Lords Sitting of 27 May 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sunday Fairs Prevention; Registration of Deeds (Ireland); Deanery of St. Burian Division.
3a Defects in Leases Act Amendment.

DEANERY OF ST. BURIAN DIVISION BILL.
LORD PORTMAN, as one of the Council of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, rose to present a Bill to divide the Deanery of St. Burian, and said: The Deanery of St. Burian appears, from ancient historical accounts, to have been founded by King Athelstan, who "having set his heart upon the conquest of Cornwall, thought it could not be completed unless he reduced the Scilly Islands, which he had a view of from the western promontories; he vows, therefore, a religious house in case he returned with victory; and being returned according to his wish, he acted according to his vow. He built a collegiate church in sight of those islands, and dedicated it to St. Burian, a holy woman of Ireland (who had at that time an oratory, and was buried here), placing a dean and three prebends in the college." The deanery is supposed to be exempt from all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that no appeal lies from the registry court, but immediately to the King in Council. And, as stated in a note in Oliver's Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis, "It has lost all its lands. The prebends are merged in the deanery, and the deanery itself is in Substance only a rectory, including three parishes served by curates appointed by the dean." The three parishes are those of St. Burian, St. Levan, and Sennen. From the remote and exposed situation of the deanery in the most western promontory of England, the want of resident landowners, with the appropriation hitherto of the tithes by a non-resident dignitary of the Church, a state of things has arisen which cannot but be lamented, and affords strong grounds for the changes that are now proposed. The dilapidated and mutilated condition of St. Burian and the other two churches is a subject of great regret. It is melancholy to see the havoc that has been made of the rich carvings, gildings, and ornamental decorations. Sufficient, however, remains to give an idea of their pristine beauty, and to excite an anxious desire

367
for their restoration. The Honourable and Reverend Fitzroy Henry Richard Stanhope, the present incumbent, who is aged about sixty-three years, became dean of St. Burian upon the death of Dr. Jenkin in 1817. Mr. Stanhope has never resided in the deanery, nor is there now any residence or glebe lands either in St. Burian or in the parishes of Sennen or St. Levan. The deanery of St. Burian, consisting of the three parishes of St. Burian, St. Levan, and Sennen, forming together the western extremity of the county of Cornwall, and for the most part bounded by the sea, is a donative and peculiar, of which the patronage belongs to His Royal Highness. The population, extent, and ecclesiastical revenues of these three parishes, are as follows:—

Population.

Commutation Tithe Rents.

Acreage.

St. Burian

1,911

£570

6,964

St. Levan

531

250

2,230

Sennan

659

230

2,328

The deanery has its own spiritual court, and is, in fact, an extra-diocesan benefice, governed in ancient times by a dean and chapter. All the glebe and other church lands having been alienated long ago, and there being no parsonage-house in any part of the deanery, the deans, for 300 years and upwards, have been non-resident, while their chapter has become wholly extinct, and the spacious collegiate church of St. Burian, formerly highly ornamented, has been materially defaced and injured for want of proper ecclesiastical superintendence. Since the deanery lost its resident beneficed clergy, the ecclesiastical duties of the three parishes have been performed by two curates, of whom one officiates in St. Burian, the other having the conjoint charge of St. Levan and Sennen. The general objects contemplated by the Bill are, the abolition of the deanery upon the next avoidance, and the establishment of a distinct rectory in each of the three parishes of St. Burian, St. Sennen, and St. Levan; the appropriation to each rectory of the ecclesiastical revenues arising within the parish, and making the incumbent of each subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Exeter, and making provision for the acquisition of parsonage-houses and glebes; also the abolition, on the next avoidance of the deanery, or sooner, with the consent of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Bishop of Exeter,
368
and the present Dean of the present Registry Court, and the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the Dean, and placing the whole under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Archdeacon of Cornwall and the Bishop of Exeter, as in other parishes in the county of Cornwall; and the transfer of all registers, records, wills, &c. to the Registry of the Archdeaconry of Cornwall. If the ecclesiastical revenue arising within each parish is given to the incumbent, three livings, with what would appear to be sufficient endowments, may be provided. In this case, the incnmbent of St. Burian would have an income of 570 l., with a district of 6,964 acres, containing a population of 1,911; the incumbent of St. Levan, an income of 250 l., a district of 2,230 acres, and a population of 531; and of Sennen, an income of 230 l., a district of 2,328 acres, and a population of 659. The income of each of the incumbents would, of course, for a time be diminished in the event of a loan being obtained from Queen Anne's Bounty Fund towards the erection of parsonage-houses. It is considered probable that there would not be material difficulty in providing sites for suitable residences, and that the assistance which could be obtained from Queen Anne's Bounty would be sufficient for the erection of the buildings. The advantage likely to be derived from the proposed changes generally can scarcely he over-estimated, calculated, as they would be, most materially to improve the condition of the population, and at the same time remove a considerable public scandal, detrimental to the Church not only in the deanery itself, but in the surrounding vicinity. The abolition of the registry court would relieve the inhabitants from what is considered a great grievance and abuse.
Bill read 1a; and referred to the Standing Order Committee, on Thursday, 6th June.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The MARQUESS of WESTMINSTER, as Lord High Steward, intimated that he had laid before Her Majesty the Address which their Lordships voted on the Birth of another Prince, and that Her Majesty had condescended to receive it most graciously, and to return the following answer:—
"My Lords,
"I have received your loyal and affectionate Address with much satisfaction. I thank you most cordially for your Congratulations on the Birth of another Prince, and for the

