wished to ask a question of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary with regard to the affairs of China. By the last accounts from that country, it appeared that the Emperor had ordered an official communication to be made to Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary, Mr. Bonham, to the effect that he did not intend to observe the first article of the treaty signed by the Imperial Commissioner, Keying, with Sir J. Davis, by which, at two years from the 6th of April, 1847, Canton was to be open to British subjects. No ground was stated for the objection, except that it was the wish of the people; and by the same account it also appeared that the Chinese authorities had sanctioned the violation of one of the chief articles of the treaty of Nankin, which was as follows:—that the Government of China, having compelled the British merchants of China to deal exclusively with the Hong merchants, licensed by the Chinese Government for that purpose, the Emperor agreed to abolish that practice in future in all parts where British merchants resided. It appeared that the guilds, or mercantile corporations of Canton, had lately assumed the right of issuing a proclamation prohibiting dealing with foreigners, and that a highly respectable man, named Shing-Lee, who was in the habit of dealing with foreigners, had been seized by the Chinese authorities, thrown into prison, tortured, and ultimately put to death; and that several other persons who were in the habit of dealing with foreigners were obliged to make their escape in order to avoid a similar fate. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to compel the due performance of the stipulations of the treaties entered into with the Chinese Government, or whether they thought it more advisable to humour the prejudices of the Chinese people by allowing them to violate the rights which the people of this country had acquired under the treaties he had referred to; and also whether the noble Lord had any objections to lay on the table of the House the instructions upon which Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary had hitherto acted?

said: I know that this subject is one which at the present moment excites considerable anxiety amongst those persons in this country who are connected with the trade to China; but I am inclined to think that that anxiety does not rest upon any solid foundation. It is quite true, that by the existing treaty engagements between this Government and the Chinese Government, British subjects were to have been allowed to enter the city of Canton upon the 6th of April; and it is also true that the Chinese Government have demurred to giving British subjects the enjoyment of that privilege, alleging, as a ground for so doing, that there is such an amount of irritation and jealousy prevailing among the population of Canton of the lower classes, that the Chinese Government would not be able, by the means at their disposal, to prevent outrage and insult being offered to British subjects, which might tend to disturb the friendly relations existing between the two Governments. Her Majesty's Government have not yielded the rights which the treaty conferred upon British subjects. Her Majesty's Government have claimed and declared that they continued to possess the right on the part of British subjects at Canton of entering Canton from the 6th of April. But, nevertheless, the alternative being either to enforce that right immediately by force of arms, or to consent to a temporary suspension of their right, we have thought it more wise and more beneficial to the interests of this country to abstain for the moment from using compulsion to enforce our rights, believing that there was some ground for the supposition of the Chinese Government, and being satisfied that there was a disposition among the lower classes of the city of Canton to insult and attack British subjects. And even if, by the employment of force, the concession we sought was granted, we were of opinion that after it was obtained the privilege was not one at present that it was of much importance for British subjects to enjoy, and that after it was obtained it might lead, by its practical enjoyment, to consequences which Her Majesty's Government and this House would not wish to take place; we, therefore, claiming the right, claim to ourselves to exorcise the right whenever we think it can be done without inconvenience; and the Chinese Government do not dispute the right, but simply ground the postponement upon facts, the value of which we are fully prepared to admit. As to the second question of the hon. Member, it is connected with an agitation which, partly arising spontaneously, and partly very likely created by interested parties connected with that agitation, and which arose in the question pending, whether force should be employed on the 6th of April—there is a combination, I believe, to the effect which the hon. Member mentions. I do not bear in mind all the circumstances; but, as far as I am informed, these were the acts of individuals, and not the acts of the Chinese Government. But it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to exact from the Chinese Government a full and faithful peformance of such of their treaty engagements as it may be useful for this country to enjoy, and among them is the engagement that British subjects should not be restrained by corporations in their dealings with the Chinese. I thought the hon. Member was going to advert to another case, where a sort of modified Hong had been sanctioned for the purchase of Chinese produce. Her Majesty's Government had made representations against this; and I believe that their representations have been successful, and that this modified Hong will shortly cease to be in operation.

wished to know whether the noble Lord would have any objection to lay upon the table the instructions given to Her Majesty's representative in China?

said, he must decline to do that. It was evident that, at present, when representations were being made to the Chinese Government, it would not be expedient to make those instructions public.

Subject dropped.

Sir, it will be convenient that I should make now a statement of the progress of public business, before moving the orders of the day. I will first notice the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. That Bill having gone through Com- mittee, and several additional clauses having been proposed and added to it, I propose that the House should sit at twelve To-morrow for the purpose of continuing and concluding the progress of that Bill through Committee. I shall propose, when it goes through Committee and is reported, that the third reading should be taken on Monday, as I am very desirous that the attention of the House of Lords should be speedily called to this Bill. On Friday next, as I have already stated in a former discussion, we propose to take the Scotch Marriages and the Scotch Registration Bills before any other business. After the consideration of these Bills, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose advances of money upon railways in the west of Ireland, and the advances necessary for the immediate relief of the distressed unions in the south and west of Ireland. On Monday we propose, as I said, to take the third reading of the Poor Relief Bill, and on Thursday and Friday in next week we propose to proceed with the Ordnance estimates and the remaining estimates in Committee of Supply I stated on a former occasion that it was possible we might have to postpone the opening of the Irish colleges which have been sanctioned by Act of Parliament, until next year. But I have received communications from various quarters in Ireland which induce me to think that it would be a very great disappointment to many persons who are anxious to send their sons to these colleges, if they were not opened this year; and it will be necessary to ask for a sum of money in Committee of Supply for the outfit and expenses necessary for opening these colleges. There is another Bill in respect to which many inquiries have been made as to when it will be proceeded with—I mean the Bill introduced for the better government of the Australian colonics. We propose to take the second reading of that Bill on Monday, the 16th, and I will take this opportunity of stating, that we mean to propose some very important changes in the Bill with regard to two points of the greatest importance. One of these alterations is with regard to the tariff which it was proposed to enact in this Bill. We propose to omit that tariff, giving to the General Assembly of the Australian colonies the power of making a general tariff for the whole of those colonies. And with regard to the second point, the price of lands, which we had proposed should be fixed finally by Parliament, we now propose that the General Assembly shall have the power of altering the price of lands when it shall think necessary. The particulars of the Bill will be stated on the second reading; and I trust we shall obtain the general assent of the House to that Bill, which I regard as of the greatest importance to the government of our Australian colonies, and which has been for a long time desired by those colonies. With respect to some other Bills of less importance, I do not propose to give any of them up to-night, or to discharge the orders; but I will put them for a near day, and then I will propose to discharge the orders of the day on those Bills which it shall appear cannot be proceeded with this Session. I now come to another Bill of much importance, the Bill relating to the Ecclesiastical Commission. That Bill is founded on the Bill introduced into this House I think three centuries ago. Great objection was made to that Bill on the part of the late Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops composing the Ecclesiastical Commission, and on their representations I gave up that Bill, and consented to the appointment of a Select Committee, which made a report favourable generally to the Bill, and I have every reason to anticipate the consent and approval of the House to that Bill. But it is represented to me from many quarters, that while the Commission is pending with regard to the leaseholds of the Church, and while there is the Commission of Inquiry still sitting which was recently moved for by my noble Friend the Member for Bath, it would not be desirable to proceed with that Bill. I have reason also to expect considerable opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords in the shape in which it now appears, and I have therefore come to the conclusion that there will be a better chance of passing it to a final and satisfactory conclusion by postponing the Bill to another Session. I do not, therefore, intend to go on with that Bill. Then with regard to another important Bill, the Charitable Trusts Bill, we propose to take a similar course. The illness of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and the importance of the subject, have rendered it undesirable that we should proceed with it this Session. There are, however, one or two subjects of very great importance, on which it is necessary we should bring measures before the House, and explain the grounds on which they stand, and what part of them it is desirable should be passed in the present Ses- sion of Parliament. The most important of these Bills relates to the question of lights and pilotage dues. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is anxious that there should be a morning sitting, in which he can explain to the House his general views and those of the Government on these points, without proceeding to legislate this year for the amendment of the law respecting the mercantile marine. My right hon. Friend proposes that there should be a morning sitting at twelve o'clock on Tuesday the 10th instant, to enable him to introduce this subject to the House. On Monday in next week, the 9th instant, I propose that we should take into consideration the amendments to the Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill. This is a Bill to facilitate the sale and transfer of incumbered estates in Ireland. The substance of this Bill has been printed with the Lords' Amendments, the greater part of which we consider improvements. But there is one amendment of the very highest importance, which it is desirable should receive the deliberate consideration of this House. I propose that this proposition and the Lords' Amendments should be taken into consideration on Monday next. I do not know whether there are any other measures on which it is necessary to state the intentions of the Government. There are Bills of less consequence than those I have mentioned, but which will depend upon the disposition of the House to forward them, and respecting which I do not think it necessary to make a further statement at this period. I trust that at present there will be no objection to the third reading of such Bills as are upon the Paper for that stage.

said, there was one Bill omitted from the catalogue of the noble Lord, with respect to which great anxiety was felt among his constituents—namely, the Bankruptcy Bill. He wished to know what course the noble Lord intended to adopt with respect to that measure?

said, that he had unintentionally omitted to refer to that Bill. He had intended to have stated that it was at present under the consideration of a Select Committee. He believed that there was a very general assent, on the part of the Committee, with respect to the objects of the Bill, and he thought there would be no great difficulty in going on with it in the present Session. There might, probably, be several Amendments to propose, but the greatest importance was to be attached to the principle of the measure.

wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to press forward the Marriages (Scotland) and the Registering Births (Scotland) Bills. There were also two other Bills of great importance to which no reference had been made by the noble Lord—namely, the Public Health and the Police of Towns Bills. He wished to know what was the intention of the Government with respect to those measures.

said, that he should wish to ascertain the opinion of the House as to whether it would be desirable to proceed with the two last-mentioned Bills during the present Session. They were Bills of considerable importance, and Her Majesty's Government would not press them if they found the general opinion of the House to be against their doing so.

wished to ask the Attorney General a question with respect to a Bill which had not excited very great attention, although one of the highest importance—he referred to the Juvenile Offenders Bill. What did the hon. and learned Member intend to do with that measure?

said, that the Bill would contain only a single clause, which he admitted was one involving a principle of considerable importance. He proposed to proceed with it this Session, but should certainly not press it forward during this week.

objected to the proposal of the noble Lord to meet on Tuesday at twelve o'clock. Several Committees were appointed for that day, and if the House met at twelve, it would probably adjourn at four, or half-past four, and it would be six o'clock before it would be possible to get to public business. How could it be possible, in such cases as that, to discuss such questions as that of the Irish Church, or any other important question? He thought it too bad that all the indulgence which the Government had received from hon. Members at the beginning of the Session, in consenting to give up Thursdays, should be thus repaid. Her Majesty's Government appeared to him either to have no conscience, or that they wished to prevent any independent Members from bringing any subject before the House. He most strongly protested against such a course.

wished to ask a question with respect to a subject which he had hoped would have been included in that portion of the enumeration of the noble Lord which referred to the intention of the President of the Board of Trade, with respect to the questions of pilotage and light-dues. He had hoped that it would have been in the power of the Government to have introduced, in the present Session, some measure with respect to the Merchant Seamen's Fund. No doubt it was now too late to have any Bill passed upon that subject during the present Session, as it would require some time for consideration; but if such a measure were laid upon the table of the House before the close of the present Session, the subject could be gone into in the interval of the two Sessions. If a Bill on the subject were introduced in the present Session, it might be reasonably supposed to pass during the ensuing Session; but if not introduced until the next Session, he was afraid that it would not be passed until the year after that. The longer this question was delayed, the greater would be the difficulties of its final settlement.

could not at present say what course would be adopted with respect to the Merchant Seamen's Fund.

Subject dropped.

