Sitting of 18 February 1851

STATISTICS OF AGRICULTURE.
MR. GEORGE SANDARSbegged to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Was it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill this Session, or to introduce any measure, for the collection of agricultural statistics, to place us at least on a par with Ireland?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that if he could see his way to any unobjectionable mode of obtaining correct statistical information relating to agriculture, he would be willing, indeed he was desirous, of introducing such a measure. Last year he had consulted with Gentleman connected with agriculture on both sides of the House, without arriving at any satisfactory solution of the dfficulties that beset the question; and he doubted that, in the present state of the agricultural mind, it was advisable to bring in a Bill on the subject.

POOR LAW.
MR. POULETT SCROPErose to move for a Select Committee to consider the expediency of assimilating the poor-laws of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and promoting the productive employment of able-bodied paupers. He knew very well that anything that he could venture to say on this subject would be insufficient to induce the House to agree to any abstract proposition relative to this question. He therefore only asked the House to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to in-

817
quire into and consider the question, to obtain such evidence as might throw a light on this important subject, and to report their opinions thereon to the House. The great and main difficulty in the question was, that the poor-laws, whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland, referred to the relief of the ablebodied poor; and therefore, if any light could be thrown on that complicated and vexed question, he thought it would do away with much of the objection that might otherwise prevail against the assimilation of the laws for the relief of the poor. It was on that ground that he ventured to ask the House to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee. The poor-law of England had been considered, and justly, as one of the most valuable of our ancient institutions—as one that more than any other tended to preserve order and tranquillity in the community. It could no longer he said of our poor-law, as once it was by a French writer, that it was la plaie dévorante l'Angleterre. The principle of our amended poor-law had been adopted in Ireland, and extended to Scotland. He thought no one could differ from him in this opinion, that of all the institutions of the country, the one which was, perhaps, most influential in determining the condition of the great bulk of the population, was the law which related to the administration of the relief of the poor. If that was so, it might be further admitted that any great difference in the law and practice of administering that relief in three countries so closely united as England, Scotland, and Ireland, must have a very remarkable effect upon the great body of the people of this country. It might have been expected that in so extending the poor-law to Ireland and Scotland, the principles detailed in the English Poor Law Act would have been adopted in both those parts of the kingdom. But such was not the case. The circumstances of the three countries seem to be so different, as to require a different law. The main differences between the law in England, Scotland, and Ireland were these: in the first place, in England and Ireland the law gave a title to relief to the poor of all classes, the infirm poor as well as the ablebodied. The law in Scotland, on the contrary, as appeared by recent decisions, gave no title to relief at all to the able-bodied poor. With regard to the practice of administering relief in the three countries, no less than six-sevenths of the poor of England were relieved out of the work-
818
house, by the system of outdoor relief. In Ireland, on the other hand, it appeared there was scarcely any outdoor relief at all. While 3,000 persons were receiving outdoor relief in the whole of Ireland, no fewer than 750,000 were receiving outdoor relief in England. How was it in Scotland? Precisely the opposite system prevailed there. In Scotland there was no indoor relief until lately, when a few workhouses were built, whilst others were in the course of erection. But he might say that in two-thirds of Scotland there was no indoor relief at all. Again, the kind and amount of the relief differed in most important particulars. In England and Scotland the relief was given in all the necessaries of life, or in money with which to purchase them; but at a time when 700,000 or 800,000 persons were receiving relief in Ireland, the relief was confined solely to food. There was no clothing given, and the consequence was that the poor were swept away in vast numbers for the want of the other necessaries of life besides food. Such a great difference as that in the kind of relief given, could not but have a most prejudicial effect on the labouring classes in Ireland. There was also a difference in the mode of levying the fund for the support of the poor in the three portions of the united kingdom. In England the rate was levied solely on the occupier of property; in Ireland it was levied half on the occupier and half on the owner; whilst in Scotland there were no less than five different modes of rating. Besides, the parishes in Scotland had the option, under certain circumstances, of not being rated at all. The truth was that two-thirds of the parishes of Scotland were rated, whilst one-third of them were not. He did not pretend to discuss the question as to what was the best principle of raising the money necessary for the relief of the poor. But he might say that if a principle of rating was good in Scotland, it should be equally good in England and Ireland; and it would be a question to consider whether it was not judicious to adopt one uniform mode of assessment to the relief of the poor throughout the united kingdom. With regard to the management of the relief of the poor in England and Ireland, that was confided to hoards of guardians of unions controlled by a central Commission. In Scotland the management was a parochial one still; the parishes maintained their own poor; and though there was a central board there, it

819
differed from the English one in this respect, that, whilst the central hoard in England was prohibited from interfering in individual cases of pauperism, the central board in Scotland had nothing else to do but to interfere in individual cases. The working classes of this country had a deep interest in this question. With the increased facilities of communication between the three parts of the united kingdom, it was quite obvious that, with those differences in the administration of relief to the poor, and when the relief given in their native country was of a niggardly character, numbers of the poor Irish and Scotch would be continually crowding into England. How could the English poor escape distress, exposed as they were to competition with hundreds and thousands of Scotch and Irish paupers, driven here by an artificial system, refused relief in their own country, and compelled to seek subsistence here? Political economists laid it down, that the poor had their fate in their own hands, viz. the power of limiting their numbers by not marrying; but that principle of their science was set at nought in this country by the immense immigration of Scotland and Ireland, taking the bread out of the mouths of the working classes. The poor-law returns of the last quarter of the previous year showed that, while I in 16 were relieved in England, and 1 in 26 in Scotland, only 1 in 40, or 2¼ per cent, received relief in Ireland, the average cost of the relief being 1s. 8d. in the pound in that country, as compared with 1s. 10 d. in England, and 1s. 3d. in Scotland. The difference in the law of settlement in the three kingdoms operated in the same way. In this country a residence of three years gave the right of Settlement; but it was not so in Scotland or Ireland. There being no legal right of settlement in either of those kingdoms, an inducement was held out to the proprietors to relieve their estates from those who were likely to become chargeable to the poor-rate, by sending them to England, which they could do at a cost of about 2s. 6d. each person, the English parishes having to pay 10 s. or 20 s. each to send them back again to their own parishes, where, after all, they had no legal settlement. The second branch of the inquiry he was desirous of opening, was the mode of extending relief to the ablebodied poor—
Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty
820
Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Six of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Public Houses (Scotland).

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, that a petition from New market, and other districts in the county of Cambridge, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for revision of the tariff of duties payable on the importation of foreign produce, and for an alteration in the Navigation Laws Repeal Act, with which he had been entrusted, had appeared to him of sufficient importance to justify him in giving notice of his intention to present them to their Lordships that evening. He had also been induced to give that notice, from a desire to afford noble Lords in that House an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the present condition of the agricultural interest. He believed every one must admit that there was no assembly by which such a subject could be more fittingly considered than by their Lordships. Intimately connected as they were with the landed interest, in the enjoyment of large estates, and having the advantage of being thoroughly conversant with the condition of the tenantry and

773
peasantry of the counties in which they resided, they necessarily came to the consideration of that important subject with a mass of information such as no other assembly in this or any other country could possess. Some people might be of opinion—and he believed that opinion had been expressed elsewhere—that their Lordships were not the most fitting body for the consideration of a subject of that kind, because they were deeply interested in the condition of landed property; but he apprehended that that was the very reason why they were, of all persons, the best qualified for the task. He believed that, under the British constitution, their Lordships' House, from the circumstance of its Members being possessed of largo landed property and of wealth invested in land, was regarded as the safeguard of the institutions of the country; because their welfare was bound up with the condition of that description of property which was the most extensive, the most important, and at the same time the most fixed. He said, therefore, that they approached that subject with advantages such as no other assembly could possess; and if any one doubted their fitness for considering it, he need only point to the course which had of late years been pursued by their Lordships in dealing with questions affecting them, and ask whether they had not shown throughout that course the utmost liberality and independence, and the most earnest desire to put aside all considerations of personal interest for the promotion of what they deemed to be the public good? The individual Members of that House, and of the other House, in legislating upon that subject, had consulted the most experienced, the most trustworthy, and the most honest statesmen in the country; and they had been induced by the advice of those statesmen to give their consent to the adoption of our present commercial system. They had been told that the repeal of those laws which had formerly regulated the importation of foreign produce, would lead to no material alteration in the value of landed property in this country. They had been told that the different countries of Europe could not supply us with much more corn than we had previously received from the Continent; and that if we were to have any large importations of corn, they could only come under very peculiar circumstances from the United States of America. Those statements had induced many persons to sup-
774
pose that the proposed new commercial policy would not materially affect the landed interest, while it would lead to the abolition of an impost, against which the popular passions might at any time be violently excited. But the event had completely falsified that anticipation. Session after Session, since the adoption of the new policy, they had been assured by noble Lords opposite that the depression of the agricultural interest was owing to exceptional circumstances, which could not possibly be of long continuance; that such circumstances might from time to time arise, but that, in general, landed property would not be materially injured by their recent course of legislation. But as these statements had never been justified by the event, he thought that circumstances ought to induce noble Lords opposite to look back with some degree of respect on the opinions they had formerly entertained upon that subject, and with some distrust of the wisdom of their more recent convictions. He believed that the party with which he had the honour to act had taken the correct view of that question. They had precisely foretold the condition of the country under the new commercial policy, and we were at present advancing, step by step, precisely as they had foretold that we should do. He was perfectly ready to admit that on the face of things, as stated in Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne, the condition of the people was generally prosperous. In that Speech Her Majesty also expressed a "confident hope" that "the prosperous condition of other classes of Her subjects would have a favourable effect in diminishing the difficulties of the owners and occupiers of land, and promoting the interests of agriculture." But he would ask noble Lords opposite whether they had seen any strong indication that that hope was likely to be realised? He wished they could advance facts and arguments calculated to remove that state of doubt and alarm among the agricultural interest which formed one of the worst evils to which that interest could be exposed. He was afraid he should be obliged to trouble their Lordships at some length with statements of the condition of the agricultural body in his own county. He should, however, first observe, that the petitions he had to present had been signed by large bodies of persons, consisting of tradesmen and labourers, as well as of the owners and occupiers of land. They expressed great