369
assurances of the interest you take in My domestic happiness."
On the Motion of Lord CAMPBELL, the Answer to the Address was ordered to be entered on the Journals of the House.

THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
LORD BROUGHAMthen rose to move for certain returns connected with the state of business in the Court of Chancery. He did this, he said, in consequence of having heard it reported, and even seen it publicly stated, that there was an enormous arrear of business in the court which was presided over by his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), who, from indisposition, was not present on this occasion: he gave a positive denial to those statements. The arrears in this House consisted of little more than the causes that had been entered this Session; and the arrear in the appeal business had seldom been less than it was at present. He might add that it was not desirable to have the appeal business without arrear, as it frequently happened that a case which was at first appealed from the other courts was afterwards withdrawn on more calm and mature deliberation; and this of course would be prevented if the case were taken up as soon as it was entered. The business was not quite in the same state in the Court of Chancery, but still the arrears were much less than when he took the Great Seal in November, 1830. All this would be shown by the returns, and he thought it was only justice to his noble and learned Friend that they should be brought forward. He could not make this statement without expressing his deep sorrow that his noble and learned Friend was not likely soon to resume his useful and invaluable labours in the Court of Chancery. He deeply lamented that; and whatever arrangements of a temporary nature it might be necessary to make, he earnestly hoped that this fitting opportunity would be taken, which would greatly diminish the sorrow that all felt in the prospect of being deprived of the services of that able and learned and in all respects admirable Judge, of making, on good and sound principles, a permanent arrangement—in which the public and the profession, and the law, and the lawgiver were all alike interested—to remodel the duties of that high officer of State, who was also the head Minister of justice in this country.
Returns ordered.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYpresented a petition agreed to at public meeting of the county of Hertford, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a return to protection. The noble Lord said, that he had delayed presenting this petition, after the indifferent manner in which the subject was treated in the Speech from the Throne, and until he had made the fullest inquiry into the statements made by the noble Lord (Earl Grey) opposite on the subject in question, and also by certain Members of the Government elsewhere. The noble Marquess then read extracts from the second annual report of the Poor Law Board, 1849, and from other documents, to show that the general prosperity of the country was on the whole less now than in 1846. The first document showed that the return from 558 unions proved that the amount expended on relief to pauperism during the half year ending Michaelmas last was 1,653,061 l., being a reduction of only 97,098 l., or 5½ per cent as compared with 1848. The property tax returns (as well as could be gathered) were less; the number of paupers had increased from 829,533 in 1846, to 1,373,367 in the week ending 25th March, 1850—an increase mainly attributable to agricultural distress; while the cost of maintenance for the poor had risen from 2,000,000 l. or thereabouts in 1843, to 6,000,000 l in 1849. The noble Marquess said, that the boasted prosperity of the manufacturing districts was unreal, for that in Manchester and other towns of that character, the average among the working population was one-third employed in the whole year, two-thirds unemployed. The wages of labour likewise had fallen at least 10 per cent lower than they were in 1840, though he had always understood that the prosperity of a country depended upon the establishment of a high rate of wages to the working classes. In proof of this proposition the noble Marquess read the following return:—

The Labourer Had. 44 wks wages, 12s.

