RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 17 June 1870 vol 202 cc407-48

MR. W. M. TORRENS*

, in rising to move— That the continued want of employment among those who live by waged labour in many of the great Towns of the Kingdom calls for the special consideration of this House, with a view to the means that may best be devised for the remedy of the same without delay, after referring to two Petitions on the subject which he had received for presentation, said, on that midsummer eve, when the weather was comparatively genial, when the town was full, and there were various alternatives of temporary occupation that helped men to forget the long interval of involuntary idleness, with all its attendant privation, through which they had passed, the House was free from that direct pressure of importunity and alarm which at an earlier period of the Session might have been said to interfere with their dispassionate judgment in the matter. But great classes of the community, both ratepayers and working men, had suffered bitterly last winter and the winter preceding, and all the inquiries he had been able to make confirmed him in the opinion that there were no new openings for trade in the winter that was approaching sufficient to give any guarantee against the recurrence of like misery. He also feared that the Poor Law Returns did not indicate that great improvement which would, if the logic of such statistics were admitted, discharge this House from the responsibility which many felt regarding the next six months. He was not going to discuss the administration of the Poor Law, and he asked the House to consider the question of the want of employment wholly apart from the question of poor rates and pauperism. What the House had to provide for and deal with was not that class which, being from various circumstances broken down, came upon the rates for relief, but those who were able to work, who wished for work, and who had not work to do. Three or four months had been spent by Parliament in securing the means of living to Irish tenants, and a million of money was to be devoted to this purpose by the State. Again, New Zealand had become discontented and alienated, and sooner than suffer that sore to canker, substantial help had been given by the State in order to promote emigration and afford employment in that Colony. Government had in their possession proofs which they probably were wise not to produce, and which he was not about to call for, of the extent to which, in the case of New Zealand, alienation had gone; and they knew too well the degree in which the feelings of the people of Ireland had become estranged before measures of concession were resolved on. Surely, if Ireland and New Zealand, being on the brink of disaffection, had been so generously dealt with, it was not unreasonable to ask the House to consider what could be done, though not in the way of lavish, grants, to improve the condition of classes of our countrymen who were certainly as peaceable and as little importunate as these. There was conclusive evidence to prove that unexampled poverty had prevailed for the last three years in the great towns of the kingdom; that that poverty, though at present alleviated, was likely to recur; that it was aggravated every day by the mere natural increment of population; and, as had been well said by a rev. friend of his— This distress did not arise from any mere oscillation of trade; but was one of those great changes in the progress of surplus population with which, sooner or later, Parliament would be obliged to deal. He took a recent opportunity of consulting the Registrar General, who said there was no reason to expect in the next decennial period that there would be any falling off in the increase of our population, which was now going on at the rate of 1,000 a day. The pressure occasioned by this increase was concentrated in the larger towns of the United Kingdom, whose aggregate population had risen enormously in recent years. He held in his hand a table verified during the present week by the signature of the Registrar General, from which it appeared that in the last 19 years the population of the 20 largest towns—counting the metropolis as but one—had risen from 5,225,000 to 7,216,000; so that at a very moderate computation the increase in these great centres of population would be found by the Census of next year to amount to considerably more than 2,000,000. But the total increase in the realm in the same period would appear to be about 3,500,000. There was, therefore, little reason to doubt that when they had the figures of the 15 or 20 next largest cities, it would be found that the whole of the additional population of the kingdom was concentrated in the towns. Formerly, this was not the case; but, of late years, Ireland and some agricultural counties in England, as well as many of the smaller country towns, had steadily decreased in population. He would not discuss the causes which had led to this important change in our vital statistics. The successive alterations made in the law of chargeability had, he believed, a great deal to do with it. Modifications in our system of trade had, in some places, a great deal more. All he desired was that note should be taken of the fact as one that was essential. If the large towns had become the places where great fortunes were to be made, they were also the places where great masses of poverty were accumulated. Now, this was the question to which he had to ask the serious attention of the House. He hoped that question would not be evaded by the attempt to raise any false issue as to the general causes of increasing poverty. He had heard it sometimes said that if there were no trades unions, the people would be all employed, well off, and contented. He had never spoken a sentence, or written a line in favour of resort to strikes, which had frequently, he believed, done much harm. But the man must be profoundly ignorant of the actual condition of things around him who believed that they were to be accounted for mainly, or to any important extent, by misdirected combinations among workmen. Their total number in the United Kingdom had been estimated at upwards of 5,000,000; while the minority enrolled in trades unions of all kinds did not exceed 800,000; and of these it was notorious that a large proportion had not for many years been engaged in any contention with their employers. Take Birmingham, for example, which was said to be the place where unionism was weakest, and where, accordingly, he might be told that employment was good. He rejoiced to believe that, comparatively speaking, it was so. But what was the testimony he had received within the present week, from two of the most intelligent and reliable persons in that town? They were both well known to his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon), who was their representative; and he would attest the value of any statements made by them. The clerk to the guardians, replying to a letter of inquiry from one whom he could have no other desire than impartially and correctly to inform, wrote— There is a considerable number of persons unemployed, who will not apply to the guardians: for the most part artizans. Many would emigrate if aided, themselves paying a small sum perhead. The editor of an influential journal corroborates this view— The gun trade, he says, is very bad, and is not likely to grow better. Of 4,000 engaged in this trade more than half, are unemployed, and will remain so till they can be drafted off into other callings. These are not paupers, and if they take parish relief, they only do so under severe pressure. Many would emigrate if aided, supplying part of the means themselves. I receive daily inquiries from workmen about emigration agencies, rates of passage, &c. The same observation applies to the districts round, and to the Black Country. Any information about the Colonies or the United States is eagerly caught at. There is no town in which unionism is so weak as in Birmingham. Neither was it just to ascribe the prevailing want of work to the evils caused by drinking or betting, which latter he had reason to fear was an increasing habit, and one much to be deplored. But it was well known that gambling was most indulged in where work was plenty and wages high; and, as for intoxication, he would endorse unreservedly the thoughtful and just expression in a letter he had received that morning from the rev. Mr. Temple, incumbent of Upper Kennington, in which, after lamenting the want of profitable labour which existed even now, and the prospect of its grievous aggravation in the later months of the year, said— I cannot attribute all distress as arising from excessive drinking, as is sometimes done, because I believe distress occasioned by want of work, depresses the mind and leads to the habit of lulling trouble by drink; and this does not prevail only among the labouring classes, but in a more refined manner is to be found in the higher ranks of society. But to whatever extent misery was caused by evil habits, where was the class among them without sin entitled to cast the first stone, when the casting of that stone meant a sentence of death? He held in his hand a mass of correspondence from clergymen, employers, and physicians of all shades of opinion, and all spoke of the deep distress prevailing throughout the metropolis last winter. Dr. Lee, All Saints, Lambeth, said— A very considerable number would be only too thankful to emigrate from this parish could they see their way to do so. I have never known such misery among the lower classes as they endured last winter; and it amazes me that statesmen do not insist upon a Government scheme of emigration to the Colonies. MR. Owen, St. Jude's, Chelsea, said— One-third of all trades are out of work, except the mendicant trade, which flourishes most when it is notorious that there is least work to be had. The well-known want of employment is an indirect endorsement of fraud. Whether failing commerce or surplus population be the cause, emigration meets both difficulties. There is no other remedial proposal so easy, so cheap, so otherwise desirable, as an extensive organization to send men to where there is land on which to live by their labour. If Government would make an emigration loan advance, to be repaid after given periods, thousands would avail themselves of the boon, who soon will be a costly and dangerous burthen on local rates or public charity. The Rev. T. Nolan, of Regent Square, wrote— Out of a population of 11,000 there are 1,300 families depending on waged labour, the half of whom have not regular work. The poverty of this part of London is coming in like an armed man. Desultory efforts no longer yield even a temporary mitigation. Government must grapple with the evil. The question is not of alms but of productive work, the want of which among skilled labourers is not so great as among unskilled. But a third of these have been without work last winter for three or four months. Of the shoemakers the greater part had only occasional employment during the winter. Five hundred are day labourers, of whom a third are unemployed three or four months. Tradesmen complain of want of business, ratepayers are greatly burdened, and general depression prevails. A partner in one of the largest building firms in the metropolis, who was one of the best educated, and most intelligent men he was acquainted with, told him the other day that their wages-book showed payments last year and this of more than a thousand guineas a week less than they had been three or four years ago; that he saw no prospect whatever of trade reviving, and that he could have to-morrow hundreds of men if he wanted them, able and willing to work, both artizans and labourers. The gentleman in question did not happen to agree with him (Mr. Torrens) in all his views of emigration; and he made his opponents, whoever they might be, a present of the admission. On the other hand, he must add that his friend had frankly said to him—"I know that we are no worse off than other large houses, and that if asked they all would say very much the same." This was in Bloomsbury. In another district, one that seemed among the most favoured in many respects—he meant the pleasant and healthful region lying between Highgate and the more densely-peopled portion of the town—another employer, Mr. Wiltshire, wrote to him thus— During the last winter I know from my own knowledge that many industrious artizans and labourers were driven to the stoneyard in order to provide food for their families. In several instances I recognized men who had worked for me in the building trade, who begged me to give them work to relieve them from the degradation of taking parish money. A man who had worked for me as a foreman bricklayer, came and implored me to give him labour of any sort, so as to take him from where he was working for 1s. 6d. a day. But my building work has been stopped for months, and it will be a long time before any builder in Islington can recommence operations, In Holloway alone, which is about a fourth of the parish, there are about 1,600 houses unfinished or empty. Though the population of the parish is increased in the last 10 years from 153,000 to 240,000 many of the small shopkeepers are reduced to the greatest poverty, and hardly able to pay the heavy rates imposed on them, and in hundreds of instances the vestry is obliged to excuse them. In February and March last year we gave out-door relief to 35,000, and in the same months this year to 59,000 poor. MR. Timewell, who has also been largely engaged in building, and who takes an active part in local affairs, corroborates this despondent view, illustrating the downward progress of the district in economic condition by the striking fact that whereas the amount of property assessed for the relief of the poor has about doubled between 1856 and 1870, the amount given in out-door relief had been augmented five-fold. Dr. Ballard, referring to the Reports made by him as Medical Officer of Health, observes— I have pointed out the enormous increase of sickness which seeks relief from public sources, arising out of the distress of the labouring classes from lack of work, and altogether disproportionate to our increase of population. In 1805 I recorded 29,098 cases of sickness; in 1867, 34,692; and in 1868, 41,077. Last winter the destitution from lack of work, came very prominently before me when relapsing fever broke out among the labouring class. Nearly all were in a state of semi-starvation, which was most painful to witness; and I visited every family. The complaint of the; men was that they could get no work, of the women, who kept stalls, that they had no customers. The want of food and firing in the bitter weather obviously led to the extension of the disease, to repeated relapses, and to a prolonged debility after convalescence. Our public sickness still continues very high for the season; the cost of food is rising, and unless some anticipatory measures be adopted, I look forward to next winter with dread. He assured him (Mr. Torrens) that in many other suburban districts a similar state of things was to be found, and that from