Not for the benefit of landed proprietors; not for that of manufacturers and merchants, since their benefit would be only for a day; not for the good of the labouring and operative classes, since they would be deeply injured by it; not for the benefit of the fundholders, since they would be actually pillaged by it! For whose benefit was it then? Solely for that of debtors. By it Mr. A, the debtor, would have so much the more, and Mr. B, the creditor, so much the less. On one hint that had been thrown out in the course of the evening, he would say a single word. It had been said, that, by this depreciation, the public burthens would be diminished; he admitted the assertion, but, at the same time, he would say that there were other ways, and happily honest and honourable ways, to diminish those burthens, without disturbing public contracts. Would not a reduction of taxation be a more direct and a more honest mode of relieving those burthens? and had nothing been recently done in that way? Upwards of 6,000,000. had been reduced within the last four years, and relief had thus been afforded to the people in a more upright and equitable manner than in the way suggested by the present Motion, because the public creditor had not been deprived of that to which he was fairly entitled. The hon. member for Birmingham, indeed, contended that reduction of taxation gave no relief, which was a remarkable doctrine to be entertained by gentlemen who proposed to depreciate the currency as a means of lightening the public burthens. The hon. Gentleman, the member for Oldham, had given utterance to the oft-repeated fallacy that the creditor had gained enormously by the appreciation of money. He very much doubted the correctness of this assertion. Mr. Mushet had shown, as clearly as could be done by figures, that the public creditor, instead of gaining by the appreciation of money, was, taking into consideration the loss he suffered during the depreciation, a loser to the extent of somewhere about 44,000l. a year. He objected to the propositions of the hon. Member because he saw in them the complete derangement of the whole commercial and even social system of the country. He believed that nothing but ruin and bank ruptey could follow their adoption, and the loss of that high name for honour and integrity which the country at present possessed among the nations of Europe. If they could no longer bear the public burthens, or pay that which was due to the public creditor, he should say, "compound with him; exhibit the state of your affairs; say that you are not able to pay the 28,000,000. which he at present receives; but do not adopt that which was only a clumsy means of arriving at the same end,-which carried with it a complete disruption of all money contracts, and rendered insecure private and public credit,-which would reduce to beggary not only a few rich fundholders, as they were termed, but no less than 275,000 public creditors, who received dividends under 4007., and which would take the means of livelihood from the widow and the orphan." Let them avoid doing an act of that kind, not only because it would inflict on the country all the misery he had pointed out, but because in his conscience he believed it would cause them to forfeit that which ought to be as dear to a nation as to an individual -a good name for honour and integrity. Debate Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Earl METROPOLITAN SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.] The Bishop of Llandaff presented a petition from the Members of the Association for promoting Rational Humanity towards the Animal Creation, complaining of the position of the great Metropolitan Cattle Market, and praying for the establishment of four Live Cattle Markets, with contiguous Abattoirs, in the outskirts of the City. The petitioners stated, that Smithfield market was utterly inadequate to the reception of the number of cattle necessary for the consumption of London, and that being matter of importance as connected with the health of the metropolis, for the cattle could not be so fit for food when killed after being over-driven and heated in passing through the crowded streets. He hoped that the Government would think the subject worthy of its attention. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, April 23, 1833. MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of Sir THOMAS situated in the heart of the Metropolis, it was necessary to drive cattle through crowded thoroughfares, in many instances through many miles of the most frequented streets, causing suffering to the animals and danger to the passengers. The right reverend Prelate said, that a stranger would hardly believe that the only live cattle market in London was situated in the very centre of the city, surrounded by narrow streets, through miles of which the cattle had to be driven. The object of the Society in petitioning their Lordships, was in hopes of drawing public attention to the nuisance, in hopes that some means might be taken to get rid of it; and they suggested, what appeared to him to be a very feasible plan of doing so, by establishing more commodious cattle markets in the outskirts of the Metropolis, to be placed under the superintendence of the public authorities. At the time the Smithfield market was formed, it was the outskirts of the city, and the neighbourhood was by no means populous. It could not, therefore, be taken as FREEMANTLE, an Account of the Number of Excise Licenses issued under the Provisions of the Act 1st Will. 4th, cap. 64, for the half year, ending 31st March, 1831, and the following two years.-On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the aggregate Expense, and the Number of Agents, and Bailiffs, and Servants, employed in managing the Estates of Greenwich Hospital in Northumberland, Durham, and Cumberland, in 1832; the Salaries paid to the Judge of the Admiralty Court in the year 1792, and the Augmentation at subsequent periods, with the Amount of Retired Allowances, &c.: also the Number of Causes tried in the Admiralty Court of England, since 1792, and the Number of Days the Court sat for Business; also the Amount of Excise Duties on Stained Paper.