Eielnitte mar l9rtfcraing.4 in parliament.

1. DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY; THE CURRENCY; Mr. MATTHIAS Arrwoon, on Monday, moved the following resolution " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of general distress, difficulties, and embarrassments which now pressed on the various orders of the community; how far they. were the results of the operations of the monetarrsystem; and to consider the effect produced by that system on the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests of the country, and on the industry of the people."

He said that he had on several occasions recommended the House to institute an inquiry into the causes of national distress ; but unfortu- nately his recommendations had not been attended to, as the great leaders of Parliamentary parties had pledged themselves to the correct- ness of certain abstract theories, and had denied that the present state of the monetary system was adverse to the prosperity of the country. But he recognized in the present House of Commons a body of men more independent of party and of the Ministry of the day. He fully ex- pected that they would act upon their own judgment; which he was certain would counsel them to inquire into the general distress which pervaded the country, and ascertain how far that distress was occasioned

by an adherence to our present monetary system. He maintained that the distress of the great. body of the nation was on the increase ; and that the usual mode of proving the reverse, namely, by statements of the augmented consumption of certain articles: of food and clothing, was unsatisfactory and deceptive. It had been said that the financial statement which Lord Altborp would make would render his motion unnecessary ; but had the Budget satisfied that expectation? what part of that narrow and shrunk Budget could give relief to distress of trade ? He was certain, that for the last eighteen years, distress and pauperism and crime had been increasing together. Estimating, in wheat, what was paid for paupers in the year 1815, it would be found to amount to 1,300,000 quarters ; while last year it was 3,000,000 of quarters. In 1815, the people of this country paid 78,240,0001. of taxation, including the expense of collection ; this was paid by a population of 18,700,000 souls ; but it was now stated by Lord Althorp that •a population of twenty-four millions could not pay 50,000,000/. Note, 38,800,0001., 37,807,0001., and 34,500,0001. of our present money, would be found to be the value of the money paid in taxes for the three years previous to 1815. In 1815, the value of the taxes, as compared with the money of the present day, was 43,700,000/.so that the 50,200,0001. raised at present was, in point of fact, B,50bow. more than was paid in 181.5. He maintained that every class had suffered greatly by the increase in the value of money ; but no class so much as the landed gentlemen, with the farmers, and agricultural labourers. How was this state of things to be remedied ? The only remedy was by a relaxation of the monetary system, to give an increased value to the productions of agri- culture. The deteriorated condition of the agricultural classes com- menced with the destruction of paper money in 1819. Mr. Attwood then went into a lengthened detail of the causes of Irish distress and discontent ; which be utterly denied was owing to the agitation of Mr. O'Connell, who held with the King the divided empire of that country. The distress of Ireland was owing to the want of employment, which was occassioned by the alteration in the currency. He then adverted to the miserable condition, as he described it, of the shipowners, of the iron-dealers, of the persons engaged. in the cotton,, woollen, and silk trades. He said that the amount of misery caused by the opera- tion of our monetary system in the manufacturing districts was incre- dible. He only asked the House to inquire, how far, consistently with public faith, they could alter this system. He was confident as to the result of this motion. He called upon Sir Robert Peel to afford him every assistance ; for his object was to restore prosperity to the people, and thereby regain their confidence. He called upon the House to agree to his motion, and employ the means which he thought they still possessed, of restoring prosperity to the nation, and securing that pros- perity afterwards.

[The Chronicle report says, that Mr. Attwood was imperfectly heard, owing to the noise made by his almost incessant thumps upon the table. The Times.asserts that these thumps, according to the cal- culation of one of the reporters, averaged 200 every quarter of an hour, and amounted altogether to 3,000.]

Lord Aurnotte.said—" I agree with Mr: Attwood in thinking that that this is a question of great importance, which ought now to be settled by the House. The House should now decide, whether they are prepared to stand by the system by which all the contracts•of the country depend, or whether they are prepared to adopt.a course of con- fiscation and robbery. ( Cheers.) I am not sorry that • this question has been brought fairly forward for decision by the Reformed Parlia- ment."