experience and observation he was confident no change for the better was at hand. It would be no answer to say that, although all this might be true of the metropolis with its 3,000,000 of people, Leeds was busy and the vale of Cleveland was bright with the glow of iron furnaces. The prosperity of one district was of no avail to cure the per- manent wretchedness of another. He warned the House against being misled by averages on such a subject as this. There could be no question of averages between the rich and the poor, between the healthy and the sick, or between the wretched and the happy. It was an absurdity to tell a suffering man that he could not be very ill because his neighbours were enjoying good health. It was no reason against help when a house was on fire to say that there was not a sign of smoke from the opposite chimney. They might do well to take averages of exports and imports, of rates and taxes, of railways and telegraphs; but it was cruel and stupid nonsense to talk of average health, hunger, or despair. It was the duty of the House to disregard all arguments founded upon such sham calculations, and to do their best to prevent any class of the community becoming destitute, and, therefore, desperate. He did not ask the Government to provide work for a single man, or to do anything which could in any way be regarded as bordering on Socialism; but he asked them to deal with the working and the lower middle classes of this country in the same way as they had dealt with the people of New Zealand and of Ireland. A relieving officer in Bethnal Green wrote to him that they were inundated with surplus labour from the agricultural districts. The changes in the law that had been made of late years had rendered the great towns the drainage for the unemployed of the provinces, who were becoming a source of danger and demoralization. An East-end incumbent, the Rev. Mr. Caparn, says— From my own knowledge, and from information obtained from reliable sources, I believe more than half my people are unemployed, or not following their old employments. Many who were earning 50s. to 60s. per week, as well as less skilled labourers, are glad to unload barges or obtain any casual employment, and the number that are able to obtain work do not earn sufficient to support their families—the majority barely exist, and of some it is a puzzle to know how they keep body and soul together. I do not think there are many in my parish who have been immediately connected with strikes, though some, no doubt, have injured themselves in that way. For the last four years my people have suffered terribly, and notwithstanding the indiscriminate charity which has been given, and which has done much harm, the distress is rather increasing than diminishing. Mr. Caparn would rejoice in any remedy; but though he has assisted in emigration, he fears it alone mil not do. He ends by asking— Are there not vast quantities of waste land in Great Britain that might be made to produce food for our increasing population? He would add one more testimony, but it was that of a man whom he was sure the Prime Minister would not undervalue. The Rev. Dr. Miller, of Greenwich, wrote— My strong conviction, which has for some time been deepening, is that this question—'How to deal with the unemployed?' will, ere long, be the most urgent social question of the day. That very many are willing to emigrate if aided, not as paupers, is certain. I fear the want of employment will continue. Scarcity, and a hard winter, would probably bring the matter to a grave point. So much for the metropolis. Now, as to the other towns, Mr. Russell, the able conductor of one of the Liverpool journals, said— This is a city of refuge, or colossal workhouse, for all, many miles round, and for thousands from Ireland; anything which would deplete the labour market elsewhere would greatly reduce the distress in this town. Casual labour ought to be organized here in order to avert suffering in bad times, which comes suddenly, and often lasts too long. Emigration would lessen the supply of cheap casual labour, which brokers like to have dangling about, of course. It is more popular with working men than with them. MR. Samuelson, brother of the hon. Member for Banbury, said— During a great part of the year there is a very large amount of superfluous labour in the cotton and general produce markets. Only when favourable winds bring in a fleet of vessels is there full employment. One large cotton broking firm employs 50 regular hands as porters and weight takers, and 90 casually. Eleven months out of 12, they have no difficulty in engaging these hands at an hour's notice. Their warehouseman tells me that at 2 o'clock on most days he could go on 'Change and engage 500 hands in a very short time. Some ascribe the superfluity of labour to what they call high wages, which tempt men, they say, to flock into town during a flush of work; and which being soon spent the men are unable to leave. I think what is wanted is a higher rate of wages to compensate for casual employment, and a well-managed trades union to regulate labour and counteract the influence of public-housekeeping warehousemen. A respectable man will, at any time, prefer 21s. a week with regular work, to the vicissitudes of a dock porter's life with 4s. a day. The facility with which extra hands are obtained, owing to the rapid influx of men when there is a flush of work, is not only the cause of frequent distress, but is indicative of a widespread superabundance of labour elsewhere. The Mayor of Southampton endorsed the following statement:— The Poor Law Returns give an average of men out of employment. But by far the larger number of persons would not have been in receipt of relief, and consequently I have no means of ascertaining their number. The Poor Law statistics would not give you a tenth part of the numbers out of employment. Next Session the House must be prepared to have this question of the unemployed more fully discussed. It was becoming every day of more and more importance. Wild dreams were being indulged in, and desperate expedients were being mooted with the view of meeting the difficulty. As he ventured the other day to tell a noble Lord, who was better acquainted, perhaps, than any man of his order with the true condition of the people—"You who have good estates to lose or keep, had need to look to it betimes: the devil is looking over the wall;" and his noble Friend replied—"I know it, and have often said so." He had been asked upon what ground he could advise Parliament to levy a tax for the benefit of a particular class, but he did not ask for a single shilling. The tax was already levied; he asked only that it should be adjusted. If there were a large number of people out of employment, and if they did not find their way to the workhouse, they must live upon the wages of others; and it was so. The poor would not see their neighbours dying from starvation without helping them; and besides this, the poor rates were levied most unjustly. He knew of two proprietors, who drew from £30,000 to £40,000 a year from house property in Finsbury, and were not assessed a shilling to the local rates. As absentees they did not see the poverty of the district, and were therefore not prompted to charity. The remedy for this would not be found in any adjustment of local burdens. He recently met a distinguished friend often consulted by the Government upon the subject of commercial legislation, who asked him why, instead of requiring State interference in reference to surplus labour by means of emigration, they did not ask for the means of opening new markets to labour by negotiating the reciprocal abatement of Customs' duties, which stood in the way of greater intercourse with other countries. But the truth was that they who proposed State aid to emigration had been the most constant advocates of the free trade alternative, on which his friend Sir Louis Mallet in preference relied. All through last autumn and winter they had not failed to press upon the attention of the Government the policy of equalizing the duties on wines, which would not only cause a great expansion of trade with the Peninsular States, but with our own Colonies of Australia and South Africa. The Ministers of Spain and Portugal had long been urging the admission of their wines on the same terms as those of France, and only the other day he (Mr. Torrens) had introduced a deputation of Cape and Australian merchants to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of pressing upon him the expediency of the change, and the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the question had been considered, and that the thing could not be done. This was not the time to discuss the grounds of that determination; but if the alternative of new markets was closed against them, they had all the more right and reason to ask that some other should be sought, and, if possible, found. He thought that it ought to be impressed upon the Government that they were wrong in leaving the outflow of labour undirected. The Report of the Emigration Commissioners showed that out of 167,000 British-born subjects who left this country last year, no fewer than 133,000 proceeded to the United States. It was, he believed, a great error not to endeavour to prevent this. He was as hearty a friend of America as any man in that House, and could look back with satisfaction to the services he had rendered in preserving amity between the two countries; but he loved his own country best, and had little sympathy or respect for The steady patriot of the world alone, The friend of every country but his own. If they desired to hold the Empire together, they ought, while they had spare hands and the Colonies had spare lands, to marry the land to the labour and the labour to the land. Canada was able and willing to receive between 20,000 and 30,000 men, and yet they allowed people to remain here weltering in their misery. He, for one, would not advocate what was called "sending" men out of the country, because he did not think that was their business at all; but their duty was to strike down the toll-bars between this country and every other part of Her Majesty's dominions. Above £1,000,000 was annually voted in subsidies nominally for the postal service, but practically for the provision of floating hotels for the great comfort and expedition of first and. second-class travellers. Those subsidies were professedly granted for postal reasons; but they had the inevitable effect of combining great luxury with great speed for those persons who were able to travel at high pressure and at great expense. Why, then, should not the working classes have their fair share of the advantages of improved transit? In every Railway Bill a provision was inserted that there should be third-class carriages, and why should they not have, in like manner, third-class ships? Doing this would naught impoverish capital, while it would make labour rich indeed. He would plant in the heart of every working man a fresh root of hope, of self-help, of loyalty. He would enfranchise him with something better than any mere political privilege—the sense that when he woke in the morning of life, and found the sky dark and the air chill, and work scanty around him, he might, by thrift and care, in a short time gather enough to purchase for himself, under the provisions of a great and merciful law, the right to pass the limit of his parish, of his town, or even of this old kingdom, and go forth to seek wealth and fortune, health and content, in whatever region and whatever zone there were lands untilled within the allegiance of the Queen. It would be possible, without any appreciable increase of national burdens, to enable many thousand families to emigrate, who, for want of material aid, were now unable to do so. Each adult should pay £3, and each child over 12 years of age 30s. For this they should obtain a family passage warrant to Quebec, Victoria, or Natal, as the case might be. The difference in each case might be made up in the following manner:—one portion should be defrayed from the Imperial Exchequer, one from the revenue of the Colony, and one out of a fund to be created by way of colonial loan guaranteed by the Home Government. The portions would not always be the same; but, taking all things into account, he thought the advantages and capabilities of contribution might fairly be considered equal. No plan, of course, could be wholly free from objection which attempted to deal with a problem so complicated, and one the elements of which were in several respects so diverse. But, at least, that which he desired to recommend might afford a way of escape from perilous uncertainty as to the means of livelihood to great numbers of industrious and respectable persons at present existing in daily deepening fear of absolute want. It would, on the other hand, supply Canada and Australia with the hands they more than ever need on terms much easier than, as far as he knew, had ever been heretofore suggested. He would have the Imperial Executive authorized to give the option to any Colony whose circumstances rendered it suitable for emigration from this country; and he would in every case give the colonial agent resident here a veto in the selection of passengers by these "third-class trains across the ocean." Each Colony would be left to judge for itself from year to year what addition to its population it could helpfully assimilate and absorb, and there would be no great difficulty in adapting the supply to the varying demand under this elastic system. The working men had given abundant evidence that they were ready to pinch themselves in order to accumulate £3 a head, and thereby prove they were not paupers. If this boon were refused them, who would convince them that they were duly represented in that House? Many of the Colonies would be willing to contribute an equal sum for each approved emigrant; and they of their abundance ought to contribute the remainder. The adoption of such a scheme would tend more than anything else to knit together the different portions of the Empire. He would not then discuss the policy pursued by his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department of withdrawing their troops from the Colonies; but surely if they withdrew force they ought to plant affection. Those who went to the Colonies would become customers for our manufactures, on which the tariff of the United States imposed a duty of from 30 to 70 per cent. It might, perhaps, be urged that the magnitude of our exports was an answer to his complaints; but he would remind the House that history recorded instances of great wealth existing side by side with great misery and want. By the mercy of Providence they were singularly happy in having many untried regions where they might most advantageously employ both capital and labour, and he was convinced that by a wise, judicious, and kind application of our laws and financial arrangements, they might facilitate the outflow of capital and labour to the extended sphere of British dominion, and, at the same time, confer unmitigated blessings upon this country.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

