system of local Government without appeal. I am quite satisfied that the cruelty and oppression of such a system would be felt upon the smallest occasion; it would lead to a system of oppression than which nothing more monstrous could be conceived. I therefore dismiss a system of parochial Government without appeal, and if we 'adopts it with appeal we should have nothing less than the system which existed from 1796 to 1834; and how objectionable that system was, is admitted on all hands. It remains for me shortly to discuss the inconsistencies in the doctrines propounded on the other side, though, certainly, by a comparatively small number of hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Rochdale complains that under the system as now organized, from the board of guardians there is no appeal; he is very much afraid of a system of local Government without appeal, and he taunted me with something of inconsistency when I said there was an appeal in the first instance to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, and ultimately to the Poor-law Commissioners themselves; and the hon. Member referred
506
to the clauses at the end of the bill, in which he said there was no power on their part to order an appeal. I admit it; but practically I know that where relief is refused by the boards of guardians the poor man may appeal to the Poor-law Commissioners, and where that refusal has occurred on anything like a general system of the board of guardians, the remonstrances of the commissioners has been made against such refusal; and though no direct power is given to order relief to individuals, both the commissioners and assistant-commissioners have felt bound to redress individual grievances and hardships. The hon. Member for Winchester has most rightly interpreted that which fell from me on a former evening. Reference has been made to the explanatory letter that has been written; and I must say that I thought that from the very commencement of the operation of the law the secretaries have not only written too much, but in many cases too harshly. I should say chat, at this moment public opinion is against the measure, not so much for what is done as for what has been written—written, however, with the best intention: the system is large; there are variations from time to time under different orders addressed to the boards of guardians, which are hard to be understood, skid from a desire to make them plain, words upon I words, and precept upon precept, have been issued, and hence a great variety of explanatory letters. But I beg, it may be I distinctly understood, that though these explanatory letters are said to be illustrative of the law, they are in no degree mandatory, and are in no case to be considered as general orders which have received the sanction of the Secretary of State. I am very unwilling to refer to the exact state of the country at the time of passing the Poor-law, in 1831; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham has read a communication from Oxford, describing the present state of distress in that union. I could cite a letter from an authority, who would be considered the very highest by the Opposition benches, in immediate connection with the county of Bedford, giving me a description of the state of that county in 1831, and instituting a comparison with the present condition of the labouring classes. My noble correspondent tells me, that in 1831 a great number of efficient workmen were either in the workhouses or receiving relief; that the worst possible feeling existed between them and the gentry of the country, whom they

507
regarded as oppressors, and that that feeling evinced itself by various outbreaks; and my noble correspondent assures me that now there is a much better feeling between the gentry and the farmers and the workmen they employ; that, speaking generally, there is a full demand for the labour of efficient workmen; that peace, order, and regularity prevail throughout the county; and that the contrast with its former condition is most happy, and he, as a ratepayer of that county, where the working of the old system of poor-law was most disgraceful, attributes the change to the operation of this very law. The hon. Member for Oldham has made strong declarations against this measure. The hon. Member called it the most unfair, unjust, and oppressive measure that could be devised, and exhorted me not to proceed with it; he warned me of its effects, and told me that the day would come when I would repent of having passed it. I have listened in vain to hear what the lion. Member would recommend instead of this law. Would he recommend that the able bodied labourer should be dependent on the poor-rates? [Mr. Fielden: No.] The hon. Member objects to this law; but he never said he would revert to what was the law in 1831. After all that has occurred in this debate, it would be most satisfactory if the gentlemen who oppose this law would state, distinctly and explicitly, what law they would desire for the relief of able bodied labourers in this country. I have never yet heard hon. Gentlemen enter into the explanation. I give the hon. Member for Oldham the utmost credit for the warmth of his feelings towards the working classes, and I should be doing him an injustice if I were not to say that I know that the hon. Member in his own neighbourhood, and with regard to his own immediate dependants, is most kind, and illustrates the warmed of the feelings he expresses in this House, and I listen to him with attention and respect, because I know the sincere attachment of the hon. Member to the working classes. But I should have been extremely glad—the hon. Member having (even so much attention to this subject, and acting with such kind feelings towards the working classes—if he had proceeded to state what course, if this law were repealed, after the results of his long experience and attention to this subject in his magisterial capacity, he would recommend. I have bestowed the most anxious consideration upon the question, I have listened to many
508
debates upon it, I have taken part in various inquiries, I have read the reports of the commission, and have devoted much attention to the subject, but the result of my experience and attention does not enable me to offer to the Legislature anything, upon the whole, preferable to this measure. Able-bodied paupers are not, under all circumstances, denied relief out of the workhouse. The test of the workhouse is universally applicable as the surest mode of ascertaining real destitution. But it would be cruel in the extreme, it would be unjust, it would be oppressive. if the test were made the universal rule. It is not so—it is not intended to be so; practically, I repeat, it is not so. There is an enormous amount of population relieved out of doors, bearing an immense proportion to those relieved within the walls of the workhouse. In round numbers where there are 200,000 relieved in-doors, there are about 1,000,000 relieved out of doors. Out of 165,000 widows and deserted females who obtain relief, only 13,000 obtain it in the workhouses, the remainder in their own homes. As to the proportion of able-bodied men, the question is of course very important, and I will give the best accounts I can, including (as I must do) the vagrants. [Ink answer to Captain Pechell, the right hon. Baronet here parenthetically stated that the returns included, not the local act parishes, nor those of course tinder the Gilbert unions.]. In 1640 there were 297,695 able-bodied adults relieved. Now, out of that number, how many were relieved in the workhouse? The House will, perhaps, suppose, from what has been so often said, that nearly all were so relieved. Not so. Perhaps, then, one half? Not so. Or a quarter? Not even so. But the fact actually is, that out of (in round numbers) 300,000 able-bodied adults, 245,000 were relieved out of doors, and under 50,000 were relieved in the workhouse. Had the stringency of the measure increased in the following year? In 1841, out of 345,656 able-bodied adults relieved, 280,189 were relieved out-of-doors. Now, the success of the measure, as far as my judgment goes, depends upon the judicious application of the workhouse test, but it is not binding as a positive rule upon the discretion of the guardians. I go further, and say that, in my opinion, the main value of the commission, in constant communication with the Government, is this, that instead of being, as it is called, an unbending cast-iron system, it is a plastic

509
system, readily adapting itself to all the various circumstances of each community. I can conceive one state of circumstances in which it would be right, and prudent, and politic, that the workhouse test should be strictly applied; and I can conceive another state of circumstances taking the case properly out of the prohibitory order, and rendering the out-door labour test expedient. Again, I can conceiv—nay, I know of extensive districts under great and general distress in which it would be harsh, cruel, and unjust to apply the work house test, or out-door test, to able-bodied poor unable to obtain the least employment. And it is the confidence that I am acting with a commission of wise and humane men, who know that, after all, human affairs must be conducted with reference to times and circumstances—it is this which makes me feel, that as it is not only politic but necessary that amidst the difficulties which at this period surround us, large discretionary powers should be vested somewhere, they can be vested nowhere with such advantage as in a commission so composed, acting in constant communications with the Executive, and for all its acts responsible to the Legislature. Nor is there any subject on which the conduct of the commission has been exposed to closer examination, and on which the result has been more satisfactory, than with reference to the large powers intrusted to it on this painful and delicate point for the government of the entire community. Could I believe that the extension or continuance of the measure was inconsistent with the safety, the order, or the peace of society, and the distribution of property in the country, I, of course, should confess that no more lawful considerations could ever in. duce a Government to pause in their course; but I am satisfied, on the whole, that it is a measure insuring a just and safe administration of relief to the poor; and I feel that under any system of poor relief not checked and guarded, so as to prevent the growth of the most monstrous abuses, there must arise consequences awfully dangerous to the order, the peace. and the property of this country. Therefore, I shrink from throwing the vast subject utterly loose at this period, and thus incurring the very danger which some professed to anticipate from an enforcement of the law. Deterred, then, by no improper fear—disregarding all personal obloquy that may attach to me on account of my enforcing what may be thought severe.
510
but which, I believe firmly, will, in the long run, prove humane and salutary,—I cannot hesitate as to the course which I ought to adopt; and I earnestly entreat the House to pass the bill with such a majority as will mark how united we are (without reference to party distinctions) on the propriety of continuing a measure so important to the interests of the poor and of the community at large.
Mr. O'Connell: The right hon. Baronet had said it would be extremely unjust, extremely cruel, extremely oppressive, if no relief were, under any circumstances, to be given out of the workhouse to able-bodied paupers, and those superlatives were assented to by the majority of the House. Yet there was no such outdoors relief in Ireland. It was not, however, on that ground that he was about to oppose the bill. The objection to the bill had been stated by the hon. Member for Cockermouth—it was the continuance of the commission for six years. He thought the commissioners did not deserve the eulogium that had been pronounced upon them. He believed they had enhanced their unpopularity by the manner in which they had treated boards of guardians, and by the flippancy and impertinence of their expressions; and the determination too, that they would not yield to local feelings and circumstances but maintain their own "cast iron" system had also added to that unpopularity. There was an impression in Ireland that these commissioners were actuated by some of those motives, that ought least to influence them, for that they had political partialities and religious prejudices. That impression might be unjust, but it was an unhappy circumstance that their conduct should have created it at all. The noble Lord opposite had certainly pronounced his official eulogium upon them; for it seemed to be the practice of the House, whenever any functionary was attacked, that some Gentlemen on the Treasury bench should get up and prove him to be every thing that was most extraordinary in talent, and wisdom, and virtue. His objection to the bill was, that it continued the commission. He rejoiced to see the liberality with which the measure had been worked in this country, and hoped that the system would be ameliorated in, Ireland. He pledged himself not, to allow a week to elapse in the next Session, without moving for a committee

511
to inquire into the working of the Poor-law in Ireland.
Captain Berkeleyrose to take his share of the odium which must attach itself to the supporters of this bill. He had paid much attention to the operation of the New Poor-law as compared with the old one, applied to the county in which he resided, and he could bear witness to its beneficial effects, not only in reducing rates, which he regarded as the least important consideration, but in arresting the progress of demoralisation, and in exalting the character of the poor.
General Johnsonobjected, and had always objected, to invest three men with such great unconstitutional powers. He rejoiced to hear that some relaxation had taken place in the system, although he believed nothing short of dire necessity could ever have induced the commissioners to give out-door relief. Nobody had ever found fault with the statute of Elizabeth. The complaints were against the abuses of that law, with the acts passed in the reigns of George the 3rd and George the 4th, with all their complicated machinery. He protested against this motion, calling on hon. Members to decide on the third reading of a bill with the details of which hon. Members were wholly unacquainted, for not having had the bill delivered into their hands they could not know what clauses had been struck out and what clauses had been retained, and therefore must legislate in the dark. All they knew was that the principle of centralisation was to be retained, and that was sufficient to secure his opposition. He did not feel at all sure that this measure would be brought forward next Session now that they had gained their main point, especially as they must anticipate serious opposition to many parts of their measure.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 103; Noes 30: Majority 73.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Acland, T. D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

A'Court, Capt.

Bolder, H. G.

Allix, J. P.

Broadley, H.

Antrobus, E.

Browne, hon. W.

Baillie, Col.

Bruce, Lord E.

Baird, W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Barnard, E. G.

Chute, W. L. W.

Barrington, Visct,

Clayton, R. R.

512

Clerk, Sir G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E,

Clive, E. B.

Knight, H. G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Langston, J. H.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Courtenay, Lord

Litton, E.

Cripps, W:

Lockhart, W.

Damer, hon. Col.

Lyall, G.

Darby, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duncan, G.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Morgan, O.

Ebrington, Visct.

Morison, Gen.

Eliot, Lord

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Escott, B.

Norreys, Lord

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Northland, Visct.

Ferguson, Col.

Packe, C. W.

Flower, Sir J.

Patten, J. W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Forbes, W.

Peel, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Philips, M.

Gaskell, J. Miles

Pollock, Sir F.

Gibson, T. M,

Pringle, A.

Gill, T.

Rashleigh, W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Rice, E. R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Sheppard, T.

Greene, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimston, Visit,

Stanley, Lord

Grogan, E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hale, R. B.

Tangled, H. W.

Hamilton, W. J.

Taylor, T. E.

Harcourt, G. G.

Thornely, T.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Thornhill, G.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Tollemache, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hervey, Lord A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Hope, hon. C.

Ward, H. G.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, Col. T.

Hughes, W. B.

Young, J.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Jermyn, Earl

Fremantle, Sir T.

Jones, Capt.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hodgson, R.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Johnson, Gen.

Blackstone, W, S.,

Muntz, G. F.

Bowring, Dr.

Napier, Sir C.

Broadwood, H.

O'Connell, D.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Bryan, O.

Polhill, F,

Cobden, R.

Pollington, Visct.

Colvile, C. R.

Richards, R.

Duncombe, T.

Scholefield, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Williams, W.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Yorke, H. R.

Halford, H.

Hall, Sir B

TELLERS.

Hardy, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Henley, J. W.

Fielden, J.