-On the Motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the Number of Prisoners tried at each Admiralty Sessions, since 1792. Bills. Read a second time:-Law Amendment; Bribery at Elections. an argument against the proposed plan, Petitions presented. By Captain W. GORDON, from three that our ancestors had, in their wisdom, considered the heart of the town the proper situation for a market. He considered, too, that it was a matter worthy of consideration, that by this plan they would get rid of the nuisance and danger attending the driving of the cattle through the crowded and narrow streets; and the cattle themselves would be spared the torture which they suffered during their progress through those crowded thoroughfares. The improvement proposed by the petitioners had been found practicable in the capital of France, where the Abattoirs were all situated in the more remote parts of the city, and so constructed that the terror and pain inflicted on the animal was brought down to its minimum. The only obstacles to the plan were the existing interests of those in the neighbourhood of the present market. He thought the loss would be very small, if any; but even supposing that there might be some loss incurred by the change, he did not suppose that the Corporation of the city of London, which was very wealthy, would demur on account of the loss, where the object to be gained was so important. He hoped that some noble Lord would take this matter, and bring in a Bill upon the subject. He would willingly do so himself but he felt himself wholly inadequate to the task. up The Bishop of Bristol supported the prayer of the petition. He thought it a Places, against the New System of Education in Ireland: and from four Places in Scotland, for an Alteration in the Monetary System.-By the same, and by Mr. WILKS, and Mr. T. A. SMITH, from several Places,-for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Captain W. GORDON, from Turriff, for a Reduction of the Duty on Soap; from the County of Aberdeen, for a Reduction of the Malt Duty; from the Society of Aberdeen, for a Repeal of the Attornies' Tax.-By the same from Huntley; Mr. WILKS, from Wandsworth, and other Places; and by the Marquess of BLANDFORD, from New Woodstock,-against Slavery. -By Mr. JERVIS, from Chester, for establishing a Court of Requests in that City for the Recovery of Small Debts. -By Mr. WILKS, from Spalding and Wetherfields, for a Redress of the Grievances of the Dissenters. FIRE INSURANCE.] Mr. Henry Handley presented a Petition from a parish in the county of Lincoln for a reduction in the duties on Insurance of farming-stock. He felt bitterly disappointed that the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken into consideration the circumstances of the agricultural interest, and relieved it as well as the mercantile interest of the article of insurance duties. Nothing would tend more to the suppression of incendiarism than an alteration in this point. He had a motion on the subject, but trusted, that before the time fixed for bringing it on, the noble Lord would take the matter into his favourable consideration. Lord Althorp observed, that there would have been a difficulty in reducing the duty on insurances of farming stock separately from that on farming buildings, &c.; and if he had proposed a reduction of all insurance dutics, a deficiency would be created of so large an amount as to prevent one farthing relief to the people at other more pressing reductions. Mr. Cobbett said, the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) seemed determined to take off no taxes by which the great bulk of the population could be relieved. There were not fewer than 300 Members in that House who came in under a pledge to vote for the repeal of the malt, the hop, the soap duties, and the duty on newspapers. He was quite astonished to find that an hon. Member asserted that the people of England expected nothing more than the Budget proposed by the noble Lord. They expected a great deal more. They expected the total repeal of the Malt-duty. Barley was but 20s. a quarter, the duty on it when malted was 20s. 8d. And the price of a quarter of malt was not less than 60s. This did not arise from the expense of malting. Lord Althorp: Barley is more than 20s. a quarter. Mr. Cobbelt: It was not more in the county of Norfolk last week. The additional twenty shillings in the price of the malt was occasioned by the excise regulations, which subjected the maltsters to much unnecessary expense, inconvenience, and difficulty. The drink of the whole people was produced from this article, and they expected that the duty would be taken off. They would then have their quarter of malt for 20s. instead of 60s. for barley was convertible into malt without any expense. The people would despise the Reform Bill and the reform, they would be ashamed of their jubilees and their rejoicings on the success of that measure, unless 40s. a-quarter were taken off the price of malt. This duty was one cause why young people were driven from the farm-houses, because of the expense of supplying them with beer; and it led also to the abuses arising from beer-shops. A Sussex farmer, in his evidence before the Committee last Session, said that forty-five years back all his labourers brewed their own beer, and drank it with their families; that, however, at present none of them brewed unless those to whom he gave the malt. Country gentlemen ought to attend to the wants of the agricultural class, in place of prosecuting poor fellows for killing their pheasants and hares; and it would be much better if Lord Althorp took off the malt duty, in place of removing the duty from tiles and other articles. The whole amount which Lord Althorp pretended to take off in his Budget