775
alarm at their present condition; they stated that farms were going out of cultivation; that labourers could find no employment; and, in short, they gave a flat contradiction to the statement that all classes in this country were in a state of prosperity with the exception of the owners and occupiers of land, for they alleged that the labouring population were suffering under great privations. He was enabled to confirm that latter statement from his own knowledge of his own county. He should produce to their Lordships some evidence in proof of the allegations contained in the petitions. On the receipt of the petitions, he had thought it necessary to make as minute inquiries as he could with respect to the accuracy of the statements contained in them, and he could assure their Lordships that he had found it very easy to obtain a superabundance of evidence in support of those statements. But he would not trouble their Lordships with all the details which had reached him upon the subject. He had made inquiries among gentlemen in every part of the county of Cambridge—gentlemen of the highest character, and who in many instances had no personal interest in the state of landed property, except as discharging the duties which related to property, or beyond their heartfelt desire to ameliorate the condition of their suffering fellow-countrymen—hut he laboured under the disadvantage of not being authorised to state the names of those gentlemen, or of the persons to whom they referred in their communications. He could, however, assure any noble Lord opposite who might feel any curiosity upon the subject, that he would be quite ready to make known to him those names in private. He had no hesitation in saying that, in the county of Cambridge, the smaller owners and occupiers of land, and, in many instances, the larger owners and occupiers also, were in a state of extreme alarm and approaching destitution; that the labourers were without employment, and that the condition of the unions in that county was diametrically opposed to the statements of the Poor Law Commissioners. He would read, as shortly as he could, extracts from the letters which he had received upon that subject. The first of these letters was from the western part of the county, and in that letter he found the following passage:—
"I will now say a little as regards the farmers. Situated as I am, I am applied to by many, and know the situation of most. I believe the whole
776
of this parish has not made above half the rent the last two years, and that some who were in easy circumstances are now quite straitened, and that several are in that state they do not know how to get on at all; and I feel that, if these times continue, the generality of the farmers must be ruined, and, I think, landlords too. I know two farmers, who took two farms in adjoining parishes to this (I think since 1846), with about 7,000 l. each. I believe they have each of them lost about half their property, and are now in that state they do not know how to get on. One of them, although he has a lease, has agreed with his landlord to give it up at Michaelmas, 1851."
The following was another extract from the letter:—
"Many of them have sold their cottages and gardens; and during the last year I have an account of 99 men, women, and children, who have left this place for America, Australia, &c.; and last week I was told by a person here he had had nine cottages offered to him in one day by poor men, who wanted to sell them to go to America; and I have this week been informed by another person there are from 30 to 40 who want to sell, have very lately sold, or are about selling, to go to America, &c., because they cannot procure a living for their families, to better their condition. I think you will agree with me, my Lord, as to what are the benefits to be derived from this boasted so-called free trade, to drive such industrious, valuable men from their native land to seek a living for themselves and families in a foreign land. I should like Lord J. Russell himself should see and hear them; they would tell him a very different tale from what he expresses."
The next letter was from a gentleman in Newmarket. The writer of that letter stated that many farmers in his neighbourhood were only able to maintain themselves for the moment by loans, by sacrificing portions of their property, and by other temporary expedients. He stated the case of a gentleman whose family had, for many generations, been settled in the district, but who had himself been compelled to sell out his property and to emigrate. The noble Earl went on to read—
"There was another gentleman whose father was one of the most distinguished farmers in the country, who was lately obliged to make an assignment of his property. Believing that under the present state of things he could not meet his engagements, he assigned over his property for the benefit of his creditors, rather than strive to hold on any longer with a certainty of loss. There are many other cases of loss besides those I have mentioned, and those too amongst some, who, in the days of their prosperity, were not unknown to your Lordship."
Indeed, for the truth of this statement, I can vouch, so far as I am connected with the locality in which these persons resided. The next communication to which I have to refer is from Ely. The writer says—

777
"There is one strong fact which I can adduce in reference to this place, to show the depression in the condition of land; and that is, that we cannot effect sales of it at all, whether for the investment of capital or in small parcels. I have had several properties to try and dispose of for the last four or five months, and could not meet with a single bidding. I have had recently two purchases made, which ought to have been completed at Michaelmas last; the property being out of mortgage and the parties unable to procure a loan, the purchase now necessarily remains over. Not less than 13 small lots were tried last week, and not one of them sold; but two years since not one of them would have remained unsold. Amongst the little farmers the distress is very severe indeed, though they are not the parties who complain most loudly."
The writer then went on to state, that some persons with whom he was connected were in great difficulties, while others had authorised him to make a reduction of 10 per cent in their rental: with this reduction their rents were punctually paid up. Their Lordships had heard, no doubt, that in the county of Cambridge and that adjoining it, there was last year an almost total failure of the wheat crop, occasioned, as it was supposed, by the severe frost which set in just as the plant was coming into blossom. The result had been, that the best land had produced only a very small quantity to the acre. In Ely were some extensive charities from which relief was granted to meet the distress. The remarks which he bad made on the statements put forth in those letters were founded on his own acquaintance with the facts. With reference to the desire of the humbler class to purchase land, he had never known them outbid, so anxious were they always to procure small portions of ground for themselves. Their Lordships on the other side of the House would no doubt say that it was the bad harvest in Cambridgeshire which had been productive of the depressed condition of the agricultural body there. Whenever a bad harvest formerly occurred, its evil results would have been in some measure met by a corresponding rise in prices; but the condition of the people was now reduced to it present state, in consequence of the great pressure of the times.
He would now call their attention to some documents which they might think, but which he did not, more important than any he had before quoted, because they might consider them more authentic, being returns of the state of the unions. He had selected the years 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, as compared with the years 1848, 1849, 1850, and 1851, to show the state
778
of the various unions to which he would refer. The first union which he would take was that of Caxton, and the following was the statement of its condition on the specified dates. In the Caxton union, at Michaelmas 1840, the expenditure for the year was 3,760 l.; Michaelmas 1850, 4,049 l.; increase, 289 l. The Royston union showed as follows:—

Jan. 1.

Indoor.

Outdoor.

Total.

1838

148

817

965

1839

195

912

1107

1840

188

909

1097

1841

218

918

1130

Average

187

889

1076

1848

242

1195

1437

1849

239

1065

1304

1850

238

1034

1272

1851

292

1007

1299

Average

252

1075

1328

The next place to which he would refer was Cambridge, which was a place where, of course, the distress would be loss likely to press heavily. The following was the number receiving indoor and outdoor relief in that union for the years specified:—

Indoor.

Outdoor.

Total.

1838

215

1231

1446

1839

175

1346

1521

1840

250

1357

1007

1841

211

1435

1246

1848

248

1910

2164

1849

235

1917

2152

1850

239

2037

2276

1851

197

1832

2029

The state of the Newmarket union for tin; same periods was as follows:—

Indoor.

Outdoor.

Total.

1838

175

1655

1830

1839

349

1612

1961

1840

203

1508

1771

1841

331

1723

2054

1848

419

2448

2867

1849

323

2519

2842

1850

340

2222

2562

1851

419

2272

2691

He would next state the condition of the Linton union, thus:—

Jan. 1.

Indoor.

Outdoor.

Total.

1838

166

942

1108

1839

124

993

1117

1840

137

1018

1155

1841

150

1075

1225

1848

183

1596

1779

1849

201

1401

1602

1850

223

1438

1661

1851

211

1546

1757

The noble Earl then read the following tabular account of Wisbeach union:—

779

Jan. 1.

Indoor.

Outdoor.

Total.

1838

188

1224

1612

1839

339

1952

2291

1840

227

1736

1963

1841

212

2028

2240

1848

324

2619

2943

1849

404

2606

3010

1850

382

2705

3087

1851

428

2652

3080

The last place to which he would refer was Ely, and the following was the statement he had received relative to that place:—

Jan. 1.

Indoor.

Outdoor.

Total.

1848

181

1066

1247

1849

217

1026

1243

1850

183

1063

1246

1851

246

1224

1470

Total

827

4379

5206

Lady Day.

1838

187

1440

1672

1839

196

1300

1496

1840

200

1288

1488

1841

222

1449

1671

Total

805

5477

6282

=20 per cent.

In speaking of the state of the poor, he begged their Lordships to remember that the statements of the Poor Law Commissioners were not in themselves sufficient evidence to lead them to an accurate view of their condition. There were a great many other appliances and circumstances affecting their condition, into which these statements did not go, such as the local condition of the people, a disposition on the part of the proprietors to give employment, not lucrative, but from charity; and matters of that kind. There was one very painful subject connected with the county, which came to his knowledge, and that in reference to a parish in which he had property. He had always felt proud that a large number of the poorer classes also possessed estates of their own in the same district. He regretted, however, that out of a hundred holders of that description of property, there had been some forty of them obliged to sell their interests, and compelled to abandon their holdings at a considerable loss. It was perfectly impossible to describe the feeling of discontent which was growing up in the county of Cambridge, and he believed that a similar growth had begun in every part of this country, in spite of all the representations which were made. It was thought that many gentlemen were spending their estates, not their income; and the middle classes living on their capital, not on the profits of their labour.
780
Some persons had a confident hope existing, that the present state of things was merely temporary; that the condition of one prosperous interest in a country would reflect on the others; and that it would be impossible for the manufacturing classes to be prosperous without having such prosperity reacting on the agricultural interests. Now, that might have been the case formerly in this country; but when they knew that one-fourth of what was consumed as food was imported from foreign lands, and that the manufacturer preferred purchasing from the foreign rather than the home producer, he could not argue so favourably of the result for the latter. Where the purchaser preferred encouraging foreign labour, and obtaining his necessaries from foreigners, he could see no prospect of any great relief emanating to the agriculturists from the wealth and improving condition of our manufacturers. There was another point which struck him with great force. They had last year a deficient harvest and depressed prices. In every other year of a similar calamity, it was generally understood that whenever the harvest was bad, the prices in some measure relieved the farmers from the consequences. The imports of foreign wheat and wheat-flour had been for the three specified years as follows, and the prices had fallen, as he would show, in each successive year:—

1848.

1849.

1850.

Quantities

3,097,879

4,822,077

4,856,038

Price

58 s.

6d.

44 s.

3d.

40 s.

3d.

That state of things had brought about in this country not only great exertions on the part of the people and the owners and occupiers of property here, but also tended to stimulate all the foreign markets of the world. It was impossible they could encourage the importation of so much foreign produce without such a matter tending very much to stimulate foreigners to increase the growth of their lands, and endeavour to improve their systems of production, as the natural consequence of endeavouring to meet our demand. Did they believe for a moment that all which we stated at our agricultural societies' meetings was not read throughout the world, or that our improvements in tillage, general cultivation of the soil, and agricultural implements, were not taken up in many other countries? What was taking place, for instance, in America? There the Americans said, "We are obliged to you

781
for many good hints and valuable suggestions;" and thus we stimulated the Americans to great exertions in the way of agricultural produce, as would he seen by the increase which took place in the quantities exported between the years 1840 and 1849:—

In 1840.