Bill read a third time.
Sir T. D. Aclandrose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of moving a clause to enable guardians to appoint local com-

513
mittees for receiving applications of poor persons in parishes situated at a certain distance from the place of meeting of the board of guardians. This clause he begged to propose by way of rider, and in submitting it to the consideration of the House he wished it to be understood that he did not desire to excite any discussion upon the general merits of the measure. There were only to be passed a certain number of the clauses of which the bill was originally made up. Amongst the provisions which ought to be contained in the measure, and which were not included in it as it now stood, was this one; it was a mild and beneficent provision, and one which he trusted the House would not exclude from the bill. Circumstances had rendered it impracticable to secure this clause in committee, and after the arrangement entered into by his right hon. Friend he could not propose such a clause, but it was to be hoped that his right hon. Friend would stand neuter between him and the rest of the House—that he would not oppose the clause,—to ask him to support it was out of the question. In some instances paupers were resident as many as fifteen or twenty miles from the central place of meeting of the guardians, and that fact alone, he thought, should determine the House in favour of the proposition which he had made. He remembered in the union in which he was a guardian he witnessed instances of poor women coming fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen miles, and being obliged to go home again in the heat of summer without receiving relief. Then it was to be recollected that guardians from the more distant parishes of a union were not very regular in their attendance; upon that ground also, lie was sure that hon. Members would agree with him as to the necessity of there being local committees. He had some difficulty in fixing the precise distance, but lie thought he should be safe in proposing four miles from the central place of meeting.
Sir C. Napierseconded the motion. He did think that, after passing die obnoxious clauses of the bill, they ought not to reject one so mild as this. With respect to the assistant-commissioners, in how few places was it possible for them to know the feelings and wants of the people! The parties concerned could not even know when an assistant-commissioner would visit the place. [Sir J. Graham:
514
There are post-offices.] But poor people could not get paper to enter into a correspondence of inquiry even if they were able to write. In the union with which he was connected, they bad not seen an assistant-commissioner for twelve months together, and they were not anxious to see one any more, It was rather an extraordinary fact that those unions which were visited oftenest were the worst conducted, whilst those which were unvisited were well managed. Considering the vast sums of public money that were pocketted by these assistant commissioners, he must say that this was a matter which ought to receive some attention. He could not help expressing his surprise at the statements made the other night by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the numbers of able-bodied labourers receiving outdoor relief, In the union to which he belonged they knew nothing about out-door relief to able-bodied persons; they had always understood that they must not give it. Where did the right hon. Gentleman get his extraordinary numbers from? Did he mean vagrants? Or did he mean the able-bodied who happened to be sick, and got medical or other relief out of the house? If the right hon. Gentleman made up his figures that way, be could understand them; but he really could not understand where it was, or how it that such an immense number of able-bodied paupers had received out-door relief. He must say of the commissioners, that he thought they had positively prevented the guardians from making the Poor-law a great deal better than it otherwise would have been. Had it not been for them the guardians would have made the law more satisfactory to the poor without at all increasing the expense to the rate-payers. There were many cases of old and worn-out persons receiving 3s. a week out-door relief, when they were no longer able to do any work, those persons having paid rates when in better circumstances. Now he held, that if encouragement were given to those poor persons who paid rates for five or six years, or for a longer period, that they would, in the event of their receiving it, receive a greater amount of relief than those who paid no rates; it would reduce the disinclination to pay poor-rates, and go to foster habits of frugality. The labouring people would pay die rates with the same readiness that they subscribed to their clubs, with the

515
view of deriving assistance from their clubs when they might require it. He had conversed much with guardians of the poor, and recommended that the relief they gave should be regulated by that principle; they expressed their readiness to act upon it, but said that the commissioners would not permit them, and the auditor would strike out any allowance of the kind from their accounts.
Clause brought up and read a first and second time.
On the question that it be read a third time,
Captain Pechellsaid, he did not know what the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were, or in what manner the House would proceed upon this occasion, but there were other clauses of equal importance—for instance, one relating to voting by proxy, which, if opportunity offered, should also be taken into consideration. Did any other hon. Member mean to take advantage of the quiescence of the Government to propose other clauses, which, by common consent, might be adopted? With regard to the Poor-law commission, he had always said that the principle of the act or the 22nd of George 3rd, cap. 23, was the best principle which the poor could be governed by; and if that act had been made compulsory instead of voluntary, the condition of the poor would have been greatly improved. He was aware that some complaints had been made of the state of certain parts of Sussex as requiring the application of a more stringent law. But, as he had always said, the dose was too strong for the disease; as to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman of the large number of persons receiving out-door relief, he believed the number to be greatly augmented by the excellent system in those towns which were under local acts, having a population exceeding 1,500,000 l. The clause of the hon. Baronet showed the necessity of diminishing the size of the unions, or of having district committees. It had been stated in a petition presented to the House from the Kensington Union, that I the magnitude of Poor-law unions was a serious evil. He hoped the hon. Baronet would succeed in carrying his clause.
Mr. P. Howardthought the clause of the hon. Baronet might be acceded to without any infraction of the bill as it stood, and that if it were a compulsory clause it would be a great boon to the infirm and
516>
aged poor. When the unions were large, and the number of poor great, there were good and sufficient reasons for the guardians to delegate their powers to subcommittees. No doubt these sub-committees must be the objects of very vigilant attention; and he trusted that with the controlling powers of the sub-commissioners, the plan would lead to no abuse. He hoped the clause would be adopted by the unanimous vote of the House.
Mr. Borthwickwas glad that there was a disposition to agree to the clause of the hon. Baronet; it would relieve other hon. Members as well as himself from a difficulty. There was nothing to which he would more readily lend his assistance than to the modification of this law; but it would be dangerous after the Government had pledged itself not to re-open the question during the present Session, to attempt it. This was a clause, however, which the House felt no difficulty in acceding to. It would undoubtedly be a great improvement of the law, and much as he could have wished to bring up some other amendment, he would not presume to disturb the arrangement to which the House had come. He hoped her Majesty's Government would, in consequence of hon. Members refraining from impeding the public business, take this bill into their serious consideration during the recess, and so improve it as to relieve hon. Members from the trouble of proposing amendments in another Session.
Sir J. Grahamfelt that it would be a breach of faith to consent to the introduction of new clauses into this bill, after the declaration he had made that he would take none but the first four or five—but those that were unopposed or were brought forward with general approbation. This clause appeared to be one coming within the latter description, and one which he felt would lead to real practical benefit. He was anxious for its introduction, because his own experience corresponded with that of the hon. Member for North Devonshire, as to the distance of boards of guardians from some parishes causing those who required relief to walk eleven, twelve, or thirteen miles, and the rule, which he thought an excellent one, requiring that the head of a family should make the application on behalf of his family, in such cases often caused the loss I of a day's work, a matter of great cones-

517
quence as well as great fatigue and some expense. Though he was not prepared to delegate to a committee the power of ordering relief, upon reflection lie should not object to the clause as proposed by the hon. Baronet; and if after the consent of the House by a large and decisive majority to a regulation which by some hon. Members was considered severe and cruel, that of a central commission having power over the local administration of the Poor-law, this clause was regarded as a mitigation of the severity of that regulation, hr should rejoice that almost their last act at the close of the Session should, not with standing this much disputed point, be deemed not only to have the appearance of an act of kindness, but to be one in reality.
The clause read a third time and added to the bill.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Mr. Fieldenmoved as an amendment that the bill be printed.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question—Ayes 83; Noes 5 Majority 78.

List of the NOES.

Collins, W.

Williams, W.

Johnson, Gen.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt.

Fielded, J.

Scholefield, J.

Crawford, S.

Bill passed.

PUBLIC DISTRESS.
Sir R. Peelmoved the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. Gibsonrose to move the amendment of which he had given notice, namely,
"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a committee, to take into consideration the distressed state of the country."
He said that he should not offer any apology to the House for bringing on this amendment on the motion for going into a committee of supply, because he believed that the proper time for calling the attention of the Government to the grievances of the country was when they were about to vote the supplies for the support of the Government. It was strictly constitutional to call the attention of the Government, on the proposal to go into supply, to any great distress or suffering prevailing in the country, and not only was this the prac-
518
tice of the House, but he would ask what fitter timer could be found for investigating the distress than the period when that distress existed? He did not call on them for any pledge as to their future conduct; all he asked them to do was, while they were there assembled as the grand inquest of the nation, to take into consideration the distressed state of the country. He did not call upon them to interfere with any of the prerogatives of the Crown, but to execute their functions as representatives of the people, and to institute an inquiry into the distress, in order that a remedy might be provided for it. He knew he mighty be charged with bringing forward this motion without having any chance of success; and he might he told that it would have been better if he had allowed Parliament to separate, and if be had waited to see what the intentions of the Government were next Session, before he had brought forward a motion like the present. If no debate had arisen on this subject, if no statements had been made with respect to it, he might have been justified in taking such a course; for then he should have thought that hon. Members were conscious of the extent of the distress; but speeches had been made by the Members of the Government which clearly showed that they did not at the present moment believe in the extent of the distress; and as arguments had been used to show why they should not go into a consideration of that distress, lie thought it followed that it was incumbent on those who knew the extent of the distress, to show that those arguments were fallacious, and that they were bound to go into a committee of inquiry on the subject. He was perfectly prepared to meet the arguments and statements that had been made. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government alluded on a late occasion to the number of inhabited houses in 1841 as being greater, in proportion to the population, than the number of inhabited houses in 1831. But were the present inhabitants able to pay their rents? Had they within their houses the means of existence?—had they furniture?—had they bread? With regard to the statement made about sugar, lie begged the House to recollect that the supply of sugar from our own possessions was insufficient for the wants of this country; and the consumption of sugar had increased hut very little,

519
and no argument could be founded upon it. The statement of the right hon. Baronet on this point, if it proved anything, proved that the attempt of the late Government to admit a larger quantity of sugar was founded on sound principles. He had undertaken to bring forward the present motion, not for his own satisfaction, but because he felt that he should not be doing his duty to his constituents, if he disregarded the overwhelming entreaties which he continually received, urging him to bring the distress again and again under the consideration of the Government and Parliament. He felt, therefore, that he should not be improperly taking up the time of the House in reading to them a few cases of individual suffering among particular classes in the town of Manchester, as samples of a considerable number of cases of the same kind. The cases which he should read had not been picked out for the occasion; they had been taken at random in order to show the nature of the distress that at present existed. When he mentioned the town of Manchester, he was telling the story of all the great seats of manufacturing industry. He was not mentioning Manchester as the place where the pressure was of the greatest intensity. Leeds, Sheffield, and other towns, were experiencing sufferings perhaps of greater magnitude. Indeed, he believed that Manchester was better able to bear up against the pressure than many other places; that it could endure the pressure for a longer period; that it had greater stability than many of the smaller towns. If they were to look among the retail dealers, the shopkeepers, and the provision merchants, it would be found that a very considerable falling off had taken place in their returns and profits, and that their trade had been materially restricted. In many cases men of good character and of long-established connection were perfectly unable to gain by their industrious proceedings enough to pay their rent, their poor-rates, and their other necessary expenses. From this the House might well presume that there must be something seriously affecting those classes on whose custom they depended. The state of the shopkeepers in a manufacturing district was the best criterion of what was the condition of the working classes in the neighbourhood in which they resided. He would call the attention of the House to
520
some of the cases with which he had been furnished, the particulars of which had been collected by persons of all political creeds with perfect impartiality. Out of nearly 1.50 cases he would only read a few:—
"Grocer and provision-dealer:—Thirteen years in business. His returns in 1839 and 1840 averaged 15 per cent. less than the previous years, and last year and this they will average 40 per cent, less. The falling off has been in flour, cheese, butter, coffee, and groceries in general. The rate of profit on the diminished returns is much less now than in former years on the larger return. He disposes of six times as much oatmeal now as he did in 1835 and 1836. In articles of provisions, a great part of the business is not worth attending to—the quantities are so small. Many persons who used to be respectable ready-money customers are now coming a begging. Could name a score of these. His customers are principally mechanics, joiners, &c. Formerly this class used to buy their flour in the beginning of the week to bake their own bread; but now they have generally discontinued doing so, and buy single pound's weight of bread or oatmeal. Has not made more bad debts this year than last, having closed most of these credit accounts."
"Vegetable-dealer:—Sixteen years in business. Since 1835 or 1836 his returns have fallen off 80 per cent. The decrease is in all articles. Does not get as much profit on his returns now as in former years. Had saved 50 l. when he came to this shop. Has lost it all, and the labour besides. Can't make as much as will maintain himself and wife. Losing money every day."
"Fish and poultry-dealer:—Twelve years in business. His business has been gradually falling off since 1836, and it is now not more than one-tenth what it was then. The falling off is in every article. Profits much reduced. Trade has been getting worse and worse for four or five years. Never knew it so bad as now. Not making what will pay rent; nothing like it."
"Butcher:—Nine years in business. His returns have fallen off 40 per cent. since last year. The falling off is in inferior pieces. 'Can't sell them.' Has to buy choice pieces to save the loss on the rough pieces, if he were to kill all his own meat. Profits less than in former years; beasts are so dear.' In 1836, 1837, and 1838, used to buy beasts 5l. a-head cheaper, and sell the meat for as much money as now At that time got a profit on the rough pieces, but not so much on the choice pieces. At present gets no profit on the rough pieces, but a great loss. Lost nearly 300 l. in bad debts within these three years."
"Butcher:—Eight years in business. States his returns to have fallen off since 1836 80 per cent. Gets no profit on what he sells. People who used to buy 10 lb. of meat on a

