The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-07 00:00:00

wages, comparing 1845 with 1849, because between those two
periods the Ten Hours' Bill had been introduced ; and
that it was not to be expected that men would be paid
the same wages for ten hours that they had received for six-
-1 teen hours. Here there had been a reduction of wages, not
on account of time, for the same number of handkerchiefs had
to be made. Well, then, what was the result? In 1845,
for a piece of work of 65 yards, there was paid 3s. 6d.; in
1849, and for the same work, the price was 2s. 7d. In
1845-46, for 64 yards of plaid, 45. 6d ; in 1849, for 66 yard?,
there was paid 3s. In 1817, there was paid for 44 yards
of check, 4.i.. 7d.; in 1849, for 68 yards, there was paid
35.3 d. The same species of reduction took place with re-
gard to all the various articles made in Manchester;
they all showed an excess of sums received in 1845 and
1846, as compared with 1849. He was sorry that the late-
ness of the hour prevented him from going into the
details of this subject because they really were of very
great importance. But then it was said that there
had been a reduction of expenditure on the prices
paid for several articles. He would now show to what it
amounted. There was a saving en various articles of wear-
ing apparel and bread, such as on shoes of 3s. 9d. ; stock-
ings, 10(1. ; on handkerchiefs, Is. ; and on the price of bread,
3'. 2s. 5(1. This was for a man with a e ife and two children.
Then the whole gain on the various articles was 6/. 195.111 d.
This was the gain on the purchase of 1849, as compared
with the prices paid in 1845. The wages of the operative in
1848 was ss. a week less in 1849, as compared with 1845-46.
It was less per annum by 13'., so that the man with a wife
and child suffered a total loss of 6.. and a fraction of a
penny. He did not say that these statements were to be
relied on implicitly.—(Hear, bear.) But when his Right
Hon. Friend read a letter, he felt that he was justified in
reading a let ter in a different tone—(Hear)—and it was but
fair to give the account of the poor operatives themselves.—
(Cheers.) The question was one to be decided by facts—in
granting a Committee, they would have the means of inves-
tigating facts, and they might then know which party was
right, and which wrong.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to his Hon.
Friend, bad said that employment was the one thing wanted
—that it was to want of employment they were to attribute
the increase of poor-rates and the filling of their gaols—and
then he added that he had great hopes that employment
would improve, and that it would not be much longer wanted
in the country; and he said that he hoped and trusted in
the energy of their farmers as well as in their skill and
capital. One fact, however, would show the distress of the
agricultural counties—it would do so much more than if he
were talking for hours together. In Lincolnshire, one of the
most respectable agricultural instrument makers informed
him that the weekly wages paid by him in June, 1847, was
1301 164., and in June, 1849, it was 621. 14s. The number
of men employed at the former period was 120, and at the I
latter period 70. This was entirely owing to the low price
of agricultural produce, as the farmers did not buy
those implements, as they thought that, perhaps,
they would not be able to pay for them.
He asked the Right Hon. Gentleman, then, what chance had
those persons of being employed when the number of imple•
ments were reduced, because the farmers had not the capital
wherewith to buy them? His Right Hon. Friend (Sir R.
Peel) had stated there had been a diminution in our exports
of the value of nearly 7,000,0001. since the year 1845-6, and
that on considering that reduction they must bear in mind
the reduction in the price of the raw material, in the price of
provisions, and in the rate of wages. Now, what had been
the reduction of price of the raw material as compared with
the reduction in the experts? According to " Burn's Statis-
tics" the value of the manufactures exported in 1845 was
22,419,988 e, while in 1848 it was 18,791,4141., being a
falling off of 22 per cent. The Custom-house returns
showed a diminution of ten per cent. But as the raw mate-
rial formed a third part of the quantity of manufactures, it
followed that the net value of the manufactures, exclusive of
the raw material, in the year 1848 amounted to 12,527,6101.,
and the depreciation of ten per cent. amounted to 1,252,7611.