Beef

…

…

…

19,631

brls

Butter

…

…

…

1,177,639

lb.

Cheese

…

…

…

732,217

lb.

Pork

…

…

…

66,281

brls.

Hams

…

…

…

1,643,897

lb.

Lard

…

…

…

7,418,847

brls.

In 1849.

Beef

…

…

…

103,286

brls.

Butter

…

…

…

3,406,242

lb.

Cheese

…

…

…

17,433,682

lb.

Port

…

…

…

253,486

brls.

Hams

…

…

…

56,060,822

lb.

Lard

…

…

…

37,446,760

lb.

In 1849 to Great Britain.

Beef

…

…

…

72,850

brls.

Butter

…

…

…

548,557

lb.

Cheese

…

…

…

16,007,402

lb.

Pork

…

…

…

111,385

brls.

Hams

…

…

…

53,150,465

lb.

Lard

…

…

…

21,388,265

lb.

That was an instance of the manner in which, as they stated, we had stimulated their markets. There were other points in reference to America, which were not generally known. It might seem paradoxical, but it was possible for an American to afford to send a supply of wheat to this country at a loss; that is, to sell it at a price under that which he paid for it. And how did it happen that an American was able to do that? As their vessels would naturally come to this country empty, or in ballast, which was very expensive in loading and unloading, they thought they might as well store their corn in their vessels; and accordingly when their ships came to Liverpool they sold it for whatever money they could get in the market. In the Liverpool Mail of Nov. 2, 1850, they found the following statement in a letter from a gentleman employed by the Jews of London and Germany to value the growing crops of America:—
"The shipowners of America are making much money by carrying emigrants to the States. They are now extensive corn merchants, and are buying largely at very low prices, it being better to carry wheat across the Atlantic and sell it at 2s. per quarter less than its cost than to boy ballast, which is very dear in the American seaports."
The Americans then brought over here corn to our market, which they could sell for a less price than that at which they purchased it. What trade could stand against such a state of things as that?
782
Nothing like it was ever heard of in commerce. But the agriculturists were told they could not carry on their occupation profitably unless they improved in their system, and learnt to cultivate more extensively. They were told amongst other things they ought to grow garden-stuffs. Did any of their Lordships ever send out, perchance, the produce of their gardens, and sec what price it would bring? A very small amount would be realised out of the produce of the garden. But, moreover, it was not easy to turn men's minds to any new description of cultivation, which it might be thought advisable to recommend from that to which they were accustomed. Now, with respect to the growth of flax; if they wanted any man, in a district where it had never been cultivated, to adopt that as a crop, they should first show him how to grow it; but might it not happen that while learning that science his property might be wasted away; that in the process of instruction the pupil might be ruined? The agriculturists were told to grow other things, but the Legislature did not let them grow what they pleased. Was it for those on the Government side of the House to tell them they were to grow other crops than corn on the authority of their free-trade notions? They would not let the agriculturists grow what they pleased. They could not grow tobacco, even if their soil was adapted to it. Even the growth of barley was prohibited to a certain extent as long as they maintained the duties on malt. Throughout the county with which he was connected there was always a fair description of barley grown, which generally made good beer; but in consequence of a speck on it last year the maltsters had refused to purchase it. Had there been no duty on it that would not have been the case; but in consequence of that little speck on it, it was utterly rejected by the maltsters. The consequence of the present malt duties was this—that barley of the second quality had been sold at only 16 s. to 18 s. a quarter, which even now would have fetched 25 s. under a different excise law. But it was still said the present state of things could not last, and that the supplies which now came from France would soon diminish, as that country could not grow sufficient food to feed its own people. He thought that in consequence of the stimulus which we had given to France, she would grow more than sufficient for their own consumption. It

783
should be remembered what was the situation of France. She had a large produce; but the prices were low in consequence of such large produce, yet the farmer realised from the acre of land a remunerative return. They should bear in mind also, that they were often affected by the mutations of the financial, the commercial, and the political interests of that country. He suspected that they would get no corn from France before long, but would receive flour instead. In places where there were mills with 40 pair of stones, they now had machinery for 100 pair; and they would continue to manufacture flour for the London market in preference to that of Paris, in consequence of the octroi duties imposing 5 francs per sack on flour. At all times would France give us a very large proportion of flour, from her being able to transport it into this country at so very reasonable a rate. But we were told our manufacturing interests were in a prosperous state, and that their general position was satisfactory. By a parliamentary return which had been made of the wealth of the united kingdom it appeared that its annual income was stated at 450,000,000 l., of which 250,000,000 l. were of agricultural produce. Now it appeared from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, that the exports of manufactures in this country from 1840 to 1851 had increased by no less an amount than 11,416,000 l. To that extent had the condition of the manufactures of the country improved within the time mentioned. The advocates of free trade were constantly saying that they wished to improve the condition of the people throughout the country, and that, though a temporary depression existed at present, their policy would raise the country to a state of greater wealth than had ever before existed. Now, he asked any noble Lord to consider the effect of the agricultural depression of the last few years. The annual value of the produce of land he had stated at 250,000,000 l.; and if that was reduced by 10 per cent, there would be a loss of 25,000,000 l. to place against 11,416,000 l., the amount of increase in the manufacturing exports. That would not prove that the wealth of the country had increased. His belief was that that was but a beginning, and that a worse state of things would come to pass. Such a state of the debtor and creditor side of the national wealth would certainly have the effect of debarring the people of
784
this country from going beyond a certain point in the policy of free trade, unless some prospect could be shown, some confident hope held out, that the price of corn would rise in the market. He apprehended that the people would not suffer the wealth of the nation to go on progressively diminishing, as it had been doing during the last few years. What was the great advantage held out to manufacturers from a system of free trade in corn? That some improvement had taken place he admitted, but he denied that any very great increase had taken place in our exports in consequence of free trade. In 1815 we exported to America cotton goods to the extent of 68,230,504 yards. In 1835 the exports of cotton goods to America had increased to 74,962,925 yards. In 1835 this country did not import provisions from America. In 1842 our exports of cotton goods to America had declined to 12,855,879 yards. In 1846 they rose to 37,105,895 yards, but as against 74,962,925 yards in 1835. So that in 1846 the exports were less on cotton goods than in 1835 by 37,857,030 yards. How stood the case with different countries in Europe? He would take the five important countries, Russia, Prussia, Holland, Belgium, and France, and would compare our imports of wheat from those countries at two periods, 1845 and 1849, with our exports to those countries for the same periods. They were as follows:—

WHEAT IMPORTED AND DECLARED VALUE EXPORTED TO—

Imports.

Exports.

Qrs.

£

Russia

…

1845

…

33,764

2,153,491

1849

…

599,556

1,566,175

Prusssia.

…

1845

…

423,743

577,999

1849

…

618,690

404,144

Holland.

…

1845

…

1,614

3,439,035

1849

…

308,482

3,499,937

Belgium.

…

1845

…

983

1,479,058

1849

…

366,099

1,457,586

France

…

1845

…

32,133

2,791,238

1849

…

742,023

634,126

That appeared to him to be a complete case against those who had asserted that our exports would be so greatly increased by a free admission of foreign corn. He thought he had shown that the hope held out of a rise in the price of agricultural produce was based on slight grounds. He had shown that the balance of the trade of the country, as between agriculture and commerce, was against free trade in corn; and now he had to ask noble Lords opposite what they intended

785
to do? Why did they halt between two opinions? Why did they not go a-head? They had got free trade in corn. Why did they not carry out the policy? Because revenue, they said, was necessary. He could tell them that if they went on with their free-trade policy they would not be able to get a revenue. Had he not evidence at the present moment to show that the Government were not freetraders? There was the budget proposed yesterday. In that budget there was a little item which clearly showed the Government were not freetraders. They had put a tax on the importation of butter and cheese, and had relieved the conntry from taxes of another kind. Why had they not proposed some further relief to the labourer by letting him eat his butter and cheese untaxed? Such a course would have been in strict conformity to Sir R. Peel's policy. The towns were to be conciliated by a pretended repeal of the window tax; but the only relief proposed relating to the agricultural interest was the remission of some few thousand pounds of duty on foreign agricultural seeds. Again he told them that they were halting between two opinions, and that their minds were not made up to go on with their free-trade policy. It would be much better for the agricultural interest if Government took some decided course with regard to dealing with the revenue. The agricultural interest was made up of five parties—the landlords, the tenants, the clergy, the poor, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Crown. Now, every one of these parties had suffered from the reduction in the price of corn except the Crown. There had been an increase of taxation instead of diminution affecting the interest, by the laying on of the income tax—and a greater amount of revenue was still demanded. It was a sad mistake to represent the landed interest as in a flourishing condition. It was struggling to maintain itself, and those engaged in it were living on their capital, unable to obtain a just return for the labour they were compelled to bestow on the soil.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl had, with great ability and clearness, stated his views of the depression of the agricultural classes of this country; and no doubt many of their Lordships felt strongly with the noble Earl in favour of a return to a system of protection. He would give the noble Earl every credit for treating with temper, moderation, and impartiality a subject in which they were all so
786
deeply interested. He was ready to admit, in the fullest manner, that the noble Lords opposite, in approaching a question of this character, would deal with it in a spirit of the greatest impartiality and with the fairest consideration for all the other interests of the country. These admissions he willingly made; but the further claims arrogated by the noble Lord for himself, and for other noble Lords beside him, to the disparagement of another class of Members of this House, he could not so easily assent to. When the noble Lord assumed for his own side of the House the exclusive gift of prophecy, he must be allowed to put in his protest. He did not mean to say that no false prophecies had been uttered by the freetraders; he admitted that all their predictions had not been verified. Some had said there would not be even a temporary reduction of rents; but there had been reduction. Nothing was more difficult than to prophesy truly on such questions. Last year some persons spoke of the probability of an immediate rise in prices; but nothing could have been more reasonable at that time, seeing the diminution of the imports, the great consumption going on, and the anomalous state of things with regard to the price of agricultural produce in neighbouring countries. Yet he believed if there was one thing more difficult to predict than another, it was what would be the price of any article, and even of articles less dependent on the seasons than grain, at any particular time: and most difficult of all was it to say at such a given time what price would be remunerative. But when he was told that the freetraders had been wrong in their prophecies, he must be allowed to ask, had the noble Lord's prophecies come true? He had a slight recollection of the predictions as to the country being drained of gold—as to the land being thrown out of cultivation from one end of the country to the other—and as to the labourers being entirely thrown out of employment, and other gloomy forebodings of universal distress. Last year, when several of their Lordships on his side of the House tried to establish the ease that the labourers were employed, he remembered that it was first met by a denial; afterwards further returns were moved for, and when it was made out to the satisfaction of the House, that last year the labourers were in full employment, then they were told that these were only accidental circumstances—or "exceptional circumstances," to use the expres-

