assurances of the interest you take in My domestic happiness." AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. The MARQUESS of SALISBURY preOn the Motion of Lord CAMPBELL, the sented a petition agreed to at public meetAnswer to the Address was ordered to being of the county of Hertford, complain entered on the Journals of the House. THE COURT OF CHANCERY. LORD BROUGHAM then rose to move for certain returns connected with the state of business in the Court of Chancery. He did this, he said, in consequence of having heard it reported, and even seen it publicly stated, that there was an enormous arrear of business in the court which was presided over by his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), who, from indisposition, was not present on this occasion he gave a positive denial to those statements. The arrears in this House consisted of little more than the causes that had been entered this Session; and the arrear in the appeal business had seldom been less than it was at present. He might add that it was not desirable to have the appeal business without arrear, as it frequently happened that a case which was at first appealed from the other courts was afterwards withdrawn on more calm and mature deliberation; and this of course would be prevented if the case were taken up as soon as it was entered. The business was not quite in the same state in the Court of Chancery, but still the arrears were much less than when he took the Great Seal in November, 1830. All this would be shown by the returns, and he thought it was only justice to his noble and learned Friend that they should be brought forward. He could not make this statement without expressing his deep sorrow that his noble and learned Friend was not likely soon to resume his useful and invaluable labours in the Court of Chancery. He deeply lamented that; and whatever arrangements of a temporary nature it might be necessary to make, he earnestly hoped that this fitting opportunity would be taken, which would greatly diminish the sorrow that all felt in the prospect of being deprived of the services of that able and learned and in all respects admirable Judge, of making, on good and sound principles, a permanent arrangement -in which the public and the profession, and the law, and the lawgiver were all alike interested-to remodel the duties of that high officer of State, who was also the head Minister of justice in this country. Returns ordered. ing of agricultural distress, and praying for a return to protection. The noble Lord said, that he had delayed presenting this petition, after the indifferent manner in which the subject was treated in the Speech from the Throne, and until he had made the fullest inquiry into the statements made by the noble Lord (Earl Grey) opposite on the subject in question, and also by certain Members of the Government elsewhere. The noble Marquess then read extracts from the second annual report of the Poor Law Board, 1849, and from other documents, to show that the general prosperity of the country was on the whole less now than in 1846. The first document showed that the return from 558 unions proved that the amount expended on relief to pauperism during the half year ending Michaelmas last was 1,653,0617., being a reduction of only 97,0981., or 5 per cent as compared with 1848. The property tax returns (as well as could be gathered) were less; the number of paupers had increased from 829,533 in 1846, to 1,373,367 in the week ending 25th March, 1850-an increase mainly attributable to agricultural distress; while the cost of maintenance for the poor had risen from 2,000,000l. or thereabouts in 1843, to 6,000,000l. in 1849. The noble Marquess said, that the boasted prosperity of the manufacturing districts was unreal, for that in Manchester and other towns of that character, the average among the working population was one-third employed in the whole year, two-thirds unemployed. The wages of labour likewise had fallen at least 10 per cent lower than they were in 1840, though he had always understood that the prosperity of a country depended upon the establishment of a high rate of wages to the working classes. In proof of this proposition the noble Marquess read the following return:— Brt. forward, £7 4 0 21 per cent reduction | Jan. 1849, estimat. populat...15,736,000 Paid for flour, 26 bushels, at 10s. 1d. £13 2 2 Pays for ditto, 9s. 6d. £12 7 0 in value. Jan. 1850, ...15,945,000 The Labourer Had. QUANTITY OF TEA ENTERED FOR IOME CONSUMPTION. 3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849...12,066,744 Increase ... ... SUGAR. 178,377 or 11 Cwts. 3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849... 1,469,672 25 10 4 COCOA. lbs. Paid for 26 £5 13 8 18 per cent reduction 3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849... bush. 9s 4d £12 2 8 Pays for ditto, 78. £9 2 0 CURRANTS. Cwts. 3 08 Deduct advantage in 3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849... £2 13 0 flour 1s. per week, or Ditto ditto 1850... 88,673 This calculation is taking the average of a 32,029 10,431 or 80,, The noble Marquess quoted extracts from the Letters on Labour and the Poor, which have appeared at various times in the Morning Chronicle, and concluded by asking the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) how long the experiment of free trade was to be continued? EARL GREY replied that he was not East India piece goods... 