I rise, Sir, to propose that this House should form itself into a Committee to consider the state of the nation. I do so, Sir, because, in my opinion, great and general distress prevails in this country; and because I believe that that great and general distress has been progressive since the formation of the present Government. The noble Lord and his Colleagues have possessed the Government of this country for three years—have possessed it uncontrolled—uncriticised. They have passed all their measures—they have not had to encounter an organised opposition. No body of men has undertaken the Government of this country heretofore under circumstances so favourable as those enjoyed by the noble Lord and his Colleagues. Such being the case, one is inclined to contrast the situation of England at the present moment with what it was at the period when the noble Lord and his Colleagues assumed the reins of power. I need scarcely recall to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen the condition of England at the commencement of and during the year 1846—of England in all her relations. A profound tranquillity prevailed throughout Europe; and if one of those critical conjunctures which will occasionally occur in the complicated transactions of great States did arise—so great, and so justly great, was the influence of England, that the friendly mediation of this country uniformly resulted in an amicable settlement of the question at issue. At that moment also, our colonies, after suffering great vicissitudes—I will not stop here to characterise them as vicissitudes arising from our own inconsistent legislation—but after enduring great vicissitudes, our colonies had reconciled themselves to the new position in which they were placed, and to the great and almost insuperable difficulties with which they had to contend, so that there then existed in those colonies a quality which, I fear, no one can pretend to discern there now—I mean—hope. At that period, the commencement of 1846, our export trade had reached an amount which never before was attained by that branch of our commerce. At that period those various classes which formed what is popularly called the agricultural interest, were prospering, not so much from the enjoyment of what is called high prices, but from being able to raise from the soil a greater quantity of produce than had been gathered from it for many years, and also because they were sure of a market wherein to dispose of that produce, At that period the state of Ireland, if not entirely satisfactory to those who are its real friends—if it were still the victim of political empiricism, and if the only cure for its evils was still considered to be the sending to it of messages of peace—still was, as compared with its present state, in a condition of comparative happiness. Finally, in the Exchequer there existed a surplus revenue of between 3,000,000 l . and 4,000,000 l . sterling. Now I apprehend that no Gentleman in this House, on whatever side he may sit, will rise and assert that the characteristics of the present period are of a similar nature to those of the time to which I have adverted. European tranquillity and English influence seem to have disappeared together. Our colonies are, many of them, ruined—all of them discontented—some of them are, or have been, in insurrection. Our foreign trade has fallen off, from the commercial year ending with the commencement of 1846, to that termina- ting at the beginning of the present year, by the declared value of seven millions of money. Our once prosperous agriculture is prostrate. Ireland is in a state of social decomposition. And as for our revenue, the surplus of 3,000,000 l . has been succeeded by a deficiency to the same amount—a deficiency which has only been terminated, not by the act of the Cabinet, but by the interference of this House—an interference which I am now calling for upon a much greater scale—while all this time the hon. Gentlemen who were the great prophets of increased prosperity and enlarged national wealth, have absolutely—with a readiness which, however, the exigencies of the occasion certainly justified—forced the Government, although they are its supporters, to reduce their expenditure amid hysteric shrieks of financial reform. Now, there have been times before this when a Member of this House, at a moment of distress and depression, might easily, in comparing the troubles then experienced with the prosperity which had passed—might easily have formed a striking contrast; but there is one remarkable feature of our present condition which never had an existence before, and which no Member of this House could before have availed himself of. This remarkable circumstance is, that this prosperity, the absence of which we now so much lament, and upon which we gaze back with such longing eyes, was, while we were in possession of it, a source of the greatest discontent. While we were enjoying all these advantages we were thoroughly dissatisfied. We were not satisfied with driving the largest foreign trade ever enjoyed, and attaining at the same time a profit: nothing would satisfy them but becoming the workshop of the world. Instead of being content with the English farmer because he produced a greater quantity from the soil than any farmer in Europe or America, we denounced him as an unskilful sluggard. Notwithstanding all the sacrifices which had been made by our colonists—sacrifices which no body of men ever yet bore up under with greater spirit—they were told that they must make still greater exertions. Not satisfied with possessing an ample surplus revenue, and discreetly administering it, we insisted that the tea duty should be taken off immediately. Notwithstanding we possessed the greatest influence in our external relations, and mainly secured the tranquillity of Europe; even that did not satisfy us; and we insisted on having perpetual peace and cosmopolitan philanthropy. What, Sir, have been the consequences of these aspirations? Three years and more have elapsed, and we have upon this table a most elaborate—a most authentic evidence of the condition of the people. I apprehend that hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that the best test of national prosperity is the employment of the great mass of the working population at a fair rate of profitable wages—wages which leave a profit to the employer; otherwise the wages enjoyed by the employed would not have much chance of lasting. The rise or fall of pauperism, then, especially when great fluctuations take place, is the best test of the state of the body politic, especially if we consider the condition of the ablebodied pauper. Now, in this House, where there are so many political systems advocated with such ability and such a redundancy of economic theories, few of us have time to pause and think and take a general view of affairs. We are apt to forget, or rather not to be conscious of, the changes which are continually occurring beyond and about us; and our attention is not drawn to results until they become realised. If we look to the condition of the ablebodied poor in England at the commencement of 1846, and to their condition, as detailed in the last authentic information upon the subject, the result will, indeed, be startling. And here, let me remind the House, that, in the observations which I shall make, I intend to appeal to none but authentic and official documents; and I hope that none but such will in turn be used against me. What, then, is the account given by the Poor Law Commissioners in the report which they have last laid upon the table, as contrasted with the state of things in 1846? The increase in the ablebodied poor alone amounts to 74 per cent. The increase of pauperism generally, taking in all classes who receive public relief, is 41 per cent. The increase of expenditure for the purpose of supporting pauperism is near 25 per cent. On Lady-day, 1846, there was of ablebodied poor being relieved—indoor 85,671; outdoor 296,746: making a total of 382,417 persons. On Lady-day, 1848, that number had increased to—indoor poor 155,879; outdoor poor 510,459: making a total of 666,338 persons. On Lady-day, 1846, the poor of all classes amounted to 1,332,089. On Lady-day, 1848, the number had risen to 1,876,541. On Lady-day, 1846, the expenditure for the relief of the poor amounted to 4,954,204 l . The last report has shown the amount to be swollen to 6,180,764 l . Now, Sir, I say that that statement alone justifies the Motion which I am about to make. When it is remembered that in three years the pauperism of this country, as regards the ablebodied, has increased 74 per cent; that, Sir, is, I say, a fact which demands immediate attention and inquiry at the hands of the House of Commons. I know that there are ready reasons to account for these deplorable results. The commissioners themselves have given reasons, and I refer to them in preference to any which I may hear from hon. Gentlemen. But reasons to account for the result do not alter the result. The stern fact of great depression remains. It was said in the last report of the commissioners, in respect to pauperism, that the sad increase, which they deplore, may be accounted for by manufacturing depression, and by immigration from Ireland into England. I shall consider, in their proper places, both of these important subjects; but the House will be labouring under a very great mistake if they suppose that these results to which I have referred can be explained merely by depression in the manufacturing districts. Here is a table of the Poor Law Commissioners, which contrasts the state of twelve purely agricultural counties, and that of twelve purely manufacturing counties, at the commencement of 1846, with their condition at the corresponding period of 1848. True it is that the increase of pauperism in the manufacturing counties is greatest. True it is that that increase was, of course, occasioned by that manufacturing depression to which the commissioners have referred, and in one great instance, also, by the immigration from Ireland; but, alas! if we examine the returns from the agricultural districts omitted from the consideration of the commissioners, we shall find the result, if not quite so mournful as that relating to the manufacturing counties, still full of alarming import. The average increase of rates from the standard of 1846 to that of 1848 has been in manufacturing districts 39½ per cent; and if I omit from the twelve counties in question that of Lancashire, the chief seat of Irish immigration, the average increase of rates in the manufacturing districts is something under 25 per cent. But the average increase in the agricultural districts during the same period is about 16¼ per cent. In some counties purely agricultural—in Herefordshire, for instance, a district naturally free from those agencies and influences which the manufacturing system is supposed to exercise—the increase is no less than 21 per cent; and in the county of Buckingham it amounts, I am sorry to say, to 23¾ per cent. Now, Sir, a year has elapsed since that period of which we have the last official and authentic information. To form an estimate of the present state of pauperism, hon. Gentlemen must in this debate consult their own experience; but I think that he would be a sanguine man who would, on the whole, draw a more favourable result than that which the commissioners have last laid before us. For if there be, as I hope there may he, some modification of the amount of suffering in the manufacturing districts, what is to be said as regards the pauperism of the agricultural districts since Lady-day, 1848? Such being then the state of the country—such being the condition of the people, as proved by documents of the most unquestionable character, I conceive, I repeat it, I conceive it to be our paramount duty not to disperse and go to our respective counties without inquiring into the cause of this unprecedented—this progressive—decay of the country. I conceive that that is not only a legitimate subject of discussion, but that it is our first duty to come to its consideration. I am of opinion, further, that the form in which I have brought on the subject is a right and proper form. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose has, indeed, given notice of an Amendment on my Motion. Sir, the hon. Gentleman is very fond of giving notice of Amendments—a fondness which the more surprises me, as I have no recollection of the hon. Gentleman having ever succeeded in carrying one. But as Mr. Fox used to say, that in play there were two sources of pleasure, that of losing and that of gaining; I have no doubt but that the hon. Gentleman has, during his political career, enjoyed in its perfection the former source of gratification. But, indeed, my hon. Friend announced, before he heard what my Motion was to be, that he intended to move an Amendment; and from the observations which then and at other times fell from him, I rather imagine that his objection to my proposition is that it is not more definite as to results—that I have not laid resolutions on the table of the House, informing the House of the course which I recom- mend, and of the policy which I approve. Surely the hon. Gentleman must know that the Motion of which I have given notice, is a regular and constitutional Motion, the consequences of which cannot he misunderstood, and the import of which is perfectly intelligible. My hon. Friend was in Parliament when a Motion similar to this was brought forward. I rather think, indeed, that he voted upon it—I refer to Mr. Tierney's Motion in 1813. Therefore the hon. Gentleman ought to have known that it was quite unusual to lay resolutions on the table of the House. Sir, we impugn the policy of the Government—we consider the state of the nation to be alarming, and we consider that state to have been mainly occasioned by the policy of which Her Majesty's Government are the representatives. Wishing, therefore, to challenge that policy in every respect, we have had recourse to a Motion which the noble Lord will not pretend to say is irregular. I am well aware that had our object—our sole object—been the embarrassment of Government, that we might have framed a Motion of a very different kind—one which would have rallied round it a greater number of supporters than at present we can hope for. We might have fished for hon. Members here, and caught hon. Members there. But that was not our object. We wished to put before the country our opinion on the present condition of affairs. If our facts can be controverted—if our arguments can be baffled, so much the better for the party who can so controvert and so baffle. But we believe this to be a question totally independent of a chance majority of the House. We believe it to be a question on which ultimately public opinion must decide, whatever a chance majority may for a time determine; and we believe that, under present circumstances, we are doing our duty to our constituents and ourselves in coming down and in a straightforward manner impugning in detail a policy which we oppose, and in laying before the House and the country the reasons why we think that the present Administration does not deserve the confidence of Parliament. I know that that is not the modish way of proceeding. I know that it is thought by some hon. Gentlemen that the principles of the present Government are very good principles, but that they are not practised by the right men. Now, I have not that degree of self-confidence and complacency in which men more able and more experienced than myself have a right to indulge. I say now in public, what I have always said in private, that if the country is to be governed upon Whig principles, I prefer that it should be governed by the Whigs. But as I believe their whole system to be a pernicious system, as they have identified themselves with a course of policy which is aggravating the distress of the country, and, as I believe it, moreover, to be in my power to prove that these things are so—I give them—I must give them—a frank, I hope not an ungenerous, but still an uncompromising, opposition; and I take this opportunity, on the part of myself and my friends, of laying before the House and the country the reasons why we are thus in opposition. Now, Sir, I have placed before the House the state of the working classes of the country at this present moment. I appeal to that state not only as a justification of my Motion, but as an urgent cause why that investigation should take place which I have now to call upon the House to entertain. I want to know why there is such a depreciation in the condition of the people of England. I want to know why there is such an increase in the number of ablebodied paupers in England, an increase in three years of not less than 74 per cent. Let that be explained. I want to know, too, why there is such a relative increase in the general mass of pauperism, and in our expenditure for the relief of that pauperism. Now, I must make one observation before I enter into that investigation, that the noble Lord opposite may not accuse me of anything like disingenuousness. I shall draw my facts and arguments from the circumstances which marked the commencement of 1846. Now, with regard to the measures which were passed in the early part of that year, the noble Lord is not formally responsible—for, among others, the very important alterations in the tariff. For those he is not responsible, because he was not in power when they were effected; but I take it that the present Government do not shrink from that responsibility—that, in fact, they accept those measures; and, indeed, the noble Lord, in alluding to certain communications with our gracious Sovereign, proved to the House and the country that it was only an accident which prevented him from being Minister in 1846, and from proposing changes similar to those which in that year were actually carried. I will now, then, endeavour to discuss the cause of this deterioration of the people—of this decay of the country. I repeat that I want to know why there is such an increase of pauperism? I want to know why, when we had a right to expect—according to the predictions of persons in authority—not only the maintenance, but a vast increase of our prosperity—I want to know why the result, instead of this, should have been the lamentable picture which I attempted to draw—taking my materials from the records of official authorities? Sir, the first reason I would allege for the distress of the country is—the decline in our foreign commerce. A reduction in three years to the extent of 7,000,000 l . sterling in our exports, hon. Gentlemen must understand to be likely to be the means of producing great distress, and seriously diminishing the employment of the people. I see by official documents laid upon the table, that in the year 1845 our exports amounted to 60,000,000 l ., while in the year 1848 they fell to, in round numbers, 53,000,000 l . Now, I recognise in that diminution of our exports one of the causes of our national distress. I can easily understand that hon. Gentlemen, who may follow me in debate, may be quite ready with various reasons to account for this decline in our exports. We know pretty well, indeed, the sort of arguments which will be brought forward for the purpose. There will be Irish famine—of course. There will be railway investment—naturally. There will also be commercial speculation—at least we have heard of that two or three times; and as for continental convulsions—that plea is always kept for the climax of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before I proceed then with my analysis of the causes of distress, let me notice these usual representations of those who do not believe in the permanency of that distress. Sir, there is no doubt but that the partial famine in Ireland was a great calamity; but the direct consequences of that calamity, however great, have a limit. I do not suppose that anybody will rise and say, "It was impossible, in consequence of the famine, that the peace of Europe should not have been maintained—that the colonies should not have been let alone as they were in 1846—that we should not have driven a flourishing foreign trade—that our agriculture should not have been as prosperous, or our finances as buoyant, as they were pre viously." I admit the disaster, but I deny that the evils which we are now experiencing can be traced to it. I enter my protest against any one maintaining the impossible theory that these various disasters are the necessary consequences of famine in that country. I have not heard much of late of commercial speculation—of the over-speculation of 1847—and recollecting what great changes took place in 1846—because, forsooth, the enterprise of British merchants was so restricted that they had no opening for it—recollecting all that—I am not surprised that the complaint of there being too much enterprise in the character of British merchants should have disappeared. But then great stress has been laid upon railway investment. I need not remind the House that during all that period, when we were called on from time to time to make great changes in our tariff—that during 1845 and 1846, when the country was agitated in favour of a reconstruction of our commercial system—railway investment had been been going on and for a long time—and nobody, out of all those who predicted a time of great commercial prosperity, as certain to arise from the changes in our commercial system, ever told us at the same time that we were actually pursuing a course which, inevitable as these advantages were, would, in fact, unhappily prevent them from ever occurring. On the contrary, our greatest authorities, the Ministers of the day—the authors of the change in the tariff of 1846—were the prime stimulators of the railway movement. Did they not tell us that these investments would operate to the increase of our commerce? They did, and I am now of exactly the same opinion which those great authorities held then. I do not believe that these investments have acted injuriously. I believe it happened in the case of railway investments, as it often does happen when comrades get into a scrape—they get panic-struck, and turn round and abuse each other. Yes, and the middle class of which so much is said—that middle class, who tell us they are the only people to govern the country—why, were they not the authors and originators of the very investment in question? And yet when results occur which they had not foreseen—they turn round and visit upon railway investments the evils which flow from other causes? Sir, I am of opinion that railway investment did not interfere with the course of commerce; and the result justifies that opinion, because no one can possibly pretend that it is want of capital from which commerce is now suffering. Money was never more easy. Anybody, with good security, can have what money he pleases. Mercantile bills are discounted with perfect freedom. No, Sir, it is not want of capital of which we complain. I now come to the fourth alleged cause of depression—the cause so much favoured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that of continental convulsions. Now, I should like to see somebody get up with data, with facts to substantiate that plea; for there is more than one reason why we should look with great suspicion on any statement of the kind. Before we allow that the diminution of our exports in 1848 was occasioned by continental convulsions, we ought to have a statement of these exports in detail laid upon the table of the House. It is indeed really lamentable that the tables of exports in detail, should only come down to the year 1846, knowing, as the Government must know, that in this great commercial country, and in these days of rapid change, hon. Gentlemen can scarcely presume to address the House upon such subjects without minute acquaintance with details. I am persuaded there would be no difficulty whatever in giving us these details at a much earlier period; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, I am bound to say, is always ready to attend to any suggestion for the advantage of public business, will give his attention to this subject. But we have a return of the total exports of cotton goods in the year 1848—the year of "continental convulsions," which caused such a diminution in our exports. And it appears that in the year 1848, notwithstanding the "continental convulsions," there was a very large increase the export of cotton goods. Remember that cotton goods form one-half the entirety of our exports. Yet, in the export of cotton goods there was an increase, in round numbers, of 88,000,000 yards over the preceding year.

made an observation, inaudible in the gallery, having reference to the exports of 1847.