787
sion of the noble Lord—and that if they would only wait six months longer they would see what would be the condition of the agricultural labourer. But he did not wish to pursue this topic further, because it was only an irritating one; and it was desirable that they should all approach such a question as the present in the best and most conciliatory tone and temper. But he wished to sketch what in the main had been the prophecies on his side of the House with regard to free trade. They had stated that they thought they might repeal the corn laws, and that, without any ultimate disadvantage to the landowner or occupier, it would increase the commerce of the country and promote the welfare and prosperity of the great mass of their fellow-subjects. Now, he said that, with one exception, these prophecies had proved perfectly true. With regard to the commerce of this country, whatever the noble Lord might say, it was perfectly idle to dispute its flourishing state. Why, we were exporting six millions more this year than last year, and sixteen millions more than we exported the year before; and were they to be told that it was all loss to the country? Then the revenue, they were told, could not be continued under free trade; but he would sooner trust to the official statement made yesterday in another place, of what the surplus would be, than to any conjectural diminution prophesied by the noble Lord if we carried out the principles of free trade. With respect to the labourer, he really had not come to the House prepared with all the details he had got on the subject of his condition; for he never dreamed that any question would be raised on the subject. The noble Lord, with perfect fairness, had road to them letters and accounts from parishes in his own immediate neighbourhood. He said, "with perfect fairness," because the noble Lord had read them evidently exactly as he had received them; but he need scarcely remind their Lordships that nothing could be more fallacious than to form a judgment upon the state of the nation generally from the condition of a few particular, and perhaps exceptional, localities; and even these letters seemed to explain to some extent the cause of that local depression, for they proved that, in the noble Lord's own peculiar district, last year, the harvest was bad, and the only difference was, that if they had had such a bad harvest in former times, and the prices of provisions and other articles had been exces-
788
sively dear, the poorer population, instead of being comparatively quiet, as they had been in that district, would have broken out into riots and other disorderly proceedings. He had sent out for the papers which the Poor Law Commissioners had published and laid on the table of the other House, and on turning to Cambridge he had found, as he had expected, that the noble Lord's statement was fully borne out: Cambridge was one of the six counties of England where there had been an increase of pauperism. These six counties were, Cambridgeshire, Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Monmouthshire, Rutlandshire, and Shropshire; and they had added 1,723 to their number of paupers since last year. But whilst in these six counties there had been an increase of 1,723 paupers, in all the other counties there had been absolutely a decrease of 69,000. It was, he knew, a very tempting thing to bring forward cases in one's own personal knowledge, and from a particular part of the country; and if he thought proper he could also bring forward cases which he knew personally of estates having been sold at very high prices, and the occupiers were much alarmed lest they should have their estates revalued, and the rental actually increased. But he did not think that such individual instances, when they were considering the reasons for a general measure, ought to be allowed to tell either for the one side or the other. He thought it the less necessary to dwell upon this, because the Government had owned, and did frankly own, that there was great distress existing now among the agricultural classes. He now came to the prophecies made as to the bearing of our recent legislation on the interests of the owners and occupiers of land. He thought there were several circumstances which must tend to the great improvement of land. Foremost among these were the efforts now making by landowners themselves, and he knew that there were cases of noble Lords, Members of that House, who were improving their estates in such a way that it amounted almost to a new purchase of the land. Even among the lower classes of farmers, who were considered as singularly backward in their modes of cultivation, and somewhat slothful in their business, improvements had taken place within the last few years which were quite unknown before. He could not, therefore, believe that these laudable efforts would meet with no result. The noble Lord said, "You told us before of

789
'exceptional circumstances,' what do you say this year?" He said, "There were still exceptional circumstances;" and he thought in the third or fourth year after a change which would probably bring this country from being one of the dearest to be perhaps one of the cheapest countries of Europe, it was impossible not to expect a temporary and severe shock that would not be over in a few months. When they laughed at "exceptional circumstances," he took them to the case of France to which the noble Lord referred, and said it was entirely owing to the stimulus we had given to France, that she had been able to furnish us with so much food. Now, he had lately had occasion to meet many Frenchmen of different ranks—landholders and manufacturers—and he asked them about the state of their country, and particularly as to its agriculture. Without a single dissentient they all declared that agriculture was suffering under very severe depression; and that in a great many parts the French landowners were utterly unable to collect their rents. The noble Lord said this came from the revolution of 1848. Why, corn at this moment was four francs cheaper than it was in 1848, immediately after the revolution had shaken the framework of society, and stopped the ironworks and the mills, and thrown the workmen out of employment. All the merchants and millowners with whom he had conversed in France said, that although there was not sufficient confidence restored yet to induce men to invest in channels whore the remuneration was distant, yet the mills and factories were in full work, and that it was owing to the people being well employed in the manufactories, and food being cheap, that we saw the people look on with apathy; and indifference, while the two great powers of the State stood in an antagonistic attitude towards each other. While on the subject of France, and at this moment, when they were considering great commercial changes which caused men of equal honesty and ability to form such opposite anticipations, it was curious to observe the view taken by impartial spectators, who, in looking on, might perhaps see more of the game than those who were engaged in it. It might be trivial to refer to a newspaper article, but he certainly was much struck with one of the most able articles he had; ever read, which appeared in a leading-French Conservative journal, with regard to our recent commercial legislation, and its effect on and reception by foreign na-
790
tions. The writer, after recapitulating the various measures of our recent free-trade policy, said that it must be acknowledged by all the world that the experiment had taken such deep root in this country that it was impossible to change it. The article then referred to the effects of these changes on other countries, and said that though the United States had not given so favourable a response to this policy as had been apprehended, the people of America were far from sympathising with their protectionist President, and the project for an increase of tariff duties was not in favour with the nation. The article further alluded to Spain and Russia, States which, in consequence of our policy, had lowered their duties very materially. The tariff of Austria was of a more liberal character, and Prussia was still more liberal than Austria in this respect. Norway had also made changes in her commercial code favourable to our present system. A word or two more as to the condition of the labourer. He found from his official connection with matters relating to Chelsea Hospital that the number of applications for the situation of inpensioners of that establishment had wonderfully decreased. He did not state this as much of an argument, because it was clear that these pensioners, having a fixed income, any reduction in the price of provisions must benefit them. But still it must be gratifying to their Lordships to know that the old soldier, enjoying a pension for his long services, or perhaps his wounds in the service of his country, was able to live in a state of much greater comfort than he could at any previous time, and preferred living among his relations, to becoming an inmate of the establishment. He would take the liberty of mentioning another fact. The Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police (whose politics, he believed, were strongly opposed to his own), had stated to him only that morning, that never in his recollection of these vast metropolitan districts had he seen the working classes so comfortable, happy, and well disposed as they were at present. With regard to the prohibition of the growth of tobacco in this country, it was quite idle to talk of that as a hardship upon the farmer; and when it was said that that prohibition counterbalanced the advantage of the corn law to the agricultural interest, it was forgotten that the tobacco prohibition was 200 years old, and that, though it was allowed to be grown in Ireland, it never had been cultivated there. With regard

791
to the malt tax, the noble Lord himself had not advocated its removal; but those who really paid the tax were the consumers of beer and porter; and if it were repealed, other duties must be imposed in its place, and, as the agriculturists would have to contribute their share of any new substitutionary tax, they would not gain much by such an arrangement. It was impossible not to perceive that the amount of land taken for railways, canals, houses, and manufactures, must, by restricting the amount of land disposable for agricultural purposes, relieve it of its burdens, and, at the same time, increase the value of the rent. Yet this was inconsistent with the noble Lord's assertion as to the land going out of cultivation. We saw not only hundreds of thousands of acres of the rich and fertile lands of Lincolnshire reclaimed for agricultural purposes, but the enclosure going on of the sterile downs of Dorsetshire, and every county was adding to its land by putting down hedges and useless encroachments, and every inch of the soil was made available to the plough and the spade; and that was not to be put in comparison with the land required for canals, railways, and manufactures. Now, one thing he thought they had a right to ask of the noble Lords opposite, to which he asked an answer in courtesy, not for the purposes of facilitating debate, and not even for the advantage of the commercial classes of the country, but he asked it for the benefit of the landowners and tenant-farmers who were labouring under difficulties. They ought to know for what alternative they had to prepare—what course the noble Lords opposite, or their friends in the other House of Parliament, intended to pursue with regard to this much-vexed question. In the other House, an hon. Gentleman, high in the confidence of the party opposite, had postponed till the country should decide it, or rather postponed sine die, the return to protection, and had turned his attention entirely to burdens on land. Others thought it necessary that there should be an immediate return to protection. He therefore hoped that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), of great ability and experience, and the undoubted leader of the great protectionist party, would at once inform the House what were his views of the question, whether he thought the agriculturists ought to look to the speedy recurrence to protection, or to the removal of the local burdens on land; and if the latter alter-
792
native was the one to be chosen, he (Earl Granville) thought it only fair to the House and to the country that some explanation should be given of the nature and extent of the measures which they wished the Legislature to sanction.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of answering the question which had been put to his noble Friend as the leader of the great protectionist party; but he would never shrink from expressing his opinion upon this subject whenever it was brought under the notice of their Lordships. The noble Earl had alluded to the course pursued in another place by an hon. Gentleman. He must say, that he thought the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire deserved the deepest gratitude of the farmers of this country, for he not only introduced that debate with an ability and eloquence which he would venture to say was scarcely ever surpassed in Parliament, but he stated honestly that he would not call the present House of Commons, which he (the Duke of Richmond) said emphatically, did not enjoy the confidence of the people of this country, to retrace their steps and return to protection; but he did ask them to do that which every one of those men whose opinions changed in 1846 had agreed upon—that the burdens upon land should under free trade be got rid of. That hon. Gentleman stated fairly and truly, that the battle of protection must be fought upon the hustings of England. Yes, it was there it must be fought, and it was there, he believed, it would be won. But he did not think that it was the duty of the Opposition to enter into the details of the measures which they thought necessary to the welfare of the nation. Their business was not to project and contrive for the Government, but rather to object to what they thought wrong in their plans. But they were told that the country was not, after all, in so bad a condition. And why? Because some superintendent of police had been telling the noble Earl that he never knew the people of London to be so quiet and comfortable. The state of the population of this city was, at any time, no criterion of the general state of the country; but there were causes at this moment which rendered it less so than ever. The population of this city found much employment in the construction of that splendid glass house—they had that employment which the poor agricultural labourers wanted, and which the occupiers were unable to