£26

8

0

The Labourer Has. 44 wks wages, 9s.

£19

16

0

4 wks hay, 16s

3

4

0

4 wks hay, 13s

2

12

0

4 wks harvest, 20s.

4

0

0

4 wks harvest, 20s.

4

0

0

£33

12

0

£26

8

0

Has

26

8

0

£7

4

0

21 per cent reduction in value.

371

Brt. forward,.

£7

4

0

21 per cent reduction in value.

Paid for flour, 26 bushels, at 10s. 1d.

£13

2

2

Pays for flour, 26 bushels, at 9s. 6d.

£12

7

0

0

15

2

£6

8

10

Deduct advantage in price of flour 2s. 5½d. per week, or 18 per cent loss.

The Labourer Had 44 wks wages, 11 s.

£24

4

0

The Labourer Has. 44 wks wages, 9s.

£19

16

0

4 wks hay, 15s.

3

0

0

4 wks hay, 12s. 3d.

2

9

0

4 wks harvest, 20s.

4

9

0

4 wks harvest, 16s. 4d.

3

5

4

£31

4

0

£25

10

4

25

10

4

£5

13

8

18¼ per cent reduction on value of labour.

Paid for 26 bush. 9s 4d

£12

2

8

Pays for 26 bush, 7s.

£9

2

0

3

0

8

£2

13

0

Deduct advantage in flour 1s. per week, or 9 per cent reduction.

This calculation is taking the average of a labourer's family to consist of five persons who would consume half a bushel of flour, (28 lbs.) weekly. He contended that a depreciation of manufacturing interests had occurred, as well as of the agricultural interest; in proof of which he read the following:—

COTTON MANUFACTURES—IMPORTS.

Three Months ending April 5.

1848.

1849.

1850.

Not made up.

£.

£.

£.

East India piece goods

23,302

10,769

12,212

Decr. on 1848 11,090 l.

Incr. on 1849 5,443 l.

Other articles

30,982

29,790

100,656

Incr. on 1848 69,674 l.

Incr. on 1849 70,860 l.

Wholly or in part made up.

cotton manufactures

6,427

12,521

14,618

Incr. on 1848 8,191 l.

Incr. on 1849 2,097 l.

Cotton yarn

5,320

8,944

13,646

Incr. on 1848 8,326 l.

Incr. on 1849 4,652 l.

Total

66,031

62,080

141,132

With respect to the general condition of the people the following document told its own tale, and indicated clearly enough a great depreciation:—
372

Jan. 1849, estimat, populat.

15,736,000

Jan. 1850, estimat, populat.

15,945,000

209,009

or 1 per ct.

QUANTITY OF TEA ENTERED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION.

lbs.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

12,066,744

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

12,245,121

Increase

178,377

or 1⅓ per ct.

SUGAR.

Cwts.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

1,469,672

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

1,413,054

Decrease

56,618

or 4 per ct.

COFFEE.

lbs.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

9,386,255

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

7,465,884

Decrease.

1,920,371

or 22 per ct.

COCOA.

lbs.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

922,665

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

724,240

Decrease

198,425

or 22 per ct.

CURRANTS.

Cwts.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

88,673

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

66,528

Decrease

22,145

or 25 per ct.

RAISINS.

Cwts.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

32,029

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850

21,598

Decrease

10,431

or 80 per ct.

The noble Marquess quoted extracts from the Letters on Labour and the Poor, which have appeared at various times in the Morning Chronicle, and concluded by asking the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) how long the experiment of free trade was to be continued?
EARL GREYreplied that he was not aware that the Act of 1846 contained any clause limiting the operation of that measure to any definite period, nor had he ever heard the remotest intention expressed in any quarter of making any alteration in that Act.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, his noble Friend had got just the same answer from the Government, as one with which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had been favoured on a similar occasion. He thought that if the noble Earl meant what he had just said—and he believed the noble Earl was a man who generally said what he meant, and meant what he said—he was a Minister better fitted for the ancient empire of the Medes and Persians, than for the con-

