The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-02 00:00:00

...------f ly. Sull would be ny other, ,„_( Lou a se. I be artneo Hear.) some Eibu, e m ilitary' 1 . Membe )f the fur ct was be' nion, from )mmanc?.g erly, and to atrocious military wished to reports be n ili ta ry ba d istrates uu• the R u i g l3 „ 131 both asta ble, the marke d bY tedlYt Si r ' o n the T, e I o° 4 his tic' us e . ,re than e th th le U° a ": we r , that " itish )1' this a l e v iolate attasilt t ke n say to res; what .., I will cal e truth 0 aw tha E... are os t :al cln° 4 l leeterS,;oj 'ere a s bolo Bi ea r) ili• c— h tbe aSe a t here " mav en At a ll , ro tts t dung:con out ez a pCY On tiw that a ellOb e , Of ratoias io rily lout a a 0 6 1 1 et ° Peee a thei r p be Oe la W for. the Hi s s°l jet' spa o de up he to wn I retusf,,„ a Tice )f 1 : too "rev- PI P n art!,oo. of five r pe cP 4 Res w ere sold iers 0 ; hori es t ode 4 iivocoocb r ib, . 4 fell thom i de w entil it ha"' o rst. rusg i er was I AO : e d the ~0 • 6 g be Was, c° nieri of L1R1151'1" r ltroi l vo r o r s e e r,ry, es te d er rot 1. p I vo for t oe es goou t jt. of 01 ' 1 t boi „ that ere fire. . v ed Ato et. Oblig e vil ed an be r o me tpa4 stee l " oar W ag r 6 croons vie , a t h a t " i s dog; the House, and to the Hon. Member for Middlesex, if the people came armed with weapons which were capable of in- nicting such wounds, if they were not justified in calling the thtilitary to their assistance, and if the military were not justi - R ad in firing ? He had been witness on more than one occa sion to the conduct of the military when brought in collision with the people, and they had always behaved with discretion and propriety; and he had no doubt that, on the present oc tagon, they would come off with that honour which he believed they really deserved. He would only say one word more to the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had agreed to send down a Commission of Inquiry after he had pre '4°llBlY) almost—he might say completely—refused to Vant a commission. The Noble Lord had given way 11 ,,,P 01 1 the ex , parte statement of the Hon. Baronet t he Member for Staffordshire, and simply in order to please that Hon. Baronet.—( No, no.) He repeated that the Noble Lord had given way upon an ex parte statement , which he had n o hesitation in saying he did not believe. — ( Hear , b e ar.) If a Commission was to be allowed upon this oc casion, would beg to ask the Noble Lord if, on all occasions where there was any special tumult or rioting, a Commission of In quiry was to be granted ?—( Hear, hear.) If a Commission was tiot to be granted upon every occasion, he could see nothing in the present case which required that an exception should be made in regard to it. He was willing to leave the case entirely 1 n the hand s of the Noble Lord. He was willing that , as the ttoble Lord had at first said, the papers should be laid upon Lilt table, and he had that confidence in the Noble Lord , that ' Was sure means would be taken for the adoption of a full la t u d efficient inquiry, without the necessity of a Commission. A " hoped that the Noble Lord would still alter his m ind as to Propriety of sending down a Commission, and would act on t he principl e s which he had at first stated. In that manner the a llege i nqu i ry m i g ht b e ma d e , and that without casting any re atetions upon the magistrates or on the military, who had done n othing but their duty. Member BE AUCLE RK did not mean to follow the Hon. member through the details of his speech. He merely wished say, that if he knew anything of the wishes and feelings his constituents—and a more respectable constituency could sot exist—the resolution of the Noble Lord to yield to the t e a_tings of the House, would give them the greatest satis ,Tion.—( Cheers.) Honourable Members on the opposite "'"e had spoken as if justice ought only to be done to the m agistrates ; but he asked that justice should be done to the ; maple as well as to the magistrates or the military. That malice bad been granted by the course followed by the Noble , 7 111 ; and he (Major Beauclerk) bad no doubt that if he were put it to the vote at any public meeting, whether the Noble 440 rd was deserving of the approbation of the people for the !nurse he had pursued, the vote would be carried unanimously nt the affirmative.—( Hear, hear. ) After a few words from Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM, Which were inaudible in the gallery, the conversation dropped. CORPORATION REFORM. GOULBURN then rose to ask the Noble Lord two rastions. The first was, what was the course which the Noble Lord meant to pursue in regard to the bringing for ward the question of Corporation Reform ?—and the second Pestion was this :—He had been informed that a Report had kl eo given in by one of the Corporation Commissioners, se- Parately from the Report of the rest of the Commissioners : I 'l lo o the understanding that this separate Report had been !attle, he begged to ask the Noble Lord whether it was the Intention of Government to lay that Report upon the table of the House ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that with respect to the rat question, as to the course he meant to pursue in regard the bringing forward his motion, on the subject of Corpo ration Reform, he had only to state, that as the Hon. Member r the North Riding of Yorkshire had declined to postpone the motion which he had on the orders for to - night he (Lord i °III' Russell) meant to postpone his motion regarding the Cor poration till Friday night. With regard to the second ques n which the Right Hon. Gentlemen had asked , he certa inl y 4 recei v ed a paper, which was stated to be a separate report b y•• one of the Corporation Commissioners, but which did not , as fact, appear to be a proper report, in as far as it was not a port on a certain part of the Commission respecting which Commissioner in question was desired to inquire. The paper contained much of personal matter, and little that was and he (Lord John Russell) had not yet determined 'tethe r he should consider it his duty to lay it upon the table of the House. to Sir GEORGE CLERK then asked a question in regard 4 report upon some Corporation in Scotland, but both the Itlestion and the answer were inaudible in the gallery. Mr. BLACKBURNE said, by the terms of the Commis ru issued to inquire into the state of the Corporations of the and Wales, power was given to any three or more o f e Commissioners to make a report upon the subject intrusted to ~_thete ; but no such power was given to any single Corn imioner.—( Hear, hear.) The report given in to the Noble _eeretary for the Home Department by the Board of Commis ,,,s7ters was agreed to by all the Commissioners now in this 7.4ntry except two ; namely, one whose protest had been "'co in with the report, and another who had thought fit to give in what he had no right to do—a separate report of his ° wo at the Home Office.—( Hear.) By the terms of the Com taission, any report oug ht to have gone, not directly to t h e C ommissioner Office, but through the Board of Co mmissioners. The 'ilrarnissioner in question had gone the circuit in the same roller as the other Commissioners , but had made no re p ort to Board, excepting in two cases, and these were of little im rrtance ; but now he had , for no reason wh ich he ( Mr. B.) I - 1 ° ., 41 4 conceive, thought proper to make a rep ort to the Home which he had no right whatsoever to do. He had !lade thi s re p o rt because ho supposed some wrong had been rile hi m by the other Commissioners. He (Mr. B.) had done all in his power to screen the gentleman in question ; he had passed over a great part of the negligence of which he had beers guilty, and had done everything he could lest the ,;ornmission s h ou ld suffer because a Commissioner had failed to do his duty ; but he had at last been obliged to send the gentleman word, that if he did not send in his report, he should consider it his duty to hold no more communication with him as 4 Commissioner. This happened five or six months ago, and 40 report was sent in ; but now he chose to send a report, not to the Board, but to the Home Office, in which, as far as he (Mr. Bl ac kb urne ) un derstood, he endeavoured to criminate "le , of the members of the Board, and probably, among others, himself.—( Hear , hear.) That re p ort had little or .„ 41 thing to do with the subject into which it was his duty to l aquire. Sir R. PEEL begged to ask the Hon. Member if the deport upon the Corporations of Liverpool and London would "ola be laid upon the table of the House ? Mr. BLACKBURNE said that the Report on the Liver t3l Corporation would be laid on the table without delay ; t With regard to the Report on the Corporation of London, di ftold not be ready for a week or two, on account of some faculty in regard to the Companies. I).Sir ROBERT PEEL—Was he to understand that the port upon all the Corporations, with the exce p tion of that ondon wou ld be laid upon the table of the House without d ela ? stale which ; with the exception of c t ale which ought to have been reported on by the Commis :ler who had chosen to send his report to the Home Office, aim had sent no report to the Board.—(Loud cries of Name him l") He had no hesitation in giving his name— be Con name was Hogg.—( Hear , hear.) tz 'r ROBERT PEEL understood then , that with that ih eePti on , th e Report upon all the Corporations would be °fi tlY laid upon the table. tl l ; 4r. BLACKBURNE — Certainly . A nd those, thou g h • Were exceptions, were not of the greatest importance. BAINE S begged to ask the Hon. Member, whether is ,the to „ Com m issioner had refused to make a Repor t, he had Laidered it his duty to stop the supplies ?—( A laugh.) 41 4 r t r• BLACLBURNE certainly had not co nsidered it his Y to stop the supplies, because he had no supplies to stop ( 4 . laugh.) IRISH CHURCH BILL. k a t °rd MORPETH, in answer to a question from Mr. F. 1, 4 . said the question of Irish Tithes would be brought for " Monday, scion of of June. THE CURRENCY QUESTION. 