23,302 10,769 12,212 aware that the Act of 1846 contained any clause limiting the operation of that mea 30,982 29,796 100,656 sure to any definite period, nor had he 6,427 12,521 14,618 5,320 8,944 ever heard the remotest intention expressed in any quarter of making any alteration in that Act. The EARL of MALMESBURY said, his noble Friend had got just the same answer from the Government, as one with which 13,646 he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had been favoured on a similar occasion. He thought that if the noble Earl meant what he had just said-and he believed the noble Earl was a man who generally said what he meant, and meant what he said he was a Minister better fitted for the ancient empire of the Medes and Persians, than for the con 66,031 62,080 141,132 With respect to the general condition of the people the following document told its own tale, and indicated clearly enough a great depreciation : in 1850, there were 1,056. The last two were places which the noble Earl was doubtless well acquainted with. With these facts before them, it was impossible for noble Lords opposite to argue that their policy had turned out beneficially. He then real to their Lordships various returns recently laid on their table, all of which, he insisted, conspired to establish the same point. For instance, in 1845, when the old corn laws were in force, the returns of corn sold in England and Wales were 5,700,000 odd quarters of wheat; in 1849, the last year for which the same returns had been received, they were only 4,500,000, so that the decrease of the corn sold in England and Wales between the years 1845 and 1849 was just 1,200,000 quarters. With these papers, showing that all their promises had failed-that they had not gained the advantages of reciprocity by their generous system towards the foreigner, that they had not diminished the amount of pauperism, and that their low prices had not checked the importation of foreign corn-he did not think that he was wasting the time of the House in calling its attention to the facts, or in declaring that the old corn laws must be restored, if their Lordships had any hope of seeing the country restored to its former prosperity. stitutional government of Great Britain. | 4,946; and in 1850, there were 7,966. In The noble Earl seemed to entertain a great Morpeth, in 1846, there were 882 paupers; dislike for these discussions; but so long as the different Parliamentary papers were delivered to their Lordships for their perusal, he must expect to have them thus incidentally discussed. The information contained in the papers recently delivered was at once important and most alarming. The return of all the indoor and outdoor paupers for each year, from the year 1846 to the year 1850, was most appalling. It proved the entire fallacy of the dictum of the noble Lord in that House, that pauperism had decreased in the last five years. On the contrary, its increase in England and Wales within that period had reached to the vast amount of 125,000 persons. The last year of protection was the year 1846-the last of free trade was the year 1850. In 1846 the price of wheat was 54s.; in 1850) it was 38s. a quarter; and yet, when the price of wheat was one-third less than it was formerly, the number of paupers was 125,000 more. The free-trade Government had made two promises to the people, when they deluded them into the repeal of the corn laws. They had given them a promise of reciprocity, and they had given them a promise of the prosperity of the lower classes. Reciprocity they had not got; the prosperity of the lower classes had not happened. He had expected at any rate, after all the promises they had received, to find something like prosperity in the agricultural districts; but in going through this list [holding out a paper in his hand] he found no signs of prosperity either in the agricultural or manufacturing districts. In Cheltenham, which was not exclusively either an agricultural or a manuturing place, there were, in 1846, the last year of protection, 909 paupers; in 1850, the last year of free trade, there were 1820. In Liverpool, in 1846, there were 12,200 paupers; in 1850, there were 17,800. In Manchester, in 1846, there were 13,900; 1850, 13,926. In Preston, in 1846, there were 3,021 paupers, and in 1850, 5,187. He would not enter into other details on this subject, for it was the same everywhere; but he would give their Lordships just one specimen from a district purely agricultural. In the Isle of Portsea, in 1846, there were 3,200 paupers; in 1850, there were 6,200, or nearly double. [A Noble LORD: Look to Newcastle.] He had been referred to Newcastle. Well, he would read the entry under the town of Newcastle. In 1846 the number of paupers was EARL GREY replied, that the noble Lords opposite must not be surprised if the Government refused to enter into these incidental debates on the corn laws until it was acquainted with the real object sought to be achieved by them. It had been stated on a former occasion, that when the corn laws were on the point of being repealed, the advocates for their repeal had perpetually discussed the