ed laws to prevent their redemption. The avowed object of our measures formed a confession that our pretext was worthless. Had the country asserted far worse of us than that we did not know what we were doing that we had lost our reason, it might have produced evidence to give some colour to its assertions.

It had always previously been the enviable privilege and honourable characteristic of the House of Commons, to labour to increase prosperity and happiness, but not to destroy themto remove loss and suffering, but not to create them. Its measures were always intended to make the good of the moment better; and if they happened to have a contrary effect, it zealously and promptly applied a remedy. If any interest or trade languished, the House of Commons, almost without solicitation, laboured to restore it. If any class or portion of his Majesty's subjects were in distress, the House of Commons attended at once to their petitions, and spared no efforts to relieve them. In the House of Commons, the wronged knew they had a friend to redress their wrongs; and the suffering knew they had a benefactor to remove, or mitigate to the utmost, their sufferings. But what, sir, has been our conduct? When vast portions of the community complained to us by petition, that our measures would involve them in ruin, we treated them with contempt; when they afterwards assured us that their worst fears had been realized, and im plored us to inquire and to receive at their hands the most irrefragable proofs that we had plunged them into bank ruptcy and want, we treated them in a worse manner. A man who was then a Minister, but who, thank Heaven! is no longer one, heaped on them every species of insult and contumely; and we, to our eternal shame I speak it, imitated him. When the silk manufacturers, the ship-owners, and others, were thus treated-when their prayers for inquiry were refusedwhen their supplications, for us to examine their proofs, and deal with them only according to what they might prove, were scornfully rejected -when they were denied all opportunity of refuting the aspersions we cast upon them-and when their efforts to obtain an impartial hearing only caused us to add to their loss and

misery, it naturally followed, that they did not content themselves with merely taking from us their confidence. We did that which irresistibly tended to make them detest us, and it had its effects.

It was not possible, sir, for the country to be kept in ignorance of this conduct, or to be restrained from judging of it. It saw that we opposed assertions to facts, and that our reply to the offer of proofs was a volley of slanders. It heard us dared in vain by our victims to the test of inquiry; it beheld us sneak away from the combat, when we were threatened with overpowering evidence. When we deliberately charged the petitioners with falsehood and bad motive, and then silenced them with our power as they challenged us to the proof, it found in this sufficient to convict ourselves of falsehood and bad motive. In our obstinate refusal to inquire into the fruits of our own measures, and to receive evidence that these measures had operated injuriously, it found testimony that we knew they would not bear investigation. In our admission that inquiry would be useless, because we could not grant relief without departing from a system, it perceived a confession that we could not refute the petitioners, and that we were determined to sacrifice everything to a system which we knew to be producing the most baleful consequences. We re-echoed the delusive dogmas and fallacious statements of the Minister, only to convince it, that our object was, not its weal, but the Minister's protection; and that to save him, we would plunge it into ruin. Within these walls we were triumphant, because we were careful to make ourselves the sole witnesses and judges; but in the Supreme Court without, the judge found evidence and confession against us without any thing to counterpoise them, and the decision was accordingly. The country found that we were not a House of Com→ mons to protect it from the injurious measures of the Executive-to listen to its petitions-to redress its wrongs

to relieve its distresses-and to watch over and foster its prosperity and happiness; therefore it found that we were the reverse of that House of Commons, which the Constitution intended to create.

Up to the present moment we have

continued to act in this manner. How have we dealt with the petitions which in every session have been poured upon us from large portions of the community, complaining of bitter suffering, and imploring from us re lief? Have we instituted inquiry? No. Have we ever attempted to mitigate the distress of the petitioners? No. Has the existence of the distress been problematical? No, it has been wholly above doubt. Have we been destitute of the means of relieving it? No, we have possessed them in abundance. We have received the petitions, and without calling for evidence to refute a single allegation, or asking a question as to our means of granting what they prayed for, we have been silent, or we have contented ourselves with saying-We know you to be distressed, but you are mistaken touch ing the causes, and we can do nothing for you. We have acted as though our duty extended only to the creation of public misery, without having any thing to do with the removal of it. Never before, sir, in the history of civilized England was such conduct displayed by the House of Commons. Never before, in the history of civilized England, did the House of Commons see immense numbers of the community involved in suffering, without toiling heartily aud incessantly, with out exhausting inquiry and effort, however fruitlessly, to administer a remedy. And how have we employed ourselves while these petitions have been flowing upon us? In perfecting cur measures of public evil-in pro moting visionary experiments calculated only to increase the suffering in threatening laws with destruction, and thereby filling the land with apprehension and embarrassment-in devising gimcrack changes and experiments-in vilifying the laws and systems yet spared by our innovations-in boasting of our own transcendent talents and wisdom-and in covering all who have called our conduct in question with slanders.