I will meet you on that point if you like. You must admit that the year 1847 was not a year of "continental convulsions." You may account for the exports of the year 1847 as you like—by railway speculation, which you yourselves supported, or by the sti- mulation of commercial enterprise; but you cannot alter the fact, that in the year 1848, when you maintain that our exports diminished upon account of "continental convulsions," as far as we can form an opinion, there was a very considerable Increase in them over those of the year 1847. There is another reason why I doubt whether there has been a diminution in our exports on that account. I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the completion of the returns which were moved for in 1847 by a Member of the House. I am indebted to his courtesy for the account of the entire exports of the years 1847 and 1848, the last returns only going down to the year 1846. From these returns I find this Important fact, that the quantities of goods exported from England have not diminished. I am now speaking of the total exports. We have not yet got a return of the exports in detail to different countries; but here I hold the official return of the total exports of the united kingdom, and I find that, in contrasting this much maligned year 1848, of "continental convulsions," with the great years 1845 and 1846, there has been no diminution in the quantities of goods exported. The official value of the goods exported denotes their quantities. Mark, the average official value of the exports of 1845 and 1846 was 133,000,000 l . The total official value of the export in the year 1848, "in consequence of the continental convulsions," was 132,904,000 l .—nearly the same amount. But mark the significant fact—that the average declared value of the exports of 1845 and 1846 was 59,500,000 l ., whilst in 1848 the declared value of the exports was only 53,000,000 l . That, Sir, is a most Important consequence—a consequence full of instruction; and I recommend the House, and especially the advocates of free trade in it, carefully to consider this result. What is more, I recommend them, if they can, satisfactorily to explain it. Here stands the fact, upon the records of the Government, that the people—the working-classes of this country—for the same quantity of goods they exported in 1845 and 1846, have received, in 1848, six millions and a half sterling less. Perhaps it may be said that in fixing upon the commercial year concluding at the beginning of 1846, and contrasting it with the commercial year concluding at the beginning of 1849, I am taking an advantage of the Government, because we have later information upon the subject. We have, it may be said, the tables of the Board of Trade giving us the commerce of the country for the first four months of 1849, and they exhibit a considerable increase in our exports, or what is called "a revival of trade." I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not ray intention. I merely took the two periods because they completed the year; and I was far from wishing him to lose the advantage of those subsequent tables. But I am bound to say, that in this evidence that has been offered to us of the revival of trade, and of the consequent satisfactory condition of our workmen, I find consequences exactly the reverse, and reasons to make me view the future condition of the working classes of this country with increased gloom. There are, I think, sixty-five articles of export enumerated in the tables of the Board of Trade that have recently been laid before the House. Of these articles I find that forty-one exhibit a great depreciation in price. I find that a larger quantity of goods was exported from this country in the first four months of 1849, than in the first four months of 1848, but that those goods have been exported at a much diminished price. I find that in several articles enumerated in these papers, there has been a slight appreciation. There are also fifteen articles of which the gross value alone is given, and not the quantities, and therefore, as to them, it is not calculable what may be the appreciation or the depreciation. The forty-one articles depreciated were sold to foreigners in the four first months of this year, for 13,040,261 l . sterling; last year there would have been received for them 14,685,080 l . sterling. In the nine articles appreciated, there is au increase in price to the amount of 44,629 l .; and if you take the fifteen articles of which the quantities are not enumerated, and distribute the appreciation and the depreciation according to the relative quantities of the other articles, viz., six-sevenths depreciated, and one-seventh appreciated, there would be a further depreciation this year of 175,118 l ., and an appreciation of 36,715 l . The summary, after allowing for that operation, is, that the exports of the first four months of 1849, which wze were told exhibited such satisfactory evidence, and such complete demonstration of a revival of trade, to the amount I believe of a million and a half sterling, exhibits a positive not depreciation of price to the amount of 1,738,593 l . I will mention two or three of the great items in which this depreciation has taken place. There has been a depreciation upon the cotton goods exported this year, compared with the prices of the same goods exported in 1848, of 646,709 l .; upon the exports of woollen goods, comparing 1849 with the exports of 1848, of 295,217 l .; upon linens, upwards of 103,067 l .; and upon metals, upwards of 426,014 l . How are you to explain these facts? And what is the result upon your own labourers? The result, Sir, is, that the English labourer is now giving more labour to your foreign exports than he gave last year, at the rate of ten per cent upon those exports. How do you account for this depreciation? Will you account for it by natural causes, as you do sometimes in debate? There are those who will tell me that the raw material is much cheaper this year than it was last year. [Mr. BRIGHT: Hear, hear!] Why, the raw material is dearer! I will take the great item upon which the most extensive depreciation has taken place—cotton—in the years 1848 and 1849. If I compare the average price of cotton in 1849, in the first four months of the year, with the average price of cotton in the year 1848, the result will tell immensely in my favour. I will not, however, take advantage of that mode of comparison. I will take the average price of the first four months in 1849, and compare it with the price of the first four months in 1848. I find, then, that in the first four months of 1848 the average price of cotton of fair quality was 4¼ d . per lb., and that in the first four months of 1849 it was nearly 4½ d . One farthing a pound difference in the price of cotton is no light appreciation of value. Yet, even with this increase, the English workmen have been obliged to receive for their labour 646,709 l . less, in money, than they did for the same labour last year. This is a further detail, which I think only confirms the melancholy result which the whole exportation of the united kingdom in 1848 exhibits. Sir, it proves that which I have frequently taken occasion in this House, with their indulgence, to press upon their consideration, namely, that you have made a mistake as to the principle of profitable interchange between nations. I do not believe the depreciation is owing to "continental convulsions." I do not believe it is attributable to railway investments. I do not believe it is in consequence of commercial speculation. I do not believe it is the Irish famine that has caused this declension in the exchangeable value of the English workman's labour. It is the hostile tariffs of foreign nations which you have to encounter, which no policy of yours has yet modified, and which the system you are pursuing aggravates in their consequences. I have often, Sir, taken occasion to endeavour to explain the principles upon which I think, as a philosophic truth, the theory of reciprocity in commerce depends; but hitherto I have done that under all the disadvantages which any one, in an assembly like the present, must endure, who appeals only to abstract reasoning. But now I have practical results before me, unfortunately in the sufferings of the people of this country, and in the decline of our wealth, which illustrate that theory, and prove that those abstract principles are borne out by practical experience of the most unquestionable character. It has, indeed, been said of late that the principles upon which the reciprocity system is based, are incontrovertible as far as they go; but they only apply to a direct trade between nations; and that, inasmuch as the transactions of the world are very little carried on by a direct trade, they are of no influence in the conduct of affairs. But, Sir, in my opinion the critics who are so prompt to make this observation are little acquainted with the theory of commercial reciprocity. It is said, that if we meet with a countervailing duty the prohibitory tariff of Russia, we shall diminish our market in Brazil, for example; and that by submitting to the prohibitory tariff of Russia, our dealings in the produce of Brazil will secure abundance and cheapness. But if we go to the Brazils, British commerce there finds a hostile tariff, as well as in Russia. Sir, I do not understand the philosophy by which we can evade the consequences of a hostile tariff in one quarter of the globe, by encountering a hostile tariff in another. In my opinion, we can only encounter the hostile commercial legislation of foreign countries by countervailing duties; and I believe that a judicious application of countervailing duties occasions, not scarcity and dearness, but cheapness and abundance. Then, Sir, so far as foreign commerce is concerned, I will say that one of the principal causes of the distress of the people of England is, that you have established a new commercial system, which mistakes the principle upon which profitable exchange can take place between nations. The consequence of your having adopted those principles has been to render British labour less efficient, and of less exchangeable value; and the effect of the system must be a diminution of profits and a depression of wages. If you persist in your system, instead of ameliorating the condition of the people of this country, and increasing their resources by the foreign commerce upon which you rely, you will only secure further depression and further diminution, until you reduce our labourers, not to what is the popular idea, so often referred to, of the continental level, but beneath the continental level. The whole scope and spirit of your system is to render British labour tributary to foreign countries: that is the result of contending against hostile tariffs with free imports. I am obliged to the House for permitting me to enter into these details, necessary to substantiate the position which I wish to place before them, and upon which I have dwelt as lightly as I could. It is unnecessary for me to say, that holding those opinions—opinions, as I think, justified by stern facts—I take a gloomy view of the system of our foreign commerce. I cannot look at the exports of the country, stimulated by a system which does not increase, but diminish, the profits of our labouring classes and of our capitalists—I cannot, I say, look upon them as a source of the renovation of the country. Hitherto, in England, when our foreign commerce has been suffering, in moments of depression in our manufacturing districts, industry there has been sustained by what is popularly called "the home market." I have observed, Sir, that a little confusion subsists about this phrase. It is one of very common use; and I have heard different Gentlemen use it in this House the same night and in the same debate, and all appropriate to it a very different meaning. I have, for instance, heard the hon. Gentlemen the Member for the West Riding, in dilating upon the value of the home market, form his estimate of it on the quantity of articles of foreign import consumed by the agricultural classes. He has said, "a million of your peasants, two or three hundred thousand farmers, and a few proprietors, however great may be their consumption of articles of foreign import—what can the consumption of such limited classes be compared with the demands of the dif- ferent nations of the world?" [Hear, hear!] And that has been very much cheered by all the hon. Gentleman's friends. But that is not my idea of what is called "the home market." I do not under-value the power of consumption of the various classes which form the landed interest; but I think it is of great importance we should have correct ideas upon the subject. I will endeavour to place before the House what in my opinion constitutes the home market, and the influence it exercises upon our producers. I shall put it before the House upon a great authority—one with which hon. Gentlemen opposite will not, I think, quarrel—the authority of an eminent political economist; and, more than that, of a professor of political economy. It is that of a gentleman holding a high official situation, who, with great ability, and with a schooled intellect, has generalised upon a greater quantity of data connected with rural life than any other individual. It is the authority of one of the tithe commissioners—Professor Jones. I do not know that this question has ever been put with greater clearness and felicity than in Professor Jones's work upon Rent . He lays it down there as a principle, that what are called the agricultural classes, after reserving from their produce all that is necessary for their own consumption, have left to them for barter with the non-agricultural classes a sum equivalent to 100,000,000 l . sterling. I should think that is not an exaggerated estimate, because it is much under many popular estimates that are flying about. I take, then, the estimate of Professor Jones; and Professor Jones says that, in times of what are called agricultural distress, when the farmers are scared with losses, it is a very easy, a very common, and an almost imperceptible thing, for them, by diminishing the quantity of labour employed, and by various modes of farming, to reduce the cost of production 25 per cent. And he observes that the natural consequence is, in due time, that their production is also reduced in the same rate, and that then they bring into the market to barter with the non-agricultural classes, instead of 100,000,000 l ., only 75,000,000 l . If that be a correct view of Professor Jones, let us see what must be the effect upon our social state from the present circumstances of the landed interest. It appears by the report of the Poor Law Commissioners, that the average price of wheat for the last ten years is something under 60 s .—in fact it is 59 s . 10½ d . It appears by the last return, that the average price of wheat now in England is 44 s . 6 d ., being a reduction of 26 per cent. We are very well supplied, if not early enough, at least ultimately, with correct information as to our foreign trade; and we can, with due research, generally form accurate conceptions of the extent of our commerce. But we have no statistics whatever as to our home trade. We have no information as to what is going on, in homely phrase, "under our own nose;" and it is only by taking general views from these broad facts, that we have any thing to guide us. Professor Jones, then, considers that a reduction of 25 per cent in the cost of production sends only 75,000,000 l . of produce into the market, instead of 100,000,000 l ., to barter between the agricultural and the non-agricultural classes. I have shown you there is depression in the value of agricultural produce at this moment amounting not only to 25 per cent, but to 26 per cent. Well, what is taking place in England? Why, that diminution of the home market, of which we have heard so much, to the amount of twenty-five millions sterling per annum—a diminution equal to half the amount of your whole foreign exports, and independent of the reduction of demand among the agricultural classes for your foreign imports. It is this which has paralysed the provincial towns of the country; ay, more than that, which has filled even this great and wealthy metropolis with embarrassment and ruin. That, then, is the second great cause to which I attribute this deterioration in the condition of the people of England. This is the second great cause which has diminished the means of employment of the great mass of the labouring population at a fair rate of profitable wages. This is the second great cause that has made the ablebodied paupers of this country increase between 1846 and the present time 74 per cent. And what consolation have we for this depression in price, and for this diminution in our home market? It is not pleasing to enter into controversy upon the subject; and I am not going to offer you any arguments of my own relative to it. I will only refer you to authentic tables which I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit without hesitation, and particularly hon. Gentlemen who are going to move an Amendment to my Motion. Here is a table furnished by the Poor Law Com missioners, of seven years in which the price of wheat was highest in England, and of seven years in which the price of wheat was lowest in England; and it appears by their return that more was expended in support of the poor in the seven years when wheat was lowest than in the seven years when it was highest, by upwards of 200,000 l . Nor should it he forgotten, as the Poor Law Commissioners remark, that the sum of money expended when provisions are lowest, argues a much greater amount expended upon the poor than the sum of money expended when provisions are highest. This fact appears in page 64 of the last report of the Poor Law Commissioners—a document worthy of the greatest attention, and containing in it no table of more interest than the present. Whether it be an accidental occurrence instead of an economical law, I pretend not to discuss at this moment, though I suspect, if we entered into the discussion, the result would not be very satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The great fact, however, remains—that, taking the seven years in which the price of wheat was highest, and the seven years in which it was lowest, a much larger sum was expended upon the poor in the latter than in the former years. [Mr. HUME: What are the years?] They will be found at page 64 of the Poor Law Commissioners' last report. The seven years in which the price of wheat was highest were the following:—1839, 1840, 1841, 1848, 1842, 1847, 1838; and the seven years in which the price was lowest were 1836,1835, 1845, 1844, 1837, 1846, and 1843. By the indulgence of the House I will advance one step further in this sad analysis. I have shown you what effect the diminution of your foreign trade has had upon the condition of the people, and what little hope you have of increasing the profits of that trade. I have shown you what effect the decline of the home market and the withdrawal of its beneficial influence has bad upon the great body of the people. I now come to a third cause of the existing distress. The Poor Law Commissioners, in the report to which I have referred, attribute the increase of pauperism in 1848 to manufacturing depression and to immigration into England from Ireland. Now, I ask the House to answer this question—why has there been immigration from Ireland into England? Has it been the consequence of the partial famine of which we have heard so much; or is it not rather the consequence of the policy which the Government have pursued in consequence of that famine? What was the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland when its almost hopeless state was placed before them? The patient was in a state of exhaustion, and the physician had recourse to a system of depletion. Instead of stimulating the in dustry of the country by the sanction of the State, instead of grappling with the question of emigration, for which the occasion was then singularly opportune, all that the Government did was to administer a poor-law, so ingeniously exhaustive in its character that it has succeeded almost in resolving society there into its original elements. It called upon the proprietors of Ireland to make the greatest efforts and the greatest sacrifices, when only a short time before it had deprived the land of Ireland of the surest and most extensive market for its produce. I say it was the duty of the Government, in consequence of the state of Ireland, to have encountered the question of emigration. I say so, because, as statesmen, they ought to have known it was impossible to evade the question, and that the question would arise whatever might be the opinion of the Cabinet. What has happened in Ireland? The question has arisen. But instead of a Government emigration, you have bad a spontaneous emigration; instead of an emigration which, by the aid of the State, would have sent a great portion of the paupers to a land which they might have cultivated, you have had a spontaneous emigration, and only spontaneous because it was an emigration of those who left their country because they were determined to save that which they possessed. I ask you what you think of such a policy as that? Ireland, three years ago, was like a poor man struggling against entering the workhouse; Ireland is now a contented pauper. The demoralisation is complete; and the very individual who three years ago would have accepted a very little aid to have gone to Canada or Australia, now looks upon himself as a recipient for life of the Government dole. He has lost all self-reliance, which it has been the object of your legislation avowedly to create. Then, Sir, I ask you why has there been this emigration from Ireland? In my opinion it has been from the inconsistent and feeble policy of Her Majesty's Ministers. Sir, this is the third reason why the pauperism of England is increased—this is the third cause why there has been a deterioration in the state of this nation. I have now, Sir, sketched—I fear at too great a length, but at the same time with more brevity than so solemn a subject requires—the internal condition of the country, as regards its foreign trade, as regards its agricultural condition, as regards the state of Ireland. I can touch, indeed, but lightly upon this great theme; but there are many Gentlemen to follow me, who, I doubt not, will enter into details, upon a subject of such absorbing interest. But are you surprised, Sir, that when your foreign commerce is declining—when your agricultural interest is severely injured—when Ireland is so misgoverned that she is pouring her paupers into Liverpool like some wild nation that appeared at the fall of the Roman empire—are you surprised, I ask, at the consequences that have occurred? And now, Sir, let me inquire what—amid all those calamities—amid this almost universal suffering, having to support Ireland as a public pauper, with manufacturing depression, and agricultural districts—what has been the conduct of the Government in the management of our finances? Did they prepare for the coming storm? They were left with a well-filled exchequer; they supported Ireland by loans, and therefore that was not a reason why the exchequer should be empty. They met Parliament only a year ago, in the midst of all these misfortunes—in the midst of all these European convulsions, of which we have heard so much—in the midst of the crash of that commercial speculation which they had stimulated—in the midst of the disasters of Ireland—in the midst of all the catalogue of evils which will occur to every one whom I am addressing, they met Parliament. And did they come with any proposition at all consistent with our depressed and embarrassed state? Upon the contrary, increased expenditure was the proposition placed before the House; and, strange to say, increased taxation was the remedy. No Gentleman can have forgotten the financial campaigns of last year—they dwell upon the memory; or if for a moment we forget them, our misfortunes make them perpetually recur. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose has got a financial Amendment ready for to-night. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a school who professed to procure such increased prosperity for England three years ago. My hon. Friend is the loader of those prophets of statistical celebrity who offered their inspired computations for the future renovation of the country—the men who told us that, independently of the great profits we were to receive from the enlarged markets of the world that were to be opened to us, we were to acquire, in sheer domestic economy, at least 2,000,000 l . a week by the repeal of the corn laws. Why, Sir, my hon. Friend ought to be ashamed of himself, to come forward with his potty savings, and his cheeseparing policy, after those visions of El Dorado in which he indulged some years ago. The Amendment is in its very language a verdict against the system of which he has been so long an upholder. How does he describe those great changes of which he was the ardent supporter—those great changes that were to accomplish such certain and such instantaneous benefit? He says that "they have a tendency"—letting the delusion drop with gentleness, and parting from his errors with that amiability always characteristic of him—he says that in his opinion they have a tendency to gradually improve our trade, commerce, and agriculture, but that although this be so, the present state of the nation demands financial reform. We are told that the most rigid economy must be maintained, and that the hon. Gentleman and his party are the only persons who can carry it into effect. We on this side of the House are taunted with not supporting them and their plans. Why, Sir, what we have seen of their schemes is not, it must be confessed, very encouraging to us to follow them. If we had observed their previous plans attended with more success, we might have received their present proposition with greater favour. But I must protest against the hon. Gentleman holding up Gentlemen upon this side of the House as the advocates of extravagant expenditure. I agreed with my late lamented friend, Lord George Bentinck, when he told the House of Commons that if they persisted in these measures, he would support a reduction in the public expenditure of twenty-five per cent. Proceed. Persist in your schemes; let those in and those out of this House decide upon proceeding with those schemes, and I shall support these reductions, not merely as a matter of duty, but as a matter of necessity. But I will not act until your schemes are consummated. You brought them forward as an experiment. As an experiment I analyse and criticise them. You, as an experiment only, vindicate and defend them. I will not agree that they are among—to use the political slang of the day—accomplished facts. I resist them as such; and I believe—I firmly believe—that as such the great body of the people will ultimately refuse them. I shall not therefore join in your plan of retrenchment until the doom of this country is sealed, that is, until it is changed from a first-rate monarchy into a second-rate republic. Sir, I have examined the state of the nation as regards its foreign commerce, as regards its agricultural interests, as regards the state of Ireland and the effects of the policy that has been pursued by the Government towards Ireland, and as regards the conduct by the Government of the financial concerns of the country. I have shown in the last item of consideration that the surplus which they inherited from other Governments has been converted into a deficiency of a similar amount; and I need not again remind the House of Commons that that deficiency was only terminated by the interference of the House of Commons in the administration of the country. I shall now turn to another part of the subject. In former times England was wont to look with satisfaction, as a source of power and wealth, to her colonies. What, now, is the state of those colonies? What change has taken place in our colonial relations since the commencement of the year 1846? The Government, when they were scarcely warm in their seats, introduced a measure to regulate the industry of our sugar colonies. What has been the consequence of that measure? According to the very highest authority—first-rate evidence, the evidence of one of their own friends—one acquainted probably with the state of labour in those colonies better than any individual breathing—one who for forty years connected himself with the sacred cause of anti-slavery, but one who also is a strong free-trader—I mean Dr. Lushington—according to his opinion, and that not an old opinion, not a musty prejudice, but an opinion given in evidence before a Committee of this House a few days ago, and which may be found in the first report of the Slavery Commission of this year—according, I say, to the opinion of Dr. Lushington, the measure of the Government with respect to the sugar duties gave the death-blow to our colonies. What, too, is the language of Sir Charles Grey in regard to the important colony he governs, as contained in the blue book lately arrived, and just delivered to Members? He says that the planters of Jamaica have before them "a blank prospect of hopeless ruin." That, then, was the first great measure of Her Majesty's Government. What effect has it had? It has had this effect—that, according to the opinion of Dr. Lushington, it has given the greatest possible stimulus to the slave trade; and this appears before us, that the amount of slaves at this moment exported from their native country is exactly the same as it was when the slave trade was carried on uninterruptedly by all the nations of Europe. These are facts, and they show that the effect of the Government measure has been to ruin the colonies and stimulate the slave trade. Is this a policy which the people of England are prepared to sanction? Are we—are even the hon. Gentlemen opposite—prepared to sanction and support such a policy? But their whole colonial administration forms the darkest page in the history of the Government. It records alike a fatal policy and a vexatious administration. No sooner have these sugar colonies been ruined—no sooner are they left, according to Sir C. Grey, to the blank prospect of hopeless ruin—no sooner, in the words of Dr. Lushington, has their death-blow been dealt to them—and here, remember, that I am citing only the testimony of Gentlemen who support the views of Her Majesty's Government—no sooner do the colonies, under these circumstances, as the last effort of despair, commit the heinous sin of wishing to accommodate their expenditure to the amount of their resources, a doctrine admitted by the Government, generally speaking, to be the wisest course they could pursue—no sooner have the colonies shown a disposition to act in this wise spirit, than, instead of sympathising with them and encouraging them, Her Majesty's Government appear to have been actuated by only one object—that of counteracting all their efforts, and of finding out in all their suggestions matter for embroilment. Let the House recall the case of British Guiana, and indeed of every colony that has tried to reduce its expenditure to a level with its reduced means. They absolutely became the object of persecution to the Colonial Office; as if the Colonial Office had not enough already upon their hands; as if the insurrections in Canada and Ceylon were not sufficient to occupy their attention; or as if the war at the Cape did not offer sufficient scope for the expenditure of their energies. And were these trifling interests, even in a merely commercial view, with which the Government has thus tampered? I must refrain from dwelling on this subject, and yet I must remind the House, that in the article of calicoes alone—that branch of our commerce for which it appears we are bound to sacrifice everything else—the colonies have taken during the sixteen years from 1831 to 1846 315,000,000 of yards more than all the rest of the world. Sir, I have heard it alleged that we have been, by reason of the course pursued by the Government, happily free from those convulsions which have lately agitated foreign States. But I want to know whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to foreign Powers has not istself been one of the principal causes of those continental convulsions? When Her Majesty's Government acceded to power, they appeared to have adopted a system contrary to that of their predecessors. We suddenly found, Sir, Her Majesty's Government in apparent communication with the discontented party in every State—with that party which is sometimes called the Liberal party, but which mainly consists of secret societies, stimulated and organised by an emigrant nobility. What, Sir, was the consequence of this? A great convulsion occurred in Europe. I will not now stop to inquire whether that convulsion in any degree was caused by the policy of our Government. It might not be a difficult task. But all I will say is, that when the hour arrived, and the influence of England might have been exercised to appease the discontents and settle the difficulties which existed in Europe, England was left without the power of so doing, because she was recognised only as the handmaid and colleague of the discontented in every country, who, thinking they were supported by England, took every opportunity of exhibiting their violence and demonstrating their weakness. All the great Ministers of Europe—who, whatever may have been their errors, were at least the representatives of the great principle of order—were treated by our Government as if they had been personal enemies; and the Guizots, the Metternichs, the Narvaezes, and the Colettis, were passed over as if they were of no consideration in the conduct of our foreign transactions. But the most curious thing of all is, that the party with which our Government seems always to have communicated, has never produced a man capable of regulating public affairs. What, therefore, has been the consequence? Not only that the great influence which England once exercised on the Continent could no longer he wielded to preserve peace or to prevent those complications and convulsions of which we hear so much, but Her Majesty's Government appear to have failed in every object which they assumed as worthy of attainment by a Government. I will take the case of Italy as a complete illustration of the principle and the effect of their policy. Her Majesty's Government were so persuaded that the Austrians could not hold their position in Italy, that they agreed that a new Power should assume the lead in that part of the world; and the King of Sardinia was the person fixed upon. Her Majesty's Government were so satisfied that the Pope had only to indulge his reforming schemes to secure his authority, that they supported the reform policy of the Pope. Her Majesty's Government were so convinced that the King of Naples could not hold his own, that they were hunting all over Europe for another King to sit upon his throne. But what have boon the results? Austria is paramount in the north of Italy, and the King of Sardinia is now little more than a humble ally of Austria. The Pope is not in Rome—but the French are. The King of Naples is King of the Two Sicilies still. And now, Sir, with what face could our Ministers come to the Courts of Austria or Naples to tender their councils and exercise the just influence of England, when those sovereigns know full well that it was entirely owing; to their own conduct that they have not lost their thrones—that if the policy of our Government had been successful, they would probably have been emigrants to this country, as some other sovereigns had been before them? We have a fine illustration of how ill-informed the Government were of the real state of Europe, in their conduct as regards Spain, when they instructed the British Minister at that Court to advise the Prime Minister to resign. Here, again, what has been the result? The British Minister is no longer at the Spanish Court, but the same Prime Minister exercises authority at Madrid. Our commerce, it appears, suffers from these continental convulsions. I hear lamentations and complaints about blockades of the Elbe. But when a year ago, I called the attention of the House to this matter, and when I told the evils that must inevitably accrue to our commerce in consequence of the state of Denmark, I could not find a single Gentleman of the Manchester school to support me. On the contrary, when I called the attention of the Government to the subject, in no hostile spirit, but solely to give them an opportunity of exercising a salutary influence on the Continent, and when I said that we were bound by treaties to exercise that influence to prevent consequences which might be fatal to the peace of Europe and to the interests of our commerce, an hon. Gentleman opposite accused me of trying to stimulate a war in Europe. I hesitate not to say that if Her Majesty's Government had then acted as they ought, they might have prevented these blockades. It is difficult, indeed, to understand why they have not long before been terminated. One is almost tempted to give credit to the ludicrous stories current in the German papers as to the mode in which these negotiations are carried on: that a Member of our Government who has this department under his care, and who is a vigilant administrator of the duties of his office, writes a despatch to Berlin so decided, that the most satisfactory consequences must be immediate and inevitable; but then, they say, unfortunately, the same post—I will not say the same courier—carries a despatch from the Prussian Minister in this country, in which he says, "Don't mind the threats of the Foreign Secretary, for his Colleagues are resolved that he shall do nothing." These trifles indicate the temper in which the administration of our foreign affairs is viewed abroad; and really if the story were true, it would explain many things that are perplexing. But, Sir, if I make observations of this kind, Her Majesty's Ministers rise and say—we preserve the peace of Europe, and that is enough for you. And yet at this moment Her Majesty's Government have no influence in any part of the world except at Paris. And that is their great boast. But they have not more influence at Paris than their predecessors had. I cannot, indeed, conceive the possibility of any Government not in cordial understanding with the French Government. It is a consequence of the state of Europe, and of the relative situation of the two countries. I give, therefore, to Her Ma- jesty's Government all credit for cherishing that good understanding with the Government of France which every other Government in this country must and will maintain. But I contend that a good understanding with the French Government, is no compensation for a bad understanding with every other country. Her Majesty's Government, besides having that good understanding with the French Government which their predecessors equally enjoyed, and which every Administration of this country must cherish, ought to be in a position to exercise the just influence of England in every country of Europe. But in what Court or country in Europe, I will ask, are the Government to be supposed now to exercise influence? Every Court in Europe knows that Her Majesty's Ministers have been the patrons and the colleagues of the pro-motors of disturbance in every part of the world. We have encouraged movement in every part of Europe; but the moment the insurrectionary parties acted, and in consequence of our antecedent encouragement called upon us to support them, Her Majesty's Government withdrew. They withdrew from the Sicilian revolters, and they withdrew from what is called the liberal party in Spain. They have in every instance—from what cause I pretend not to divine—taken care not to accomplish that which their words led their friends to suppose they would achieve. I have sometimes listened to those who would persuade themselves that the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government is a bold and fortunate policy; but in my opinion it has been neither brave nor successful. It has diminished the influence of this country in foreign States to an extent that was never known before. It has never in any instance preserved our commerce from the consequences of those convulsions of which the Government are perpetually reminding us, and which they perpetually profess to deplore. Sir, I have now attempted—but more imperfectly than I could desire—to draw the attention of this House to the state of the country in all its principal relations. The canvas is so wide that it has been to me almost impossible to do more than merely sketch the chief features. But I have endeavoured, without exaggeration, and relying upon documents the accuracy of which cannot and will not be impugned, to lay before the House a fair and impartial statement of our position. I will not for one moment pretend that what I deem to be our calamitous condition is to be ascribed to any one particular cause. I am ready to admit, that in the complicated transactions of a great country like this, and in a period of time which in this rapid age of events cannot he considered a brief one, many conjunctures and casualties must occur which the prescience of no statesman could have foreseen, and some of which the power of no Minister could remedy. I am not one of those who look upon the Irish famine as a Cabinet measure. But I am bound to say—taking a general, but I believe not an incomplete, view of the whole course of the Government, and of the events which have happened within the last three years—that I do recognise one predominant cause to which I attribute the greater part of our calamities—and that is our legislation. Some throe years or more ago, as it appears to me, we thought fit to change the principle upon which the economic system of this country had been previously based. Hitherto this country had been, as it were, divided into a hierarchy of industrial classes, each one of which was open to all, but in each of which every Englishman was taught to believe that he occupied a position bettor than the analogous position of individuals of his order in any other country in the world. For example, the British merchant was looked on as the most creditable, the wealthiest, and the most trustworthy merchant in the world; the English farmer ranked as the most skilful agriculturist—a fact proved by his obtaining a greater amount of produce from the soil than any farmer in Europe or America; while the English manufacturer was acknowledged as the most skilful and successful, without a rival in ingenuity and enterprise. So with the British sailor—the name was a proverb, and chivalry was confessed to have found a last resort in the breast of a British officer. It was the same in our learned professions. Our physicians and lawyers held higher positions than those in other countries. I have heard it stated that the superiority of these classes was obtained at the cost of the last class of the hierarchy—at the cost of the labouring population of the country. But although I have heard in this House something of the periodical sufferings of that class, as if every class had not its period of suffering—although I have beard in this House epochs referred to of great distress, as if the instances were not exceptional—I know of no great community existing since, I will say, the fall of the Roman empire, where the working population have been, upon the whole, placed in so advantageous a position as the working classes of England. I speak not of their civil rights, which are superior to those which princes enjoy in other countries—I speak simply of their material position—I say they have had a greater command over the necessaries of life than any population of equal size in any community of Europe. I maintain, that for the last sixty years their progress has borne a due relation to the progress of all other classes. More than that, for the last twenty years the spirit of our laws, and, what is more important, the spirit of our society, has been to elevate their condition. Therefore I must maintain that the position of the English working man was superior to the position of the working man of any other country. In this manner, in England society was based upon the aristocratic principle in its complete and most magnificent development. You set to work to change the basis upon which this society was established—you disdain to attempt the ac complishment of the best—and what you want to achieve is—the cheapest. But I have shown you that, considered only as an economical principle, the principle is fallacious—that its infallible consequence is to cause the impoverishment and embarrassment of the people, as proved by the dark records to which I have had occasion so much to refer. But the impoverishment of the people is not the only ill consequence which the new system may produce. The wealth of England is not merely material wealth—it does not merely consist in the number of acres we have tilled and cultivated, nor in our havens filled with shipping, nor in our unrivalled factories, nor in the intrepid industry of our mines. Not these merely form the principal wealth of our country—we have a more precious treasure—and that is the character of the people. That is what you have injured. In destroying what you call class legislation, you have destroyed that noble and indefatigable ambition which has been the best source of all our greatness, of all our prosperity, and all our power. I know of nothing more remarkable in the present day than the general discontent which prevails, accompanied as it is on all sides by an avowed inability to suggest any remedy The feature of the present day is depression and perplexity. That Eng- lish spirit which was called out and supported by your old system, seems to have departed from us. It was a system which taught men to aspire, and not to grovel. It was a system that gave strength to the subject, and stability to the State—that made the people of this country undergo adversity, and confront it with a higher courage than any other people, and that animated them, in the enjoyment of a prosperous fortune, with a higher degree of enterprise. I put it to any Gentleman—I care not to what party he belongs, what are his political opinions, or what his pursuits in life—if there be not now only one universal murmur—a murmur of suffering without hope. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Oh, oh!] Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be of a different opinion, and doubtless he will with his usual ability favour us with his consolatory views. But, as far as I can judge, men in every place—in the golden saloon, and in the busy mart of industry; in the port, and in the Exchange, by the loom, or by the plough, every man says, "I suffer, and I see no hope." I was reminded the other day when reading a passage in the works of the greatest of Roman statesmen, of the truth that the present is only the reproduction of the past. It would, perhaps, be pedantic in me to quote the passage to the House, who are well acquainted with it; but it is where Cicero tells Atticus, in the last years of that great epoch when he flourished, that a new disease had fallen upon the State; that the State is dying of a new disease; that men of all conditions joined in denouncing everything that was done; that they complained, grieved, openly lamented; that complaint was universal, but that no remedy was proposed by any one; and he says that there is a general idea that resistance, without some fatal struggle was impossible, although it were resistance against that which all disapproved; and that the only limit of concession appeared to be the death of the republic. I think the passage runs somewhat thus:—

