The Earl of Radnorsaid, he had a Petition to present from Birmingham, which was entitled to the greatest attention and consideration on account of the number and respectability of the names which were annexed to it. It was signed by 25,000 persons. It embraced a variety of topics, such as Parliamentary Reform, and a revision of Taxation, but it derived its chief importance, in his view, because the distress of the petitioners was the foundation of their prayer,—a point which ought by no means to be overlooked, as they had already heard so much of the abatement of that distress, in support of which assertion Birmingham itself had been adduced as an example. The tri- 964 umphant statements sent forth from another place had rendered him cautious as to how far he should be warranted in crediting the averments of the petitioners to the contrary; nor was it until he had made personal inquiries on the subject, that he fully assented to the truth of their representations. He was sorry to say, that the representations of returning prosperity made elsewhere were not borne out by his information. It had been pretended that the change in the currency in 1819 had not caused the fall of prices; hut those who said so might as well affirm that there was no depreciation whatever. When the bill of 1819 came into operation, it was a remarkable coincidence that prices had fallen, while they rose in the same proportion when its provisions were neutralized by the bill of 1822. The main paint, however, was the distress, and he should most sincerely rejoice if it could be ascertained that the alleged revival of the agricultural and manufacturing interests originated in any permanent source of prosperity. It had been also said, that the depression was partially attributable to the introduction of steam navigation, which brought the produce of the most fertile land of Ireland and Scotland in sudden competition with the produce of the inferior soil of England. Now these causes would not account for the distress of the manufacturers, except that inasmuch as the pressure was upon land, the effect was proportionate upon manufactures. It was also said that machinery was a cause of distress by the over-production which it occasioned, but if this were so, it formed an additional reason why we ought not to continue our present system of Corn-laws. But he could show to their Lordships that distress existed in several branches of manufacture, and a depreciation took place in a variety of articles, in the manufacture of which the same machinery was used at present that had been in use for the last twenty-eight years. [The noble Lord here read extracts of letters from manufacturers to show that some articles of brass-foundery had been reduced in price from 5s. 6d. and 6s. per dozen to 2s. and 3s.] It had been stated in another place that Birmingham had recently much improved, and great stress was laid on the advance that had taken place in ground-rents, and the increase on certain tolls in that neighbourhood. The advance on ground-rents was in instances 965 where valuable houses had been built, and the increase of tolls was to be explained by the fact of a valuable coal-mine having been opened in the neighbourhood. It had been said that the increase of four-wheeled carriages since 1825 was a proof of increased prosperity, but it should be recollected that the Assessed Taxes had been reduced by half since then, and the increase was not in the number of large carriages, but in the small four-wheeled one-horse carriages, which were now very common. He could prove also by documents which he held in his hand, that the condition of the labouring classes at Birmingham was much worse at present than it had been for many years, except the years 1817 and [1818. But the first of those years was one of great scarcity. Corn was then 17s. a bushel—it was now only 7s. 6d. At that time the number of out-door poor to be relieved at Birmingham was 5,300—at present it was 3,800. But looking at the difference in the price of corn at both periods, the number of out-door poor to be relieved at present showed a greater pressure of distress than existed in 1817, and in this respect the statement of the petitioners was fully borne out. The petitioners complained of the effect of the Corn-laws, and they also complained of Free Trade; but in this he owned he did not concur with them, for the Free-trade system was that by which they had the best chance of getting a market for their manufactures.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it was very unfortunate that noble Lords departed from that rule of the House which was opposed to any direct allusion to what was said in former debates, or to what passed in the other House. Had the noble Earl attended to that rule he would not have fallen into the errors he had committed. It was impossible for his right hon. friend to know the condition of the people except from the public returns, and he conceived that in the statement he made he was perfectly justified. The noble Lord, in asserting that the people of Birmingham suffered more now than in 1817, and in appealing to the number receiving assistance from the poor-rates, for the purpose of sustaining that assertion, referred to the prices of the two periods, and attributed the existing distress to the difference between them. But the noble Lord could scarcely compare the prices of the two periods with any accuracy or justice, when 966 he remembered that the prices of the one were estimated in a paper, the other in a metallic currency. He could not help again protesting against the practice of thus, at the end of three or four weeks, or three or four months, adverting to what took place in the other House and in that House during former debates, instead of confining their discussions to the materials regularly brought under their consideration.
Lord Hollandsaid, since the strict order was that they should not make any allusion to what took place in the other House, or to any former debates in that House, which in his opinion was a nice regulation—he wished to see it strictly observed. The noble Duke had complained of his noble friend as being irregular, when, if there were one question more than another which might excuse an allusion to such occurrence, it would be a petition upon a question of facts affecting the condition of the people. His noble friend did not state any particular date or place, and had he spoken of the conversation generally, as having occurred elsewhere, he might have escaped all imputation of disorder. In short, he would contend, that nothing could be more parliamentary than was his noble friend.
The Earl of Radnorexpressed his concurrence with the sentiments of the noble Duke as to the rule of Parliament he had alluded to, but differed from the noble Duke as to the possibility of comparing prices.
§ Petition laid on the Table.