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 serious 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 deereased 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 ob ligations 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 sup ply 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 publicthey 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 coun try 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 seriously iniured, and placed in danger of ultimate ruin-whether the manufac turers 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 ma nufactures 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 assertion, sir, that these changes have caused no evil, because they have brought no material quantity of foreign goods into the country against these manufactures and trades, is of no value. Whatever lamentable proofs of incapacity we may have given, there cannot 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 de-. prives 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 admission 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 inference? Inquiry, in order to discover and apply the necessary remedies.

On what, sir, have we been legislating 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 confessed that we yet know, comparatively, nothing of the Currency question;

and that we have thus far done little more than flounder on from one error to another. Such a confession, from a man of his ability, independence, and acquaintance with the subject, ought to have made us pause, and inquire if we could not find something better than opinion to proceed on. It has had no effect on us. We have owned that on former occasions we acted on fallacious opinions; but we have held it to be impossible for our present opinions to be fallacious. We have declared that Mr Horner and Mr Ricardo erred greatly; and we have acted as though the Duke of Wellington and Mr Feel were incapable of erring. We have acted on mere opinions, which had not even plausibility to recommend them which were apparently at variance with fact, when it was in our power to act on evidence. Had we any proofs that Mr Goulburn's estimate of the amount of small notes in circulation was correct? No.-Proofs were offered us that it was grossly incorrect, but we refused to receive them. Had we any proofs that his estimate of the amount of gold in circulation was correct? No. His own speech proved it to be highly erroneous, by leaving out of calculation a large amount which must of necessity have been exported. Did Ministers accompany their assertion that the notes of Country Banks caused the speculations of 1825, with proofs? No. They made it in de fiance of both probability and possibility. Did Mr Feel prove his assertion that the Banks were prepared for the suppression of small notes? did not attempt it. Did the Duke of Wellington prove his assertion that the measure of 1826, for suppressing these notes, was necessary? No.-All the proofs that are known show it to be erroneous. Did the Duke justify his opinion by proof, that the suppression of the small notes would cause no injurious diminution of capital? No.He even offered nothing worthy of being called argument in its favour.

He

Boast of the knowledge and wisdom of Parliament-Alas! Where were they during the debates of this session on the Currency? If any member of either House can now read the debates without a blush, he is but miserably qualified for being a lawgiver.

The country, sir, was not to be deJuded by these opinions. On a ques

tion which we owned was of the very highest importance to its interestswhich affected in the most serious manner the property of every man, rich and poor, it saw us bewildering ourselves with the unsupported assertions of this writer or that, of one Minister or another, when it was in our power to obtain authentic information by inquiry. It treated an assertion, that the Currency governed prices, with ridicule; because it saw us voting constantly on other occasions that prices were governed by the corn-lawsrestrictive commercial laws-any thing except the Currency. It laughed at us when we gravely declared that the notes of Country Banks caused the speculations of 1825; because it knew that these speculations were almost wholly confined to places in which they did not circulate. It knew, in contradiction to the Premier, that the suppres➡ sion of small notes would contract capital very mischievously; because it knew that the abundance of capital of which he spoke, was confined to London, and two or three other large places, and would not go to replace that, annihilated by the annihilation of these notes.

If a Country Bank call in ten thousand pounds in small notes, it will not borrow ten thousand sovereigns in London to replace them with; it will call in ten thousand pounds which it has lent to the trade and industry around it-it will take permanently ten thousand pounds from the capital of the trade and industry around it→ for the purchase of the sovereigns. The country knew this; and it of course knew that the Premier was in error. It knew that in 1825, as many London Banks, which did not issue small notes or notes of any kind, failed, in proportion, as Country Banks; therefore it held us and the Ministers to be more simple than school-boys, when we charged the failures of that year upon small, or any other notes. It saw that we were grossly ignorant of facts, which since 1825 had been rendered perfectly notorious-that we had not studied the question-and that, instead of seeking proofs, we wilfully closed our eyes to such as were before us. It knew, in spite of all our foolish declamation concerning high prices, and over issues, and contractions, and depreciations, that it had enjoyed infinitely greater pros

perity with its small notes, and slandered Country Banks, than it had ever enjoyed without them; and it knew, too, that they had never produced such great and destructive variations in the value of property, as we had produced by our blind changes of law. It saw and knew all this, therefore it treated our Currency opinions with scorn; and it treated us but little better for entertaining them.

When it is matter of demonstration that the Currency question affects vitally the collective and individual interests of the community-that it af fects as deeply the poor man's bread, as the rich man's fortune; and when it is equally matter of demonstration, that we have erred on it very greatly, and have followed mere opinions, which the country believes to be falla cious, I trust I need not insist on the duty of Inquiry. If there be any man in this House who believes that we ought to adhere to these opinions, instead of seeking for proofs-that we ought to content ourselves with what we have done, instead of sifting the question, and calling for all the evi dence within our reach-he is in a place which he ought never to have entered.