"Nunc quidam novo quodam morbo civitas moritur, et cum omnes ea quæ sunt acta, improbent, querantur, doleant, apertcque loquuntur et tam clare gemunt, tamen medicina nulla afferatur, neque resisti sine internecione posse arbitramur, nee finis cedendi videmus, præter exitium."

I know not what profit there may he in the study of history, what value in the sayings of wise men, or in the recorded experience of the past, if it be not to guide and instruct us in the present. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield seemed by his observation to think that we share the lot of those who are suffering under that disease which Cicero describes as afflicting the commonwealth, and that we are not prepared to offer any remedy. He mistakes us. It is because I wish to offer a remedy that I have presumed to call upon the House of Commons to-day to exercise the highest privilege with which the constitution has invested it. It is because I wish to offer a remedy that I place in your hands, Sir, the resolution I now propose; because I believe in my conscience that it is the best and surest means to save a suffering people, and to sustain a falling country.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the state of the Nation."

rose and said:

I was in expectation that my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would have risen to move the Amendment of which he has given notice. It is the usual course, when a Gentleman has given notice of an Amendment on such an occasion as this, that he should—as indeed the hon. Member himself did on a former Motion made by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire—rise immediately after the original proposition has been made, and state his Amendment to the House. I hope now that my hon. Friend intends not to move his Amendment at all. I can say in perfect sincerity and fairness of purpose that I recommend him not to do so. I do not urge this course upon him because I underrate, in any degree, the importance of the subject of that Amendment, nor because I think that it would not be a proper subject for discussion. My hon. Friend, however, with the experience which he has had of the House of Commons, must, I think, be aware of the inconvenience of an Amendment being proposed upon a Motion of this description—of the confusion to which it must lead in debate, when more than one important subject is brought under discussion, at the same time—of the unsatisfactory appearance which a debate will bear in the eyes of the country when speeches follow, but are not in answer to each other—and of the misconception which may probably arise as to the result of any division upon the complicated question which his Amendment must inevitably produce. I do, therefore, sincerely trust that my hon. Friend has abandoned his intention of moving his Amendment. In that hope I shall proceed at once to address myself to the Motion and the arguments of the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckinghamshire, with the expectation that his proposal will—as I think it far more convenient that it should—be the sole object of our discussion. The hon. Gentleman need not, I am sure, have made any apology for bringing forward the Motion in this shape. He stated truly that it was a constitutional Motion, that the import of it was plain, and that the effect of its success would be certain. It is a recognised constitutional course, on the part of Gentlemen who consider the country to be in a state of distress, brought about by any course of policy recently pursued, to place before the House and the country their view of that policy, and to put in broad contrast with it that which they would themselves recommend; and neither I nor any Member of the Government, or of the House, can complain that the hon. Gentleman, as the avowed leader of a powerful party, should come forward on this occasion, describing their view of the condition of the country, and should place before the House the remedy which they have to propose.

The hon. Gentleman has said, that he considers the country to be in a state of great and general distress; that those with whom he communicates, be they from the marts of commerce or the fields of agriculture, "suffer and see no hope." He refers this, though somewhat vaguely, to recent legislation. If that be his belief, I say not only that he is justified in making this Motion, but that he would have been utterly unjustifiable if he had not brought it forward. I do not agree with him in the view he has taken of the state of the country; I do not agree in his representation of general gloom and distress pervading every class of society; and I must say that when he came to the conclusion of his speech, I did not see that he had offered much consolation to his suffering friends; for when I expected him to propose some remedy, he said that he had only to place in your hands, Sir, a Motion for a Committee on the state of the nation. I doubt whether the distressed manufacturers (as he represents them to be) or the suffering agriculturists will think that. without some more specific proposition, he has done much in their cause. It seems to me that we must go elsewhere to learn what is the remedy at which he points, though he shrinks from expressing it. I suspect we must go to the resolutions of another meeting—resolutions moved in another place—where the views which the hon. Gentleman has given to us to-night of the state of the country were as fully developed, but the causes to which it was attributed were rather more clearly expressed, and the hoped-for remedy was rather more clearly pointed out. I find that there, too, it was said that the greatest difficulty and distress prevailed in the country—that this distress was to be attributed to recent legislation permitting "the indiscriminate admission of foreign produce;" but the speakers there went one step further than the hon. Gentleman has gone at present—though I apprehend that if we were to go into Committee he would then propose to take that step: they proposed to return to a system of "just protection" against the competition of other countries. If that be not the meaning of the hon. Gentleman, and that be not the remedy to which he would point, a more useless display of his talent and eloquence was never made in this House. It would be utterly unworthy of his party, great and powerful as it is in numbers and character, and in the estimation of the country, if their whole effort to redeem the empire from what they consider a state of universal distress, is to be merely a display such as we have bad to-night of the hon. Member's ability and eloquence, without even a proposition for any tangible result.

The hon. Gentleman has referred, though shortly, not only to the state of this country, but to our foreign relations, and to the state of the colonics. The domestic state of the country formed, indeed, the staple of his speech, and therefore I will advert but shortly to these other topics.

I do not think it necessary to say much on his observations upon foreign affairs; that subject will be more appropriately left to my noble Friend, and indeed I know not what there was in what fell from the hon. Gentleman on this subject, which calls for much reply. He spoke of what he could trace to English interference, if he were disposed to do so; but he shrank from doing it. All I shall say is, that I rejoice in that good understanding which exists between our great neighbour and ourselves, and that the undivided efforts of the Government and of my noble Friend, ever since he undertook the management of the foreign relations of the country, have been to preserve peace. No effort has been left untried on his part to promote reconciliation between contending parties on the best terms which the circumstances of the time seemed to afford a chance of; his unremitting endeavour has been in every quarter to preserve, if possible, and to restore when broken, that peace in which no country is more interested than our own, as none has, through its commerce, a greater stake in the prosperity of other nations.

The hon. Gentleman made some observations upon colonial matters, referring partly to the effects of past legislation, and partly to the conduct of the Colonial Office. I really know no colonial grievances (not referring to those personal and minor complaints which are perpetually made by individuals) which can fairly be attributed to the administration of the. Colonial Office, and not to the effects of our legislation. There are complaints respecting the effect of free trade, of the abolition of slavery, of the attempt to ameliorate the condition of labourers in the West Indies; but these are matters for which successive Governments and successive Parliaments must be responsible. The hon. Gentleman says, that when the colonies found themselves in distress, and were anxious to reduce their expenditure, they were thwarted and resisted by my noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office; but there the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. An hon. Member, whom I see opposite, moved early this year for a Committee upon certain colonies, and read to the House a list of salaries in one of them—British Guiana, which seemed preposterous in amount, and the reduction of which he represented my noble Friend as resisting, because they were upon the civil list of the colony. Will the House believe that nearly all which he mentioned were not included in the civil list, and that the reduction of every one of such salaries was in the power of the assembly? A report from the Committee is now on the table as to Guiana; it is entirely in accordance with the views expressed in this House by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and has been acted on by my noble Friend the Secretary of State. With regard to another colony—Ceylon, an inquiry is still going on, and I will not further refer to it; but even there, the expenditure has been reduced to the extent of 60,000 l . a year. With respect to the third colony, Mauritius, a new Governor has been sent out with instructions to effect every possible reduction, and taxes to the amount of 30,000 l . a year have been already taken off.

But, says the hon. Gentleman, what was the state of the West Indian colonies in 1846, when you came into office, and what has been the effect upon them of that system of free trade of which you are the advocates? I am willing on this point to abide by the test of experience. I am willing to abide by the test of the importations from those colonies. I am sorry that there is distress amongst the planters. I regret the suffering to which many persons in those colonies are necessarily exposed in a state of transition from protection to free trade. I think that these difficulties ought to be alleviated, if possible, by all measures short of departure from that system which I believe will ultimately be as beneficial to them as to the consumer here. I think, however, that there are symptoms of improvement already apparent in the diminished cost and the increased amount of production of sugar in the West Indian colonies. I am perfectly ready to have this question decided by reference to indisputable facts; and we have returns upon the table which show them. It is needless to prove that, taking all the British possessions, there is a considerable increase in the importation of sugar. I have had a statement made out which puts the increased importations in the most striking light, far stronger than I thought possible, knowing the complaints that have been made, and that in many instances considerable distress and difficulty do exist. I will compare the years previous to any agitation of the question of free trade, with the years subsequent to the agitation, the early period of the agitation with the later years, the two years ending in 1846, with the two years following. The House will see that the increase of importation in the latter period is remarkable. I am not now taking the entries for home consumption—they belong to the question as affecting the consumer. The best test of the production of the colonies is the importations into this country.

I will first take all the British posses- sions together, and compare the average annual importation from 1831 to 1840 inclusive, before the question of the alteration of the sugar duties was agitated, with the importation since. From 1831 to 1840 inclusive, the average annual importation was 211,000 tons; from 1841 to 1848 inclusive, it has boon 228,000 tons. I will next take the four years 1841 to 1844, before the first alteration of the law, admitting free-labour sugar, and the four years subsequent: in the former period the average annual importation was 200,000 tons; in the latter, 251,000. I will now refer to the British West Indian possessions alone. There will be, of course, a considerable diminution in the importation from these colonies in the period since 1840. They were seriously affected by the admission of East Indian sugar which took place in 1836, as well as by subsequent measures. From 1831 to 1840 the average annual importation from the West Indies was 171,000 tons: from 1841 to 1848 inclusive, it has been 128,000. But if we compare the first four years since 1840 and the last four years, we shall find an increased import; the average importation from 1841 to 1844 being 120,000 tons; from 1845 to 1848, 137,000. To check the calculation, I have taken some of the principal colonies separately. Take Jamaica: comparing the period 1831–40 with 1841–48, the average annual importation fell from 54,000 tons to 32,000; but comparing the four years 1841–44 with the four years 1845–48, it has increased from 31,200 to 33,676 tons. Take British Guiana: there is a decrease, comparing the first periods, of 14,000 tons; but comparing the last periods, an increase of 3,000 tons. Now, this being one of the most distressed colonies—one of those whoso present state of depression has been most urged upon us—let me call the hon. Member's attention to the importation in the two years 1845–6, as compared with the two subsequent years, when that measure of destruction to all our West Indian colonies, as the hon. Gentleman calls the Sugar Act of 1846, was in full operation; in 1845–6 the annual average was 23,635 tons; in 1847–8, 33,458. A similar result will be found in the case of Trinidad, Antigua, and Barbadoes, in all of which there has been an increase in the average importation of the last four years, as compared with the period from 1840 to 1844. In St. Vincent's and Tobago there is a de- crease on the comparison of the same periods, but an increase on the comparison of the importations of the two last years, 1847–8, with the two preceding years, 1845–6. I will not detain the House further upon this branch of the subject, upon which the hon. Gentleman did not dwell at much length.

I come to the main topic of his speech—a subject most worthy of the attention of the House—namely, the state of this country itself. And in going into the question of the state of the country, I shall not confine myself, as the hon. Gentleman did, to the results to be obtained from an account of the state of things nearly a year and a half ago, which he cited to prove that the country is in a state of great and general distress at the present moment, and which, he says, has been progressively increasing from the time when the present Government took office. The state of distress which he states to have existed in 1847 might have been a very good reason for a Motion of this kind then; but the only conceivable justification for the Motion now must be distress existing at the present time. The hon. Gentleman compared the state of the country in the year ending Lady-day, 1847, with the year ending Lady-day, 1848, and he cited the Poor Law Commissioners' report for that year.

I did not take the poor-law report for the year ending Lady-day, 1847, but 1846; I wished to contrast the present state of the country with its state at the commencement of 1846.

I have no desire to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman; I understood him to refer to two consecutive years; but it is quite immaterial to my argument to which of the former years he referred as his year of comparative prosperity. The year to which he referred for his proof of distress was certainly the year ending at Lady-day, 1848—that is, speaking generally, the year 1847. In referring to the main causes of the distress of that year, and the increased amount expended for the relief of the poor up to Lady-day, 1848, he said that it had been attributed principally to the commercial distress, partly to the Irish immigration. He did not think that these circumstances were sufficient to account for it, and he left it to be inferred, that the only possible cause for it was our recent commercial legislation. But the hon. Gentleman overlooked altogether the circumstance of the extraordinarily high price of corn in that year. It is no wonder that the labouring classes were in distress when corn was at 69 s . I must, however, beg the attention of the House whilst I attempt to test the hon. Gentleman's principles by the views which he has now expressed, and the undisputed facts of the year which he himself has referred to. He is disposed to consider as of little value the foreign market for our produce, and to attach importance only to the home market. The hon. Gentleman, and the party of which he is the leader, would have us believe that the home market is that upon which our trade mainly depends, as well as that the prosperity of the agriculturists depends upon a high price for corn. According to these principles, there has not for some time past been a year in which the home trade ought to have been so good, manufactures so flourishing, and the labouring men so well off, as in the year ending Lady-day, 1848. If these principles be sound, the year to which he points as one of extraordinary distress, ought to have been one of unprecedented prosperity. The average price of wheat for the year 1847 was 69 s . 9 d . The farmers ought, therefore, to have been well off, the home market ought to have been remarkably good, and, according to the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman, our manufactures and trade, and, indeed, the whole country, ought to have been flourishing. Yet the very reverse of all this was the case, and the distress in this very year is the ground on which he rests his present Motion. It will be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to reconcile his principles and his facts. I, on the contrary, who believe that a low price of corn contributes to the comfort of the labourer, am under no such difficulty; if I were to trace the causes of the distress of 1847, I should refer to the causes already mentioned—to the commercial distress which prevailed, and to the high price of corn, which must, in no inconsiderable degree, have affected the condition of the labourer.

It is not a little remarkable, that the main ground on which the hon. Gentleman rested his proof of present distress, was the state of the country during a period which ended fifteen months ago, and I do not think that he has been very happy in his reference to that year.

I now come to what is more material, the state of the country at the present time. The hon. Gentleman says, that he has communicated with persons in all parts of the country, and that he can hear nothing but complaints of distress. I should like to learn from the hon. Gentleman whence these complaints of all-pervading distress have come. I also have been making inquiries in different parts of the country, as it was my duty to do, after the hon. Gentleman gave notice of his Motion, and I have communicated with people in almost every part of the country. I have formed my conclusions from the result of those inquiries. I do not say that the whole country, and every interest in it, are in a state of prosperity. There are some branches of trade which are suffering, and there is, in some parts of England, in the south, and the south-west especially, considerable and severe distress. But I must say that, after what we have gone through—after the difficulties caused by a time of almost unexampled depression—after four years of a failure of food in Ireland, and in the midst of that which is certainly the fact, although the hon. Gentleman is very much disposed to deny it, namely, the injurious effect upon our trade of the state of the Continent, it is not wonderful that distress should prevail to a considerable extent. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the interruption of our continental trade is of little consequence. I will appeal on this point to persons conversant with our manufacturing and commercial towns. I do not see the hon. Member for Hull in the House, who could confirm what I say; but there is, I believe, this very day, a meeting of the people of Hull for the purpose of promoting a subscription in favour of those persons in that town and neighbourhood who have been thrown out of employment in consequence of the Danish blockade.

I will now, however, state the result of the inquiries I have made as to the actual condition of things in nearly every part of the country; and I will, in the first instance, direct the attention of the House to those facts about which there is likely to be the least dispute. I will take, first, the condition of our manufactures, reserving to a later period the state of the agricultural interest. I find, then, from those parties of whom I have inquired as to the state of the wool trade in Wiltshire, that the fine wool-mills about Trowbridge never were better employed; indeed they have not been so fully employed for some time past; that employment is abundant at Bradford as well as at Trowbridge, and the factories are now in good work. I will mention here a curious circumatance, which shows the effect on the activity of trade, which is sometimes occasioned by the introduction of new descriptions of manufacture. At Bradford an abandoned cloth factory has recently been taken by a gentleman from a distance for the purpose of establishing a manufactory of articles of clothing, &c. from Indian rubber. At Wotton-under-Edge the mills are at full work. In one silk mill machinery is represented to be standing for want of hands to work it. Two years ago, any number of hands could have been obtained. At Kidderminster and its neighbourhood all the mills are working full time, which has not been the case since the spring of 1846. At Norwich, work in manufacture (of which, during six months of last year, there was an unexampled stagnation) is now tolerably brisk. As to Birmingham and its neighbourhood, I have received information which does not represent the state of that town and the adjacent district as being very prosperous. The iron trade and the hardware trade generally, I am bound to say, have fallen off to some extent. I have already said, that some trades are in a prosperous state, and some are not; and in Birmingham there are branches of industry which are of the latter description. But even in Birmingham there is a diminution in the number of paupers in the workhouses, and in the weekly expenses for outdoor relief. I find that in Birmingham and Aston, the average number of indoor paupers in the midsummer quarter of 1848, was 1,292; and only 1,204 in the corresponding quarter of 1849. The average weekly expense for outdoor relief was, in the same quarter in 1848, 626 l .; and in 1849, 603 l At Leicester, the operatives in the framework knitting manufactures have, within the last six months, obtained an advance of their wages, and their general condition has not been so favourable for several years past as at the present moment. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that the point to which we ought to look more than to any other, is the condition of the labouring classes of the country. They form the great body of the people; they are the parties to the promotion of whose interest the attention of Government, and the legislation of this House, ought to be principally directed; and I agree with him in thinking that their condition is the very best test of the prosperity or otherwise of the country.