, in seconding the Motion, said, he hoped the House might be induced to take immediate action in the matter, The hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion had successfully combated the objections that had been raised against Government aid to emigration. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Poor Law statistics did not represent more than a tenth part of the misery and destitution prevailing in the country. He would himself briefly refer to the last annual Report of the Poor Law Board, which had within the last few days been placed in the hands of hon. Members. He found that the number of persons in the receipt of relief during the past year amounted to 1,032,000—a larger number than in any year of which we had a record, with the exception of the years 1849 and 1863. Now, the cause of the increase of pauperism in 1849 was that the policy of free trade had just been introduced; but that its good effects had not yet begun to be experienced; while 1863 was the worst year of the Lancashire cotton famine, which was admitted to be a national disaster. It was easy, therefore, to account for the increased amount of distress which prevailed in those two years, while he had heard no valid reason assigned for the pauperism of the last few years. The increase was, under these circumstances, he could not help thinking, a most alarming circumstance. On the 1st of Jannary in the present year he found that the number of paupers was 36,000 in excess of that of last year, and that at the end of the month of February the excess was 74,000. He would also observe, because he believed the present House of Commons was an economic House, that one cause of the increase of distress was to be discovered in the fact that thousands of persons had been turned out of employment in our public establishments. From the Returns to which he had already ad- verted it would be seen that in Greenwich, Woolwich, Deptford, and those other parts of Kent where their great dockyards were situated, the increase of the expenditure in the relief of distress for the last year had been 22 per cent, while in no other single district throughout the country had it been more than 8 per cent. In addition, he found that the money which had been expended last year in relieving the poor in England was in a larger ratio per head than in any year since 1835, except 1848. Those circumstances were, he thought, sufficient to justify those who brought forward and supported the present Motion. To such a Motion he had heard no objections except that although the state of destitution in the country was very bad it was not worse than it had been before, and that there was, therefore, no need of immediate action. That, however, was an argument which he could not help regarding as being very unworthy of that House, and which he hoped would not find favour with a Reformed Parliament. It was also said, not so much within as outside the walls of the House, with some plausibility, by gentlemen connected with the great manufacturing interests—"No doubt there is a great want of employment; but trade will improve, and we shall soon want every man in the country. Do not, therefore, adopt any scheme giving facilities to enable them to go to other countries." To such an argument there were, however two objections. He should, in the first place wish to know when the promised increase of employment was to occur. He had heard in the course of recent discussions in that House that the trade of the country was tolerably prosperous; but with 1,100,000 paupers, to whom must be added the hundreds of thousands hovering outside the circle of Poor Law relief, it must be an unparalleled increase of trade which would give employment to the whole mass of our poor. He would also wish to point out that if they could keep men until they wanted them—if, likewise, the longer they were kept the better they would be, there might be no objection to the adoption of that course. But they all knew that in the case of men who had lost their employment, and who had to fight the battle of life from day to day, the probability was that they would sink into a hopeless state of dependence, and would become so deteriorated that if after a time they were able to obtain work, they would be almost incapacitated from accepting it. He thought he might add that it was clear from the way in which the House had listened to the observations of the last speaker, they would be only too glad to adopt any means of relieving the prevailing distress which was not open to strong objection. One of the means suggested was their employment in the reclamation of waste lands; but he, for one, must frankly admit that he could never discover how work of that description was to be provided. Even in Ireland he found, from careful inquiry, that the waste lands which could be reclaimed with any reasonable prospect of remunerating those who might be engaged in the task were very small indeed. There was also another scheme which had been put forward, and that was the introduction of some change into our commercial policy; but when that subject had been brought before the House the Government had refused—he did not say without reason—to accede to any investigation with that object. Those two projects might therefore be dismissed, and then came the proposal for the adoption of some satisfactory system of assistance to emigration. Now, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not wish to see any man forced to leave his country. But it was, nevertheless, in his opinion, desirable that a man who could not find occupation at home should be able to go where he could find the means of employment, and where he might become an advantage to the community which he joined, instead of a burden to that which he left. It might be said that the plan suggested was Socialistic. But for the last 250 years we had had a Poor Law the very origin of which—the Act 43 Elizabeth—was the rankest socialism possible, because under it overseers were to find work for persons unable to get it. The principle contained in this Act had been put into practice, yet Socialism and Communism had not been found among us. He trusted that the House would not be influenced by these hard names. Those who would benefit by Socialism would be the very lowest class, who had nothing to lose and hoped to better themselves in the scramble. But the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was that those who were destitute, not from any fault of their own, should be afforded facilities for emigration to seek work in a country some thousands of miles off, where they would certainly gain nothing from the adoption of Socialism here. A residence in Canada had convinced him that it offered opportunities of employment such as did not exist in England. It was said that emigration to Canada would only swell the population of the United States, and that the emigration from Canada was greater than the emigration to that country. No doubt, during the time of the Civil War enormous bounties in the States tempted immigrants from Canada, and great difficulty was experienced in preventing English soldiers from deserting, because, even if they did not get the bounty, there was such a want of agricultural labour that they were sure of profitable employment. But since the war ceased, the heavy taxation, which was the result of the enormous War Debt, had put a stop to immigration from Canada. An indirect advantage arising from the adoption of the Motion would be the check it would give to indiscriminate charity, which was a great evil. If it were known that the Government had taken up this question of destitution, persons would hesitate before they gave any money in the streets. Parliament had spent months in discussing Irish grievances, and a Bill would probably soon become law which violated the first principles of political economy. The House were asked, to sanction this Bill because they were told that there was a keen competition for land in Ireland, and that unless a man there found employment in the cultivation of the land he had no means of subsistence. Now, the competition of labour in England was not less keen than the competition for land in Ireland; and he doubted whether, within a short distance of this House, there was not more distress than in the whole length and breadth of Ireland. He did not ask the House to violate the principles of political economy or of free trade, but to place employment within the reach of persons unable to gain employment at home; and to send those persons to the Colonies instead of paying an annual sum for their maintenance here, and helping them in a state of semi-starvation and compulsory idleness. An eminent political economist had said that one of the great evils engendered by a high state of civilization was the local scarcity of employment. The difficulty was further enhanced when these local scarcities became general. They flattered themselves that they were increasing in wealth; but all this time the heart of the country was being eaten out by the cancer of pauperism. He confessed, that the plan suggested by his hon. Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was dimly shadowed forth; but he earnestly asked the House and the Government to consider and support it, for the present condition of affairs was, to a highly civilized nation like theirs, at once a danger and a disgrace.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the continued want of employment among those who live by waged labour in many of the great Towns of the Kingdom calls for the special consideration of this House, with a view to the means that may best be devised for the remedy of the same without delay,"—(Mr. W. M. Torrens,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GOSCHEN