policy of them with a view of influencing public opinion, and without submitting any regular Motion to the House. But, at that time, there was no doubt as to the object of such discussions-it was either the qualified or the total repeal of the corn laws. At present, however, they stood in a different situation. He was ready, whenever the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) pleased, to debate the question whether the measure of 1846 ought to be changed or not; but when he entered upon such a debate he wished to know distinctly what were the views of noble Lords on the other side; for their Lordships were at present in a singular state of ignorance on the subject. Not one of the noble Lords oppo- | 1846 was the very height of the railway site had yet stated distinctly whether they mania, and he believed that at that time wished to go back to the old sliding scale of 1828 or not. Did the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) wish simply to repeal the Act of 1846, and return to the law under which they had the agricultural distress of 1833, 1835, and 1836, or did he want something else? In another place it had been declared, upon very high authority, that what was desired was a fixed duty of 8s. upon wheat the measure so scornfully rejected in 1841. Another Gentleman in that place had said what he wanted was an alteration of the various burdens upon land; but, on the other hand, that notion of relief, by altering taxation, had been denounced as altogether nugatory and delusive by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), in a very eloquent and remarkable speech which he made in reply to certain memorials that had been presented to him. What, then, did noble Lords opposite want? A fixed duty, a sliding scale, or a change of taxation? What alteration in the existing policy of the country did they mean to propose? He could only say that when the Government knew the specific measures which were to be proposed, he had no doubt they would be able to show good reasons against their adoption. His own opinion remained unshaken. He firmly believed that to the alteration of their commercial policy in 1846 they were, under Providence, indebted for the safety in which this country had passed through a period of unexampled difficulty. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had quoted returns with respect to the number of paupers relieved in England and Wales during the last five years; and he had endeavoured to show that the number of paupers now receiving relief was considerably greater than the number relieved in 1846, the last year of protection. But if the noble Earl looked at the return, he would find that, though there was now an increase in the number of paupers, as compared with 1846, yet that the year 1850 showed a reduction in the number as compared with 1847, 1848, and 1849. For instance, the total number of paupers relieved in England and Wales in 1847 was 908,000; in 1848, 993,000; in 1849, 943,000; and in 1850, 890,000. The noble Earl was, however, well aware that there were circumstances in the condition of the country, independently of the price of corn, which might account for the difference between the number of paupers relieved this year and in 1846. The year the companies expended millions of money mainly in labour. Now, however, there were not as many hundred thousands of pounds expended in such labour as there were then millions. Since 1846 also they had had to encounter all the consequences of the famine in Ireland; and it was notorious that that famine had been the means of bringing into all our great manufacturing towns very large numbers of Irish paupers, for whose relief it was necessary to provide. He thought these circumstances would fully account for the increase of paupers this year as compared with 1846. When he found the revenue prospering to an unexampled extent, when he saw trade sound and active, notwithstanding all the difficulties arising from a short crop of cotton, and when he looked at the general state of the country, he did not think the returns to which the noble Lord had alluded gave the slightest reason to doubt the success of the policy of 1846. The noble Earl had referred to a return of the quantities of wheat that had been sold in different years, and had stated that the sales of 1849 showed a falling-off as compared with 1845 of some 1,200,000 quarters. He should have thought that his noble Friend must have seen how fallacious that comparison was; for the return for 1849 showed mainly the sales of the crop of 1848; and it was notorious that that crop in the south of England was one of the most defective that had been known. The crop of 1849 would not, of course, appear in the return until the latter part of the year; and he believed that the agricultural distress now so much and, he admitted, so justly complained of, had much more to do with the consequences of the very bad crop of 1848 than with the change in the law. If the noble Earl compared the quantity of corn sold in the last six months with the quantity sold in the corresponding six months of the year before perfect free trade was established, he would find that since the harvest of 1849 came into operation, there had been a very large increase in the amount of corn