In order, therefore, to assist the House in arriving at a sound conclusion as to the state of the working classes, I will take the amount expended for indoor and outdoor relief in four unions in the neighbourhood of Leicester, in the corresponding months of 1848 and 1849. The indoor paupers in the unions of Barrow-on-Soar, Hinckley, Leicester, and Loughborough, were, in the midsummer quarter of 1848, 1,157; and in the same period of 1849, 822; showing a decrease of 335. The average weekly expenditure for outdoor relief during the same period was, at Barrow, in 1848, 96 l .; this year, 81 l . At Hinckley-, in 1848, 81 l .; this year, 70 l . At Leicester, in 1848, 480 l .; this year, 262 l .; and at Loughborough, in 1848, 86 l .; this year, 78 l . Now, these are facts which are beyond dispute, and not the opinions of informants, to which the hon. Gentleman seems disposed to attach but little value. If the state of our artisans and manufacturers is such as the hon. Gentleman represents it to be, is it credible that this diminution could have taken place in the expenditure in these unions both in the workhouse expenditure and on account of outdoor relief?

I now come to Nottingham, and there my information not only states facts, but states the causes of those facts, which are, though the hon. Gentleman will not allow it, to be traced to our recent legislation. I am told that— anything which the hon. Gentleman has said, utterly unsupportcd by any facts which he has been able to bring forward of a later date than fifteen months ago. I will here, however, make one observation, in reference to the possible argument that may be derived from the amount of wages paid to the working classes at present, and that is, that in comparing the wages paid to certain classes of workmen now with what they were three or four years ago, the reduction of the hours of labour caused by the Factory Act must be taken into consideration. I will not give an opinion upon the provisions of that Act. It is not necessary that I should do so; but many of those Gentlemen who argued in favour of that measure, constantly maintained that the same amount of wages would be paid for a less amount of labour. That was a statement which I should have thought that no person of common understanding could believe, and the result has proved that the reverse is true. We cannot expect to find the same wages given for ten hours' work as for twelve; or that no higher wages were paid in the week when there were sixty-nine hours, than now, when there are only fifty-eight hours of labour. I give no opinion whether that measure was right or wrong; but I say that hon. Gentleman must not compare the weekly amount of wages paid before the passing of the Factory Act, and those paid now, without considering the consequences which have arisen from the passing of that law. The gross amount of wages paid affords, however, no bad criterion of the receipts of the working classes as a body. I will first take the accounts from Leeds. I find, by a letter from thence, that the wages paid by one house in Leeds were, in the first five months of 1847, 1,493 l .; during the same period in 1848, 1,405 l .; and in the same period in 1849, 2,042 l . The number of persons to whom outdoor relief was given in the four weeks in May, at Leeds, was, in—

These figures show a diminution of the persons receiving relief of between 2,000 and 3,000—a most decisive proof of the improvement in the state of the labouring classes. The last circumstance which I shall mention in connexion with Leeds is the amount of deposits and withdrawals in the savings bank at the present time as compared with former periods. I must observe, however, that the deposits and withdrawals in savings banks cannot be considered, as yet, as quite a fair test of the actual condition of the people, because it is well known to all who are acquainted with the habits of the working classes, that in bad times they pledge their clothes and their furniture in order to maintain themselves and their families during the period of depression, and that the first application of their money, on a return of prosperity, is to recover those articles with which for a time necessity has compelled them to part. But nevertheless I have taken the deposits and withdrawals from the savings bank for a month in each of the years 1847 and 1848. The diminution of the sums withdrawn is very remarkable. From April 20 to May 20, 1847, the amount deposited was 3,121 l; . and the amount withdrawn 4,904 l . In 1848, the sum deposited was 3,182 l .; and the sum withdrawn was 6,878 l . in the same period—this being the year of the Chartist outbreaks—and in 1849 the sum deposited in the corresponding month was 3,404 l .; whilst the sum withdrawn was 3,713 l . At Bradford, another large manufacturing town in the West Riding, the number of persons relieved in the four weeks of May, 1848, were respectively 5,258, 5,122, 5,231, 5,427. In the same period in 1849, the numbers were, 2,135, 2,120, 2,065, 2,110. The average weekly expenditure in the former period was 276 l .; in the latter, 113 l . At Huddersfield the wages paid at Bradley Mills in May, 1847, was 550 l .; in May, 1848, 850 l .; and in May, 1849, 1,300 l . In the Huddersfield union, the males, above 16 years of age, receiving outdoor relief, were, in the four weeks of May—

I will now read an extract of a letter from a manufacturer in Halifax, the owner of one of the largest works in that town:—

"The woolcombers are in full work, and in March last obtained an advance of 8 to 10 per cent on their wages. Factory wages are gradually and steadily advancing; yet, at improved rates, hands are scarce, all being fully employed in this neighbourhood. We are employing about 6,000 hands, fully as many as we have had at any previous period. The advance in wages is by no means an index to the great increase in comfort of the working classes. The low prices of provi- sions enable them to live much more comfortable with the same means. I consider the fall in price of commodities equal to an advance of 25 per cent in their wages, more or less."

In the Halifax savings bank, in the year ending November 20, 1847, the deposits were 15,720 l ., the withdrawals 24,079 l . In the year ending November 20, 1848, the deposits were 12,869 l ., and the withdrawals 25,600 l ., whilst in the period from November 1848, to the 16th of June, 1849, the deposits were 10,159 l ., and the withdrawals only 8,943 l ,

I have gone into these details as to four of the large manufacturing towns in Yorkshire, with which county I am well acquainted, and I might multiply to any ex tent similar statements from Lancashire; but I will not detain the House with any lengthened details relative to Lancashire, as Gentlemen who know that district much better than I do are likely to address the House, and give all the information that can be desired. I may state, however, that in one district of the Bury union, four miles north of Manchester, the relieving officer is now paying 20

"The operative manufacturers are fully employed, and at full wages. Cotton, which in 1847 and 1848 was used only to the extent of about 24,000 bags weekly, is now used to the extent of 32,000 bags—an increase of nearly 35 per cent. While such is the condition with respect to the demand for labour, the wages have kept up. In general terms, wages are the same as they were in 1844; and food, taken altogether, bread, beef, groceries, &c., were never in recent times, as a whole, so low. These circumstances place the mass of the industrious class in a decidedly better position, with a greater command of the necessaries and comforts of life than they enjoyed even in 1836, which was the most prosperous year they ever had in my experience."

The gentleman proceeds to allude to the pressure upon all classes which prevailed some months ago, and then goes on to say—

"From all these harassing difficulties this middle class is now recovering—has, indeed, in an astonishing degree, actually recovered. Industry of every kind is returning to its regular channels; confidence is expanding; profits in the home trade are satisfactory, though moderate; while, in some foreign trades, the East Indian and American, they are unquestionably good."

A similar statement as to the present pe-

"The outdoor relief in Manchester has greatly diminished. In the week ending July 3, 1847, the amount paid was I,488 l .; in the week ending June 17, 1848, it was 908 l .; and in that ending June 16, 1849, it was 576 l ."

I remember that on a former occasion great weight was attached to the diminution of crime, and the good conduct of the working classes, as an indication of comfort and prosperity; and I rejoice to learn from the report of the inspector of police at Manchester, in which there is a comparison of the offences in 1840 and 1848, that whilst in 1840 the offences against the person were 1,420, in 1848 they were 753. Offences against property with violence were, in 1840, 211; in 1843, they were 110. Offences against property, without violence, were, in 1846, 3,454; in 1848, 1,697. Miscellaneous offences were, in 1840, 7,064; in 1848, 3,430. More convincing proof than these facts of general well-doing in these districts can hardly be given.

As to Scotland, a gentleman largely engaged in trade at Dundee, speaking of the linen trade, says—

"During the past eighteen months a very extensive and remunerative trade has been enjoyed in all departments of the linen trade; the working classes have been well employed, and wages of labour have certainly been more than an average."

I hear from Glasgow, that—

"with one or two exceptions, and these not of large extent, all our cotton mills and power-loom factories are in full operation, and working full time. Calico printers are well employed, and there is abundance of employment in the different departments of handloom weaving. Other trades are also in a state of moderate activity, so that there is full employment for all our operatives. The rate of wages is not generally higher than it was last year, but the people are in more comfortable circumstances than they were, in consequence of the prices of both provisions and clothing being so moderate."

There is an increase in the River Trust revenue for the first five months of the two years. It was, in 1848, 21,925

—" the number of applications to the Dean of Guild Court, for authority to execute building operations has been, up to the 21st of June, this year, 103; and, in the corresponding period of 1848, only 78."

From another source of information, I learn, that

—" all the factories, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, are in full work at present. The persons employed are now in a better condition, generally, than they have been in for the last two years, as to the means of obtaining the necessaries of life."

Lastly, I come to the principal seat of manufacture in Ireland; and from thence, too, I hear, that

—" all the mills in the Belfast district, now working, are on full time, and the position of the manufacturing interest is generally admitted to be better than it has been for two or three years. The condition of the people employed, from the cheapness of food at the present time, is certainly more comfortable than in 1847, or in 1848, and there is work for all."

I have now, Sir, gone through all the principal seats of manufacturing industry in the three kingdoms. I have read reports from them all. I have stated facts connected with the condition of the people in all of them; and no one can deny, that those facts show an improved condition of the working classes; that they show that, in many places, the people are employed at increased and remunerative wages, and that even those who have received no increase of wages, enjoy additional comfort in consequence of the greater cheapness of the articles of food, clothing, and other things which constitute the ordinary items of consumption among the industrious classes. It is impossible not to attribute this, in a considerable degree, to the effect of that part of our recent legislation which reduced, or repealed, the duties on raw materials. It must necessarily be so; for who can say, that taking off the duty on raw material, does not contribute to its cheapness, or that its cheapness does not contribute to increase the quantities that are imported,

The quantities of raw materials, imported in these years, were as follows:—

Take, then, either of the two years, 1841, or 1846, which the hon. Gentleman has taken for his period of comparison, and compare the importation in those years with that in the year 1848, and it is obvious that there has been a very considerable increase of the importation of raw materials. Now, the argument is irresistible, that where there is an increased importation of the raw material of manufacture into any country, there must necessarily be an increased impetus given to employment. It would be absurd to contend otherwise, and it would be equally absurd to argue, that when the people are fully employed, they are not in a better condition than when they are only partially employed. To this extent, therefore, it is utterly impossible to deny, that recent legislation has contributed to the prosperity of the working classes.

The hon. Gentleman then referred to the subject of exports, and made use of one of those ingenious arguments which have been urged by others on that fertile topic, which I confess I have never been able thoroughly to understand. The hon. Gentleman admits that there has been a very considerable increase of the quantity of articles exported—the produce of British industry and of British skill; but he says, that the value of those exported articles is diminished; and he further argues, that as the working men have been employed at higher wages, and as, from the increased demand of the raw material its price must also have been higher, the clear inference is, that from the reduced price of the articles of British industry exported, the manufacturers of this country must necessarily be ruined. I will not stop to inquire into the facts, or to criticise the argument of the hon. Gentleman. I leave him to settle this point with the manufacturers; I am satisfied that, even if they give a higher price for their raw material, they certainly will not tell him that they are ruined; and that, though they pay better wages to their labourers, still, in spite of these circumstances, they look with pleasure at an increased and increasing export of their manufacturing produce, and rejoice in the conviction that they are not yet in that state of decline which the hon. Gentleman has depicted, although they may have been exporting larger quantities of goods at reduced prices. But it is a most extraordinary thing, that the hon. Gentleman, who, with his friends around him, generally tells us that they do not attach any importance to the imports of a country, but look only to its exports as a test of its prosperity, did not derive some comfort, in the midst of his gloom, from the very extraordinary increase in our exports which has taken place in the last four months. Instead of what ought to have been a consolation to him, he has only derived from this circumstance further grounds for despondency. As I believe, however, that the House and the country generally will take a very different view of the matter, I will read to the House a list of the expor- tations of the principal articles of British produce for the first four months of this year. I find that, even as respects agricultural produce, there has been a very considerable increase of exports on two articles of British and Irish produce—namely, butter and wool. The comparison in the following table is between the four months ending the 5th of May, 1848, and the 5th of May, 1849:—

The exports of haberdashery, which can only be entered by value, amounted, in the first four months of 1848, to 275,584 l ., and in the first four months of 1849, to 324,466 l There is, in fact, hardly a single branch of English manufacture of any sort or description, the export of which, during the early part of the present year, as compared with the corresponding period of last year, has not increased in a very extraordinary degree. The hon. Gentleman has described the manufacturers to be in a state of distress, notwithstanding the increased amount of exports, on account of the diminished value of the goods exported. But what say the returns of the declared value of those exports? It may be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and the House to know, that the declared value of exports in the first four months of the year 1848, as compared with the first four months of the year 1849, has increased from 15,239,861 l . for the first period, to 16,836,647 l . for the second period; and that, taking the comparison between the first five months of 1848 and the first five months of 1849, the increase has been from 18,944,644 l . to 21,191,937 l . Therefore, taking the amount of the declared value of exports either for the first four, or for the first five, months of 1849, as compared with the same periods of 1848, the increase of exports has been most extraordinary, and ought to be a comfort to those who pay no regard whatever to the amount of our imports, but who consider that the whole prosperity of the country depends upon the amount of our exports.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire next adverted to the investments made in railways. Now, upon that subject I do not mean to retract a single opinion which I have, on any former occasion, expressed in this House, or elsewhere. I think that the vast amount of capital invested in railways in the year 1847 did, in a very material degree, Interfere with the commercial interests of this country. But the hon. Gentleman seems to be under an extraordinary misconception upon this part of the subject—and, able as he is, he does not appear to have taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case. He asks, how it can be that the investments in railways, in 1846 and 1847, produced such an effect, when they did not do so in 1844 or 1845? The simple reason is, that a greater effect was produced in the years 1846 and 1847, by the investments of railways, than in previous years, because the withdrawal of 30,000,000 l . of capital must have a greater effect upon the interests of the country than the withdrawal of 15,000,000 l or 16,000,000 l . In the year 1845, the amount raised for railway purposes was 16,129,809 l .; in the year 1846, it was 37,814,993 l .; and in the year 1847, it was 41,025,487 l ., being an increase of nearly 25,000,000 l . beyond the sum raised two years before. That vast amount of capital must of course be withdrawn from other channels of profitable investment. But the hon. Gentleman is inconsistent in his observations. He has told us that there never was such an abundance of capital as at the present moment—that mercantile bills never were more readily discounted; whilst in another part of his speech, he complained that trade was in a depressed state on account of the decline of our wealth. Which of these propositions will the hon. Gentleman abide by? We really should know on which of these contradictory assertions the hon. Gentleman intends to rest his case. Is it on the falling off, or the increase of wealth? He has asserted both, and I confess that I cannot see how the same conclusion can be drawn from such opposite premises. I believe that our capital is increasing, and that the country is gradually and steadily advancing in wealth; and I think that the sum applied to the construction of railroads in the last year, affords no slight proof of what the resources of this great country are, even in times of difficulty. For in the year 1848, speaking in round numbers, there has been expended on railroads in this country no less a sum than 35,000,000 l .; and since the beginning of this year up to the present time, there has been an additional sum of 10,000,00 l . expended. This seems to me to be an enormous amount to have been withdrawn from other investments in such a year as the last. I am afraid, however, that the calls for railroad shares do very seriously affect many parties throughout the country. There are, I fear, very few persons in the small towns who have not suffered in consequence of their having taken part in railway speculations. I believe it will be found that there has been hardly a firm that has failed, the members of which were not involved more or less in railroad shares. When parties took shares, they probably did so with the notion that they could sell them again at any time, forgetting their future liabilities if they failed to do so. This liability to the payment of further calls now comes heavily upon the holders, and interferes with their usual course of business. My opinion is, that this liability to calls presses very severely upon shareholders of small capital; and we may judge to what an extent it must be felt, from the account of what took place with respect to the Great Northern Railway. I find, from a statement in the Times of the 8th of June, that it was announced at a meeting of the shareholders of that company that the number of shares in arrear was 35,076; that there were actions pending on 6,169; and security for payment bad been given on 2,378; leaving 26,534 shares to be forfeited. The directors had put off the evil day as long as they could On the average, 5 l . per share had been paid upon the 26,534 shares; so that there must have been a loss of upwards of 100,000 l . on the shares forfeited, to the parties who held them; yet they thought it better to sacrifice that very large sum of money than to pay up the remaining calls. It is quite impossible that such a state of things should not considerably impoverish the parties who are engaged in these transactions. My belief is, that throughout a large portion of the country towns the people are involved in these railroad concerns, and that a considerable portion of the stagnation of trade in those towns of which the hon. Gentleman complains, is owing immediately to that circumstance.

I have now given what I conceive to be a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's observations, so far as the condition of the manufacturing districts is concerned; and I think I have shown that the working classes in those districts are not in a state of distress, but that, generally speaking, they are in a state of comparative ease, owing to the full employment which they are able to obtain, and also owing to the reduction in the price of those articles upon which their existence and their comforts mainly depend. I will now turn more in detail to this latter branch of the question.

I will not, at present, refer to the price either of corn or of meat. It is notorious that both of those necessary articles of consumption have been during the spring lower than they have been for the last three or four years; but I will reserve what I have to say respecting them till I come to the state of the agricultural districts. I will now refer to the price of groceries. In 1844, raisins were sold at 48 s . 8 d . per cwt.; in 1848, they were 41 s . 3 d . Currants, in 1844, were 46 s . 2 d .; in 1848, they were 39 s . 3 d . Rico, on the contrary, has risen to a small amount; but it is very much lower now than in the last three or four years. In 1844, it was 15 s .; in 1845, 18 s . 3 d .; in 1846, 20 s .; in 1847, 24 s . 3 d .; and it is now reduced to 15 s . 7 d . These are the wholesale prices in London.

The retail prices at Birmingham of the following articles were— ^*

I have obtained an account of the prices of various articles purchased at St. Thomas's Hospital in a series of years. The information afforded by it is the more valuable, as, from the circumstance of the

^* See Table (as note) following column.

And I will now mention what is a proof of the advantage both to the consumer and to the producer at a distance, of the improved commuinication by railroads. The following are the prices of milk per gallon, in each of the last seven years:—

How many miles from London are these things supplied?

When I tell the hon. Member for Essex, that the milk, in the year 1846 and subsequent years, has been supplied by contract from Romford, and sent by the Eastern Counties Railway, I do not think that he will have any reason to complain on the part of his constituents.

The effect of the reduction of duty upon those articles of consumption which are peculiarly necessary to the working classes is most strongly exhibited by the increased amount entered for home consumption, and that increase may be very fairly taken as evidence of the improved condition of the labouring population of this country, demonstrating as it docs their ability to purchase and consume articles of necessity and comfort. I will now read a comparative statement of articles of that description, on which the duty has been reduced

entered in the year 1841, 1846, and 1848:—

The increase is considerable in the latter year, but it is not confined to those articles on which the duty has been reduced, for the greater the cheapness of such articles enables the consumer to purchase a larger quantity of other articles also, and accordingly the importation of two articles on which the old duty remains, has also increased. The following are the quantities of Tea and Tobacco entered in the years—

I do not know that I need trouble the House with any remarks upon these statements. The effect of the measures which have been adopted by the Legislature in regard to the reduction of duties on the importation of foreign articles of consumption, is very evidently proved to be beneficial to the people of this country, by the increased quantities entered for home consumption.

I now come to the article of sugar, the amount of the consumption of which is one of the best tests of the condition of the people, because it is an article which is mixed up with almost everything they consume. They use it with their tea in the morning, with their pudding at dinner, and with their tea again at night. The quantity of sugar retained for home consumption, the amount of duty on Colonial sugar, and the amount of the protecting duty at the same time, have been as follows:—

showing an increase in the year 1848, as compared with the year 1844, of 101,659 tons, or 42¼ per cent in five years. And this, be it borne in mind, is owing in a considerable degree to those recent legislative measures of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken with so much censure and condomnation.

