The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-07-30 00:00:00

PAUPERISM UNDER FREE TRADE, AND
PROTECTION.

A few days since we were favoured (says the Herald)
with some long dissertations on the success of free trade,
as proved in the decline of pauperism. And this decline
was said to be shown in the recent Report of the Poor
Law Eoard.

We looked at that report, and were somewhat disgusted
at what we saw. There was an evident determination to
keep out of sight, as far as possible, all facts which might
lead to a comparison between the days of protection and
those of free trade. The whole view was attempted to be
limited to the two years, 1848 and 1849. And a great
shout was set up in some newspapers, because the pauper-
ism of 1849 was a trifle less, in the aggregate, than that of
1848. But not a word was breathed of the fact, that both
1848 and 1849 showed a great increase of paupers and of
cost, when compared with the years 1844, 1845, or 1846,
when protection was the rule which pervaded our legis-
lation.

Only in one single page of that volume did the truth
peep out. It had been the practice in all former reports,
and could not easily be discontinued now, to give a gene-
ral view of the state of pauperism, nationally, from 1813,
the earliest year for which complete parliamentary returns
exist, down to the time present. That general view is
continued in the report just issued. And from it we copy
the following important facts

AMOUNT OF MONEY EXPENDED ON THE RELIEF OF
THE POOR.
Last Three Years of Protection.

Year ended Lady-day, 1844. £4,976,093
Ditto ~ 1845 5,039,703
Ditto f t 1846 4,954,201
First Three Years of Free Trade

Year ended Lady-day, 1847 - £5.298,787
Ditto 1848
Ditto 1849 5,792,963
The result, then, taking the average of the three years
of protection at rather less than £5,000,000 per annum,
and the average of the tl:ree years of free trade at about
£5,750.000, is an increase of pauperism, actual pauper-
ism—money spent in the relief of the poor, to the extent
of nearly three quarters of a million per annum ! and
this, we fancy, is only a beginning!
Perhaps it will be objected, that 1845 was a year of
railroad employment, and 1848 a year of revolution and
slackness of trade; and that, therefore, this particular
comparison is unfair. Very well ; let us, then, merely
compare 1849, the last year given to us, with 1839, being
just ten years back. The result is as follows :

Year ending Lady-day, 1839. ......... £4,406,907
Year ending Lady-day, 1849
Is that satisfactory, gentlemen ? But this is not all.
The price of food, of the mere necessaries of life, forms a
chief element in our expenditure on the poor. Now,
1839 was a year of dearness; 1849 a year of cheapness.
Let us see how this affects the question.
In 1839 the average price of wheat was 693. 4d. per
quarter. In 1849 it was 495. Id. Reducing, then, the
sums expended in each year on the poor to quarters of
wheat, the result will be about this :
In 1839, about 1 270.000 quarters.
In 1849, about
. .

Is not this perfectly frightful? Still, however, a delu-
sion is attempted to be kept up—that, under free trade,
pauperism is decreasing ; balancing merely the year 1849
with that which preceded it. And a few manufacturing
counties are picked out to give a colour to the story. But
even this report of their, into which some special returns
have been foisted for this avowed purpose—even this re-
port itself refutes the idle pretence. For here are some
of their own figures, copied from this new report :
PAUPERS RECEIVING OUT-DOOR RELIEF ON JAN. 1,
1849, AND JAN. 1, 1850.
1849. 1850.
Cambridgeshire 14,669 15,134
Durham .
Essex

Kent
Lincolnshire
Northumberland
Staffordshire
Suffolk 24,671 26,402
Worcestershire
\\Tales
Now, these facts, be it remembered, appear in a special
return, collected just before the meeting of Parliament,
for the express purpose of showing that free trade wes di-
minishing pauperism ! A result which was obtained by a
view of the aggregate merely, without regarding the fact
that the diminution was chiefly in Lancashire, and one or
two other manufacturing counties, where, in January,
1850, the furor of overtrading was at its height.