373
stitutional government of Great Britain. The noble Earl seemed to entertain a great dislike for these discussions; but so long as the different Parliamentary papers were delivered to their Lordships for their perusal, he must expect to have them thus incidentally discussed. The information contained in the papers recently delivered was at once important and most alarming. The return of all the indoor and outdoor paupers for each year, from the year 1846 to the year 1850, was most appalling. It proved the entire fallacy of the dictum of the noble Lord in that House, that pauperism had decreased in the last five years. On the contrary, its increase in England and Wales within that period had reached to the vast amount of 125,000 persons. The last year of protection was the year 1846—the last of free trade was the year 1850. In 1846 the price of wheat was 54 s.; in 1850 it was 38 s. a quarter; and yet, when the price of wheat was one-third less than it was formerly, the number of paupers was 125,000 more. The free-trade Government had made two promises to the people, when they deluded them into the repeal of the corn laws. They had given them a promise of reciprocity, and they had given them a promise of the prosperity of the lower classes. Reciprocity they had not got; the prosperity of the lower classes had not happened. He had expected at any rate, after all the promises they had received, to find something like prosperity in the agricultural districts; but in going through this list [holding out a paper in his hand] he found no signs of prosperity either in the agricultural or manufacturing districts. In Cheltenham, which was not exclusively either an agricultural or a manuturing place, there were, in 1846, the last year of protection, 909 paupers; in 1850, the last year of free trade, there were 1820. In Liverpool, in 1846, there were 12,200 paupers; in 1850, there were 17,800. In Manchester, in 1846, there were 13,900; 1850, 13,926. In Preston, in 1846, there were 3,021 paupers, and in 1850, 5,187. He would not enter into other details on this subject, for it was the same everywhere; but he would give their Lordships just one specimen from a district purely agricultural. In the Isle of Portsea, in 1846, there were 3,200 paupers; in 1850, there were 6,200, or nearly double. [ANOBLE LORD: Look to Newcastle.] He had been referred to Newcastle. Well, he would read the entry under the town of Newcastle. In 1846 the number of paupers was
374
4,946; and in 1850, there were 7,966. In Morpeth, in 1846, there were 882 paupers; in 1850, there were 1,056. The last two were places which the noble Earl was doubtless well acquainted with. With these facts before them, it was impossible for noble Lords opposite to argue that their policy had turned out beneficially. He then read to their Lordships various returns recently laid on their table, all of which, he insisted, conspired to establish the same point. For instance, in 1845, when the old corn laws were in force, the returns of corn sold in England and Wales were 5,700,000 odd quarters of wheat; in 1849, the last year for which the same returns had been received, they were only 4,500,000, so that the decrease of the corn sold in England and Wales between the years 1845 and 1849 was just 1,200,000 quarters. With these papers, showing that all their promises had failed—that they had not gained the advantages of reciprocity by their generous system towards the foreigner, that they had not diminished the amount of pauperism, and that their low prices had not checked the importation of foreign corn—he did not think that he was wasting the time of the House in calling its attention to the facts, or in declaring that the old corn laws must be restored, if their Lordships had any hope of seeing the country restored to its former prosperity.
EARL GREYreplied, that the noble Lords opposite must not be surprised if the Government refused to enter into these incidental debates on the corn laws until it was acquainted with the real object sought to be achieved by them. It had been stated on a former occasion, that when the corn laws were on the point of being repealed, the advocates for their repeal had perpetually discussed the policy of thorn with a view of influencing public opinion, and without submitting any regular Motion to the House. But, at that time, there was no doubt as to the object of such discussions—it was cither the qualified or the total repeal of the corn laws. At present, however, they stood in a different situation. He was ready, when-over the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) pleased, to debate the question whether the measure of 1846 ought to be changed or not; but when he entered upon such a debate he wished to know distinctly what were the views of noble Lords on the other side; for their Lordships were at present in a singular state of ignorance on the

