they escaped from the ruinous consequence of this system in 1825 and 1826; and yet this was the system to which they were now asked to revert. To prove that there was no want of money in the country, their lordships had only to recollect, that capital was always forthcoming when called for. Any scheme, if only a little plausible, was sure to find capital for the purpose of carrying it on. There There was no government, however bankrupt, but could borrow money here; and there was no man in the country, who had any thing like security to offer, but could get money whenever he wanted it.

The marquis of Lansdown like wise opposed the amendment, on the ground that the true object of it was to bring the House to the adoption of one of the greatest evils which this country had ever endured an unlimited issue of a paper circulation. If the first step were taken, it would lead to subsequent steps, against which he felt it his duty to guard the House and the public. He did not know, however, if he should not have supported the amendment, had not the speech from the throne admitted the distress, and in terms which implied a promise that that inquiry should take place upon the subject which the country had a right to expect at their hands. The distress existed unquestionably to a lamentable extent; but he concurred in the recommendation that it should receive the most cautious attention.

On a division, the amendment was rejected by a majority of seventyone to nine. The nine peers who voted against the government were the dukes of Cumberland, Richmond, Newcastle and Gordon; earl Stanhope, the earls of Tan

kerville, Winchilsea and Radnor ; and lord Rivers.

In the Commons the battle was much more fierce, and the victory of the ministers much less satisfactory. The Address was moved by lord Darlington, the eldest son of the marquis of Cleveland, who, by means of his great borough influence, had long been a leading patron of the opposition politics. His lordship thought it necessary to preface his motion by explaining the reasons that had induced him to quit the seat on the opposite side of the House which he had occupied for seventeen years, during all which time, he allowed, he had taken so small a share in their discussions that he was scarcely much better known to them than a new member who had never addressed them. He had been educated, he said, in liberal principles, and, on entering parliament, had joined the whigs. But since that period, great changes had taken place both in men and in measures. several years he had observed that the government was adopting, and carrying into execution, measures which had been strenuously urged by the opposition, and which he believed to be essential to the public good. He had long wished to see a government so constituted as to deserve the support of independent members of parliament, who were above all party considerations. In his opinion, that day had at length arrived, and the existing government was, in an eminent degree, deserving of the support of every independent member in that House. When he looked at the constitution of the present cabinet, and the principles upon which it acted,— when he took into account the character of the noble duke at the head of the administration, and

For

that of his right hon. friend below him (Mr. Peel), and of the other members belonging to it, he was impressed with the conviction, that such a government merited their warmest aid and assistance. There were ultras on both sides of the House, and he should be sorry to see either of such parties in power. The names whig and tory had, in his mind, become synonymous; and if he were asked why he, a whig, should give his support to a tory administration, his answer would be, because that tory administration was acting upon whig principles. He found no fault with those politicians, whom early connexions and friendships retained with their party. He had never attached himself to any party in that manner; he had bound himself to no party by inviolable ties. His maxim was "measures-not men." No one could deny, that to the head of the present administration belonged, in an eminent degree, firmness of character, decision in forming resolutions, and promptitude in carrying them into effect; and never were such qualifications more necessary than under existing cir

cumstances.

The address which, as usual, was an echo of the speech, having been seconded by Mr. Ward, an amendment was moved by sir Edward Knatchbull, founded, as in the Lords, on the alleged misrepresentation contained in the speech regarding the distresses of the country, and the consequent determination of ministers to adopt no measures of inquiry or relief. That, he said, was the sole point in the speech, and in the address, on which he intended to join issue with ministers. If they had said, that they would use every exertion in their power to alleviate or remove the