521
Saturday, now buy about 3 lb. Many persons who, a few years ago, used to lay out 3s. to 4s, a-week, now comes with twopence or four-pence for two or 'four pen'orth of bits,' that is, scraps."
"Draper:—Four years in business. In 1840 his returns were 2.5 per cent. less than in the preceding year. In 1841, 35 per cent. less; and this year they are 50 per cent. less. The falling off has been in the best description of goods. His profits are diminished 30 per cent. Bad debts fearfully increased."
"Baker:—Sixteen years in business. Returns fallen off 95 per cent. The decrease has been principally in small bread. Rate of profit reduced 50 per cent. Gives little credit now. People nearly naked visit his shop to buy, beg, or steal. Has to watch them loosely, although he knows many of them are industrious, and would work if they could get employ."
"Grocer:—Three years in business. His returns have fallen off 50 per cent. since 1840. The decrease is in every article. Rate of profit reduced one-half. Does not trust retail customers now. Persons buy halfpenny-worths of tea, sugar, &c."
"Grocer:—Fifteen years in business. Sells in smaller quantities, and of inferior quality. Profits much reduced. Says that the provision dealers whom he supplies are getting very poor, and he has large balances owing him from persons of this class, who would pay if they could, but are quite unable, having credited the labouring people who can't pay them, and are daily getting poorer."
"Corn and flour dealer:—Six years in business. Returns gradually declining since 1037. Now 60 per cent. reduced. The falling-off is in corn and flour. Less profit now than formerly by about 7–l2ths. Instead of corning for quantities, it is nearly all in small matters not less than 200 to 300 halfpenny-worths of bread weekly."
This was a very remarkable statement. He could furnish the House with a great number of instances of a similar character. He thought the right hon. Baronet would agree with him, that the condition of the retail shopkeepers in manufacturing towns furnished the very best criterion of what was the condition of the working classes in the neighbourhood in which they resided. He believed that within the last fortnight there had been many hundreds of the working classes thrown out of employment, and that some mills had been stopped. Not with standing the reports that had prevailed, the understood from authority on which he placed the most implicit reliance, that there was not, in the opinion of those who had the greatest credit for judgment, prudence, sagacity, and experience in these matters, any prospect of relief.
522
There were always men sanguine in their anticipations, and who, whatever might be the adversity of the situation in which they were placed, would persevere in taking a favourable view of the prospects before them; such men could not join in the apprehensions thus entertained; but it was his impression that the most sanguine persons could not deny that there was, in the present position of the country, symptoms of the most serious nature, and such as might well give rise to the greatest alarm. Unhappily, the present features of distress were not of a temporary character. What was now gradually coming upon the country had long been predicted. If trade revived for a little while, it was merely the resemblance of that condition in which a man was placed who was labouring under an intermittent fever. That which afflicted the country was a I permanent disease, although it showed itself only by fits. The present depression was one of the longest and most severe that the manufacturing classes had ever experienced; and although at no precise moment it might have been so intense as at former periods, yet there were symptoms about and there was something in the character of its gradual progression, which made every man who felt the vast importance of maintaining our manufacturing and commercial greatness, reflect seriously upon the future prospects of this country. The position in which they now found their manufacturing population had been predicted by persons whom they, in former times, were accustomed to deride as prophets not to be believed. Their words had, however, become true. In corroboration of what be was now stating, lie would read some passages from a petition which was presented to the House, by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, on the 20th of December, 1838. After describing the depressed state of the cotton trade, the petitioners went on to say:
"And your petitioners declare it to be their solemn conviction that this is the commencement only of a state of things, which unless arrested by a timely repeal of all duties upon foreign articles of subsistence, must eventually transfer our manufacturing industry into other and rival countries. That deeply impressed with such apprehensions, your petitioners cannot look with indifference upon, nor conceal from your honourable House the perilous condition of those surrounding multitudes, whose subsistence from day to day depends upon the prosperity of the cotton trade."

523
This prediction, made in 1838, had been repeated at every meeting of the Manchestet Chamber of Commerce since that time. But it might be said that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce was a party society—that they were is the habit of taking a one-sided view of this question, and that they would be determined, whatever consequences might result to the country, to be guided rather by party feeling and under political influences, than by a sincere conviction of what they conceived to be the true state of things. In answer to this, he would refer to what was said by the Associated Cotton Brokers of Liverpool. In the Annual Report, dated 31st December, 1841, signed by men of all parties (amongst the names were those of Ewart, Gladstone, and Brancker), they stated that—
"Although the past year had been chiefly remarkable for its dullness and monotony, it had, notwithstanding, furnished matter for serious reflection to all who were interested in the cotton trade. There had been former years when the fluctuations had been more marked and sudden, when commercial credit had been more severely shaken, and when the pressure upon classes and upon individuals had been equally, and perhaps, more intense; but for magnitude of losses, not in one, but in all branches; for depreciation of fixed capital, and for extent and duration of suffering, there was no parallel to be found."
This was no party document. It did not come from any society composed of any one political section. It was the Annual Report of the Associated Cotton Brokers of Liverpool; and deserved to be received with the greatest respect and attention. It appeared to him that it would not require any great sagacity, that men need not be philosophers to predict that, if in an island like England, with a large and growing population, and with a territory unable to supply that population with food, the Legislature would persist in preventing the supply of food from abroad; that in such a position they must expect—it was in the nature of things that there should be— periods of stagnation of trade, periods of distress among the working classes, and periods of scarcity. If they threw impediments in the way of food being supplied to the population of the country, the pressure of distress must come. He could not conceive it possible, if they restricted the necessary supply of food which the manufacturers of the country required, to avoid being exposed
524
to those fits of distress that might ultimately drive the manufacturing population to the verge of despair. If, then, they persisted in their present course, they must make up their minds to submit to the disasters they were now experiencing, and to the consequences which the sufferings of the people might bring upon the country. The hon. Member for Winchester, who was a sort of fatalist, said, if they removed all impediments to manufacturing prosperity and trade, there would still rise up a natural barrier against the realization of the people's prosperity, and that new circumstances would from time to time cause precisely the same condition among the people as that which they now experienced. Nay, that hon. Member went so far as to say, that it was beyond the sphere of legislation to ameliorate the present condition of the working classes. Now, what he wished was, that they would try to effects the removal of these artificial impediments to trade. It might be, or it might not be, as the hon. Member for Winchester had predicted. But if it was felt that the population of this country could riot subsist upon the produce of their own soil, and that the people could not be employed unless there existed the power of exporting the manufacturing products of their labour for the agricultural products of foreign countries, he would gladly take the chance of the consequences of removing the restrictions. They could not be in a worse condition than they were in now; and he did not believe that even the hon. Member for Winchester doubted that nature had provided some compensation for the evils which at present rested upon the people of this land. The right hon. Baronet had told the House that the distress of the country might be attributed to machinery, and that improvements in machinery did, at particular periods, throw men out of employment. But he would ask what was the remedy which nature seemed to have provided for such a state of things as this? Why, it was the increased demand for those productions which the improved machinery created. The increased facility of producing articles cheapened their price; this gave an increased demand for production, greater employment was thus afforded, and by these means the immediate evil of improved machinery was rectified, and society was benefitted without any class ultimately suffering. He would appeal to

525
the right hon. Baronet, whether the case was not so? If, in reality, the result was not as he had stated, then the only cause to which he could trace it was the impediment which the Corn-laws occasioned. From that law more intense distress arose than from improved machinery. He, however, was arguing upon presumption, for he did not, in fact, admit that under any circumstances improvement in machinery could produce evil. What he contended was, that if those changes had any injurious effect, they were the result of the Corn-law. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of the increased consumption of cotton as an argument that manufactures were not in that state of decadence which they had been represented to be It was said, "the cotton manufactures are complaining of decreased employment, and yet more cotton is brought into consumption than before." This was a specious argument, which was calculated to have effect with any person unacquainted with the subject. He regretted that the right hon. Baronet should allow himself to make a statement which gave an improper colour to the real state of things. The increased consumption of cotton e as no test whatever of the quantity of labour employed in cotton manufactures. Yet it was intended that it should be inferred that the labourers employed in cotton manufactures were receiving more wages, because there was a larger quantity of cotton brought into home consumption. What was the argument worth if not for that? It was brought forward to show that the labouring classes were not wanting employment, and that their wages were good. He would ask the right lion Baronet whether he could maintain such an assumption; and if he could not, whether the argument he had advanced about the increased quantity of cotton consumed was not calculated to mislead? He had received a letter upon this subject from a gentleman whose name would command great respect by those who heard it. It was that of Mr. Ashton, and the letter was dated Hyde, July 3, 1842. That gentleman said—
"The reason why so much cotton has been used is, that very low numbers of yarn have been in demand, say No. 20 and under, and the spinners of this sort having been able to make both ends nearly meet, have pushed the trade, though it leaves no money in the country for wages; for instance, one mill
526
worked by a friend of mine uses 130 bales of cotton per week, and only pays 200 l. per week wages, which is about 1d. per pound; if the same were made into cloth, it. would leave 500 l.. for the workmen. I do not know one firm in this district who have all their looms at work, and still all are using more cotton; and some have stopped every loom, and therefore pay very little for wages. I believe there is no printing cloth making in Stockport, they are all gone to low cloth, and of course using more cotton. The falling off in my wages is about 10,000 l. per annum, and still I have used more cotton this year."
That was a very strong statement. Supposing the raw cotton were brought into this country merely to be cleaned, and then sent out again, would the amount of labour be so great as if it were manufactured here? A pound of raw cotton, if manufactured, would pay 20 s. in wages; but 10 lb s. of raw cotton, merely cleaned, would pay only 20 s., and yet, in estimating the quantity of cotton consumed, there would necessarily he 1 lb. in one case, and 10 lb. in the other, while the quantity of labour employed might be exactly the same. Then with regard to more mills being erected. The right. hon. Baronet had talked about more mills, and this he used as an argument, that the prosperity of the country was progressive. He should be sorry to state that there were no new mills, but he confessed that be had only heard of one, and that one had been quoted by other persons as a proof of the depressed state of trade. Did it follow because a man improved his mill or his machinery, which he might be induced to do by the pressure of circumstances, that therefore a greater number of artisans and labourers was employed and their wages increased? The main point for consideration was the amount of money which was distributed among the labouring classes in wages, and the quantity of comforts and necessaries of life which they were enabled to command. A man taking a sanguine view of things might be induced to improve his mill, but in a country like this—a country full of wealth, enterprise, and skill—to make it a matter of wonder that there was one new mill building in a manufacturing district was really not a fair way of putting the question. He thought it would have been much better for the right hon. Baronet to have said, "I admit your distress, but I will do nothing—I will wait and pause." To have said this would have been candid and open; but to attempt to

527
put a colour upon the state of things, and to exaggerate the erection of a mere cotton mill and the improvement of machinery into importance, for the sake of bolstering up a case in answer to the allegations of distress, was a course which he did not think worthy of her Majesty's Government, or at all calculated to promote the permanent interests of this great country. It was, however, ignorance of the truth which he believed caused them mainly to differ. He did not think that all public men were dishonest. There was a notion prevailing among the agricultural class, that a high price of corn, somehow or the other, brought about prosperity; and that if the landed interest could but enjoy high rents wages would be high, and therefore that, by the high price of bread, the people would be able to obtain a comfortable subsistence. The landed aristocracy seemed to connect high prices and high wages and prosperity, somehow or other, together. This was a fallacy which must be overthrown. He had observed, with great regret, a disposition on the part of certain parties (far was it from him to impute it to the right hon. Baronet) to exclaim that it was right that manufactures should be checked— that large bodies of people in towns gave rise to changes in the constitution, till the people became a body which the institutions of the country were unable to govern. He had heard it said, that they should uphold the Corn-laws to prevent the manufacturers of the country from going beyond a certain point. There were missionaries at work, taken from ranks from which they were hardly to be expected, endeavouring to impress upon the people the necessity of checking the tendency of the British nation becoming the workshop of the world. Clergymen were to be found exerting themselves to infuse this feeling into the minds of the people. A distinguished and talented clergyman in this metropolis, when he preached in accordance with the Queen's command to collect charity to relieve the distress existing in the manufacturing districts, took occasion to tell his congregation that it was right to keep in check the large manufacturing population and to prevent them passing certain bounds, which he was prepared, he supposed, to assign. He would read a little of that rev. gentleman's sermon, which he had no doubt would be very acceptable to many hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was
528
speaking of the rev. Henry Melville, a man in the closest connection with her Majesty's Government. He supposed there was no man enjoyed the confidence of certain Members of the Government more than that rev. gentleman did. He did not mean to say that they gave their sanction to his doctrines; but this he would say, that he stood forth as a great authority, as a great and talented preacher, and one whose opinions had great weight with those whom he addressed. He would ask the House whether they were prepared to sanction such doctrine as this?—
"It may be allowed, even to the preacher, to express a deep and painful conviction, that the tendency which of late years has been so largely exhibited in this country—the tendency to the exchanging an agricultural for a manufacturing population—to the gathering the people into dense masses, for which it were almost hopeless to attempt providing means of Christian instruction (even if the frightful demands upon strength and upon time allowed of their being used, supposing them provided) —that this tendency is amongst the most fatal that was ever encouraged, and is but likely to continue working out increased and even irremediable disaster. The cry has been, that England ought to be the workshop of the world; and in the dream of avarice, which for once borrowed something of the imagery of the poet, all nations have been represented as crowding to our shores, entreating that we would clothe them, and eagerly proffering the rich produce of their fields in exchange for what we could dig from our mines and throw off from our looms. We left out from our showy calculation that bone and muscle belong to other people as well as to us; that industry and ingenuity, however they may distinguish the English, are not monopolised by them; that, in manufacturing for the world, we might perhaps teach the world to manufacture for itself; and that it was at least possible, that if other countries saw us driving so advantageous a trade, they might think of their own resources, and attempt competition. And the fearful evil of being thus once engaged in a struggle with the world (and a struggle there now is; if not the struggle of army against army, and fleet against fleet, as when we stood almost single-handed, and in a glorious, because a righteous cause, challenged Europe to the combat, yet there is the struggle of machine against machine, toil against toil, factory against factory), the evil, we say, of being once engaged in a struggle such as this—it is that human beings have to be more and more crowded together, and more and more tasked."
Here they had a christian clergyman deprecating the struggle of industry against industry, and the peaceful competition of men who were industrious and seeking an