375
subject. Not one of the noble Lords opposite had yet stated distinctly whether they wished to go back to the old sliding scale of 1828 or not. Did the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) wish simply to repeal the Act of 1846, and return to the law under which they had the agricultural distress of 1833, 1835, and 1836, or did he want something else? In another place it had been declared, upon very high authority, that what was desired was a fixed duty of 8s. upon wheat—the measure so scornfully rejected in 1841. Another Gentleman in that place had said what he wanted was an alteration of the various burdens upon land; but, on the other hand, that notion of relief, by altering taxation, had been denounced as altogether nugatory and delusive by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), in a very eloquent and remarkable speech which he made in reply to certain memorials that had been presented to him. What, then, did noble Lords opposite want? A fixed duty, a sliding scale, or a change of taxation? What alteration in the existing policy of the country did they mean to pro pose? He could only say that when the Government knew the specific measures which were to be proposed, he had no doubt they would be able to show good reasons against their adoption. His own opinion remained unshaken. He firmly believed that to the alteration of their commercial policy in 1846 they were, under Providence, indebted for the safety in which this country had passed through a period of unexampled difficulty. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had quoted returns with respect to the number of paupers relieved in England and Wales during the last five years; and he had endeavoured to show that the number of paupers now receiving relief was considerably greater than the number relieved in 1846, the last year of protection. But if the noble Earl looked at the return, he would find that, though there was now an increase in the number of paupers, as compared with 1846, yet that the year 1850 showed a reduction in the number as compared with 1847, 1848, and 1849. For instance, the total number of paupers relieved in England and Wales in 1847 was 908,000; in 1848, 993,000; in 1849, 943,000; and in 1850, 890,000. The noble Earl was, however, well aware that there were circumstances in the condition of the country, independently of the price of corn, which might account for the difference between the number of paupers relieved this year and in 1846. The year
376
1846 was the very height of the railway mania, and he believed that at that time the companies expended millions of money mainly in labour. Now, however, there were not as many hundred thousands of pounds expended in such labour as there were then millions. Since 1846 also they had had to encounter all the consequences of the famine in Ireland; and it was notorious that that famine had been the means of bringing into all our great manufacturing towns very large numbers of Irish paupers, for whose relief it was necessary to provide. He thought these circumstances would fully account for the increase of paupers this year as compared with 1846. When he found the revenue prospering to an unexampled extent, when he saw trade sound and active, notwithstanding all the difficulties arising from a short crop of cotton, and when he looked at the general state of the country, he did not think the returns to which the noble Lord had alluded gave the slightest reason to doubt the success of the policy of 1846. The noble Earl had referred to a return of the quantities of wheat that had been sold in different years, and had stated that the sales of 1849 showed a falling-off as compared with 1845 of some 1,200,000 quarters. He should have thought that his noble Friend must have seen how fallacious that comparison was; for the return for 1849 showed mainly the sales of the crop of 1848; and it was notorious that that crop in the south of England was one of the most defective that had been known. The crop of 1849 would not, of course, appear in the return until the latter part of the year; and he believed that the agricultural distress now so much and, he admitted, so justly complained of, had much more to do with the consequences of the very bad crop of 1848 than with the change in the law. If the noble Earl compared the quantity of corn sold in the last six months with the quantity sold in the corresponding six months of the year before perfect free trade was established, he would find that since the harvest of 1849 came into operation, there had been a very large increase in the amount of corn sold as compared with the latter period. He would only add, that he considered this a question far too important to be argued upon the imperfect data of the occurrences of a few months. He believed that those who would dispassionately and carefully examine into the practical effects of protection, as it had been tried under various

