CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE.

HC Deb 26 May 1845 vol 80 cc858-939

Lord J. Russell

Sir, I rise to bring forward the Motion of which I have given notice, the subject of which I cannot but regard as of vast extent and of the highest possible importance. I confess that I should have despaired of being able to produce any useful effect from the course I am now taking, were it not that the question which I am about to discuss having already occupied much of the public attention for several years past, I am enabled to look for some assistance on the part of this House towards elucidating the question, and which will likewise afford us some guide in coming to a determination upon the question. For my own part, I feel it necessary to premise, that I do not mean, by bringing the question before the House, to assert that I am competent to deal fully with so great a subject; but I do say that with reference to the greater part of the evils complained of, the Government has not brought forward any proposition during the present Session to alleviate them, nor has any hon. Member sought to remedy the defects in the people's condition by introducing any measure independent of the Government; whilst, at the same time, various different opinions prevail out of doors with respect to the steps which ought to be taken by the Legislature to improve the situation of the labouring classes. Now, I do consider it to be a matter of the highest importance that this whole subject should be brought before the House, not only with a view to adopting some ulterior measures, but also in order that we may learn from the opinions of those public men who possess weight in this House the views which they take of the various plans which have been proposed from time to time in order to benefit and permanently to elevate the condition of the poorer classes. For I must observe, that whilst I am ready to admit that some of the views which have been propounded with respect to the steps necessary to be taken to better the state of the labouring part of the community are sound and wholesome, other plans which have been proposed for the same purpose are founded on erroneous views of the legislative power, and of the mode of exerting that power for the benefit of the people; which views, if indulged in, might come before the House in a shape in which we could neither give them a negative with any satisfaction, nor an affirmative with any safety. And, first, I must beg to say a few words with respect to the form in which I have brought forward this Motion. Had I been of opinion that by bringing forward each separate proposition singly before the House, the result would have been to originate a measure adequate to the subject, I should probably have taken that course. But, according to the views which are entertained by Her Majesty's Government with respect to legislation, it appears that all measures which are destined to obtain the sanction of Parliament must originate with the Government. The right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues have taken such decided steps to discourage measures from being brought in by other hon. Members than those in immediate connexion with the Government—and both in and out of office they have so repeatedly stated that they consider the Government, and the Government alone, to be responsible for the condition of the country—that I confess I should have looked upon any endeavour on my own part to bring in a measure founded upon any one of the propositions contained in my Motion as altogether futile and abortive. It seems to me, therefore, that the only course to be taken is to propose general resolutions, combining my views of the condition of the people with my notion of the principles upon which measures of improvement should rest; and then leave it to the Government to adopt, if they should think fit, any measures founded on similar principles; or if they should not think fit to adopt such measures, to state to the House their general views of the policy which this country should follow. In my view, the Resolutions which I place before the House are closely connected together. I am of opinion that the Government, which at the present time wishes to propose measures useful to the country, tending to improve the condition of the people, should consider all the subjects which are mentioned in those Resolutions. An hon. Baronet (Sir John Walsh) addressed to me a question to-night, as if he considered the subjects were totally separate and distinct questions. I entirely differ from that view. My opinion is, generally, that you should endeavour to free trade from restrictions; that you should endeavour to relieve industry from those trammels which have been placed on it by legislation; but that in so doing, owing to the legislation of past times, and owing to the present state of the country, it will be necessary to adopt other measures accompanying those intended to remove such restrictions. It is, therefore, my opinion that the great subject of the education of the people ought to form part of the deliberations of the Government, and of the measures to be brought before this House. If any Gentleman tells me that this and other subjects, which seem the least connected with those other I have mentioned in the Resolutions, are separate and distinct from them, I beg to tell him that I differ from him in that opinion. I think you cannot expect that any measure you may propose for the general education and instruction of the people will be effectual, unless you improve their physical condition. I do not think that men who are struggling to obtain substantial necessaries wherewith to support life, will be able or willing to make those exertions which are necessary to give an education to their children. Therefore, generally speaking, I should say that along with measures for the improvement and education of the people, if that be your object, you should endeavour to improve the physical well-being of the people. To bring these matters to detail, I hold in my hand a paper which was signed by Mr. Ashworth, in 1840, in which he gives the total amount of the earnings and expenditure of four different families, each consisting of a man, his wife, and four children. In the first family the earnings are 5s. 6d. a week. In the second family the earnings are 10s. a week; in the third family the earnings are 15s. 6d. a week; and in the fourth family the earnings are 26s. 6d. a week. Now, on examining the details, it will be found that, in the case of the first family, the greater part, or nearly the whole, of the small sum of 5s. 6d. a week for six persons is consumed, as might be expected, in bread and flour, oatmeal, potatoes, and milk—food necessary for the subsistence of the family. In number two, where the earnings are 10s., there is an expenditure for soap and candles, for clothing, and for other articles which afford a revenue to the State. In the third family, where the earnings are 15s. 6d. a week, you find a consumption of tea and coffee; also a sum paid to a sick society, thereby showing a certain degree of prudence and foresight. And on going to the fourth family, where the earnings are 26s. 6d. a week for six persons, you find that there is a sum of 2s. paid for clothing, 6d. a week for education, 6d. for a sick society, and 1s. 4d. for saving. Now, these details show that it is only from these comforts of the labouring classes that you can expect both prudence and ability to enable them to follow that path which would most tend to their own happiness, and conduct to the procurement of a satisfactory education for their children. Therefore, I say at once, that if any person tells me that the subject of a tax upon corn and the sustenance of the people is entirely unconnected with the question of general instruction and education of the people, my answer is—so far from being unconnected, they cannot be separated, and that you cannot take a general and comprehensive view of the situation of the people without taking within that view both the means for their physical comforts, and the means for their moral and religious instruction. In looking at the condition of the people, I do not wish to go over the details, which must be familiar to most Members of this House, in respect to the wages upon which the great portion of the people of this country subsist. It is well known that in many agricultural counties in England wages are not more than 7s. or 8s. a week. That has been stated repeatedly; and when I have asked Gentlemen connected with those counties whether the fact was so, and that such an amount of wages alone was earned in those districts, they have answered me that such was the fact, and that such was the condition of their labourers. Now, Sir, if that is the fact, I need not say what privations it implies, what toil it signifies, and what insufficient means of providing for the comforts of the labourers this must afford. Nor need I go into details to show that the dwellings of these labourers are totally insufficient to furnish ordinary comforts; that the families are crowded together without regard to any rule of delicacy; that many members of the family are obliged to sleep in the same room; and that neither health nor comfort are consulted in the arrangements necessary to be made in order to obtain that room for which they alone can afford to pay rent. But there are general considerations which it appears to me we ought to take into our view, and which involve a retrospection for a very considerable period of time. I am now going, therefore, to trace in some degree, the alterations which have taken place in a long course of years; and in doing so I shall go back to the period of the last century before the commencement of the revolutionary wars. We had a debt at that time of some 250,000,000l., having between 14,000,000l. and 15,000,000l. to pay for the interest of that debt, and also a poor-rate amounting to 2,500,000l.; but the practice of paying advances to labourers out of the poor rates was then unknown to the country. In the course of the wars which began in 1793, various changes took place—changes much for the worse as concerned the situation of the people—changes, the effect of which I think we are still suffering under, and which, from time to time, have been brought under the consideration of this House. In the first place, we have an increase of our debt, making necessary a proportionate increase of our taxation. That increase of our debt was made in the most extravagant manner. Many loans were contracted in such a manner that more than 6 per cent. was paid for the interest, and that not reducible, but remaining for all future time. Sums were borrowed in 1797 in the Three per Cents., when 200l. stock, besides other advantages, were given to lenders of 100l.; so that it appears at the end of Mr. M'Culloch's statistical work, that the sum of 400,000,000l. was borrowed during the war, which entailed upon us an interest on the debt of more than 21,000,000l., thus obliging us to pay more than 5 per cent. as interest upon that sum. When in the course of the beginning of the last century debts were contracted during war, the interest which was thus engaged to be paid at the time was afterwards reduced, so that Sir Robert Walpole, during the long peace which began in 1714, was able to reduce the interest of the debt by about half the total amount at which it stood at the end of the war. That has not been possible with any Minister of this period, in consequence of the mode in which the debt of the last war was contracted. Therefore, in considering our taxation of 50,000,000l. a year, we are always led to reflect that the greater part of that taxation is rendered necessary by the obligations of the public faith, and that it is out of our power to alter it. The whole difference which is possible in our expenditure between the amplest and narrowest limits of a peace establishment amounts to 3,000,000l. At the same time speaking upon this subject of taxation, I think it should not be left out of sight that we have been able, from time to time, to abolish many of those taxes which were laid upon the necessaries of life. The taxes upon leather, upon salt, and upon candles, have been entirely abolished. If anyone would look at the complaints urged against taxation in the last century, they would see that these were taxes, which were particularly denounced, as being most injurious to the interests of the country. Still, however, we have in one way or other, whether by direct or by indirect taxation, to bear that great amount for the interest of our debt, an obligation from which we cannot escape, and from which, except in the way of the proposal made by the First Minister of the Crown this year, viz., by a commutation of those taxes which press more heavily, in preference to those which press less heavily on the industry and resources of the country, the House has no escape. Sir, there is another subject on which a very great alteration was made during the war; I allude to the subject of the currency—to that which the right hon. Baronet last year called "the fatal measure of 1797." The tendency of that measure was greatly to degrade the labourer; the tendency of it was to diminish the value of the wages of his labour. Those wages never increased in proportion to the change which took place in the value of money; at the same time, that depreciation of the general currency of the country led to effects which a depreciation always has produced—it led to an extravagant mode of living, to a sudden enjoyment of high profits, and to a neglect of frugality, prudence, and forethought, which many, both in agriculture and in trade, practise in ordinary times; and in that way it produced a lasting evil upon the country. Sir, I do not say, either, in this respect, that we can make any great change which will be beneficial to the labourer. I believe that the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government in 1819, and the Bill which he proposed last year, were founded on sound principles, and without discussing (which, indeed, is unnecessary at this moment) their particular adaptation to the times at which they were brought forward, I believe it would be a great misfortune if the House should endeavour to depart materially from the principles sanctioned by those measures. At the same time, I think we must always recollect that those measures in themselves produced their evils—that they had disadvantages accompanying them—that they produced what a contraction of the currency following the measure of 1819 was sure to produce—great evils at the time, and that they have contributed, amongst other things, to the injury of the industrious classes—at least, for a considerable time. But now, Sir, I come to another subject, on which I think that Parliament may legislate; on which I think it may legislate with benefit, to overturn, as we have overturned with respect to the currency, the erroneous legislation of the war—I allude to the policy of restrictions and monopoly. If any one speaks of that policy—of the policy of monopoly and restrictions—or, as it is called by those who favour it, of "protection to native industry," he speaks of it as an ancient establishment—as a matter which has become interwoven with the laws of the country; and, therefore, extremely difficult to touch or deal with. But, if we go further, and look at what has actually been the case, we shall find that the chief monopolies and restrictions which now exist are monopolies and restrictions introduced by Ministers who are still living—by persons who are still in Parliament—or by persons who, though not in the direction of public affairs, still remain among us; and whom, therefore, we may consider as quite of our own time. Now, the old system of restriction and monopoly was called, particularly in the time of Adam Smith, the municipal system; and he, in speaking of the restrictions introduced by the Corn Laws, says that he believes that these restrictions in favour of monopolies, and of particular trades, were introduced by persons who were used to the narrow spirit of corporations; and that from corporations it became the practice of traders to seek protection from the Legislature. The country gentlemen, who, generally speaking, were generously disposed, and not being very well acquainted with the matter, on such partial representations of the traders were induced to adopt a policy which they at the time thought to be of some little value to the parties, though of very little advantage to themselves. Now, Adam Smith was relating what was conformable to the experience of his own time. But the experience of our own time has brought us to an entirely different state of things. With an export of manufactures, now amounting perhaps to 50,000,000l. sterling, our manufacturers say that if they be allowed to sell to all the markets of the whole world, it can be no use to them to restrict the introduction of foreign manufactures into this country. They have adopted generally the theory which Adam Smith and his followers have propounded, and which all Europe has adopted, namely, that restriction is a mischievous system, which favours one class in preference to another; and that it is injurious to the labouring class above all other classes in the community. Well then, Sir, if this be the case, let us look at the history of some of these restrictions. I will look to one which has relation to timber. When the war of the French Revolution began, foreign timber was all placed upon an equality. There was no advantage given to Colonial timber. In the course of the war, there were difficulties to our obtaining timber from the Baltic, and a proposition was made in favour of the importation of timber from Canada; and in 1813, that preference was curried to a very extravagant height. This is the account which Mr. M'Culloch gives of the timber trade in his Commercial Dictionary:— In 1809, when this system began, 428,000 tons of British shipping entered inwards from the Baltic. In 1814, the year after the 25 per cent. of additional duty had been imposed on Baltic timber, and when all the ports of that sea were open to our ships, only 242,000 tons of British shipping entered inwards, being little more than half of what it amounted to when the system began. And notwithstanding the vast increase, in the interval, of population and wealth in the countries round the Baltic, our trade with the different ports on that sea has not even now (1843) recovered from the blows inflicted on it in 1819 and 1813. It is seen from the statements previously laid before the reader, that in 1842 only 295,435 tons of British shipping left the Baltic for the United Kingdom. Some gentlemen connected with the Baltic trade gave evidence before a Committee to this effect. They were asked— Has there been a great alteration in the timber trade between Memel and this country of late years?—Since the war, a great alteration; before the war we used to have 950 to 1,000 English ships in a year, and since the war we have had from 200 to 300 only.—When you talk of 900 ships, do you mean 900 ships trading between Great Britain and Memel?—Yes. Such was the case with regard to timber. With regard to other articles, the results were of a similar character, especially with regard to the article of wool. Before the war, there was no duty upon foreign wool. In 1802, a small duty was introduced; that was a duty of somewhat less than ½d. a pound. In 1813 it was increased; in 1819 the duty was again raised, making it 6d. the pound weight. Now, that was no ancient duty; it was no ancient system; it was a plan proposed in 1819, and adopted with a view to favour the agricultural interest. Now, I beg leave, as an instance of the different views which were taken by hon. Gentlemen on this subject, at different periods, to make a comparison of what has taken place in this House recently with what took place in the year 1828. I have already mentioned that a duty of 6d. a pound was levied on wool in 1819. In 1825, that duty was changed, in accordance with the views of Mr. Huskisson, and was reduced to 1d. per pound. The utmost alarm at that time prevailed among the agriculturists, who earnestly entreated that Parliament would impose a high duty on wool. In 1828, a petition was presented by the merchants of London against the proposed tax on foreign wool. On that petition a short discussion ensued, which I will take leave to read to the House:— Sir T. Lethbridge thought that the proposed tax was a necessary protection due to the agricultural interest. At present the price of British wool was ruinously low, and the only way to raise that price was by the imposition of a duty.—Lord Milton: If we were to revert to the times of poverty and barbarism, then it might be well to impose a duty upon raw commodities; but if the advance of prosperity was our object, no course could be more destructive to it.—Sir M. W. Ridley thought that whatever might be their object, barbarity or prosperity, the existing system could have only one end—the total ruin of the agriculturists.—Sir C. Burrell, after some remarks, said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pause before he pushed too far his principles of free trade, which he could not but think were in some respects a curse to the country. In the House of Lords, May 5, the Duke of Richmond moved for a Committee, Lord Malmesbury said, the import of foreign wool was, for the first three months, 42,000,000; the second three months, 61,000,000; and for the last three months, 89,000,000. Now, such an advance in the import of foreign wool was truly alarming, particularly as there had been a proportionate decrease in the exports. That high duty, however, was not enacted. Parliament resisted its introduction. A Committee was granted; and the manufacturers showed that for the benefit of the English grower it was highly desirable that foreign wool should be admitted at a low duty, as there were many articles of manufacture in which British wool could not be employed. In the close of the last year not only was the duty not increased, but, after two separate Motions of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood), the whole of the duty was taken off. And what had been the effect of that course? Why, there has been a much greater consumption of wool; and the woollen manufactures exported during the first three months of this year greatly exceeded the amount exported during the first three months of last year, and the woolgrower got a far better price than he would have done if the sixpenny duty had been continued. I mention this instance, among many that I could adduce, for the purpose of showing what were the very high duties imposed during the war, and the vain fears that were entertained as to the consequences that would follow from their remission. It also proves that these laws, called protective, "tend to impair the efficiency of labour, to restrict the free interchange of commodities, and to impose on the people unnecessary taxation." I think that that proposition cannot on general principles be disputed. I think it cannot be denied that if you oblige the people to give for the necessary articles of consumption a higher price than is proportionate to their earnings, you impair the efficiency of labour. They are then less able to buy articles of clothing and other necessaries; they are less able to educate their children and to live in comfort themselves, and, what is of greater concernment, perhaps, they are less likely to be satisfied with their condition. But why is it necessary to make such a proposition? The reason is, that a theory still remains in repute with a great body of persons having great weight with Members of the Legislature in favour of protection. They maintain that it is right to give protection to certain descriptions of industry, and that without protection certain branches of industry cannot be maintained. I do think it necessary that we should express one opinion or the other. Either let us adopt the opinion, and let us protect every interest, according to the policy of Mr. Vansittart. Let us protect all branches of industry whether manufacturers or agriculturists; or let us abandon that system as vicious and unsound. For my own part I think the system is vicious and unsound. Indeed, I should consider it almost a waste of time to enter into the subject, or to attempt to argue in support of an opinion which had been maintained by the greatest writers and speakers on the subject—by all who have investigated a question of this kind. It is, moreover, in my mind, a matter with which, as an abstract question, Parliament ought not in any way to interfere. I do not think that Parliament has a right to say to any man "You shall go to the cheapest market," or "you shall go to the dearest," but that every man should be at liberty to go to whatever market he pleases. If you have any crime or any mischief to prevent, then let the Legislature, as it ought to do, interfere. But when a hand-loom weaver makes a yard of cloth and wishes to exchange it for some other article necessary for his family, what business—viewing it as an abstract question of right—has the Legislature to say to that handloom weaver, "You shall not make that exchange—you shall not go to a foreign country to make that exchange where you think you may make it best for yourself; but we will point out the person with whom you shall deal, and in what manner you may dispose of your article for the best?" But, Sir, this is not only an abstract theory which is perfectly sound in itself, but which is far more naturally obvious to the natural sense of mankind. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself said on a former occasion that it was conformable to common sense; but it is a theory upon which statesmen have acted in latter times, and one upon which they have adopted their measures. In 1842 Her Majesty's Ministers proposed great alterations in the Customs' duties; they proposed alterations with regard to many articles giving a large amount of revenue, involving the interests of a great many labourers, artisans, and others; but they acted upon this theory in a totally different manner with regard to some of those persons and with regard to others. Many persons were alarmed at the great extent to which Her Majesty's Ministers carried their reductions. I myself, as a Member for the city of London, saw many persons who were in a state of panic—as that is the word used with respect to agriculturists I may use it with regard to them. The ropemakers said that ropes would be fabricated in Russia, as Russia grew the raw material. Then there were the cutters of cork, bootmakers, shoemakers, all were very much alarmed at the free trade prices which would be introduced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel). Now these were men who earned from a guinea to five and twenty shillings a week—who were not in a state of affluence or wealth. One of them told me, that although he was a skilled workman, and earned good wages, yet he was only enabled to have meat for dinner, himself and wife, one day in the week. Such was the sort of persons affected by the alterations introduced by the present Government. Now, I must say, that to introduce change and excite alarm among these men—even upon sound principles—is hardly fair, unless you introduce measures founded upon the same principles that shall be applicable to other classes—not making them applicable to men earning a guinea and five and twenty shillings a week, but to men who are represented by Peers of ancient descent—men of hereditary honours, of great wealth, and possessing vast power to resist your proposal. It is not just that, with regard to the first class—the labouring class—we should be called upon to be guided by the principles and authority of Adam Smith and Mr. Ricardo; while with regard to the second, the wealthy, the titled, and the powerful, we should be required to be governed by the principles of protection, and should be called upon to maintain for that class these protective laws. The right hon. Gentleman who was last year the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone) has shown the effect of these reductions in so far as manufactures are concerned. The results shown by him on the article of straw plat are these:—The duty was 17s. per lb.; it was reduced in 1843 to 7s. 6d. The import of straw plat in 1840 was 13,000lbs.; in 1843–44 it was only 12,070lbs. The duty on bonnets was reduced from 18s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. In 1840, the number of bonnets imported was 2,307; in 1843–44 it only increased to 3,546. The duty on corks was 8l. per ton in wood, and 7s. per lb. corks. It was reduced to 1l. per ton wood, and 8d. per lb. corks. In 1838–40 the importation was 2,933 tons wood, and 1842–44, 2,973 tons wood, and corks, 1843–44, was 36½ tons, showing one to forty-one, or two and a half per cent., introduced in a manufactured state. The duty on cordage and cables was reduced from 10s. 9d. to 6s., the quantity of cordage and cordage yarn was in the proportion of 1,032 cwts., as compared to 70,000 cwts. of the raw material. The boot and shoe trade was much alarmed, and the increase in the importation was of boots from 4,800 pairs to 12,900 pairs; and of shoes, from 1,100 pairs to 3,700 pairs; on hats the duty was reduced from 10s. 6d. to 2s. 6d., and whilst in 1840 there were 240 imported, in 1843 there were only 191. Now these returns show how little reason there was for the alarm which existed as to the changes which then took place; they show with respect to our manufacturing industry, that we are able to stand competition with foreigners, and that our manufacturers, even in such articles, need not dread the skill or the advantages possessed by foreign manufacturers. But with respect to those articles, the reduction of duty was to a great extent. The bootmakers, the hatters, and the ropemakers were not much considered when they made their representations that they would be totally ruined, and that their manufacture would be at an end. The right principle was made to prevail; and the duties were reduced so as to admit of competition. I say, that if these principles were right, if it were right to reduce these duties in this mode and within this compass, let us abandon the principle of protective duties altogether, and reduce them within a moderate and reasonable amount. Acting on their principles we might anticipate that Ministers, if they do not abolish protection altogether, would leave all duties upon something like the footing of the law of 1842; although, if it is to be considered a principle of that law to impose a duty of 20 per cent., I own I consider that an extravagant protection, and one which ought still to be diminished. I contend, therefore, that the principle is altogether vicious, and should be abandoned as a principle of legislation. I next come to that great question which has given rise to so much discussion throughout the country, and with respect to which an association has been formed for the purpose of procuring the abolition of all law upon the subject—I mean the question of the Corn Laws. As I have adverted historically, as regards other subjects, to the changes that have been made during and since the war, I will briefly notice what has been the policy of this country as relates to corn. There was, as Adam Smith states, and as I think very truly, a protective duty during the last century against the importation of foreign corn; but, as during that century, Great Britain was an exporting nation, the inhabitants had the advantage of the lowest price of corn, that sent abroad having been of course sold with the addition of the expenses of transport. But towards the latter end of the century, as the population increased, it was considered necessary to prohibit that exportation: it was thought fit that Parliament should pass laws to prevent the exportation of it when corn became dear. If Parliament had acted upon sounder principles, no such laws would have been adopted. When the change took place, when we became an importing instead of an exporting country, it was thought necessary to devise the Corn Laws; as oar woollen and cotton manufactures were protected, it was deemed wise to give the same protection to agriculture. The protection given was upon the supposition that the price of wheat should be 48s. per quarter; in order to keep it at that price a high duty was laid upon all foreign corn. In 1791, another change was made, and protection was carried farther. In the course of the debates Mr. Pitt said that he thought that if the growers of corn were protected up to 52s. a quarter, it would be sufficient; but other opinions prevailed, and it was contended by many, and among others by Mr. Fox, that the protection ought to be carried as high as 54s. I think that from 50s. to 54s. per quarter the duty was only 2s. 6d., and it was only at 50s. per quarter that there was a really protecting duty. Such a duty was quite different from the present system; and let us see how the change took place. During time of war, and in years of scarcity, corn rose to a very high price; but as at the same time the currency became depreciated, country gentlemen declared that 54s. was not a sufficient price, and they called for an increase of protection. They prevailed upon Mr. Pitt, in 1804, to increase the price at which protection should cease. In 1815, when the depreciation was carried to a great length, it was proposed that instead of 54s., protection thould be equal to what it had been at the commencement of the war—in fact that 80s. per quarter should be the price at which importation ought to commence. Though it might be necessary at the end of the war to check for a time a sudden flood of importation, yet in my opinion the introduction of that law was as fatal a measure as the Currency Act of 1797. We have been suffering ever since from the effects of that law. It was found afterwards that it was insufficient—that it did not give the farmer the price of 80s., especially with the change in the currency in 1819, after which nothing like such a price was obtained. Another alteration of the law then occurred, to which it is hardly necessary that I should advert; but in 1821 a new scheme of Corn Laws was brought forward, which had the high authority of Mr. Huskisson, and was supposed to rest upon sounder principles. The proposition was that there should be a high duty when the price of corn was low, but that that duty should gradually diminish by a shilling and two shillings at a time until when corn reached 72s. per quarter it should be reduced to 1s. I think there was something plausible in that proposal; and Mr. Canning, on first introducing it, said that hitherto we had been suffering the alternations of a dearth and a deluge—that at one time corn was poured in upon us in floods, while at other times there was a great deficiency of importation. He proposed this seheme, because it gave a high duty when corn was reasonable, and lowered the duty as corn became dear; and he supposed that the effect of it would be to give a steady price, and to consult the interests both of agriculturists and consumers. I say that this was a plausible scheme, and, for my own part, I supported the Bill, though my opinion was still rather in favour of a fixed duty. But we have had experience of its operation, and experience has shown that the scheme was founded in error. It has entirely failed in the object of giving a steady price, and it has produced the very evil Mr. Canning introduced it to remedy. Even supposing the general principle to be correct, I think the sliding scale has been completely established to be a failure. It is obvious that it has not answered the purpose of the food merchant, who expects an average profit, and that it has made the whole trade partake of the character of gambling, subjecting parties sometimes to heavy loss, while speculators have now and then gained enormous advantages by the introduction of corn at particularly favourable periods. Even within the last few years we have had experience of the manner in which corn has been introduced under the right hon. Baronet's alteration, as shown by Returns moved for by Mr. William Miles. The law as it now stands, with some of the old evils mitigated, gives results very similar to those ascertained before the year 1828. The Parliamentary Papers of former years show an immense quantity of corn introduced at particular times — namely, during the three harvest months, as compared with other parts of the year. In the first six months of 1840, 758,917 quarters were imported; while in July, August, and September the quantity was 1,587,000 quarters. In the first six months of 1841 the quantity imported, corn being then at a high price, was 275,969 quarters, while in the three months I have named, it ascended to 2,343,258 quarters. In the first six months of 1842, the quantity imported was 305,000 quarters; and in the months of July, August, and September, 2,663,160 quarters. Thus we clearly see the tendency of the law to induce speculators to wait until they can tell what is likely to be the produce of the harvest. If a great rise occurs, they make an enormous profit; if not, they keep selling their corn at such prices as they can obtain. In the last year only, the experience of the working of the law has been remarkable. Although corn was not very high, yet it was sufficiently so to have enabled persons to introduce it, had there existed a fair, intelligible, commercial law upon the subject; but in the month of February the average price was 53s. 5d. per quarter, and the quantity cleared for consumption was 2,725 quarters. In March, when the price was 56s. 3d. per quarter, the quantity cleared was 3,472 quarters. But let us go to July, when the price was 54s.—2s. less than it had been in March—and the quantity cleared was 427,623 quarters. In August the price fell to 50s. per quarter—6s. less than in March; and although in March the quantity was only 3,472 quarters, in August the quantity was 187,504 quarters. I ask, then, can that system satisfy the consumer? The consumer, when corn is at 56s., 64s., and 66s., naturally wishes for the introduction of foreign corn, that he may buy bread for himself and his family; he does not obtain it. Why? Is not the price sufficient to induce the merchant to import it? Undoubtedly; but your law steps in and prevents his entering upon any such trade. Then, I inquire, is the law good for the farmer? Among various testimonies upon this point, I have one which I may quote; it is that of Mr. Tuffnell, an assistant Poor Law Commissioner for Kent, who was so at the time when the bad harvest began in 1838, and when, of course, it was most desirable that foreign corn should be introduced. He says— This distress has been lately further aggravated by the high price of corn, which presses severely on the labourer. As Kent may be called a corn country, I rather anticipated that the dearness of this article could not have materially injured the labourer, since it might have benefited the employer to such an extent as to raise his wages; and had the high price taken place soon after harvest it might; but the dearness chiefly arose after winter, and has been increasing all through the summer, whereas the farmers usually sell all their corn in autumn or winter, and the high price which comes subsequently is of no use to them whatever. I have rarely met with a farmer who has any corn to sell in the summer. I am informed at this season it is mostly in the hands of speculators and cornfactors, who alone profit from the high price, which is, consequently, as much complained of by the farmer as by any other class. It is evident, therefore, that the farmer, who has sold his corn, is obliged to pay the high price given by other consumers, and suffers all the evils of the law without being able to gain any profit from the artificial elevation it occasions. I say, then, that in this respect, the law is bad, both for the producer and the consumer, and that it is contrary to all sound commercial principles. This brings me to another question, which I must put to the House, and it is this—does not the supposition that the farmer has protection, by which foreign corn is to be kept out, tend to check improvements in agriculture, and to make him careless as to the system of cultivation he pursues. I say that is the consequence with regard to all other articles with respect to which protection has been given; that when you gave protection to the silk manufacture, you found your silk manufacturers continually distressed, and using machinery a century and a half old, and not equal to the improvements of modern times. I say the same thing must happen, and does happen, with respect to the farmer; that while you do not really give him the protection, yet the very prospect that you hold out to him, the very assurance you give him, tends to make his farming slovenly. Now, I have in my hand the evidence of a gentleman who brought forward a Motion in this House in 1830, with respect to the distress then prevailing in the country, and who has been since a country gentleman, and speaks to his knowledge of the state of agriculture—Mr. Davenport. Mr. Davenport says, that he has taken great pains to improve his land, and he gives instances in which he has succeeded so well that he has raised land which gave him little more than 500l. a year to give him more than 800l. His testimony as to the state of agriculture is— But a great part of England has been consigned from time immemorial to the weeds and waters, and the leases or agreements under which it is held may be regarded simply as so many bolts and bars against the robbery and murder which used constantly, and are still at times, inflicted on the land by tenants without capital, and who, to use their own phrase, must nevertheless try to make a living out of it.' He goes on to complain further of the mode in which farmers treat the land, and he is rather angry with the orators of the Anti-Corn Law League, who spoke of the absurd terms contained in some landlords' leases. He observes— The ridicule, therefore, which some orators indulge in, on the subject of ancient leases, is merely a proof of their own deficient information; for where the generality of farmers are poor, ignorant, prejudiced, and unscrupulous, the landlord has often no choice but to take such as offer, and to secure his estate as well as he can against the beggary entailed by a bad system. Farmers of this sort are, in fact, mere labourers, living and toiling as such; and so long as a large proportion of the country is in their hands, its powers are locked up as regards the supply of our existing and constantly increasing population. To give leases to men of straw would be ruinous to the granter. Elsewhere he tells us that there can be no doubt that dairy and grass farms are managed in such a way as to keep all in comparative poverty. This, however, is not the only witness upon the point: the society to which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite belong, "for the improvement of agriculture," in its very constitution, and in its papers, establishes that farming is not in that state of comparative perfection that our manufactures have reached—that state in which skill and intelligence are displayed on the face of the land, augmenting its production and its productive powers. When we find that such has been the case with other branches under this boasted system of protection, can we doubt that in agriculture similar results have been brought about by similar causes? Can we doubt that if wholesome competition, were allowed—if the cultivators of foreign countries were allowed to send their corn to be consumed by the people of this, we should soon witness great improvements in agriculture? I contend that the present time is more peculiarly favourable to a change, because, not many years ago we passed a measure for the commutation of tithes. Formerly, if improvements in agriculture increased, the produce of the soil 100 quarters, ten of those quarters were taken in the shape of tithes. That operated as a bar to improvement; but now, before many years have elapsed, arrangements will be completed by which a certain amount will be given to the tithe owner, and everything beyond the result of capital, industry, and skill, will be for the profit and advantage of the cultivator of the soil. My third Resolution is this— That the present Corn Law tends to check improvements in agriculture, produces uncertainty in all farming speculations, and holds out to the owners and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to secure. It is, I think, sufficiently obvious from the complaints we have heard this year, that the owners and occupiers of land are not satisfied with their present situation. They have protection to the extent of more than 40 per cent., upon the common food of the people, and yet they are in a state of difficulty. If that be the case, is it not a conclusive proof that the special advantages promised to them have not been realized? I believe that many of those who came to the right hon. Baronet at the beginning of the year, told him that they were unable to employ the number of labourers they had formerly engaged, owing to diminished means and diminished profits during the last two years. Can we wonder, then, at the many unemployed labourers we find in nearly every part of the kingdom? At the same time I must anticipate that, if the system of protection were abandoned, and if the owners and occupiers of land were to adopt the improvements in agriculture which science and knowledge would introduce, they could both employ more labourers, and derive more profit. They will enjoy the advantage of living in a rich country, where commerce and manufactures are flourishing, where those who are the best customers for articles of food are close at hand. Your system is doubly injurious: first, it obliges the artisan and labourer to give an increased price for food; and, secondly, it prevents the artisan from sending his manufactures abroad, and thereby increasing the general profits of trade, and the revenues of the State. However, it is said, that if any alteration be made in the Corn Laws, so as to make food cheap, the effect will be to reduce wages. I think, taking this point in any way—taking the facts for granted, the argument thus used is far from conclusive. If wages were reduced in their money amount, it cannot be supposed that the real and actual wages of labour would be lowered; and if they were not lowered there would remain an overplus, and a greater stock for the employment of labour than at present. But if we suppose wages to continue the same, the labourers' situation will be directly improved, as he will have a greater command of the necessaries and comforts of life. In any point of view, there is still this advantage, to which I have just alluded, that there would be a greater demand for labour—a greater demand for that article in which the labourer alone deals, and in disposing of which he must be a gainer. What said the late President of the Board of Trade, when discussing the question of cattle?— If 50,000 head of cattle are introduced, it will be a great benefit, because an equivalent amount of manufactures must be exported. The calculation of the right hon. Gentleman was erroneous, but in principle he was sound: if, instead of 50,000 head of cattle, we put a million of quarters of corn, the result is equally to the advantage of this country. But I have taken the fact as represented, and the position that wages generally follow the price of food, I believe to be entirely erroneous. Looking at other countries we do not find such to have been the fact. We do not find that where corn is high, wages are high, or where corn is low, wages are low. There is, among other evidence on this subject, a pamphlet written by a Mr. Dent, who states his experience, along with a great deal of theory which I think erroneous, because his remedies are (as I think) against all sound principles; but he gives a table, in which he shows, according to his experience, the amount of wages paid in every year from the commencement of the war, from 1792 down to the present time; and he proves, that when corn became high, the proportionate increase of wages was very small; whereas, when corn fell the wages scarcely fell, and the real wages to the labourer were much higher than they had been at other times. I have his statement here. He supposes that a labourer ought to have six pecks of wheat a week; that is very much according to the statement of Mr. Malthus, who says, he believes that in the middle of the last century, from 1733 to about the year 1770, the wages enabled the labourer to command about a peck of wheat a day, or six pecks a week. This gentleman, then, supposes that that would be the amount which the labourer ought to receive; and he says, that in 1792, when wheat was 42s. 3d. a quarter, the wages paid to the labourer were 8s. 6d.; in 1795, when the price of wheat was 82s., the average wages were 8s. 6d.; so that in the first case he was able to command the six pecks; in the latter he was 7s. under the six pecks. In 1801 the price of wheat rose to 118s. 3d. a quarter; but did the wages rise in the proportion of 42s. 2d. to 118s 3d.? Very far from it; the wages only rose from 8s. 6d. to 10s. In 1803, again, the price of corn was 53s. 6d. a quarter, and the wages were 9s. 6d., only 6d. less than they had been in the very high time. And so again in late years; in 1834, the quarter of wheat was 46s. 2d., and the wages 8s. a week; in 1835, the quarter of wheat was 39s. 4d., and the wages were 8s.; in 1840, the price of wheat was 66s. 4d., and the wages were only 10s.; and in 1841, they were 10s., while the price of the six pecks was 12s.; and in the former instance his wages just enabled him to gain the six pecks a week. Now, Sir, if that account by Mr. Dent is anything like a true statement of wages, I believe it will be found, with regard to the agricultural districts at least, that while to a certain degree wages have undoubtedly risen with a high price of corn, and fallen with a low price, yet the labourer, in fact, has always been a loser by the high price of corn, and always a gainer by the low price. Why, then, if that is the fact, how vain are the alarms which have been held out to frighten the artisans and labourers of this country with the notion that if there were a diminution in the price of corn they would thereby suffer in their wages! But let us consider what would probably be the fact with regard to the introduction of foreign corn. My belief is, that the introduction of it, to any considerable extent, would lead to such an increase in our manufactures, that although at first the price of corn would be very low, and though it would not rise at all to the extravagant height at which we have seen it in 1840, 1841, and 1842, yet there would be a steady, fair, average price, which would be quite sufficient for the remuneration of the farmer. Sir, if this be the state of your law with respect to corn—if it injures all classes of the community—if it deprives the consumer of the bread which he ought to have—if it disappoints the farmer in the prospect of what he shall receive—if it leads to a slovenly cultivation, so that the landlord is in the end a loser—and if, finally, it obliges the labourer to pay for his bread an increased sum, which he does not recover by the increase of his wages—I ask, then, what system should you adopt in its place? There have been various propositions made, and they have been brought before this House at different times. I have said already, that in bringing forward these Resolutions my object is rather to propose to the Government that they should not leave the Corn Law in the state in which it is at present, than to make any proposition of my own. If I had a proposition to make, it would not be the proposition of 1841, but at the same time, it would be a proposition for a fixed duty. My opinion is, that you could not fairly and reasonably now, after all the discussion that has taken place, propose the 8s. duty which was proposed in 1841. [Sir James Graham: How much, then?] The right hon. Gentleman asks me how much. I do not know why there should be any great mystery about that. The duty of 8s., I say, would be more than I should propose; no one, I suppose, would propose any duty that would be less than 4s.; and 4s., 5s., or 6s., if I had a proposition to make, would be the duty that I should propose. The other propositions that are made are, in the first place, to have an entire remission of all duty at once—an immediate and entire abolition. Another proposition that has been made is, that there should be a vanishing scale of duties—say a duty of 10s. or 8s.