1111 the H o use going into a Committee of Supply , r t C AYL E Y, pursuant to notice, rose to move fora Select t arnitte e . (based on the Parliamentary declaration of agri ,,ittia.ral distress), to inquire if there be not eff ective means th I nn th e reac h of Parliament to afford substantial relie f to to ll agriculture of the United Kingdom, and especially to re taend to the attention of such C om mittee the subject of a l t h er or con j o i ne d s tandard of silver and gold. (At this t ime 14 11 0 use being very full, the Members retired in great nun - 1- V , Which created some confusion for several minutes. At l ow g t h the Hon. Member proceeded to address the House in a , I , t wle of voice, which was very imperfect l y heard in the W(arY.) When the question of agricultural distress, which has too palpable to be denied, was before the House, the Right 1 14 °11 . Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) admitted that agriculture could t i : r i e . no relief in the remission of rates or taxes. and held out on hopes. It was stated by the late Chancellor of the Exche tl4er, that since the peace eight millions of taxes had been time Oft; and . no more could . be remitted.. The question then -t a "' to this, that the agricultural interest could bear more dies before than now. In 1833, he was a Member of the Committee of which the Right Hon. Baronet opposite was be n° That Committee recommended that there should 1 c) interference. At that time Wheat was 545. a quarter, 4 7 in some places it was only 345. He held in his hand ? f Cement from which it appeared tha t in Lincolnshire w aa 365. 10d. ; in Huntingdon, 365. 3d. ; in Oxford, for Hear. ) Fifty-four witnesses who were examined be koeh a Committee of that House, stated that the distress was A as never before existed, and surely that was a state of fo tge that called for interference. In reply to the demand (% r elief it was stated by the Member for the Tower Hamlets t or r * Clay) that agriculture was not in so depressed a state, withbarley, and oats, and wool sold well. Every one acquainted Ix tr i agriculture knew that the rise in the price of oats and t tr :Y which was prely accidental, was no evidence of the wh . ere prosperity. For two years there were dry springs, Aw l ell caused a failure in the crop of oats and barley—only sh, ° „ quarters of oats were produced where before four were pro he'ed• Then as to the rise in the price of wool, it was thus to ac counted for :—From 1828 . t0 18 31 the wet seasons caused t h' a t among the sheep, which swept away nearly one fourth of in the It was • estimated that of the thirty-two millions of sheep the country eight millions were destroyed. ten millions of pounds l ;_ . of wool were imported in 1831 and 1833, but there was T:iincrease of export. It was said that while wool was high the k je of mutton was low. But we co uld get sheep from Ireland i Scotland but could not get wool,—(The Hon. Member Meted barl ey' into a comparative statement of the prices of wheat, Itf t e. eY ' Oats, wool, meat, and butter in the Leeds and Bolton 1834 and i;'_'!_ ls 3 ts i n to show that prices are lower this ear •) As the motion of the .7:,7 1 ' 1e Marqu6 (qhandos) was tt : el hough he (Mr. Cayley) supported it, ha titc . l n • t expect itoutifr"n his. The question now was, how much O. 14 ° (1 go out of cultivation. He thought the Government should issue a Commission which should go all over the country, and see how much of the land would get out of cul tivation in consequence of the present rate of prices. His opinion was not more than half the arable land could at pre sent pay rent by tillage. It was stated before the Committee in 1833 that rents were reduced 25 per cent., and since that time wheat had fallen from 545. to 365. When prices fall thus, rents must be reduced in proportion. Ask the farmers, and they will tell you that for the last few years three-fourths of the arable land has not paid rent. To alter the currency he (Mr. Cayley) had been told was a perilous experiment. He admitted it. It was a perilous experiment. But was it not also perilous in its consequences that wheat should be re duced from 80s. to 40s. a quarter, or rather from 645. to 40s. ? Objections were raised against making this experi ment ; but in the meanwhile the evil it was intended to re medy was permitted to exist. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted the opinions of Lord Brougham when Mr. Brougham, and of Lord Western when Mr. Western—in support of this argument. He also adduced in his favour extracts from Mr. Ricardo, who, among other things, said to the effect that the mistake first committed was adhered to with perseverance, and that the system had gone on blunderingly and carelessly while distress was increasing, and it appeared as if they (the House of Commons) would, with iron hearts, allow it to go on to the end. The Hon. Member then said that in a debate upon the same subject in 1830, arising on the motion of Mr. Davenport, Mr. P. Thomson had stated that a silver standal d was to be preferred to a gold one, and that he thought de priving the nation of a paper currency, as they had since 1826, was like driving them back to a state of barbarism. Another reason why some change was necessary was the pre sent state of the Bank. Last Friday Exchequer Bills were at par, an occurrrence which was unparalleled since 1825. It might be said that this was an accident, but such an acci dent could never have happened had not the Bank been pre viously pushing Exchequer Bills into the market. Then the bullion in the Bank at this moment was not what it ought to be according to the principles on which the institution were formed. The average by the return in May, 1835, gave 6,875,0001., while in 1796, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, and 1809, the average was 5,505,0001. That, too, in a period when there was a greater demand for bul lion in consequence of the continuous war. The amount which should be now in the possession of the Bank, instead of six millions, should be at least ten ; but it was a con sequence of making gold the sole standard. One advantage which a silver standard would possess would be that it would place an obstacle in the way of such runs on the Bank as had been practised of late. Gold being compact, and compara tively light in proportion to its value, offered a facility of ne gotiations on taking away, but silver possessed these pro perties in a very inferior degree, and therefore, being less negotiable and less easily removed, would not be sought for with such avidity in any panic or apprehension of a panic. There were numerous and respectably signed petitions from Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Sussex, and many other places, praying for an alteration in the monetary system, and imputing to it their distress. These petitions avoided alluding to the repeal of the malt tax, the adjustment of county or poor rates, or any other general or local burdens; or, if they did, they only mentioned them incidentally, as grievances of no moment compared with the other. It would be in vain for the House or the Government to tell them that they could not relieve them. He (Mr. Cayley) had now pointed out a mode of granting that relief which was so much wanted, and which all acknowledged to be so necessary—a mode which would not interfere with the interests of any other class of his Majesty's subjects; and it was for the House to deal with it as it chose. The Hon. Member concluded by moving the resolution. Mr. WO DE HOUSE seconded it. The question involved the whole subject of the weight and pressure of taxation. It was idle to expect that the agriculturists should be silent— that they should desist from remonstrance ; their case was too hard, and remonstrances would increase every day until some thing was done to obviate their necessity. He (Mr. Wode house) was one of the Committee which sat in 1821, and on that occasion he was in a minority against Mr. Huskisson's ce lebrated report. He then differed with Mr- Huskisson on the same grounds that that Statesman had differed from himself when, in 1810, he published his famous work on the subject. It had been always hitherto the policy of the House to reject everything relating to the monetary system of the country, which was not brought forward by the Government in being at the time. The Hon. Member then read extracts from the evidence of Lord Ashburton (then Mr. A. Baring) and Mr. Horsley Palmer before the Bank Charter Committee in 1828, in support of his view. Mr. P. THOMSON—Previous to entering on the ques tion—moved that the Resolution of the Committee and the report thereon, as it was confirmed by the House, in 1833, should be read. The Resolution and Report were read accordingly. They were to the effect "That it was the opinion of the House that it would be highly dangerous to alter the monetary system o: the country as it now exists." Mr. P. THOMSON should be allowed to say that any Hon. Member making a motion for a Committee of Inquiry was bound to show the House something like definitive motives on his part, as well as by a general exi,lanation, to show that there were grounds of necessity generally for its adoption. Any thing of all this, however, he was very much at a loss to discover in aught said that night by his Hon. Friend, and he believed that he would be borne out in that assertion by every Gentleman in that House who had had the fortune to hear his Hon. Friend's observations. The intention of the motion was to discover a silver standard. In the progress of his efforts to prove the necessity of seeking that panacea his Hon. Friend had gone into a long and a complicated history of the distress of the country, particularly of the agriculturists, not alone of the present day, but of the times past for a consider able period backward. No Hon. Member in that House sympathized more than he (Mr. Thomson) did, individually, with the distresses of that or any other class of his Majesty's subjects ; and no party could feel more strongly for the miseries of the people than his colleagues in his Majesty's Government, or be more desirous to relieve them. But what was the language held on the subject before the House the year before the last by a Committee of' that House ? In 1833 a Committee was appointed ; it sat, and, after hearing evidence, argued the matter at length in a full attendance of Members. What was the resolution it came to? It was to the effect that more relief might be expected from the forbearance of Parliament with regard to all legislation on the question than from any interference in it whatever.