would not give large. Petition laid on the Table. EXPLANATION.] Sir Henry Willoughby moved that the Order of the Day be read for resuming the Adjourned Debate. Lord Althorp rose to make an Explanation as to the expression he had made use of last night, that he, as an honest man, could not consent to the Motion. The hon. Gentleman thought that he meant to imply by that, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Attwood) was a dishonest man. He had no intention to apply the words in that sense, and could not have, for he must have applied them to many of his personal friends who supported the Motion. He should have considered himself acting as a dishonest man if he had not opposed the Motion, whether he referred to the former opinions he had delivered, or to the public situation he held. He was surprised that the hon. Member should for one moment have supposed that he meant to imply anything dishonest on his part in bringing forward his Motion. Mr. Attwood complained that the noble Lord's speech of the night before was totally inapplicable to his Motion, which was for an inquiry into the state of the country, to see how far its evils had been brought about by our monetary system. The noble Lord had, however, spoken of his Motion as if it were a Motion for a Committee to alter the standard of value. The noble Lord might substitute any Amendment he pleased for the Motion; but he had a right to complain that the arguments urged by the noble Lord were not directed against anything he had said. He could scarcely believe, that the noble Lord could so have misinterpreted his speech, but certainly the version given by the noble Lord of his speech was altogether different from that he had the honour to deliver. The noble Lord's arguments were all directed against depreciation, and the noble Lord used these arguments as if he had proposed depreciation. He had made no such proposition. He had urged the House of Commons to inquire into the condition of the country, and what had been the effects of the monetary system as it now stands? His proposition was, to inquire if they did not possess some means of relieving that condition without committing injustice in violating the faith pledged to the public creditor. He did not suppose the noble Lord meant to commit an act of injustice; but he had, by his mode of The arguing the question, raised a prejudice ments were what he had stated. against the Motion submitted to the hon. Member asked what was the meaning House. The noble Lord had endeavoured of his (Lord Althorp's) Resolution? Nothing to gain votes by alarming timid minds. He could be more remote from vague and wished to inquire if there were no means indefinite than that Resolution. It was, of relieving the people, as he believed there he thought, extremely precise. It said, were, without any breach of faith; and if "that any alteration of the monetary systhere were not, then certainly he should tem of the country, which would have the propose an inquiry into the propriety of effect of lowering the standard of value, reducing the burthens of the people. His would be highly inexpedient." Could the opinions might be wrong, or they might be hon. Member doubt the effect of that? right; but the question was, that the Did it not precisely pledge the House not Reformed Parliament should inquire into to lower the standard? It did not preclude the distresses of the people. The noble the Committee from making silver the Lord said in his Resolution, that they standard instead of gold, if that would should not lower the standard of value. not have the effect of lowering the standard. What did the noble Lord mean? Did he The hon. Member, however, went back mean the old standard, such as it existed to the old standard, and if the pound of down to the period of the Bank Restriction silver were to be coined as he wished it, Act? Did he propose that the House the effect would be to lower the standard." should never inquire into this question to The hon. Member said, he wished to alarm ascertain whether that standard were just, persons; the object, however, of his Resoand whether they did not commit a great lution was, to relieve Gentlemen from injustice in now adopting it? He would their alarm. By the Motion of the hon. undertake to show, that his Majesty, by Member-he did not say that such was issuing the Proclamation prescribed by the the intention of the hon. Member, but it Act of 1816, which was a part of the was the tendency of his Motion-to make standard, could at once give considerable Gentlemen who were pledged to vote for relief to the industrious classes, and par- inquiring into the distress of the country, ticularly to the agricultural class, by rais- also vote for an alteration of the standard. ing the price of agricultural produce. Why The hon. member for Oldham, for one, had should the House and the country be for- been caught by the mode in which the hon. bidden to inquire into this question? The Gentleman had worded his Motion. ToMotion did not rest upon the footing it night the tone and language adopted by was put upon by the noble Lord and the the hon. Gentleman were different from right hon, the Vice-President of the Board those he used last night. In his speech of Trade, but entirely and solely upon the last night, he had applied himself-and circumstance whether the condition of the this was the beginning and the end of his country did not demand the attention of speech-to show that the distress of the that House. country was caused by the monetary system, and that by an alteration of the monetary system, a rise of prices might be produced, and distress relieved. He asked the hon. Member how he could produce a rise in prices if he did not lower the standard of value? In that sense he had argued the question, and said that the common sense view of the matter was, that the effects described by the hon. Member could only be produced by lowering the standard of value. The hon. Member said his Motion had nothing to do with