—that would go down 1s. every year till it became a duty of 1s. or of 6d. Now, the Handloom Commissioners, at the head of whom were Mr. Jones Loyd and Mr. Senior, considered very much this question of the corn duties. They gave all the reasons against the present Corn Law; they obtained evidence as to the feelings and opinions of the manufacturing classes and the artisans who are engaged in handloom weaving with respect to the injurious effect of this law. They said that they thought the best way of altering them would be by a vanishing scale; but that another way would be by the proposal of a small fixed duty, and they mentioned 5s. as a duty which might be proposed. In comparing these two propositions my own opinion is, that a small fixed duty would be the preferable proposal of the two, because the vanishing scale has the disadvantage of entailing a change every year. Under the vanishing scale there would be every year a change in the amount of duty. However, if I were asked whether I think that it is desirable to have any duty on corn at all, I should say as an abstract question, that it is certainly not desirable to have any duty, and that corn is one of the worst articles you could tax; but in making changes in commercial policy, I know the evil produced by sudden alterations. But it is said that if this is an evil, why not at once abolish it? Why, the same argument might be used with respect to a person who had been for many years, until he reached 60 or 70 years of age, in the habit of indulging in stimulating diet and intoxicating drinks. No one could say that that is a wholesome mode of living; and everybody would say that if that person had abstained from intemperance he would have been a much stronger man; but I believe that a skilful physician would hardly advise an immediate return, even to wholesome diet, in the case of a person who had been long indulging in such injurious habits. That there may hereafter come a time when the state of the population, the manufacturers, and the commerce of this country, may require a total abrogation of all duty on corn, I will not deny—but, I should say, having regard to existing circumstances, that what would give the greatest relief, and inflict the smallest amount of evil, would be the change which I propose. This, therefore, brings me to the Resolution— That this House will take the said laws into consideration, with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most beneficial to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. In those terms, I do but agree with the terms used by all others on this subject—by Adam Smith, by Malthus, and by Ricardo, even when they propose the greatest freedom of industry. But I now come to another subject—to a subject upon which likewise I must call the attention of the House, to the changes that were made during the late revolutionary war—I mean the changes in the Poor Laws. Before that war, the system of making allowances, and giving relief to labourers who were employed, was, I believe, totally unknown; but as that war went on, and as the price of corn rose to be very high, it was thought a better method to give those allowances to every labourer according to his family, than to increase the wages. I believe almost every one is now convinced that such a measure was most injurious; its obvious tendency was to increase the number of labourers without a corresponding demand—to increase the number of marriages, and thereby to injure the labourers by bringing into the market more than could obtain a fair remuneration. In 1834, that system was altered. It has been said that the alteration was injurious to the labourers. My belief, Sir, is, that if the former system had gone on, the labourers of England would have been now in a most wretched and miserable condition; that with their increased numbers wages would have diminished, and that the allowance of the poor rate—the forced and compulsory charity of the poor rate—would have been measured in such a manner as to provide them only with the barest means of subsistence. That change has been introduced. There has been, at various times, a suggestion that somebody had proposed that the poor who received relief from the poor rate should be made to adopt coarser diet, and be otherwise worse kept than they had been. With reference to that question, I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that he knew nothing. I am sure I know nothing of it, and I do not believe that it ever came before those who had the amendment of the Poor Law under their consideration. From what came under my consideration, I thought that what had before been given in the injurious shape of compulsory charity, would be given in the wholsome shape of wages; that instead of a man receiving an allowance from the poor rate every week from his parish, and giving in return scarcely any labour; and that labour not much in point of time, and almost nothing in point of value, that the system would be exchanged for wholesome labour under the superintendence of an employer. I have here a report made by the same gentleman to whom I have alluded with regard to the Corn Laws—Mr. Tuffnell—showing the change made by the Poor Law in Kent and Sussex with regard to wages. He refers to a labourer in the Battle Union:— According to your wish, I have referred to my labour account. The amount paid is as under—average two years before the Union, 695l.; average two years since the Union, 810l. These sums of money have been expended on 600 acres of land. It appears by the above sums I have increased my expenditure for labour 115l. per annum. The amount of poor rate I paid before the Union was 198l.; since the Union, 86l.; leaving a balance of 112l. in favour of the Union. It appears by the above sums I have expended 3l. more in labour than I have saved by the poor's rate. This, be it observed, is not from any change in the price of corn, but from a wish to employ more labour. In a letter from a large employer near Canterbury, he says it is an undisputed fact, that the farmer does not put the amount saved by the Poor Law into his pocket, but employs it all in labour. He says— It is an undisputed fact that considerable savings have been effected by the improved administration of the Poor Laws, and that the farmer does not put the amount so saved into his pocket, but expends the whole in giving additional employ to the labourers in the neighbourhood. I have increased my own daily labour from 150l. to 200l. a year since the Poor Law Amendment Act came into operation, without adding to the number of my acres. That was the effect to which I looked as the wholesome effect of the alteration of the Poor Law. I looked to an alteration which should measure the wages of the labourer by the proper demand for his labour; which should place him under an employer, and change the sums he received from the vicious nature of allowances from the poor rate, to the healthy and regular form of wages for labour. Why, Sir, I submit, if this was the effect of the Poor Law, to represent it as injurious to the labourer is the greatest possible misrepresentation. As no mode could be found more beneficial in elevating the character of the labourer, that change took place. But, Sir, at the same time, it is to be considered that the law which formerly prevailed must leave many and very injurious traces. We are now little more than ten years from the time when that amended law came into operation. The children who had then been born under the old and vicious administration—and allowances were made according to the number of children in the family—are now become young men, and are looking for employment for their labour. Unfortunately, they find that the artificial increase made by the law of the number of labourers, has not brought with it a corresponding increase in the demand. There is, therefore, in many of the southern counties at this moment, under the improved administration of the Poor Law, a number of labourers who, during the winter months, cannot find employment. Then, I say, it is not sufficient to have altered your Poor Law—it is not sufficient to stand steadily, as the present Government proposed to do, by that law—but we must consider salutary and relieving measures, by which we can remedy the disorder thus created by the faulty administration of the old Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has undertaken to introduce a measure which, I suppose, is calculated in some respects for this purpose; because, at least last year, and I believe this year, he stated it was a great hardship for labourers that they could not transfer their labour from places where it was not wanted, to other places where it would find a ready demand, and that the law of settlement in that respect had operated injuriously. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has not persisted (or I should hardly have proposed this Resolution) in the proposal which he made last year, that five years of industrious employment should give a settlement. Now, it seems to me that that is the principle by which an amendment can be made in the situation of labourers who have thus grown up in agricultural parishes. I will not say "alone," but that is a measure by which mainly the condition of such labourers can be improved. The people in agricultural parishes reckon upon a demand in manufacturing towns, and when they have gone there, and for ten or twelve years have been employed, and have added to the wealth and importance of such towns, if there should come a period of distress, the right hon. Gentleman would propose that they should be sent back to the place of their right settlement, to the place of their birth. That does not appear to me to be equitable or useful. I think there may be some change proposed by which they shall obtain a settlement in the towns where they have been industriously employed, and to whose wealth they have contributed. [Colonel Wood: Hear, hear.] The hon. Member for Brecon, who cheers me, introduced a law to this effect some years ago. He proposed that one year should give a settlement. I should hesitate to adopt so short a period; but I think something like this scale should be introduced. Take the plan of the right hon. Gentleman of five years' industrious occupation, and give a settlement for those five years; but with regard to lesser periods, three, two, and even one year, give a temporary settlement. If, therefore, these people are in a state of distress, owing to a sudden want of employment, at the end of eighteen months, a year, or six months, or whatever periods you might provide for affording them relief, they might again obtain the employment which they had been accustomed to. But it would be a great hardship, after a man had been employed for many years as an artisan, to send him back to an agricultural parish at some distance, to which his labour is unsuited, to which he becomes a mere burden, and in which he falls into the state of a pauper. Had he found the means to support himself for a time, he might have resumed the occupation to which he had been for years accustomed; but when once you send him back, and he becomes a pauper, his industrious habits are changed, and it is doubtful if ever he becomes a useful man again. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, found great obstacles in his proposed alterations of the law. The towns in general objected to this increase of the poor rate, and it is for this purpose that I have combined this proposal, in looking at the alterations to be made in the laws, with a proposal of an alteration in the Corn Law. I think that if, on the one hand, you enable the inhabitants of the towns, the manufacturing and mercantile interests, to have a regular and commercial supply of the articles of food and provision, that it would be fair, on the other hand, that you should expect them to bear this burden, which, as I think, fairly and equitably belongs to them. By making it an insulated proposition the right hon. Gentleman failed, and I do not believe that he proposes it at the present day. I come, Sir, next to the proposition— That a systematic plan of colonization would partially relieve those districts of the Country where the deficiency of employment has been most injurious to the Labourers in Husbandry. Now, Sir, I have stated that Resolution very cautiously, because I do not wish it to be implied that a very great scheme of colonization could be adopted by this country. The cost would be so large, that I doubt whether any Government could propose it. At the same time it must be considered that in many agricultural districts they have, without any aid from the Government, but by means partly of voluntary subscription and partly by the poor rates, assisted labourers to emigrate, and thereby done great good to those who have been the emigrants as well as to those who have remained behind. A gentleman—and here I would say do not let it be supposed that I wish to bring any system of compulsory emigration into any scheme of which I may be the author or supporter—a gentleman who was a Member of this House for many years, Mr. Hodges, the late Member for Kent, and who is favourable to plans of emigration, told me that his opinions being known, a person came down to him who was an agent for emigration to Australia, and another who proposed to take emigrants to Canada, and he allowed them to make their propositions, in consequence of which many of his best labourers agreed to emigrate to our Colonies. The agent expressed his surprise at his readiness to part with some of his best labourers; but he said it was for the advantage of all parties, that they would do very well as colonial emigrants; they would be useful men in the Colonies, but he should find those labourers who were left behind, and who were comparatively of little use, become skilful and good labourers; and he would therefore be benefited as much as the Colonies by the change. I asked him to inquire in his own parish and others around him as to the accounts received from the emigrants, and he sent me a number of questions and the answers to them, with which I will not trouble the House in detail, but they show that the parishes had to a considerable degree benefited, and the labourers who emigrated had scarcely in any one instance returned; but on the contrary they had written to their friends and relations that they were perfectly satisfied in the Colonies to which they had gone. Some observations which had been made on the subject of the emigration of labourers are, I think, calculated to have an injurious effect upon the labourers themselves. What is the account which we read in one of the last Reports of the Commissioners of Colonization? We read there that the emigrants to Canada during the last year have been doing remarkably well; and they refer us to a table of wages, by which I see that in East Canada the wages of the farm labourer are 2s. 6d. a day, and in West Canada 3s. a day. Now, when the position of labourers can be so much improved by that change, and when they can go to a country where they find people speaking their own language and having their own habits, I must confess I think it for the benefit of all parties in some districts that emigration should take place. But there are two things in any plan of emigration which may be offered by the Government, which should be taken care of. One, is, not to send parties out as emigrants who are unfit for the hard labour and privation which persons going to the Colonies have to endure. It would be an act of deception if the Government, were to give persons any encouragement to go out who were not fit for the labour which is undergone in this country by the farm labourers. And, in the next place, I think if the Government take any measure upon the subject of emigration, it should not be a sort of indiscriminate emigration, carried on by a number of persons meeting together who never have known each other before, and who go to some distant country without any connexion or association. I think, if possible, they should be persons from certain districts, who are known to one another, and that some one should go with them who can take the command—who can lead them in those Colonial establishments which they may have to make. And I do not see any difficulty in such a scheme. You give officers in the army and navy on halfpay some benefits in the purchase of Crown lands, as inducements to emigration; why not, with such persons, send out fifty or a hundred of these emigrant labourers, and thereby make the foundation of a small district establishment, in which persons may live happily together, and continue the practice of the old customs and habits they take from this country? In such a transaction, all parties would be gainers; for they would become the consumers of our products at home, and while you are sending to Canada the manufactures of this country, they can be sending to you food which they have raised by their labour. Sir, I next come to that most important question, the question of education; and having treated of subjects that are more akin to each other, I will not enter at length into a subject which has so many and such vast objects of interest connected with it. This I think, however, is to be remarked that there have been of late years very great advances in the education of the people. A few years ago we heard of the numbers who were educated; but a cautious investigation and examination into the nature of that education showed that, in fact, it was little more than nominal, and that we did not give to the people the instruction they required, the useful, moral, and religious training which could enable them to conduct themselves as good members of society. Sir, the latest account that I have seen of the state of education is contained in a Report of the British and Foreign School Society adverting to the gaol returns of this country; and when I read it, I think you will say, that although much has been done and much is doing, we have still a great duty to perform in respect to the education of the people. The statement is:— Those incessant witnesses against ignorance and neglect—the gaol returns of the kingdom—have again borne fearful testimony to the extent of moral darkness which still broods over large portions of the population. Of the criminals of Berkshire, one third have been again found unable to read; in Cambridgeshire and Staffordshire one half were in this condition; in Denbighshire, two-thirds; in Devon, out of seventy-one offenders under sixteen years of age, only four could read well; in Essex, one half were in total ignorance, while of 212 convicted prisoners, forty-eight had never been at school at all, forty had been there less than one month, forty-five less than two months, forty-three less than four months, and only thirty-six above six months; in Hereford, out of 385 prisoners, only one could read well. Now, Sir, these are statements with regard to reading; but it may be said that although these prisoners are unable to read, yet religious instruction has been given to them. They have received, it may be said, such an education, such oral communications from the clergymen, from other ministers of the Gospel, and others, their friends and neighbours, that they cannot be said to be in a state of ignorance of their duties. And I must confess I could understand that there may be a people among whom this education in reading and writing is not prevalent—at least in former times there might have been—and yet such pains were taken to teach them such religious and moral instruction as they ought to learn, that they were far from being uninstructed persons. But listen to what was the case in Sussex:— In Sussex, out of 877 prisoners, 141 did not know the Saviour's name, 498 just knew his name and no more, 179 had a confused acquaintance with his history, and only six per cent. of the whole number had any reasonable knowledge of the Christian faith. Some said they had occasionally been in a place of worship; but that when they did attend, all was darkness and confusion to their minds—so that they gave it up; and the downward steps of their career speedily succeeded — all were strangers to any pleasures but those of gross sensuality—all had been left a defenceless prey to the many temptations of a precarious life. Now, Sir, I do say when you take measures to promote the physical well-being of the people—when you take measures to remove any restrictions that may stand in the way of their procuring any articles necessary for their food and their clothing, do not shut your eyes to this gross state of ignorance. Do not forget that, while in this month of May, there are excellent and pious men meeting almost day by day to consider what sums they shall give to distribute in China, or the South Sea Islands, or in Africa, for the promotion of the Christian faith, do not forget that you have close at hand, in the county of Sussex, and in almost every other county of England and Wales, numbers of persons who become inmates of your gaols, and fall under the lash of your criminal laws, being totally ignorant of every duty which a Christian should perform. Sir, I cannot entertain a doubt that the House would wish that measures should be taken to remedy this gross ignorance. I cannot entertain a doubt that the present Government would like to see measures adopted, provided they could correct this lamentable evil. We are met by the observation that there are religious sects prevailing In this country, and that there is amongst them so much jealousy of interference with religious education that you cannot, consistently with religious liberty and the rights of conscience, establish any general system of education. But this you can do; you can make grants to those who apply for them, and you can assist and promote the education which is given. One plan would be to devote a sum of money to pupil teachers in the various schools throughout the country, by which they might learn of the schoolmasters to undertake the management of schools; there might also be a greater number of training schools supported by the Government. Another plan would be to add more comfort to the situation of schoolmasters by giving them small pensions and gratuities; for let me call the attention of the House for a moment to the present situation of schoolmasters. It is a most useful occupation—it is upon them we depend very much for imparting religious as well as secular knowledge to the great mass of the people of this country; and yet their remuneration is mean and insufficient. The honour attached to the situation is so little adequate to the wishes of any man of education, that on an average no person remains a schoolmaster for a longer period than ten years. I think we may take ten years as the average. I have understood that to be the case with regard to schoolmasters belonging to the national schools. I have frequently asked the secretary, and other persons connected with the British and Foreign School Society, of which I am a member, and they say— We have many clever young men educated in our school, who are competent to teach. They go from us to take charge of schools, but we repeatedly find, because they are competent and capable of earning a better livelihood, they are tempted away to other more profitable pursuits—to more lucrative employments—and leave to men of inferior capacity the charge of their schools. This, I say, is a national misfortune. Important as those occupations may be—that of a clerk in a mercantile house, or being employed in a situation of confidence by a manufacturer—still there is no situation that can be more important than that of having to train and instruct the youth of this country; and everybody must know who has attended to the subject that as is the schoolmaster so is the school—that you may have a schoolmaster who will teach by rote certain words in portions of the Bible and Church Catechism, but who will not communicate any feeling to the heart, in accordance with the precepts of the Holy Book which he has been teaching. Therefore it is your duty (speaking to Her Majesty's Ministers,) and I am sure the House will second your endeavour, to impart education to the people of this country; and it can be done without any violation of conscience. To impose a compulsory rate, to ask all children to go to the same school, would be impracticable; but to assist the schools that are founded, both by persons belonging to the Church and Dissenters, that is a mode in which you may effect the object without being met by those objections, and in which you can provide with safety. Now I understand with regard to the Church schools—with regard to the national schools—alone, if the Commissioners were to give all that would be required, they would have to give 130,000l. in the present year, implying a total expenditure of more than 400,000l. in the erection of schools alone. If this is the case—and there are other subjects to be provided for—I say the grant you propose in insufficient. I should say, without adopting any law for compulsory education which would raise up a host of objections—and probably very sound objections too—you can proceed safely in that course, and ask for a grant of 150,000l. in the present year to improve the education of the people of England and Wales. The greater part of that sum would probably go to the National School Society; some part of it would be applied to the improvement of the school rooms, and another portion might, I think, be combined with school endowments in various parts of the country. There are, in many districts of the country, schools possessing small endowments, which are not applicable to any good purpose. If they go to the Court of Chancery, as has been truly said, the whole sum would be absorbed; but these schools might easily be placed under the control of the Committee of Council on Education, and thus large sums which have not hitherto been well applied, might be usefully and properly appropriated to furthering the extension of education. These are the Resolutions that I propose— That the improvements made of late years in the education of the people, as well as its more general diffusion, have been seen with satisfaction by this House. That this House will be ready to give its support to measures founded on liberal and comprehensive principles, which may be conducive to the further extension of religious and moral instruction. I mean by those words, that you should not refuse it to any who propose to give education in populous districts, when they may not have the means of accomplishing it. That it should not be objected to a school, that the greater part of the children are Roman Catholics, and must therefore read the Bible according to the Roman Catholic version; that you should make no sectarian objections of that description; but that the aid, as given by the State, should not be on the principle of exclusive support of the Established Church, but on the lay principle of educating equally all the inhabitants of this country. Sir, I have given—very imperfectly, I am sure—an outline of those measures which I think ought to be introduced for the purpose of improving the condition of the people. I have at least this satisfaction, that I have brought them forward at a time when passion cannot be mixed up in their discussion—when there is that state of peace—that improvement of trade—that general political tranquillity, and obedience to the law, that it cannot be said these measures are introduced to meet any cry or clamour; or that they are intended to further any political or party object. It appears to me that you ought to take the advantage of such a period to propose those measures that you think will be beneficial to the great masses of the people. I have given, according to such lights as I possess, a view of what I think should be your course of policy. If you think another course of policy should be adopted—that you should not adopt at once a system of free trade—or that you should carry further the principle of protection, I think in that case this House should adopt such measures as it may consider necessary. I think in any case, unless you are of opinion that your present system is the most wholesome and best adapted for the welfare of the people, you should not wait till the time of distress and clamour should arise. If you do so, I know not what measures you may adopt; but they will be measures, probably, tinctured with that heat and violence which such times are sure to produce. And let me say to those who represent the landed interest in this House, that it would be most favourable to them to have any settlement of those questions in which agriculture is concerned when there is not that great pressure which a time of distress is sure to cause. If we go on till the time comes—with our increasing population—with a population increasing at the rate of 200,000 or 250,000 every year—and it is found in some year that your supply of food is totally insufficient for that population—when the cry of hunger comes up to these walls—will it then, I ask, be the time for those who have maintained that a Parliamentary protection was necessary for their rights, to concede, with any just regard to their own legislative character, to the demand which will then be made? Will it not be far better that they should proceed before that time comes, seeing the very great increase of the population of this country—seeing that the measures proposed this year and last year have tended to increase in a still greater proportion the manufacturing and productive classes of the country, whether a system which they would be then willing to give up, should be continued for the sake of the landed interests of the Empire? It is not to be expected that it should be so. Let them, then, endeavour to frame some proposition on which this House, and the legislation of this House, can rest. If they do so, they will take upon themselves a fair share with the other classes of the country of any burdens that may be imposed for the common benefit of all. I will not now enter into that question; but it is quite impossible that any such question should be entertained this year, while they maintain exclusive favours and exclusive protection for the class to which they belong. But let that system be altered. Let there be imposed the same proportion of duty on their productions as is placed upon the manufacturing industry of the country; and what obstacle will then exist to prevent us from making taxation lean equally on all classes? Who could object to that course? or who could object to our relieving the agricultural interests from some of their burdens? But whether it be so or not; or whether I may be right in the propositions which I bring forward or not, one thing I do ask of you is, to consider this matter in a time of calm; and with that view I call upon the House to adopt this first Resolution, which I now, Sir, place in your hands:— That the present state of political tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afford to this House a favourable opportunity to consider of such measures as may tend permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes. Adopt that Resolution, and add to it any further Resolutions you may think fit, according to your own principles and your own views of what the interests of the country require. But whether you do so now or not, my thorough belief is, that our laws will not remain long in the state in which they now are—that the condition of the people of this country does require legislation, not for the purpose—which I should think a most inconsiderate attempt of this House—to provide directly for the well being of all, but for the purpose of relieving, as far as you can, the people from all the restraints and all the evils which your own legislation has imposed. It is for this purpose, then, that I now put this first Resolution, Sir, into your hands.

