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.
FOOTNOTES:
[45] “In fifty years, Great Britain has lifted her estimate on this
point so rapidly that she spends five times as much for a given
number of paupers? than she did fifteen years after the opening
of the century.” (‘Practical Political Economy,’ by Profr. Bonamy
Price, p. 237.)
[46] _Comparative Cost of Relief to Paupers._
England £10 0
France 2 2
Belgium and Holland 1 3
(Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 346.)
[47] _Expenditure in London Charities._
1859. 1881.
Orphanages £409,000 £458,000
Homes for aged 88,000 770,000
Asylums 25,000 156,000
Hospitals, &c. 301,000 596,000
------- --------
Total 823,000 1,980,000
[48] The financial condition of many of the Trades Unions is
causing serious alarm. The drain has been so heavy on them, that
their capital is greatly reduced, and unless some change takes
place, they will become bankrupt. The increase of pauperism will
then be enormous.
[49] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1871.
[50] _The Mail_, December 19th, 1883.