" The object of the motion has been candidly avowed,—it is to effect an al- teration in the standard of the currency. Mr. Attwood, however, has not stated in what mode, or to how, great an extent he would effect this ; nor has he ventured to observe upon the consequences of the alteration which he would make. He evidently contemplates a depression of the currency. and he says that this can be done consistently with good faith to the public ; but I am per- fectly at a loss to comprehend this—how it is possible to have recourse to a great increase in the issue of paper, without at the same time resorting to some other measure. Is that the mode in which he purposes to raise prices, without com- mitting any breach of the public faith ? We have already had experience enough of that. We have had experience of what it is, and of what must be its neces- sary consequences. If the amount of currency in circulation is greatly in- creased, no question that the effect must be to render the value of money, as compared with other commodities, less than it was before. Though we know that in this manner we can increase the amount- of currency in circulation in this country, we cannot do so in other countries ; and the effect cf this will he, that the sovereign will not remain here, but will pass from this country abroad ; and the consequence of that will be, a run upon the Bank, which must then either stop payment, or a Bank restriction must follow. It is impossible but that every gentleman who reasons on this state of things must see that this would be the necessary consequence of the proposal of the honourable member. Well, then, we come to a Bank restriction. What would be the effect of that? The honourable member has not answered that question."

He then proceeded to argue, that the labouring classes were the greatest sufferers by a depreciation of the currency, for wages never rose in the same names the cost of provisions. He utterly denied that the period during which the Restriction. Act was in operation was a period of prosperity; and adduced the increase in the poor-rates in proof of his denial. He by no means maintained that all classes in this country were in a state of prosperity at the present time, but he denied that the distress was general or unusually severe. The conse- quences of the depreciation in 1797 were calamitous. But the injury then inflicted was unintentional—it came on gradually. If we resort now to a similar measure, we do it with our eyes open. He was op posed to a forced, unnatural, expansion of the.currency. At present, the currency bad. the power of expansion, when there was a safe and legitimate demand for it.

"I have now," said Lord Althorp, "stated generally-the grounds on which I feel that I am bound—for I will speak frankly to the honourable member— that I am bound in duty; as an honest man, to-oppose his motion. I do not, as he is well awarel adopt this opinion,.which I now v utter, because I happen to he seated on this bench: I stated it along timesince when I sat on the other side of the House, and when I opposed the motion of dr..Davenport, as I considered it likely to shake the confidence of the country. If the motion of the honour- able member be carried, every man who has a right to demand payment in gold, will do it at once: the consequence must necessarily be a run upon all the banks, infinitely more severe than that of 1825, because no establishment can be secure from it—no amount of credit, no degree'ofsoIvency in the partners of any bank, can save it .froen the sudden pressure of every individual. Who would na- turally be anxious to obtain gold currency at its present value, before that value should be reduced. I cannot conceive any calamity to the country greater than the adoption 'of the motion of the honourable member."

He concluded by saying, that as he thought it was desieal le that the House should come to some decision upon this subject, he would not meet the motion by moving the previous question ; but he would put the question to issue in that debate, whether the House was prepared to support the present standard of value, by proposing the following amendment.

"That it is the opinion of the Muse, that any alteration of the monetary system of the country, which would have the effect of lowering the standard of value, would be highly inexpedient."

The reading of this amendment was followed by great cheering from all sides.

Mr. GROTE rose immediately to second it. lie :declared that he never rose with greater pleasure than for that purpose: nothing could have been proposed in which he more heartily concurred. 1 he distress of the country ought not to be made the stalking-horse for bringing forward peculiar and individual theories. He utterly denied the exist- ence of general and unprecedented distress ; and he was of opinion that no Committee would be able to collect evidence on the subject which would justify it in making a definitive report. Mr. Attwood had made three propositions-1. That there existed• in the country general and unprecedented distress. 2. That that distress arose out of the contrac- tion of the currency, and the low state of prices consequent upon Peel's Bill. 3. That it was necessary to rectify the mischief by debasing the present standard of value. Now Mr. Grote disbelieved the allegation of general and severe distress. In 1810, 1811, and 1812, petitions had been presented, calculated to excite quite as much sympathy as Mr. Attwood's assertions. But he would turn to another point.