793
give them. But then the noble Earl exulted over the prosperity of the old soldier, and made out a great case because there were a few less pensioners in Chelsea Hospital than there were formerly. He confessed he was not aware of how this matter stood, or whether there might not have been recent regulations which produced change; but be it from what cause it might, he rejoiced to hear that there had been any improvement in the condition of the old soldier. But he should be very much surprised to hear of any very great liberality from the Government to the old soldiers: for when they gave, after a tardy and reluctant consent, medals to those brave old veterans who had fought and bled for their country in the glorious battles of the Peninsula, and who had endured the heat and fatigue of a hot climate, they made the poor old soldiers pay, out of their scanty pensions, for the impressions put upon these medals—for having their names engraved upon them. He did not know whether the Government might not have been playing some such tricks on the Chelsea pensioners now. As for the distresses of the agriculturists—and he spoke from personal knowledge—he declared he knew of nothing more heartrending than their condition. That very morning, a number of ablebodied agricultural labourers, about one or two and twenty years of age, of unimpeached and unimpeachable character, had come to him and said, "Will you give us a day's work?—we are wanting to earn our livelihood—we are well-behaved, and peaceable, steady, honest and industrious—ask whom you will as to our characters—the farmers have discharged us because they cannot afford to employ us now." This was the charge he made against this policy which had brought about such results, and against the Government which maintained it. He did not wish to raise any ill-feeling, but he did say it was a hard case when the farmers of England had done their utmost to keep these poor men in their employment; in his own county paying 9s. a week hire, whereas they could not afford at the price of corn to pay more than 7s. or 8s.—when the landed proprietors were employing double, treble, quadruple the number of labourers they had any need for—and in fact, making excuses to themselves in order to give the poor employment, and to keep them out of the workhouse; it was hard that a Minister of the Crown should come down here and say there was no distress—or that the
794
distress was very partial, because the poor were employed, and the workhouses were not full. The present state of things bore hard upon the landlord, the tenant-farmer, and the agricultural labourer; and if it were carried too far, the result would be, that the landowners would consider their own pecuniary interests alone, and they would discharge large masses of those men to whom they now gave employment. Their Lordships knew that idleness was but too often the parent of crime. It was perfectly notorious that never had so many burglaries been committed as recently. He was sorry to say that it was a feeling too prevalent throughout the country, that by excitement out of doors the Government could be forced to do that justice which otherwise they would not do. At present a number of agricultural labourers were employed in the repair of public roads. Many of them had but two or three days work in the week, which prevented them from going into the workhouse, but many also were altogether unemployed. The noble Lord had said, that the malt tax did not bear hard upon the farmers because it was paid by the consumer. He (the Duke of Richmond) wished to know why he was not permitted to feed his cattle with the barley of which the noble Lord had spoken, and which was not worth making into beer or spirits? If they were to have free trade, why should he be prevented from so using the barley which he grew upon his own farm? He was aware that a great deal had been said as to the results of some experiment which had been made in the feeding of cattle upon malt and barley; but he did not believe a word of what had been said upon that subject. Experiments had been made. A certain number of cattle had been fed on barley-meal and on malt, and it was asserted that the barley-meal was found to be more fattening than malt. But be placed no faith in the experiments as they had been conducted. Even supposing that cattle fed on all barley-meal thrived better than cattle fed on all malt, it did not follow that cattle fed on malt, with a mixture of other food, would not fatten as well or better than barley-meal fed cattle. Why not let the farmer have the power of trying if such were not the case? With respect to the malt tax, he pronounced it to be the most unjust tax ever imposed by this or any Parliament. It was hard on the labourer, for he was not allowed to brew his own beer if he liked to do so, but was

795
driven to the public-house, and was compelled to drink the washy stuff which brewers chose to impose on him. He had objected, and would ever object, to the tax, and the noble Lord now heard at least one decided opponent of that tax. Then with respect to the tenant-farmer, he would venture to say that in Sussex among the wealds—and he also believed in the wealds of the county of Kent—the great mass of tenant-farmers and small occupiers were in a state of great distress. He could not understand that his noble Friend wished to see the small farmer swept away from the land. He would ask his noble Friend, therefore, to inquire whether the small holders in the weald of Sussex—whether one in a hundred was able to pay rent—and whether all did not find a difficulty to pay even the rates with which they were charged. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the hop duty. The hop growers, it was true, had been able to pay the duty in 1848 by borrowing from their landlords and from other sources; but unless the right hon. Gentleman sold up the whole country he was quite sure he would not be able to get that tax from the growers this year. The fact was, the British farmer could not compete with the foreigner, taxed as he at present was. It was all very well for his noble Friend to say "Improve your land." A great many landowners were laying out large sums of money on their land. This was admitted by his noble Friend, who said landlords were laying out more money on their land than would buy it over and over again. He was obliged to his noble Friend for that admission. But those who happened to have 100,000 l. at hand, and were willing to lay it out on their land, knew very well they should not get 2½ per cent for their outlay. His noble Friend advised landlords to persevere; but if they persevered he would tell his noble Friend what would be the result. They would not get their rent, and for every 100,000 l. laid out they would not get back 50,000 l., and this sacrifice must be made for the purpose of carrying out free trade. He would advise the manufacturers to make the most of their present position. He believed before long the Manchester gentlemen would find out that it was possible for the United States to send manufactured goods to this country, and then the manufacturers here would not find their trade so profitable as they had done. They were told if they
796
only waited, they would be quite sure to attain the same prosperity which the manufacturers now enjoyed. He was told the manufacturing interest was very prosperous at this moment, but he did not believe these statements were quite correct. He doubted, however, that the agricultural interest would reach the asserted prosperity of the manufacturers; his opinion was, that instead of getting where the manufacturer was, that the manufacturers would find themselves shortly where the agriculturists now were. He suspected that the manufacturers would retrograde little by little; that they would find the home market diminished in its resources. The home market was their real trade—not the speculative business of sending out of the country 100,000 l, worth of goods for anybody to buy. The home trade was the trade on which manufacturers must chiefly rely, and when that was impaired the manufacturer must suffer in proportion. He was quite aware that his noble Friend stuck to his opinions—that he would not give way readily; but when he did give way, he did so with the rapidity of a shot out of a musket. He must say to his certain knowledge many who voted at the time for the repeal of the corn laws were weak enough to take such a step against their convictions. There could be no doubt that free trade was a failure. He was sorry to say that the pressure on the tenent-farmer and the agricultural labourer was never so heavy as at the present time. He warned their Lordships, not, however, in the way of a threat, not to destroy the small tenant-farmer. The tenant-farmer of 200 l. or 300 l. a year may have capital enough to go on two or three months longer; but the great body of farmers under that amount of rent—that large and valuable and hardworked body—were ruined by recent measures. They must either go into the workhouse with their families, or to the United States. He knew at the present moment an honest tenant-farmer who had been destroyed by the times, and who had applied for himself and his wife to be admitted into the workhouse. The board of guardians, however, gave him outdoor relief instead, and he believed the great body of poor-law guardians of England considered that the poor-laws were passed to prevent the idle and dissolute from preying on the poor-rate, and that it was not possible they should ever see the workhouse turned into a place in which the industrious labourer and re-

797
spectable tenant-farmer were to get their daily bread. They only asked for what they had a right to have, and Government had no right to say to men willing and anxious to work, "You shall go into the workhouse or starve." As long as he was a poor-law guardian, and a respectable man applied for relief, he would recommend he should have outdoor relief rather than he should be sent to the workhouse to associate with those who had been brought there by their own misconduct.
LORD WODEHOUSEthought that at the present juncture, when systematic attempts were made to reverse the commercial policy which the country had recently adopted, it beloved every landowner who approved of that policy not to shrink from expressing his opinions, he agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke), that if there was anything by which the present difficulties of the agriculturists could be relieved, or even if their feelings could be soothed without detriment to the rest of the community, such measures should be immediately adopted. But if it were intended to hold out the slightest hope of a return to a restrictive system, he would earnestly warn the agriculturists not to be led away by such a delusion. It was necessary to ascertain to what extent and among what classes distress really existed. The noble Earl who introduced the subject bad referred to a number of letters which he had received from Cambridgeshire, which no doubt, as the views of individuals, were more or less entitled to attention; but you could not from such letters deduce a general conclusion that agricultural distress prevailed throughout the whole of the country. He (Lord Wodehouse) had just the same right to state his opinions of the part of the country to which he belonged, though it would not follow certainly that his opinions, based on individual observations, would be right. In the district with which he was connected, Norfolk, an important agricultural county, he honestly believed—and he had taken some pains to make accurate inquiries into the subject—that the condition of the agricultural labourers generally, was better than it bad been for some years past. They had now experienced, it was true, a considerable reduction of wages, but, at the same time, there was a largo reduction in the expense of articles of consumption; and though wages had been reduced for some time in certain parts of Norfolk to so low as 8s. a week for an ordinary labourer,
798
yet he was convinced, and had stated at a public meeting in the county to which he referred without being contradicted, that the labourers were at least as well off, and in cases where they had large families, and the consumption was consequently greater, oven better off, than they had been for some years. It seemed pretty clear that noble Lords opposite had made up their minds not to admit the accuracy of any returns which did not sanction their particular views; but he did not think the country would disregard the fact that there had been on the whole a diminution of pauperism of no less than 10 per cent, and of the number of ablebodied paupers 15 per cent; and not only in counties of manufacturing industry, but there had been a considerable diminution also where the people were principally employed in agricultural pursuits. In the county of Norfolk the number of paupers had diminished 6 per cent, and there was also a considerable diminution in Suffolk and Essex. They had heard of some riots in Suffolk; but still they would sec that the same number of persons were not now receiving relief there as formerly. No doubt a conclusion might be drawn from the fact of that riot, but he would prefer to draw a conclusion from general circumstances. They were told that the present efforts of the farmers were the reckless and desperate attempts of men endeavouring to keep their heads above water; but he would ask how it could be accounted for that men should continue to invest their money in what they knew must result to their certain loss, and that there should be found men at present ready to take farms for the first time? The truth was, that at this moment there was a competition for farms, if let at a reasonable rent. The price of meat had diminished, but that diminution he believed to be caused not so much by the foreign importations, as by the increased production at home, which was obviously affected by the greatly increased facilities of communication, by which districts formerly at a distance were brought within reach of London. Thou, it seemed to be forgotten by the agriculturists that there bad been a considerable diminution in the expenses of farm produce. He did not mean to say that the benefit they derived in this way was equal to the diminution of their profits, but be did say that it was a considerable item in their balance-sheet, and gave a large advantage at the end of the year. The noble Duke who last addressed