—( Hear, and laughter.) And yet that Committee was composed principally of gentlemen, friends to the agricultural interest, and anxious for its relief ; and their solemn decision was against interfering with the matter. Last year another Committee had been appointed, and its in quiries had been carefully conducted ; and throughout the first part of its sittings the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had been in the Chair, whilst, in the conclud ing part, his Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had presided over it. That Committee had sought out every means of affording practical relief, and the Government was prepared to carry its recommendations into effect. He would ask every friend of the landed interest, whether it was desirable to have a Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the distress which at present existed amongst the agricultural interests, provided the labours of the Committee were to be confined to that object and to the silver standard exclusively ? He apprehended that the Hon. Member opposite would say " No ;" and thus he (Mr. Thom son) disposed of that part of the motion ; and he now came to that which was adjunct to the motion, namely, that the Committee should have power to inquire into the propriety of having a silver standard, or a silver standard con jointly with gold. He had 'entertained the hope that the advice which the Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had so judiciously given would have been at tended to. He had been in hopes that the House would have been told definitely what it was which really was wanted. Had the Hon. Member connected his motion with the ques tion of agricultural distress, merely with the view of render ing it more palatable, and of catching a few more votes, and that he did not want a depreciation of the standard ; or did his coupling his motion with agricultural distress, imply that his desire was to disturb the solemn resolution to which the late Parliament had come—( Hear, hear)---and to depreciate the standard to an extent of which he, as yet, had given no idea to the House ? The Hon. Gentlemen had argued the question of the silver standard. He had entered into long ar guments to show that a silver was preferable to a gold stan dard. He had quoted an opinion of his ( Mr. Thomson's) de livered in 1830 upon this subject. He still adhered to that opinion, and was ready to pursue the same course now, that he had pursued then. If now called unon to discuss the question of the relative merits of a silver and a gold standard, he should say that he was inclined to think that silver was the prefer able of the two. He had stated that opinion then, and he stated it now ; and he thought that, if in 1816 silver had been taken as a standard, it would have been the better course. If, however, the Hon. Gentleman thought that this would have made the slightest difference in the consequences that had since followed he had greatly mistaken him. It was im possible to suppose that the Hon. Gentleman wished for a change from one standard to another with the view of the one being theoretically a better standard of value than the other. He did it clearly to obtain an advantage, because he thought it impossible for the present prices to continue. The Hon. Gentleman clearly aimed at a depreciation. Why had he not told the House what he did mean—whether he would wish to take the silver at 605., 625., or go to the present rate at which silver is calculated, namely, 665. the pound ? If he wished to fit his own purpose be must take it at 665. But then the Hon. Gentleman would open the whole question of deprecia tion, and he must show that the agricultural interests would be benefited, and that there would not be produced a general mass of confusion, and every debtor in the country would be benefited, and every creditor defrauded.—(Hear, hear.) Oz, what principle would the Hon. Member advocate the price at 665. ? It would make a difference of 10 per cent. The Hon. Member for Oldham had given notice of a motion upon the subject of an equitable adjustment, and had said before the House proceeded upon any measure he would show it what was just and fair; but now the Hon. Member opposite would propose at once to take an arbitrary standard of 665. If the Hon. Member meant to take 625. this would make a difference of 31 per cent., and for this difference would the Hon. Member disturb entirely all the contracts entered into ever since 1818, and all the agreements that had been since made, and by which the property of the country had been set tled since that year? What benefit, he asked, could the agri cultural interest expect from such a change? The Hon. Member had said that it would raise the price of wheat. He would show him that his ideas were erroneous on the subject. What had been the arguments used with respect to the prices of oats and WIN/ ? They had been told that the cause of their being so high was on account of the scanty supply, and hp wenld ask whether the same argument that applied to oats tQ wheat ? W a s it no t notorious t a h n a d t b th ar e l p y ric cl e ia o n C f ° oli P , Pl ihut as the ports had been for three Y which had been grown rice of two articles were c i a til rs iu? tri th o ui st vcolvelpiternid? slid op tihfethesurprpicl high ••- it was because there was a less supply; whilst if the price of the third article was low it was because there had been of that article a more ample supply. Whom, he asked, did the Hon. Member propose to benefit by his plan? Did he suppose that if he could nominally raise the price of wheat —for it would be but a nominal rise—he would not in the same proportion raise the price of all other commodities ? The farmer might get 41s. instead of 40s. for his wheat; but he would have to pay dearer in proportion for all the commodities he consumed. The only effect, then, of the change would be to violate all good faith between debtor and creditor, by enabling the debtor to pay off his debts in a currency of a less value than that in which it had been contracted. He wished to see the question tat once boldly put upon these grounds. He acknowledged that the Bill of 1818 had pressed very hard upon the agricultural interests.—( Hear, hear.) He admitted this most fully, but he was perfectly satisfied that Parliament never would have consented to pass that Bill upon necessity. He was willing to admit that the Bill of 1818 pressed hard upon debtors of all descriptions, but this was not unjust, because he con tended that every contract had been entered into subject to a return to cash payments. The hardship had at all events been inevitable, and it was not for the House to turn round now and inflict a tenfold hardship, and to restore to those who bad suffered loss by the Bill of 1818, but to inflict a new injury on new parties, and to give a benefit to those who had received no injury whatever. His object in oppo sing the motion was to call to the attention of the House what must be the inevitable consequences if they acceded to the proposition now before them. Were a Committee to be appointed, what hopes would be raised in the minds of the agriculturists. They would be led away by vain delusions that the Committee could afford relief which it was totally out of its power to afford ; and what, he asked, would be the effect on the money market but to unsettle the minds of men on the question, whether or not the standard of value were to be altered, and whether the depre- • ciation were to be ten per cent., three per cent., or no thing at all ? No man when he went to bed would know whether his debtor who owed him 1001. was to pay him 1001. or 901., and this would be the state of alarm and con fusion into which all things would be plunged for the space of two months were the Committee to be appointed. If it were necessary to alter the standard of silver, let the Hon. Gentle man bring forward his plan, and state whether he would take the standard of 60, 62, or 66. If the House should be of opinion that there were good grounds to rescind the resolution of 1818, and to alter the standard of value, let the question be at once decided within the walls of that House, and let not any that were concerned in the result be kept in suspense by the appointment of a Committee. The Hon. Member for York shire had referred to the Exchequer Bills being at par, which they had not been for years. Was not that an argument, he asked, for not tampering with the monetary system ? The House ought not hastily to adopt a plan of submitting to a Committee a measure of such great importance. He believed that were the Hon. Member's motion to be carried, it would overwhelm with bankruptcy and ruin many opulent farmers. Mr. CLAY was of opinion that the motion of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire could not afford any relief to the agri: cultural interest ; but that, if it could do good at all, it would do good to the whole community. The Hon. Member for Yorkshire appeared to wish to propose to the Committee merely a return to the silver standard, which had prevailed since the 43d of Elizabeth, and which coined the pound of silver into sixty-two shillings.