Sir, I have to thank my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens) for the courtesy with which he allowed Government business to come on at the Two o'clock Sitting, and deferred his Motion until this evening. I wish to draw particular attention to the terms of his Motion, because its tendency is very different from the particular scheme to which he addressed himself in his speech. I must ask the indulgence of the House if I travel over a certain extent of ground, because it will not do to let it go forth uncontradicted that the state of affairs in this country is such as it has been described. Do not let hon. Members be led astray by isolated facts and the descriptions given of particular places. The hon. Member referred to the metropolis, Southampton, part of Birmingham, and Liverpool; but did he deal with any great industry, such as the cotton trade or the iron trade, or any of the industries that are reviving again, and calling for labour even from the metropolis? It would be disastrous that the country should think it is in a worse situation than it really is. It is exceedingly dangerous to feel an overweening confidence; but there is danger, too, in the opposite direction. If a belief that the state of things is worse than it is leads us to seek remedies we ought to avoid, it is our bounden duty to remove the erroneous impression. I demur to the facts of the hon. and learned Member, and I deny the inferences which he has drawn from them; and I maintain that the remedy he proposes would be ineffectual for its object, even if it were possible for the House to adopt it. Why has he put the Motion on the Paper in the form he has done? Why does he speak of "devising the best means," without naming the particular scheme he advocates? It could not have been, I am sure, from any wish to evade the decision given from the Chair that the subject of State-aided emigration could not be renewed in this House this Session. What inference, then, are we to draw from the form of his Motion? It implies that if emigration is not a sufficient remedy for the want of employment, other means ought to be found by the Government for relieving the working class. Do he and the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) pledge themselves to this plain inference which is clearly contained in the Motion? Suppose the emigration scheme breaks down, as it clearly will, are we to proceed to devise further remedies? What will the working classes think of the Motion? Is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to tell the working classes that it is the duty of Parliament by other means to find employment for them? Seldom has a Notice been put upon the Paper calculated to raise so false and dangerous an impression. My hon. Friend has taken upon himself a great responsibility, and, in assuming it, it was his duty to have laid a stronger case before the House. Is it sufficient to quote private letters when other authorities are at his command? I could quote a number of private letters to show that employment is reviving at almost all the centres of industry. But I should, indeed, not venture to rely exclusively on private letters in such a case. I shall show from numerous sources that work is reviving in the country. The hon. Member has told us of four places only where employment is very scarce. The statistics of pauperism bear upon this question to a very great degree, but the hon. and learned Member is quite right in not resting his case upon them. I quite admit that there might be a decrease of pauperism and yet an increase of suffering among the working classes. But the statistics prove that there is a great decrease of the depression which has existed for so many years. But the noble Lord took a different course: he quoted the last Report of the Poor Law Board; but if he had read the whole he would not have quoted what he did without first stating certain modifying facts. The noble Lord stated that there were 1,100,000 paupers in the country; and he wished to know what sort of a revival in trade there must be before we could find work for them. The noble Lord assumed that all this million of paupers were capable of work.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

What I said was, that there was 1,000,000 of paupers and some 100,000 on the mere outside of pauperism.