377
modifications during a period of thirty years, and would look to the melancholy consequences which had resulted from raising expectations on the part of the farmers which were constantly disappointed, would admit that—judging even at this early period of their experience of the new policy—it was impossible to say that the interests of agriculture had been disadvantageously affected. He believed there never was a time when greater exertions were made to improve the system of cultivation, and to diminish the cost of obtaining agricultural produce, and he was satisfied that those efforts would meet the success they deserved.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I am not surprised to hear the noble Lord express an opinion that, notwithstanding all that is passed, he remains entirely convinced of the merits of the system of free trade; that he sees nothing in the state of the country which causes him the smallest apprehension or alarm; that he believes the interests of all classes are prospering greatly; that although the agriculturists may be suffering a little, yet in general there is great prosperity; and I am not surprised that he says, if we will only tell him what it is we propose, and without knowing what we propose, for the relief of agriculture, he is quite satisfied that he could give us a good reason against the proposition. The noble Earl says, that previous to the repeal of the corn laws, incidental discussions took place in Parliament, and that the object of those discussions was clear and intelligible; that it was to prepare the public mind for an alteration of the then existing state of the law. I take the liberty of saying, that, even agreeing with the noble Earl that this question is not to be decided upon the incomplete information which we possess, and that we should not call upon your Lordships to come to a decision or make any alteration in the present state of the law upon that information, I will tell the noble Earl that our intention is by these discussions, as the intention was by the discussions previous to the repeal of the corn laws, to impress upon the public mind, week by week, and day by day, if need be, the practical operation and working of the system which you have introduced—entirely remitting all import duties upon agricultural produce. My Lords, I will not answer the noble Earl's question, of what form of duty or what amount of duty we may propose when we shall think it right to introduce the question; but this
378
I will say, that I am satisfied that a change is coming over the public mind. I do not expect it to come over the mind of the noble Earl: far be it from me to entertain any such exaggerated expectations! But the public are watching the progress of events, and that portion of the public who suffer under these events, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble Earl, are beginning to open their eyes to the real effects of the system of so-called free trade. They are watching the progress of that experiment—a most dangerous and fearful experiment—and are gradually arriving at the conviction, that in some shape or another, and in some mode or another, an alteration must he made in that experiment, and that we must revert to the system which shall afford moderate protection to British industry. The noble Earl quarrels with my noble Friend behind me. What we say is, "You promised us great results—you promised us universal employment—you promised us high wages—you promised us increased consumption—you promised us universal prosperity; and we find, and we prove from your own papers and figures, that these promises have not been fulfilled, and that you are compelled now, not to point triumphantly to the successful issue of your predictions, but to apologise, and to assign reasons, picked up here and there, why your predictions have not been verified, and why, in spite of free trade, you have not the prosperity which you expected to have." Will the people of England—at least will those whose eyes are not already opened by suffering, continue blind? My noble Friend has called the attention of your Lordships to the difference between the pauperism of this country in the year 1850 and in the year 1846. What is the noble Earl's answer? The answer of the noble Earl is—"True, pauperism in the year 1850 is greater than it was in 1846; but then it is less than in the year 1849; 1849 was less than 1848; and 1848 was less than 1847." Well, but it is quite true that in the year 1850 we had an abundant harvest at home. In 1847, 1848, and 1849, in addition to the blessing of free trade, we had the blessings of famine also; and, consequently, it is not very extraordinary that, with the cessation of famine, and with an abundant harvest in 1850, pauperism should be less now than in the years 1849, 1848, and 1847. But 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850, were all of them years of free trade. They were all of them years