—( Hear, hear, hear.) This, in effect, would be no change at all, for it would not make a difference of above 1 per cent. The Hon. Gentleman had gone so little into the nature of his plan, that he (Mr. Clay) scarcely knew whether this had been his idea or not. With respect to the silver and gold standards, he (Mr. Clay) agreed with all that had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Manchester. He maintained that within the last five or six years the price of wheat had not corresponded with the fluctuation in the price of other things. In the last two years the circulating currency of the country had increased from 10,150,000/. to 10,600,0001., and this had taken place concur rently with the alteration in the price of wheat. In connec tion with this subject, he might allude to a memorial presented to Earl Grey in 1831, from the ironmasters of Staffordshire, setting forth the then depressed state of that trade. They re presented that pig iron had fallen from 8/. to 3/., and bar iron from 151. to 5/. ; that the trade had practised every species of economy; but that still their profits were falling off, and that it was the opinion of the memorialists that all their distresses and difficulties arose from the attempt that was made to render the engagements and obligations of the country convertible by law according to a standard value of 3/. 18s. for gold. It was pro phecied at that time by the memorialists and many others that the prices of iron could never again rise. Yet before twelve months had elapsed, without any alteration of the cur rency, pig iron rose to 5/. lOs., and bar iron to 71., and he be lieved that no Gentleman would deny that at present the iron trade was in a most prosperous condition. His own opinion was—and he should set up his prophecy upon the point, in op position to any of the other prophecies that had been thrown out—that unless some alteration was made in the corn laws, the effect of those laws in the end would be to throw an ay all the wealth and prosperity of the country. The reduction in the value of the standard of currency would tend undoubt ecly to increase the wages of labour and the rents of lands, perhaps ten per cent., but it was a most mistaken notion to suppose that it would give any stimulus to trade. It might mitigate for a time the pressure of taxation, but it would not enable the Government to take off any taxes. He ( Mr. Clay) was fixed in the opinion that the worst thing that could hap pen in and country, was a breach of faith with the national creditor. Mr. P. THOMSON said a few words in explanation. - Mr. BENETT said that the ingenious speech which the) . had heard from the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade would have been of much greater value bad it been de livered in 1816 or 1819. Nobody thought anything then about the robbery committed upon the debtor, although so much was now said about robbing the creditor. The poor man was then robbed without remorse ; but now the rich cre ditor must not be touched. He denied that the present mo tion was calculated or intended to depreciate the standard of value. By going back to silver currency no such effect could be produced. If a silver currency were established there would be no occasion for the Bank of England to keep such large stores of that metal in its coffers as it did at present of gold. The great evil of a contracted currency was that it raised the value of fixed payments. He was not arguing for a depreciation, but against an appreciation, and therefore in favour of a silver currency. Mr. RIC HARDS said that it was with extreme regre he had heard the opinions expressed by the Right Hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade) in oppo sition to the present motion. The Right Hon. Gentleman had expressed his sympathy for the condition of the agricul tural interests; but if he felt this sympathy, why did he op pose inquiry ? He expressed his sympathy, but he resisted inquiry, because, as he said, the Hon. Member for Yorkshire had laid no grounds for his motion. When he came down to the House that evening he inquired what was the cause of such a full attendance of Members that he could scarcely get a seat, and he was told that it was the expected discussion on the Wolverhampton riots. He had great deference for the judgment and discretion of the House, and therefore could not think of doubting the propriety of every thing it did—. (A laugh.) He found that the inquiry demanded as to the Wolverhampton transaction had been conceded, and w as the House prepared, he would ask, to refuse an inquiry to the agricultural interests of the country, applying for some relief in forma pauperis? Did not the Right Hon. Gentleman know that the farmers were paying their rents out of their capital ? He could not help thinking that there was something wrong in the education of gentlemen- ( A laugh)— as connected with this subject. Why else was all their compassion wasted upon creditors, and none reserved for the poor debtors ? H e believed that when the present standard was adopted it was not understood. Mr. Ricardo had told him he was sure the mea sure would only cause a change of three-and-a-half per cent. : and before his death, having found that his view was erroneous, he regretted the vote he had given in favour of the measure. The Bill of 1819 was concocted by Mr. Ricardo and another Gentleman, the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth being mi nisterial in it.—( A laugh.) The authority of Hume's Essays had been referred to ; but if the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had read Hume as often as he had—( A laugh)—he would have found that Hume was of opinion that the deprecia tion of the currency was beneficial to a country. The House was bound to institute an inquiry ; Committees were granted every day upon matters of not half so much importance, and he should be greatly surprised indeed, it in an assembly of Eng lish Gentlemen, such as he then had the honour of addressing. a Committee should be refused on the present occasion. He was willing to attribute the indifference that Honourable Gentlemen had hitherto shewn on this subject to ignorance.— ( A laugh.) He would venture to prophecy that, on an average of years, wheat would ere long be at 4s. a bushel. The next question was the causes of this dreadful state of things, one of which was the mistake committed in 1819 by the Bill then introduced, in which both parties of the State were concerned, and relative to which they both committed them selves, though he attributed no blame to the Right Hon. Ba ronet the Member for Tamworth, whose high statesmanlike at tainments were now well known and acknowledged by that House and the country at large.—( Hear.) When the Bill of 1819 passed, the public debts were enormous, and private debts were still greater. He begged to tell the Right Hon. Gen tleman the President of the Board of Trade, that all alarms about the Money Market were so many cock-and-bull stories. He, after nearly fifty years experience, would say that there would be no alarm on that point, and that what was most wanted was that the House should show a real and not an af fected sympathy with the distress of the mass of the popula tion of the country. They might talk or poor-rates, county rates, church rates, and bills for amending municipal Corpora tions—all these subjects were very fine ones for Hon. Mem bers opposite to sustain a fleeting popularity : but unless they brought forward measures that would really relieve the agriculturists, they could not hope to keep their places, and he hoped to God that they would not keep there.—( Laughter. ) Sir R. PE EL said, I feel it my duty to take my share of any unpopularity that may attach to the refusal of this Com mittee. The Hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a strong appeal to the feelings ci the House, and has expatiated on, and attached great importance to, the distresses of the agri cultural interests, which distress I admit. The Hon. Gentle man also attaches great importance to the refusal of this Com mittee. Why, Sir, the Hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the object of this motion is not inquiry alone into that distress, but its object is the depreciation of the standard of the country.—( Hear.) By every Gentleman who has spoken it is admitted that, try what remedies you please, unless you give relief to the productive classes, by diminishing their burthens, a depreciation of the currency will give no relief. On a former occasion I resisted the granting of a Committee of Inquiry into agricultural distress, because I knew that no effectual relief would result from it. Why, we had in 1832 a Committee, fully and fairly appointed, on the subject. They directed their attention to the state of the agriculturists ; every possible evi- THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1835, dente was afforded to that Committee ; that evidence received the amplest consideration, and the result was that the Com mittee tendered as advice to the House that .they should above all other things abstain from interfering or meddling with the existing currency of the country. That Committee declared it to be their opinion that if there were one thing more desir able than another, and which would tend more to the relief of the agriculturists, it was to allow them themselves to adjust their grievances, rather than interfere legislatively with them. The Hon. Member has referred to the Bill of 1819,.. and has again kindly attempted to relieve me from the responsibility at tached to that measure. The Hon. Gentleman also says that _ _ those who see their errors ought to be candid enough to admit them; but I confess that, although I do admit the position of the Hon. Gentleman, I have yet to learn that persons not be lieving themselves in error are to be called upon to admit error, and acknowledge regrets and opinions they do not feel. That the Bill of 1819 did increase the distresses of the country to a certain degree I do not deny, for I consider it impossible to escape from the evils of an inconvertible paper currency with out the infliction of some distress on the country. The ques tion then was, whether they would submit to temporary dis tress, which a return to a better system of currency would at first cause, or continue and persevere in a course which would lead to ruin—l mean persevering in the system of an inconvertible paper currency ? It is not fair to attribute to the Act of 1819 the whole of that reduction