MR. GOSCHEN

Yes; but the noble Lord argued as if we expected that the revival of trade would absorb them all. But of that 1,000,000 paupers, how many did the House think were capable of work—able bodied in the real sense of the word? I dislike vague generalities. It is stated in the Report how many are sick, how many are aged, how many are widows, and that 350,000 of them are children. It is not fair to talk of that 1,000,000 as if that number represented men who are out of work, whom the revival of trade would absorb. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. W. M. Torrens) would find it rather difficult to show that there was so large an increase in the number of paupers that a revival of trade would not easily absorb those who are capable of work, and the revival of trade is, in fact, absorbing them fast at the present moment. A Return issued by the Poor Law Board a day or two ago shows that a large proportion of them have been already absorbed. Why take Returns for the 1st of January when we have Returns up to the fifth week of April? The January Returns show a great excess of paupers over the preceding year, but that was owing to the hardest winter we have had for a long time. Now we are not 1 per cent above last year; the Returns show we have reduced the excess until there are only 6,000 more paupers than there were at the same date last year. The difference between the fourth week of January, 1868, and the fifth week of April in the same year, was 66,000; in 1869 the difference was 49,000, and in 1870 the difference is 117,000; so that we have already run off 117,000 from the great excess. Pauperism is going down, not up. If we except the metropolis and the south-eastern district, there would be a decrease on the pauperism of last year. The noble Lord quoted Poor Law statistics because he thought they strengthened his case; and, therefore, I feel it my duty to call attention to this point in order to show the real facts. Well, Sir, I scarcely know at this late hour what course I ought to take. I have before me a bundle of Papers containing a mass of evidence which, I think, will be of interest not only to the House, but also to the working classes, on whose behalf the Government is as anxious to legislate wisely as my hon. and learned Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite can possibly be. I have not thought it sufficient to converse with, or correspond with, a few private friends. I have endeavoured to exhaust every source from which reliable information on this subject was likely to be obtained. I have asked the Factory Inspectors to report. I have asked the Poor Law Inspectors to put themselves in connection with everyone who could give them information. I have myself communicated with Members of the House who represent large towns, and have requested them to consult every authority whom they could possibly command, and I have watched every indication of the state of trade. I will not speak of the schedules of the Income Tax Returns, which, though they are not conclusive on the point, are to some extent indications. But I may allude to the Revenue Returns, which, show that the working classes are consuming more sugar, more tea, more beer, more spirits, and more tobacco. Those classes are depositing more in the savings-banks and contributing more to the Imperial Exchequer; and I say here, on my responsibility, that in the most searching inquiry which I have instituted, I have found there is scarcely a single symptom on which we can rely that does not point to reviving prosperity throughout the length and breadth of the land. All the facts to which I have referred leave not a doubt of this—that the distress is not greater than it was a year ago, that it is not greater than it was two years ago, and that it is decreasing. The noble Lord has referred to the East-end of London. No doubt, the distress there is somewhat greater than it was a year ago, but not greater than it was two years ago; on the contrary, it is diminishing. No doubt, there is great misery in parts of the metropolis, and there is local misery elsewhere. The question, then, is—are we to legislate for a particular district; are we to go back from the great principle we have always acted upon of leaving the labour market free, of letting labour take care of itself? I contend that we ought not to do so unless a very strong case is made out. Sir, if the House will accompany me for a few moments into some details, it will learn what I have gathered from the Reports to which I have adverted. Mr. Cane, one of the Poor Law Inspectors, reports that in almost every part of Lancashire there is a considerable diminution of pauperism. In Yorkshire there is not so great a relief from the depression; but Mr. Cane, referring to Preston, Stockport, Liverpool, Manchester, Wigan, and the other towns of Lancashire, writes— I have visited many Unions and attended a very considerable number of Guardians' meetings during the last months. In all the places I have been assured that work is now plentiful for those who chose to labour. There is at this time much agitation among the workpeople employed in factories and collieries, the object of which is to obtain that rise in wages which it is thought the improvement in trade enables them to demand. Manufacturers and others display a marked desire to retain the services of the operatives whom they employ, and I have observed an anxiety to draw to their mills workpeople from distant places, where it was supposed work was less abundant. In one instance, at least, I have known that the proprietors of a large cotton-mill have directed attention to the condition of the poor of the East-end of London as a source from which to obtain, the 'hands' they could not engage elsewhere… I hope and believe that the marked improvement which has taken place in the condition of the working classes will be further increased and permanently sustained. Parenthetically, I may ask my hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), why he speaks of transferring labour from England to Canada, and not of transferring it from the East-end of London to other parts of the country? In Stockport there has been a decrease from 2,500 paupers in May, 1869, to 1,500 in May, 1870, the decrease being thus 1,000. In Blackburn the decrease has been from 5,200 to 3,300, being a decrease of 1,900. In Liverpool the decrease has been from 11,900 to 10,700, being a decrease of 1,200; and in Preston it has been from 6,000 to 3,000 since October, 1867. Well, but I was not satisfied to take the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors only. I applied to the Factory Inspectors, and with reference to the cotton trade, I have this Report from Mr. Ewing— I can answer with confidence that there is a decided revival in the staple trade of this district and neighbourhood, and the improvement is very considerable when compared with the actual state of things at this time last year. We have evidence of this revival more particularly in the starting again of a number of the mills which had remained closed for a long time, and in the investment of fresh capital in new machinery and other ways. It is also seen in the increase of machinery being gradually brought again into operation in factories which had only been partially worked since the Cotton Famine. The workpeople, too, are again earning better wages, and but comparatively few of them need now remain unemployed. On this subject, I may add that a large employer of trade in Liverpool says— There is no scarcity of workpeople, but generally in the cotton trade they are almost fully employed. A market report in the Manchester Courier of the 14th instant contains this statement— Yesterday the Bolton Cotton Operatives' Spinners' Association forwarded another circular to their employers, asking the advance of 5 per cent on present prices, which was taken from them in November last. The circular sets forth that when the reduction was made a pledge was given that as soon as trade would guarantee its restoration the masters would be happy to give it back. The operatives' view of the question is that trade has so far improved, and its prospects are such as unmistakably to impress their minds with the belief that the time has arrived when that pledge should be fulfilled. In confirmation of that opinion they quote statements from Burns's Monthly Colonial Circular for May, in which it is stated that the long period of depression is drawing to a close, and that most encouraging reports are being received from the foreign markets, and that a large increase has taken place in the supply of the raw material from the United States. The daily increasing value in mills and mill property is also adduced as an indication of increasing prosperity. The operatives conclude by saying that the dangerous points are passed, and, although profits are not all that can be desired, still they consider that they are labouring under a reduction of 5 per cent below the minimum rate of wages, and that they have established a just claim to an advance equal to the amount of the last reduction. The circular states that the operatives will wait upon the masters for an advance at their (the masters') convenience. I should also mention to the House that there are other indications all pointing to the same fact, that the cotton trade is reviving, and that production has considerably increased during the last few weeks. Then, with regard to the silk manufacture, another of the great industries of the country, how are the facts? Writing about the silk trade of Macclesfield, Mr. Steen, the Factory Inspector, states— There are a great many buildings, which were formerly factories, and still contain machinery unemployed, and these, to a stranger, would lead to a belief that the trade was bad. This is not so; if hands could be obtained in sufficient numbers to fill them, many of them would be now at work. This difficulty is daily becoming less, and it has been ascertained that there are 700 and more cottage houses occupied this year which were empty last year, and these mainly occupied by silk operatives. The rate of wages has increased from 16 to 20 per cent within the last two or three years. At present the manufacturers are full of orders and the trade is very brisk; the weavers are fully employed, and many more could be also fully employed. The manufacturers complain greatly of the scarcity of labour. Mr. Henley, Poor Law Inspector, reports of trade in Coventry, which town he visited. He attended a meeting of the Directors of the Poor. He says— It happened to be an annual occasion for calling the roll of all the men in the workhouse, and investigating each case. Mr. Henley reports of those in the workhouse— They appeared as a class unusually aged and infirm. There was nothing approaching an able-bodied man…. The out-relief cases afforded no intimation of any want of employment. In continuation the Report states— Mr. Henley questioned the directors then present, all of whom were engaged in business. They informed him, unanimously, that there was work for all who were able and willing to do it, at good wages; that in any trade many persons were employed during a time of great prosperity who could not be called workmen, and that these were put out at the first pressure. No doubt as a consequence of the pressure of 1866 a number of second-class workers were thrown out, and a portion of them have since reached an ago which forbids them any longer to look for first-class wages. And this is a point to; which I wish particularly to direct the attention of the House. It is notorious that in the metropolis many old men were employed during a period of prosperity who would not have been employed in slacker times; but surely my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finsbury would not propose to send to Canada men too old for work in this country. There is not an absence of demand here for first-class labour. The second and third-class workers are those who have been thrown out by the depression here. Is this the class who are to be assisted to emigrate? And, again, I should like to know, does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that in Canada those who have emigrated will be able to take up occupations in which they have been engaged in this country, but in which want of employment has ensued and thrown them out of work? The hon. and learned Member speaks of the gun trade in Birmingham, and he talks of sending the workmen in that trade to Canada. But are they to be employed in Canada in the same trade? [Mr. W. M. TORRENS made a gesture of dissent.] The hon. and learned Member says, "No." Then they must take to some other trades, and why could they not do the same thing at home? Would persons in their position be better fitted for new employment in the Colonies than in England? Is the versatility to come in a colonial climate only? Will these men learn among strangers that which they cannot be taught at home? I hope that the hon. and learned Member does not think that obstacles would be interposed in this country to the migration of labourers from one town to another. It has been a question of grave deliberation for us how the surplus labour in one part of the country is to be transferred to other parts where it is required. The hon. and learned Member referred to Coventry in the course of his speech. Now Mr. Henley, speaking of Coventry, says he was informed by Mr. Harris, clerk to the guardians— That there are now more houses in the course of erection than there have been at any time for the last 10 years, and he fully believes that Coventry is emerging from the cloud of depression which has overshadowed the whole city for the last few years. These are encouraging facts, and facts which ought to be known. Again, in Brentford and the surrounding country there was great depression amongst masons and in the building trade last winter. This has now passed off entirely. The Chairman of the Uxbridge Union writes— The brickmakers are now fully employed. No class or number of persons of the wage-earning class, who are able, capable, and inclined to work, are unable to obtain employment. The slight increase—172—in the pau- perism of the Brentford Union in the first week of June, as against the same week last year, is due to the drought. Then, as regards the linen and flax-spinning trade of the North of Ireland, to which the hon. and learned Member did not in any way refer, although the labourers in that trade contribute equally to the taxes of the country with those in any other trade in the United Kingdom, Mr. Philip Johnston, manufacturer, of Belfast, says— Flax-spinners have had trying times, and many of them sustained heavy losses during the past year, but since January they have had a good supply of flax at comparatively moderate prices, and this, coupled with an improved demand for linen yarns, has bettered their condition, and at the present time more life is observable in this branch than for a considerable time past. [After speaking of the drawbacks to the trade]—We seem now gradually recovering from the effects of these combined circumstances, and have the appearance of fairer and brighter prospects. This applies, so far as my experience and observation go, to the entire North of Ireland, in every branch of the linen and flax-spinning trade. I feel that in reading all these quotations I am not following the good example of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who only referred to three or four places; but in dealing with a subject of so much importance, I feel bound to lay before the House the most ample information upon the subject that I could obtain. I am informed— The lace trade in Nottingham is still active…… There is a still further improvement to report in the shipping branch of the hosiery trade, more orders having been placed, chiefly for the United States, and, generally speaking, manufacturers are better employed in this department than for some time past. The coal trade also, as one may expect in the event of a general revival of trade, is in a flourishing condition. Then one word as to a trade in relation to which a stronger case may be made out against the hon. and learned Member than in any other—I mean the iron trade— I learn from Middlesbrough that the Cleveland iron trade is exceedingly animated. The demand for pig iron is almost unprecedented, makers on all sides being unable to meet their engagements and to deliver the iron as fast as it is wanted. From Newport, that the ironworks have been in full employ during the week. From Sheffield, that our heavy trades continue well employed. There is a good demand for all descriptions of steel, both for home and foreign markets. The railway branches are still well employed, as are also the mills. From Wolverhampton, that the iron trade is, on the whole, steadier this week. From Barnsley, that the iron trade is now in a healthy state and there is a good business being done in plates and rails, as well as in other qualities of manufactured iron. An hon. Member of this House has handed me a letter from Mr. Woodall, Burslem, stating that— The iron trade has greatly improved, and may even be called flourishing. Orders for such goods as rails are in excess of the power of production. Mr. Longe's Report on "Staffordshire Coal and Iron District," states of the South Wales coal and iron district, and of the South Wales copper and tin district "that the trade is steadily reviving; and that new furnaces are being daily erected at Dudley." Mr. Longe has received the following letters from the clerk of the Merthyr Tydvil Union, and of Cardiff Union:— There are no labourers out of work who choose to work. We have had no applications from able-bodied men during last winter. There has been no decline during the past year in the demand for labour; but, on the contrary, an improvement. Work has been more plentiful, the state of the iron and coal trades being more brisk. Thus, after all that has been said about what the foreign producer can do, it is to this market that the foreign buyers bring their large orders. The recovery of the iron trade has been stated to be perfectly unheard of, and I cannot refrain from reading the following extracts from a newspaper on the subject:— Improvement of Trade in the Black Country.—One of the best proofs of the permanent character of the improvement which has recently been experienced in the iron trade in this district is the fact that several new furnaces are about to be erected. To-day (Friday) Messrs. Rose, of the Albert Works, Moxley, will begin a new furnace, which is to be furnished with all the modern appliances for economizing fuel and augmenting neat, which is, in fact, to be similar to the furnaces which have been worked with such satisfactory results in the Middlesbrough district. The South Staffordshire ironmasters have been slow to adopt the new furnaces, and to this many persons versed in such matters attribute the present backward position of the trade in this district. Messrs. Rose intend in a few weeks to erect a second furnace on the same principle in another part of their premises, and we hear that in a short time a number of new furnaces will be set to work in various parts of the Black Country. Improved Prospects of the Iron Trade.