799
them had denied the existence of general prosperity. He (Lord Wodehouse) should like to know by what possible proofs they could show that it did exist, if not by the present state of things? They had manufactures generally flourishing, an increased revenue, a reduction of pauperism, general employment, and tranquillity. If that was not prosperity, he did not know what prosperity was. He thought that an argument might very fairly be brought, even from the large importations of corn and flour, in proof of the prosperous state of the country, because that corn and flour had been consumed and had been paid for by the labour of the country; and it was now certain that mouths formerly starving were at present enjoying an abundance of food. And if it were a fact that the labouring classes were enjoying an abundance of necessaries, would it be politic or possible to turn round on the population and say to them, "It is true that your condition is prosperous and comfortable, but there is distress and difficulty among tenant-farmers, whose profits are curtailed, and landlords whose rents are diminished, and in order to relieve those classes, you must reverse your commercial policy? Some noble Lords might think that to be an unfair way of putting the case; but they might depend upon it, that, whether fair or unfair, that would be the way in which the labouring classes would look at it. He had endeavoured to approach the subject with a desire to find means of giving relief to the agriculturists, consistently with the interests of the rest of the country; but he could not perceive the advantage of many of the expedients which were proposed. Take the malt tax. He certainly had not expected to hear that the producer of barley paid the tax on malt. They were told that there were certain advantages consequent from a larger consumption of beer; he would ask whence was that larger consumption to be supplied? He thought from what he had heard that it would be from abroad, because though barley could not be malted which was brought from abroad, yet malt might be imported, and the agriculturists might rely upon it that if the malt tax were repealed, there must be imposed a compensating tax which could hardly fail to press heavily upon lands. With respect to the poor-laws, it was said that the rates pressed heavily upon land. But let it not be forgotten in the first place, that not one half of the land of England, but only about
800
45 per cent, was used for agricultural purposes. But without entering on the question how far it would be just to tax the fundholder, considering the engagement that had been made that he should not be taxed for local rates, and how far it would be beneficial to the farmer to rate stock in trade, seeing that there was also farming stock in trade which would come within such a tax—he would simply ask what practicable plan would the agriculturists substitute for this present system of local taxation? What plan had they of raising local rates upon all the property of the country? The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had proposed an income tax; but he (Lord Wodehouse) did not think the country would be pleased to hear that they were to have a permanent income tax, especially as it was proposed in addition to that which he regretted to find they were to have for some time longer. He was surprised to hear the doctrine of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) respecting out-of-door relief. In his (Lord Wodehouse's) part of the country, it was not usual to give out-of-door relief to ablebodied paupers, and for an excellent reason, because such relief was forbidden by law. He was inclined to think that an alteration in the law of settlement would be among the first of the measures calculated to give relief to the agriculturists; and he was glad to find that there was an intention to introduce a Bill on that subject. The present law was oppressive to the labourer by preventing him from carrying his labour to the best market, and injurious to the farmer, by causing, as it were, a congestion of labourers in one place, coincidently with a deficiency of them in others; but, apart from these measures, he did not despair of the British agriculturist. Had they not seen other classes of the community struggling against, and ultimately surmounting, the difficulties which surrounded them? Was not Mr. Huskisson reviled for having ruined the silk trade? And was the silk trade ruined? He was told that even the manufacturers of cotton thought they had need of the protection of restrictive laws to enable them to compete with the foreigners; and were they now to be told that in a country, which he believed to be a flourishing country, where all the means and appliances of industry were the cheapest and the best, where we had the best market for our produce at our very doors—were they to be told that in a country like this, the

801
British agriculturist could not compete with the foreigner except by the aid of means which amounted to nothing less than an attempt to sustain him at the expense of other classes of the community? The present was not the only occasion on which the agricultural interest had suffered depression. He would ask noble Lords opposite did the restrictive laws to which they wore anxious to return, produce the effect which they professed? Was there no distress in 1822, or in 1835? No Committees to inquire into its causes? No difference of opinion as to a remunerating price? He did not believe that this country would return to restrictive laws. The present prosperity he believed to be undoubted, and he was convinced that the opinion of the nation, ascribing that prosperity to the change of our commercial policy, would never sanction a return to a restrictive system which it had deliberately condemned and abandoned.
The EARL of STRADBROKEsaid, it was rather singular that the advocates of free trade should be so anxious to show that agricultural distress did not prevail throughout the country, when Her Majesty, in Her Speech from the Throne, had admitted its existence. He well knew that the distress reported to exist in his neighbourhood was not exaggerated. He knew that the landlord, the tenant-farmer, and the labourer, were all sustaining great difficulties. The riot in the Barham union workhouse, which the soldiers, a body of police, and thirty-six special constables, had been employed to suppress, was occasioned by the inability of the farmers to maintain them any longer. The gaol of Ipswich (that part of the country with which he was acquainted) never was so full as at the present moment. The number of prisoners in that gaol on the 17th February, 1846, was 90, on 17th February, 1850, the number was 139, and on the 17th February this year, the number of prisoners in the gaol was 180. The number of persons in the Beccles house of correction was, in 1846, 22, and in 1851, 41, nearly double. Outrages had also greatly increased. He never recollected a period when there had been so many as during the last few months. One person had been barbarously shot on the public road, without any provocation, while bands of armed persons went about at night, having their faces disguised, and committing depredations. The poor were driven to these illegal practices because they could not get employ-
802
ment, and did not like to enter the union houses. The fall in prices, owing to foreign competition and the great burdens on land, prevented the farmers from expending capital in agricultural improvements, and the consequence was, that numbers of persons of excellent character were unable to procure employment. A great deal had been said about the difficulty of letting farms; and he knew himself that it was impossible to let them except at a loss. The land had now to pay 8,000,000 l. a year for the maintenance of the Established Church, and upwards of 5,000,000 l. towards the poor-rates; and it was impossible that, with such heavy burdens, they could enter into successful competition with the untaxed foreigner. They had been told that the labouring classes were now enjoying a great degree of personal comfort. It might be so—but it had always been his opinion that the poverty of the country should be maintained at the expense of the property of the country; but he did not think it just to throw the chief burden on a particular class. They had no right to continue class taxation when they had done away with class protection, and he trusted that the Government, with the view of doing justice to the agricultural classes, would take an early opportunity of distributing the taxation of the country in an equitable manner over all classes of the community.
The EARL of WINCHILSEAwould remind noble Lords who advocated free trade, of the calculation made by Sir R. Feel, that the price would be about 54 s., whereas the average price of late had very little exceeded 37 s. If, then, 54 s. were assumed to be the price which would enable the landed interest to bear the exclusive burdens to which it were subject, it must be perfectly clear that at 37 s. the whole rental must be at this moment gone. It must be perfectly clear to every man who had the slightest knowledge of the value of agricultural produce, that the money expended on land could not at present prices of agriculture produce one farthing of profit. He had seen with deep regret, that in the last two years the cultivation of the soil in this country had been going rapidly backward, and he had seen in many parts of England what he would venture to say none of their Lordships had witnessed for many years, namely, farmers mowing their weeds, instead of hoeing and pulling them. The mode of cultivation had been such, that, notwith-

803
standing the goodness of the season, he was convinced that the soil of England would not produce so much by a million or two of quarters as it would have done under a better system. He also observed less improvement going on in the way of drainage, than for many years past. For the last fifty-six years never had he known so many able-bodied labouring men out of employment as at present; neither had there ever been such an excess of crime. Sheep-stealing and burglaries prevailed to a most fearful extent. There was no truth in the statement that agricultural distress was confined to five or six counties; it extended over every county in England, and, in ninety cases out of a hundred, the rents for the last three years have been paid out of capital, for the produce of the land has not covered the expenses of cultivation, poor-rates, county rates, tithes, &c.; and, if their Lordships should persevere in this system, depend on it they would bring the agricultural interests, one and all, into that state of discontent that he defied the strongest Government not to tremble for the result; for when men were unjustly used, like the great body of agriculturists, they would not sit down and see themselves destroyed for the purpose of benefiting a class who had never treated those connected with them with half the kindness shown in like cases by the owners and occupiers of land. He sincerely hoped and trusted that some measure would be introduced on the subject, for he was one of those who thought that the maintenance of the poor, the preservation of the peace, and the maintenance of the high roads—those three national burdens—were unjustly and unfairly thrown on the land, and that they ought to be equally supported by every other interest in the country. It might be difficult to say in what way this was to be effected; but the Government and the advocates of free trade in corn and in all other agricultural productions had brought the landed tenant into the present state of great difficulty and distress, and could not in justice leave those burdens on their shoulders which could only have been justified by the continuance of protection which had been extended to it, and under the faith of which, capital to an incalculable amount had been expended in the cultivation of the soil in this country.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, he would not enter into any discussion as to whom the credit might be due with respect to prophecy, for it signified very little on
804
this question what the prophecies had been. The first question now was, whether the agricultural interest was in a dangerous and suffering state? And the next question was, whether it was or was not consistent with the duty of the Government to neglect that great class of the community, which they themselves now confessed to be in a distressed state, and to refuse to administer that relief which they alone, as a Government, could administer. But since the first day of the Session, when Her gracious Majesty had stated, and when the Government had admitted, that the agricultural interest was in a dangerous and suffering state, the Government had not in that House made the slightest reference to the subject, or held out any prospect of relief. But in the other House certain events had taken place, to which, he believed, he had a right to allude, for they were pregnant with interest on this question. A great division had lately taken place in that House, after a debate in which much ability was shown on both sides; and it was a prevalent opinion that, had it not been for some extra assistance which they succeeded in obtaining, Her Majesty's Government would have been left in a minority. In speaking of extraneous assistance he alluded to a person of eminent talent in this country, one who had been a responsible adviser of the Crown, but who, for the last four years, had been hovering on the flanks of the two opposing armies. The other night when the Government had gone through one whole evening's debate, and every one thought the issue doubtful, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon came rushing to the rescue—a man eminent for his talents, and whose assistance had been before desired by the Government—he at last came to their assistance, and made a speech full of ability, but which showed that he, as they must have foreseen, did not quite agree in the broad statement made in the Speech from the Throne. The greater part of his speech, he believed, was to the purport that in his opinion agricultural distress, if it really did exist, was of a very doubtful nature. He stated that, as far his own county was concerned, he stood there at that moment without an acre of land unlet which he wished to let, and that he had not an arrear of 300 l. due. That was certainly a description of a modern Arcadia. It was nothing less; but whether that state of things—those really exceptional advantages—visited Cum-