But then, sir, the late Minister, to prove that our conduct in late years has done no injury, tells us, that in the last year there was a considerable increase of imports and exports. Alas! for our own character, and alas! for our country, if we mistake such an increase for a proof of such a nature. With regard to the imports, their increase consisted in part of the increased import of foreign corn. The increase here was but a temporary one; it proved that the country was sustaining loss, and it caused public injury in a part of its operation. The increased import of tallow probably arose in part from the diminished production in the United Kingdom, caused by the heat of the seasons, the reduced export of salted provisions, and the inability of the working classes to procure so much animal food; it manifestly arose in part from the activity and extension of machinery, which consumes much of it; and it doubtlessly arose in part from the increased stock of it held by the community. The increase in various articles was added to stock, and went not into consumption. In part, it arose from the increased import of

foreign silks and other manufactured goods; and here it took place, to the injury of the country. An increased import of wool and certain other articles, may be taken as evidence of public loss, rather than of the contrary. If, sir, the increase of imports did not consist of such articles as the country really needed, if it took place in any degree to the injury of the community, and if it was not attended by a corresponding increase of consumption, taking into account the increase of population; it proves nothing in our defence whatever.

With regard to exports, did the increase arise from the proper demand and consumption in foreign markets, and did it take place without imposing any evils on the community? It proves nothing for us, if this question cannot be answered satisfactorily. What then is the answer? The increase to a very large extent, only formed additional stock in foreign mar kets; it arose in part, from speculation caused by an expected change of law in the United States; and it arose in no inconsiderable degree from speculative exports made by the manu◄ facturers, without even a cause like this to justify them. To many of the exporters, it has yielded not profits, but heavy losses. Public distress was to a great extent its parent; it could not have taken place, had it not been through the privations and sufferings of the working classes; it practically prohibited the manufacturers from obtaining profits, and their workmen from obtaining adequate wages; it incited foreign countries to raise their protecting duties against us; and it is now operating to produce public distress. The increase of exports does. not in the least benefit our cause.

It is time, sir, that this vulgar, drivelling error of judging of the state of the country solely by the amount of imports and exports, should be abandoned, not only by us, but also by the executive. Foreign trade can only be beneficial, in so far as it yields benefits to the population; if it injure the latter, it must be a source of evil. This is an axiom which we must admit to be unassailable. We and the government have, however, in late years, been taking the reverse for our guide. We have been intentionally and confessedly distressing the population to increase foreign trade. We have been

openly taking away the capital and profits of employers, and restricting the labouring classes from earning a sufficiency of common necessaries, on the sole pretext that foreign trade would be benefited by it. I cannot, sir, mention such tremendous errors and follies, without being almost deprived of utterance by shame and sor

row.

have by law practically prohibited the agriculturists from raising their pro fits, and of course their wages; we have done the same to the manufac turing and trading interests; we have made it the general rule by statute. We cannot charge it upon the old causes; we can no longer plead that it has arisen from overtrading, wild speculation, and bank-notes; blind are we as the inanimate stone, if we can not see that it is impossible for it to be better, unless our own laws lose their operation. Appearances indicate the reverse of improvement; they shew but too clearly that it is on the eve of resolving itself into a state of general and severe distress.

Let us then turn from the imports and exports, to look at the state of the population. Putting occasional fits of loss and distress out of the question, this state is, and has been, for the last eighteen months, worse than the present generation ever knew it to be. In agriculture, manufactures, trade, and commerce, profits have been reduced almost to nothing; and wages have been brought down to a point wholly inadequate for the comfortable subsistence of the labouring classes. The mass of the population is in worse circumstances than it has been in for many years, excepting, as I have said, occasional fits of loss and distress. Even in these fits, the loss and distress were seldom felt by the body of the community; if agriculture suffered, manufactures perhaps escaped the suffering; if manufactures and commerce were in distress, agriculture perhaps was reasonably prosperous; if wages were excessively low in agriculture, they were perhaps good in manufac tures; or if they were bad in the latter, they were perhaps good in the former. Agriculture would have suffered very little in 1825 and 1826, notwithstanding the manufacturing and commercial distress, had it not been for our measures. But at present the badness of profits and wages -the impoverishment and privations -the decline in circumstances, are felt in nearly an equal degree by all the interests of the empire-by nearly the whole population. This House cannot be, and it is not, ignorant of this. We know it to be unquestionable, that profits are in general very bad-that wages are in general very low-that the labouring classes are in general in great penury-that pauperism has increased-and that there has been a fearful increase in vice and crime.

We cannot, sir, call this a temporary state of things-the mere exception to the rule; we have clear proof that it can not amend, in our own enactments; we

If this continue, what must it produce? The inevitable operation of continued bad profits is, to destroy the capital of all but the rich. Agricultural capital in late years has sustained enormous diminution; it is still diminishing; and if it continue to diminish, our farmers will soon be in general an extremely poor body of men. Manufacturing and trading capi tal has likewise sustained great diminu→ tion, and it is still diminishing: another fit of distress amidst merchants and manufacturers would have the most fatal consequences. If this general decline of capital, amidst all the less wealthy, continue, it will at no distant period strip all of capital save the very wealthy. It is admitted that a lamentable change for the worse has already taken place in the feelings and conduct of the lower orders; that penury into which they have sunk, has, we know, had its natural and certain fruits; if the cause continue to operate, the consequences must be come more comprehensive and appal→ ling. If these orders continue thus to retrograde, they must soon be in a condition and display characteristics, which no friend of his country can reflect on without affliction and dismay.

This will suffice to shew that we can find no defence in the amount of imports and exports; at any rate it establishes the imperious necessity for inquiry. Such inquiry as it is our sacred duty to institute, will exhibit to us the exact operation of the imports and exports; we can ascertain in what articles the increase has been; we can take each article separately, and trace its effects upon the population.