529
honest livelihood, and at the same time throwing a lustre around the horrors of war, and saying that the competition of army against army, and fleet against fleet, was what you ought to admire, and ought to imitate. They ought in the House of Commons, inasmuch as the Church and State were said to be united, indissolubly united, and they (the Parliament) being the State, they ought, and it was their duty on this occasion, to deprecate such doctrine as this. The sermon went on thus:—
"Why, as a clergyman, would I shrink from seeing in this country the abolition of all Corn-laws? [This, remember, is a sermon Because I am a political partisan? God forbid that a clergyman should ever be such. Because I wish to uphold the interests of one particular class? God forbid that a clergyman should ever identify himself with any class. But I cannot hide from myself that whatever tended still more to drain the people from the fields and to crowd them into factories, whatever went to encouraging the plan of making England the workshop of the world, would but increase the difficulty of getting any moral hold on a swarming population. And this is what a Christian should deprecate. Parties may jostle for place, but the measures which a Christian should oppose are those which, whatever their apparent political expediency, menace injury to the national piety; the measures which he should further are those which, however they may seem to threaten our greatness as a kingdom, tend to the advancing the cause of Christ, and the diffusing his gospel."
Now this, he must say, was dangerous ground. Re must impress upon the right hon. Baronet that this system of indirectly imbuing the minds of the people of' this country with unsound doctrines was most pernicious in its tendency. He did not approve of this system of pulpit political economy. This rev. gentleman told them that it was necessary for the national piety that the Corn-laws should be maintained. But was it certain that the clergy were disinterested and pure in their preaching this doctrine? Had they not a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Corn-laws? Did not the titherent charge depend upon the price of corn? It did; and therefore he would say it was a most dangerous and a most indiscreet doctrine for the clergy of the Church to preach, and for a clergyman in the pulpit to declare that he should shrink from the abolition of the Corn-laws. He believed hon. Members would best discharge their duty by telling the people that they must
530
repeal the Corn-laws; that it was impossible to retain them; that they must prepare for a change; that the farmers must brace up their nerves to encounter competition, by improving the cultivation of the land, and enable themselves to set the Corn-laws at defiance. When the leader of the Tories and the leader of the Whigs —the right hon. Baronet opposite and the noble Lord the Member for London, were equally agreed in the soundness of the principle of free-trade, it was impossible that the restrictive system could much longer be maintained. When the leaders of the two great parties in the State had admitted the necessity of the principle, it behoved them, in the discharge of their duty, to instruct the farmers to prepare for the change; and if any sacrifice were required from the landlords to meet that change, then to assure them that they, as landlords, were prepared to make that sacrifice. Noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen in this House had risen to say that when they were voting for the tariff they did not know that they were voting in favour of the principles of free-trade; and, in fact, no means were left untried In order to keep the farmers in the dark. Why hold out fallacious expectations? Why raise hopes that must be disappointed? If the House refused to entertain an inquiry, it undertook a weighty and a solemn responsibility, especially after the reasons, the unanswerable reasons, as it seemed to him, which had been advanced in favour of an investigation. One strong reason was, that the majority of the House believed that distress existed, and that nothing the Government had done would mitigate it. The House, then, was bound to resolve itself into a committee, for the majority admitted that the new Corn-law and the tariff would afford no relief. On the other side of the House it was contended that those two measures would do no good, because they were an approximation to free trade. On his own side of the House it was asserted that they would do no good, because they did not go far enough. Both sides were therefore bound to enter into a dispassionate investigation. Why did Members sit in the House? What was their duty, if not to look into such matters—to ascertain why such unprecedented distress prevailed in a country possessing so many capabilities, and such inexhaustible resources? — why so many hundreds of thousands were starving in the midst of accumulated millions?

531
You tell me that you have not time; but can any period be more opportune? You have passed the Income-tax and have thereby maintained public credit by equalising the revenue and the expenditure. According to the confession of the right hon. Baronet be has obtained all the measures he means to submit. You have, therefore, leisure for this inquiry, and you can have no possible excuse for not entering upon it. In all Parliamentary history there never was a more fit occasion—an opportunity more exactly, as it were, cut out for the purpose. Do not talk to me of convenience—do not tell me that you must go into the country for your amusement. Amusement! What amusement can you find when your fellow-creatures are suffering beyond example? Timely inquiry may at least ascertain the means of alleviating some of the existing misery; and who shall say to what an extreme it may be carried in the coming winter? We know that the prospects of the coming harvest are not promising. Why, your own authority—the guide of the corn trade—the rule by which prudent farmers govern their operations—the Mark Lane Express—tells us that it cannot come to the conclusion that it will be an average crop. If it fall short of an average crop, it will be far indeed below the wants of the community, because even an average crop is insufficient. Is there nothing to be said against inquiry but the inconvenience to which it will put Members and the insane, I must so term it, confidence that there will be an average harvest? Distress exists; we are ready to show you the basis of that distress; and I am not aware that it is laid down by any constitutional writer that Parliament shall not sit beyond a certain day in August, in order that Members may not be deprived of their rustic recreations. I maintain that Government will incur an awful responsibility if, when it has nothing else to do, it will not join in an investigation which may end in some mode of lessening distress and suffering in the approaching winter. Why are we to separate? What compels us to separate? Can there be a more fit occasion for calling in the advice of a physician than when the patient is suffering under the symptoms of disease? Why postpone so vital a question? Can there be a more useful, or a more profitable occupation of your time than to resolve yourselves into a committee to ascertain
532
the causes and the remedies of distress. One hon. Member assigns one cause—another, another; one has one remedy, and another, another. Let us consider them, and at all events satisfy our consciences by doing our best to ascertain and meet the evil. Before I sit down I beg to tell the friends of the Corn-law that they may depend upon it the days of that law are numbered; it is their duty to tell their tenants, their agricultural labourers, or any others whom it may concern, that the day is not far distant when the Corn-law will be erased from the statute book. The day is at hand also when they will wonder, not that the Corn-law has been repealed, but that such a disgraceful statute was ever permitted to deform our legislation. I believe, if you would but see that it is your interest to repeal the law, that you would repeal it. The right hon. Member for Cork spoke to me of an acquaintance of his in Dublin, who said to him, that, if he were once convinced that honesty was the best policy, he would be honest. So, if you would once be convinced that it is your interest to repeal the Corn-law, you would repeal it. Depend upon it that it is your interest, and if you will but read an excellent little pamphlet, by Mr. Ashworth, you will see how immensely the value of land has increased in manufacturing localities: in some instances, it has been to the amount of 3,000 per cent. All that is wanted is, that you should give the manufacturing powers of this country full scope, and then the owners of land, like all other classes, will share in the general prosperity, without incurring the disgrace and odium of maintaining a law merely because you think it promotes your own interests. Let us, then, enter upon this inquiry—let us do what we can to relieve distress—let us repeal the Corn-laws, and the agricultural interest will elevate itself to a station of moral power and pecuniary prosperity that will command for it the respect and admiration of the whole community.
Dr. Bowringseconded the motion. If he had been guilty of some pertinacity in directing attention to the subject of distress, it arose from the painful nature of the communications he daily received from the borough he had the honour to represent. It was obvious that what had yet been done by the Government had had no beneficial effect, though he was one who thought that full justice had not been done

533
on his side of the House to the merits of the tariffs. On the other hand, more than due Credit had been given to the right hon. Baronet for his change in the Corn-law. What was required for the salvation of the manufacturing classes was, that new markets should be opened; and upon the question how far it was possible to find those markets in the United States, he begged to refer hon. Members to the report of the anti-free-trade committee lately appointed by Congress. [The hon. Member read an extract from the report of the majority of the committee, and followed it by a quotation from the report of the minority of the same body, both of them strongly against diminishing the duties of the American tariff, with a view to the introduction of British manufactures.] Hence it appeared that, as long as we continued our present system, there was no chance of the opening of new markets in the United States. The distress into which it was now proposed to inquire was not only daily increasing, but it was ascending to the middling classes; and yet the opponents of the motion were willing to leave it without any attempt at a remedy, when the approach of winter was threatening a most alarming aggravation of existing evils. To pursue this course, was for the House to neglect its duty, both as legislators and Christians. It was admitted that, on every side, there was a great and growing despondency, and, in the very subjection of the people to their forlorn condition—in that broken-heartedness and want of vitality, prevailing throughout the manufacturing districts, he saw the greatest cause for apprehension. Confidence in the House of Commons was almost at an end, and the reluctance of the representative body to attempt anything in the way of relief, showed that there was something in its constitution which required alteration. For what was legislation intended, or legislators made, but for the purpose of meeting cases like the present, at least with inquiry, if not with remedy? Such a burden of misery had never before loaded the country, and how hon. Gentlemen could go to their beds, and think that they had done their duty by doing nothing, he could not comprehend. The very foundations of society were, at this moment, menaced, and it was impossible that matters should remain even in their present condition. Beyond the hands employed in the production of manufactures, there
534
were enormous multitudes who had no employment; and when they heard of the thousands and tens of thousands of human beings, who had not 2d. a day for their support, he wondered how Members could have the heart to return to their country seats, and refuse this investigation. He entreated the House respectfully, but most earnestly, not to turn a deaf ear to the prayers of the people, but to lend themselves to an endeavour to find some mode of relieving sufferings, the description of which could not be exaggerated.
Captain Berkeleysaid, that he had never shown any improper hostility to the present Government; for, although he was wedded to his political opinions, it had been his fate this Session to have divided oftener in favour than against the measures of the right hon. Baronet. This was not because he had changed his creed, but because the right hon. Baronet had found it convenient to alter his. Part of his hostility to the present Ministers arose from their not having obtained the Government under fair colours; they had come into office on false pretences, for they had not only made the Corn-law a bugbear at the last election, but had frightened all the old women in the country by asserting that to adopt the principles of free-trade would be little short of downright revolution. Yet the right hon. Baronet no sooner met the Parliament than he tampered with the Corn-law, and carried the principles of free-trade quite as far as his predecessors. The Poor-law had been made another convenient bugbear at the last election, yet the right hon. Baronet had himself proposed to renew it. If, therefore, he had voted with the right hon. Baronet on several occasions, it was not that be liked him as a leader, inasmuch as he preferred a man who was steady, to one who was wavering in his principles. When he came down to the House he had made up his mind not to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Manchester, but he had been so convinced by the reasoning and eloquence of his speech, that he had made up his mind to divide in his favour. At the same time, he did not think, that by pursuing such a course, the hon. Member was advancing his own cause, and he certainly was very inconveniently postponing measures of much importance. For his own part, he was willing to allow the Government to take its own course, for he felt much like the Irish

535
coachman, who, when his four horses ran away, after doing all he could to stop them, at last threw the reins upon their backs, and exclaimed, "Now go your own way, and take the responsibility upon yourselves." The coach, it was true, was upset, and such he hoped would soon be the fate of the present Administration.
Sir John Easthopewas perfectly aware how irksome and disagreeable it must be to individual Members thus to interrupt the regular progress of the business of the House; and he was quite sure that the feeling expressed upon this point by the hon. Member for Gloucester was not confined merely to himself. Extraordinary circumstances would, however, justify an extraordinary course, and the simple question was, whether the present state of the country did not demand from Members, and especially from those Members who represented places enduring sufferings such as now afflicted the manufacturing districts, that they should deviate from that line of conduct which they would otherwise have been glad to pursue. He did not believe that the vigorous perseverance and indomitable determination of his hon. Friend, the' Member for Stockport—that all the courage and energy he had displayed—would have been sufficient to enable him to carry on these repeated discussions without the aid of that painful and stringent distress which none denied and all regretted. Discouraged as he had been within the House, his efforts would have failed, but from the support he had received from the pressure from without —that pressure arising from distress unparalleled and misery unexampled, threatening the disorganization of society, and holding forth the prospect of calamities which every man, however daring, trembled to contemplate. He thought that a great deal might be said on behalf of those Members who represented manufacturing places, and who) in that circumstance might find an excuse for pressing this question beyond the usual and ordinary extent. Let it be recollected, that they were not returning to amusements—that they were not about to enjoy those pleasurable relaxations which commonly attended hon. Gentlemen at their homes; they were about to revisit the abodes of misery, carried to an extent of wretchedness which it was impossible to describe. The right. hon. Boronet had referred to certain oratorical declamations, which no
536
doubt were less convenient, and tended less to a legitimate purpose, than a statement of facts; but it could not have escaped him that whenever deputations in this way occupied more of his time than might be desirable, an excuse was to be found in the state of the places from which they came, where misery prevailed to an excess that could be scarcely endured. He had the honour, he might, on some accounts, say the misfortune, to represent a large constituency, which was suffering in a manner he had no words to describe; and he should shrink from the discharge of the duty he owed them, if, before the close of the Session, he did not detail to the House some few of the peculiarities of that afflicted community. The right hon. Baronet, and the official Friends by whom he was surrounded, had told the House and the country, that they had done all they intended to do. He gave them credit for imagining, that they had done all they could do. Many of their sup. porters, no doubt, felt that they had done too much; but those who stood in a situation like that which he occupied— impressed deeply by the sufferings of their constituents—had to complain that whatever Ministers had done— however much they had talked of their Corn-law and of their tariff, they had done little indeed to relieve or mitigate the actual distress. The people said, "If you have done all you can do in the House of Commons, we have no confidence in the House of Commons; we have no dependence upon the House of Commons; we will no longer petition it. If you can do no more to lessen our misery we shall no longer rely upon you as the faithful representatives of the people." Could it be truly asserted, that everything had been done, and everything tried, while so much wretchedness existed? It had been said, in the course of these discussions, that one of the signs of increased prosperity within a given number of years, was the vast increase of inhabitable houses. He wished, that the estimate of that number had been formed, not from the last ten, but from the last two years, and that a return had been obtained of the proportion of houses now vacant. In the borough of Leicester, there were 11,000 inhabitable houses, and of these nearly 1,600, or rather more than one-seventh of the whole, were uninhabited. About 4,000 frames were usually employed in the staple manufacture of the town, and of these more