—After the long period of dejection and distress through which our commerce has passed, it is very gratifying to read reports such as those from the iron districts, which are now gladdening the hearts of business men. From Cleveland correspondents write that every department of the iron trade is as busy as possible. Stocks of the raw material are exhausted; the orders already booked extend into next year, and more will not be taken except at enhanced prices. The mills and puddling furnaces are working to the full extent of their power to supply the demand for rails, and the foundries are busy with heavy castings. From Wales we get equally favourable accounts. Russia, the United States, India, and the Colonies are pressing upon the market, and severely taxing the resources of manufacturers. Great works which once gave employment to large populations, but which have long been closed, are being re-opened, and are now once more full of bustle and activity. From the Lanarkshire, as well as from the Birmingham and Wolverhampton districts, favourable accounts are also received; and, on the whole, it may be said that the iron industry of the country—which in its export branch alone has before now exceeded the declared value of £15,000,000 sterling—had never brighter prospects before it. After all that has been said of what the foreign producer could do, it is found that it is to this market that the foreign buyer comes with his large orders. The Americans at this very moment, notwithstanding their protective tariff, are ordering largely, and will take enormous quantities off our hands this year. One hope we may venture to express; we trust that the improved circumstances of trade will be allowed to benefit both employers and men; that capital will not be waylaid on its enter-prizing and beneficent march, and deprived by ill-usage of all encouragement to devise large measures for the good of the community. The great trades of the kingdom are just now putting forth their resources, after a long interval of compulsory stagnation; they can absorb the surplus labour of the country, if they are only allowed fair play. In fact, Middlesbrough alone has lately been taking off more of the unemployed population of London weekly than our charitable emigration societies have sent out to the Colonies. It would be more than a calamity, it would be a scandal, if this improvement were arrested by untimely and unreasonable demands. I am informed from the Merthyr Tydvil district of Wales that there are no labourers out of work, and that no applications are being made for relief by able-bodied men. Then as regards the Potteries—also an important branch of industry—an hon. Member told me the other day that the condition of this trade might be briefly summed up thus—the American pottery trade is somewhat flat, the home trade is good, and the fancy trade is magnificent. Again, the iron ship-building trade is reviving, and shipbuilders are now paying their men 7s. a day. There is one piece of evidence to which I should like to call attention, and that is from a source connected with the Trades Unions, who are likely to know better than anyone the conditions of the trades with which they are connected. By the courtesy of Mr. Applegarth, the secretary of the Amalgamated Carpenters' and Joiners' Union, I am enabled to lay the following statistics before the House: —In February, out of a total of 9,477 men in that Union, there were 970 unemployed; whereas in June, out of a total of 9,800, there were only 192 unemployed. And let me remind the House that it is in the building trade that there has been more depression, as far as I can ascertain, than in any other trade. The hon. Member for Finsbury said that I italicized the words "the building trade." But it was my duty to find out the main causes of the depression in the metropolitan districts; and, to my inquiries upon that subject, I received one invariable answer—namely, that it was owing to the depression in the building trade, which includes not only masons and bricklayers, but carpenters, joiners, plumbers, painters, glaziers, and a variety of other trades. And here I may point out that it is not in the eastern districts of London so much as in the suburban districts that the distress has prevailed. In the latter districts there is but little demand for the labour of children, and, consequently, we find that the children there form a large proportion of those receiving relief. But is this the description of distress that is likely to be remedied by the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman? On the contrary, it would be more difficult to deal with it in the Colonies than in this country. That there is local congestion of labour is certain; but are we, therefore, to pass a Resolution to the effect that it is the duty of the Government to provide employment for the population, because local and temporary distress happens to prevail in certain limited districts? I have stated that the shipbuilding trade was reviving very much to the advantage of Liverpool, but I have tested the amount of pauperism there by other means, placed myself in communication with the gentleman who is at the head of the Central Relief Department there, a voluntary association for relieving destitution; and he has sent me statistics showing that the applications for charity, as well as those made for poor relief, have been considerably reduced for some time past. I have now reviewed a number of trades, and have alluded to many parts of England. I have put evidence, collected from various sources, before the notice of the House, and I now ask, is the evidence which I have adduced to prove the revival of trade supported by other facts? If distress were so wide-spread as the hon. and learned Member appears to imagine, should we not find that the great articles of consumption were less consumed than usual. I have inquired into this branch of the subject; and I find that the average annual consumption of sugar in the United Kingdom for the three pre-panic years 1863–4–5 was 37½ pounds per head; in the panic year 1866 it was 41 pounds per head; and in the three post-panic years 1867–8–9 it was 42½ pounds per head: tea, 3 pounds 1 ounce per head in the three pre-panic years, and in the three post-panic years 3 pounds 10 ounces: malt, 1½ bushels per head in the three pre-panic years, and 1.6 in the three later years: the consumption of spirits has risen from .67 to .71 per head: beer from .72 to .81: and tobacco from 1.29 to 1.35. In the three months ending with March, 1868, there were retained for home consumption 22,094,000 bushels of malt, and during the three months ending March, 1870, 23,376,000 bushels. For the same periods the British spirits retained for home consumption amounted to 5,055,000 gallons, as against 5,128,000 gallons in the three months ending March, 1869, and 5,509,000 gallons for the three months ending March, 1870. And let us turn from consumption to production. What have the labouring classes produced? For the four months ending April, 1868, our exports were £56,000,000; and during the same period in 1870 they were £63,000,000. Trade this year is upwards of £7,000,000 better than in 1868, and £4,500,000 better than in 1869. The cotton export trade shows that 949,000,000 yards of cotton piece goods were exported in the year ending 1868, 897,000,000 yards in 1869, and 1,003,000,000 yards in 1870: in the woollen export trade 67,000,000 yards were exported in the year 1868, 85,000,000 yards in 1869, and 86,500,000 yards in 1870: in the linen trade 66,000,000 yards of linen piece goods were exported in 1868, 73,000,000 yards in 1869, and 76,000,000 yards in 1870. In machinery, in which France and Belgium are said to rival us, we find that our trade has risen from £1,157,000 to £1,533,000. The shipping Returns show the same magnificent results. The total business of the country is represented by the totals at the Clearing House: in 1867–8 the total clearances on the 4th of each month, the day of clearing inland acceptances, amounted to £147,000,000; for the year 1868–9 they amounted to £162,000,000; and for the last year £168,500,000. Hence the year ending with April, 1870, exceeded 1868 by £21,500,000, and 1869 by £6,500,000. The Post Office Savings Banks show that during the five months ending with May last the deposits amounted to £2,618,328, whilst in 1868 in the same months they were only £1,972,000, an increase of 25 per cent. That does not look as if the working men generally were in a depressed condition. As regards the Revenue, I have been supplied by the Treasury with figures, which conclusively show the elasticity of the Revenue, and that we have exceeded the estimated returns. The Customs were estimated to produce, in the past quarter, £4,750,000; they have produced at the rate of £4,900,000; Excise was estimated at £4,950,000. It has produced at the rate of £5,500,000. The whole Revenue expected on the quarter was £15,645,000; but it has produced at the rate of £16,171,000. And now, Sir, I venture to ask the House whether they think that I have proved my case? Possibly some will say certain portions of the country are not reached by this prosperity. Still it exists, and I rejoice with all my heart and soul that it has come about without our having had recourse to artificial measures, which would have been an infraction of the principles we have always held. My hon. Friend, however, asks us to abandon the principles which have produced this result, and to have recourse to measures which have been seldom recommended to this House. My hon. Friend, I fear, will scarcely have been convinced by any of the evidence which I have produced. In this matter he is hopelessly colour-blind, and he sees only the rose-colour wash of official optimism in those streaks of light which are the genuine reflection of the bright rays of reviving prosperity and hope. And now, Sir, let me direct the attention of the House to the plan of the hon. Member and to the arguments which he has used; and I must call the notice of the House to one or two of those arguments which I heard him use with the greatest regret. I refer to the £1,000,000 which he says is to be given to the people of Ireland, to the purchase of the telegraphs, and to the arrangement by which he says we improve the first-class accommodation to travellers by certain steamers. Now, even if we had made these concessions to one class, it would be no reason for making concessions to others; for to do so would be to establish the principle of "pull baker, pull devil" upon the public purse. If the hon. Member thought we were spending one shilling simply to improve the accommodation of first and second-class passengers across the Channel, then it was his duty to have risen in his place and opposed the grant. What the hon. Member had said on that subject is absurd; but he has clients out of doors, though I deny that he represent the working man. His arguments will be repeated out-of-doors, and will be ticketed with his authority. And, again, why did we purchase the telegraphs? For the sake of the merchant? To enable rich people to telegraph at the expense of the poor? No Sir, we purchased the telegraphs for the general good of the country, and in the full belief that they would prove a profitable investment for the country. If we had proceeded on any other ground we should certainly have committed a great mistake. And my hon. Friend opposite asks us to correct one error, as he calls it, by another. He tells us we should not depart from principles of political economy, and then recommends us to adopt a semi-communistic plan. And let me ask, how is the hon. Member going to carry it out? He says voluntary emigration tends to the United States, and yet he wants us, by transgressing principles of political economy, to turn the stream to Canada. The hon. and learned Member asserted that the natural flow of emigration was to the United States. But how are the Government to prevent that? I remember the proposition made by Mr. Jenkins, the secretary of one of the emigration societies, at the deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister, at which my hon. and learned Friend was present. In a pamphlet he published Mr. Jenkins carried out his opinions to their logical conclusion, and said that every person who passed over the border of Canada to the United States should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by imprisonment. It is clear that emigrants cannot be retained in Canada after they arrive there, and if they cannot be prevented from crossing the border, one of my hon. Friend's arrangements falls to the ground. And, again, I ask, who will go? There are a great many people willing to go, and I can mention several large classes who would gladly avail themselves of these third-class tickets. First of all, there is the class who are going now at their own expense. Every one of them would, of course, avail themselves of this new facility. The next class who would avail themselves of the opportunity consists of those who now go out with the assistance of voluntary contributions. My hon. and learned Friend said it was very hard that the great landowners and rich people should have to pay for sending them away; but under the proposed scheme the expense would be really borne by the working classes who stayed in this country, who formed the great bulk of taxpayers, and by the Exchequer generally. Who else would go? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that no one except the people of Southampton, Liverpool, and certain other towns particularly suffering at the present moment would avail themselves of these cheap assisted passages? Why, it is just as possible that our best workmen will go as our worst workmen. There is just as much, or even more, inducement for the good workmen to go as for the bad workmen, and other countries do not want our worst but our best artizans. Besides, I deny entirely that over-population is the only thing which leads to pauperism. You have pauperism in under-peopled countries as well as in over-peopled countries. For instance, there is pauperism in America. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: Where?] In the State of Massachusetts and in many other places. Pauperism is a growing evil in Massachusetts, and has reached a very high point in New York. Indeed, as regards the United States, they have no very great wish to receive those who have obtained State aid to enable them to emigrate, and if the hon. and learned Member's scheme were adopted of giving people third-class passages to Canada, the United States would probably object to it. I may also allude to the case of Victoria and other Australian provinces, where there is considerable pauperism, although those Colonies are under-peo- pled. And here I can lay my finger upon one of the fallacies which underlie the whole argument of my hon. and learned Friend. The revival of one branch of trade, or the opening up of a new country or invention, would at once absorb more labour than we could hope to assist to emigrate by the means he has suggested. And when are we to arrive at the maximum of population which my hon. Friend thinks we may reach? We go on increasing at the rate of 300,000 in a year, and the question is—"When shall we reach the maximum?" Of course that depends on the customers we shall obtain for our goods, on the industry of our population, and on the competition we may meet with elsewhere. Is my hon. and learned Friend afraid that competition is going to extrude us from the markets of the world? At all events, such a process is not going on at the present moment. There was a time when it was thought that strikes were ruining our trade, and that Belgium and France were stepping into our shoes as far as the competition in manufactures was concerned. But the countries which it was imagined were going to take the bread out of the mouths of our people have been much more seriously affected by strikes than ourselves. In regard to the relations between labour and capital, it appears to me that we in England have fared much the same as in the case of other troublesome questions. We have settled them first in this country peacefully, and painfully perhaps, but still without any disturbance of public order, which were afterwards settled in other countries not so peaceably, nor always without bloodshed. I have now attempted to deal as well as I can with the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend, and while dissenting from all his facts and all his conclusions, I still say there is one part of his Motion which contains a truth. He says that the "continued" want of employment demands special consideration in this House. Now, I object to the word "continued;" but I do not object to the general statement that the want of employment demands the special consideration of the House, though not with a view to dangerous and novel legislation. I am not one of those who think that the schedules of Income Tax can be regarded exactly as gauging the pro- sperity of the country, neither do I believe that cheap labour is such a blessing, though it is, no doubt, an element of national prosperity. With regard to natural and voluntary emigration, I am as warmly in favour of it as any man. Let the good wishes of the country follow in the wake of every emigrant ship. Let them light on better and happier times. Let the hungry be filled with good things. But I see no reason why we should depart from the traditions we have always followed in this House. It may be that in the competition of nations English industry is handicapped to a certain extent, and that English workmen are hindered in the race of life, by the burden of the hundred millions sterling levied in Imperial and local taxation. Stand by us then, while with all our heart and soul we try to reduce this taxation and to resist onslaughts on the public purse, by whatever class, large or small, they are made. It may be that the English workman is also handicapped in consequence of our shortcomings as regards education. Stand by us, then, while sweeping every obstacle before us we carry a comprehensive educational reform to a triumphant end. It may be, that the Poor Laws have superseded in the minds of a portion of our labouring classes the idea of the duty of individual forethought, the sense of domestic obligation, and the recognition of the just claims of kind. Stand by us, then, while we resist with our whole strength every effort to expand the operation of these laws, which we, on the contrary, are most anxious to narrow and contract. In the whole of our legislation and Parliamentary proceedings let us, in the words of my hon. Friend, show our special consideration for the want of employment of the working classes by always keeping the highest interests of the working class in our hearts and minds; not by abstract Resolutions, or by walking round the Lobby on an occasion such as this, but in the framing of all our laws, and let us not, I implore you, assent to vague proposals like that brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend, which can never be fulfilled, which can only encourage delusive hopes, and which are contrary to the course of legislation which in this country we have always pursued. For my part I stake my faith on surer ground. I have the most profound be- belief in the unfailing energy, the irrepressible elasticy, and the spontaneous efforts of an industrious, high-spirited, and self-reliant people.