in prices which has taken place in agricultural produce. There was certainly a reduction of prices, and the distress of the agriculturists was in part aggravated by a return to a metallic standard ; but that reduction mainly arose from a destruction of the mo nopoly enjoyed by agriculturists during the war. During the war there were high prices, but with its ending there was a cessation of the previous stimulus to the encouragement of speculation in land, and the return of peace naturally brought about, that. there should be an increase of pecuniary diffi culties among the agriculturists, compared with what those difficulties were at former periods. Whatever alteration might be made in the currency it must be accompanied with that pressure and distress which did not accompany an inconvertible standard. The question to-night, there fore, is, not whether we shall inquire into agricultural dis tress, but whether we shall attempt to remedy the evils caused by the Bill of 1819, either by returning to an incon vertible paper currency, or by resorting to a depreciation of the standard. Under an arbitrary despotism, such a means might be resorted to, and such a measure would equal the worst acts of the most despotic Governments. Under such Governments I say, Sir, that a measure of the sort may be attempted with success; but in a free country like this it can never be made with any :probability of succeeding. The Hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says let us have a Com mittee, the result of which shall never be known to the public. —( A laugh.) For my part I have no objection to that Committee. Oh, but says the Hon. Gentleman, I mean that the proceedings in the Committee should not be known. But I say, that it is the expectation of the result that would agitate the public mind.—( Hear.) It is of no use to conceal the proceedings of the Committee from the public if you let them know the end you have in view. If there is to be any result from the proceedings it is useless to withhold them from the public. I would much rather let the public know daily the proceedings of the Committee during the time they were sitting if the object in view was a depreciation of the standard. And, I say, that the public mind will be much agitated if they expect that after three months' sitting the re sult of the Committee will be a depreciation of the standard, and that withholding the proceedings of the Committee from them will not give them satisfaction.—( Hear.) What would be the case of every debtor and creditor if the public knew that debts would be placed on a different footing—that debts contracted in one currency were to be paid in another? Does the Hon. Gentleman expect that any transaction would take place in the meantime—that the result would not be a total paralisation in the state of commerce, and a total cessation of all commercial transactions in the meantime ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman asks us why have we so much pity for the creditor, and why have we not the same pity for the debtor? And he also says that throwing the burthen on the creditors would be no great harm, as they are generally rich men. Now can such a proposition be generally affirmed as to creditors throughout the country. I think not. Every person dealing with confidence in the public faith—. every one entering into commercial transactions where money is not paid—is a creditor ; and where such was the case it can not be truly affirmed that creditors are rich. The Hon. Gen tleman in the course of his speech has employed rather a cu rious argument, for he has said that the person who has spe culated in the purchase of land has as good a right to expect as much relief as the individual who employs the same capital in the public funds. Is there not a difference between the two transactions? Suppose the latter lends a thousand pounds, he does so, and the public credit is pledged to him ; in the case of the former it is a mere speculation, without any pledge being given to him. The two cases were not alike. In the one case the public faith is pledged, in the other it is riot, and the same relief cannot be expected. I repeat one is a mere spe culation ; and it is a mere attempt to delude the reason by appealing to the passions when the Honourable Gentleman says that the two cases are analagous. The proposition of the Honourable Gentleman—of my Honourable Friend, if he will allow me so to call him—tends, to say the least of it, to a depreciation of the currency. Would the Honourable Gentle ' man have it said that the Honourable Member for Wiltshire had thrown greater light on the subject than anybody else who had spoken, when he said that the great advantages of the proposition would be that if the standard was depreciated at the expense of the country the price of labour would be increased ? Does not such an assertion prove that depre- ciation of the currency is the object of the present motion ? —( Hear, hear, hear.) This proposition directs itse!f to one or other of two objects ; either it has in view the correction of the defects of the existing system of currency, or it means to give relief to the debtor by a depreciation of the standard, and diminish the burthens caused by the existing national difficulties. If it is not proposed to depreciate the standard, and to cause relief from the national debt, I cannot see how the proposition will benefit the agriculturists. Under the paper currency as great improvements have taken place as under any other monetary system ; and I do not think that the manufacturing interest wish for any change in it, neither can I see what interest the agriculturist can have in getting the standard lowered. It is an error to think that Mr. Hume ad vised an increase of paper currency by, depreciating it. He advises no such thing, and in his essay on the question, Mr. Hume does not advocate a constant increase and depreciation of the standard. If paper is not to be inconvertible, where is the advantage which it is argued must accrue to the agricul tural interest? But it would appear as if the Hon. Gentleman would prefer a. silver currency to a gold currency. The Hon. Gentleman might have reasons to urge for this preference if the choice were now to be made—if the question were a vis integer, and that a decision were to be made between the two standards; but still it would remain to be shown how the agricultural in terest would be benefited by , the change. If the proposed change were to be made, the same distress which occurred in 1819 would again occur, but without the same advantage being derived from the change. Sir, it appears to me that our object should be to render the standard as precious as possible. The better way would be to take gold as the standard, using silver as a token of that standard, coining into sixty-six instead of sixty-two, and using it only as a token. Must it be that we shall take a double standard, or shall we use silver as the single and only one ? I see no use in taking the double standard, for saying that you shall pay either in gold or in silver as you please. Does the Hon. Gentleman mean that we shall do as they do in France, and proceed without defin ing the standard ? I can see no object whatsoever, nor any reason why gold and silver should be standards conjointly. Sir, the more simple the standard is the better. Let gold be the measure of value, or let silver be the measure of value, but why use them conjointly ? The Hon. Gentleman has ad duced no good reason for this. Perhaps the Hon. Gentleman desires to take silver as the measure, and leave gold to find out its own value. I know the subject is a dry one—( Cheers) —and I shall not trespass longer on the House. If the Hon. Gentleman takes silver as the standard, and leaves gold to find its value, how will the other metals assert their worth ? If he makes silver the standard, at what rate of value will he set it up ? Will he set it up at the old rate of 625., or the present rate of 665. ? The Hon. Gentleman may depend upon it he is adopting the best mode of depreciating the currency, and it will be much better for him, and a far shorter mode of settling the question, to say at once that a sovereign must pass for 255.—( Hear.) It would save the trouble of a new coinage— (Cheers and laughter.)--and would be doing honestly that which is now attempted to be done by a circuitous mode. That is to say, let the creditor at once be deprived of the dif ference, and let the debtor pay what he owes, not in sovereigns of the value of twenty shillings, but in sovereigns of the value of twenty-five. If the Hon. Gentleman's object is to substitute a silver instead of a gold currency, I doubt exceedingly whe ther the effecting of that object would make a good bargain for the agriculturist. I doubt it, because if the substitution► took place, there would be a rise in the price of silver.—( Hear. ) The Right Hon. Baronet here referred to the allusion which had been made to the late Mr. Ricardo's change of opinion, and expressed his doubts as to the validity of death-bed conversions. Those who were most opposed to the Act of 1819, should be the persons least sanguine in their expecta tions of great benefits to be derived from a substitution of a gold for a silver standard. The effect, I again repeat, would be an increased demand for silver. Gold might leave the country, and lose its value in consequence of the demand for it being lessened by the change ; but silver being made the standard, the demand for it would increase, and the relief which it was supposed would be conferred upon the agriculturist by the change would not be the result. On the contrary, the in creased demand for the new standard would necessarily increase the price of silver, and then where was the advantage which the Hon. Gentleman would argue from the change ? There is another and a very important light in which this question should be viewed—l mean with reference to the productive ness of mines. It appeared that of the two metals, gold pro mised to be found in greater quantity, as would appear if Hon. Members took the trouble of consulting Humboldt, whose opinion upon the subject was confirmed by the testimony of ou r diplomatic agents in South America. By those and other authorities it appears that in America and also in Russia gold was likely to be found in future in greater relative quantity as regarded silver than it has hitherto been. I cannot see what advantage is proposed to the agriculturist by the medi tated change. If the prices of all other commodities be raised, as they would be by this alteration, in what way is the possessor of land to gain? On the contrary, is it not obvious that, with the rise in all other articles, he must lose by the alteration 7—( Hear, hear.) The great sufferers by the change in the currency will he the agricultural labourers. I knoi that this objection will be met by Hon. Gentlemen arguing that there will be a greater demand for labour, but we know well that the price of labour does not change in any alteration of the currency in a manner at all proportionate t.