537
than one-third were out of use. The estimate of the depreciation of the value off house property, was about 30 or 35 per cent., and no sales could be effected even at that reduction. The depreciation in the value of machinery was calculated at upwards of 40 per cent., and individuals had been unable to obtain even that diminished rate. The increase in the amount of the poor-rates was also deplorable, and comparing the first quarter of the present year with the first quarter of 1840, the amount had nearly doubled. Ink the first quarter of 1840, the amount was 2,745 l. in 1841, it was 3,898 l., and in 1842, it had risen to 5,120 l. Now, if there was no other way in which this state of things could be properly and fully brought home to the conviction of those hon. Gentlemen who were engaged in agricultural pursuits, he greatly feared that it would be very soon brought to their conviction by labourers going from these wretched and distressed places to seek agricultural employment, instead of the manufacturing districts receiving from the agriculturists their surplus labour, which for a series of years they had been accustomed to take. One fact recently came within his observation, and a fact was better than an argument. A few days since, he had met at his own door an artisan, who, at the last election, was one of his constituents. The man accosted him and said—
"I am not come to beg, I do not ask for money, but I am come to ask for an admission to a hospital. I had a good character in Leicester, the town I have left, and I formerly had good wages. I was amongst a number of workmen discharged by our employer. My employer, almost with tears in his eyes, gave me a sum on my leaving him. I stopped at home, till I was a burden upon my family. I then wandered about the country, sleeping under hedges and in barns, till I have become the wretched being you see me."
And the man did appear to be in a state next to starvation. He added—
"I have pawned all my things to get bread, and if I do not go into a hospital, I feel I shall die."
The man went into a hospital, he came out cured, and he was now gone as an agricultural labourer. He did not state this single instance because he believed it was and would be the condition of thousands. What effect would this have on the agricultural labourers? They were not too well off now, and if there was the
538
addition to their numbers from this source, he feared hon. Gentlemen would find that the agricultural districts, instead of exhibiting the charming and delightful scenes which some landlords described, would be almost as miserable and as unseemly as those wretched towns. He could not but think that his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester had made out a strong case. His hon. Friend asked whether everything had been done which could be done, and ought to be done? He repeated the question of his hon. Friend. Had they considered all that ought to be considered? Had they made every effectual trial to alleviate the sufferings of the people, to requite that patience which had been so justly praised, and to encourage the thousands of suffering beings to endure with still more patience misery which was almost unendurable? He was aware that emigration could scarcely be looked upon as a complete remedy for so much destitution; but had the Government given to the subject of emigration all the attention which it could fairly demand? He had last night voted against his hon. Friend who sat near him, because he was in favour of giving encouragement to our colonies, and of making them as comfortable as possible, if they were to be the homes of our distressed population, and he would continue so to do; but he would ask the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, whether proper attention had been paid by the Government to the subject of emigration, for, small as the relief might be from that quarter, in comparison with the distress, yet in the present state of our domestic affairs it was entitled to regard. Would not some portion of our marine be well employed in conveying to these distant, but more happy shores, the wretched men who were now wandering about the country without employment? If this were not deemed an adequate remedy, had it at least been considered and tried to its fullest extent? He regretted that he did not see an hon. Member present, opposed to the views of that (the Opposition) side of the House, the Member for Northamptonshire. That hon. Member had, a few years since, assisted the poor people of his village to emigrate to the colonies. What had been the consequence? They were doing well, and were inviting those who were suffering here to come to them. Many had followed them, and had thus escaped from

539
wretchedness. A noble Lord now deceased (the Earl of Egremont) had adopted the same plan on a still larger scale. He had been told that this had produced the best possible results; he had been informed that many of the individuals who had been induced to go out through the munificence of the noble Earl, were now sending home money to enable their relatives to follow them, and giving instructions and advice to those who were willing to follow them. Now he asked whether the Government ought not to give full consideration to this subject. It had, he doubted not, attracted some attention from the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire; but had it engaged the attention of the Government to the extent to which, under the circumstances of the country, it was fairly entitled? If it had not received their attention, was not even this a fit subject for careful and immediate consideration, let the time it would occupy produce ever so great inconvenience to individuals? The mere simple forms of relief would not satisfy men who were starving, and however irksome it might be to him to adopt language which might appear to be inflammatory, yet, knowing well the place he represented, and feeling deeply for that state of distress in which it was involved, he deemed it right to say, that such a state of affairs could not go on without the greatest possible danger. He hoped that he was mistaken in this; he trusted that his fears were overcharged. But he knew that if he were one who asked for work, and could not procure it—that if he asked not for alms, but for work to obtain bread for himself and his family, and could not gain it, his patience would break down; he should be driven to desperation; he never could consent to sit by and see those who were near and dear to him, reduced to the last stage of starvation. He only wanted hon. Members to apply themselves to the facts. The last time he went to the place he represented, he was truck with the change since he had been first connected with it. Instead of finding general appearances of contentment, he found that the pawnbrokers' shops were over laden with goods, so that they could not take in any more; and many houses, which he recollected as the abodes of comparative comfort, were stripped of their furniture. He found individuals, who were formerly in apparent ease, in a wretched,
540
ragged, and worn out condition. He believed that it would not be long before this state of things would visit the rural districts. He believed that the population would go from the districts at present impoverished into the agricultural districts, and, if they went under the pressure of positive want, it required no prophet to predict how this would act, He did not wish to carry on a species of warfare against votes of supply; to him it was extremely irksome; those who thus acted in the House were very far behind the opinion and the wishes of the people out of doors; if within those walls they were thought to exceed the ordinary bounds, yet, by the suffering people out of doors, they were considered to keep too much within them. He hoped that before the Government decided that the representatives of the people should have no other opportunity of stating their feelings in that House, the Government would be a little more explanatory as to its future policy; he hoped that it would not act altogether to destroy the belief that something might be done to induce a prospect of amelioration; let them not go to their constituents and tell them that all they had said and done amounted to nothing, and that they could do nothing; let them not tell the people they had changed the Corn-bill, and made some improvement in the tariff—that what misery could not be cured by these measures must be endured.
Mr. Humesaid, that further discussion on this subject had been deprecated; it had been said that a limit ought to be put to this sort of debate on the subject of distress and on the Corn-laws; but the only limit to discussion in his opinion, was the attainment of that which he and his hon. Friend sought in the motion before the House—an inquiry into the causes, and a remedy for the distresses, of the people. Up to last night the House had not heard what were the views of the Government as to the means they had to afford relief to the severe and wide-spread distress. Last night, however, both the right hon. Baronets opposite (Sir R. Peel and Sir J. Graham) had made statements which he presumed were to be taken as expressive of the intention of the Government on the subject—namely, to the effect, that they acknowledged the distress, and admitted that it was severe and widely-spread, and that they were anxious to relieve it; but that, as they had passed measures from

541
which they expected relief would soon be derived—that, in particular, they had altered the Corn-law, from which they informed the House that corn was now actually coming into the country in considerable quantities, and they asked the House not to judge, from the effects produced in seven or eight weeks, what would be the ultimate effect; but to give the measure a fair trial. Now he (Mr. Hume) said, that be the result of the trial (of the new Corn-bill) as to quantity what it might, the measure could not afford the relief the country required.—The country wanted more work. If 5,000,000 quarters of corn were to come in by the temporary and sudden opening of the ports, or at a low duty, it would be impossible effectually to relieve the distress of the working population, unless means at the same time were found for employing labour. What they wanted was work, and adequate wages for their work; and without a trade in corn and other great articles of food, and a regular demand and exchange of goods for such corn and food, that desirable effect could not be brought about. If the million and a half quarters of corn now in bond in the Queen's warehouses were let out, the working classes had not the means to purchase them; and, therefore, the letting them out would be of little use to them. The relief which the country required could not be had from this source, it must be derived from work to give wages. That was the con elusion he arrived at. Nothing would restore the population of this country to their usual comfort but perfect freedom of trade, and the abolition of all those restrictions which now impede trade. If foreign corn, sugar, butter, cheese, and other articles of general use with the people, could be admitted freely, and a trade created in those articles, a renovation of labour would be the consequence—without that all other measures were, in his opinion, rain. Did hon. Members seriously consider what the danger was, to which the country would be exposed if the want and privations were not soon removed? He could hardly say on how slender a foundation the peace of the country rested. The working classes were not alone suffering great distress; the shopkeepers and middle classes, the master manufacturers, the men of capital, were all suffering, and fast approaching the condition of the working classes. Day
542
after day, mills were stopping and firms failing; everything showed that all our industrious classes were approaching with rapid strides to the same condition. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Baronet what measures had been passed that, in his opinion, could relieve this state of things. He admitted the justice of the complaint of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that justice had not been done to him for the extent of the changes in the duties, nor to the principles on which he had based his tariff. lie (Mr. Hume), fully admitted that great benefits to the commerce and industry of this country would follow from what he had done; but, as to immediate or early relief for the distress of the country from the alterations made in the tariff, he could not see a chance of it; and he, therefore, asked the right hon. Baronet whether the responsibility that would lie thus cast upon the Government by their proroguing Parliament in the present state of the country, was not such as to induce him to reconsider the nature and extent of the distress, and allow his hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson) to take the course which he proposed? He asked the right hon. Baronet whether the distress to which the manufacturing capitalists were fast approaching was not sufficiently alarming to induce him to adopt this course? If many more of them were swept away by the loss of trade, was there no danger to other classes in the State? If commerce was ruined, would the landed interest remain long untouched? Another very important consideration ought to weigh with the Government, how far the financial resources of the country, with this distress prevalent everywhere, could be depended upon to meet the demands of the State? Was it possible to suppose that the income of the country, which depended so much on the consumption of the industrious and manufacturing classes by direct taxation, could long be raised, if this state of things continued? Then, with 1,500,000 quarters of corn under the Queen's lock (or, as it might more properly be called, the landlord's lock), was it to be expected that the pre-set extent of distress would be quietly endured by the famishing people? He was convinced the landed interest would find ere long the danger of causing and keeping up the distress in the country by their system of monopoly and exclusion. As a sign of the times the poor-rates were

543
increasing everywhere, and the increase was very fast extending over the agricultural districts. Mr. Weale, in his report, taking fourteen agricultural counties, found that the poor-rates had increased since 1840 and 1841, in some 10 per cent., in some 15, and in others 25, and even 33 per cent. The hon. Member then ran rapidly through a paper, showing that the poor-rates had increased more in the last year, in proportion, in Kent, and in various other agricultural counties, than in the manufacturing county of Lancaster, or even in the town of Leicester. In short, unless work was obtained by the millions, by means of a free-trade in food, he believed that the agricultural interest would speedily, in many districts, be eaten up by the paupers who were daily thrown out of manufacturing employment, and would soon be compelled to seek subsistence from their native parishes. The agricultural interest, therefore, was, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, as much interested as the manufacturing interest in the speedy adoption of the only remedy for the distress—freetrade. If hon. Gentlemen thought they had a right to the rents of their own estates whilst the distress and want continued, they were much mistaken. [Laughter.] They might laugh, but he would tell them that, by law, the paupers had the first claim upon the land, and next came the clergy, who must be paid their tithes before a shilling of the rents was touched by the proprietor, who only came in third to receive the rents, or rather the residue of the rents of his own property. He therefore warned the agricultural interest to profit by past experience, and to take care lest by farther aggravation of them, distress the land became a prey to the paupers in the first place, then to the clergy, and the little of rent that remained would only come to them. The country was, by the continuance of these monopolies, about to suffer very severely, and be exposed to a dangerous experiment, the result of which no one could tell. The lamentable condition of the manufacturing interests of Stockport, Burnley, Bolton, and other places in England, had been forcibly stated to the House. The same was the state of many parts of Scotland, and he would state a case in point, in one of the towns of the shire which he represented, to show,them condition of things:—Dundee was the principal manufacturing town in For-
544
farshire. It had thirty-nine mills, employing 1,766 horse-power. Of these ten mills, and 513 horse-power were at present stopped. Numbers of persons were in consequence thrown out of occupation, and unless trade revived, others would follow, and ruin must be their portion. He knew no means by which the population of that manufacturing district could be supported unless some extensive vent or outlet were found for the produce of their labour, which was chiefly linen and linen thread. On all these grounds it was that the House was bound to inquire into the causes of the distress; and he would admit that there were other causes at work than the Corn-laws. The heavy taxation of this year, exceeding fifty-three millions, to be augmented three or four millions by the odious Income-tax, upon the capital and industry of the country, had in his opinion a considerable share in producing the present state of depression. At any rate, he (Mr. Hume) stated that it was utterly impossible to continue that extent of taxation and a monopoly of corn, without frightfully aggravating the distress of the country. Her Majesty's Government, with power to carry any measure through Parliament, and backed as they had been by a powerful majority, seemed to him to disregard the signs of the times, and to refuse in this critical time to apply timely relief; but, in doing so, the responsibility they took on themselves was awful, and the result must be dangerous in the extreme. The peace of the country was in imminent danger. He would further request the right hon. Baronet to reconsider the principles which he had laid down in this Session, as necessary for the prosperity of the trade of this kingdom; and it would be impossible for him, consistent with these principles to allow the present monopolies and the consequent distressed state of the country, to continue one week longer. If all the corn in bond were let out, it would afford little or no relief to the present distress. Perhaps the price of corn might be two or three shillings a quarter cheaper and that would afford some relief, but there could be no means of supplying the people adequately with food, unless the Parliament opened the ports and established perfect freedom of trade. He would add, in respect to taxation, that had the right hon. Baronet adopted the proposition made by the late Government, of having a fixed