He held in his hand a return, by order of the House, of the number of bank- ruptcies in the eleven years from 1822 to 1832; and he found that it was 19,376, or an average of 1,761 per annum. To these he had added, in order to show the comparative distress immediately before and after the passing of Peel's Bill, the bankruptcies of 1819, 1820, and 1821; making, in the whole 24,713, and presenting an annual average upon fourteen years of 1,765. Looking back to the bankruptcies from 1808 to 1818, he found that they amounted to no lees than 21,609, or an annual average upon the eleven years of 1,964. He there- fore appealed to the conammon sense of every man, whether this fact did not show a sounder and steadier course of trade, since the passing of Peel's Bill, than before it ; especially when it wasrecollected that the 1,964 bankruptcies applied to a period of much more contracted commercial community—when the London Directory contained fewer names by 50 per cent. than now, and when Man- chester, Birmingham, Leeds, and other great towns, had not risen to their pre- sent importance, either as to capital or population.

He said that the poor-rates had increased from 4,707,000L, in 1803, to 6,883,0001., in 1818. He found that the average of 1830, 1831, and 1832, was 6,887,000/. ; an increase by no means in proportion to the increase of population. Mr. Grote proceeded to state the increase that had taken place in the consumption of tea, coffee, cocoa, and sugar; and he exposed the inconsistency of Mr. Thomas Attwood's evidence before the Bank Charter Committee, in which the external appearances of wealth and comfort in Birmingham were adduced in proof of the wanton extravagance, not the augmented means, of the inhabitants. He denied then that such great distress existed ; and in the next place, he denied that the distress which he admitted to exist was occasioned by Peel's Bill ; because the currency in fact had not suffered any con- traction since 1819. He then read a table, founded on the Appendix 82 to the Evidence on the Bunk Charter, by which it appeared, that the average circulation of Bank' of England notes was much larger from the year 182-2 to 1832, than from 1808 to 1818. The average of the latter period was 19,282,000/. ; of the former, 16,7-11,000/. There never was a time at which any man, with tolerable security to offer, could get money on such advantageous terms as at present. The fall in prices was not occasioned by the scarcity of money, or the contrac- tion of the currency, but by the vast increase in the quantity of articles produced. The stock of cotton, for instance, which in 1817 was only 113,000 bags, in 1826 was 342,000. The fall of prices was owing to the market being overstocked, not to the bill of 1819; He concluded by declaring his determined hostility to Mr. Attwood's project.

He was persuaded that no English Parliament, reformed'or unreformed, could possibly consent to a measure of such immorality; since the effect of it would be to subvert all existing contracts, and to inflict a tax upon creditors for the benefit of debtors. He would not believe that, with the unjust steward in the Scriptures, they would say, when a hundred measures of corn were due, "Take thy bill quickly and write fifty." He submitted to all who heard him, whether, consistently with policy, with expediency, or with the commonest principles of integrity, they could countenance the most remote approach to such a change ? (Much cheering.)

Mr. COBBETT said, Mr. Grote had undertaken to show that all the acts of Parliament relative to altering the value of money, and regulating the issue of one-pound notes had bad no influence at all on the prices of commodities.

" But," said Mr. Cobbett, "I remember soon after the passing of the cele- biated bill of the very celebrated Baronet on any right hand, that prices fell so low that they made haste to pass a bill to put a stop to it. That bill had hardly passed when- prices rose again, and continued to rise till the system came to an end in 1825 and 1826. Then the bill was passed to put a stop to the is,ue of one and two-pound notes, and prices fell and continued to fall. At that time I presented a petition to this House. I highly approved of the return to payment in the Kings coin, and of absolutely putting an end to the dirty, infamous paper

i money; but I besought the House, if it passed that bill, to reduce the expenses of the country'; and I told it, if it did pass the bill, and did notreduce taxation, it would bring such ruin on this country as no state had ever experienced."