Such proceedings, sir, could only have one effect on the opinion of the country. If in the gallop of our abolitions, we could have abolished the laws of nature and the maxims of common reason, we might perhaps have persuaded it, that we were, what we called ourselves; but this we could not accomplish. We have therefore

placed before it our dazzling character of ourselves to no purpose; we have poured our own eulogy into its ears in vain; it has rejected our new rules of judgment for the ancient one, of judging of the tree by its fruits; and in consequence it has arrived at the conclusion, that we are the reverse of what we describe ourselves to be.

All things have conspired against us, to sink us in public estimation. It has unfortunately happened that while we have dilated on our surpassing ability, we have furnished the most incontestable proofs of our destitution of ability. The country knew the best of the leaders in our proceedings to be scarcely second-rates, and it found in their speeches evidence of gross incapacity. This was bad enough, but it was nothing to what follows. Men among us who were utterly unknown, and who displayed the most rare assemblage of disqualifications conceivable, actually undertook to re-model or abolish laws of the greatest complexity and the most sweeping operation. Nothing could have been more admirably calculated for covering us with public derision. Worse yet remains. Our beardless striplings-beings not yet released from boyhood-youngsters just entering on their senatorial apprenticeship, to whom experience was utterly unknown, whose knowledge was barely sufficient to enable them to find their way to our doors, and in whom it was an unpardonable fault to think that they were capable of forming an opinion-these, sir, forgetting that they had every thing to learn, thrust themselves forward as teachers; and excelled us all in oracular dogma and noisy declamation-in scoffing at the wisdom of the greatest men of former times, and covering the sufferers who petitioned us, with insult and calumny. It is one of the most loathsome things in nature, to hear one of these striplings, in a voice which has scarcely divested itself of the treble tone of childhood, reviling laws and institutions, the operation of which is wholly above his comprehension; and advocating changes to throw the affairs of a great empire into confusion, when it is impossible for him to understand their nature and tendency. The country felt inexpressible disgust, when it saw that its injuries flowed mainly from the vociferous ignorance and

riotous imbecility of senatorial infants. Then, to crown all, our proceedings were the most rapturously applauded by such of us as had through life distinguished ourselves by holding absurd and dangerous opinions; and they were dissented from by such of us as had always been honoured by the country for experience, prudence, wisdom, integrity, and patriotism.

In pointing out, sir, thus freely our errors and faults, I must not spare some of those who had the chief share in leading us into them. I mean the more prominent members of the executive, who belonged to this House. Regularly acknowledged as at least a part of our leaders, and officially invested with the duty of watching over and promoting the public weal in all things; it is natural for us to look up to them to a certain extent as guides, without compromising our indepen◄ dence. They proclaimed that attachment to our laws and institutions was not merely erroneous, but disgraceful; and it was impossible for any of us to avow such attachment, without drawing upon ourselves their ridicule and calumny. We could not object to change and innovation, without being treated by them as criminals; and we could not laud change and inno vation without being overwhelmed with their panegyrics. They thus by intimidation on the one hand, and seduction on the other, insensibly led us to act as we have done. They caused us to pronounce the whole system of the country erroneous; and they incited us to rival each other in attempts to pull this system to pieces. It was from their encouragement that our incapable members so outrageously mistook their own powers, as to think themselves qualified to abolish old laws and frame new ones; and that our young members made such a barbarous display of folly and culpability. And it was from their example that we acted in so unconstitutional a manner to those who petitioned us for redress and relief.

I plead this conduct, sir, in the Ministers, not to justify, but to explain in some degree our own. We are not sent here to obey or imitate them; our duties are of a widely different description; but nevertheless, while human nature remains unchanged, we shall always, no matter how pure our own motives may be, VOL. XXIV.

be largely influenced by them. Speaking of them as Members of this House, I trust for its sake that they will never again act in a similar manner.