545
duty on corn, and reducing the duty on foreign sugar and timber, there would have been ample revenue to supply the deficiency and no necessity for the Income-tax. With regard to the change made in the Corn-laws being really any great improvement, he would ask the right hon. Baronet whether he had received any accounts that foreign countries looked upon the alteration as making any essential change in the Corn-laws? He ventured to tell the right hon. Baronet that foreign countries did not look upon that measure as any great approximation to free-trade. Notwithstanding the confident boasts of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the relief to be derived from his Corn-laws, the existing evils would increase from day to day unless a trade in corn was effected; and, whatever might be the result to the peace of the country, they, on his side of the House, would at least feel satisfied that they had done their duty—that they had endeavoured to force the Government into the consideration of this most important subject, and that, if they would not act upon the suggestions that were offered to them, the responsibility would fall upon them and the majority of the House who had supported these starvation-producing laws.
Mr. Fieldenbore his testimony to the condition of distress to which the people of this country were reduced. He requested the right hon. Baronet to give at least some encouragement for the people to hope that the Government would bring forward some plan to relieve them from their present state of distress, For his own part, he did not know how his own workpeople could be maintained. He would do everything in his power to assist. them, but he feared that they must still undergo a great deal of suffering, even before the winter came on. He felt bound, on every consideration of justice and duty to support this motion for a committee of the whole House to take into its consideration the distressed state of the country.
Sir C. Burrellregretted that nothing had been suggested by Gentlemen opposite for the relief of the distress that prevailed, but a total repeal of the Corn-laws; but he was convinced that if this were done it would do incalculable mischief, not only to the agriculturists, but to the manufacturers themselves, as it would destroy their home market. He imputed a great deal of the distress that prevailed in the
546
Agricultural districts to the changes in fashion in this as well as in foreign countries. In consequence of some feeling of this kind he had no doubt but that many foreign countries did not choose to purchase English manufactures as they formerly did.
Mr. Villiers.said, that the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had said, that if all the manufacturers in this House, or in this country, were like the hon. Member for Oldham, that they should be able to proceed in this discussion in a more amicable and friendly spirit than they had hitherto done. Now he would retort the compliment upon the hon. Baronet, and say, that if the country gentlemen in this House were all like him, and had the manliness to stand up before their opponents, and, in the face of the country, to vindicate their policy and their character, which was so deeply involved in this discussion, there would at least be removed that impression which then existed, that, conscious of the injustice of their conduct, they dared not utter a word in its defence. With the impression which he had himself of their policy, he could only explain their silence by supposing, that they felt without excuse for its continuance; and he indeed only felt surprise, when any person on his (Mr. Villiers') side should offer any apology for the motion of his hon. Friend, which is said to arrest the progress of public business, when in truth that apology, if one was due from any quarter, ought to come from the opposite side, for compelling hon. Members in the discharge of their duty, to bring on such a motion. Yes, he said so, because they had it in their power to prevent any motion of this kind being made by doing their duty, either by granting some inquiry into the causes of the distress, or assigning some reasons of their own for its existence, or by applying some relief; but what had been their course—they had refused every inquiry—they had assigned no intelligible reason for the distress, and had not proposed any remedy; and now complained that Members, in the discharge of their duty to constituents, who were suffering the extremity of distress, availed them-selves of every moment while the House was sitting, to detail the sad consequences of the legislation of this House upon the well-being and condition of the people. He was reminded that the hon. Baronet, who had just sat down, had

547
assigned a cause for the distress; he had so certainly, and a very fanciful one it was. He, seemed to think that the problem of general distress might be solved by the effect of a change of fashions which had recently occurred—he supposed he meant in country gentlemen's dress. That might satisfy the hon. Baronet, on whom the responsibility of' the present state of the country would rest; but he thought that the Minister would not think that was sufficient to satisfy the country, as to the cause of the depression now affecting the productive classes of every kind; and in the absence of any better explanation from him, he must justify the motion of his hon. Friend, which, like all the similar motions, was attended with advantage in argument to those who agreed in the chief remedy which had been prescribed, of removing the restriction which now limited and obstructed the trade in food. He cared not in what manner such motions were treated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, for they were sure in some way to benefit the cause; for if hon. Gentlemen attempted to argue in favours of the Corn-laws, their opponents profited by the exposure of the shallowness of their case. If they were silent, all men imputed it to their discretion, as having nothing to say; while discussion offered to the advocates of their repeal a happy opportunity of illustrating the fallacies by which they had hitherto been defended, and certainly there never was a time when that could be done with more effect, whether it was with reference to the wages of labour, or the profits of trade, or the independence of foreigners; and he availed himself of that opportunity of asking the country now to examine how those promises had been fulfilled by which the law which he contended had caused their distress, the repeal of which would remove it, had been maintained, and to say if that was not enough to account for the silence of Members who, in more prosperous times, were noisy and eloquent in claiming for the law the national or benevolent purpose of making wages high, of rendering capital profitable, and making the nation independent of foreign supply. He asked now what were the wages of the labourer and of the operative? Let them say—let them answer how far the Corn-laws have kept up their wages. Let the manufacturer say whether he is realizing a fortune upon his customers at home, having lost his
548
best customers abroad. Where is the independence of supply from abroad? Is there any man opposite hardy enough to say that wages have been kept up by or with the price of food? Will any man opposite deny, that those who live by labour in this country are in the most pitiable condition that he has ever yet known them, and some of them in a state worse than is usually the lot of human beings in a civil state? Will any man dare to deny, or has any one ventured in one particular to gainsay the shocking stories brought from the great manufacturing towns, of the loss, misery, and suffering, which is being endured by capitalists and labourers. Is the silence then of Gentlemen opposite to be wondered at when they see every promise to the people broken, and every prediction falsified, while all disinterested men agree that those very laws are the prominent cause of those evils, which they have so failed to avert. But is the independence of foreign supply the price of which we are satisfied to pay for all this sacrifice. Why, what is the boast, or rather the hope of the Government—but that the distress may be somewhat abated by the large admission of foreign corn, which they pray, and which they expect will be soon admitted? Is it not then some advantage to have these discussions to complete the exposure of all these wretched fallacies? and when hon. Gentleman sit there silent, not daring to utter, lest by the repetition of such things at the moment, they would be treated with ridicule and derision—it is the advantage of discussion to expose these fallacies, for, when detected and exposed, they become ridiculous, and he believed, that when ridicule attached to error, it was the best chance that the truth had of being supported. But it was said, that they were an impotent minority, and that they could do nothing; he wanted to know where was the experience that justified any such conclusion? He thought that the minority had done everything—or at least nothing would have been done without it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester had stated truly, that the rulers Of this country were Omnipotent if backed by public opinion, but weak and impotent in upholding any exclusive advantage, when acting in violation of public opinion. How, then, had the minority derived their influence? By acting on that opinions,

549
by exhibiting clearly to the public the iniquitous, inhuman, mischievous character of' the restrictions on human food, till they had so far influenced public opinion, as to compel Gentlemen opposite who were connected with the Government to abandon the defence of the law, and to he eager in disclaiming for themselves all desired for its continuance; indeed to avow them-selves zealots in the opposite cause. This had been chiefly done by the import duty committee, the whole of whose proceedings had been conducted by a few zealous Members; for though they had been in. suited, derided, and reproached for their labours in the year in which they acted, a year had not elapsed before the report they made, and the evidence which they collected, was the basis of all that was popular, ail that was useful, that had been proposed by the Government; and what had they seen since, hut every ground, one by one, on which the majority in this House sought to defend their monopoly, abandoned, until the Corn-laws were fairly reduced to their last legs, and were now only supported by that rude and selfish kind of power which an hon. Baronet had confided to the Member for Salford, that an interested majority of this House, to serve their interest, had so used? ["Oh, ohm"] Gentlemen seemed to doubt what he said, but they well knew how these laws had been maintained; they had been by appeals to the ignorance of the multitude, by deluding them by captivating fallacies of various kinds, and by bringing the social and pecuniary influence of the aristocracy to bear upon the selfishness, servility, and narrow-mindedness of the middle classes. But what was now the case? The people now rendered keen-sighted by education, and excited by distress, saw through and proclaimed the frauds by which they had been cheated; and them middle class, now depressed by the natural operation of these laws, had been acknowledging their past error, and were in every direction holding out the hand of fellowship to their unrepresented brethren, and almost avowing that in the manner in which they had used their exclusive rights, they had neglected or betrayed the trust reposed in them. If it was then, the result of discussion that the truth was disclosed why should discussion not continue? What had been proposed to satisfy those who desired to improve the condition of the
550
people? What had been said to assume them of the good disposition of the present Government, when everything that had been obtained had been wrung from them with the greatest difficulty and almost by constraint What had been proposed—anything to improve the condition of the people?—he unhesitatingly said not. They had been told last night that great principles had been announced, and that they ought to be content; but great principles announced will not teed the people. The people want more food, more trade; what will the announcement of great principles do for that? He could assure the Government opposite, that nothing would ever satisfy those who agreed with him, but actually and permanently improving the condition of the people. That lie believed to be possible—that he believed the resources of this country, the skill and habits of the people, and the large capitals ready to give employment and development to both, would render possible; and that he believed was only prevented by inhuman, selfish, silly legislation. He did not look upon it either in that point of view alone—he looked at it also in a moral and political view, for be felt satisfied that a people could never be morally improved, or rendered fit for political rights, unless they were relieved from anxiety as to the mere means of supporting life —that must engross their whole mind at first, and while it was rendered difficult, must make them completely dependent—and while they were in that contrition all attempt to extend education would be useless, and the extension of political rights degrading or dangerous. He wished to see the people well educated and in die enjoyment of political rights, and as he knew that before they could be either they must be as it were physically free, or removed from the anxious condition of wanting food, he felt anxious to remove these unnatural obstructions to their improvement. He firmly believed, in the present state of the world and the state of these two islands, this was possible; and as the people of this country ought to be raised morally, politically, and physically, no trouble should be spared, or any opportunity lost to promote the first greet object of emancipating trade, and for this reason he should cordially, with the view to convert and convince other Members to his view, support the motion of the hon. Member, which was, that we should devote this leisure and appropriate

551
moment to inquire into the cause of the frightful distress prevailing in the country, with the view to its instant removal.
Mr. Muntzdid not quite approve of the course which had been taken; he did not disguise from himself that this was a Corn-law debate, and he wished it had been brought on as such. He rose to speak then, lest it should be inferred from his silence that the condition of his own constituents and neighbours was not so very deplorable; but having been lately much amongst them, and having sought information, he could say that rich and poor, old and young, male and female, Whig, Tory, and Radical, told him the same story, that they had never known trade so bad, and had never seen so slight a hope of any improvement. It was not only that the prices of provisions were high, but that wages were so low that the working man could not afford to buy provisions. He had given notice of a motion for an inquiry into the distress of the country next Session; and the House would, therefore, conclude that he was not in favour of an inquiry at present. In his opinion, neither the country, that House, or the Ministers, were in a condition at present to enter fairly upon that inquiry. But when such a motion as the present was made, he could not refrain from saying, that he entirely concurred in the object sought to be attained, and the necessity for finding some remedy. He was about to commence a new establishment, and the applications which he had for labour were quite distressing to him; in-stead of asking for labour as a right to be exchanged for his money, the labouring man came and begged it as a charity— trembling for fear of a refusal, and not walking upright as Englishmen ought to do. He differed from many Gentlemen as to the cause of the distress, but it was, at all events, necessary that some inquiry should take place, though not at present, into that distress and its causes. The right hon. Baronet, in opening the budget this year, had used this expression; "when we restored the circulation in 1829, we took time to consider it." But he was at issue with the right hon. Baronet upon that matter—he had not restored the circulation. He would not say another word as to the cause of the distress, but he pressed on the right hon. Baronet the necessity of seriously considering what remedy could be provided.
Mr. M. Philipsdiffered from the hon. Member for Birmingham, that this inquiry would bear postponement. No less than 62,900 of his constituents had requested him to represent to the House the misery into which they were plunged, and the destitution by which they were surrounded. As a proof of it, he would state that in 1836 the poor-rates in Manchester were 24,000 l., in 1841, 45,000 l., and this year no less than 52,000 l. He did not think there had been any extraordinary emigration from the agricultural districts to which this could be attributed. The hon. Member concluded by expressing a hope that the right hon. Baronet would not permit Parliament to separate without attempting to grapple with the means for remedying the distress that existed before it reached its climax.
Mr. Cobdenmoved the adjournment of the debate.
The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:—Ayes 33; Noes 188: Majority 155.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Philips, M.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Ricardo, J. L.

Callaghan, D.

Roche, Sir D.

Collins, W.

Rundle, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Russell, Lord E.

Dennistoun, J.

Scholefield, J.

Duncan, G.

Smith, B.

Duncombe. T.

Tancred, H. W.

Easthope, Sir J.

Thorneley, T.

Ewart, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Fielden, J.

Walker, R.

Forster, M.

Wawn, J. T.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Wood, B.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Marshall, W.

Cobden, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Gibson, T. M.

List of the NOES

Acland, Sir T. D.

Barrington, Visct.

Acland, T. D.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

A'Court, Capt.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Allix, J. P.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Antrobus, E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Arkwright, G.

Blackstone, W. S.

Ashley, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Bagot, hon. W.

Borthwick, P.

Baillie, Col.

Bradshaw, J.

Baird, W.

Broadley, H.

Baldwin, B.

Broadwood, H.

Bankes, G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Barclay, D.