We think it right to subjoin in extenso all the Resolutions proposed by the noble Lord. They were as follows:—

1. "1. That the present state of political tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afford to this House a favourable opportunity to consider of such measures as may tend permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes.
2. "2. That those Laws which impose Duties usually called protective, tend to impair the efficiency of labour, to restrict the free interchange of commodities, and to impose on the people unnecessary Taxation.
3. "3. That the present Corn Law tends to check improvements in agriculture, produces uncertainty in all farming speculations, and holds out to the owners and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to secure.
4. "4. That this House will take the said laws into consideration, with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most beneficial to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.
5. "5. That the freedom of industry would be promoted by a careful revision of the Law of Parochial Settlement which now prevails in England and Wales.
6. "6. That a systematic plan of Colonization would partially relieve those districts of the Country where the deficiency of employment has been most injurious to the Labourers in Husbandry.
894
7. "7. That the improvements made of late years in the education of the people, as well as its more general diffusion, have been seen with satisfaction by this House.
8. "8. That this House will be ready to give its support to measures, founded on liberal and comprehensive principles, which may be conducive to the further extension of religious and moral instruction."

Mr. S. Crawford

rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice, and which was, he said, founded upon the petitions of the people. In 1842, petitions bearing 3,324,000 signatures were presented to that House, praying them to take into their consideration the propriety of extending to the working classes some share of political power by the extension of the suffrage. In 1843, numerous petitions to a similar effect were laid before the House; and, in the last year, 1844, petitions signed by more than 60,000 persons had been presented, praying that a more equal system of representation might be adopted. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) and himself had, on several occasions, submitted Motions to the House, in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners; but they had been rejected by large majorities. The people complained that they were taxed by this House, in which they were unrepresented; and they asked that some means of protection might be afforded them by conceding them a share in the representation. He called upon the House to take this subject into their consideration, and he claimed on the part of the people full, free, and fair representation. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had recently made rapid strides in the proposal of measures advantageous to the great body of the people; and though the right hon. Gentleman had generally divided against him when he brought this subject before the House, he did not despair that the time would arrive when the right hon. Baronet seeing, upon mature consideration, the justice of the measure, would be among the first to support him. The noble Lord, in commenting upon his fifth Resolution, made some remarks on the principle of the New Poor Law; and he (Mr. Crawford) could not pass the subject over without one or two observations. The noble Lord advocated the principle of that law, and denied that it was identified with a certain document or proposition which had been brought forward on a former occasion in that House. Now, whether that proposition was or was not ever adopted by the Poor Law Commissioners, one thing appeared to his (Mr. Crawford's) mind, undeniable—that the harshest possible regulations were made by the Commissioners with respect to the power; and that if they had wished directly to carry out the terms of the proposition to which he referred, they could not have succeeded more effectually. Their regulations were cruel in the extreme, and such as ought not to have been made with respect to any class of the community. The principle of the New Poor Law was nothing more nor less than by indirect means to abolish the poor man's right to relief; in fact, by restrictions and provisions in the workhouse, to prevent the poor man from applying for relief, unless he was driven to the last stage of destitution. He was prepared to deny that the effect of the Poor Law had been to raise wages—on the contrary, wages in the agricultural districts had fallen, and that fall was chiefly to be attributed to the operation of the Poor Law, which had put such restrictions on the relief afforded to the poor man, that he was willing to take any wages he could possibly live on, rather than submit to the relief the poor house afforded him. That was his view of the New Poor Law, and he maintained that no sincere friend of the working classes could fail to wish that law amended. If the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners had been carried out specifically, the condition of the poor would be the most cruelly miserable that it possibly could be. With respect to the question of emigration, he considered that extensive emigration was a great misfortune to the country. At the same time, however, he would not put any obstacle in the way of voluntary emigration. What he would wish to do was, to keep the able-bodied labourers in the country by bettering their condition; and he was fully convinced that if the resources of the country were carried out, and all restrictive laws removed—if, too, the country were cultivated as it ought to be, the working hands of the country would not be sufficient for the purpose. There were 44,000,000 of acres still to be cultivated in this country, and the number of labourers would fall very far short of the demand if that land were to be put into a state of cultivation. The great evil of this country was, that the poor man was driven off the land; there was no land for the labour of his hands. The consequence was, that the manufacturing industry of the country was overpowered by the number of superfluous hands that were poured in upon it. He did not wish further to trespass on the attention of the House. He had only addressed them on this occasion in the hope that they might be induced to take the claims and wishes of the people into their consideration, more especially their claim to a share in the making of the laws and in sending representatives to that House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an Amendment to the first Resolution— That after the word 'opportunity' in that Resolution, these words be inserted, 'to give immediate attention to the claims so repeatedly urged in the Petitions of the People for an extension of the Parliamentary suffrage, as well as'—after which the rest of the words of the Resolution to follow; he should also move 'that Resolutions 4,5,6, and 8 be omitted.

Mr. W. Williams

seconded the Amendment.