He proceeded to argue, that an increased consumption of tea, coffee, and sugar, by no means proved that the people generally enjoyed more comforts; heeense that consumption might take place among the idle, and useiess,—soldiers, for instance,—whom the people were heavily taxed to support. He differed in opinion from Mr. Attwood on the subject of paper money, but he intended to divide with him ; for the subject was a very. proper one for inquiry. He had always said, that the period of transition from a paper to a gold currency, would not, as was asserted by Mi. Baring, be the only period of suffering; but on the contrary, that unless the taxes were taken off, the distress would Continually be augmented. " I would have prevented the passing of the hill which. oecasIneed this dis- tress. I presented a petition against it. I asserted that if you did not reduce

taxation to the standard of 1792, you {you'd produce ruin and Misery to the

kingdom, such as had never been seen. (Laughter.) I told you that them.and you laughed then as you laugh now. You always did lough. ("' Oh, MP) There is a time to laugh, and a time to weep ; and if you laugh novS, von may weep hereafter. I differ from the honourable member as to the remedy ; I agree with him as to the cause of the distress. I stand up for gold; but I am fur the reduction of taxes to the standard of 1792; I want the taxes reduced to the amount of the taxes in 1792. That is the remedy. (Laughter). I am not for that reduction which was called the Budget. I am not for taking off 100,0001. of taxes. Was a Reformed Parliament wanted for that ?"

He then went into a long statement of the comparative cost of the Army, Navy, and Civil Government of 1792, with their cost at the

present time ; and argued in favour of cutting them down to the standard of the former period. In fine be would vote for going into a Committee, for there had been plunder and robbery committed, and it was proper to inquire who had committed it.

Mr. RICHARDS said it was improper to call the bill of 1819 " Peel's Bill :" it was Lord Liverpool's bill ; and was introduced by Sir Robert Peel, because he was an admirable rhetorician, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day was a poor, miserable creature. He •vi.,s of opinion that some alteration should be effected in our monetary sys- tem, in order to relieve the trading community ; whose capital, he could state as a merchant, was constantly diminishing.

His plan was, that Irish Bank notes and the notes of English Country Banks should be made payable in Bank of England notes, and that the Bank of Eng- land alone (as was proposed by Mr. Ricardo) should issue 1/. notes. He thought that Country bankers ought not be allowed to issue 1/. mites, because those notes would most generally be in the hands of the poorer classes of country people, on whom the principal loss would come in case of failures ; and it was on that account he would limit the issue of 1/. notes to the Bank of England. He would make the notes payable not in gold coin, as at present, but in ingots of 25/. value.

The effect of this plan would be to enable bankers to extend credit, and allow them to put that capital into circulation, which they were now forced to keep in their coffers. He concluded by expressing his inten- tion to vote with 31r. Attwood.

Mr. FORSTER thought that the labouring classes were the first sufferers by any change; and he would remind the House, that they suffered as much during many years while they had a paper currency as they have ever done since.

The persons who were now in the habit of calling for paper currency as the only panacea for the evils of the country, were just as clamorous then for a gold currency. He considered that the circulation at present was quite adequate to the wants of the people; and he contended, that the circulation at the present time was greater than previous to the Bank Restriction Act. He never knew a time when banking was conducted with greater facility, or when credit Was more extensively given to persons of good character than at present.

He said, that pauperism in Birmingham bad not increased in the same proportion as the population, and that the distress of the country was much exaggerated. He would vote against Mr. Attwood's motion, though he would vote for a Select Committee to inquire into the ade- quacy of the present currency.