805
berland in consequence of some extraordinary property belonging to the landlords, or some peculiar virtue inherent in the soil, or whether it arose from some particular industry amongst the tenantry and labourers, he could not say; nor was any mention made of the cause by the eminent person to whom he alluded. He did not tell his audience to what amount and for how long he had been laying out money on his estate. He had heard, indeed, a rumour that there was no landlord who had so improved his estate, who had laid out so much money on it, or who ought to have had under the former law of the country at the end of improving leases so much reward as that eminent person: that he had left out of the question altogether. Another thing he observed with respect to Cumberland. When he looked over the averages of corn for the different counties in England, he found that no county stood so high for its average in wheat. It stood last week at 41 s. 9d. The difference between that and the price of wheat in the county to which his noble Friend who opend this debate belonged, was no less than 5s.—the price there being no more than 36 s. 9d. Therefore when that eminent person wished them to believe that the whole country was thriving, because his own peculiar estate was in these extraordinary flourishing circumstances, he might just as well have quoted the highest and lowest prices of wheat throughout the country instead of speaking of the highest only. The question was not what was the state of this or that man's property. The question was, what was the state of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland? When agricultural questions were discussed, some great man, he regretted to say, was always quoted as an argument. He denied the fairness of such arguments; but he had heard it said in another place that there were estates belonging to two of the greatest proprietors and men of the highest rank in the country, in which lower rents had been taken than had been heretofore received. He had looked into the circumstances of those estates, and found that on one of them the farms had never been relet or the rents changed for 75 years, and on the other for 90 years; a vast quantity of capital had been laid out in improvements. This, at all events, was a contradiction of the assertion which was sometimes made, that the land was in the bands of a grasping aristocracy. It came out every day, in point of fact, that the
806
land of Great Britain was let at far lower rents by the aristocracy than by others; and it was natural that it should be so, because they could afford it; but it was not so with small estates, which the proprietors were obliged to let at rack rents at the full value, and it was this class of men who were now suffering the most, and it was that class for which he felt the greatest sympathy. When the eminent person to whom he had alluded came to the rescue of the Government, they must have felt great gratitude, undoubtedly; but, at the same time, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) as a Member of the Government, must, on reading that speech, have wished that his own estates had been on the banks of the Esk, instead of being on the banks of the Tyne. In Northumberland the farmers might be said to rent estates rather than farms. When he lived in that county, he knew instances in which they used to let for as much as 3,000 l. a year. And what was the account which he had received from this county, the garden, as it was called, of England? The farm to which he was about to allude was the property of one whom, if he mentioned his name, their Lordships would at once recognise as a man whose intelligence was equal to any position, public or private. The farm in question, before the repeal of the corn laws, was let at a rent of 2,200 l. per annum. It was subsequently given up. In 1849 the proprietor of that farm, having taken it on his own hands, spent a considerable sum of money upon it, refused a fixed rent of 1,700 l., and being a man of spirit and enterprise, and of great industry, he was not to be alarmed. He thought the property worth more, and would not take it; but time went on, and prices did not rise, but, on the contrary, fell; and be had been informed that this proprietor, in 1850, after the outlay of perhaps half or a whole year's rental, was obliged to submit to let his farm for 1,700 l., a part of that rent being variable, according to the price of corn. When such things had happened in a county where agriculture was understood, and where the landlords were among the best men in the country, it was absurd to argue that because in a county like Cumberland one or two particular estates had not fallen in value, in great arable counties like Northumberland the distress was not immense. If their Lordships would bear with him for a few minutes, he would read a letter from one whom the noble Earl op-

807
posite would admit, if he were to mention his name, to stand as high as any man, both for his private character and his knowledge in farming estates. He wrote as follows:—
"For a farm which was let at 600 l. a year, I have only succeeded in obtaining 450 l.—a reduction of 25 per cent. This is a clay farm. For another, which was let of late years at 700 l. a year, I am only offered 530 l., although there is on the farm a large proportion of old grass, and a considerable sum has been expended in draining and liming. From agents in the southern parts of the county, I hear the reduction is about 20 per cent. The reductions in this neighbourhood seem, oddly enough, to have fallen on the free-traders more heavily than on the advocates of protection. On about 30 farms I have to let—on only two, with the exception of the above two—has the abatement been so much as 15 per cent. On none of the others has it exceeded 10 per cent; but nearly all of them have been greatly improved during the last leases. If, however, we have no alteration, the giving up of farms will continue, and it will be only after a hard struggle, and the outlay of much capital, that land will maintain anything like its position. It has been said that there had been 41 farms in one week advertised in our county paper—the Courant; but this is no approximation to the whole number advertised in that paper. This week I observe a number for the first time inserted, though the season is so far advanced."
That was quite enough to show the fallacy of the statements made in another place that distress was not prevalent. It was the fashion for landlords to speak of their own experience; and he could state that in his own neighbourhood most farms had fallen something like 20 per cent in value since the repeal of the corn laws. The opponents of that repeal had prophesied that this would happen; but it was no dream of nervous or hypochondriacal men, and was now realised in the eyes of their Lordships, as he apprehended it must be in the eyes of the noble Earl. The nest point was, what was to be done? It might be the interest and it might be the wish of the Opposition to tell the Government what to do, but it was the duty of the Government to see that something was done when they had admitted the existence of distress. As the Administration responsible to the Sovereign, and equally responsible to the people, the Government were bound to do something. Had they done anything? The party with whom he acted were silent on the first night, in the expectation that something would be done after the declaration in the Queen's Speech, not to restore protection, but to withdraw the burdens from agriculture. He did not wish
808
to indulge in any rash words, but he must regard the statements and promises made in another place last night as an insult to the agriculturists. In the whole of that statement there was not one single remission worth asking for. He felt that it would be a joke if he spoke of the reduction of duty on seeds, or the alteration with respect to lunatic asylums. Why should real property be taxed for the maintenance of lunatic asylums? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said half was to be placed on the Consolidated Fund, and so he estimated that half the benefit would go into the pockets of the agriculturists; but it could only be a quarter, because half was paid by them. These were the only reliefs, or attempts at relief, and there was nothing more. On the other hand, the Government took away all hope of relief to agriculture. The charge for the poor was completely put out of the question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The amount contributed to the poor-rates by the agriculturists, especially under the present system of parochial assessment, was, in effect, another income tax. The Government, indeed, seemed to admit it; for last year they most generously granted a Committee to investigate the parochial system, as though they were holding out a prospect of redress, and that the spirit of the Act of Elizabeth should be carried out; but nothing resulted from the inquiry, and the flagrant injustice of the burdens which fell exclusively on the agriculturists was the only form of injustice which was allowed to remain untouched; and what was most to be deplored was, that the Government did not hold out the least hope that relief would be afforded, nor did they seem to entertain any intention of doing justice to a class whose claims upon their consideration were certainly not inferior to those of any other portion of the community. The advocates of free trade had made exulting allusions, on many occasions, to the fact, that there had been of late years a gradual decrease in the amount of poor's-rate. But their deductions from this fact were erroneous and deceptive. From what period was the increase or decrease to be calculated? Surely not from the exceptional year 1847, when, from the concurrence of various disastrous causes, the poor's-rate rose to six millions and a half! Such an event was one of unnatural occurrence. They all knew perfectly well that it was not to be expected that as

809
large a sum of money would be required for the support of the poor at a period when corn was sold for 40 s. a quarter, as was necessary for the same purpose, when the average price of corn was 70 s. Before they attempted to claim for free trade the credit of causing a decrease in the amount of the poor's-rates, they were bound to ascertain the amount of the poor's-rates during the last years of the protective system. They should take a wider range for their calculation. Let them go back thirteen years, say to 1837. In that year, under a high state of protection, after the price in the preceding year (1836) of 39 s. per quarter for wheat, the poor-rates amounted to 4,000,000 l; in 1840, after the price of 69 s. per quarter in the preceding year, they were only 4,500,000 l.; in 1846, the last year of protection, they were 4,900,000 l.; and in the year 1849, under free trade, with wheat at 50 s. they rose to 5,800,000 l.; and in 1850, they had fallen to 5,400,000., or a million and a half more than in 1837, when protection existed. How could they account for that difference? Let them, then, not claim any credit for free trade in lowering the rates. Then with respect to the decrease in the number of paupers relieved. Up to January, 1851, they had a decrease of 68,579 from the preceding January (1850). But still they were not within 34,000 of the reduced numbers which the year 1846—the last year of protection—showed in that respect. That year (1846) beat every one of their free-trade years—even the very best of them; and even one of the years of the highest prices under protection presented the startling but gratifying result of the poor-rates being 1,300,000 l. less than they were in a year of free trade, namely—