This relates to the fruits which our conduct has yielded to ourselves; it is sufficient to prove that for our own sake inquiry is imperiously necessary. I will now turn to what our conduct has yielded to the community.

The late Minister, sir,'asserts that no evils have been produced by our abolition of the Navigation Laws. On what evidence does he make the assertion? Simply and solely on the tonnage entries inwards and outwards. Does this evidence establish all that is required? No, it is utterly silent respecting the essentials of the subject. If we be satisfied with it, we must be deservedly ridiculed, as being igno rant of our duty, and only competent to plunge the empire into ruin. To know what the Abolition has yielded, we must know what effect it has had on the capital, freights, and profits, of the shipowners, and on the number of ships and seamen possessed by the community. Here is the pith of the question. If we, sir, by the abolition, have annihilated a large part of the shipowner's property, and compelled him to accept freights which subject him to constant loss, we have doneno matter what the tonnage entries may be a fatal deed to our country. In this I advance a truth, which no man, in this House or out of it, can question. If we have done this, we have demonstrably wasted a amount of national wealth already; and we have subjected the wealth and naval power of the nation to a constant decrease. A losing trade may be carried on for a shorter or longer time, according as its annual losses are greater or smaller; but nothing can be more certain, than that it must be ultimately destroyed.

vast

This applies to the community at large. We will now look at that part of it which is more directly and seriously interested in the matter. If we, by the abolition, which no publie necessity called for, have destroyed a large part of the shipowner's property, taken away his profits, and surrounded him with almost inevitable ruin, and if we have taken away the bread of numbers of seamen, and ground down the remainder to wages which not only strip them of many comforts

T

they previously enjoyed, but refuse to their families a sufficiency of common necessaries, we have, in respect of consequences, done to an immense number of our innocent fellow-subjects a deed of iniquity as dark as any that human nature could commit. I cannot, sir, be refuted, if there be any truth in the commonly received definitions of right and justice. The very apprehension that we may have-however inadvertently, and with whatever good intentions-done such a deed, ought to banish sleep from our pillows, until we make the most searching inquiry, and, if necessary, the most ample reparation.

Now, sir, what have we before us touching these points? Since the abolition took effect, shipping has sustained an enormous loss of value. This we deaf and blind as we have made ourselves-know to be a fact which cannot be disputed. Since the abolition took effect, freights have been so low as to subject the shipowners to almost constant loss-the shipowners, as a body, have suffered the most se rious losses many seamen have lost their employment seamen's wages have been inadequate for the due support of their families-the quality of British ships has greatly declinedand the ships and seamen possessed by the community at large have de creased, and in the last year they de creased considerably. These we deaf and blind as we have made ourselves

know to be other facts which cannot be disputed. And, sir, it is another fact equally well known to us, and equally indisputable, that the shipowners charge all this mainly upon the abolition. The charge is unanswered; the Minister does not sup ply a single satisfactory proof in its refutation; and, so far as we know to the contrary, it may be wholly unanswerable.

Need I then define our duty? I trust, sir, there is not one of us so unworthy of his seat, as to be igno rant that we are bound, by all our obligations to our country, to ascertain, by satisfactory evidence, what effect the Abolition has had on the worth of shipping, on freights, on the property and profits of the shipowners, on the employment and wages of seamen, and on the number of ships and seamen possessed by the community; and likewise what effect it has had, and is

calculated to have in future, on the naval power of the empire.