I will now take another article, respecting which great interest has been felt, but which does not enter so much into the consumption of the labouring classes. I refer to foreign brandy, the reduction of the duty on which it was thought at the time must be most injurious both to the British and the colonial producer. I will read the quantities of foreign brandy entered for home consumption, with the rate of duty, and the revenue received from it in each year from 1843:—

The House will observe that beyond the increased quantity, the revenue derived from Foreign brandy is higher in the year 1848, than it was in 1843, notwithstanding the reduction of duty. I will now read a statement of the consumption of British and Colonial spirits, and the revenue derived from them, which will show that the increased use of brandy since 1846 has not lessened the use of Colonial and British spirits.

Here again is shown not only a clear gain to the revenue, but also to the consumer.

I will now refer to another return, which I consider to be very conclusive as to the policy of those measures which I had the satisfaction of passing through this House, although they were warmly opposed, on account of the utter destruction which they were alleged to threaten to the English distiller, and more especially to the distillers in Scotland and Ireland. I will first compare the quantity of spirits distilled and brought to charge in England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the years 1848 and 1849. I find that in the year ending the 5th of April, 1848, the number of gallons of spirits distilled in England was 5,298,913 gallons, and in 1849, 5,266,432, showing a diminution of 32,481 gallons. But in Scotland, to which country the greatest injury was anticipated, I find that in 1848 the quantity distilled was 8,400,440 gallons, and in 1849, 9,792,665 gallons, showing an increase of 1,392,125 gallons. With respect to Ireland I find that the quantity distilled in 1848 was 6,518,563 gallons, and, in 1849, 8,262,013 gallons, there being an increase of 1,743,450 gallons. I will now refer to the quantities consumed. In England there has been a decrease of the quantity which paid duty for home consumption in the year ending the 5th of April, 1849, as compared with 1848, of 63,092 gallons; but this is mainly to be attributed, I believe, to the operation of the Act passed last year, which enabled Scotch and Irish distillers to warehouse their spirits in England. In the case of Scotland, there has been an increase of 198,658 gallons in the year, and in Ireland an increase of no less than 607,538 gallons, on which duty has been actually paid for consumption. I am inclined to think that the measure which I brought in last year, empowering Scotch and Irish distillers to warehouse their spirits in England, has to a certain extent diminished the amount of duty received up to the present time in this country. The quantity warehoused in England under that Act up to the 5th of April last I find to have been 803,775 gallons. By the Act passed last year, also, spirits were allowed to be exported, on drawback, from any part of the united kingdom; and since then 117,901 gallons have been so exported from the three kingdoms. There was formerly a complaint that Dutch spirits were brought over to this country and warehoused here, with a view to exportation to our colonies, and that our own distillers were denied this privilege. That complaint was removed last year, and there is now springing up an export trade of spirits from this country.

I will now very shortly advert to one or two trades which it was supposed would be utterly ruined by the competition of foreign manufactures. I will first take the trade of glove-making. This it was supposed would be absolutely destroyed by foreign competition—and I find that the other day one of the speakers at the protectionist meeting in Drury Lane Theatre, assorted that it was utterly ruined, because whilst the quantity of gloves imported in 1846 was only 2,292,907 pairs, in the year 1849 the number had increased to 3,039,941 pairs. I thought it my duty to make inquiry as to what had been the actual effect upon the glove trade of the last reduction of the duty upon that article, and I have had put into my hands a letter from a person connected with one of the largest haberdashery houses in London, who is well acquainted with the subject; and in that letter occurs the following passage:—

"I have made particular inquiry into the matter referred to in your note of the 5th, and I am sure you will be pleased to learn that the result is in every way favourable to the views you have always entertained."

[

"The result is in every way favourable to the liberal and enlightened views you have always entertained on commercial subjects, and that so far from the idle fears of ruin, expressed by the English glove manufacturers, being realised by the last reduction of duty, I understand that this branch of manufacture was never in so flourishing a condition as at the present moment; and, notwithstanding there has been a large increase in the importation of French gloves this year, there is now a greater demand for English leather gloves than at any former period. The quality and make of our gloves have also much improved since they were put into more direct competition with the French by the last reduction of duty, so much so, that in some instances none but a practised eye could distinguish one from the other. As regards price, the English compete successfully with the French, especially in lambskin gloves; and, I believe, in this article, would do still more if the duty were taken off altogether. In kid gloves, owing to climate or some other local circumstance, the French have some advantage, but this refers chiefly to the best and highest priced articles, and probably to the pains and care devoted in making them up."

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in the habit of maintaining that nothing but protection from foreign competition will lead either to the improvement of any branch of native industry, or to the advantage of the public. I have shown that they are quite mistaken; for here is an instance in which the effect of competition with the foreign manufacturer has been to improve the home manufacture, as well as to benefit the public. Precisely the same result has occurred from taking off the duty on foreign silk. In 1846, the silk manufactures of Europe entered for home con sumption were 416,299 lbs.; in 1847, 407,3071bs.; and, in 1848, 571,034lbs. The same gentleman to whom I have already referred says—

"Speaking generally of the silk trade of this country, no prejudicial effect whatever has been produced by the last reduction of duty on foreign silks (in 1849); but, on the contrary, a very beneficial one, by bringing the manufacturers of this country more closely into competition with the French, and thereby calling their skill into more active operation, by which the manufacture itself cannot fail to benefit."

I might multiply instances of a similar kind almost to any extent I pleased. [Mr. DISRAELI here made a remark across the table.] The hon. Gentleman says, I may read as many letters as I please. I must say, that I think it infinitely better to read letters from persons practically acquainted with the subject under consideration, than to make statements without the slightest attempt to support them by proof.

I have stated the principal trades which are in a prosperous state. I shall now refer—for I do not mean to disguise anything from the House—to some trades which no doubt are in a state of considerable depression. Take, for instance, the iron trade, which is at present in a depressed state; but I think the circumstances of the time are sufficient to account for it. The iron trade was raised to an extraordinary state of prosperity a few years ago by the enormous demand for iron in the construction of railways, not only in this country, but abroad. That demand, to a certain extent, has ceased; and there having been a great increase in the make of iron without a corresponding demand for it, a certain degree of temporary depression was inevitable. The make of iron has increased in a most remarkable degree. In 1840 it amounted to 1,396,400 tons; in 1843 it was 1,215,350 tons; in 1847 it was 1,999,608; and in 1848 it was 2,093,736 tons. There having been this great increase of production without a continuance of the demand—the demand having been checked by the state of this country and of the Continent—it was impossible but that a temporary depression should take place.

There is another trade which, to a certain extent, is at present depressed—I moan the glass trade. I believe, however, that this also is owing, in a great degree, to the increase in the production of glass which took place immediately after the duty was taken off in this country. The manufacturers, it appears, overshot their mark, and the demand having fallen off, partly from the check given a year and a half ago to building speculations, the result has been a state of depression. I have received a letter from a considerable glass manufacturer, who says—

"The glass trade has been overdone; and, in a former letter, I anticipated that it would be the case, from the too great impetus given by the repeal of the duty at a period of great excitement, and the demand being curtailed from the cessation in building. The admission of foreign glass on very moderate duties is certainly not the cause."

In order to check that statement, I called for a return of the glass imported into this country, and of the quantities retained for home consumption, since the reduction of the duty, and I find that the quantity of glass retained for home consumption in the united kingdom since that time has by no means increased to such an extent as to interfere with the manufacture in this country. Of window-glass I find there was retained for home consumption in the year ending the 5th of January, 1848, 4,694 cwt.; and in 1849, 6,888 cwt. Of glass exceeding one ninth of an inch in thickness, and all silvered or polished glass, of whatever thickness, there was retained, in 1848, 99,841 square feet; and in 1849, 74,806 square feet. Of white flint glass goods (except bottles), not cut, engraved, or otherwise ornamented, there was retained in 1848, 16,399 lbs., and in 1849, 20,366 lbs. Of all flint cut glass, flint coloured glass, and fancy ornamental glass, there was, in 1848, 197,857 lbs.; and in 1849, 409,871 lbs. There is nothing in these quantities of foreign glass imported to account for depression in our home trade.

From our manufactures, I will now turn to the shipping interest. In spite of the alarm which has been raised in consequence of the threatened repeal of the navigation laws, which has now happily been carried, our shipping has increased up to the period of the latest returns. It appears that the tonnage of shipping belonging to the British empire on the 31st of December, of each year from 1845 to 1848, was as follows:—

And, looking to the statement of the tonnage of British and foreign shipping entered and cleared from ports in the united kingdom in the five months to the 5th of June of each year from 1845 to 1849, exclusive of vessels in ballast, I find the following result:—

I will not trespass upon the time of the House with any further details on this part of the subject. I really do not know upon what part of the question, so far as the manufactures of the country go—so far as the trade, and commerce, and shipping of the country go—I say I do not know upon what part of these questions I can add anything to what I have already said for the purpose of negativing the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that all these interests are in a general state of depression. I have stated the wages which, generally speaking, are received in various branches of industry. I have stated the power of consumption which exists in the country, the price of the articles consumed, the quantities brought into consumption, and the general state of employment among the people, and I have shown that in every one of these respects there has been an improvement. What other test I could apply to prove the condition of these various branches of industry I know not; but certainly every test which I have applied produces a decisive proof of my assertion, that so far from their being in a state of distress, they are in a state—it may be of slow, and perhaps, on that account all the more sure—but certainly of steady and progressive improvement.

I come, in the last place, to a part of the subject upon which no doubt more difference of opinion may exist; I mean the state of the agricultural interest of this country; and I regret to say that I cannot give so good an account on this as that which I have been able to give upon other branches of our industry. I must admit now, as I did on a former occcasion, that in a portion of the country, at any rate, considerable distress does exist. I find that among the farmers, in many parts of the country, there exists a degree of alarm, more I think than is justified by the circumstances of the case; and great complaints have been made of the low prices both of corn and meat. As to the price of wool, I believe that, generally speaking, it is higher than it has been for some time past. [ Cries of "No!"] I believe that it will be found to be so, and as I have already stated, the export of wool in the first four months of this year is more than three times as much as it was in the same period of last year. Now, first of all, with respect to the price of corn, I believe that wheat since the 31st of May last, has risen about 3 s . a quarter. But I take the price up to the end of May, that is nearly up to the time when the hon. Gentleman gave the first notice of his Motion. The average price of wheat for the first five mouths of this year was 45 s . 3 d . Now this is not a price at all unexampled in this country. Even under the system of protection lower prices prevailed during the whole of the corresponding period of one year, and for nearly half the corresponding period of the next, namely, in the years 1835 and 1836. But, what have been the prices of corn during the last three years?—the prices in those years have been very different from what they are at the present moment. The average price in 1846 was 54 s . 8 d . per quarter; in 1847, it was 69 s . 9 d .; and in 1848, 50 s . 6 d .; the average for the three years being 58 s . 3½ d . per quarter. Now, if high prices of corn make the farmer prosperous, he has had high prices for a considerable time, and, so far from being ruined, he ought to be in a state of great comfort, because the low prices of which he complains have existed only for a few months. The complaints of utter ruin are not now made for the first time, in June; they were equally made in February, before the period of low prices had begun. If the statement of the farmer being at present in a state of absolute ruin, after three years of high prices, be untrue, then those who make that statement are most reprehensible; but if it be true, what an unsound state of agriculture does it indicate! How little dependence can be placed upon a system which fails on the first appearance of adverse circumstances! The sooner we take measures for improving a system which has led to such a result the better. Let mo, however, refer for a moment to the years 1834, 1835, and 1836. The average price of wheat for the first five months of this year was, as I have said, 45 s . 3 d . Well, the average price in the three years I have just mentioned was 44 s . 8 d . The lowest price of wheat for any week this spring was 44 s . 1 d . In the corresponding period of 1835 it never was so high, and in nine weeks of 1836 it was lower. The lowest duty at any time during the spring of 1835, was 45 s . 8 d ., so that a considerable period of prices lower than that of this year oc curred under a high protecting duty, which hon. Gentlemen opposite regard as insuring a fair price of corn. But whatever Gentlemen may think as to the causes of the low price of wheat, there is no pretence for attributing to the importation of foreign cattle the low price of stock which is as much complained of. I will take the price of meat of every kind for the last six or seven years; and if hon. Members will attend while I am reading it over, they will find several periods at which prices were quite as low as at present. I have taken the average prices in the London markets in the five months from January to May, from the year 1842 to 1849, both inclusive. The following were the prices in those periods:—

Hon. Gentlemen will see that there are several years in which the prices of some of these articles were lower than in this year. I find also that in several years even farther back, the price of beef and mutton has been lower than it is now. I have here the prices of beef and mutton in St. Thomas's Hospital for various periods,

"Prices are again improving, and an advance of from 2 l , to 3 l . on former prices was obtained for good Scots at West Derby market early in June."

I refer to this statement because it seems to me conclusively to show that the low price of meat arises in no way whatever from the importation of cattle from foreign countries—an importation which, I am informed, has latterly been no very profitable speculation. I rather attribute it to the manufacturing distress which prevailed, and checked the consumption of butchers' meat; but as that depression is now drawing to a close, and as in consequence of better employment the means of purchase by the working classes will be improved, I am inclined to think that the prices of meat will be higher than they have been. Indeed the prices both of meat and corn are rising.

The experience of last year affords a curious proof how often the anticipations of those who profess the greatest acquaintance with a subject are sometimes disap- pointed. In all the discussions on the corn laws, the general expectation of those who opposed the change of system was, that when the duty on foreign corn ceased, we should be overwhelmed with corn from the Baltic and the United States. It is very remarkable that a large portion of the supply of wheat received last year came from neighbouring countries, whence nobody expected any supply. In the last eleven months there have come from Prussia only about 490,000 quarters; while from France, which is generally an importing country, we have received 480,000 quarters. From the United States we have received only 538,000 quarters, including both wheat and flour. Now, sufficient notice had been given that the ports of this country would be opened to the admission of their wheat at a duty of 1 s . per quarter, after the 1st of February in this year, and there seems to be no reason why, if they could have afforded to send it at the price which has prevailed in this country, they should not have sent their corn here. From the last accounts as to the wheat in the United States, it appears that there is no great quantity to be brought down from the western parts of the country, nor is there any largo accumulation in the principal markets of the seaboard; and the prices are rising more, it is said, from the demand for home consumption than with a view to exportation. There seems good reason for thinking, therefore, that the exportation of corn from those countries from which so much has come this year, that is, from France, Holland, and Belgium, has been determined, in a great degree, by the circumstances of the times in those countries. I rather think, that the anxiety to realise something for their produce, induced many persons in Franco to send corn over in small quantities at a time to the southern ports of this country; and it is well known that all the sea-ports in the south were supplied week after week during the autumn with French wheat. Neither Holland or France are usually exporting countries, and I do not think, therefore, that any inference as to the importations of future years from those countries can be drawn from what has taken place in the last eight or ten months. It seems, also, very questionable whether the countries from whence the great supplies of corn were anticipated, can send any quantity here, except at a price higher than that which has prevailed for some months in this country.

Another point which we must also con- sider is, how far the average prices in this country have been depressed by the state of the crops in the south of England. Everybody acquainted with that part of the country knows that the harvest of last year was of an extraordinary description. In ordinary times the harvest in the south is good and early. The southern wheat is usually superior to that in the north, because the northern harvest is generally late. Last year the case was reversed. Bad weather came early in the counties on the southern coast; and I believe I do not overstate the fact when I say that hardly anybody in that part of the country remembers so short a crop, so bad a harvest, or their corn so ill got in. There was a great deal of sprouted corn, and the grain altogether was of inferior quality. When such corn is brought into the market, the necessary effect is to depress the average price of the country. This circumstance, therefore, must be taken into account in considering the average price of corn, and also in considering the state of the western and southern counties, where a state of distress exists, which I am happy to say is unknown elsewhere. The last year's harvest in those counties has affected the condition of the farmers, and their distress of course affects that of their labourers. A friend of mine, who has a large farm in Dorsetshire, and who has also a mill on his hands, so that he is at once both farmer and miller, has sent me an account of the produce of wheat from an acre of land on his own farm in Dorsetshire in 1847 and 1848. In 1847 the yield of wheat per acre, was 7 sacks of 250 lbs., and in 1848 the yield was 5 sacks of 230 lbs., showing a difference of 2 sacks per acre, and of 20 lbs. per sack. But when the grain was ground, the difference was still greater. The produce of the sack in the first year was 212 lbs. of flour, and 38 lbs. of offal; its produce the second year was 185 lbs. of flour, and 45 lbs. of offal; the difference in the produce of the sack was, therefore, 27 lbs. The price of flour in 1848 per sack of 280 lbs. was 41 s .; in 1849 it was only 33 s . 6 d . Taking, there fore, the amount realised when the flour came to market, there was a difference of 5 l . 6 s . 7½ d . per acre, against the produce of the crop of 1848. If there had been no difference of prices as between the two years, there would still have been a difference of upwards of 4 l . in the amount realised from the produce of an acre of land. I have received accounts of a simi- lar description from other parties, and there can be no doubt but that the general character of the crop in the south of England was exceedingly bad. It was hardly dry, and how was it rendered fit for grinding after all? No inconsiderable quantity was rendered fit for the miller only by being mixed with French grain, of the introduction of which such complaints were made. It appears, therefore, that the importation of foreign grain was actually the means by which many farmers in this part of the country were enabled to turn to account their own inferior corn. It is not, however, all the wheat of the south of England which is of such inferior quality, for I have heard that this very day 64 s . per quarter was asked, and 62 s . was refused, for wheat in Guildford market.

I shall advert, and that shortly, to only one other cause of the distress in the southern counties, and that is, the produce of hops. The hon. Member for West Kent has been most active and unwearied in looking after the interests of his constituents, and I am afraid that it is too true that among them distress prevails to a very considerable extent. Various statements have been made to me of the causes to which their distress is to be attributed. First, I was told that it was owing to the removal of the protecting duty on foreign hops. But the foreign hops imported into this country have amounted to a very trifling quantity; and this importation, therefore, clearly could not be the cause of the distress. Then I was told that it was owing to the Currency Bill of 1819, that the duty could not be paid, in utter forgetfulness of the fact that, for a succession of years up to 1849, the duty was regularly paid under the gold standard, established in 1819. But the truth is, that for some years there have been large crops; and last year a large quantity of inferior hops was grown. For the three years ending 1845, the quantity produced was on the average 30,000,000 lbs.; for the three years ending 1848, 46,000,000, being an increase of upwards of 50 per cent. There has been no diminution in the quantity of beer brewed; hops have been cheap, and have not, so far as I can learn, been displaced by other ingredients; but gentlemen must not be surprised that the price of their produce should be diminished, when a very large quantity of an inferior description is brought into the market. These circumstances go far to account for the depression in the southern counties of England.

There remains the one question to which, as regards the agricultural as well as the manufacturing districts, our attention ought to he more especially directed, and that is, the state of the labourer. I am prepared to adopt the same test as regards the agricultural as the manufacturing labourer. With respect to the south-west of England, the labourers there are, I am sorry to say, represented to be suffering to some extent from a diminution of wages and a want of employment. But when I turn from Corn wall, Devonshire, Dorsetshire, Somersetshire—I mean the south-western counties—I do not find that the description, which is true as regards that part of the country, is applicable to the state of the labourers in other parts of England. I have made inquiry respecting different parts of the country. I will read to the House some of the communications I have received. They are from persons on whose authority I can confidently rely. In the districts adjoining to those which I have mentioned, and including Wiltshire, and either the whole or parts of the counties of Gloucester, Warwick, Worcester, Northampton, Oxford, and Stafford, I am informed that—

"The agricultural classes, though temporarily suffering from low prices after a series of prosperous years, are better off than they were in 1833–6. The diminished price of provisions has enabled the labouring classes generally to maintain themselves without extraordinary privation."

In the eastern counties of England I am told that—

"With regard to the general condition of the labouring classes, those who are employed are comparatively well off, owing to the low price of flour, which constitutes four-fifths of the food of the peasantry of the eastern counties."

