Mr. Vernon Smith supported the motion. He recommended the country gentlemen to look into their own accounts, as the best means of remedying the temporary depression under which they might be suffering.

Dr. Bowring also supported the motion, which was opposed by Sir John Tyrrell, in a humorous speech. On a division, the motion was rejected by 182 to 109.

On the 26th of May, pursuant to previous notice, Lord John Russell brought forward in the House of Commons a series of resolutions relative to the state of the labouring classes, and the remedies applicable to their existing grievances. He prefaced his motion by a long and comprehensive speech, embracing in succession the several topics forming the basis of the resolutions hereafter stated. After explaining his reason for bringing them forward in their present shape, instead of either singly or as a substantive measure, he said that it appeared to him that his resolutions were inseparably connected with each other. His opinion was that the House ought to endeavour to free trade from restrictions and to relieve industry from the trammels of legislation, but that in so doing it ought to accompany measures of relaxation with other measures of great importance. He maintained that the general subject of education and instruction should form part of the system to be adopted by Government, and of the measures to be by Government submitted to Parliament; but you could not expect that any measure for the general education and instruction of the people would be effective, unless their physical condition was essentially improved.

He then took a retrospect of the condition of the country from the period of the French revolution down to the present time, and contended that during the course of the war, which commenced in 1793, many changes for the worse occurred, under which the nation was still suffering. Among the changes he enumerated the enormous increase of the debt, and of taxation to pay the interest upon it--the Bank Restriction Act of 1797, which had degraded the labourer, diminished the value of his labour, and at the same time led to an extravagant mode of living, and a neglect of forethought and prudence among the employers, who suddenly found themselves in the enjoyment of high profits-and Sir Robert Peel's Act of 1819, and of the last year for the resumption of cash payments -measures which, though they were founded on sound principles, from which it would be a great misfortune to depart materially, had still produced the evil which was generally the result of a contraction of the currency, and had injured the industrious classes to a considerable extent. He then adverted to the policy of restric tion and monopoly, or, as it was sometimes called, the policy of giving protection to native industry, which had grown up during the war, and on which he contended that Parliament might legislate with benefit by overturning altogether that erroneous system. He showed that the chief monopolies which now existed had been introduced by Ministers who were still living, and that the policy which, in Adam Smith's time, was called the mercantile system, had been adopted, according to that high authority, by the coun

try gentlemen, from a wish to protect the interests and promote the welfare of the commercial classes. The experience of our times led us to form a very different conclusion from that formed by Adam Smith. Our manufacturers now saw that it was of no advantage to them to have restrictions imposed upon articles imported into this country; and had adopted the theory of Adam Smith, that the policy of restriction was mischievous, that it favoured one class at the expense of another, and that it injured the labouring classes more than any other. He proved that our manufacturers were correct in the views which they now entertained, by taking a retrospect of the history of the restrictions formerly imposed on timber and wool. He gave that history as a specimen of the mischief created by the high duties imposed during the war, and of the emptiness of the apprehensions entertained as to the evils likely to accrue from the remission of those duties. He contended that history also showed that under protective duties the labourer was less able to educate his children, to live in comfort, and to become satisfied with his condition. Neverthe less, there was still a party of great weight in the legislature, which insisted that without protection certain branches of industry could not be maintained. To such persons he said, "Let us either protect all branches of industry, whether manufacturing or agricultural, or else let us abandon the system of protection as vicious and unsound." That system was, moreover, one in which our statesmen had already made great alterations. In 1842

the Government had proposed great changes in our Customs duties. Many were alarmed at the extent to which the reductions were then carried. Many persons-for instance, rope cutters, cork cutters, and boot makers