that, and that the Amendment had been directed wholly to that. He certainly thought, that if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were carried, and the Committee were appointed under the notion that the standard of the currency was to be lowered, it would have a most disastrous effect, Therefore he had thought it his duty as an honest man, and Lord Althorp complained of the unusual conduct of the hon. Member, who certainly had not trespassed upon the Orders of the House, because the motion for reading the Order of the Day was entirely a new Motion; but he certainly had trespassed upon its usages in making a second speech upon that occasion, while he reserved himself in his reply to refute the opinions of his right hon. friend, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and his other opponents. The hon. Member had spoken for three hours last night, and to-night he had spoken again. The hon. Member said he had misrepresented him, and the hon. Member could not suppose that he had heard the hon. Member's arguments, but the hon. Member heard his reply last night, and did not then contradict it. The tendency of all the hon. Member's argu taking into consideration the situation he filled, to call upon the House to pledge itself before going into a Committee of Inquiry, not to lower the standard of value. The Order of the Day read. STATE OF THE COUNTRY-MONETARY SYSTEM-ADJOURNED DEBATE.] Sir H. Willoughby was about to address the House on a tedious subject, but he would endeavour to make his observations as brief as possible. Notwithstanding the weight which he attached to the opinions of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must say that it was his intention to vote for the inquiry proposed by the hon. member for Whitehaven. He should do so because he thought the state of the country demanded that inquiry, and not because he had any dishonest design with reference to the currency. He, however, should be prepared to enter into a consideration of the monetary system; but he could assure the noble Lord, with as great a horror of spoliation and confiscation as any man could have. It was not his intention to go into much argument or lengthened detail to show the existence or extent of distress in the country; that part of the question lay in a nut-shell. The population at present was 25,000,000; and he found that they were not so well fed or so well clothed; that they did not possess so many of the necessaries as heretofore the people of this country had possessed. That was enough to justify any man in desiring and promoting inquiry into the state of the country. The increasing amount of the Poor-rates, averaging 62,000,000l. in the last ten years, was another reason to infer distress enough in the country to warrant an inquiry on the part of the Parliament. A reference to the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, which he had read through, would incontestably prove, that the labourers and the agricultural population of the country were not in that condition in which they ought to be. He would confine himself to the most important question involved in the present discussion-namely, whether or not any portion of the distress of the country had arisen from the change that had been made in our monetary system. It was a fallacy to suppose, that those who supported the Motion for inquiry upon this occasion were necessarily opposed to the Government. He was most anxious to give his support to the present Government; at the same time he felt it his duty to give his vote for the Motion brought forward by the hon. member for Whitehaven. He, for one, thought that the greatest importance attached to an inquiry of this description, as the result of such an inquiry, if it should be instituted, might be to discover some mode of levying the same amount of revenue without its pressing so heavily as the present one upon the industrious and productive classes of the country. It appeared to him that a great deal of unnecessary apprehension had prevailed as to the danger of such an inquiry into the state of our monetary system. He was, on the contrary, of opinion, that, for many years past, great defects had arisen, and great evils had been occasioned, in consequence of Parliament not having taken into consideration, from time to time, the state of our monetary system. He had only to refer to the various inquiries that had taken place with regard to the Bank, to show that such inquiries were attended with beneficial results. The consequence of the inquiries regarding the Bank had been the production, at length, of a more healthy action upon its part. So far, therefore, from thinking that an inquiry into the state of our monetary system would be fraught with any degree of danger, he was of opinion that many of the evils which now pressed upon the country owed their origin to a want of parliamentary inquiry, from time to time, into the state of that system. The Legislature of this country, in consequence of its conduct, had become unwittingly, but justly, chargeable with every mistake and with every blunder that had been committed with regard to our monetary system. It was true that the system which commenced in 1797, and continued up to 1819, was calculated to defraud creditors, persons of fixed incomes, and people of that description; but the error committed in 1819 defrauded debtors, manufacturers, and every individual connected with productive industry; and it was therefore an error of a much more dangerous character, and one that was followed by much more sweeping effects. Why, then, refuse a Committee to inquire into the consequences of that error, and to see whether it was not capable of amendment? It was a curious circumstance that no hon. nor even right hon. member of that House could state what was the exact amount of paper in circulation in the country. If the actual amount of paper in circulation could from time to time be correctly ascertained and made public, persons engaged in |