1840, poor-rates

£4,500,000

1849, poor-rates

5,800,000

Difference

£1,300,000

With respect to the wages of agricultural labourers, it was said that they had not fallen; and in another place a high authority had said that that was especially the case in the north. If that were so, and were to continue so, what would happen? The great argument in favour of free trade was, that by cheapening produce it would enable the whole body politic to go on more smoothly. But if the labourer was to receive the same wages under reduced prices as formerly, how was the farmer to pay them? The whole loss of
810
33 per cent in the depreciation of the value of agricultural produce was to be borne in some quarter or other. Was it only to fall on the landlord and tenant? He feared it must be plainly said that the only interest which their present legislation encouraged was that of the foreign agriculturist. In the year 1849, France imported into this country 740,000 qrs. of corn, and in 1850 that importation rose to 1,100,000 qrs., which was worth nearly 2,000,000 l. sterling. Let them just think of such an enormous sum transported across the Channel into the northern departments of France, to be circulated there amongst its chief provincial towns, to promote the interests of agriculture. Only let them conceive a similar sum coming over from France into our southern agricultural counties—into Sussex, Devon, or Hampshire; and did they think their agriculturists would have complaints? It was all very well to say that discontent prevailed amongst the agriculturists of France. Why, so it might, for very possibly they had wrongs and grievances of their own, which we were not very competent to judge of; but it was at all events certain that they had succeeded in rearing a crop of corn, which was not only sufficient for the requirements of their own country, but which also admitted of enormous exportation to this. He felt that he owed an apology to their Lordships, for trespassing at such length on their attention. He would not prolong that trespass: but in conclusion, would intreat of noble Lords who were distinguished for their advocacy of free trade, not to ignore the signs of the times, nor to shut their eyes to what was going on around them. It was a mistake to suppose that Whig politicians had at all times been freetraders. So far was that from being the case, that, on many memorable occasions, they had signalised themselves by their advocacy of protection; and one of the most illustrious members of their body had not hesitated once to declare that "free trade in corn would, in his opinion, be madness." At one time they advocated principles similar to those for which the protectionist party were now contending. They proposed a fixed duty of 5s. and 8s., and the only difference between them and his own friends was on matters of detail—on the amount of the duty. They would have pursued a course at once honourable to themselves, and advantageous to their country, if at that precise political June-

811
ture which eventuated in their own promotion to power, they had refused to acquiesce in free trade, but had stedfastly recommended the imposition of that particular description of duty which in bygone years they had uniformly advocated. Had they said that they would not enter upon the path of free trade—that they would recommend the policy which they had always recommended—if they had not been in such a hurry to obtain that possession of power at which they would have been perfectly certain to have soon arrived—if they had resisted, and made the Legislature impose the duties they formerly proposed, they would have acceded to office with greater dignity to themselves, and would have attached to their party an important and influential body of persons whom they had by the opposite course of conduct irretrievably separated from themselves. But, like others, they abandoned the great principle of an import duty, and in that declaration of the Speech from the Throne, in which the distress of the agricultural interest of this country was admitted, they pronounced their own condemnation.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, some propositions had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down in which he entirely concurred. He entirely concurred that it was the duty of those who occupied the seats of the Executive Government to propose remedies for evils which might be found to exist. The noble Lord had observed on that part of Her Majesty's Speech which acknowledged, as he said, for the first time, the existence of agricultural distress. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) did not intend entirely to dispute the statement in Her Majesty's Speech; but he believed that the distress was partial, that that distress might be accounted for by particular circumstances; and that if they were to attempt to remedy partial distress or partial inconvenience by any change of law, they would be committing themselves to a policy which would be utterly incapable of meeting the case with which they had to deal. His noble Friend who opened this debate referred much to the condition of that county over which he so usefully presided. He did not intend to dispute the facts which his noble Friend had stated; but he intended to give some reason why that state of things existed in that county. The noble Earl who had just sat down had stated, among some propositions with which he did agree, an-
812
other in which he did not agree, without some reservation. He (the noble Earl) had stated that they must not look to particular prices, but to the average price of the whole country. But they knew that the average price was greatly affected by the character of the particular class of corn sold in any particular district. At the present moment, even in the county of Cambridge, he could assure his noble Friend that good wheat fetched a price of not less than 42 s. a quarter. He did not mean to say that was a high price—indeed he (Earl Fitzwilliam) must not be supposed to wish to see a high price in corn. The great blessing of the present time was, that we had not high prices of corn. But the average price in that county, and in another county alluded to by his noble kinsman, was much lower. It was perfectly well known, and he was sure his noble Friend knew it as well as any one, that the last harvest was the most disastrous that had ever been known in the fens, and the consequence was, that low quality corn, which was now sold in the markets of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, fetched a price not exceeding 22 s. per quarter. That, he conceived, was the explanation of the distress in Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. He did not wish that they should take this upon his statement. As the noble Lord had referred to letters, he might be allowed also to refer to a letter on this subject, being an advice of the state of the market in the town of Cambridge, from which he understood that last Saturday, being market day, good wheat was selling at 42 s. per quarter. In St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire, the highest price of wheat was 38 s. per quarter, and the price of the inferior as low as 22 s. In Wisbeach, the highest price was 36 s., and the lowest 24 s. per quarter. At Boston, Spalding, and Peterborough, the higher prices were 39 s., 42 s., and 41 s. respectively, and the lower 24 s., 25 s., and 24 s. per quarter. This great variation had the effect of depressing the average price of wheat in the counties of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire; and that he considered was an exceptional state of things. But what, he would ask, did the noble Lords intend to do? The noble Earl who had just sat down had said—and he (Earl Fitzwilliam) agreed with him to a certain extent—that it was the duty of the Executive Government, in cases where an evil was acknowledged, to make a proposition for the relief of the distress. But, he must

813
be allowed to say, that it was no less the duty of noble Lords on the opposite side of the Houses of Parliament, when they brought forward any discussion on subjects of this description, to give an inkling of the sort of measures which they hoped to see introduced. The noble Earl who spoke last had never quite mentioned that he proposed to go back to restriction; but he told them that the country would be glad to do so. He trusted he was very much mistaken, because he was quite sure any attempt to go back to protection made by the Government now, or made by those who would succeed the present Government, would be a position from which they would be very glad to retreat. If his noble Friend who spoke of the injustice of the malt tax could detach his noble Friends from the theory of protection, he would command his (Earl Fitzwilliam's) support; if they would endeavour only to impress on Her Majesty's Government the application of those facts to which allusion had been made, they would, no doubt, obtain his support; because he did consider, and he had always considered, it was one of the most injurious taxes to which the agricultural interest was exposed. With respect to one proposition of the Government, he did not at all agree that it was desirable to place the relief and maintenance of lunatics upon the Consolidated Fund. He believed that in all those cases of expense the duties of supervision were much better performed locally than they could be by general administration. And here he could not help referring to the idea in the mind of the noble Earl who spoke last, and which seemed also to pervade the mind of his noble kinsman—he meant the idea of throwing the relief of the poor upon the Consolidated Fund. He would warn them against any attempt of the kind. Depend upon it, it would lead to a more extravagant expenditure of the funds than in their Lordships' imagination it was possible to conceive; those who were, like himself, engaged in the administration of the poor-law were aware how much less care was bestowed on what were called "establishment cases" than on those belonging to particular parishes; and, therefore, let them think what would be the case if, instead of the general cases falling on the union at large, they fell on the nation. He could hardly conceive a case in which there would be a more lavish expenditure of public money. With respect to the difficulties which now existed, and to which Her Majesty's Ministers had al-
814
luded in the Queen's Speech, he (Earl Fitzwilliam) would say that the main question was between landlord and tenant. In some instances it might be difficult to meet the exigencies of the case, and he could conceive the possibility that cases might; arise in which the distress of the tenant could not be met by fairness on the part of the landlord. It was, in truth, a question of rent. All this question of the corn law—all this question of protection—were questions of rent. It was impossible to regulate prices so as to fix rents. Under the first corn law they were led to expect 82 s. per quarter; under another, 63 s.; under another, 56 s.; under another, 53 s. or 54 s.; and under the operation of all these laws agricultural distress existed, as if to prove that it was beyond the power of man to regulate the scale and to regulate prices in such a manner as to be satisfactory to the different classes of the community affected by them. But they were told that the farmer was subject to a great deal of local taxation. Now, with respect to France. Their Lordships of course were aware that France was protected as much as the agricultural interest ever would be protected under the most favourable circumstances. But what was the price of wheat now in France? The price of wheat now in France was somewhere about 3s. 6d. a bushel—a no very great encouragement to those who were desirous of trying the experiment of protection. No doubt a large amount of corn was imported into this country from France. No doubt a large amount was imported in the shape of flour. He did not at all regret the importation of flour. The machinery for converting grain into flour, and all the process, was much more skilfully and effectually done in France than in England. He believed the introduction of superior French flour would induce the millers in England to make an improvement in the manufacture of flour, because they would see that superiority made the French flour bear a much higher price in the market; and he had such confidence in the energy of his own countrymen, that he had no doubt, in the end, he would be able to meet the fair competition of the foreigner. With respect to the burdens on the foreign farmer, particularly the French farmer, as compared with the English farmer, he happened to be in possession of a paper relative to the local administration of a French department, and he could assure their Lordships that the local taxation of a French department was far higher

815
than that of an English county. He had also had placed in his hands the report of the visiting magistrates or finance committee of the county of Southampton, and it appeared, taking these two documents, that whilst the local taxation in the county of Hants amounted to 11¾d. per head, the local taxation in a French department was 1s. 11 d. per head. Thus, giving consideration to the relative burdens of English counties, as compared with French departments, there was no comparison between the two; and, therefore, noble Lords opposite could satisfy themselves that they had no reason to call for protection on the ground that the English farmer was much more highly taxed than the foreigner. After all, there remained the question—What did they propose to do? Did they propose to restore protection? Did they propose to give a fixed duty? because if they proposed a fixed duty so high as to exclude, they would increase the price of food; and if they proposed a duty so low as to admit, they would not protect. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) did not exactly understand what was the nature of the duty which the noble Earl opposite would propose; but he might conclude from his speech that he would propose some duty which would be of the character of a duty which should serve for the purpose of revenue. If it were a low duty for the purpose of revenue, they could not protect. If, on the contrary, they proposed such a high duty as would secure protection, then they would have to answer for having raised the price of food on the whole population of this country. Such a change as that would be an experiment in which he did not believe the noble Lord at the head of the protectionists would be prepared to engage. He did not believe he would undertake the task of proposing a duty of 8s. on foreign corn to be paid by the inhabitants of this country. He had too much confidence in him to believe that the noble Lord had any idea of proposing such a tax. His belief was, that whatever course they might take in this House—whatever course might be taken in another House, his belief was that they would not have any proposal made for any protective duty on foreign corn. He believed it was the opinion of leading persons in other places, that it would be vain to make any such proposal, and that the noble Lord opposite would not be prepared to support it before the assembled population of England. He did not believe, whatever might be the result upon other questions that
816
might afterwards come before them—even if the result of those discussions should be to replace his noble friends now on the Government benches by noble Lords opposite—he did not believe that, even in that event, he would see the experiment tried of the people of England being asked from the hustings whether the price of their bread should be raised or not. He did not believe that; and therefore, whatever might be the result of other discussions, he was confident in this one thing, that that would not be the question on which noble Lords opposite would supplant those who now held the reins of Government.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Thursday next.