The

distress, he would not have thought it necessary to oppose them on the present occasion; but by some unaccountable oversight, they had passed it over, and said, that the evil was confined to some parts of the kingdom. He maintained that the distress was general. In that part of the country with which he was himself immediately interested, he knew from his own observation that it was universal. If he were called upon for other proof, he would say, "Let every member who now hears me, state honestly and fairly, and without reserve, what is the situation of the place with which he, as a representative, is immediately connected." House was asked, upon this the first day of the session, to approach his majesty with a declaration which amounted to something very like a downright falsehood. He did not intend to advert at present to any remedy for this distress. He would not say one word as to the propriety of reducing the malt-tax, or revising the state of the currency, for both those questions must soon come under the consideration of the House. All he asked of the House at present was this-to state in their address to his majesty the naked truth as to the distress of the country. He therefore moved to strike out of the address the clause affirming the existence of partial distress in the country, for the purpose of inserting the following:-" We lament the existence of that distress which your majesty informs us is confined to some places; but, in the painful discharge of our duty, we are constrained to declare to your majesty, that that distress is not confined to some places, as your majesty has been advised, but is general among all the productive interests of the

country, which are severely suffering from its pressure. We beg to assure your majesty that we shall adopt the caution which your majesty recommends in the consideration of the measures to be adopted in reference to these interests, and that our earnest endeavours shall be employed to alleviate and remove the distress now so unfortunately existing."

In supporting the amendment, Mr. Western, Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Maberly, Mr. Duncombe, and Mr. R. Palmer, all joined in condemning the extenuating phraseology used by government, as either being the result of gross ignorance regarding the true state of the country, or betokening a most reprehensible determination to propose no measure of relief, and to reject even all inquiry. The House had long been in the habit of hearing complaints from individual classes in the country, but these complaints were no longer reiterated from the old quarters; the productive and industrious classes of the community were in a state of misery never before equalled; their distress was settling down into universal discontent, and the voice of their disaffection would soon be heard with alarm. On the classes immediately above them, the pressure was equally severe, and those who dealt in manufactured goods were in no better situation than the agriculturists; in proof of which alderman Waithman stated, that, among the great body of the traders of the city of London, their stocks had suffered a depreciation of forty per cent. Suffering so general, affecting every important interest in the country, could not be the result of local causes. That its character was not that of temporary distress was ad

mitted even in the speech, which, while referring to its imagined causes in terms of vague and unmeaning ambiguity, described them as being beyond the control of legislative enactment. That was a proposition which the House would not be justified in taking on the bare word of ministers, more especially as no distinct statement was given of what were the matters of which it was meant to be affirmed. The amendment corrected a most erroneous representation of a matter of fact; and it pledged parliament to nothing more than a cautious inquiry into the origin of the state of things which in fact existed. This much was due to reason, and to the just demands of the country. The expressions in the speech were objectionable, not merely as mis-stating a fact, but because the mis-statement, when assumed to be correct, was made the pretext for shutting out all inquiry, and closing the ears of parliament against every complaint.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) maintained, on the other hand, that no amendment had ever been moved so little at variance with the speech to which it was intended to apply; and that although there undoubtedly was much distress, among both agriculturists and manufacturers, in some parts of the kingdom, there were other districts which, far from being visited by distress, were in a state of comparative comfort and prosperity. The supporters of the amendment had omitted that part of the United Kingdom which always attracted a large share of the attention of the House-he meant Ireland. If they had investigated the state of agriculture there, they would have found that, as far as

agriculture was concerned, it enjoyed prosperity and comfort, and that the distress which had been felt in some parts of this country had arisen, partly, from the excessive introduction of Irish produce. How, then, was it possible for his majesty to tell parliament that distress, which he knew prevailed in parts, pervaded the whole kingdom? Even in the northern provinces of this country, the distress had not been felt so severely as in other parts. There was no justification, therefore, of the amendment, in point of fact; while the principle, to which it was well-known that it was intended to give an opening, was bad. It was scarcely concealed that the relief, which the opponents of ministers, on this occasion, had in view, was, to propose an alteration in the currency, and overturn those laws which parliament had adopted only after anxious deliberation. To alter the standard of value fixed in 1819, as the basis of our circulation, or to re-establish the 17. notes, as part of a paper currency, were objects to which government was determined not to lend itself; and they were the only true and ultimate objects of this amendment.