Browne, hon. W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Bruce, Lord E.

Barnard, E. G.

Buller, Sir J. y,

553

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hope, hon. C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hornby, J.

Byng, it hon. G. S.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Campbell, A.

Hughes, W. B.

Cardwell, E.

Hussey, T.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hutt, W.

Chute, W, L. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Clayton, R. R.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Clerk, Sir G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Jones, Capt.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Kemble, H.

Codrington, C. W.

Ker, D. S.

Collett, W. R.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Colvile, C. R.

Knight, H. G.

Corbally, M. E.

Knight, F. W.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Langston, J. H.

Courtenay, Lord

Law, hon. C. E.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lefroy, A.

Cripps, W.

Leicester, Earl of

Damper, hon. Col.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darby, G.

Lindsay, H. H

Dick, Q.

Litton, E.

Dodd, G.

Lockhart, W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Lyall, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Duff, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

M' Geachy F. A.

East, J. B.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Eastnor, Visct.

March, Earl of

Ellis, W.

Meynell, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Morgan, O.

Escott, B.

Morris, D.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Morison, Gen.

Feilden, W.

Mundy, E. M.

Flower, Sir J.

Napier, Sir C.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Newport, Visct.

Forbes, W.

Newry, Visct.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Nicholl, right hon J.

French, F.

Norreys, Lord

Fuller, A. E.

O'Brien, J.

Gaskell, J. Miles

Owen, Sir J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Packe, C. W.

Gladstone, T.

Paget, Col.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pakington, J. S.

Gore, M.

Palmer, R.

Gore, W. 0.

Patten, J. W.

Goring, C.

Peel, rt. his. Sir R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Peel, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pemberton, T.

Granby, Marq. of

Pollock, Sir F.

Greene, T.

Praed, W. T.

Grimston, Visct.

Pringle, A.

Grogan, E.

Protheroe, E.

Hale, R. B.

Pryse, P.

Halford, H,

Rashleigh, W,

Hall, Sir B.

Richards, R.

Hamilton, W. J.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Harcourt, G. G.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Russell, J. D. W.

Hardy, J.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Henley, J. W.

Sanderson, R.

Herbert, hon. S.

Sandon, Visct.

Hervey, Lord A.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Hill, Lord M.

Sheppard, T.

Hodgson, F.

Smith, J. A.

Hodgson, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

554

Stanley, Lord

Vivian, J. E.

Stewart, J.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Stuart, H.

Wodehouse, E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Wood, Col. T.

Taylor, J. A.

Wood, G, W.

Thompson, Ald.

Wyse, T.

Thornhill, 0.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Tollemache, J.

Young, J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

TELLERS.

Tufnell, H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Verner, Col.

Baring, H,

On the original question being again put,
Mr. Hindleymoved the adjournment of the House. He thought it was justified in doing so because the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had not expressed his sentiments on the motion. He ought at least to answer the question, whether the country could goon another year with corn at 64 s. a quarter, or whether, if the price did not fall, he would open the ports.
Mr. G. Berkeleywould vote for any inquiry into the distress, but not for an adjournment, which would only obstruct the public business.
Sir R. Peel: I must say that if regular attendance in this House, during the whole of the Session, be a proof of sensibility to the distress of the country, I have given that proof much more strongly than the hon. Member himself (Mr. Hindley). I venture to say, that for one night on which the hon. Gentleman has been in his place, I have been three. The hon. Gentleman having absented himself during most of the debates of this Session, says now, as a justification for moving the adjournment of the House, that I have not answered such a question as this—if the price of corn be above 50 s. or 54 s., will I make a promise that the ports shall be opened? Sir, I think I have been treated very unfairly in this discussion. I have shown no impatience with hon. Members. I have never imputed the delays that have taken place, to any improper motive. I may have complained of those delays, but I have made no charge against those who caused them. On every occasion on which this subject has been debated, I have taken a part in the discussion. A proposal to inquire into the distress of the country was brought under the consideration of the House and was debated for three successive nights. A motion was made by the hon. Member for Greenock, that an humble address be

555
presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to refuse her consent to the prorogation of Parliament, until a full and searching inquiry was instituted into the causes of the unprecedented distress existing at present all over the kingdom. That motion was negatived by a majority of, I believe, 175 to 84. On that occasion I entered fully, as the organ of her Majesty's Government, into the reasons which prevented my acceding to the motion. Since that a debate, almost identical, took place on the motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who proposed that her Majesty's Government should have a discretionary power of opening the ports. On that occasion, I and some of my Colleagues entered fully into the discussion. Last night another debate took place on a motion exactly embracing the same subject. On that occasion, was there any symptom of a wish on the part of her Majesty's Government to treat hon. Gentlemen opposite or this subject with the slightest disrespect? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department delivered his sentiments in that debate. I, too, at considerable length entered fully into the subject, and explained my views. Now observe, the hon. Member for Manchester spoke at a late hour last night, and proposed the adjournment of the debate. He found the sense of the House against the adjournment, and that the prevailing wish was, that the debate should be brought to a close. Not acquiescing in the opinion that the debate should be closed, the hon. Member gave notice of an amendment on the motion for going into committee of supply, thereby distinctly implying that the debate should be the seine, and (notice being given only last night) plainly intimating that he meant to make the speech to-night which he was prevented from delivering last night. Now I ask whether to all practical intents and purposes this is not an adjournment? It is a painful part of a Minister's position to he subjected to all manner of imputations, if he do not consent to occupy the public time by a repetition of his sentiments on an adjourned debate. It is utterly impossible that after the lapse of about twenty hours I should be able to offer any arguments different from those I stated last night, or give any further explanation of the intentions of Government. The conduct of public men may be safely appealed to on an occasion like this; and
556>
if I wanted any confirmation of the view I take of this as an adjourned debate and nothing else, it would be supplied by the fact that not more than two or three of her Majesty's late Government are now present. I do hope that the expression of a wish that this debate may not be adjourned may not be taken as an indication of disrespect. I have a very strong impression that this continued resistance to the expressed will of the majority is a fatal blow to the authority of this House. I protest against the perpetual exercise off a power guaranteed to the minority only on extraordinary occasions. And I hope that some of those Gentlemen opposite who are opposed to me on general politics will express their concurrence in the sentiments I have expressed as to these protracted discussions.
Mr. Ewartadmitted that the conduct of the right hon. Baronet had been always marked by respect to his side, and that if he had made the statement which he had just delivered before the motion had been I made for the adjournment, it would have prevented much misapprehension. He believed that the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport was, to elicit an expression of opinion from the right hon. Baronet on the important subject of the present discussion. He thought his hon. Friend ought now to persist.
Mr. Cobdenhad moved the adjournment under a misapprehension, he believed, of the rules of the House; but he really thought a motion supported by Members from Manchester, Birmingham, Bolton, and such towns, suffering at the present moment under the deepest distress, and begging only for a committee to inquire into its cause, was entitled to some notice from her Majesty's Ministers, Nothing the right hon. Baronet had said changed his opinion that the present debate was not identical with that of last night. He asked whether the able speech by which the motion was introduced was not applicable to the present state of the country, and not to what it might be three months hence? Here was the hon. Member for Manchester with a memorial signed by 62,000 persons, calling on him to stop the supplies, and this important document was not before the House at all last night. The right hon. Baronet, no one could deny it, had been punctual and unwearied in his attendance; but he understood it was the custom for a Prime Minister to be in his place In Parliament; he understood

557
it to be one of his functions. The right hoe. Baronet was very deferential to the "sense of the House," but the sense of the country was also worthy of some little attention. And he told the right hon. Baronet boldly, that the majority of that House were looked on in the country with utter disgust and contempt. He said so advisedly, and six months would not elapse before hon. Gentlemen opposite would be brought to the same opinion. When the right hon. Gentleman held the scales on which the destinies of the country depended, he thought he was acting anything but an unfriendly part towards him if he gave him an opportunity for stating his reasons why, with such a majority at his back, he refused to grant a committee to inquire into the present distress. If his countrymen, like the Hindoos, were prepared to lie down under the Juggernaut of monopoly, they might disapprove of an adjournment; but believing they had the spirit of Englishmen, he was sure they would support him in his resolution, to give the right hon. Baronet time until Monday to reconsider his opinions on this subject.
Mr. Hawesfelt great pain in saying a single word in opposition to his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, but the preservation of the representative principle of our Constitution rested on considerations superior to all others, and he did think that the determination to resist the deliberate opinion expressed by the majorities of that House must be altogether fatal to our constitution. If he wished to bring about the downfall of those to whom he was opposed as rapidly as possible, all he should desire was, that time after time their votes should be registers in contradistinction to the permanent interests of the people. The best way to impart to them a factitious strength Las not so much by giving them a factious opposition, as yielding to the decision of the majority; and appealing by all legitimate means from it to the public was the surest means that could be adopted of cutting short ids tenure of power. He was bound to admit that no one could have given a closer attention to the business of the public than the right hon. Baronet, or behaved with greater courtesy to his opponents. He must, before concluding say, that when the representatives of the manufacturing districts brought forward a motion for enquiry into the deep and perilous distress of their constituents, it was hard and provoking to find hon.
558
Gentlemen resisting it by the mere force of numbers, and not condescending to enter the arena of debate. He thought, too, that after the statements which had been made, the Minister ought to state, in as short an address as he pleased, the reasons which induced him to resist inquiry. If motions should be made for the mere purpose of adjournment, he would join in resisting them on grounds closely connected with the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, as they existed in the constitutional practice and usages of the House of Commons.
Mr. Cowperexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Ashton would withdraw the motion for adjournment. If the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth did not speak, the fair inference to be drawn from his silence was, that he had nothing new to say upon the subject.
Mr. Fieldedsaid, that his answer to those who complained of the motion for adjournment was this—the people were perishing for want of food. If the Government would do nothing to relieve those who were perishing for want of the necessaries of life, he wanted to know what the Government was for? The Government in this country was a very expensive affair: it took between fifty and sixty millions in taxes from the starving people. What right had the Government to complain of being obstructed in voting the supplies, and robbing the people by taxing them when they had nothing to pay. Was that the way to treat the English people? Talk of obstructing such treatment! why, he took a pride in obstructing it. If Ministers would not tell how they proposed to relieve the distresses of the people, he would not grant them a shilling. The House had passed the Poor-law Bill that night to prevent property from contributing to the relief of the necessitous, except under the directions of the tyrants in Somerset-house. They could pass laws to coerce the people, but they were slow to devise means of distributing among them, when they were starving, the abundance which this country possessed. Would the right hon. Baronet tell him what the Government was for? It was constituted for some purpose. Was it only for the purpose of wringing an immense sum of money from the people? The people must be fed and furnished with employment, and unless food and employment should be provided for them, every obstruction ought to be thrown in the way

559
of the Government, and he, for one, was willing to go on obstructing them till five o'clock in the morning. He was not going to flinch. His hon Friend near him wished to address the House on the question of distress. The right hon. Baronet was not doing his duty to the country. He had sought and obtained a private interview with the right hon. Baronet, who received him with great affability. He communicated to the right hon. Baronet what ought to have engaged his attention. He explained the condition of the country, and told the right hon. Baronet that he must do something to prevent the people from starving; but all his pleading had been of no avail. Never since he entered the House of Commons had he been able to obtain relief for the suffering people. He had in his pocket a petition from a flannel weaver of Rochdale, who stated that, in 1829, he laid out 80 l. in machiney, which he put up in his house, and at that time he had 40 l.. in money by him. He was now ruined. What did this weaver say? ["Question."] "You had better," said the hon. Member, turning round and addressing the Members at the Bar — "You had better go home to your wives." This weaver, with his wife and children, had now no resource but the workhouse. He had received a letter from the weaver to-day, in which he said that he had no respect for any order of society. This honest and upright man, in the first instance, sent his petition to the right hon. Baronet, who returned it to him, and recommended him to get it presented by some other Member, and, in consequence, it had been sent to him. It was the old constitutional practice to redress the grievances of the people before granting supply. That was the course which ought to be pursued now. 20,000,000 l. had been voted for the emancipation of the negroes in the West Indies, who were better off than the English labourers. Why not vote 20,000,000 l. for the emancipation of the white slaves in England? With that sum they could purchase the superabundant stock in the manufacturing districts, and lay it up until there should be a demand for it. He did not come there to entreat a favour, but to demand a right. He might be charged with factiousness, but he knew he was doing his duty. He would divide upon the question of adjournment, until five o'clock in the morning.
Mr. T. Buncombethought that the
560
whole of the difficulty in which they were placed had occurred from the circumstance of his hon. Friend, the Member for' Stockport, not having, in the first instance, stated his reasons for moving an adjournment. If he had done so, the right hon. Baronet opposite would have then given the explanation which he had since made. He would have stated that he intended no disrespect to this side of the House. [Mr. Cobden: To the country.] To this side of the House or to the country. He would have stated that, if he had risen to reply, he could only have used the same arguments which he had so lately employed. Now, however, as that explanation had been given, he trusted that the hon. Member for Stockport would proceed to address the House as he had intended, and he was sure that his address would be heard with both attention and advantage.
Sir R. Peel: Every word which the hon. Gentleman has said is truth. I did think it a most unusual proceeding that an hon. Gentleman should, at twelve o'clock, have moved an adjournment, when there was no disinclination on the part of the House to listen to him, or to any other hon. Member.
Mr. Milner Gibsonsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had been in error, in charging him with having brought on his motion because he had not an opportunity of speaking last night. His motion was quite a new one. It had occurred to him before his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, brought forward his motion; and he had put a notice of motion on the votes, some time ago, that he would call the attention of the House to the existing distress. He repeated, that his motion was a different proposition from that of his hon. Friend, and must be answered in a different way. His motion was for a committee, to consider and inquire into existing distress, and he very much wished to know on what reasonable ground it could be refused?
Sir R. Peelmust have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He did not know that he had given notice of a motion on going into supply; but it was one calling the attention of the House merely to the distress existing among the shopkeepers of Manchester. He certainly had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman so fare as to believe that he had last night risen to speak, or to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Hindleybegged to withdraw his motion. He had only to say, in answer to