379
of free importation of corn, and the last three of them years of very low prices for corn. My noble Friend took the amount of pauperism in the year 1846—the last year of import duties, and the last year, comparatively speaking, of high prices for corn, and contrasted it with the amount of pauperism in the year 1850, the year of free trade and low prices, and, upon comparison, showed that the amount of pauperism in the year of import duties and high prices was less than the amount of pauperism in the year of free trade and low prices. And then my noble Friend says—"But I am happy to congratulate my noble Friend—let him look to his own immediate district, and he will see a diminution of pauperism." We have shown an increase of from 4,000 to 7,000 in one place, and from 3,000 to 6,000 in another—and we have shown this even by the papers upon your Lordships' table, which exhibit by far too low an estimate, for they only give the number of paupers actually receiving relief in 1850, as compared with statements made of the number of paupers, with their families, who received relief in previous years. So that the real increase of pauperism is greater than appears by these returns. But, setting that aside, the noble Earl opposite says that my noble Friend will find a diminution of pauperism even in his own immediate district; and, on referring to the papers, and comparing the amount for the year 1846 with that for the year 1850, it appears that the glorious result to which the noble Earl points so triumphantly is a diminution of pauperism in the agricultural district of Christchurch to the extent of one single individual! But we point to other circumstances, independent of the amount of pauperism, and we say—if these things do not arise from free trade—if they do not arise from diminished means—if they do not arise from the poverty of the home market, and the inability to consume, the results of free trade, we are entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government from what it is they do proceed? Accounts are, I know, sometimes deceptive, and, among others, I would call your attention to the accounts of the exports. Great credit has been taken for an increase in the declared value of the exports between 1845, and 1849, apparently of above five millions; and of ten millions, or more, between 1848 and 1849. But, when we come to sift these papers, we find that, for the first time, in the year 1849, there are introduced into
380
the papers from which the comparison purports to be made, a number of additional articles, amounting to no less than two millions and a half sterling, which articles did not exist at all in the accounts from which these papers were prepared; consequently, the increase from 53,000,000 l. in the year 1845 to 58,000,000 l. in the year 1849 must have a reduction made from it to the amount of 2,500,000 l or 3,000,000 l.; and to that extent the papers, which show the state of the export trade, afford, in my mind, a most fallacious view of the case. But it is not alone to the export trade that I look. I admit that your export trade may have increased, and has increased; but I say, and those who act with me say, that, important as your export trade undoubtedly is per se, it is unimportant as compared with the amount of your home trade; and, unfortunately, though you have the statistical means of ascertaining the amount of your export trade, you have not the corresponding means of obtaining the amount of consumption in the home market; and it is my firm belief that whatever advantage the manufacturing and commercial interests may have derived from an increase of exports, these advantages have been far more than counterbalanced by a diminution—the amount of which we are unable to guess, but the effects of which we see in every part of the country, and practically feel in every direction—of the power of the home consumer to take up manufactured articles. Take the case of cotton, for example. I hold in my hand an account of the imports of cotton, and find that, whilst in the first three months of 1849 the imports of cotton were 547,000 bales, in the corresponding period of 1850 they had fallen to 468,000 bales. The consumption of cotton in the home market from the 1st of January to the 12th of April, 1849, was 432,500 bales; but for the same period in 1850 the consumption had fallen from 432,500 to 338,000 hales, being a decrease of 94,500 bales, or of twenty-one per cent upon the whole consumption of the first three months of 1850, as compared with the corresponding period of 1849. With regard to the exports of cotton goods, it is true that in the year 1848 there were 22,000,000 l., and in 1849, 26,000,000 l., the increased exportation amounting to 4,000,000 l. Now, of that increased exportation there was to foreign countries 1,735,000 l.—we presume exclusive of exports to slave-trading

381
countries—and I pray you to observe, as one of the principal effects of the free-trade system, that the increased exports to the three slave-trading points alone exceeded 2,000,000 l. I know how wearisome your Lordships must be with figures; but remember it is upon figures that this question mainly turns, and by figures alone we can show the effects of the present system of free trade upon the country. Our object is to show that under free trade the consuming power is diminishing, and if the consuming power is diminishing, and you contend that it is not in consequence of free trade, on you rests the onus of showing to what that diminished consumption is to be attributed, you having promised us a large increase of consumption as the consequence of free trade. With regard to the sale of wheat, barley, and oats in England, I tell the noble Marquess, who moved for them to show that the decrease in price is owing to the goodness of the harvest, that they will not answer his purpose. Why, my Lords, this paper which has been laid upon the table of your Lordships' House, so far as it is good for anything, is valuable as proving the very opposite of that which the noble Marquess wished to demonstrate when he called for its production. It may be true that the amount of corn sold in 1849 exceeded that sold in 1848; but let the noble Marquess opposite refer to the year 1850, the first four months of which he justly describes as the produce of the harvest of 1849, and he will find that, with the exception of the first four months of 1849—which is the produce of the defective harvest of 1848—this boasted consumption of corn in the British markets is, in 1850—with that single exception of 1849—lower week by week, and lower on the whole, than it was in any other year mentioned in the paper moved for by the noble Marquess. This document, therefore, if I have read it aright, is fatal to the very purpose for which it was produced. It goes to prove the very reverse of the argument which it is the object of the noble Marquess to maintain. Free trade has impaired the condition and straitened the circumstances of the labouring classes of this empire. Such is the position which I am prepared to take up, and I trust that your Lordships will not deem it irrelevant if I should take leave to justify myself in that position by referring to the diminished consumption of some few articles of domestic use amongst those
382
classes of our population who have heretofore been placed beyond want. The articles to which I allude are not absolute necessaries—they are luxuries of an humble description—perhaps it would be more correct to describe them as comforts—but they are articles the diminished consumption of which is an evidence as melancholy as it is incontestable of the petty shifts to which our people are obliged to have recourse, and of the small economies they are compelled to exercise in order to make both ends meet under the system of universal prosperity which has been established amongst us under the designation of "free trade." The five articles in question do not furnish, I admit, an infallible testimony as to the general working of the free-trade system; but I do think that they are precisely those articles the increase or diminution in the consumption of which supplies a fair criterion of the extent to which our poor people are enabled to enjoy the small and homely comforts of life. They are cocoa, coffee, dried fruits, including currants, figs, and raisins, unrefined sugar, and tallow. Now, let us see how the consumption of these articles has varied during stated periods in each of the last three years. The consumption of coffee during the first three months of 1848 was 877,000 lbs.; during the corresponding period of 1849 it was 922,000 lbs., and during the corresponding period of 1850 it was 734,000 lbs. The consumption of coffee has fallen from 9,900,000 lbs. in the first three months of 1848 to 9,368,000 lbs., in 1849, and to 7,460,000 lbs. in 1850. Currants have fallen in the following proportion: In the first three months of 1848 the consumption was 73,000 cwt.; in 1849 it was 88,000 cwt.; and in 1850 it had sunk to 66,000 cwt. Of figs there were consumed, in 1848, 47,046 lbs.; in 1849, 53,004 lbs.; in 1850, only 39,011 lbs. Of raisins there were consumed only 21,000 cwt. in 1850, against 32,000 cwt. in 1849, and 37,000 cwt. in 1848. The decline in the consumption of sugar is also remarkable. There were consumed, in the first three months of 1848, 1,494,000 cwt.; in 1849, 1,469,000 cwt.; and in 1850, 1,413,000 cwt. The returns under the head of tallow give a result not less disheartening. There were imported for home consumption, in the first three months of 1848, 292,000 cwt.; and in the three first months of 1849, 313,000 cwt.; while in 1850 the importation did not exceed 194,000 cwt. Moreover it is worthy