had waited upon him as member for the city of London, and had represented to him the extreme panic which they felt, because their protection was to be reduced. It was neither just nor equitable to introduce changes producing alarm among men earning 25s., 20s., 12s., or 8s. a week, unless you introduced similar changes into the protection given to the commodities produced by peers of Parliament and the other influential members of the landed aristocracy. It was not fair to say that from the former you would take protection; but that you would not take it from the latter, because they had the means of acting upon the legislature. Events had shown that there was very little reason for the alarm felt in 1842 by the manufacturers; and the reductions then made were very large. If, then, it were right at that time to abandon our high rate of Customs duties, and to bring the greater part of them within moderate compass, he thought that we ought to take measures to bring all such duties within the same compass. The tariff of 1842 left a protecting duty of 20 per cent. on all articles. That was an extravagant duty, and he considered that it would be better for us to abandon it altogether.

Lord John Russell next adverted to the question of the corn laws, and gave an historical sketch of the rise and progress of those laws, from the commencement of

the French revolutionary war to the present time. Experience had shown that the present system was founded in error, and produced the very evil against which it was intended to guard. The graduated scale had turned out to be a complete failure, and was equally injurious to the producer and consumer. It was contrary to all true commercial principles, and it was perfectly ruinous to the interests of the farmer. It tended also to check all improvements in agriculture, and to render the cultivator of the soil careless as to the system of cultivation which he pursued. He then said, that his third resolution, which affirmed that "the present corn law tended to check improvement in agriculture, produced uncertainty in all farming speculations, and held out to the owners and occupiers of land prospects of special advantages, which it failed to secure," was fully proved to be correct by the complaints of the agricultural interest during the present session; for it appeared that now, when they had a protection of 40 per cent. on the ordinary food of the people, they were still in a state of distress and difficulty. Now that protection forced the artizan to give an increased price for his food, and so diminished his means to provide himself with other necessaries. It prevented him, besides, from sending his manufactures abroad, and from thus increasing, by the sale of them, the general prosperity and revenue of the country. It had been said, that if the corn laws were to be repealed, wages would be reduced. The argument on that point was by no means conclusive; but if wages should be reduced by the repeal of the corn laws, there

would at any rate be a greater demand for labour, and therefore so far the labourer would be a gainer. Besides, the parliamentary returns proved beyond all doubt, that the labourer was always a loser by a high, and `a gainer by a low price of corn. He contended that the introduction of foreign corn to any considerable extent into this country would lead to such an increase in our manufactures, that, though at first the price of corn might be very low, there would still be a steady average price of corn in the long run, which would be quite sufficient for the remuneration of the farmer. If, then, the corn laws were thus generally injurious, what system ought the House to adopt in its stead? He then enumerated the various propositions which had been made to the House on that subject, and observed, that his object was rather to propose to the Government that it should not leave the corn laws in their present state, than to make any proposition of his own. He certainly would not now propose the scheme which he had proposed in 1841, and yet he would propose a fixed duty. He would not propose, as in 1841, a fixed duty of 8s., but if he were called upon to name the amount of his fixed duty, he would say that it should be a 4s., 5s., or 6s. duty. He next referred to the changes which had been made in the poor laws during the war, and in so doing gave a history of the manner in which the allowance system arose in the southern districts of England. If that system had not been checked, the labourers of England would have been left in a most destitute and deplorable condition. A suggestion had been made by somebody, that when the new poor law

first came under the consideration of Earl Grey's administration, it was proposed that the poor should be made to live on a coarser diet. He believed that Sir J. Graham had given a decided denial to that suggestion, on a former occasion; and, for his own part, he could only say, that no such proposition had ever come under his consider ation. What did come under his consideration was, a proposition that what had hitherto been given under the compulsory name of charity should be given thereafter in the legitimate shape of wages. He looked to such an alteration in the then existing poor law, as would measure the wages of the labourer by the proper demand for his labour, and would change his means of subsistence from casual aid from the poor rates into a certain and legitimate subsistence from wages. It must be confessed that the law which formerly prevailed had left injurious traces of its operation, and that there was, therefore, in the southern counties of England, a number of labourers who could not find employment. It was, therefore, evident that it was not sufficient to have altered the poor law to its present extent. The House must not, therefore, stand as the Goverment was prepared to stand by the present law, but must proceed further, in order to remedy the evils of its former vicious legislation.