561
the taunt of the right hon. Baronet, as to his absence from the House, that he sincerely congratulated the right hon. Baronet in not having had the same reason for absence as he had—domestic affliction.
Mr. Cobdensaid, that the only reason he could have for addressing the House was, the faint hope of being able to induce her Majesty's Government to take a different view of the subject from that which they had adopted. Let them consider the circumstances of the case. These circumstances were not now as they had been, when the right hon. Baronet began the Session. Every month, every week, of his career, had been marked by one succession of misfortunes. When he came into office, he told them that he would diligently inquire into every fact connects with the distressed state of the people, with a view to their relief. He had had the best opportunities of becoming acquainted with the state of the country—of knowing the progress of distress, the gradual diminution of employment, and the increase in the amount of the poor-rates; but he would ask, had he redeemed his pledge? He had never even condescended to bring the state of the country before the House—he had never moved for a committee of inquiry. The noble Lord his Colleague had moved for a committee of inquiry into the state of our negro population, and his committee had been sitting all Session. Another committee had been moved for and obtained to institute an inquiry into the state of the negro tribes on the coast of Africa, but there had been no time for the consideration of the state of the people of this country. Under these circumstances should they not insist—had they not a right to insist on Government now coming forward and stating their opinion of the condition of the country. If they had no such right what was the use of a Government—of an executive at all? It was left for his side of the House to plead for the distresses of the people — the Members representing the agricultural interest sat silent and seemed to take credit to themselves, and extend the impression to others, that the interest which they represented was in a state of prosperity. He would ask the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon, whether the rate of wages to able-bodied agricultural labourers in that county exceeded 7s. per week? He would ask him whether the convicts in the hulks at Devonport were not fed at,
562
double the cost of those human beings fed by him and his brother landed proprietors? He would ask the hon. Members, the representatives of Dorsetshire, of Wiltshire, of Gloucestershire, of Hampshire, of Oxfordshire, whether able-bodied labourers in those counties were earning more than 7s. per week, or about 1s. 2½d. for each of the family, taking the number of a family at the ordinary average, an amount not more than one-half of the sum paid for the subsistence of paupers? It would be some poor consolation for the suffering operatives if they thought that their distress contributed to the comfort of their agricultural fellow-subjects; but it was an aggravation of the distress of the manufacturers to know that these Corn-laws, which deprived them of food, were also contributing to the misery of the agriculturists, for whose benefit they were said to be enacts. He charged hon. Gentlemen with subterfuge in leaving it to be understood by their silence that the agriculturists were not suffering—that they were not in a permanently distressed condition. The manufacturers were suffering under temporary distress, but the agriculturists were pining under permanent distress and bankruptcy. The agricultural Members were not here with clean hands; but their silence would not screen them in the eyes of the country. When they said that the Corn-laws benefitted the agriculturists, they spoke words of rank hypocrisy. The manufacturer earned, by skilled industry, 12 s. per week. Were these skilful artisans to be brought down to the 7s. per week of the agricultural districts? Yes, that was what they were attempting to do. They had done it for their own population, and now they were trying to do it for the manufacturing population—for the skilful and intelligent artisan. Did the majority in that House suppose, that by sitting silently there when these things were stated, they could screen themselves from the indignation of the public? If so, they were much mistaken. The question lay not merely with the majority of that House. The country had a right to look to the right hon. Baronet himself. No one could sit in that House without seeing that in that House the right hon. Baronet had no equal, and could have no successor. In that House he was master; and with such a power in his hand, and with so awful a responsibility, resting on him, was the right hon.

563
Baronet to prorogue Parliament while such was the condition of the country? They had heard the statement of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire. He had had letters from Nottingham, from Leicester, and from other places, denying those statements, and declaring that at no previous period had the country been in so bad a condition, There were individuals in the manufacturing districts, who for party considerations were ready to sacrifice their property to gain the smiles of the majority in that House. These individuals were the unworthy successors of Wedgwood, Arkwright and Peel. Were those the men to whom the right hon. Baronet had been listening? Were those the men who had told him things were mending? The right hon. Baronet had been deceived by them before, and if he trusted to them now he would be deceived by them again. They had not looked at the thing with impartiality. They knew nothing off free-trade, and, therefore, could not believe in it. The men who were crowding up to London and seeking for interviews with the right hon. Baronet, to lay before him the condition of the country were a different class of men, These men warned the Ministers before, and he would call on the right bon. Baronet now to listen to these men, who had had practical experience of what they were anxious to enforce on the right hon. Baronet. Had they ever been accustomed to leave their business for the purposes of faction? The very fact that these men were in London in large numbers was sufficient to convince men of shrewd observation that there was something wrong in the present state of things. Nor was it fair to reproach them (the Opposition) with bringing this question forward again and again. Every day there was something new springing up. What changes had not occurred within the last three weeks? Was it known three weeks ago that a change had taken place in the cabinet at Washington? Was the ordinance of the French government known three weeks ago, or the changes that had taken place in Belgium? Did the right hon. Baronet mean to tell the House that his measures were stereotyped at the commencement of the Session? The change in America was quite enough to arrest all the projects of the British Parliament, and to bid the Government not rest till they had secured a low tariff in America. It was in their power now to do so. The
564
President had vetoed a bill for imposing a high tariff on British goods. [Sir Howard, Douglas: The President had not vetoed a bill for imposing a high tariff, but merely a temporary act.] But the object of that temporary act was to levy high duties on British manufactures. And in taking this step the President was relying on the support of the people against the majority of the Congress. He knew that the bulk of the democracy of America was favourable to the principles of free-trade It was in the power of the British Government now to confirm that feeling of the American democracy. All they need do was to alter their law, and the first steamboat that carried out to America the news that such an alteration was about to take place, would call all the agricultural States of America into action. They would all rally round the President against a high tariff. Here there was an opportunity of really doing a great service to the country; and when they (the Opposition) felt it to be their duty to call the attention of the Government to these things, were they to be told that they were obstructing public business? Or were to be answered only by being reminded that the Premier was punctual and regular in his attendance in that House? In 1826, the American Minister told Mr. Canning that the tariff never would have been passed but for the English Corn-laws, and were the English Corn-laws now done away with, a high tariff would not again be enacted in America. The number of agricultural States had increased since 1826. Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois had since then risen up, and their weight thrown into the scale would suffice to decide the question. There were monopolists in America as well as here, who were opposed to the introduction of free-trade between the two countries; but in America the monopolists would find it vain to make a struggle against the wishes and the wants of the people. But now it was said that the estimates were required. For what? Was it estimates for the militia? And for what did they require the militia? Was it to put down the people during the winter? And then it was to be said that in opposing this they were to be called "factious." But what cared they what names they might be called, when they knew that they were supported by the country? Was, he asks, their conduct to be influenced by the absurd policy of France in

565
shutting out their linens? Ought not, he asked, on the contrary, the prohibition in the one country to induce them to exert themselves in another? And now, having passed the New Poor-law, what a just retribution was this! They had begun them! Session by fixing the price of corn by act of Parliament; why did they riot also fix the rate of wages? But now that they) had passed a law fixing the price of bread —that they had prevented the people from feeding themselves—now that they had done this at the beginning of the Session, they, at the end of the Session, had to pass their New Poor-law amid the execrations of the people, and with some of their own friends backsliding from them. This they did as their only means of giving relief to the poor, when the fact was, that if they took advantage of their situation they might never have an able-bodied pauper, all would be fully employs and all well fed. Stockport, with its miraculous machinery, was standing idle, and yet the people were only to be fed by a new Poor-law, while the raw material for profitable employment was to be found in all parts of the world. This he was sure of, that if those who did this, thought they would lessen the number of the poor in their agricultural counties, he told them that they deceived themselves—that the paupers, within twelve months, would burst through the walls of their unions, if they attempted to enclose them there. The poor, to avoid these unions, now lived like gipsies; but they would return in the winter with habits not improved from their mode of life, to take possession in the New Poor-law workhouses. This, he could assure them, would be found the worthy fruits of such legislation as they had pursued during the present Session. And now he had one word to say to the right hon. Baronet, and he could tell that right hon. Gentleman that the country also had a great deal to say to him. The right hon. Baronet had great power in that House. It was a different thing to have great power in the country. If the right hon. Baronet chose, he might cut off from himself that bigoted section of his followers who acted as a drag-chain upon him. He had heard that right hon. Gentleman greatly complimented. It was said of him that he did not what he would; but only did what he could. This, he said, was an objectionable compliment to a Prime Minister, for
566
there were many on his side of the House who desired to pay a compliment to a Prime Minister, for the next most agreeable thing to receiving a compliment oneself was to be able to patronise a Prime Minister. Now, he would pay no false compliment to the Prime Minister, but he said that he believed lie was the only man who could carry out his own views of free-trade without a revolution. The right hon. Baronet wielded the mercantile Conservatives of the country, and if the right hop. Baronet would carry out his own principles of free trade, he promised him the support of the free traders, without any reference to politics or party. The Anti Corn-law League which would support him was not a political body. They cared nothing for one side or the other. If the right hon. Baronet dismissed this House without doing something to restore confidence in the country, there would be confusion in the land before the time of meeting again. Would the right hon. Baronet be guided by the hon. Member for Shoreham, or would he take to his back the whole commercial and manufacturing interest, and gain for himself immortal honour? The right hon. Gentleman must change sides, and that instantly; and if he were taunted for so doing, this would be his answer—that he had found a country in distress, and had given to it prosperity.
The House divided on the question, that the words, "Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," stand part of the question, —Ayes 156; Noes 64: Majority 92.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Broadwood, H.

Acland, T. D.

Bruce, Lord E.

A'Court, Capt.

Buller Sir J. Y,

Allix, J. P.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Antrobus, F:

Burroughes, H. N.

Arkwright, G.

Campbell, A.

Ashley, Lord

Cardwell, E.

Bagot, bon. W.

Chelsea, Visct.

Baillie, Col.

Chute, W. L. W.

Baird, W.

Clayton, R. R.

Baldwin, B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Bankes, G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Cockburn, rt. Hn. Sir G.

Barrington, Visct,

Codrinton, C. W.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Collett, W. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Colvile, C. R

Blackburne, J. I.

Corry, rt. hon.

Blackstone, W. S.

Courtenay, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Cripps, W.

Borthwick, P.

Darner, hon. Col.

Bradshaw, J.

Darby, G.

Broadley, H.

Douglas, Sir H.

567

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lockhart, W.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Lowther, J. H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Lyall, G.

East, J. B.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Eastnor, Visct.

Mackenzie, T.

Eaton, R. J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Eliot, Lord

M'Greachy, F. A.

Escott, B.

March, Earl of

Eatcourt, T. G. B.

Meynell, Capt.

Farnham, E. B.

Morgan, O.

Feilden, W.

Mundy, E. M.

Flower, Sir J.

Newport, Visct.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Newry, Visct.

Forbes, W.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Norreys, Lord

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Owen, Sir J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Packe, C. W.

Gladstone, T.

Pakington, J. S.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Palmer, R.

Gore, M.

Patten, J. W.

Gore, W. O.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Goring, C.

Peel, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pemberton, T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Granby, Marq. of

Praed, W. T.

Greene, T.

Pringle, A.

Grimston, Visct.

Rashleigh, W.

Grogan, E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hale, R. B.

Richards, R.

Halford, H.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hamilton, W. J.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Harcourt, G. G.

Russell, J. D. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Hardy, J.

Sanderson, R.

Henley, J. W.

Sandon, Visct.

Herbert, hon. S.

Sheppard, T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hodgson, F.

Stanley, Lord

Hodgson, R.

Stewart, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Stuart, H.

Hornby, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hughes, W. B.

Taylor, T. E.

Hussey, T.

Taylor, J. A.

Jermyn, Earl

Thompson, Ald.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Thornhill, G.

Jones, Capt.

Tollemache, J.

Kemble, H.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Ker, D. S.

Verner, Col.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Knight, H. G.

Wodehouse, E.

Knight, F. W.

Wood, Col. T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Lefroy, A.

Young, J.

Leicester, Earl of

Lincoln, Earl of

TELLERS.

Lindsay, H. H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Litton, E.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Browne, hon. W.

Aldan, W.

Callaghan, D.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Cave, hon. R. O.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Cobden, R.

Bernal, R.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Bowring, Dr.

Collins, W.

Brotherton, J.

Corbally, M. E

568

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Philips, M.

Crawford, W. S.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duff, J.

Protheroe, E.

Duncan, G.

Pryse, P.

Duncombe, T.

Ricardo, J. L.

Easthope, Sir J.

Roche, Sir D.

Ellis, W.

Russell, Lord E.

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, J.

Ferguson, Col.

Sheil, right hon. R. L.

Fielden, J.

Smith, B.

Forster, M.

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornley, T.

Hastie, A.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Tufnell, H.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hill, Lord M.

Walker, R.

Hindley, C.

Ward, H. G.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Wawn, J. T.

Hutt, W.

Williams, W.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Wood, B.

Marshall, W.

Wood, G. W.

Morris, D.

Wyse, T.

Morison, Gen.

Yorke, H. R.

Napier, Sir C.

O'Brien, J.

TELLERS.

Paget, dol.

Gibson, T. M.

Peehell, Capt.

Hume, J.

House went into committee of supply pro formâ.
Adjourned at a quarter before three o'clock.