Mr. Povia:rr TH031SON said, that Mr. Attwood had engrafted on his motion of inquiry into distress, a subject of quite a different nature, and even opposed to it—a proposal for a departure from the present standard of value. That was the question which was now before the House, and that was the question on which the country was now look- ing for the decision of the House. Mr. Attwood had entered into a long discussion respecting the distress which he alleged existed in the country ; and no doubt he had acted wisely in so doing, because, by taking that course, he might find support from some few, who would otherwise regard the question with indifference. Now he did not mean to deny that distress existed in the country; but that was not Mr. Attwood's position :- He had stated that the distress at present was unparalleled ; that every branch of industry was ruined ; that the landholders were all but ruined ; that the farmers were in a state of bankruptcy ; that the merchants were ready to close their concerns ; that manufacturing capital yielded in the shape of profits little or nothing. From these positions of Mr. Attwood he entirely dissented ; and lie believed the condition of the several interests of the country to be very dif- ferent from what he had represented it. For instance, the sums expended for the relief of the poor in the ten years ending in 1821, averaged 6,800,0001. per annum ; while in the ten years ending in 1831 the average was 6,200,000/. In the four great towns of Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Glasgow, there had been a diminution of the poor-rates during the same period, notwith- standing the increase in the population. He had information from the best authorities, that in all these places, especially in Birmingham and the neighbourhood, the condition of all classes was improved. He would go back to the year 1814, which had been referred to by Mr. Attwood as one of the periods of prosperity, when taxes were high and the people thriving. He would remind the House of what the con- sumption of four great articles, tea, tobacco, coffee and sugar, was at that time. They were all of them articles largely consumed by the poor.

In 1814, the consumption of tobacco was 15,000;0001b. ; in 1832 it had in- creased to 20,000,000lb., an augmentation of 31 per cent. • whilst the popula- tion showed an increase of 24 per cent. during the interval 1814 till 1832.Of sugar, even including all that was used at that period in the distilleries; the

consumption in 1814 was 1,997,000lb. ; in 1832 it amounted to 3,655,000lb.; an increase of 83 per cent. to be set against an increase of 24 per cent. in the population. The tea consumed in 1814 was 19,224,000lb. ; in 1832 it increased to 31,548,0001b. ; an increase of 65 per cent. still against a population of 24 per cent. increase. The coffee consumed in 1814 only amounted to 6,324,000lb. ; but in 1832 it reached 22,952,000lb. ; showing an increase of 183 per cent. still against an increase of 24 per cent. on the population. He took these articles, because, let the member for Oldham say what be pleased, he considered their increased consumption an evidence of the growing prosperity of the people. He would mention one or two other articles, which he separated from the preceding, because they were largely exported, and an increase in which showed not only additional employment, but probahl--- -- tation in home consumption. •

He referred to cotton, s.heeps'-Wool, and silk. In 1820, cotton-wool were imported ; in 1832 the imports amounted to an increase of 70 per cent. In 1820, the consumption of cheeps' wool was 9,778,00016. ; in 1832 it had increased to 27,666,000Ib. ; an augmentation of 133 per cent. Perhaps he had better not quote the article of silk, the duties having been so changed Qf late years. If we turned to the health of the people, what did we find to be thh case ? A striking diminution in the rate of mortality within the last fifty years. In 1780, the mortality was as 1 in 40' in 1831, it was as 1 in 58; showing a diminution of 36 per cent. in the rate of mortality. He asked whether that was not also an evidence that the condition of the people had improved ?

He was convinced that the labouring classes, when not indifferent to, were averse to a depreciation of the currency. In every case of depre- ciation which had occurred from 1527 to 1770, an increase had taken place in the cost of the necessaries of life, without a proportionable in- crease in the wages of labour. Taking the period from 1770 to 1816, it would appear from the evidence of Mr. Arthur Young, that wages bad risen only 100 per cent. while the cost of the necessaries of life had risen from 300 to 400 per cent. Mr. Thomson strongly insisted upon this point at some length. He was perfectly convinced that wages never rose in proportion to the advance in the money price of commo- dities ; and the depreciation of the currency was always a source of in- calculable misery to the lower classes.