Sir J. Graham

Sir, with the permission of the House I should have been anxious to have had the honour of addressing you immediately after the noble Lord the Member for London concluded his most able speech; but, Sir, as it is my intention to submit, as to the first Resolution, the Motion of the previous question, and as consistently with the rules of the House, if I had then done so, the hon. Member for Rochdale would not have been able to move his Amendment, I should have been wanting in courtesy to that hon. Member, if I had opposed such an obstacle to the making of his Motion. Sir, I must say that I came down to the House this evening in considerable perplexity as to what was really to be the subject of debate. Ordinarily, the Notice of a Motion enables us to form a conclusion as to the precise object of the Mover, and the subject he means to introduce to the House; but the Notice of the noble Lord tends to disguise his object. I acquit the noble Lord of any intention to place the House in that position; but the extreme extent of ground occupied by his Notice, so far from rendering it clear what is the subject he wishes us to discuss, forms a complete Parliamentary labyrinth, which involves us even more than if no notice whatever had been given. Indeed it might be said of that labyrinth, as was said of another,— Mille viis habuisse dolum, quâ signa sequendi Falleret indeprensus et irremeabilis error. And certainly, if anything were wanting to complete the confusion, it would be the Amendment which the hon. Member for Rochdale has added—the new question which he has raised—namely, that of universal suffrage. Sir, having made these preliminary remarks as to the difficulty of following the noble Lord, I must at the same time do justice to his speech; anything more comprehensive or devoid of party acrimony, or more worthy of the great subject which he has thought it his duty to introduce, I never heard before in this House. I must say no proposition of greater importance, and at the same time, of greater difficulty, can be considered in a representative assembly than that which has been introduced by the noble Lord—it is no less than how we may best promote the happiness and welfare of the labouring classes. Sir, I conceive that the laws of the country and all our institutions are framed, not so much for the benefit of the few who are in the enjoyment of property, and the accumulated fruits of past industry, as for that far greater body of the people—those whose only property is their labour, and whose only dependence is on the law of the land, and on this representative body, for protection. Therefore I do attach the utmost importance to the subject we are about to discuss, and I am prepared to meet the noble Lord upon it in a spirit devoid of all party feeling, and at the same time with a sincere desire to investigate these matters in a way which shall be conducive to the advancement of the public interest; and as far as possible for the advantage of that large class whose case the noble Lord has brought under the special notice of the House. Sir, the noble Lord excused himself for proposing to move Resolutions rather than to introduce a specific measure, on the ground that the Government have discouraged to the utmost, legislation by individual Members of Parliament. I must say that I think this an unjust view of the course taken by the Government in this House. I need scarcely remind the House of the successful efforts made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley), on behalf of the working classes. I need not remind the House of the noble Lord's measure for the prevention of female labour in mines and collieries; and for the general regulation of labour in the mining districts. Nor need I remind the House that, in the course of he present Session, the noble Lord introduced a measure extending the principle of the Factories Regulation Act to print works and calico works generally. It is true, that there was a slight difference of opinion between myself and the noble Lord as to his original proposition; but he agreed to adopt certain modifications which I suggested, and the noble Lord has the merit of having passed that measure through this House I believe, that it will in a short time receive the assent of the other branch of the Legislature, and become law. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset has also given notice of a most important measure with respect to lunatic asylums; so that there scarcely seems to be a foundation for the accusation of the noble Lord the Member for London with respect to the Government in this respect. [Lord J. Russell: I made no accusation.] I certainly understood the noble Lord to say, that individual Members of the House met with no encouragement from the Government to make substantive propositions; and I thought I had a right to allude, in passing, to a remark which I consider our conduct has by no means justified. Sir, the noble Lord proceeded to observe that the wages of labour in the agricultural counties of England did not in his belief exceed 8s. a week. I must say, that my information differs from that of the noble Lord. I believe that 8s. a week is below the average; that, on the contrary, the average is at least 10s. a week, and that that is higher than the average of some five or six years ago. [Lord J. Russell: I said the average of some counties only.] I don't think that in any county the average wages of able-bodied men will be found so low as 7s. a week — nor even so low as 8s. In Norfolk and Suffolk, I am certain the average is above 10s. indeed I might safely say 11s. a week. Sir, I will endeavour to follow the noble Lord through the principal topics of his speech; and the most natural course will be to follow, as he has done, the Resolutions in their order. In the first place, then, I will address myself to the question of Protective Duties. The first Resolution of the noble Lord embodies a declaration which, on the whole, cannot be considered otherwise than as complimentary to the policy of the Government. The noble Lord adverts in his Resolution to the tranquillity which so generally prevails, and admits the recent revival of trade. He fixes the period of that revival as being recent, and therefore, without arrogating to the Government any exclusive merit, the present Ministers may, at least, claim a considerable portion of that merit. The second Resolution has reference to the system of protective duties. I beg leave to remind the noble Lord and the House, that the great object of the policy of Mr. Huskisson was not to abolish the system of protective duties, but to substitute protection for a prohibitory system. The noble Lord appears to dissent from this proposition; but I am confident I am right in so representing the policy of Mr. Huskisson. The noble Lord made two admissions. He admitted that Mr. Huskisson was the decided advocate of the Corn Law of 1825, and that he was avowedly the author of that of 1828, which with some modifications is the law now in force. I think, then, I am justified in saying that Mr. Huskisson was in favour of a substitution of protective for prohibitory duties. I admit, and I have always said, that Mr. Huskisson advocated the policy of abolishing prohibitory duties, supplying their place with protecting duties, proceeding always, however, upon the principle of lowering the amount of those protecting duties according as the population of the country increased; and I will say, that that policy has in the main been pursued, without distinction of party, by every successive Administration; further it must be known to the House that that is the policy which we also have advocated and carried into execution ever since we have become the responsible advisers of the Crown. I will not weary the House by entering into any minute details; but as the noble Lord opposite has gone somewhat into particulars, it becomes necessary that in following him, I should make an attempt to illustrate by evidence the position for which it appears to me necessary to contend. In the first place, I beg to recall to the recollection of the House how much has been done during the last three years towards relieving the great body of the people by the remission of taxes affecting individual enjoyments and comforts, and how strenuously we have laboured to substitute direct for indirect taxation, and that to so very large an amount as most materially to relieve the working classes. Referring to the operations of the years 1842, 1843, and to those in the present year, it will be seen that we have remitted taxation to the amount of at least 6,300,000l.; I mean indirect taxation; and we have done this without diminishing the revenue, because we have placed direct taxation in the room of it. Thus, so far from creating a deficiency, we have been enabled to restore the balance between the public income and expenditure, and we have besides this made provision for a much larger naval and military force than had previously been at the disposal of the Crown, having increased the estimates for those two arms of the national safety to the extent of not less than 1,000,000l. Upon our coming into office we found 1,152 articles chargeable with Customs' duties. By means of the changes effected in the year 1842 and in the present year we have been enabled to reduce the number of these from 1,152 to 579, thus removing the duties from more than one-half the articles liable to Customs' duty, relieving the country altogether from these imposts, and thereby greatly removing the fetters which were previously imposed upon our commerce and our trade. The noble Lord refers, I think, to an antecedent period of our history—to a reduction of the debt, as one of the surest symptoms of credit, resting upon a sound foundation—and as a proof of the great prosperity of the country where such an alteration is made. Now, on looking at the policy of Her Majesty's present Government, that circumstance will not be found wanting. I am sure it will not be forgotten by the House, that within the last year we effected one of the greatest financial operations that has been undertaken for many years; we reduced the interest on an amount of debt not less than 400,000,000l. by which an annual saving to the country of nearly 1,000,000l. was effected. This reduction of 1,000,000l. of annual interest is equivalent to the extinction of 30,000,000l. of capital. The next subject to which the noble Lord alluded was the law which restricts the importation of corn. He will, I hope, excuse me if I say that I was somewhat amused by the dexterity with which he handled this topic of his speech. The noble Lord said that he was not disposed to make any proposition of his own; but rather to reduce the Government to the necessity of making some new proposition to Parliament—to make the Government move, as it were, of their own accord, and to propose some change in the Corn Laws. Now, I am not prepared for anything of the sort, and if we do it, we shall certainly not be found doing it by the adoption of any such Resolution as this— That this House will take the said laws (the Corn Laws) into consideration, with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most beneficial to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. We are not prepared to assent to any such change. But if any hon. Member of this House thinks that those laws injuriously affect the food of the poor—as some people maintain they do—I say, that if any hon. Member thinks that those laws ought to be repealed, or even materially modified, he should at once come forward and propose a measure of direct repeal to the House. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, if I am not mistaken, has given notice of his intention to make such a proposition; and when the discussion upon that question comes under the consideration of the House that will be the proper time, and I may say the only fitting opportunity, for entering at large into a debate which alone is sufficient to occupy the undivided attention of Parliament. The noble Lord, in a guarded manner, but still in a manner not to be misunderstood, has plainly pointed out, notwithstanding all his arguments — notwithstanding all the statements in his Resolutions in favour of free trade and the abolition of protective duties—that he still is prepared to give some protection to agriculture: he has somewhat descended from the fixed duty of 8s. per quarter, which, when he was the responsible adviser of the Crown, he tendered to the agricultural interest; now, he says, the time is gone by when he would support a duty of 8s., but he is prepared to give a protecting duty of some 4s., or 5s., or even 6s. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, I remember, thought that a fixed duty was defensible, not as a duty of protection, but as a fiscal duty and a source of revenue. That doctrine the noble Lord the Member for the city of London altogether repudiates. The noble Lord says he does not think the food of the people is abstractedly a proper subject for taxation, with the view of raising a revenue, and consequently the fixed duty which the noble Lord would support must be a duty for the purpose of giving protection. And I do not understand the noble Lord to deny that such is his intention. Sir, I have frequently stated to the House what I am now prepared to repeat, that I am quite satisfied that a fixed duty would prove delusive to the agricultural interest. A duty of 6s. or 5s. would, when the price was low, give no protection; and when the price, from an inadequate supply, is very high, or as I should call it exorbitant, I am quite satisfied the country would not endure his fixed duty, and that no Government could be strong enough to maintain it. And the noble Lord, when he came to discuss his own proposition, and was responsible for the advice he gave, felt the difficulty so strongly, that in any legislative measure imposing a fixed duty, he thought it would he necessary to give to the Executive Government the power of remitting the duty altogether in certain circumstances, or of directing that when the price rose to a given amount, the fixed duty should cease. Now I am perfectly convinced that the speculations which are so much condemned under the sliding scale, would be as nothing to the speculation and jobbing that would take place under a fixed duty such as this. The noble Lord says that the price has been unsteady and wavering. Now, I must deny that proposition. I admit that a steady price, with our variation of seasons—an absolute steady price, can never be expected; but comparatively speaking—speaking of the operation of this law, which in its modified form has not been in operation for a very long period—but judging from experience, limited as that experience necessarily is, I should say of this law, that no law with reference to the imposition of a duty on corn in this country, has been attended with less variation of price than the existing law which we are now discussing. Now, Sir, it is very true that a larger amount of corn is brought into the market for three months immediately antecedent or subsequent to the harvest than in any other period of the year; and I do not believe that you could frame any law imposing a fixed duty which would operate to prevent this speculation. My persuasion is, that it is natural so to speculate, and that those who import corn will hold it until they see the prospects of the home growth with reference both to quantity and quality. It is advisable that they should do so, for such speculations stand in the stead of public granaries. I do not wish to overlay this part of the subject by going into details; but I must say that I combat the position of the noble Lord, and I maintain, that under the existing Corn Law there has been greater steadiness of price than under any former regulations which gave protection. Sir, with permission of the House I will go on to state that even in the present year, when upon the whole the price of corn has been low, it is remarkable that a quantity of foreign corn and flour, by no means inconsiderable, has been brought in aid of the consumption of the great body of the people. The noble Lord himself referred to the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Somersetshire. That Return shows, as the noble Lord stated, that in the month of July and August in the last year, in every one of those weeks, or those months, there was a larger quantity of foreign wheat brought into consumption than in any other month; but still it is remarkable that week by week, without exception, throughout the year, a quantity of corn by no means inconsiderable has been brought into general consumption, and that too, at a duty of from 17s. 6d. to 20s. I have here a Return extending from January last up to the present period, and from that Return it appears that week by week no less than 57,000 qrs. of foreign wheat have been introduced into consumption, paying the highest duty—namely, 20s. per quarter. But I would beg the House to observe also the operation of the law with respect to barley. If any protection whatever is to be given to the landed interest of this country, I cannot conceive a scheme of protection which could work more evenly or advantageously for all parties than the existing law, if we are to test it by barley. In the course of the last twelve months the quantity of foreign barley introduced into consumption here has been not less than 1,100,000 quarters. This quantity has paid very nearly the highest rate of duty, and notwithstanding this large introduction of foreign barley in aid of the home consumption, the price has never fallen below 32s., and has not varied, I may safely say, more than from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per quarter—a price which yields the producer a fair profit, and at the same time is checked from becoming exorbitant by a steady weekly importation. Since the 1st of January the quantity of barley imported has been 135,000 quarters, and the quantity entered for home consumption is no less than 131,000 quarters, so that the consumption very nearly corresponds with the importation; and as in the account printed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, so in the account up to the present period in this year, it is clear that week by week the quantity imported tallies almost exactly and uniformly with the quantity brought into consumption. Now, Sir, it must be observed that the effect of the duty of 17s. 6d. to 20s. on wheat, even with the present prices, has not been found to operate like a prohibitory duty. But I wish the House to consider, with reference to harvests such as we have had for the last two years, what would have been the effect of such a measure as the noble Lord's fixed duty of 4s. or 5s. The noble Lord says he does not consider that any impulse has been given to agriculture by protection. I will not say that I can venture positively to affirm that protection is the cause of the improvement of agriculture; but whether it be the cause or not I do say that coincident with protection, since the termination of the war, there has been a most remarkable improvement in agriculture; and I am quite confident of this, that although the population of these islands since the commencement of the French war has nearly doubled, the soil now produces with greater facility and certainty a more adequate supply for that increased population than it did previously for the smaller amount of population. Now, Sir, I beg the House to bear in mind (admitting distinctly that the policy of the Government has been gradually to diminish the amount of protection)—how closely we have gone to the very verge, throwing out of employment or diminishing the employment of a large mass of our agricultural population in consequence of the reduction of price which diminution of protection is supposed to have caused. The noble Lord has truly stated that the increase in our population has been almost miraculous; but he has very much understated the increase. The noble Lord stated the increase to be at the rate of 250,000 a year; but I believe the official returns will show that the increase is at the rate of 380,000. Now let the House reflect upon this. I believe that since the present Government accepted office not less than 1,500,000 have been added to the population of these islands. The population of the two Canadas does not exceed 1,000,000, the population of Holland is not more than 2,800,000, and that of Switzerland about 2,100,000. During the four years with which we have been charged with the conduct of affairs the population has increased to an extent greater than the whole population of the two Canadas, equal almost to the population of Switzerland, or of Holland. I allude to this in order to remind you of the effects that must arise from the increase of population, which must add to the difficulties in governing this country. The increase of the people is a fact to which all our commercial and financial legislation must be directed; and we should fail in our duty if we did not advert to it in connexion with our future policy. It certainly is a matter of great congratulation to the House and the country, that, notwithstanding the increase of the population to which I have referred, upon the whole at the present moment when I am addressing you, the rate of wages generally is higher than it was four years ago, and the price of all articles of the first necessity is lower; and, consequently, the condition of the working classes, so far from being deteriorated is improved. [Cheers.] I hear cheers from the other side of the House; but you should recollect that this is quite compatible with protection given to agriculture (modified, however, to the extent to which I have stated protection ought to be); and I say that if you suddenly abrogate your protective system, which, whether wisely or no I will not now stop to inquire, has for a quarter of a century prevailed with reference to so important a branch of your industry as the agriculture of these islands; if you interfere with this system hastily and rashly, you will inflict upon it almost irremediable evils, and indirectly entail on the working classes generally the greatest injury. The noble Lord says that he desires that measures should be adopted which are likely to be beneficial to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. I believe that if I show to you a great improvement in trade, a great increased demand in the manufacturing districts, a great increase of prosperity in that quarter, that I may safely assume that the general condition of this country, without the exception of any class, is improved, and is in a sound and healthy condition. Now, Sir, I will remind the House of the condition of the manufacturing districts when Her Majesty's present Ministers came into office. I will not dwell upon the year 1841. I will refer especially to the year 1842, when, as my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has more than once told you, nearly the whole of the population of the town of Paisley was out of employment, and when it was our painful duty, contrary to principle, directly to interfere, and administer relief from the public purse to the wants of the population. That is but a single instance of the distress which prevailed in the years 1841 and 1842. The town of Stockport was in a condition hardly less painful than that of Paisley. I will just advert for one moment to the Report which I hold in my hand, showing the state of affairs in 1841, and then contrast it with the state of the manufacturing districts at the moment when I am addressing you. In the Report of the Factory Commissioners, in 1841, I find the following statement:— I regret to say that the depression which I stated in my last Report to be prevalent among the mill occupiers and their workpeople has in no degree abated; but on the contrary has, I fear, increased. Wherever I have been I have heard the same sad tale, with very few exceptions, that trade is in a state of extreme depression, and without any distinct prospect of improvement. Within the last four months several bankruptcies have taken place among the mill occupiers in my district. In four of these cases, the aggregate number of persons suddenly thrown out of employment amounted to 1720, and a sum of 850l. paid weekly in wages was withdrawn. I will not go through the whole of the statement, but will now turn to another passage, showing the contrast of the present state of affairs in the district generally. The following is Mr. Horner's Report:— In my Report for the quarter ending June last I mentioned some evidence of the increased activity of the cotton trade begun eight months before; in the present year there have been fifty-five new investments of capital, either new mills or additions to mills, or new occupants of mills, or rooms formerly unoccupied now filled with new machinery. In May, 1844, Mr. Horner says— The cotton trade is in a state of great activity, new mills are building, others long unoccupied are taken by new tenants, and in some places it is difficult to find workers. There is also a much more prosperous trade in the woollen mills. There is great activity especially in the cotton factories. In some places large additions have been made both to buildings and machinery, several entirely new have been built, and others are in progress; and not only do we not hear of any person being out of employment, but in some places hands are scarce. One mill occupier, who employs a large number of handloom weavers, stated he was now paying them fully 30 per cent. more than twelve months ago, and this advance was general in most descriptions of work. In January last Mr. Horner, in visiting Oldham, met a large millowner, who stated to another gentleman in his presence, "I wish you could send me some hands, for I have looms standing idle for want of hands." Mr. Saunders, inspector of the woollen district in Yorkshire, in a letter dated April last, says— I am unable to give you information as to the state of things in 1840, but I send you some statistical accounts relating to Yorkshire, from which it appears, that while in 1838 there were 84,510 persons of all ages employed in factories, there are now employed in the same factories 114,838, being an increase of 38 per cent. of persons of all ages. And, in regard to Scotland, according to the report of Mr. Stuart, and Ireland, the state of things is at least as satisfactory. There is not a single hand unemployed; even in some districts there is a want of fresh hands to carry on increased trade. I have also here some individual cases which have been represented to me by Mr. Clements, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner in the cotton district, which if I were not afraid of wearying the House I should also allude to. Mr. Clements states in his letter:— First, as regards cotton mills, a friend of mine has inspected the books of a good average mill in Burnley, from which the following results appear:—

"During the five weeks ended May 3, 1845, the mill hands worked thirty days, and

received	£384	15	2½
"During the five weeks ended April 30, 1842, the same number of hands worked nineteen days, and received.	246	13	7½
"Difference caused by working short time	£138	1	7