MR. HOENBY

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made statements which, from his experience, he would show to be entirely false.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member means to say erroneous.

MR. HORNBY

begged to apologize for using a word which was not Parliamentary. He had been but a short time in the House, and was therefore not well versed in Parliamentary terms; but if there was any Parliamentary term stronger than the word "erroneous," he would beg leave to use it with reference to some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as of others which had been made some time ago by the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley). That hon. Gentleman had informed the House that the cotton trade was improving, and that there was every prospect of its continuing to improve. He had a great respect for the experience of the hon. Baronet in days gone by; but it should be remembered that he was not now in the trade. The fact was, however, that the cotton trade in the month of May last, when the hon. Baronet spoke, was in a much worse state than it had been in the previous months of November and December. He defied any cotton manufacturer in the House to rise in his place and contradict that statement. But when the hon. Member for Manchester made the speech to which he referred he was cheered by the Prime Minister, and it was scarcely any wonder that under those circumstances the Bolton operatives who read of those things in the newspapers should ask for an increase of 5 per cent on their wages. He would venture to say that if ever a man had been returned by the working men it was himself, and he could tell the House that they were not at all in favour of a policy which refused inquiry into the operation of the French Treaty, and which imposed a duty on Lancashire manufactured goods imported into India, in direct opposition to the principles of free trade. They by no means approved that Radical political economy which cast all principle to the winds whenever it pleased Gentlemen opposite, but which allowed them to starve.