In Suffolk, I believe that where remunerative wages are given, the labourer and his family are as well oft" as formerly. The account I have from Norfolk states, that—

"At the present rate of wages the labourer is better off than he was two years ago, when the price of corn was high, and the men obtained about 2 s . or 3 s . more for their labour."

The next account, from the borders of Essex and Hertfordshire, states, that—

"Cheapness of bread has enabled men to live on a very small amount of earnings. The labourers of this district are always in the best condition when the price of corn of low;" and that "where regular employment is found, the labourers of all classes are better off than formerly."

I hear from the southern parts of Essex—

"Labourers were never better off; our wages, by the day, are 9 s ., 10 s ., and 11 s . per week, which at the present price of every necessary of life, bring them within their reach in a manner they never before remembered, and most of them are in very constant employment in this district."

The account which I have from Nottinghamshire states—

"The average amount of wages of agricultural labourers is 10 s . a week, which, with the present prices of food and clothing, is preferable to 12 s . a week with necessaries at a higher rate. Labourers prefer their present position to that of their usual wages with higher prices."

I hear from Shropshire that the labourers are certainly better off now than for some time past, as their wages continue the same, although wheat is considerably less in price; and the decreased price of this article, of course, is a benefit to them, as it lessens the cost of living. Agricultural labourers, of industrious and sober habits, are rarely at a loss for work. Even from some of the southern counties I am informed that—

"Labourers in husbandry, in employment, may be said at this time to be better off generally than perhaps they have ever been in this country; their food and clothing being at so low a price, and their wages as yet undiminished."

I do not think hon. Members will deny that if their wages are undiminished they must be better off. If their wages are not reduced more than the price of food and clothing is diminished, they must be as well off; and I believe it is only in a few of the south-western counties that their wages are reduced more than the price of food and clothing is diminished. I believe that generally the labourers in the agricultural districts are better off than they usually have been. I fully admit that they may not be so well oft' where their wages are reduced beyond the point I have stated, or where they are not employed. [" Hear, hear!" from the Opposition benches .] Hon. Members cheer as if I had not already admitted this; I said that I would not shrink from dealing with every part of the case. I stated that in almost the whole of the country the working classes are better oft' than they have been for years. I have, I think, satisfactorily proved this to be true of the manufacturing labourer. I state now, that I believe the English agricultural labourer in most parts of England is better off than he has been for some time, owing to the low price of food and of articles of consumption. If labourers are not employed, they cannot be as well off as if they were employed. It requires no ingenuity to discover this. I admit that in the south-western counties they are suffering from the distress of the farmers, which has been produced, not by the introduction of foreign corn, but by the bad harvest they had last year.

The real and important question is, will that want of employment be permanent? I believe not; and I will tell the House why I entertain that opinion. I will not believe, that of all classes—of all branches of industry—the agricultural interest alone—the farmers of our native country alone—will sit with folded arms and see their substance perish. Look what the manufacturers have done. Till the peace, they had the monopoly of the trade of the world. Their monopoly exists no longer. The trade of the world is thrown open to others. They are exposed to the competition of foreign manufacturers. Have they, nevertheless, adhered to all their former methods of production? Have they contented themselves with merely following the footsteps of their ancestors, and executing their work by means of antiquated machinery? Far from it. Look to the new machinery they have introduced; look to the capital invested year after year in improvements of every description. Ask the hon. Member for Leeds how much of the machinery wherewith his father raised his fortune remains in operation now? and he would answer—hardly a stick or a stone but would be found to have been introduced since that time. New mills have been built, new machinery introduced, new exertions made. I do not say that the weak, the slothful, and the ignorant, have not gone to the wall. Improvements in the means of production may, even, to a great extent, supersede some branches of industry. The handloom weavers have, in great measure, been supplanted by the powerloom. No doubt some classes of producers have suffered. But what has been the effect on the great body of the people—on the great body of the labouring classes? Has not their comfort been infinitely promoted by the cheapness of articles of comsumption? Have not the interests of all classes, principally the lowest, been advanced by the improvements introduced into the productive powers of the country? Are we the agriculturists alone to stand still? Is the price of food to be kept up for our benefit when we are deriving benefit from the diminished prices of clothing? Surely not; surely it shall not be that we alone are to be left behind in the race of improvement;

"To the labourer the increase of employment has been threefold; and, even on this small farm, the demand for extra labourers has been followed by an increase in their individual remuneration. This increase of wages, amounting to about one-fifth, with improvements in the labourers' domestic accommodation, is no doubt the natural result of increased demand for labour, and is believed to be generally a concomitant of the increasing productiveness of the soil, and in part a natural reflection of the increasing profits of the farmer. However this may be, it is demonstrable that, if all the arable land in the same parish were gradually brought into an equally high state of cultivation, the demand for labourers would be so increased as to give room for the profitable employment of double its present male adult population."

Can anything be more satisfactory than this account of the effect on the labourer, of the improved system of cultivation pursued on this farm? I do look, therefore, to improved agriculture as the means of giving increased employment and higher wages to the labourer, and I believe as firmly, that the result will ultimately be equally beneficial to the tenant and to the landlord. I am happy to say, that to a considerable extent this improvement has already commenced. I am convinced that the farmers of this country generally are not prepared to stand still, and that they will follow the example—which I am glad to see has been introduced into many parts of the country—of a far better system of cultivation. I need not say how much attention has been recently paid to the rotation of crops—to manures of various kinds—to agricultural chemistry, and, above all, to a large and improved system of draining. These improvements of various kinds have been going on for some time, and are, I believe, extending. This is the true course for the agriculturists of England to pursue, and the true mode of meeting competition from foreign corn; and it is not a little remarkable, that in proportion to the improvement of agriculture is the freedom from apprehension of the results of the importations of foreign wheat.

But let me ask the hon. Gentlemen who profess themselves so anxious to improve the condition of the labourer, what is the effect upon him of the difference in the price of corn? I will take no hypothetical case. I will take the difference in the price of corn in 1847 and during last spring. It is well known that the usual assumption is, that a family consists of five persons, and that each person consumes one quarter of corn in a year. The quarter of wheat in 1847 was 69 s . 9 d .; in 1849, it is 45 s . 8 d ., there being a difference of 24 s . 6 d . per quarter. The additional cost, therefore, of the food of such a family in bread alone for one year, owing to the difference of price of the two periods, would be 6 l . 2 s . 6 d . If then we take the average wages of the labourer at 10 s . a week—not an unfair average in the south and midland districts—the additional price of his bread in the year would be the produce of twelve weeks' labour. If you say that this is overstating the case, I will take the usual allowance of a 4 lb. loaf a week for every member of a family—that is the workhouse outdoor allowance—the difference of price of the quartern loaf in London, between 1847 and 1849, is 4½ d .; and taking the same number in family, the difference would be 4 l . 17 s . 6 d . in the year in the price of bread. Does not this additional cost of his bread make a material alteration in the condition of the labourer? Is it no aggravation of his circumstances so to enhance the price of the main article of his food as to require one quarter of a year more of his labour to make up the difference? It is a consideration serious enough, that by circumstances over which we can have no control, by the circumstances of the seasons, the price of bread may be enhanced to the labourer to such an extent; but are we to attempt to raise it by legislation to that extent? That difference has existed within the last two years—it may exist again. Over natural causes we have no control; but is it to be said that the country gentlemen of England will attempt for our own alleged advantage to raise the price of food, and to take from the labourer, for the additional price of his bread, twelve weeks of his labour in the year? I think it very possible that hon. Gentlemen may not have made any such calculation, but the figures are quite undeniable. Let hon. Gentlemen disprove them if they can. I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Kent who cheers me, whose humanity is so well known, if I were to ask him whether he was prepared by legislation to impose that additional burden upon the labourer, would get up and say he was prepared to do so. Upon those grounds, which were put so strongly by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, of regard for the condition of the labourer—upon the ground of humane consideration for the condition of the working classes of this country, I put the question to the Gentlemen of England; and I hope that in their vote to-night, they will give their answer to the question.

It may be said that I have no right to use arguments of humanity in this House. Though I do not know that true policy can exist without it, yet I am equally ready to argue the question on principles of policy. If there is any meaning at all in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, it is the restoration of "just protection," as it is called. It means this, or it means nothing. Protection means, raising by law the price of the protected article. I resist his Motion, being opposed to any return to protecting duties, being opposed to any legislation for the purpose of raising the price of corn; and I say that the opposition to any such proposal is equally defensible on the grounds of policy, as on those of humanity. I would argue the question with the country Gentlemen of England—being one of them myself—having no interest apart from them, and no wish, when I quit the office which I have now the honour to fill, but to return to country pursuits and the discharge of those duties in the local administration of the country in which country gentlemen are so well employed. I believe that these duties are nowhere so well performed by the prefects and subprefects and paid officers of other countries as by the country gentlemen of England—I believe that they discharge these duties most creditably to themselves, and beneficially to their fellow-countrymen; and not only do they de serve and obtain the esteem and regard of their neighbours, but they acquire those habits and that knowledge of business which enable them to take part in the general government of the country. I think it is most essential that in that general government they should have a large and important share. But in order to maintain such a position in the government of the country, they must possess the confidence of the great mass of their fellow-countrymen; and I ask them, can they expect to possess that confidence if the great body of the people believe that they have an interest contrary to, and opposed to, their own? Do they think the great body of the people will believe that they are the best Government for the general interests of the country if they suppose that—as I once heard a Cabinet Minister from this bench declare—in order to enable the gentlemen of England to pay their family settlements and mortgages, the price of corn must be kept up by protecting duties imposed by law? I do not know whether any attempt may be made to reimpose protecting duties. There are many persons, I know, who most sincerely hold opinions the very reverse of those which I hold myself, and therefore the attempt may in all sincerity be made; but I entertain the strongest confidence in the House of Commons and in the country that no such attempt will be successful—that any such proposal, if made, will be firmly resisted—and that the course of legislation which has been persevered in for so many years, and which has been more fully developed in the last few years. mainly tending to promote the interests of the great masses of our population, will be persevered in to the end, and that no stop in a backward direction will be permitted.

Taunts were thrown out the other day against the aristocratic nature of the Government of this country. In one sense, the Government of this country may be called aristocratic, as it has always mainly consisted—and I hope always will consist—of men of independent character, of independent mind, and independent fortune. I am willing, in this sense, to accept the denomination of an aristocratic Government; but in the sense of a body having interests apart from the rest of the country, I believe that an imputation so unjust was never made against the Government of any country. I do not speak of the present Government, but of successive Governments. Look to the course of their legislation in commercial and financial matters, and contrast it with the course pursued by Governments of a less aristocratic character. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, pointed out the difference between the progressive state of our finances and those of a neighbouring country. Look to the remission of taxes since the peace. 30,000,000 l ., exclusive of property-tax and the corn duty have been taken off—all more or less pressing on the middle and lower, rather than on the upper classes of society. Look to the uniform course of our legislation in these matters. We have removed or reduced, one after another, those taxes which pressed on the necessaries and comforts of the great body of the people. An hon. Gentleman said the other day, that unless taxes were taken off, it was not to be expected that the country would be satisfied by any statements that could be made in this House; but the hon. Gentleman forgot that even in this year 355,000 l . of taxes have been taken off, independent of the duty on corn, by the operation of existing Acts; and if the diminution of receipt takes place on corn, which I have already anticipated, the taxpayers of this country will this year pay upwards of 1,000,000 l . less than last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, in speaking of the expenses of the French Government, said, that in 1820 they were 36,000,000 l ., and that they had in 1848 increased to 72,000,000 l .; that they had increased in that country as the Government had become more democratic. Since that time a statement has been made by the highest authority, showing the effect of the democratic movement in that country in the last two years. The President of the French Republic, in his recent address to the Chambers, stated that, in 1848, the public debt was increased by additional rentes, 56,501,800f.; that the increased charge caused by the revolution was 205,498,428f; that, in spite of the new tax and loans, the deficit of that year was 72,160,000f. This statement applied to the year 1848. In 1849, the estimated deficit of the budget was 25,000,000f., but now it turned out to be 180,000,000f.; the new taxes that were proposed, were not voted; the tax upon salt was reduced two-thiids, and the tax on liquors, amounting to 100,000,000f., has been abolished from January, 1830; so that the prospects of the ensuing year are even worse than the last. I do not think that, as regards financial measures and economical administration, our aristocratic Government has much reason to fear comparison with the most democratic Government that exists in Europe. In Baden the new Government has proposed a remission of all taxes on the land, a progressive income tax, and a national pension fund for supporting all citizens incapable of work. It seems to me, that if measures were to be devised which would inevitably lead to the ruin of a country, they would be those very measures which have been proposed by the democratic Government of Baden, The representatives of German democracy have proposed a system of financial reform which I do not think will meet with much favour from the people of this country.

I have stated, that in the course of the last thirty years 30,000,000 l . of taxes have been taken off, which more immediately affect the means of employment, or the articles of consumption of the body of the people. The landed gentry—who con stitute the majority of the other House, and a large portion of this—have, within the last seven years, taken upon themselves an income tax which presses more heavily upon them than upon other classes of society; they have repealed those laws on which it is said by many that their condition and almost their existence depends. This is the conduct of a Legislature which is represented to be hostile to the great body of the people. I believe that such is not the opinion of the great body of the people of this country; but that they are convinced that, whatever the opinion of any part of this House may be, the fixed determination of the Legislature is to pursue that course of commercial and financial policy which has been so successfully pursued of late years—which the Members of the present Government have always supported before they acceded to office—which they supported when proposed by the right hon. Baronet opposite—and which they have, as far as circumstances would permit, carried on still further, in the last three years. I believe that the people of this country entertain the fullest confidence in the opinion of the majority of both Houses—that they are satisfied that the Legislature has no interest separate and different from their own; and I believe it is that identity of interest which has preserved this country in past dangers, and will preserve it through dangers to come. We have been told that we live in unsettled times. Doubts have been expressed for the safety of our institutions. I entertain no such doubts myself, because I believe that the people of this country are convinced that no class has an interest to maintain separate from that of the great body of the people; that there is no difference between the interest of the peer and of the peasant—of the Throne and of the cottage. This identity of interest is the root of that deep-seated attachment to our institutions which has preserved us from so many dangers, and which, by the blessing of Providence, will preserve us amidst the storms of revolution and bloodshed which are now desolating some of the fairest portions of the world.

Believing this feeling to be the real source of our strength and of our safety, and that it has been strengthened by the commercial policy hitherto pursued, I should deprecate any attempt to reverse our course of legislation as the worst and greatest evil that could befall this country. It appears to me that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman can have no other practical result. The great party of whom the hon. Gentleman stands forward as the leader, believe that the remedy to be applied to the distress which they say has arisen from our recent legislation, must be by a reversal of the course we have taken. Believing then, as I do, that such a course would be fatal to the best interests of the country, to that improvement in the condition of the great body of the people, for which we are all anxious, and, above all, to the stability of our institutions, I hope that the House will come to such a decision as will convince the country that we are not prepared to reverse that legislation, but to go forward upon that which I believe to be the only sound system for the benefit of all classes of the country.

would not advise the House to place much reliance on the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they had no better foundation than the right hon. Gentleman's assertions relative to British Guiana. He said that he (Mr. Baillie) read to the House a list of the officers of that colony, not one of whom afterwards turned out to be on the civil list. Now, it happened that he (Mr. Baillie) had read through the whole of the civil list. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Under Secretary for the Colonies was pleased and flattered by the report of the Select Committee on British Guiana. If so, that hon. Gentleman was very easily pleased, for he drew up a set of resolutions that must have taken him a week to prepare, and which were rejected by the Committee without the formality of a discussion. But he need detain the House no longer on the subject of British Guiana, as a Motion on the subject of that colony was about to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Montrose, when he (Mr. Baillie) pledged himself to prove much more than he had stated relative to that colony, with respect to the question before the House. One thing he thought, at least, would be admitted, that if ever such a Motion could be justified, it would be on the present occasion, for he was prepared to assert, most unhesitatingly, that there never was a period when the condition of the country more imperatively required the anxious consideration of the Legislature. He would set aside for a moment the state of Ireland, and he asked what was the condition of those great interests in this country on which the national prosperity depended? What, for example, was the condition of the agricultural interest—of the colonial interest—of the retail traders and shopkeepers in all our large towns—and, lastly, what was the condition of the great mass of the labouring population, the poorer classes of the community, those for whose benefit the free-trade measures were especially recommended to that House? Were they, or were they not, in a state of great suffering and depression? And if they were, was any one prepared to assert that the Motion of his hon. Friend was either ill-timed, unnecessary, or uncalled for? Various reasons had been assigned for that distress; but of all that could be assigned, the most preposterous certainly was that of the revolutions and changes on the continent of Europe. He could not understand how the agricultural interest, or the shipping interest, or the colonial interests of this country, could be effected by such changes. They must look to other causes, and amongst them they must not shut their eyes to the effect of their own past legislation. He was quite prepared to admit that as an individual Member of Parliament he must bear his full share of responsibility for many of those past acts of legislation to which he had given his support; and he was bound to add, that he was disappointed at the results which had ensued from them; and he feared that they had not tended to ameliorate the condition of the labouring classes, as he had anticipated that they would have done, for if the price of provisions had been reduced, so also had the wages of labour. Let it not be supposed, however, if he were disappointed at the result of those measures, that, therefore, he was prepared to deny the advantages of free trade; but unhappily in this country the people were too easily induced to rush into violent extremes, and, of late, the Ministry of this country had been far too prone to pander to the popular wishes of the hour. Who, for example, denied the advantages of railroad communication, yet, who would not express disapprobation at the way in which the railroad speculations were carried on in 1845 and 1846, not only unchecked, but absolutely encouraged by the Ministry of the day, and that, no doubt, in accordance with the popular feeling of the time? In the same way, he might be prepared to admit the advantages of free trade, and at the same time express his disapprobation of the mode in which it had been carried out by the Government, without due consideration for those interests which had grown up and been fostered by previous Acts of the Legislature. He was quite prepared to admit that the repeal of the corn laws had a great and noble object in view—that of affording relief to the labouring classes of the country, by lowering the price of food. It might have been an experiment not altogether unattended with danger; but a great good was to be gained, and it was worth the risk to be incurred; whether it should ultimately turn out to be successful remained yet to be proved; but he must admit, under any circumstances, that the authors of the measure had a great and noble end in view. But the measures which had been lately passed by the Government held out no such prospects of advantage to the people; for it could not be pretended that the repeal of the navigation laws could have been expected to make such reductions in the cost of freight as to reduce the price of those commodities which were consumed by the great mass of the labouring classes in this country. He never understood why those laws had been repealed, until he was informed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon that the real object was to place the capital on the column of free trade. What he understood it to mean was, to assert the principle of free trade at any cost and any sacrifice, because they were afraid that some reaction might take place so long as any portion of the old system remained in existence. They might depend upon it, however, that such a course would itself, in the end, assuredly produce that reaction which they so much feared. By the hasty and inconsiderate manner in which they had hitherto pursued that principle, they had already brought ruin and desolation on some of our finest colonies, and reduced thousands of people to a state of beggary and starvation, and all by that misapplication of a principle good in itself, which if it had been wisely and judiciously applied might not only have conferred a blessing upon the people of this country, but have been of advantage also to the West India proprietors themselves. Again, was any one prepared to deny the great public inconvenience which had arisen in consequence of the sudden manner in which the import duties were reduced, not only leaving this country burdened with a permanent income tax, which originally was imposed for a period of three years, but leaving, at the same time, a large deficit in the revenue, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to fill up by the application of direct taxation? The great author of this policy, who had dragged the Government at his chariot wheels, however much they might assert the contrary—he meant the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire—he at least was perfectly consistent. He knew full well that the perseverance in this system would, inevitably lead to the dissolution of our colonial empire; he knew well that the people of this country would not long endure to be heavily taxed for the purpose of maintaining large naval and military establishments for the defence of colonies which had been rendered useless and of no advantage to this country, by placing them precisely in the position of foreign countries. What advantage could Canada be henceforth to this country more than if she formed one of the States of America; and how long would the people be disposed to vote for the maintenance of an army there? Depend upon it, the time was not distant when the troops of this country would be brought back from Canada; and the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire was aware, if this system were persevered in, that it would lead to the dissolution of our colonial empire; and he frankly confessed that that was the object he meant to accomplish. He also knew well that the reduction of the import duties which he recommended must inevitably lead to the reduction of the revenue; and he said that that was the object he wished to accomplish, because, by reducing the revenue, it would compel a reduction of expenditure. So far, then, as the hon. Member for the West Riding was concerned, he was consistent, and the measures were calculated to obtain the object he had in view; but they who were prepared to preserve the colonies and maintain the colonial system—they who said that it was not possible to reduce the revenue so long as it was necessary to keep up large naval and military establishments for the defence of the colonies, and that if the import duties were reduced it would be necessary to impose additional taxation, and therefore last year they proposed to double the income tax—they were not consistent, because, whilst they pursued the course which the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire pointed out to them, they denied the inevitable results to which it led. The people of this country were sufficiently alive to the advantages they were likely to derive from the system of free trade which had been accomplished—a system which consisted of unrestricted imports, but of restricted and highly-taxed exports, and they would not consent to purchase it at the cost which was proposed to them. The people of this country would not submit to direct taxation in time of peace, and so Government was carried on with a large deficit in the Exchequer. Such a system would only end in compelling Government at last to plunder the public creditor, as they had plundered West India proprietors under the specious pretext of the benefit of the public; and he admitted that the public had derived benefit from the plunder. Although it was possible that the present Government might not enjoy the confidence of the House, yet, from the combination of parties, and their relying sometimes on one, and sometimes on another, they were able to carry whatever measures they might bring forward. Let them go on then in that course. Reduce the import duties, and add to the direct taxation of the country; double the income tax; abolish the navigation laws, and let our trade be carried on by foreign ships; these were all measures which they contemplated, and the people of England would soon be able to appreciate their values; the time was not far distant when, with ruined and deserted colonies, with broken-down finances, with the burden of the public debt pressing on the direct taxtion of the country, the people would be taught by sad experience the real value of these measures, and to estimate the merits of their authors. Then the reaction which they so much feared would take place; then at last would the tardy indignation of this people be raised against the authors of these evils; they would be regarded as the most reckless and inconsiderate set of men who had ever availed themselves of the power and influence of office to pass laws injuriously affecting great and important interests, and calculated to ruin the finances and destroy the resources of a great and powerful empire.

