FOOTNOTE:
[44] Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. XV.
[CHAPTER XIII.]
PAUPERISM, CRIME, AND INTEMPERANCE.
I have still another serious charge to bring against your Right Hon’ble Ruler, who pompously lays before you statistics to show that, since the introduction of Free Trade, pauperism and crime have decreased; and this your Right Hon’ble Ruler claims as one of the results of Free Trade.
The figures produced seem to be all right; but really the statistics of your Right Hon’ble Ruler have been found so very untrustworthy, that a careful scrutiny of them is necessary; and on investigation I find in them unmistakable evidence of either ignorance or dishonesty.
These statistics show that the number of paupers under relief in England was—
| In 1862 | 890,000 |
| In 1880 | 799,000 |
| ——— | |
| Apparent decrease | 91,000 |
In considering these figures, however, it must be remembered that England has of late years greatly increased the rate per pauper;[45] or, in other words, the relief now given will either relieve worse cases of pauperism than before, or else extend relief to other members of the family of the actual recipient. The present rates of relief in England are now four-and-half times as much as those in France, and seven-and-half times as much as those in Belgium and Holland.[46]
In the next place, your Right Hon’ble Free-Trader omits to mention that the private charities of London alone (orphanages, homes, asylums, hospitals, &c.) have increased, since 1859, by £1,159,000,[47] a sum sufficient to relieve 526,000 paupers at the French rate, or nearly 900,000 by the Belgian rate.
It is probable that private charities of the rest of England, including the large provincial towns, have increased in the same ratio as those of London; representing an enormous amount of relief.
Then, again, no mention is made of the relief afforded by Trades Unions and Benefit Societies,[48] which now expend about £4,000,000 annually in relief. This, at French rate, represents the relief of 1,800,000 paupers, or at Belgian rate of about 3,000,000 paupers.
Now, my Friend, what is your fictitious saving of 91,000 in comparison with the enormous figures given above?
Mr. Fawcett says:—
“Mr. Torrens, the Member for Finsbury, sought to prove that pauperism was increasing, that vast numbers of able-bodied labourers were unemployed, and that the normal condition of a considerable proportion of our population was one of abject misery and deplorable destitution.
“Mr. Goschen met these statements by a positive and indignant denial. He quoted a number of statistics to prove that the iron trade, the cotton trade, and other important branches of industry were reviving; he was jubilant over the fact that the number of paupers had only increased by 10,000 in a twelvemonth, and he became quite elated when recounting that the working classes were using more tea and sugar, and that their average consumption of beer and spirits was augmenting. The speech was loudly applauded, especially by the commercial members. There are many who still think that the well-doing of a country can be measured by its exports and imports.... It is not our intention to dispute the accuracy of Mr. Goschen’s statistics. There is, however, too much reason to fear that they only tell a small part of the truth; and that, if not judiciously considered, they may conceal awkward and ugly facts which it will be perilous to ignore.”[49]
“Sir Edward Sullivan alluded to a statement made, he said, by a distinguished statesman, that, out of a population of thirty-four millions seven millions were toeing the line of starvation.”[50]
And these statements would appear to be in accord with the figures I have given above.
The statistics of your Right Hon’ble Ruler, which you receive with thunders of applause, are not worth the paper on which they are written.
Again I ask your verdict—guilty or not guilty?
Now for Crime. The statistics in this case are less defensible than in the previous case, because they involve a dishonourable suppression of facts.
The statistics brought forward to show that a diminution of crime has been the result of Free Trade, are as follows:
| Convictions in 1859 | 13,470 |
| ” 1881 | 11,353 |
| ——— | |
| Apparent decrease of crime | 2,117 |
Now this apparent decrease is wholly due to the “Criminal Justice Act” of 1855, which enables Magistrates to pass short sentences; and these, coming under the head of “Summary Convictions,” do not appear under the head of “Convictions,” where they would have appeared but for the “Act” of 1855.
If we take the total cases, including summary convictions, the figures stand as follows:—
| Convictions in 1859 | 246,227 |
| ” 1881 | 542,319 |
| ———– | |
| Increase in crime | 296,092 |
In other words, instead of your Right Hon’ble Ruler’s decrease of 2,000 convictions, we have actually an increase of nearly 300,000. Is it possible to conceive a more glaring case of what Mr. Gladstone himself terms “the simple but effectual plan of pure falsification?”
Now for Intemperance. The number of persons fined for drunkenness in England:
| In the year 1860 | 88,410 |
| In ” 1881 | 174,481 |
or roughly speaking, the convictions for drunkenness have doubled in twenty-one years.
Truly, my Friend, you cannot congratulate Free Trade on the decrease of pauperism, crime, and intemperance it has produced.