With regard to the increase of exports in the last four
months, it was mainly owing to the reduction of the quantity
consumed in the home market; and if the time should come
when the agricultural interest would be again in a prosperous
condition, the exports would again fall off. But there was
another reason for the increase. A great part of the exports
had been sent to America in anticipation of the high tariff
which America was likely to pass. The continental disturb-
ances had been assigned as a reason for decline of trade.
Had not be (the Marquis of Granby) and his friends
warned the advocates of free trade of the consequences of
giving up the home market, which they had under their
own control, and relying instead upon the markets of the
Continent? But their warning was unheeded, and yet now
they attributed their present diastress to the failure in the
exports to the Continent. But they exaggerated that
cause. The reduction attributed to the continental dis-
turbances was much less than they imagined. The mass
of the consumers of their goods lived in the agricultural
districts, while the disturbances were principally confined to
the towns, where the manufacturing workman -lived, where,
while on the barricades, they were unable to work, but
still the consumption went on, though the working stopped,
and consequently the falling off in the consumption of
English manufacture was less than was supposed. In the
report of the proprietors of factories it was shown
that during the last three or four years there were disturbing
causes affecting the consumption of textile fabrics, which
were independent of political disturbances on the continent,
which did not exist at that period. Before sitting down, he
must refer to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, when he taunted the country gentlemen of England
with a desire to increase their rents to pay off their mort-
gages and their family settlements, at the expense of the
labouring classes. If that statement had been made by a
hired delegate of the Anti-Corn-law League—(Hear, hear)—
instead of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British
House of Commons, he (the Marquis of Granby), if his voice
were sufficient to make him be heard, would not let it pass
in silence.—(Hear, hear.) In the year 1846, when the coun-
try gentlemen of England were deserted by their natural
friends, and were derided by their opponents, if they did not
play false to their opinions in the hour of trial, it was because
they were convinced by reason and by argument that in
maintaining protection they were not doing so simply for
their own benefit, but were maintaining a system which in
their consciences they believed was for the best interest of all
classes.—(Hear, hear.) It was that which prevented their
changing their opinions and their principles.—(Hear.) It
was that which supported them in their trial—it was that
which supported them ai,ainst the leading men, the most
talented men, of both sides of the House; and now, in the
year 1849, when those principles had received the sanction of
time and experience, they were not likely to abandon them
in consequence of any taunt that might come from any
quarter u hatever ; but they would rather read in that fact
the knowledge that the Right Hon. Gentleman had of the
weakness of the cause be was endeavouring to support, and
that the prophecies which his Hon. Friend made at the close
of his most eloquent speech would very shortly be ful-
filled.—(Loud cheers.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Sir, I should be wanting in
respect to the Honourable Gentleman who has made this
motion, and to his supporters, if I were not to state
some at least of the grounds upon which I think myself
justified in resisting this motion. I should say
however, that so far as the conduct of the Government
is concerned in the present state of affairs, I should other-
wise have rested satisfied with the speech of my Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer.—(Hear.) I must say,
also, that with regard to the general principles of the com-
mercial policy of the last seven years, it would be the height
of presumption in me to enter into a consideration of those
topics, or to attempt to defend those principles after the
able, and, as I think, unanswerable speech of ray Right
Hon. Friend.—(Cheers.) But, Sir, we have before us the
Hon. Gentleman's motion, asking that the present Ministry
should be displaced, and that a new Ministry should be
formed on the ground of the restoration of protection. The
Hon. Gentleman quoted at the end of his speech au eloquent
passage from Cicero, in which that orator declares that he
saw no end to concession except in the death of the re-
public. The Hon. Gentleman seems to have thought, how-
ever, that Cicero was wanting in resources, and that, if he
had thought of a motion on the state of the nation—
(Laughter)—some remedy might have been found for such
a state of disease ; because the Hon. Gentleman, after an
Iliad of woes—after telling us of the unfortunate state of
every class of Englishmen—after telling us that, as far as he
could learn, the state of the country was one of suffering,
without hope; as dreadful a state almost as that which
Dante describes as the state of the condemned spirits—the
Hon. Gentleman proposed this motion on the state of the
nation, saying that it would displace the Government, but
hardly giving us a hint of what those measures were by
which at length this hope, which does not now exist,
was suddenly to be revived.—(Hear, hear.) However, wehave
got some further light upon it to-night ; for the Right Hon.