sold as compared with the latter period. He would only add, that he considered this a question far too important to be argued upon the imperfect data of the occurrences of a few months. He believed that those who would dispassionately and carefully examine into the practical effects of protection, as it had been tried under various modifications during a period of thirty | I will say, that I am satisfied that a years, and would look to the melancholy change is coming over the public mind. I consequences which had resulted from rais- do not expect it to come over the mind of ing expectations on the part of the farmers the noble Earl: far be it from me to enterwhich were constantly disappointed, would tain any such exaggerated expectations! admit that-judging even at this early But the public are watching the progress period of their experience of the new po- of events, and that portion of the public licy-it was impossible to say that the in- who suffer under these events, notwithterests of agriculture had been disadvan- standing the declaration of the noble Earl, tageously affected. He believed there are beginning to open their eyes to the real never was a time when greater exertions effects of the system of so-called free trade. were made to improve the system of culti- They are watching the progress of that vation, and to diminish the cost of obtain- experiment-a most dangerous and fearing agricultural produce, and he was satis-ful experiment-and are gradually arriving fied that those efforts would meet the success they deserved. at the conviction, that in some shape or another, and in some mode or another, an alteration must be made in that experiment, and that we must revert to the system which shall afford moderate protection to British industry. The noble Earl quarrels with my noble Friend behind me. What we say is, "You promised us great LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I am not surprised to hear the noble Lord express an opinion that, notwithstanding all that is passed, he remains entirely convinced of the merits of the system of free trade; that he sees nothing in the state of the country which causes him the smallest ap-results-you promised us universal emprehension or alarm; that he believes the interests of all classes are prospering greatly; that although the agriculturists may be suffering a little, yet in general there is great prosperity; and I am not surprised that he says, if we will only tell him what it is we propose, and without knowing what we propose, for the relief of agriculture, he is quite satisfied that he could give us a good reason against the proposition. The noble Earl says, that previous to the repeal of the corn laws, incidental discussions took place in Parliament, and that the object of those discussions was clear and intelligible; that it was to prepare the public mind for an alteration of the then existing state of the law. I take the liberty of saying, that, even agreeing with the noble Earl that this question is not to be decided upon the incomplete information which we possess, and that we should not call upon your Lordships to come to a decision or make any alteration in the present state of the law upon that information, I will tell the noble Earl that our intention is by these discussions, as the intention was by the discussions previous to the repeal of the corn laws, to impress upon the public mind, week by week, and day by day, if need be, the practical operation and working of the system which you have introduced entirely remitting all import duties upon agricultural produce. My Lords, I will not answer the noble Earl's question, of what form of duty or what amount of duty we may propose when we shall think it right to introduce the question; but this ployment-you promised us high wagesyou promised us increased consumptionyou promised us universal prosperity; and we find, and we prove from your own papers and figures, that these promises have not been fulfilled, and that you are compelled now, not to point triumphantly to the successful issue of your predictions, but to apologise, and to assign reasons, picked up here and there, why your predictions have not been verified, and why, in spite of free trade, you have not the prosperity which you expected to have." Will the people of England—at least will those whose eyes are not already opened by suffering, continue blind? My noble Friend has called the attention of your Lordships to the difference between the pauperism of this country in the year 1850 and in the year 1846. What is the noble Earl's answer? The answer of the noble Earl is " True, pauperism in the year 1850 is greater than it was in 1846; but then it is less than in the year 1849; 1849 was less than 1848; and 1848 was less than 1847." Well, but it is quite true that in the year 1850 we had an abundant harvest at home. In 1847, 1848, and 1849, in addition to the blessing of free trade, we had the blessings of famine also; and, consequently, it is not very extraordinary that, with the cessation of famine, and with an abundant harvest in 1850, pauperism should be less now than in the years 1849, 1848, and 1847. But 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850, were all of them years of free trade. They were all of them years 66 |