Mr. O'Connell, on the other hand, tendered his authority to contradict Mr. Goulburn's statement, that the agricultural interest of Ireland was prosperous. He had travelled through the provinces of Leinster, Connaught, and Muns ter, and had seen no proofs of prosperity, but had observed much distress. A charitable fund of about 4,000l. had been raised by the lord lieutenant; but that fund was exhausted, and 7,000 persons were subsisting on three-halfpence a day,

In answer to this, lord Leveson Gower said, that he should like to

see the man bold enough to affirm, that there ever had been a period, from the time of bishop Boulter, down to the present, in which no distress had existed in Ireland; and that great privation existed among the lowest classes in the liberties of Dublin, was no proof that the agriculture of the country was not on the whole in a flourishing condition.

Mr. Huskisson gave the signal for his friends dividing against the ministry, by declaring that, on the simple matter of fact, which was the only question at issue, the amendment came much nearer to the truth than the address. It was of the highest importance, he said, in the present state of universal disquietude and dissatisfaction, not to provoke a hostile discussion between the representatives of the people and the people themselves, and not to call down reproach on the House of Commons, by understating the distress and difficulty of the time. He believed that the country, in so far as the productive classes were concerned, was suffering greatly, but if parliament looked at the subject properly, and acted with the caution which one part of the speech recommended, they would find themselves fully competent to cope with the existing difficulties. There were many things difficult to be accounted for in our present condition, which parliament would do well to attend to; but he certainly did not think that any thing was to be ascribed to the supposed deficiency of the currency. At no time had money been more abundant in the metropolis. We saw exchequer bills, producing 24 per cent interest, selling at a premium, and we saw the low rate at which money was every day borrowed. The fact

was, there was a stagnation in several parts of our productive industry, and an overflow of capital in others. Though the exports of last year had exceeded those of any preceding year, it was known that the capital and property so employed had, in many instances, been unproductive. In almost all branches of productive industry, the profits were so small as not to compensate for the amount of capital employed, or afford sufficient support to the individuals whose labour was required. But these very facts excluded the idea of a deficiency in the currency; for it would be difficult to reconcile a deficient currency with a low rate of profit, The amendment, therefore, could not have his support, if it went to unsettle what had already been done in fixing the currency, but it was an amendment which did not commit him to any particular measure, as connected with the distress which it truly described. To some of the causes which had led to that distress, parliament, he was aware, could apply no remedy: but it was in their power to satisfy the country as to what the causes were, and to afford partial relief by giving a better direction to the capital of the country.

Mr. Secretary Peel declared, that he could scarcely have expected to find Mr. Huskisson supporting an amendment like the present, considering the opinions which that gentleman had always entertained. Session after session, Mr. Huskisson had resisted, not only practical expedients, but committees of inquiry, lest he should excite false expectations; and he now support ed an amendment, founded on principles, and intended to lead to conclusions, from which he to

tally dissented, simply because he thought that the amendment stated a matter of fact somewhat more correctly than did the speech itself, But where was the proof that the speech mis-stated the facts? It was said, that it described the increase of exports during the last year, as leading to an inference that our trade and manufactures were flourishing; but it contained no such inference; it merely stated a fact; and distinctly admitted that, notwithstanding that fact, distress was prevalent in some parts of the country. The amendment stated, that all the produc tive interests of the country were suffering severely under a general depression. There was no limit→ ation. Was the House prepared solemnly to affirm this in the face of Europe, without information or inquiry? "Distress exists in my own neighbourhood," said the mover of the amendment, and those who supported him, "therefore I am bound to conclude, that the distress is universal amongst all the productive interests of the country." Should not the House pause before adopting so important a statement, on evidence of such a description, the more especially when the speech from the throne set forth the fact, that the exports of British produce during the last year, had far exceeded those of any former year? The exports, it was said, were made at a loss-they yielded no returns: but was it credible that, year after year since 1819, (for that was the period from which the distress was dated,) our manufacturers had continued mas nufacturing and exporting at a positive loss? Neither had there been any diminution in the home consumption of the country, as was proved by returns, to which