Sir, I expected from the Motion, or rather I expected to have heard from the speech, of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire some reason for the adoption of what I think is a very extraordinary proceeding. The hon. Gentleman himself must know, and I think he led the House to believe, that the Motion he was about to make was of a somewhat extraordinary character. It is one of those constitutional means which the House possesses of taking into its own hands the business of the House, when, in consequence of various circumstances, the Government, or any other body, gets possession of power in the State, and by the exercise of that power seeks to effect the welfare and happiness of the people. I see nothing. Sir, in the existing state of the country that should warrant this ex traordinary interference with the business of legislation. "Yes," says the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, "I think there is—I will dislocate all the proceedings of the Session—I will come forward with a Motion which shall dispossess the Government;" for that is the meaning of the Motion of the hon. Member, and no other meaning can be attached to it. "I will dispossess the Government of this country, as at present existing, of the powers which it possesses, and I will appropriate them to myself," for that is the meaning which I attach to that phrase which the hon. Member has addressed to me. "I am prepared to take the Government into my own hands." Now, Sir, if the hon. Member does not mean this, he means nothing. He says, "So unwise have been your proceedings, so injudicious has been your whole system of legislation, that I come forward—I, the head of a great party"—and the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I hope, to congratulate him upon this his first appearance as the acknowledged chief of the party—" I come forward," he says, "as the head of a great party, with a proposal, for we have a proposal," which I suppose the hon. Gentleman will tell the House when you, Sir, happen to leave the chair—for, hitherto, with all the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, he has either not been able—or not been willing would perhaps be better—to state to us what it is that he means upon the present occasion. His whole force has been confined to criticism. He has not told us—though I must say, when he concluded his observations, that I thought he was about to tell us—what his proposal was—what he had to substitute for the recommendation of the present Ministry. I was, however, doomed to disappointment; and he confined himself first to the translation of a sentence from Cicero, and then, stating it in the original Latin, leaving us—having himself stated that it would be pedantic—in total ignorance of what his whole scheme of policy might be. I suppose. Sir, that we are here to deal with the great interests of a great nation. We are not here for the exhibition of any rhetorical artifice—we are not here to deal with phases, but with things—we are not here to deal with the mere exhibition of the rhetorician's art, but with the great business of legislators who wish to govern the great interests of the country. I want to know what the hon. Member has propounded upon this occasion? I remarked that the hon. Gentleman avoided one thing most especially—he placed his whole argument upon a date, and not upon a principle. He said, "In the year 1846 the present Government came into office; and from that time to the present nothing but mischief has resulted from their conduct." Now, I ask the hon. Member how it was that the present Government came into office? why it was? and upon what principle it was? and I will ask the House to recollect it. I will shortly state what it was that brought the present Government into office, and the hon. Gentleman himself into notice. Sir, for some time a very large proportion—I will state it at once—the predominant party in the State, were headed by a right hon. Baronet whom I see opposite, and whose name I am willing to honour—I mean the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. That right hon. Gentleman was then at the head of the party which I now see opposite. At that time they were a united party. They were united in opposition to the great interests of the country, and to the enlightened rules which should regulate the Government of this country. The head of that party was the first to acknowledge that great truth which we had contributed to establish. [ A laugh .] Oh! I can under stand the laugh of ignorance. And now, Sir, that that laugh has ceased, I proceed to say that the great principle which we sought to establish was—to explain in three words—the principle of free trade. And the first to admit the value of that proposition was, I say, the most enlightened man amongst you—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, who, being Minister at that time, adopted the great principles that had been the leading doctrines which we had adopted for many years of our lives. The right hon. Gentleman being at the head of the most powerful party that this country almost ever saw—a party united and brought into power under the most extraordinary circumstances—with no interest swaying him but the interests of this country, yielded to truth, and to truth only, for he must have felt, when he did so, that he broke through ties that had been for years the ties that made his life a happy life—that he had departed from the interests of himself, of his friends, of his own private relations; and that he had submitted himself for the interests of his country. Such, I say, was the power of truth on the mind of that right hon. Gentleman, who passed a law in accordance with his free-trade principles; and while he was doing so, lo! there rose that star which has been now for some time a brilliant luminary, because it has been supported by the peculiar position of the party opposite; and the hon. Gentleman, in opposition to the principles and the person of the right hon. Gentleman, did win himself a way, I acknowledge with great ability—so far as his art, as far as the mere exhibition of ability, served him, but no farther—did win himself a way to renown in this House. Well, the repeal of the corn laws having been passed by the right hon. Baronet, the party was split into two—[An Hon. MEMBER: Into twenty]—yes, he might say into twenty, and then it was that the present Ministry came into office. They came into office because you were divided, not because they were strong: they did not come into office on any principle, but because all your principles had gone afloat, you having been bound together against what I believe to be truth, and the most enlightened amongst you having yielded to the suggestions of reason and to the exi- gencies of the State. You would not believe what he believed, because you had not the evidence that he had, and having been split up and divided, you were rendered an utterly inefficient body in the State. Then the noble Lord came into office on the principle of free trade; and from that time to the present, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire has been carping at the endeavours of the noble Lord to carry on the business of the Government. And what has the hon. Gentleman told us to-night? Why, that in every department of the State, at home, abroad, and in Ireland, the principles of the present Government have been opposed to what the hon. Gentleman himself believes to be right principles. I accept, Sir, his statement. And if we could believe. Sir, that a Government could be submitted to a rhetorician—if we could believe that truth should be made the subservient handmaiden of a mere artificer of words—then I should say that the hon. Gentleman might be in a position to undertake the government of the country. The hon. Gentleman, on this occasion, has not stated any thing that should induce us to depart from the principles of free trade that have been adopted as the guide and rule of our commercial legislation. He has appealed to the present condition of various classes of the community. For example, he says that the agricultural labourer, and the agricultural community, on the present occasion, are those that suffer, and are the mere victims of the law that the right hon. Gentleman repealed. Now, I deny this proposition. I say that, at the present moment, the agricultural labourer is better off than he has been in my recollection. I say that his wages have not diminished, in any part of the country, in the slightest degree. I say that from my own knowledge, without the slightest fear of contradiction. [" Oh, oh!"] I state what I know, and let those that cry "Oh, oh," attempt to answer me. In the county of Hants, the agricultural labourer receives 9 s . a week, and he has not ceased to receive that sum since there was any alteration of the corn laws. The corn laws themselves have not, I believe, altered the price of corn in any way whatsoever, and not altering the price of corn, I ask how the labourer, who has continued to receive his 9 s . a week, can have been injuriously affected by the free-trade policy? [ Murmurs from the Protectionist benches .] If you object to that, I will put the matter on other ground. I ask why, on the present occasion, there should be any departure from the ordinary principles of the constitution—why the ordinary forms of the law, and the ordinary forms of the constitution, cannot answer the exigencies of the present occasion? The hon. Gentleman says, the existing circumstances of the country are such as to require us to interfere in an unusual manner with the present condition of the Ministry. I deny it, and maintain that there is nothing in the position of the hon. Gentleman himself, or of the party to which he belongs, to induce us to depart from the present arrangement of the Government to give our confidence either to him or to his party. I believe the great principles that have led to the present state of things. [ Interruption .] I can well understand why a miserable pique should induce persons to be rude in this House, and to be guilty of conduct which they would not pursue against individuals towards whom they were not influenced by personal spite. But I wish, simply, and in a homely and humble manner, to express my opinion to the House. I hope the House will receive it in as kindly a spirit as it is delivered, and not subject me to the interruption which I fancy, Sir, does arise. [ Cries of "Question!"] Well, I will go to the question; I wish to discuss the question of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. I want to know why we should take the extraordinary course which he recommends of departing from the ordinary rules that regulate the business of the Session, and interrupting the debates for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the nation. Sir, what is the state of the nation? I assert that it is one of great hope and confidence—one which I believe the state of the world abroad teaches us to fancy and expect will be one of constant and increasing advantage to this country. I believe that the arts and manufactures of this country are, at the present moment, in a gradually improving state, and that trade and commerce are also steadily giving us stronger and stronger reason to believe that we are about to improve our condition. I say, besides this, that our great mischief in the past year has arisen from the deficient harvest, and not from the policy pursued by the Government. In opposition to the hon. Gentleman, who attributes all the evils that have arisen since the formation of the Government to the conduct of the Government, I say that very different circumstances abundantly account for them all. The famine in Ireland, the convulsions abroad, and the deficient harvest, are sufficient to account for the deficiencies of the revenue and the difficulties of our mercantile state, without requiring us to go to the principles of free trade to account for them. But I assert that at the present moment the mercantile community is in an improving condition. I speak as one having knowledge and authority in this matter. I represent a large mercantile community, daily engaged in the business of trade, and from them do I learn that in the districts of the great West Riding of Yorkshire trade is improving; and when trade is improving there, may I not say the great mercantile community of the country is improving also? But the hon. Gentleman says that the agricultural community is suffering. That, Sir, I deny. I say that if there is any class in the agricultural community suffering, it is the landlords, and the landlords alone—not the labouring population of any part of the community. But the hon. Gentleman says, "Look at Ireland!" Well, I will look at Ireland, and I say that, as far as Government is concerned, it is not a suffering community. It may be suffering from the misfortunes with which Providence has visited it, but not from any legislation of the Government; and that is all that we have to consider on the present occasion. But the hon. Gentleman says, that the Government has been the advocate of everything wild and irrational; and he attributes all the continental revolutions to the present Government. What! can it be said that the revolutions in France, in Germany, or in Italy, were the result of this country's legislation or policy? On the contrary, Sir, I believe that this country's policy has been well carried out, and that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department on the present occasion has wisely considered the interests of England, and done his utmost to maintain the peace of Europe, by abstaining from any admixture of our power with any of the disputes of the continental nations. But what would have been the condition of this House and the country if the great principles of free trade had 'not been adopted—if the right hon. Baronet had opposed them, along with his party, and set himself obstinately against the feelings and wishes of the great body of the people? Can we believe that on the present occasion, we would have had the peace and security which we now enjoy? I believe the hon. Gentleman, too devoted to his statistics, has forgotten to take into account the great moral question that mixes itself up with this matter. In all those questions the feelings and convictions of the people must be regarded, or you endanger the peace and security of the country. And if the right hon. Gentleman had opposed himself to the feelings of the country, like France and Germany, we would have had confusion and riot and terrible distress, and all the terrible disasters that the world abroad had seen, instead of the peace and quiet and order with which we had gone through the mighty change. Like Prance, we should have been a country with a Government without law, and without the slightest chance or hope of quiet or of freedom; and we should have experienced all the terrible disasters of which France has been the unfortunate scene. But, I say, the right hon. Gentleman may take it to himself as a great evidence of his wisdom and sagacity, that for the last two years, when almost the whole world has been in commotion—when thrones have been toppling down, and constitutions swept from the face of the earth—and when nations and peoples have been rising against their governments, and their governments have been unable calmly to address themselves to a consideration of the wants and necessities of their subjects—we have seen England riding quietly, and safely, and happily through the storm. The history of the past year is the best monument and the best evidence of the wisdom of yielding in time to the wishes and advancing intelligence of a people; and the right hon. Baronet, by his prudential legislation, has acquired for the great people whom it was then his interest and his duty to govern, a state of peace, tranquillity, and happiness, which no other nation in Europe now enjoys.

said, he quite concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire in the opinion he had expressed, that recent legislation had been most mischievous; and, also, in the wish, that the Ministerial benches should be otherwise occupied. But if the present vote was to be considered, in any measure, as a vote of want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, he begged to say, that that vote ought to refer rather to the Government which preceded them, namely, to the Government of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth; because he believed, that if that right hon. Baronet had not taken the matter of free trade in hand, but had stood firm to the principles upon which he came into power, the system which was now in operation, and the evil effects of which were so much deplored, would never have been established. Statements had been made, in the course of this debate, which he (Mr. Plumptre) thought he was, in some measure, in a situation to contradict, especially with regard to the condition of the agricultural population. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the prosperity of certain manufacturing towns, and he doubted not, that, at the present moment, they might be prosperous; but the fear he entertained with reference to these towns was, that if things continued as they were now amongst the agricultural population, the manufacturing towns, too, must ultimately be involved in that ruin which he thought was fast coming upon agriculture. They were not to be surprised, however, that the manufacturing towns were prospering, when they considered, that there had previously been a suspension of demand for a certain period. This was necessarily succeeded by a fresh demand; and there had also been a call for goods in large markets, which were never before opened to our manufacturers. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had stated, that there was no distress amongst the agricultural population. He (Mr. Plumptre) most distinctly denied the statement, and would read a return upon the subject, which he had in his possession, and which might, almost, be regarded as official. This return had not been issued under the immediate sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners, but was in the handwriting of the governors of certain union workhouses, in. the eastern division of Kent, and gave a comparative view of the state of these union workhouses at the present moment, and at a corresponding period last year. In the first union workhouse, for the twelve weeks ending the 15th of May, 1844, there were 97 ablebodied men, and 164 ablebodied women; and for the twelve weeks ending the 15th of June, in the present year, 216 ablebodied men, and 193 ablebodied women; being an increase for the latter period of 119 men, and 29 women. In the next union workhouse, for the 12 weeks of last year, there were 139 ablebodied men, and 355 ablebodied women; and, for the same period of the present year, 301 ablebodied men, and 474 ablebodied women; being an increase of 162 men, and 119 women. In the Dover union workhouse, for the 12 weeks of last year, there were 182 ablebodied men, and 380 ablebodied women; and, for the same period, in the present year, 334 ablebodied men, and 439 ablebodied women; being an increase of 152 able-bodied men, and 59 ablebodied women. He would not detain the House by reading the returns of the whole of the unions, but the sum total was this—that, for the 12 weeks of 1848, there were in those houses, 848 ablebodied men, and 2,391 ablebodied women; and, for the corresponding period in the present year, 2,101 ablebodied men, and 3,158 able-bodied women; making a difference of 1,253 men, and 767 women. Now, "facts were stubborn things," and these were facts. Another indication of the distress which existed, had come under his own observation. 17 or 18 ablebodied men, out of a population of 700 or 800—and these 17 or 18 men representing', with their wives and families, 70 or 80 individuals, had lately came to him, and asked, "What are we to do? We are without employment, and have no bread in our houses. We come to ask you, if you would advise us to go into the union workhouse? But, if we go there, we are afraid, when we come out again, that we shall lose our cottages." He (Mr. Plumptre) blamed them for coming to him in that manner, but he gave them the best advice in his power. This was a fact, however, that such a body of men was out of employ, in that small population, in the month of June last. Yet the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield told the House, there was no distress amongst the agricultural labourers. But there was still another indication of distress amongst the agricultural labouring population. Not only were the workhouses unusually filled—not only was there a great want of employment of the people in their own parishes, but they had men walking about the parishes, in search of work, who came from a distance. He had received a letter from a person of influence in the county of Kent, who was well known to the hon. Member for the western division of that county. The writer stated, that he attributed the distress at present existing among the farmers and the labourers, to the free-trade measures of that House; and although they would have that year an early and abundant crop, yet the prices were so low, that they would be in no better position. He also added, that there were a vast number of ablebodied labourers out of employment. The theory of free trade might be all very well, but to carry it out, as it had been carried out in that House, was neither wisdom nor justice; and he feared it would terminate in the ruin of the agricultural interest. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed, that there had been an increase in the consumption of sugar; but when the state of the West Indian interest was considered—their fortunes broken, and their properties destroyed; and when it was considered that the admission of slave-grown sugar had given considerable encouragement to the slave trade, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had no great reason to be satisfied with the result of his policy. He believed there was a great, deep, and pressing distress in the agricultural districts, and his conviction was, that it was owing to the free-trade measures that had been sanctioned by that House.

said, that as it was now past twelve o'clock, he should move the adjournment of the debate.

hoped, if the debate were adjourned, that hon. Members having Motions on the Paper for To-morrow would postpone them, in order to allow the present adjourned debate to come on.

would at once have acceded, so far as he was concerned, but his Motion was of very great importance to his constituents, and he could not consent to waive it. If the Government would either consent to the appointment of his Committee, or give him a night for discussion of the question, he would have no objection to allowing the adjourned debate to come on.

intimated that this was an arrangement with which he really could not comply.

did not think the request made by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone unreasonable. The noble Lord was a supporter of the Government, and it was not extraordinary that he should ask for a Government day, seeing that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had been favoured with a Government day for the purpose of bringing forward a Motion, the avowed object of which was to turn out the Government. The Motion of the noble Lord was of far more interest to the public than the flash-in-the-pan Motion which had occupied their attention that night. Since the great gun had gone off, the House might now just as well go to a division without protracting a debate on, to say the least, a ridiculous Motion.

was afraid that he could not accede to the request to postpone his Motion. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had made a present of a day to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire; but that was no reason why Members on that (the Ministerial side) of the House should have a day taken from them. His duty to his constituents would not permit him to give way.

I think the hon. Member for Middlesex has been unjustly severe on the noble Lord. I did not my-self think it any favour on the part of the noble Lord to appoint a day for the discussion of the Motion of which I had given notice. I thought that the noble Lord, in that spirit I expected he would exhibit, would have accepted the glove thrown down by this side of the House; and I cannot for a moment admit that, because the noble Lord thought it right to meet this discussion, that any Gentleman sitting on the same side of the House, and not in the habit of supporting him, should, as a matter of course, introduce it in the same manner. But this I will say, that if my Committee is granted, I will grant the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone his. With respect to the attack of the hon. Member for Middlesex on my Motion, that it is a flash-in-the-pan, I confess I never knew any Motion of the kind proposed in this House which has not been met with the same accusation. Of course, when the general existing policy of the Government is challenged, they consider there is nothing practical in our propositions; but allow me to say that there never was a more political Motion than the one I have brought forward this evening. It is in the power of every Member of this House to make it more practical by voting for it. Vote for it, and you will find it is a practical question. My experience of this House sufficiently assures me that majorities of this House, organised apparently to oppose such Motions, melt away under the force of truth. ["Question, question!"] I am speaking to the question of adjournment, and to the observations which have been made. It has been said that this is a flash-in-the-pan Motion. I say it is an earnest and serious Motion. Its object is to turn out the Government. We may not succeed; but we shall succeed some day.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

The House adjourned at One o'clock.