Gentleman near him, the future Chancellor of the Exchequer
(Mr. Herries)—(A laugh)—rushing rather precipitately, and
with juvenile ardour, into the question, before he has
accepted the seals of office, and before he is entitled to bring
forward the measures of his Government, has already given
notice that he means to propose a moderate fixed duty upon
corn.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) We have, then, the
statement of what it is the Hon. Gentleman proposes, and
what is to be the result it this motion is carried.---( dear.)
Now, Sir, I must take notice of one or two statements of
the Hon. Gentleman. He produced an official return with
respect to the increase of poor-rates, and he said that that
return alone would justify him in asking the House to
agree to his motion. I must say that, I think, he comes
rather late with that convincing reason for his motion.
That return is a return of the
a expense
nds under the
poor-law, ending Lady-day, 1848 ; , therefore,
comprising three quarters of the year 1847, and only
one quarter of the year 1848.—(Hear, hear.) Well, in a
year which was unfortunately distinguished by the calamity
of a great famine in Ireland; by a very great want of food
in this country; by a commercial convulsion, and by other
disastrous circumstances, 1 think that, in a year like that,
these things might well account for the great increase of
poor-rates which took place in that year. Butt I, should
hardly have thought that the H n. Gentleman would have
selected that as peculiarly the year of calamity, because his
argument on that is, that a high price of corn is almost
synonymous with a happy condition of the agricultural
labourer, and the year 1847 was distinguished from almost
every year for the last twenty or five-and-twenty years as
being remarkable for the very high price of corn which pre-
vailed in that year. The very instance he quotes, instead of
being an argument in favour of, is almost a conclusive argu-
ment against his motion, because it shows the calamities
which are attendant on a high price of food.— (Hear, hear..
And then he says, if you will go with me Tito a Committee
on the state of the nation,' will show you how to add to the
price of food, and how to get high prices again! A more
complete fallacy in the argument, even in his own sense, can
hardly be conceived. But with respect to some later intelli-
gence, which is founded upon official returns, and which I
happen to have received from my Hon. Friend the Poor-
law Commissioner, I beg to inform the House that the
state of the country since that return to Lady-day, 1848,
was made, has shown an improvement in the condition
of those classes who are either maintained in the poor-
houses or obtain outdoor relief from poor-law guardians.
Now those returns are cot sent until they have been audited •,
and, therefore, this number of returns relates only to 106
unions, of which it appears that there has been a decreased
expenditure in eighty-seven, and an increase in onlynineteen,
and of these nineteen about twelve only are purely agricul-
tural unions. So that, as far as those returns go, we have
every reason to think that there is an improvement, and not
a falling off in the condition of the agricultural labourer.
Then, with respect to the expenditure. The expenditure of
these unions up to Lady-day,lB4B, was 860,8701., and up to
Lady-day. 1849, it was 799.151/., thus showing a diminution
in these 106 unions of 63,9691. (Hear, hear.) So that by
taking somewhat later intelligence than that of the Hon.
Gentleman, I am able in some respect to throw a more cheer-
ing light:upon those circumstances which he appears to think
so very dark and desponding. With regard to the counties,
have stated the general numbers • but with respect
of the agricultural counties, I o
read the names f those in
which the returns from the unious show a decrease as well as
an increase; and those counties are Bedford, Bucks, Devon,
ooeset, Essex, Gloucester, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Norfolk,
Northampton, Somerset, Southampton, Suffolk, Sussex, and
Wilts, almost all of them being agricultural counties,
and any of them remarkable for being those counties in
which poor relief has been carried to the greatest extent.
But I will take the unions in one county only, and, giving a
return which is still later than those I have already quoted,
I will state to the House, with regard to 13.1 Z MUMS in