It was

true that Sir James Graham had proposed a law for the purpose of remedying them, and that was the new law of settlement. But Sir James had not persisted in his proposition of last year, that five years' industrial residence in a parish should give a settlement in that parish. Now, a measure of that kind was, in his opinion, the

only measure by which the condition of the agricultural labourer could be improved. But Sir James now proposed, that after a labourer had lived in a manufacturing town for a long period of years, he should be liable to be sent back, at a period of temporary distress, to the place of his birth. Such a law appeared to him to be very defective. Colonel Wood had brought in a Bill some years ago, in which he proposed that one year's residence should give a settlement. That appeared to him to be too short a period, but he thought that five years' industrial occupation in a parish, ought to give a settlement; and that industrial occupation for a period of less than that time, say for three or two years, should give a right to temporary relief in that parish, before removal. He knew that Sir James Graham had met, and probably would meet again, with great impediments from the towns, to an arrangement of that kind; but he thought that, if you allowed the commercial towns to have a regular supply of cheap food and provisions, it was only equitable that they should bear this burden in return. He came next to the proposition that, શ systematic plan of colonization would partially relieve those districts of the country where the deficiency of employment has been most injurious to the labourers in hnsbandry." The cost of systematic colonization would be so large, that he much doubted whether any Government could ever propose it; but many parishes had already encouraged emigration among themselves, and by so doing had done much good, not only to those labourers who had emigrated from those parishes,

64

but also to those who had been left behind. In any system of emigration to be favoured by the country, two things ought to be specially provided for: first, that you did not send out on a party of emigration any person who was not fit for hard labour and for the privations of a new country; and, secondly, that your emigration should not be an indiscriminate emigration of persons who did not 'know one another. Individuals should be sent out with every party of forty or fifty emigrants, capable not only of commanding and controlling them, but also of instructing them in the first principles and elements of colonization. In such a transaction both sides would be gainers; for the emigrants would be consumers of your manufactures, and would be producers of corn and other articles of food, which they would send back in exchange for those manufactures. He next came to the question of education, into which he did not intend to enter at any length. There had been of late years great improvements made in the education of the people; but the latest accounts which he had seen upon that subject, were contained in the last report of the British and Foreign School Society, and that, in alluding to the gaol returns for the last year, showed that the House had still in this respect a great duty to per form. He implored the House, when it was taking measures to remove the restrictions imposed on the food and clothing of the poor, not to shut its eyes upon the awful state of ignorance in which a great mass of our population was buried. It ought never to be forgotten, that, while in this month of May, pious men were subscribing their VOL. LXXXVII.

funds to enable missionaries to preach the gospel in China and in other foreign parts, there were numbers of persons in Sussex, and other counties of England, totally ignorant of every duty which a Christian ought to perform. He could not entertain a doubt that the House and the Government would both be anxious to remedy this lamentable deficiency. He knew that they should be met with the objection that we could not give the labouring population a religious education, on account of the multiplicity of sects which prevailed among them. But this we could do-we could make a grant for educational purposes, to those who applied for it-we could assist them in building schools, and in providing competent masters for those schools. It was the duty of the House to improve the education of the people, and it could be done in the way which he had stated without any violation of the rights of conscience. He asserted that their grant for education was at present insufficient, and thought that Ministers might safely ask the Parliament this year for a grant of 150,000l. for the support and maintenance of schools in England and in Wales. Lord John Russell concluded his speech by urging the necessity of adopting measures of improvement in a time of quiet rather than in one of distress and clamour, when the measures proposed would partake of that heat and violence which such times were sure to produce. Repeating the terms of his first resolution, he said, "Adopt that resolution, and add to it any further resolutions you may think fit, according to your own principles and your own views of what the interests of the country may require, [G]