Mr. Clements says, that— A mason told me, that during the distress of 1841–42 he would gladly have accepted employment for 2s. a day, but could not find work at any rate. He was now receiving 3s. 7d. a day; and if he wished to leave his present master, he could get at least 4s. The carpenters then suffered most severely; they can now get almost anything they like to ask. In any comparison of the relative condition of the operatives, the price of provisions must not be lost sight of. In 1842, a measure of flour cost, in Burnley, 5s. 2d.; in 1845, it cost only 4s., being a reduction of 20 per cent. On one point, I mean the rate of wages, I have made the most careful inquiry, and I hold in my hand an average of the rate of wages in various departments of labour, principally skilled, labour, deduced from various statements obtained from Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Manchester, and the Potteries, embracing a period of six years, from April, 1840, to April, 1845. I will not weary the House by going through the whole; suffice it to say that the average for the year 1845 is at least as high as the average of any of the five antecedent years, without exception; and upon the whole I may say, that with the exception of one or two towns, it is higher in 1845 than in any former year. But, I will read to the House what is said of three towns with reference to the demand for labour and the rate of wages. I will read an extract of a letter from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, dated the 10th of March, 1845:— The wages of artisans and labourers have altered very little; any change there has been in the last five years has been in the way of increase, and workmen generally are now well employed. The shipping trade is good. Coal-owners complain that their concerns are not profitable; over production is the obvious cause. The following is an extract from Sheffield:— The years 1840, 1, 2, and 3, were eminently years of bad trade. From 1500 to 2000 male adults, with their families, were upon the poor rates. Trade revived in 1844, and in most of the trades the prices given for work have advanced; but the time during which the men are allowed to work by the unions has been greatly diminished; most of the trades working only seven hours a day, many not more than six. The following letter has been received from Liverpool, dated April 24, 1845:— In the years from 1840 to 1844, we could get hundreds of workmen at any wages we had the conscience to offer; now we have scarcely an application for work. I cannot give the House a better idea of the condition of the mechanic population than by quoting the rate of wages given during the weeks ending the nearest to April 20th for the last six years by the same house, conducting the same business, and to the same number of hands. In the weeks ending the 18th of April, 1840, they paid in wages 303l.; in 1841, 195l.; in 1842, 260l.; in 1843, 282l.; in 1844, 390l.; in April in this year, the number of hands being the same, 695l. But, Sir, I have said that the amount of wages is only one ingredient in the comparative comfort of the working classes; you must look also to the price of articles of first necessity. I have established, I hope, to the satisfaction of the House, that throughout the manufacturing districts there has been no fall of wages; but, speaking generally, somewhat of an increase. I have stated also, that in the agricultural districts, so far from any fall of wages, in a large number of the agricultural counties there has been a positive increase. Bearing these facts in mind, I call your attention to the command which the same amount of Wages has over the prime necessaries of life in the present year, as compared with the last five; and I claim for the Government a proportion of the credit with respect to that increase. [Lord Howick: The sun has had more to do with it than the Government.] I am by no means prepared to deny that a deficient harvest is one of the greatest curses Providence can inflict on this country; and I also most readily admit that an abundant harvest is of necessity one of the greatest blessings. I am not prepared to deny that all human legislation as against the infliction of Heaven in this respect, must be vain and inoperative compared with the blessing of a bounteous season. But, making all these admissions, when I come to read the prices of articles of first necessity, you will see that many of the reductions are distinctly to be traced to the recent legislation of this House. I will read to you the articles, and compare the price they bear this year with that of 1841, when the change of Government took place. In 1841, the price of wheat was 68s. 7d. per quarter; in the present year the price of wheat is 46s. 5d. In 1841, the price of barley was 40s. per quarter; it is now 32s. 5d. In 1841, the price of oats was 25s. 9d. per quarter; now it is 21s. 4d. The price of flour in 1841 was 10½d. per quartern; now it is 8½d. Oatmeal in 1841 was 6d. per quart; it is now 5d. So far with reference to articles on which the sun, as suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Howick) opposite, may be supposed to have immediate influence; but that influence extends not to those articles I am now about to enumerete. The price of beef in 1841 was 7d. per lb.; now it is 5½d.; these Returns have been most carefully prepared within the last fortnight by wholesale dealers in the metropolis, and the facts may easily be verified. Mutton in 1841 was 7d. per lb., now it is 6d. Pork was 7d. per lb., now it is 6d. Sugar, which was 7d. per lb. in 1841, is now 5d. The price of coffee in 1841 was 2s. per lb., now it is 1s. 4d. The price of tea in 1841 was 5s. per lb., now it is 4s. The price of currants in 1841 was 9d. per lb., now it is 6d. The price of candles in 1841 was 7d. per lb., now it is 6d. There are various other articles I need not enumerate; but on almost every one there has been a corresponding decrease of price. In other articles of prime necessity, clothing and household furniture, there has been no material decrease, but there has been no increase on any one article. I think the noble Lord did justice to Her Majesty's Government—and my right hon. Friend at the head of it in particular—with reference to the measures which he had adopted for regulating the monetary system of this country. Nothing in antecedent periods has affected wages more disadvantageously than variations in price, arising from variations in the amount of the circulating medium in this country. It is most true, that a large sudden increase of the circulating medium has the effect of creating an apparent prosperity of a fleeting nature; but while the necessity of paying in gold, at the standard price, is maintained, such prosperity, created by an undue issue of paper, payable in gold on demand, is not only evanescent, but the sudden and inevitable contraction of that circulating medium is attended with most severe pressure on all classes, and is felt by none more cruelly than by the labouring classes of this country. Allow me, then, to observe—as the effect of growing prosperity regulated by prudent legislation, that in 1841 the amount of bullion in the hands of the Bank of England was only 5,000,000l., and their notes in circulation amounted to only 16,400,000l. While I am now addressing you, the amount of bullion in the hands of the Bank of England is 16,000,000l., instead of 5,000,000l., and the amount of their paper in circulation, instead of 16,400,000l., is now no less than 21,163,000l. As a complement of the measure of last year, in reference to the Bank of England, and in reference to the country banks in England, there are now in progress measures with reference to the banks in Scotland and Ireland, by the combined operation of which I have no doubt that those sudden and ruinous fluctuations in the currency cannot again take place under the checks which will shortly be imposed; for not only with reference to the Bank of England, but with reference to all banks of issue, precautions have been taken against an undue increase of issue, and legislative measures have been passed which have, I think, guarded securely against the recurrence in future of such fluctuations as we have seen; and, in connexion with the other measures of which I have spoken, will, I trust, render the prosperity I have been describing not evanescent, but permanent. Have these monetary measures unduly checked speculation? The speculation of the present day is sound and healthy. At no period of our history has speculation been founded on more secure grounds, or carried so far as at present. I need only advert to the capital employed in railways to establish this. Before the year 1844 there had been constructed in this country 2,355 miles of railway, at a cost of 66,700,000l. In 1844, 728 miles were added to those 2,300, with an outlay of 10,304,000l. There are now railway projects in agitation for the creation of no less than 6,000 miles, at an outlay approaching to 88,000,000l. sterling. Last year there was no less a sum than 10,000,000l. sterling-applied to railway speculations; and from the best estimate I can obtain I have arrived at the conclusion that in the course of the present Session railway projects, in which capital to the amount of 20,000,000l. sterling is invested, will receive the sanction of Parliament. In former periods of prosperity the spirit of speculation led to a great outlay in foreign countries; and though some English capital is now embarked in making railways abroad, still the whole of this 20,000,000l. will be expended in the labours of the artisans of this country, and it cannot fail for many years to come to furnish the labourers of this country with an ample supply of employment. There is another circumstance to which I would especially call attention, as it cannot fail to be most satisfactory to the House; I allude to the diminution of crime in this country. Coincident with distress of the working classes, there never has failed to be a large increase of crime; coincident with the prosperity of the working classes, there never has failed to be a diminution in crime; and in the present year there is a marked diminution. The following is the official statement upon the subject of the decrease of crime, and of the numbers convicted in the years 1843 and 1844:— The commitments for trial in 1842 were greater than in any previous year recorded: they amounted to 31,309 persons, having in seven years increased 50 per cent. In 1843, the commitments decreased to 29,591 persons, or nearly 5½ per cent. In 1844, the commitments for trial further decreased to 26,542 persons, or 10¼ per cent., making a total decrease in the two years of 4,767 offenders, or above 15¼ per cent. This decrease has been very marked in the great manufacturing counties, including also several of the large agricultural counties. The great increase in 1843 of the most severe sentences—death and transportation—was a proof of the increased prevalence of atrocious crimes in that year, and it is gratifying to quote a great decrease in those sentences in 1844. In proof of the recent decrease of such offences, in 1843 ninety-seven persons were sentenced to death, and 4,813 to transportation. In 1844, fifty-seven persons only were sentenced to death—a decrease of 26 per cent., and 3,320 to transportation, a decrease of 23 per cent. These results cannot fail to be satisfactory to the House and to the country. Now, with respect to the expenses of pauperism; from tables recently presented to the House, it appears that there was a diminution in the last year of nearly 20 per cent. as compared with 1843, in the amount of relief given to the able-bodied poor in this country. That number had for years previously been increasing; and I do consider the check given to that increase, and the marked difference between the return of former years and of the last, is one of the best and most undoubted proofs of the improved condition of the agricultural population. Since I have touched on the subject of the Poor Laws, I should wish to say one word more. The noble Lord made an observation which I am anxious to take the opportunity of confirming. It has been alleged, that it was the intention of those who introduced the measure of 1834 for the Amendment of the Poor Laws, to put the poor on coarser food. I now state that there was on the part of the Government which introduced that measure, no such intention. I have previously given the same assurance. I am glad that the noble Lord has confirmed that statement of mine. The noble Lord said that some alterations in the Law of Settlement was necessary in his opinion. I have more than once taken occasion to state my opinion on the subject; and in the course of last Session I did bring in a measure contemplating an extensive change in the system of Settlement. I then proposed a Birth Settlement as the only Settlement. I certainly found during the recess that the proposition of a Birth Settlement was open to great objection, and more especially that it would have afforded an inducement for the destruction of cottages in the agricultural districts, and added to the difficulty which the poor find of obtaining residences for their families on easy terms. The noble Lord said that industrial residence ought to be the basis of the scheme for arranging the Law of Settlements. Sir, this is not the opportunity for discussing that very difficult and important question; but I think the noble Lord will find when he comes to look more fully into the matter, that industrial residence, if made the only ground of Settlement, might have some advantages in manufacturing towns, but in agricultural districts it would have the same objections which I now feel to a Birth Settlement: it would be an inducement to large proprietors to oppose the residence of strangers in their districts, and would lead to the destruction of cottages, and to throwing difficulties in the way of the poor in obtaining residences. I am disposed to think that it may be desirable, without placing Settlement on the basis of industrial residence only, to give to industrial residence for a certain number of years the benefit of irremovability. That I think would be an arrangement well worthy of consideration; but I am sensible that if adopted, it is an arrangement which will bear with great severity on towns, unless it be accompanied with some power of removing after a fixed period of industrial residence, short of the period of irremovability. I quite agree with the noble Lord that the attention of Parliament ought to be given to the subject. I have myself given an anxious attention to it, in consequence of which I was led to frame the Bill of the present Session, which I have brought in, and which now waits for discussion, and I will postpone whatever I shall have to say further on the subject, till the opportunity of that discussion shall have arrived. The noble Lord has recommended emigration as one of the means of relieving the population of districts where the demand for labour is reduced, and wages are low. Now, I confess, I find it rather difficult to understand what is the precise import of the phrase "systematic colonization," which the Resolution contains. This subject was discussed in the year 1840, I think, when the noble Lord presided at the Colonial Department, and two most able memorials were presented to him from the Emigration Commissioners. They suggested two schemes with reference to this subject, which they brought specially under the notice of the noble Lord, and I am not aware whether they received his sanction. But I am bound to say that any extensive scheme of colonization, if undertaken by the Government, would, in my belief, be a failure, on account of the great indisposition of the people of this country voluntarily to go to very distant Colonies, with all the hardships of a long sea voyage before them; and even if that disinclination were overcome, it would entail an amount of cost absolutely ruinous on the part of the State, unless the stream of emigration were directed to those Colonies which are the nearest, and to which the voyage is the shortest. The British Parliament has deliberately parted with the means of carrying out a system of colonization upon a large scale in that quarter. The waste lands of the Crown are made over by the Legislature, in respect to Canada, to the local Government; so that emigration to any great extent for the purpose of occupying those waste lands is no longer possible. The cost of the passage to the North American Colonies does not exceed 7l. a head; and the only other quarter to which the emigrant can resort is the Australian Colonies, and let it be recollected that the voyage there lasts five months, and costs from 17l. to 19l. a head. I can hardly contemplate, therefore, any scheme of colonization, unless the capital taken out by the emigrants be proportionate to the number of individuals who emigrate; for such has been the state of the supply of labour in those Australian Colonies, that within the last two years representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government, that at Sydney and at other of the Colonies in our Australasian possessions, there is positively an excess of labour, and that thousands of persons are seeking work and unable to find it. Under these circumstances, the utmost caution is necessary on the part of the Executive Government in inducing the people of this country to emigrate to such distant climes in hopes of procuring employment, unless there be a demand for their labour there. However destitute may be their condition at home, in those distant Colonies there is the utmost difficulty in getting work; and though you may escape from the pain of seeing their wants and knowing their distresses, yet, if the facts be true as I have stated them to you, and I believe they are undoubted, that want and that distress, if seen by you in those distant regions, would be more urgent, more distressing, and more heart-rending, than any condition to which they can submit in the native country. I repeat, therefore, that the greatest caution is necessary before we accede to any plan of emigration; but even the subject of emigration has not been neglected by Her Majesty's Government. There has been a very large emigration annually taking place from this country, and that in the most legitimate manner, because it is a voluntary emigration, aided by the officers of the Government under an arrangement well devised and suited to its end. Officers appointed by the Government, give information in this country to persons willing to emigrate; and agents of the Government in the North American Colonies, are apppointed to aid them when they arrive, and give every assistance in their power. I have before me a table showing the emigration from the United Kingdom during twenty years, from 1825 to 1844 inclusive, and during that period no less a number than 1,255,975 persons have emigrated from the United Kingdom to our Colonial possessions. In the year 1841 the number was 118,592; in 1842, 128,344; in 1843, 57,212; and in 1844 no less than 70,686 persons voluntarily emigrated without any compulsion whatever. I have also an account of the emigration that is now actually in progress during the present year; from which it appears that the number of persons who left the United Kingdom for the Colonies during the first three months of the present year, ending the 31st of March, was 13,507, which, as compared with the emigration of the same quarter during the preceding year, of 7,396, marks a difference of thirteen to seven between the number of voluntary emigrants who quitted the United Kingdom during the first three months of this year, contrasted with the last. I may add that the emigration from the ten stations at which there are Government emigration agents, in the single month of April, 1845, was no less than 24,114. There was another point with respect to the condition of the people upon which the noble Lord dwelt with much earnestness; I mean the measures which have been taken to promote the education of the working classes. Now, in approaching this part of the noble Lord's speech, I am ready at once to declare my opinion that all education, unless it be accompanied by some endeavours to improve the physical condition of the people, will be utterly useless and without any effect. I contend that no education will be of any advantage to the people, unless it be accompanied with some endeavours to better their circumstances. The Government must bestow its attention as much upon the means of improving the physical as the moral condition of the working classes. Now, has the present Government neglected this most important branch of its duties—I mean those duties which, independently of their obligations to do their utmost to increase the comforts and add to the indulgences of the working classes, are involved in making provision for their mental culture? On the contrary, I am prepared to show, from the Papers which I hold in my hands, that in the year 1841 the sum expended by the Government in the education of the people was 30,000l. In 1842 it was 40,000l. A similar amount was expended in the years 1843 and 1844, whilst in the present year the sum proposed to be devoted to the purposes of education is 75,000l. The noble Lord also stated in the course of his speech that attention to the condition of the masters and mistresses of the public educational establishments was a primary duty on the part of the Government. I entirely agree with the noble Lord upon this point, and I am enabled to state to the House that this duty also has been properly and efficiently attended to, and that the expenditure which was at first limited on the part of the State to the construction of schools, has now been extended to the erection of dwellings for the schoolmasters. But the noble Lord also says, that we ought to attend to the qualifications of the schoolmasters and mistresses, and to provide means for their better training and education. This, likewise, I am in a condition to state, has not been neglected by the Government. I quote from a Report made to the Government on the point:— In pursuance of their desire to promote the efficiency and to increase the number of normal schools, they have, in addition to the vote of 10,000l. made by the late Government to the normal schools of the British and Foreign School Societies, voted to the National Society's normal schools an annual grant of 1,000l., which has been paid for the last two years; to the British and Foreign School Society's normal school an annual grant of 750l., which has been paid for the last two years; towards the building and establishment of the Chester diocesan normal school, 3,700l.; towards the building and establishment of the Batersea normal school, 3,200l., towards the building and establishment of the York and Ripon diocesan normal school, 3,500l.; towards the building and establishment of the Edinburgh normal school, under the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 4,000l.; towards the establishment of a normal school at Glasgow, under the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 5,000l.; likewise to the Edinburgh normal school an annual grant of 500l.; to the Glasgow normal school an annual grant of 500l. And, generally speaking, a very large advance — a progressive advance — has been made in the foundation of schools throughout Great Britain; and at the present moment there are awaiting the annual Vote by Parliament no less than 220 matured applications for building schools and schoolmasters' houses in England only. Since 1833, there has been expended of public money, for the erection of schools in Great Britain, 323,000l. The grants have been in the proportion of between one-third and one-fourth of the advances from private funds. More than one million, therefore, has been expended in the last twelve years on the building of school houses and masters' houses in Great Britain only. The annual grants made by the National Society amount to 6,000l. per annum. In addition to this expenditure, within the last eighteen months, they have raised by subscriptions no less than 150,000l. for the further prosecution of their laudable object. Nor have the Dissenters been behindhand in emulating the National Society in this great and good work. 70,000l. has been raised by Congregational Dissenters, in addition to their annual subscriptions, and at least 75,000l. has been raised by the Wesleyan Methodists for similar purposes. There are 70 masters and 35 schoolmistresses now training in the national establishment in connexion with the National School Society; and while the Resolution of the noble Lord applies only to Great Britain, there are circumstances relative to another part of the Empire to which I must refer, and to which I drew the attention of the House on a former evening. The national schools in Ireland have been doubled within the last five years. There were in connexion with the National Board in Ireland— In 1839, 1,581 schools, and 205,000 children in progress of being educated. At the present moment there are, in connexion with the National Board in Ireland, 3,153 schools, and 395,000 children receiving education. The National Education in Ireland may challenge comparison with similar establishments in any other country of Europe, not even excepting Prussia, where the education of the people is compulsory. I think I have now shown successfully that Her Majesty's Government has not been backward in its efforts to accomplish those objects, upon the importance of which the noble Lord dwelt with so much emphasis, and on the necessity for paying an assiduous attention to which he justly, in my opinion, laid great stress. At the same time, I am perfectly ready to agree in the observations that have been made with respect to the insufficiency of the amounts granted for the educational wants of England and Scotland, and for the better endowment of normal schools. Now, with respect to another branch of the moral improvement of the people, I think I may refer with propriety to a recent measure of my right hon. Friend who sits near me, which has been eminently instrumental in promoting the moral and religions training of the people: I allude to that measure by which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales have been empowered, without being compelled to resort to the public purse, to build churches, and to place endowed ministers in the densely populated manufacturing districts. This measure has only been in operation twelve months, and within that space of time there have been 13 new churches built; 37 are now in the course of construction, and 47 more are contracted for. It will thus result from the first operation of my right hon. Friend's measure, that 97 new churches will have been built, or are about to be built, during eighteen months. For a population of 656,157, who were almost destitute of spiritual instruction, there has been permanent endowment granted to no fewer than 206 ministers of the Established Church. Altogether, I think that this will show to the noble Lord an attention on the part of Government to the moral and religious instruction of the people, which perhaps will induce him to admit, upon reflection, that we have not been negligent of our duty in this particular. I have now gone through the principal topics of the noble Lord's speech; but before I sit down, I will ask the House to recollect the general result of the statement which I have felt myself called upon to make. I have shown, that for the last three or four years there has been a most remarkable revival in the trade and manufactures of the Empire—that wages have increased during that time — whilst there has been a corresponding reduction in the prices of the necessaries as well as comforts of life, and likewise a diminution in the amount of crime, as well as in the extent of pauperism. So much for the physical part of the people's condition. Then, as to moral improvement, I have shown that, without having had recourse to forced emigration, the surplus population has been aided by the Government in its departure to the Colonies to a very considerable extent, and labour has been directed to those parts of our Colonial possessions where it was most needed. Instruction, and the means of joining in public worship, have also been most extensively provided for the people; and, on the whole, I think the account I have now rendered will be regarded as affording indubitable proofs that there has been no neglect of duly on our part; on the contrary, I think the public will be of opinion that we have discharged that duty, animated by a faithful desire to promote the interests and the happiness of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, but more particularly the interests and happiness of the humblest and most helpless orders of the people. I will not dwell further upon the question before the House; but I shall content myself with saying, that the affirmation of the Resolutions of the noble Lord, and his presentation of them in an Address to the Crown, would be regarded in this place, as well as by the country at large, as a declaration of the opinion of this House that our measures had not been of a satisfactory nature, and that we had not performed in a proper and efficient manner those duties which are confided to us. To the substance of the Resolution of the noble Lord which admits that trade and commerce are prosperous, I can have no objection whatever. But for the reasons I have stated, I must meet it by moving the "previous Question." To arrive at that "previous Question," however, it will be necessary, in the first instance, to negative the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford). I can hardly suppose that that hon. Gentleman will be inclined to press his Amendment to a division, but will rather consider it as a record of his opinion with reference to the necessity for a large extension of the suffrage. If, however, he perseveres in his Amendment, it will be my duty to vote against the Amendment, and ultimately to move the "previous Question" Upon the original Motion of the noble Lord.