- the degree of rapidity with which articles of consumption arc increased in price by a depreciation of the currency—( Cheers) —and you may depend upon it that the great sufferers in the , Hon. Baronet opposite, there remained, practically speak event of the proposed change would be the labouring classes. ing, but little for him to say ; at the same , time he mus —( Hear.) The only point appears to be to win over the beg, in the first instanee, to advert to what had fallen from the agriculturists to an advocacy of this measure, by a pretended Hon. Member for Knaresborough, the whole cirrent of whose advantage, whilst, at the same time, the public creditor is to argument was, that in all his Majesty's Mit:miters did,' and be defrauded, and the agricultural labourer pinched in his in all they proposed, they evinced a dete,rmination• f.e.yefuse earnings. There appears, then, to be no real and direct ad- all relief to, and withhold all sympaiby-ifioni;"the. agelesltu vantage derivable to the agricultural interest from the pro- ral interest ; and he had m i xed up a ai treat 'seiretir .4 pro posed change. But it is argued that the agriculturists positions, which were in ' themselves entireVAifferkt and will derive a service from the diminution of the public distinct. They were not now refusing any application for burthens which will follow from the alteration. How is it inquiry into agricultural distress, with a view to its relief; that the complaints of the injustice which were made at the on the contrary, the very same individuals who acquiesced change from 1797 to 1816 are not renewed by the present pro- in the appointment of a committee for that purpose, were position ?—( Hear, hear.) It was then made cause of corn- now opposing an inquiry into the standard, which, as had plaint that those who had made engagements in the depreci- been already stated by the Hon. and Learned Member for ated currency were called upon to fulfil them in the improved Dublin, meant nothing more nor less than a depreciation, one. No doubt a great deal of individual injury had taken for the purpose of paying less than they had promised to place on the occasion ; but how could it have been obviated, pay. He must say, in behalf of that interest, with which or what mode of equitable and just compensation could have he had the honour to be connected, and of which he never been adopted? What arrangement could be made with regard could speak but in terms of the highest respect, that to money lent before 1796— w ith regar d t o money lent in the it belonged more to them than to any other class to advo interval between that and 1816—and with regard to money cate a depreciation of the standard, because, by reason of lent after this latter period, all of which was to be repaid in the transactions connected with lands, mortgages, contracts, varied currency, in some instances depreciated, and in other family settlements, and on jointures, they were the individuals, instances improved ? With regard to the agricultural interest of all others in the whole community, who possessed the it had been observed that mortgages had been made in a depre- largest claims on account of fixed engagements, and in whom, ciated currency, the redemption of which took place in an im- therefore, it would be infinitely less creditable and honourable proved one ; but on behalf of the other interests, could it not to come forward and ask for relief. His Right Hon. Friend, with equal justice be urged that deeds and contracts were en- the President of the Board of Trade, had referred to the re tered into in which the lenders of money laboured under simi- solution of 1833. It was not the only one upon the subject. lar disadvantages, and possessed an equal claim to a revision ? In former and earlier times, and under nearly similar circum- But how could a revision be entered upon with respect to stances, the reign of King William, in 1696, the House of transactions which extended over so long a period s— (Hear, Commons had the honour and the honesty to come forward hear.) Whatever may be the inclination to enter into such and to refuse their assent to such a proposition as the present, revision the attempt to carry it into practice would be the- in the following resolution :—" That the House would not roughly impossible. But the question now is, how are we to alter the standard of the gold and silver coin of the realm alter the arrangement of 1819, or rather 1816, for it was in value, weight, or denomination." The same resolution then that the difficulty practically began ? It began in conse was afterwards moved as an amendment, on a similar pro quence of the return to peace, and through the operation of position by Mr. Huslisson ; and one, to pretty nearly the natural causes. Amongst these were the absence of the sti- same effect, had been moved by his Noble Friend in 1832. mulus which war had created, and the reduction of prices ' It was said that they were paying the public creditor more consequent upon the great increase and improvement of ma- than they contracted to pay. He denied the fact abso chinery.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Let the natural causes which lutely. — ( Hear, hear.) The loan ha d been contracted at operated to produce the change be separated from the con- a period of the greatest depreciation, and they were now sequences which followed from the introduction of a con- paying in gold, at 31. 19s. lop. ; and had it not been a vertible medium, and then will be seen how little of the evil special article of the contract with the public creditor, must be attributed to the latter. From 1816 to the present that, within a certain period after the restoration of peace, period nineteen years have elapsed, and since that time all he should be paid in full? If the principle now sought to be contracts that were made have taken place under the new established were once adopted, what was the situation in which standard of currency. Repeated attempts have been made to he might chance to find himself placed? Let the House but alter the law, but these attempts have proved unsuccessful. once affirm the principle that they had a right to deal with It was tried in 1821, but the House solemnly recorded its de- these contracts, and to pay the public creditor less than they claration against the attempt. In 1826 a similar attempt was had contracted, and in the course of the present session it made with a similar result. The same took place in 1833. might be his duty to apply to that monied interest which had What advantage do you now propose to yourselves in depre- been spoken of to raise a loan with which to meet the exigen ciating the present currency ? So far from the proposed cies of the State. But how could England hope to raise such measure tending to the redress of any grievances, its effect a loan if the British Parliament were to set to the nations of would be highly injurious. If the change of 1816 were pro- the earth the example of violating her contracts, and depart ductive of injustice what would be the effect of a change now, ing from her most solemn and long-recognized engage after the lapse of nineteen years, in which so many contracts ments 2—( Hear, hear.) At what period, too, were they were entered into by parties who, after the frequent discussion called upon to take this step ? Why just at diet time of the subject, placed the fullest confidence in the stability of all others when other nations had been setting a bet of the present standard? The country, after such a lapse of ter example, and pursuing a far nobler course—when in time, was placed in a totally different position from what it danger and in difficulty Portugal herself had been making was in 1816 ; and if the change which took place at that efforts for the improvement of her currency—when Ame period were an injustice, an alteration now, seeing that the rice, a free state, had been making one of the greatest country had adapted itself to the present standard, would be and most difficult efforts ever made by any nation to restore a second injustice.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) How small the character of the currency. Was this the rnomet for Eng must be the number of engagements existing previously to land, the first of all nations in a commercial point of view, to the year 1816 compared with those which have since taken set an example to all who lived within its dominions, and to place. How many of the former have been reversed by vo- the nations of the earth, for the first time in her modern luntary contracts. ( Hear, hear, hear.) Yet now you history, of a violation of faith ? Was this the period for would enact a new law by which great injustice would acceding to such a proposition, when they had just accom be done to those who had entered into engagements within plished, by legitimate means, the reduction of the interest of the last nineteen years ; an Act by which the old grievance the national debt, and after inducing the public creditor to would not be redressed, but which would inflict incalculable keep up the value of the securities, to turn upon him at last, injury upon those who had entered into contracts in the pre- and by forcible robbery deprive him of his fair and just re sent currency, and under a standard which, by repeated votes ward? Gentlemen who talked about pressure would have of the House, had been declared unalterable. For these rea- them believe that it rested exclusively with the landed inte sons, believing that no interest would be benefited, that the rest. Was that the only interest that suffered ?