MR. PEASE

said, he hoped, with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, that the tide of distress was receding, and that prosperity was soon likely to return. He would point out that in 1866 there was a great scarcity of labour throughout the country, and that it was in consequence of that circumstance that the work done on the Continent had been brought into greater competition with our own. In the district where he resided he was bound to say distress did not exist. In 1853 the labourers in his district were earning 2s. a day; they were now earning 3s. During the holidays he had gone into calculations as to the number of persons to be employed on works in the neighbourhood of the town he represented (Darlington), and he was startled to find that they would require from 3,000 to 4,000 persons; or, with their wives and children, 12,000 persons. The effect, besides, of natural emigration was not to be overlooked. His hon. Friends the Members for North Durham and South Northumberland would bear him out in his statement that several hundreds of pitmen had lately gone to the United States. There was another point which was eloquently alluded to by his right hon. Friend. If this country remained at peace they would be able to reduce our war establishment; the arts of peace would flourish; reduced taxation would flow back into the pockets of the people; labour would be more and more employed. He was satisfied that no appeal need be made for extraneous support of emigration.

MR. FOTHERGILL

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board that trade was reviving. In South Wales there had been a great advance in wages. His own firm paid this year between £30,000 and £40,000 more in wages than they did last year. He believed this improvement would last. They were only prevented from opening new works by the scarcity of labour.

MR. NEWDEGATE

I congratulate the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) upon the outrage he has committed upon the President of the Poor Law Board. As in the case of most outrages upon the imagination, and not upon the person, the President of the Poor Law Board relented towards the close of his speech; but at the commencement he re- buked the hon. Member for Finsbury with much gravity for venturing to bring forward a subject which, he says, is calculated to raise dangerous expectations among the working classes. He almost accused the hon. Member of Communistic tendencies; and why? Because it is one of the cardinal points of political economy—the great maxim of Free Trade, as the right hon. Gentleman understands it, that the State should do nothing in support of labour. The right hon. Gentleman, while availing himself of the resources at his disposal, worked himself into an ecstacy in contemplating the streaks of light which appear in the commercial horizon, and which he tells us are the precursors of a revival of industry. I rejoice to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is able to promise his supporters on the other side of the House some relief from the not very agreeable position of having to support a commercial system, which is characterized by such periods as that through which, everybody admits the trade and industry of the country have lately passed. The right hon. Gentleman strove to reconcile himself and the House to a condition of the commercial interest which is marked by periodical depression, and which depression, according to his own account, increases pauperism. He tell us that system has at Coventry forced the second class of labour out of employment; and he congratulates himself upon the symptoms of revival just commenced, after a prolonged period, of the general depression, and falls foul of an hon. Member who ventures to call our attention to the necessity for adopting some measures with a view to the mitigation of this tendency to depression which, as yet, avowedly exists. At this advanced period of the evening I do not wish to go into details; but I hold in my hand some particulars with reference to several of the trades of Birmingham, and what do these amount to? I find, in the first place, that the trade in military arms has never recovered from the depressing influence of the competition which the Government carry on through the manufactory at Enfield; that the trade in fowling-pieces is rapidly diminishing through the action of foreign competition; that parts of guns and parts of pistols are sent here from the Continent, and that the depression in this trade is such that men who formerly earned from 20s. to 30s. a week do not now earn above 10s. a week. Go to another department of trade. Take the button trade. I find that that which is one of the most ancient trades in Birmingham is suffering in every branch, except in that of pearl buttons. Again, in the steel goods trade wages are from 30 to 40 per cent less than they were some years since; and the communication from which I cite these facts, and which was made to me only this morning, adds that almost all the reductions of late years have fallen upon wages—and everybody knows how compressible they are as compared with profits; and, if we look at the falling prices, and allow for improved processes of manufacture, we shall be quite safe in saying that wages in these trades have fallen during the last 12 years not less than 20 per cent. I have before me at this moment the prices of articles of a miscellaneous character manufactured at the brass foundries, and I observe that they have been reduced between 25 and 50 per cent during the last six years. Thus I might go on through almost the whole category of trades at Birmingham, and the result would show that there is a depression in wages averaging about 20 per cent not marked only during the last three years of avowed and admitted depression, but extending gradually throughout the whole of the labouring classes of that town. I say, therefore, that it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to get up in his place in this House and congratulate us upon a partial revival of industry, when the complaint is this—that large numbers of the labouring classes find it to their interest to emigrate to the United States, there to pursue the industries for which they cannot obtain employment at home. I am unwilling to detain the House at any length; but there is one remark called for by an allusion of the right hon. Gentleman to Coventry. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated the House upon the circumstance that there was rather more building going on in the city of Coventry than, I think he said, in the course of the last 10 years. This is not surprising. The right hon. Gentleman has an advantage in the darkness of the period with which he contrasts the present; for I remember that in the year 1863 there were not less than 1,500 houses unoccupied in Coventry and its adjoining districts; and I put it to the House whether there was likely to be much building in a city the trade of which was so completely ruined seven years ago that there were 1,500 houses without tenants in that city and the districts of which it was the commercial centre? We cannot blame the right hon. Gentleman for fostering the best hopes he can, in those who are admittedly suffering from the depression of trade; but I must deprecate the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman at first treated the Motion now before the House. Is it, or is it not, the duty of the House of Commons to consider the interests of the labouring classes? Is it the sole duty of the Legislature to leave them to take care of themselves under the action of free trade economics? If that be the case, then, I ask, is it surprising that the labouring classes should, view with some jealousy the active means, which are adopted to promote the interests of property? Is it unnatural that they should begin to look with jealousy at the facilities which are given for the transport of first-class passengers across the Atlantic, whilst all facilities for their own transit thither at a cheaper rate are refused them? I believe it would be a mistake to attribute the purchase of the telegraphs only to a desire on the part of the Government to afford accommodation to the rich. There are, no doubt, other reasons for the purchase; but it is an additional instance of the Government having undertaken a commercial speculation; and when they enter into commercial speculations they must not be surprised at jealousy being excited amongst the labouring classes in the employ of their competitors, so long as they adhere with such rigid exactitude to the maxim which they seem to have adopted, that it is not the duty of the Legislature or of the State to do anything that may promote the interests of labour. Let the House also bear in mind that there is a determination on the part of the Government to maintain the Treaty with France, which is but a type of other and cognate treaties, by which protective duties are maintained against the industry of this country, whilst the British Government binds itself under no circumstances to impose any countervailing duties for the protection of the industry of this country. Sir, these are facts which, I think, ought to inspire the Go- vernment of this country with, rather less confidence in enunciating the doctrine which has become such a favourite with, modern political economists—that it would be a departure from sound policy if the Government of this country did anything to sustain the industry and the labour of Englishmen.

SIR JAMES LAWRENCE

said, that the people of the metropolis regarded with deep interest the subject to which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had called the attention of the House. Interesting as had been the speech of the President of the Poor Law Board, it was not satisfactory, as it evaded the principal points brought before the House by the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had referred to the fact of large masses of the people—tens or hundreds of thousands—being out of employment, and on the point of starvation within the last three or four months. In the face of such facts, it was no answer to point to the increase of building in Coventry or the revival of trade in parts of Lancashire. The President of the Poor Law Board, after speaking of the great demand for labour in certain parts of the country, nevertheless went on to say that pauperism had increased 1 per cent. By the Report of the Registrar General it appeared that the deaths in the metropolis last year amounted to 73,798, and one-sixth of those deaths occurred in hospitals, gaols, and workhouses. At the docks whenever 10 men were wanted there were 100 applications. It was also to be observed that while trade increased, the amount expended on account of pauperism also increased. In the metropolis the average pauperism was, in 1864, 99,000; in 1865, 100,000; and in 1866, nearly 105,000, although that was a year of exceptional commercial success—there had at that time been no crisis. How did the right hon. Gentleman account for that anomalous state of things? With regard to the migration of labour from one part of the country to the other, it had been stated to him that the Poor Law Board prevented the guardians from assisting in that object.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the Poor Law Board afforded every facility for the purpose.

SIR JAMES LAWRENCE

said, he was glad to learn that such was the case, though he had been informed to the con- trary; and he must, in conclusion, as the representative of a large working-class constituency, express his opinion that the hon. Member for Finsbury had only done what was right in inviting attention to the question he had brought before the House.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.