Sir C. Burrell

said, that though he had not had the good fortune of listening to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London, he understood from a Friend of his that the noble Lord made some observations with respect to the county of Sussex. He believed that the noble Lord misstated the facts, with respect to that county, no doubt not intentionally, but from misapprehension or misinformation, and he thought he was, therefore, bound to set the noble Lord right upon the facts; and feeling it to be his duty he would do so when required, indifferent as to the smiles of any one. The noble Lord singled out the county of Sussex as an ill-informed and ill-educated county, and in the gaols of which there were a great number of prisoners. But perhaps the noble Lord was not aware that the population of that county was a very changeable one, a great proportion of the population being derived from London, who had great facilities of going down to Brighton and the eastern coast, and amongst whom were many bad characters. One of the county Members informed him that not less than one-third of the prisoners in the eastern gaol came From Brighton. With regard to the education of the county, he could say for that part of it in which he spent his time, many schools were established, and most of the parish gentry assisted in educating the children of the common people. It was not his intention to enter into the subject of the noble Lord's Resolutions, having risen to state his reasons for thinking that the noble Lord unjustly aspersed the population of the county of Sussex. With respect to the rate of wages, he could only say, that in his own neighbourhood there were very few persons from it in the workhouse, and he never heard from the labourers of Sussex that they were not satisfied with the wages which they received. He was sure the noble Lord, having been misinformed on the subject, would be ready to withdraw his aspersion on the county of Sussex.

Lord J. Russell

said, that what he had said was, that it was generally the custom of the British and Foreign Society to state from the gaol returns what the state of education was in the different gaols, and he Only read a paragraph from their Report, in which amongst other gaols, that of Sussex was mentioned. He did not wish to cast any aspersion on the county of Sussex.

Mr. Labouchere

said, he could not help thinking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expected to hear from his noble Friend a very different speech from that which he delivered, and had prepared his answer accordingly. The speech of the right hon. Baronet was a defence of the Government from attacks which never had been made by his noble Friend. The main point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was, that they were indebted to the present Government for many useful measures. He would be the last person to deny that in reference to trade, and the extension of education, many useful measures had been introduced by Her Majesty's present Government. But that was not the question. His noble Friend, at a time when there was an impression in the country, in his opinion an exaggerated impression, of the extent of the misery of the lower classes; and, above all, of the power which that House had, by direct legislation, of applying a remedy to this distress, took the wise and patriotic course of calling the attention of the House and the country to the subject, and putting on record his opinion of those legitimate means of relieving the misery of the working classes, and pointing out the proper remedy for it, instead of those wild and empirical schemes which were presented to the public in speeches of no ordinary talent. That was a wise and patriotic course to pursue, and in most of what had fallen from his noble Friend he entirely concurred; and also in much of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. In truth, the speech of the right hon. Baronet might have been delivered in support of the Resolutions of his noble Friend; and he might at least consider it as an indication of the opinions of the Government as to the course they meant to pursue in regard to those Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out with satisfaction the comparative prosperity of the country at the present moment, and the flourishing condition of trade and manufactures. But to what did he trace the prosperity? To low prices. The present prosperous state of the country only proved to him, if indeed the subject required further proof, that prosperity and high prices were inconsistent with each other. And in the present condition of the country, when the population was increasing in the frightful ratio that had been alluded to, it became more and more the first duty of the Legislature to take care that the dreadful evils of high prices might not be again inflicted on the country. It was true the right hon. Gentleman attributed both the prosperity of the country and low prices to the present Government; but when he was reminded that good seasons might have done as much as good government, he admitted that good seasons might have those beneficial effects. But in his (Mr. Labouchere's) opinion, it was far too precarious and unstable a basis for them to rely upon the seasons. Still, making every allowance for the goodness of the seasons, the right hon. Baronet claimed some merit in producing prosperity and low prices for the measures of the Government, which was rather in curious contrast with what he sometimes heard from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they assured those around them that the measures they proposed would have no sensible effect on the price of corn. However, assuming the argument to be correct, and that the measures of Government had the effect of keeping prices down, what an encouragement was not that to them to proceed in the same course! Throw open those channels of supply, which would be the surest means of preventing a recurrence of those high prices which they were agreed would be a dreadful source of misery. Those were general views upon the matter, and it was not his intention at that time to go into any details. He thought his noble Friend took a wise course in putting on record those measures which the House ought to take in reference to the condition of the country, and he thought the present period of tranquillity and prosperity was eminently favourable to the consideration of a question which could not be debated with equal advantage if they were surrounded by a state of difficulty and distress. The country, as stated by the right hon. Baronet, was in a state of great commercial prosperity; and a contented population, diminished crime, and all those other advantages which a prosperous condition produces in a country like this, were the happy result. But there were persons—men whose opinions ought not to be lightly disregarded, who said that this bright prospect might be soon overcast—who perceived circumstances in the condition of the country which might speedily lead to an altered state of things. And they drew their auguries from those very speculations which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to as exhibiting so much wealth and energy. It was, therefore, wise and patriotic in his noble Friend, availing himself of the high estimation in which he was held, whether in or out of office, to place on record, in no party spirit, that line of policy which, in his opinion, the Legislature ought to pursue. Every day that passed by convinced him more and more, not only that their only wise course, but their only course of safety, lay in an energetic pursuit of a liberal commercial policy, upon which he believed the future prosperity and commercial greatness of the country depended. He never had been one of those who thought that with one dash of the pen they ought to strike out all their Custom laws; and he believed that a complete unqualified free trade was not advocated by the great body of the mercantile men of this country—he meant mercantile men as distinguished from manufacturers. But, though he did not go to that extent, he was ready to admit that it was in that direction they ought to move, by steady and active steps. Above all, he would implore of the Government to take into consideration the question of the Corn Laws. It was impossible for him to enter upon the discussion of the question of the Corn Laws incidentally. He would only say, that his differences with the Government were not so much differences upon principle, as differences with regard to the mode in which they thought it right to carry out those principles which they professed in corn, and especially in regard to the two most important articles of corn and sugar. He would not now recapitulate the objections which he urged on former occasions against the manner in which the Government acted with regard to those most important articles. He was always of opinion, that whatever claims the landed interest might have to some protecting duty, they could have no possible claim to a protecting duty being put in a shape which deranged all the commerce of the country. And, with regard to sugar, he now felt more strongly than ever the error of the Government in the course which they adopted respecting it. Every post that arrived from Brazil brought into this country accounts of the State of feeling there produced by the measure adopted here—strengthened more than ever the objections he entertained to the policy of Government on the sugar question. The Government of England had set an example to others which they ought to be the last to set, and which might one day be fatally turned against themselves. There were those who were jealous of England's commercial greatness, and who would be anxious to avail themselves of their example in striking a blow at her commerce in other foreign countries. He trusted that Government would reconsider their policy in this respect. So far from accomplishing the object they had in view—that of discouraging the Slave Trade—the consequence of the measure was, that Brazil refused to have any slave treaty with them till they struck from their Statute Book what they considered a national insult. On a future occasion he hoped he should have an opportunity of more fully discussing those questions. He would only now say that he would cordially support the Resolutions of his noble Friend. He did not think that his noble Friend would gain anything by bringing forward his Resolutions in the shape of measures. His noble Friend seemed to him to have taken the more prudent course, and he would join with his noble Friend in recording his opinions as to the measures which he thought it expedient to adopt.

Sir J. Tyrrell

said, that at the present advanced period of the Session, and in the press of public business, he did not think it would be discourteous to the noble Lord if his multitudinous Resolutions were pronounced to be an intrusion on the time and patience of the House. But he considered that parties in that House were in an extraordinary position, inasmuch as they had the spectacle of an irresponsible Opposition doing the work of the Government, and they had the First Minister of the Crown as it were deserted and abandoned by those who hitherto stood foremost to support him. The noble Lord, in his speech, alluded particularly to the restrictions on corn, feeling that that was the battle field on which was to be decided the question—who were to be entrusted with the Government of the country? The noble Lord also alluded to the Poor Law and the position of the lower orders; but he thought that the noble Lord had done great injustice to the agricultural interest, inasmuch as there would be a great fund at the disposal of the Government for the relief of the poor, if only some Minister thought fit to make those large masses of property which existed in the country subject to the poor rate. By the 43rd Elizabeth, it was intended that all persons should contribute to the poor rate in proportion to their means. If that intention had been carried out, a large fund would be at the disposal of the Legislature for the relief of the poor; but now, while agriculturists were heavily rated, manufacturers and others escaped from contributing their fair proportion. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was very ready to make concessions to the manufacturing interests, and altered the Corn Laws to give them relief; but refused to relax any portion of the malt tax for the benefit of the agriculturists. It had been remarked that the agriculturists were a powerful body; but that they were not in a position to form an agricultural Administration. Be that as it might, they thought they had already done so. He for one did not consider that a greater proof of the want of intellect of that body, than he should consider it a want of hospitality on the part of any nobleman or gentleman that he had not got two sets of butlers or cooks. On looking on that (the Treasury) Bench below him, his allegation was, that they (the Ministry) had betrayed confidence, and they (the agriculturists) must look elsewhere for support. The noble Lord opposite was gradually withdrawing protection, and had now himself adopted a sort of sliding scale for this year; he proposed only a duty of 5s. There was very little real difference between the opinions of the noble Lord and those on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. He (Sir John Tyrrell) was indebted to the noble Lord for bringing forward the Resolutions; but regretted he could not vote for them, because they were not practicable. The noble Lord never intended they should be so. The noble Lord had spoken of the distressed condition of the lower orders; but he (Sir John Tyrrell) believed the low wages of the labouring classes was occasioned by the want of confidence generally felt in the measures of that House by all those concerned in agricultural pursuits. Some of the dogmas of Gentlemen opposite might be theoretically correct, but they were practically inexpedient. Very little attention was now paid to the interests or the claims of the agricultural body; but if a dissolution of Parliament took place to-morrow the columns of The Times would echo the importance of that interest; and when again they came to count noses in that House there would be a great change of men, if not of measures.

Viscount Pollington

congratulated the House on the temperate tone in which the present debate had been carried on by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the hon. Baronet who last addressed them had withdrawn his confidence from the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's present Government, it did not appear that he had transferred it to the noble Lord opposite, who had introduced the Resolutions then under the consideration of the House. With regard to the Corn Laws, he could only say, for his own part, that he did not regard their eventual repeal with all the alarm which was manifested by many hon. Members at his side of the House. And if the House was to undertake an alteration in the existing arrangements with respect to those laws, he for one would have much more confidence in any proposition with this object, coming from the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, than he would have in one emanating from the noble Lord the Member for London. The noble Lord stated in his first Resolution— That the present state of political tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afforded the House a favourable opportunity of considering of such measures as might tend permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes. Now, he would confess that when he considered the terms of that Resolution, he had felt considerably disappointed on hearing the speech of the noble Lord, and at the absence of all allusion to the condition of those large bodies of the labouring classes in this country with whose interests the noble Lord the Member for London had identified himself in the support which he gave the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley). He felt exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord for what had been done in this respect, and he trusted to see the principle which was then laid down still more fully and practically carried out. He was fully aware, however, that in all that might be attempted by them in that House, they might be only able to touch the surface of the social evils under which the labouring classes suffered. There were other modes for alleviating the condition of the working classes, and which were thrown as it were, by Providence itself, open to their adoption. Large tracts of fertile land, with soil and climate in harmony with our own, and which had long remained hidden from us, were providentially exposed to our knowledge just at the present juncture of affairs, when they could be advantageously occupied. Our Colonies were a great resource, and he considered a good system of colonization would be very advantageous. The word emigration was not a popular word, neither did he much approve of the meaning which was attached to it. Emigration was supposed to be a means of getting rid of our superfluous population; but colonization had higher claims to consideration and approval, for it looked to the happy settlement of those who went to our Colonies, in the land which they adopted as their homes—it looked to their happiness, to the extension of the blessings of civilization, and the spread of Christianity in those distant lands. The noble Lord had made no allusion, in the course of his address, to the manner in which our present convict system interfered so much with the beneficial operation of colonization, although he might perhaps have done so with useful effect. The most casual examination into this subject, even by no other means than a reference to the blue books they had in that House, would show what almost irreparable injury that convict system had done to our Colony of Australia. The treatment the aboriginal inhabitants met with was also very reprehensible. It was not on such principles that Colonies were formerly founded. There was one other subject connected with the present discussion to which he wished briefly to refer, and that was the systematic education of the people. Two or three years ago a plan for this purpose had been proposed by the present Government for the education of the people of this country, but it had called forth at the time a strong manifestation of opposition. Now, he did think the present Government had acted rightly and wisely in yielding to that feeling, and he believed that feeling to be, that a combination of religion with education was the only proper systematic kind to be adopted. For his own part, he considered that education without religion, was worse than no education at all.