—( Hear, agricultural interest, so far from being served, would be mate- hear.) Gentlemen connected with commerce would tell wally injured by the measure ; that the public creditor would them that there had been no inconsiderable reduction in pro be robbed, the price of labour lowered, and engagements fits generally. Let them look to the condition even of the greatly altered in their character, I feel myself bound to public creditor; a paper he held in his hand showed that since oppose the Committee. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded the peace a saving of 2,3.55,845/. had been effected in the amidst loud cheers. interest of the debt in the annual payments. The following Mr. O'C ONN ELL said the alteration made in the cur- was the paper referred to : rency in 1819 had been fatal to this country and ruinous to An Account of the Saving accrued to the Public by the Conversion Ireland. The Right Hon. Baronet, in his allusions to 1797, of Stock from a higher to a lower rate of interest. and to 1816 and 1819, was playing fast and loose with dates. Interest on the The Right Hon. Baronet did not take into account the dif- Capital. At ference which the change of currency made in the millions of Capital. At the '_, At the_ , Saving. debt due by the country.—( Hear, hear.) There was no press. highest lowest ing necessity for the change effected in 1819. It was a ques. late of rate of tion concocted in insanity, and as if for the purpose of making interest. Interest. —.....,.... an experiment as to the quantity of suffering which humanity 1822 X X. X. .c. could endure.—( Hear.) In Ireland it had operated like a Ca d p t i i t_4l . 5 l. .pe i r . CAt 3 7.,Lt s t e e n r t d s. e- . 149,62'7,825 7,481,391 pestilence, and swept away whole families by its baneful ope- Capital of New sock, 4/. ration. The produce of that country was materially affected by per Cents., including the mr,crra it. When the prices for agricultural produce were small, the bonus of 7,1. 8 5 2 r31. 157,189,218 quantity exported was great, and thus a man, instead of reser. Capital 41. per Cents., after de. ving three pigs out of six for his own use, was obliged to send du c tin g 6,149,24-sissents... 70,105,403 2,804,216 2,453,619 250,50 the whole of them out of the country, and hence it ensued that Capital Si. 10s. per Cents. the misery was brought home to every cabin door. As to the 1830. public debt, could it be denied that the amount of that debt Capital 41. jzCZ i s.gil se e n r t d s. e : 151,021,728 6,040,869 had been doubled ? And, that being the case, was it not clear Capital g/. 10s. ' per that the monied interest had a strong motive for upholding the Cent. £150,344,051 present system? He, however, must protest against it. The Do. Si. per Cent 474,374 150,818,425 '755,110 -- Right Hon. Baronet had said that those who bought lands 1834. were speculators, and that those who invested money in the Capital 4/. per Cents. ... . Capital in 31. 10s p funds were not. Now, was this the fact? Why, those who The er 8 p l e n e t s lent the Government 1,000/. expected to get 2,000/. for it, .............. that was, those who purchased three per cents. at 50/. ex- Total 2,355,1145 pected to get 100/. instead of 50!., by employing their capital It might be said that every other interest would derive an equal in that way, and, therefore, if this proved an ythi ng , it went to benefit from the reduction. He denied that it could take effect show that the man who dealt in money was as much a specu- except upon fixed engagements. Again, did Gentlemen pay lator as the man who dealt in land—that there was really no the same interest now on mortgages as they had done in past distinction whatever between them.—( Hear.) The Right times ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Wiltshire Hon. Baronet had said that 1816 was the period when paper (Mr. Benett) had addressed the House upon this subject. He and gold were at par; but did he forget that in the following should like to ask the Hon. Gentleman whether the effect of a year, 1817, the issue of paper was greater than in the previous depreciation of the standard would not be, that the labourer year, although both 1817 and 1818 were years of agricul- would have to pay a higher monied price for every necessary of tural prosperity ?—( Hear, hear.) For those three years, life he purchased? He should like to know whether the Hon. then, he had a right to take credit.—( Hear, hear.) But did Gentleman would pay him more wages on this account ? No ; the Government go back to a metallic currency in 1818? the labourer would be fixed just in proportion to the alteration Undoubtedly they did not, for i n th a t year th e Bank of in prices. Was it not the depreciation of' 1797 which of all England issued no less than four millions of paper, and, of other acts produced the distress and misery under . which the course, the currency was by that means i ncrease d. Well, then, agricultural interest had so long laboured ? The Hon. and I in 1816 there was distress ; 1817 and 1818 were y e a r s of pros- Learned Member for Dublin had laid great stress on the dis perity ; but in 1819 that prosperity was checked. In 1821 advantages under which Ireland laboured. Why, if any part of they had their resolution against a paper currency. Aud then the kingdom had derived considerable advantage from war prices came 1826, when it was resolved that they should go to a gold and war expenditure, it was just that portion of the empire standard. But he would ask them whether there had been one to which they both belonged. Every one who had spoken ▪ year of prosperity since, or if agriculture had prospered from throughout the debate had admitted the evils arising from con -1 1826 down to the present hour ?—( Hear.) The evidence was stant fluctuations in the currency. Could any one who re -1 decisive on the point, and he would defy any man to deny that membered the effect which had been produced before,•doubt r since they had resolved, in 1826, not to alter the currency, agri- what would be the result of the present motion if it were ac t cultural distress had been constantly on the increase. Front ' ceded to ? It was not to 1819 they had to look back—it was , that period to the present that House had done literally no- to 1797. If there were evils to be deplored, if there were ▪ thing, and, it would seem, meant to do nothing. To be sure grievances to be lamented, they were occasioned by that first i in 1833 they passed a resolution, but what was the effect measure, necessary as it might have been at the time ; though t of that resolution ? Why it was as much as to say that even on that point there existed great differences of opinion. play of Hamlet was to be played with the part of Hamlet The point they bad to decide in 1819 was, whether it was not omitted by particular desire—( A laugh)—for the subject of better to perform their engagements, even at the hazard of the 1 the currency was altogether passed over. In short they pressure that ensued, than to violate them for the purpose of t had done nothing ; they had afforded no relief ; and 1835 escaping it. It was on these grounds that he trusted the . had come, and what was the result ? Why, that wheat was House would, by a strong majority, declare their opinion on the i, from 4s. to 4s. 6d. the bushel. But was that, he should like question, because, as had been frequently said before, if they • to know, any relief to the agricultural interests ? Now he did not adhere to the standard of value, the public ho. was glad that this was not a party question. The Govern- nour and public credit of England were gone, ant , ment took part with the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, and she could no longer exist as a commercial country. Bu' _ the great monied aristocracy, and he regretted it ; but this he one word more and he had done. An Honourable Gentle. a could tell them, that although it was not a party ques- man near him seemed to sneer when he spoke of the monies j tion in that House it was considered so out of doors. interest. He mentioned it not as separate from, but as a par ) By their own admission the agricultural interest had been of, the great interests of the country—( Hear, hear.) Thi • going back year after year for the last eleven years, and in monied interest represented by the Funds was not the interes o 1833 that House went the length of declaring that they would of a rich or powerful party, but of the middle classes—(Hear ? do nothing with a view to relief, although they admitted the hear.) He would, with the permission of. the House, refer ti c distress. Let them deny the existence of distress in England one paper, from which it would appear how small a portion o e if they pleased, but he would go to Ireland, and show them this property was possessed by the great leviathans of weak] n that there, at least, distress had prevailed. He acknowledged which the Hon. Gentleman supposed to be the objects of their r , that a change in the present system would give relief to the exclusive protection. It was to the following effect : if debtor, and to that extent diminish the means of the creditor Dividends payable sth June, 1834... 181,469 persons ;s —not, however, ' the mercantile creditor—for it could not Not exceeding Si. ... 56,236 _ operate prejudicially to the man who was both a buyer and a Not exceeding 101. a seller. On this head he differed from the sentiments of the Not exceeding 50/. . Hon. Member for Knaresborough, as he did upon many others, 148,920 •.. and he must say that the fair way to take the inquiry was as -- 3 between debtor and creditor. He could not help thinking N ot excee di ng 30 / ... .. . 