How have our free-trade measures operated on the silk manufacture? Have we ever inquired? No. Has then their beneficial operation been so apparent as to render inquiry useless? Alas! No. We made changes which vitally affected a most important ma nufacture-a manufacture estimated to employ many millions of capital, and to give bread to half a million of souls; of course one of the highest worth to the country; and we have never asked a question touching their consequences. The manufacturers and throwsters declare, that these changes have annihilated a large part of their property, bound them to a trade which they must either carry on at a loss, or abandon, by sacrificing much of the remnant of their property, and ren dered the comparative destruction of the silk manufacture at no distant pe riod almost a certainty. The weavers and working throwsters declare that these changes have stripped them of many comforts, deprived great numbers of them wholly or partially of employment, and reduced wages so that they cannot earn what will supply themselves and their families with the necessaries of life. The united declarations, sir, have not been uttered in a corner the knowledge of them has not been confined to the public they have been again and again rung in our own ears, even in the present Session. Here then we have been once more solemnly charged before our country with having wasted a large portion of its wealth, subjected its wealth to constant decrease, brought upon it much penury and wretchedness, and grievously injured its general interests. We have been solemnly charged be fore our God with having done what has utterly ruined many of our inno cent fellow-subjects, deprived many more of a large part of their property, and plunged hundreds of thousands more into penury and misery. And where are the proofs of our innocence? Have they been supplied by the Minister? No; his proofs leave the merits of the subject untouched: they are utterly silent as to the loss sustained by the manufacturers, as to whether the manufacture can be continued at a profit,and of course preserved from comparative annihilation, and as to whether the workmen have sufficient employ

ment, and can earn sufficient for their support; therefore they are worthless. To evidence against us of the most grave and conclusive pretensions, we have nothing to oppose; we are destitute of defence; we can only offer a simple negative, which no one will believe.

What sacred duty to our country rests upon us here? Inquiry, immediate, impartial, and unsparing: Inquiry that shall ascertain whether the silk manufacture has not been serious ly iniured, and placed in danger of ultimate ruin-whether the manufacturers have not been subjected to great loss of property, and their workmen have not been ground down to wages which must keep them in penury, suffering, and the inseparable attendants of penury and suffering. The inte rests of our country, sir, solemnly and loudly, demand from us such Inquiry; and we cannot refuse, without acting the part of traitors to these inte

rests.

We have made changes which have had the same operation on various other manufactures and trades; and we have manifested the same disregard touching their consequences. We have not asked a question; we have acted as though we could not err; or as though any evils, no matter how gigantic, which our acts might produce, ought to be produced. These manufactures and trades have brought against us similar charges, of having injured the interests of our country, and plunged great numbers of our innocent fellow subjects into loss and suffering; and we are in similar circumstances in respect of reputation. The Minister has furnished us with no defence, and we have none. His asser tion, sir, that these changes have caused no evil, because they have brought no material quantity of foreign goods into the country against these manu, factures and trades, is of no value. Whatever lamentable proofs of incapacity we may have given, there can not be a man in this House so destitute of understanding, as to be ignorant, that, if they have so far lowered prices, as to take away the profits of the masters, and render it impossible for the workmen to earn what will support their families in comfort, they have produced mighty evils, even though they have not brought a shilling's worth of foreign goods into the

country. That a measure which deprives a large part of the working classes of the comforts proper for their station, which takes from them the means of sending their children to school, and which binds them to penury and ignorance, is a most injurious one to the country, if it have no other effect whatever, is a truth which will be irresistible against any speeches or en actments that we may make against it. We have no evidence to prove that these changes have had no such effect; but, on the contrary, we have the most powerful evidence of an opposite character. Here again the interests of the country imperiously call upon us for Inquiry.

That agriculture has been long in a state of suffering, is a notorious truth; and that we have had the chief share in producing its suffering, is another truth, equally notorious. Mr Huskis son himself has admitted in this House, that our measure of last year brought such a quantity of foreign corn into the market, as did great injury; and this is equivalent to an admission, that what the agriculturists have suffered since the last harvest, has been produ ced solely by ourselves. When I remember, sir, how those who opposed our measure were treated by the Right Honourable Gentleman, his colleagues, and their eulogists, I think his admis sion goes very far towards forming a confession, that those opponents were

I need not say by whom very vilely slandered. We may find in it a very beneficial lesson; it may teach us to renounce the doctrine, that all who differ from us must of necessity, be both knaves and fools; and to speak of them somewhat more courteously than we have done. Here, then, we have conclusive evidence that we have erred greatly; and that our errors have deeply injured the country, and an immense number of our fellow-subjects. What is the irresistible infe rence? Inquiry, in order to discover and apply the necessary remedies.

On what, sir, have we been legisla ting respecting the Currency? Mere individual opinions. The speeches of Mr Peel, and the Duke of Wellington, amounted to nothing more. Have we any solid reasons for believing that these opinions are correct? We have none whatever. Mr Baring has con fessed that we yet know, comparatively, nothing of the Currency question;