Mr. Villiers

said, he had been attending to the debate for some hours, and had been listening with some anxiety to the statements made on both sides of the House. He had done so in order to learn, if possible, whether, either from the proposition suggested on this side, or the opinions expressed on the other, he might not be spared from again making that Motion which he was in the habit of annually proposing to the House. The question of the Corn Laws, he thought, was distinctly raised by the Resolutions of the noble Lord; and he regarded it, as it appeared, in precisely the same light as himself. There were many things embraced in the Resolutions which the noble Lord had proposed; but he thought that anybody who had listened to his statement must have seen that the real question upon which the discussion must turn, was upon the policy of what is termed the Protective System, and upon the mode of dealing with a system which, according to his own account, had such a very important bearing upon the subject he had submitted to the House. The noble Lord brought before the House the condition of the people, and the mode by which that condition could be improved. The noble Lord, in doing this, referred to many things which doubtless had been, of late years, productive of great evil to the people; but he found that for these remedy was either too late, or that Parliament had no control. But he pointed out some that he found were within the power of the House, and to which he especially directed their attention. Amongst the foremost of these, the noble Lord had very properly placed the system by which the necessaries of life were artificially raised for the purpose of favouring a particular interest that preponderated in the House. He traced it in its connexion with the whole well being of the labouring classes, and he found it productive of the most enormous evils. The object of the noble Lord being, then, to direct attention to the wants of the people, and the policy and propriety of doing something to elevate their condition, the interest of the House was naturally drawn to what he regarded as the prime cause of evil, and which he properly alleged had been occasioned, and was maintained by that House. He wished his noble Friend had been more distinct in the mode he proposed of dealing with it. It would have rendered his case more complete. He should have liked to have heard it proposed that an evil so clearly established, and so enormous in its character, should be abolished. The admissions made to-night of all the ground on which he had always rested that proposition, had doubtless been most satisfactory. The right hon. Baronet opposite had really laboured to prove the great advantage to the community, and to the labouring classes in particular, that had resulted from reducing the duties imposed for the purpose of protection; he had certainly also endeavoured to show that some restrictions that had not yet been removed were beneficial to the people. But such arguments, he thought, might be viewed in the light of those which the hon. Baronet the Member for Essex had called that evening as productions intended for the consumption of that House alone. But the right hon. Gentleman's admission and evidence as to facts upon the subject of protective duties, were most valuable; he, in fact, established the case that the failure of protective duties, resulting, as it did, in plenty and cheapness, was of the first advantage to the people. He hardly knew where, if he had wished it, he could have procured more satisfactory evidence upon that point; if the House had decided, as it was once requested, to hear evidence at the Bar, on this subject, he knew not where a witness could have been found, whose testimony would have been more full and conclusive than that of the right hon. Gentleman's. The opponents of the present Corn Laws, always endeavoured to show what would be the effect on the people of a low price of food; which was the great evil anticipated by their opponents—freedom of trade. The prices of late had been low, arising from plenty; and the right hon. Baronet had come forward to tell them what—as far as he had been enabled by his official position to observe its influence—had resulted from it. He told them, then, that he was happy to announce that the people had been generally very well off under it; that they had been well employed; that there had been fewer of those mischiefs and evils consequent on poverty and discontent than had been observed before: he contrasted most satisfactorily the present period, when the price of food was low, with the years of 1840 and 1841, when they were high, and having reminded the House of the frightful amount of misery and suffering that existed in those years, he proceeded to show the coincidence of low prices with the diminution of pauperism, crime, and destitution, and the great extension of comfort and well being among the poor. The right hon. Gentleman, from his official situation, was a great authority upon the influences which affect the extent of crime in the country. He observed its invariable increase, with the increase of poverty; and he stated, that of late crime had diminished; and he observed that this has occurred at a time that food has become more cheap. The right hon. Baronet seemed to have made a careful inquiry into the condition of the people under the circumstance of food being cheap and abundant. He had ascertained what the rate of wages had been of late, compared with the period when food was dear. He had told them, not only that universally in the manufacturing districts they had risen, but he had the satisfaction of informing them that they had likewise improved in the agricultural districts—that the condition of the labourer in those places, tested by any or all of the evidences of the fact, were found to be improved, in comparison with years in which it was dear. There was less expended in parochial relief—fewer out of employment — less privation and misery, than in those very years when, food being dear, the great purpose of what is termed protection to agriculture had succeeded. In short the right hon. Gentleman's reviewing the condition of the working classes during the two periods, past and present, presented to them a contrast the most striking and conclusive in favour of the period when those much dreaded results of abolishing the impediments to trade, and, above all, to the trade in food, had been peculiarly manifested. But the right hon. Baronet was, very properly, not satisfied with merely marking the recent improvement in the condition of the people; he deemed it his duty to express his opinion as to its cause, and he had not hesitated to declare, that it was to be referred to the great reduction in the price of all the prime articles of necessary consumption. He had detailed to the House the prices of these different articles during these two periods of the good and bad condition of the people, which he had so closely considered; he had reminded the House of the particular prices of wheat, of flour, of meat, of sugar, and of other articles now considered as necessaries during the dear years, showing the precise reduction in each, and had himself ascribed to that reduction that improvement in the people to which he has so satisfactorily invited their attention; in short, the right hon. Baronet appeared determined, convinced as he was, obviously, of its justice, to establish the case of the opponents of protective duties. He had shown how the results of abolishing the system which made the necessaries of life dear would operate for the advantage of the people; he had fully exposed the fallacy of the notion that the removal of those duties would deteriorate the condition of the people. He had left no doubt, indeed, of the blessing of cheapness and plenty to the community, however procured; and this, as regarded food, had chiefly resulted from an unusually abundant harvest of the year before. But what was still more to the point, as showing that it was in the power of that House to secure these blessings to the people was, that he proved that in many respects this had been produced by the measures of the Government, which had for their object the diminution of those duties and taxes that were imposed to enhance the price of those articles of general demand. He had that evening engaged the attention of the House by showing on what the condition of the working classes depended, and how much they had it in their power by legislation, or by changing the system, of improving that condition. It was impossible, therefore, to overrate the importance of the right hon. Baronet's statements and opinions upon this matter, speaking, as he did, on the authority of his official situation, and representing, as he did, the Government who had still the support of a large majority in that House. The noble Lord who had brought this subject before the House had expressed his opinion that the working classes had not of late years advanced relatively with the wealth and prosperity of the country—that while the wealth of individuals, and the accumulation of capital, had been extended in a wonderful manner, that a corresponding progress in the condition of the people individually had not been observed; and that they had, in fact, declined in comparison with their former condition, and with reference to the condition of those above them; and it was the noble Lord's opinion that this had been occasioned, and could be traced, to the partial and impolitic system which, for the purposes beforementioned, had been maintained by the Legislature. The opinion of the noble Lord was corroborated by the important statement made by the right hon. Baronet opposite, who discovered that the people improved as that system was mitigated. These views were certainly propounded by them at a most important period; for there appeared a sort of general consciousness that something was wrong, that something ought to be done. There never was a time when there was a more liberal display of sympathy with the poor, or when more individuals, actuated either by fear or benevolence, were more ready in suggesting particular remedies for particular distress, or in administering partial relief to the people at large; the specifics, however, having this particularity in common, that they all fell short of the requisite sacrifice of self-interest to accomplish the object. It was always for anything but the abandonment of the system which they were interested in upholding. It was at this moment that the noble Lord came forward and said, "True, the condition of the people is not what it ought to be; but away with all your pretended sympathy for the poor, unless you relieve yourselves from the charge, that for the purpose of promoting your own interests you are yourselves the cause of their deterioration." The noble Lord told the majority in that House, that the system which was proved to be so prejudicial to the people, was upheld by them to serve their own interests; and the noble Lord had that evening charged the Legislature itself with being the cause of the deterioration, or the impediment to the progress of the people, by having enacted, and by still maintaining laws for the avowed purpose of artificially rendering scarce the necessaries of life. So far he entirely agreed with the noble Lord; and he thanked him for giving his authority to the views so often taken by himself and those around him on this subject; but as far as he could collect the noble Lord's views as to the remedy to be immediately applied, he could not agree in his conclusion that we should stop short of abolishing altogether, and at once, a system proved to be fraught with great, unqualified, and enormous evil. He could not understand how, after this evening, there could be any hesitation as to the course to be pursued; for the case which many had laboured to establish to show the justice and propriety of the remedy they proposed, had been admitted and confirmed on both sides. The noble Lord's view of the condition of the people embraced what was required to raise them morally as well as in their material condition; but the noble Lord very properly admitted, that these privations which the Legislature imposed upon the people by what was termed protecting particular interests, impeded their moral progress—that the people had no means for educating themselves or their families, and that their minds were unprepared for instruction or moral culture of any kind while they were struggling to obtain a bare subsistence. In that view he had been supported completely by the right hon. Baronet, who had pointed to the results of dearness of food. If any man wished in future to know the effect of high prices upon the people, he would only have to refer to the right hon. Baronet's speech that night. The condition of high prices, according to him, would be a return to the years 1840 and 1841; and let any man study the state of the people during those years who wished to know what were the results of that system which had in view to make the necessaries of life scarce and dear. They had obtained, then, that evening something like an authoritative agreement as to the cause of great evils that influence and affect the condition of the people. The question then arose, why was this cause of evil to be continued, if there was an honest desire to raise and improve the people? They were to hear, he supposed, that these low prices had occasioned great discontent among a very influential class, and that the Government had lost the confidence of many friends for the changes which they had already made. But those hon. Gentlemen must now remember the novel position in which they were placed. While it was contended by their leaders that high prices were of advantage, and that they benefited the people, it was a ground on which they could rest their defence of the system by which those high prices were produced; but now the matter was altered, and he should be glad to see how Gentlemen opposite would settle this matter among themselves in future. One party among them called for high prices and protection; the other showed them what were the consequences of high prices. "Get what you want," said the right hon. Baronet, "and you will bring the country back to the state of 1840 and 1841—a state that I almost tremble to contemplate, so terrible to the poor, so alarming to the State." That was the position in which they were placed. They complain of the present state of things: the expected price not being reached by 10s. a quarter for their wheat was really the grievance of which Gentlemen opposite complained. Because wheat was low they mistrusted the Government; it was only 46s., it ought, according to expectation, to be 56s. But it turned out as it was declared on their own side, that what occasioned their disappointment, occasioned at the same time the well being of the people. When hon. Gentlemen opposite, then, complained of the Government, and called for high prices, they were in fact complaining, that there was not more crime, more misery, more disease, more death, and more of all those evils the mitigation of which the right hon. Gentleman had traced to cheapness and to the reduction and modification of the protective system. He contended that, at this moment, that was a fair statement of the case; for, as he said before, nobody stood up now for there being any advantage to the people and the poor in high prices; though some, it appeared, called for them still. He concluded, when the hon. Baronet the Member for Sussex had risen to follow the right hon. Gentleman, that he was going to show the fallacy of his views, and to prove, from what he had seen around him in the country, what calamities befell the poor from what they termed agricultural distress, or, in other words, a low price of food. He thought that he was going to show what he and others had always predicted of low prices, namely, the land thrown out of cultivation, and the poor deprived of their employment; but what had been their astonishment when they heard the hon. Baronet, in vindication of his particular county, and in answer to the noble Lord, assert, as within his own knowledge, that the labourers around him were never better employed, and were never receiving higher wages! He said he paid no less than seventy of his own every week, for every one of whom he found profitable employment; and he spoke generally for the county which he represented—a happy state of things, which it appeared was quite compatible with that price of wheat which it had been asserted for years past would produce so much ruin and suffering; and in consequence of which the Member for Essex was about to withdraw his confidence from the Government. Did any man doubt but that that was the ground on which the hon. Baronet withheld his trust in the Ministry? He expected more shillings a-quarter for wheat; he thought the Ministers should have managed this for him, and not have raised his expectations. He was angry that the protective system had not been maintained; but he forgot that its failure had been proved to be a blessing to the nation; and though he might still call for its continuance, he (Mr. Villiers) wanted to know why it was to be continued—why, if what had been said was true to-night it should not be abolished, and with such unequivocal proof of its mischief to all parties, why it should not be abolished immediately. That was the point he wanted to come to—the mischief and error of the system being established, why not remove it? He knew the usual things said upon the occasion about carefulness, and uncertainty of the experiment, and all that sort of thing; but he contended that the noble Lord was not satisfied in showing the enormous mischiefs of the system, but he showed that whenever any part of it had been abolished, whether immediately or gradually, senseless alarms had been raised, which subsequent experiment proved to be idle and ill-founded. The noble Lord referred to several cases: he mentioned the foolish things he had heard said and expected upon those occasions; and in every case nothing but advantages to the community, and the interest itself affected, had resulted from it. The noble Lord had alluded to the case of wool, in which the duty had been totally repealed, and pointed triumphantly to the result; he had referred to the case of silk, to show the folly of the alarmists in that business, and the success of the change. The noble Lord had no fear of totally and immediately removing all duties on manufactures, feeling satisfied that nothing was so beneficial to those interests as the influence of competition. What were then his fears about agriculture? The effect of protection to that interest, he had spoken of with peculiar emphasis in the beginning of the Session; of the evil to the public he had since left no doubt of his opinion. There was no instance that could be named, in which the interest had suffered so much and so frequently as agriculture under protection. They were complaining then, though the rest of the country was contented and prospering. That the farmers had reason to complain, he had no doubt—they had been deceived, he knew; but their grievance was, in truth, one which they might and ought to settle with their landlords. The landlords assured them that they would get a price sufficient to pay them a high rent; let the landlords redress the wrong they had inflicted. If the farmers had been disappointed, they had no cause to complain of the House, or of the Ministry, who were bound to consider the interests of the community at large. Agriculture was protected at that moment at the rate of 50 per cent., while no other interest received more than at the rate of 20 per cent.; yet agriculture was said to be never so depressed. The fact was, there was not a pretence for its continuance, after all the evils admitted to follow from it—without any advantage that can be named, except it were that panic might seize those to be affected by the change, and produce evil—that need not of necessity result from free trade. But he asked the noble Lord whether he really believed that the mode in which he proposed to prevent that would be attended with any advantage. He was afraid of the shock of too great a change; yet could he really suppose that any ignorant, or timid, or interested agriculturist would have his fears or feelings allayed by a proposition such as he now made, which would pass at once from the sliding scale to a 4s. fixed duty, with the prospect of ultimate abolition? He thought that this plan could not be received with much favour by any party; no reason could be assigned for the continuance of any tax on food with the view to raise its price, after the admission of its evil influence upon agriculture itself, and while its injustice and inhumanity to the people would be more obvious than ever. He thought the noble Lord had done much good by raising the discussion, and the noble Lord deserved much credit for the courage he had shown in facing the general opinion of the House against his Resolutions. He had elicited very valuable statements from the other side; but in so doing, he must only thank him for having prepared the way for the Motion that he must make for the entire relief of agriculture—for that unqualified advantage to the community at large, which the noble Lord was bound himself to consider would follow from the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Mr. F. Scott

contended that for food to be permanently cheap to the lower classes, it must be the produce in abundance of their own soil, and that it was owing to the increase of that abundance and productiveness in the present time that the existing low prices were attributable. But it was of no use to the poor man that he should have his loaf cheaper in price by twopence, if they deprived him of the twopence with which not follow the price of corn, he contended that they did in general, though not always immediately, inasmuch as they were influenced by supply and demand; and that demand would not be increased if they increased the supply of corn from foreign countries. They could not have better wages for the poor if they diminished their means of employment at home. He was not disposed to place the labour market of this country under the control of the manufacturers, however much he might be otherwise disposed to respect them. It was now denied that the repeal of the Corn Laws would reduce wages; but had not one of the arguments in favour of that repeal been that it would bring down wages to the continental level. It was said, that if we imported corn, continental nations would take our produce in exchange; but, so far from that being the case, all our experience showed that nothing could be more fallacious. Now, with respect to rents, he would venture to say, that compared to the cost of production, rents were lower in this than any foreign countries. The rent amounted only to 2–16ths of the produce of the land, whilst the cost of the labour employed in manufactures amounted to 11–16ths of the produce. Thus the manufacturer had a greater interest in depressing his labourer than the landlord had in raising his rent. On clay lands the rent was not more than one half, and on light soils it was not more than one-third what it had been during the war. It had been argued that the wages of the poor man remained the same; but, though its money amount might be nearly the same, yet its power to purchase all articles of necessity was considerably increased. M. Dupin, in the papers which he had published in France, bad shown that in the prime articles of consumption, such as wheat, beer, sugar, and similar articles, the English labourer was much better off than the labourer of France; and the hon. Member for Bristol had shown, that of all the great articles of consumption, the English labourer could procure more for his wages than the labourer of any foreign country. It had been charged upon those who supported the Corn Law, that their object was to depress the labourer. It was rather hard to make a charge of that kind against the present Government, who had done so much during the last three years to reduce the price of all the he was to purchase it. Though it was said that the wages of the poor man did great articles of consumption, whilst their predecessors, during the ten years they had been in office, had done nothing of the kind. Never had a Government, in a short space of time, done so much as the present Government to carry measures calculated to confer benefit on the community. He was not disposed to go to the opposite extreme, and blame the Government because they had not devoted all their attention to one interest. He thought that it was far wiser and better to take an enlarged view of all interests, and do that which would be best for the interests of the country at large. This was a view which was entertained by many enlightened agriculturists, who felt that at a period of the kind some sacrifice must be made. He believed that the agriculturists would best discharge their duty by endeavouring so to act as to attach the lower orders of the people to them.—Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at one o'clock.