32,549 e that there was something wrong about a gold standard—that ( Loud cheers. ) c it was injurious in a variety of ways besides rendering dear this Mr. BEN ETT explained, amidst great confusion and low ._ rate of exchange. It had a sensible effect upon the produc- cries of " Divide I" ,n tive labour of the country ; and it was his belief that without Mr. GILL ON moved the adjournment 4 the debate, an , in a cheap currency productive industry could not be put into the gallery was cleared for a division. , ) such active motion as would increase the value of property to Strangers having been excluded for a quarter of an hots h an extent which would compensate for the loss which the the gallery was re-opened; and we presume, from what fo] a , change might produce. In proof of this he would adduce a lowed, that during the exclusion of strangers Mr. Gillon ha ,d familiar illustration. Suppose in the back settlements of had consented to withdraw his motion. We found on of of America it were declared that no man should cut down a return a _ tree expect with a golden hatchet, what would be the re- Sir C. BURRELL on his legs. The Hon. Member sal a suit ? Why, that little ground would be cleared and that he thought be had a right, since he had suet with so muc Id brought into a state of productiveness. But suppose another interruption—( Cries of " Divide")—to punish the House I ie Act were passed by which it was said that none but good reading an extract from a much-respected authority in corri or Birmingham steel hatchets should be used in • clearing boration of the opinion which he entertained upon the subjec ae the woods, what would the case be then? Why, that trees The Hon. Member, after reading a passage, which we ui ,-,h would be rapidly cut down, and land brought under cultiva- derstood to be extracted from a speech delivered by Lord We by tion, so that the man with the gold hatchet would throw it tern, said it was affirmed by the wisest in monetary matter n- out of the window, and betake himself to the more useful im- that no other nation but England could have sustained th se element.—( Hear, and a laugh.) But he knew it was said convulsion which succeeded to the withdrawal of thirty-tit s b that paper was nothing but vile rags—mere assignats; and millions from the currency. The state of affairs require is Mr. Canning had talked "of oceans of paper, irrigated at the that some remedial measure should be adopted, and such on base by a little gold." Now what he (Mr. O'Connell) wanted measure would undoubtedly benefit all classes. The funs e_ was that the oceans of gold should be irrigated at the base by holders might suffer in a diminution of their income, but the o- a little silver, and he believed that a depreciation of from four would be amply compensated by its increased security. I if to five per cent. in the two metals would, according to bank- saw no objection to a full and impartial inquiry, and for th It, ing calculation with respect to two-thirds of paper, produce he should have no hesitation in giving his vote. nv an increase in prices to the extent of from twelve to fifteen per Mr. J. MAXWELL supported the motion. nd cent., and at the same time augment considerably the circulat- Mr. CAY L E Y replied. He denied that the effect of I s i a ing medium of the country. The Right Hon. Baronet was motion, if successful, would be to affect injuriously the interes ity now satisfied that the expedient which had been tried was a of the labouring classes. ;ee frightful one, although made, no doubt, with a good intention, The H o use then divided, when the numbers were— si. and by parties who desired well to the country. He should For Mr. Cayley's motion b e give his support to the motion, and he must confess that he Against it 216 i s regretted to find the members of the Government concurring Majority against the motion lot in opinion with the Right Hon. Baronet, because he did think STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. ) , C that they should have held out some hope to the country of Mr. H. L. BU LWE R moved for leave to bring in a B he affording them relief upon the subject.—( Cries of " Divide, for the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford. I divide.") Captain CEI ETWYND said he would not oppose the no les Mr. RIC H ARDS rose to make some explanation, but what tion, because he could not do so without going into detail out fell from the Hon. Member was inaudible in the gallery, owing but he should give every opposition in his power to the E my to the loud and general cries of " Question," " Spoke," and on the second reading. t- , " Divide, divide." Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. arc I The CHA N CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that The other orders of the day w ere t h e n dis p osed o f, a n d 1 rs) after the arguments which had been adduced by the Right House adjourned at Two o'Clook. • . 2,355,ait5 It might be said that every other interest would derive an equal benefit from the reduction. He denied that it could take effect except upon fixed engagements. Again, did Gentlemen pay the same interest now on mortgages as they had done in past times ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) had addressed the House upon this subject. He should like to ask the Hon. Gentleman whether the effect of a depreciation of the standard would not be, that the labourer would have to pay a higher monied price for every necessary of life he purchased? He should like to know whether the lion. Gentleman would pay him more wages on this account ? No ; the labourer would be fixed just in proportion to the alteration in prices. Was it not the depreciation of 1797 which of all other acts produced the distress and misery under which the agricultural interest had so long laboured ? The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had laid great stress on the dis advantages under which Ireland laboured. Why, if any part of the kingdom had derived considerable advantage from war prices and war expenditure, it was just that portion of the empire to which they both belonged. Every one who had spoken throughout the debate had admitted the evils arising from con stant fluctuations in the currency. Could any one who re membered the effect which had been produced before, doubt what would be the result of the present motion if it were ac ceded to ? It was not to 1819 they had to look back—it was to 1797. If there were evils to be deplored, if there were grievances to be lamented, they were occasioned by that first measure, necessary as it might have been at the time ; though even on that point there existed great differences of opinion. The point they had to decide in 1819 was, whether it was not better to perform their engagements, even at the hazard of the pressure that ensued, than to violate them for the purpose of escaping it. It was on these grounds that he trusted the House would, by a strong majority, declare their opinion on the question, because, as had been frequently said before, if they did not adhere to the standard of value, the public ho nour and public credit of England were gone, and she could no longer exist as a commercial country. But one word more and he had done. An Honourable Gentle man near him seemed to sneer when he spoke of the monied interest. He mentioned it not as separate from, but as a part of, the great interests of the country—( Hear, hear.) The monied interest represented by the Funds was not the interest of a rich or powerful party, but of the middle classes—( Hear, hear.) He would, with the permission of, the House, refer to one paper, from which it would appear how small a portion of this property was possessed by the great leviathans of wealth which the Hon. Gentleman supposed to be the objects of their exclusive protection. It was to the following effect : Dividends payable sth June, 1834... 181,469 persons Not exceeding Si. Not exceeding 101. Not exceeding 50/. 148,920 Not exceeding 301. 32,549 (Loud cheers.) Mr. BEN ETT explained, amidst great confusion and loud cries of " Divide I" Mr. GILL ON moved the adjournment tif the debate, and the gallery was cleared for a division. Strangers having been excluded for a quarter of an hour, the gallery was re-opened; and we presume, from what fol lowed, that during the exclusion of strangers Mr. Gillon had had consented to withdraw his motion. We found on our return Sir C. BURRELL on his legs. The lion. Member said chat he thought he had a right, since he had met with so much interruption—( Cries of " Divide")—to punish the House by reading an extract from a much-respected authority in corro boration of the opinion which he entertained upon the subject. The Hon. Member, after reading a passage, which we un derstood to be extracted from a speech delivered by Lord Wes tern, said it was affirmed by the wisest in monetary matters, that no other nation but England could have sustained the convulsion which succeeded to the withdrawal of thirty-two millions from the currency. The state of affairs required that some remedial measure should be adopted, and such a measure would undoubtedly benefit all classes. The fund holders might suffer in a diminution of their income, but they would be amply compensated by its increased security. fie saw no objection to a full and impartial inquiry, and for that he should have no hesitation in giving his vote. Mr. J. MAXWELL supported the motion. Mr. CAY LE Y replied. He denied that the effect of his motion, if successful, would be to affect injuriously the interests of the labouring classes. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For Mr. Cayley's motion Against it Majority against the motion Mr. H. L. BUL WE R moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford. Captain CHETWYND said he would not oppose the mo tion, because he could not do so without going into details ; but he should give every opposition in his power to the Bill on the second reading. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, cad the House adjourned at Two o'Clook.