383
of remark that the diminution in quantity taken into home consumption was co-existent with a large exportation in the shape of candles and soap. Now, my Lords, these facts may possibly he coincident with a state of great prosperity—I do not say they are conclusive evidence of the failure of your free-trade system, but they are evidence, and particularly when taken in conjunction with increased pauperism and diminished employment—for the noble Earl will not venture to deny, though he spoke of the prosperity of the manufacturing districts, that an increased and increasing number of mills are working short time, that wages in the manufacturing districts have fallen, and that in the agricultural districts they have fallen, and must and will fall still further—I say, when we have these facts before us, indicating a diminished power of consumption in the home market, we cannot agree to congratulate the noble Earl on the success of that which I will still call "an experiment;" and we will continue to point the attention of the Government and the country to the practical working of that experiment, and leave it to Her Majesty's Ministers to justify their perseverance in that policy to its full extent, notwithstanding the failure which it manifests in its effects—not with standing the diminished consumption of the country—notwithstanding the increased distress and ruin which have been brought by that system upon a large portion of the community. We do not bring forward a specific measure; but if it will be any satisfaction to the noble Earl to hear again the declaration to which he has referred, and which I had the honour of making to a numerous and important deputation which waited upon me a short time since—I will repeat to him my confidence that this country will not be restored to a state of prosperity until it does not only deal with the unjust taxation under which certain interests of the country are labouring, but also until it shall return to a just, and moderate, and equitable system of import duties for the protection of British industry of all descriptions. I am satisfied that that policy will prevail in the long run; and as confidently as the noble Earl speaks of the success of the experiment, so confidently do I feel that its failure is becoming day by day more manifest, and that in some shape or another—I will not gratify the noble Earl by telling him in what precise shape—he will have, or, in defiance of him, Parliament
384
will have to retrace the steps they have taken, and revert to a sounder and a wiser policy.
EARL GREY: I cannot help expressing the satisfaction with which I have listened to the concluding observations of the noble Lord. It is clear from what he has said, that he is desirous of returning to a system of moderate import duties for the protection of British interests, that the noble Lord himself has given up the sliding scale of 1842, and that that Act is abandoned by noble Lords opposite.
LORD STANLEY: I am glad that the noble Earl is satisfied at hearing my statement; but allow me to say that I hope I may not he judged by the inferences which the noble Earl has drawn from my observations.
EARL GREY: Oh, I am quite satisfied.
House adjourned till To-morrow.