The doctrine now maintained by Mr. Attwood was, that if once an incon- vertible paper currency were established, we should never return to cash pay.. ments. That, he was sure, was a doctrine which would not find many advo- cates in that House. He was glad, however, that it had been brought before Parliament, that it might be set at rest. It was said that the landed proprie- tors must suffer if this plan were not adopted, and that of course they must be- nefit by it : but how? Could he believe that any man of honour would seek relief by paying off all his fixed engagements in a depreciated currency? Would their rents be better paid in that currency than in any other ? But supposing their rents were raised, and that all other things were raised in proportion, could they purchase more of the enjoyments of life than they could command at pre- sent? They could receive relief in no way but that which he believed every man of honour would spurn, Then, as to the manufacturers and shopkeepers, how would it benefit them ? It would benefit them to the extent of their stock on hand, and no more. That might be to the extent of 5, or 10, or 20 per cent., or whatever might be the amount of the depreciation. That would be the work of a single day. When the next day he came to purchase, he would find that his condition would not be improved.

The inquiry proposed by Mr. Attwood would be attended with the worse consequences, because the extent of the depreciation was left undefined.

If he had said that it would be 5, or 10, or 15 per cent., men would be pre- pared for the result; but leaving it indefinite, he left them nothing to guide them. Every creditor in London would know it to-morrow, and what would be the consequence? An honourable member had stated some time ago, that such was the distress of the country, that every second or third house from Charing Cross to the Exchange contained an insolvent. Suppose that to be the fact, what would the creditors say when they found a proposition of this sort entertained and agreed to by the House ; The creditor would go to his debtor and say, "Pay me at once, or I shall sell all you possess : and, though it may be at a loss, that may be better than the indefinite loss which I may si stain by waiting to obtain payment in a depreciated currency. I shall realize what i can, and transfer it to a country where the principle of depreciation may not be so much in fashion."

Upwards of six millions of taxes bad been taken off within the last four'years, and this was a more equitable mode of relieving the national distress. He doubted the correctness of the assertion so often made, that the public creditor had gained greatly by the appreciation of the currency.

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 con- sideration the loss he suffered during the depreciation, a loser to the extent of somewhere about 44,0001. a year.

If we were unable to pay our debts, the more honest plan would be to state at once to our creditors that such was the case :

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 4001., and which would take the means of livelihood from the widow and the orphan. ( Cheers.)

On the motion of Sir 1-I. WILLOUGHBY, the debate was adjourned, and the House broke up at half past one.

Before the debate was resumed on Tuesday, a conversation took place between Mr. MATTHIAS ATTWOOD and Lord ALTHORP. Lord ALTHORP explained, that when he said that he could not, as an honest man, agree to Mr. Attwood's motion, he did not mean to term Mr. Attwood or those who supported him dishonest men. What he meant was, that, holding the opinion which he held, it would be dishonesty in him to support the motion. Mr. ATTWooD complained, that he had been misrepresented by Lord Althorp and Mr. Poulett Thomson. Their. arguments were all directed against depreciation, as if be had proposed depreciation ; whereas he only moved for a committee of in- quiry, in order to ascertain if no means existed for relieving the national distress without committing a breach of national faith. The Mode of arguing adopted by Ministers had raised an unfair prejudice. against the motion before the House. Lord ALTHORp, in reply, said, that it was not fair in Mr. Attwood, who had spoken for three hours the night before, to forestall his reply now. Nothing could be more evident than that the whole tendency of Mr. Attwood's speech was to advocate the lowering of the standard of value,—to prove that the distress of the country was occasioned by our monetary system, and that, by an altera- thin' in that system, prices might be raised and the distress relieved. Now, he would ask, how could he produce a rise in prices, unless he lowered the standard of value ? Lord Althorp's amendment went distinctly to .pledge the House not to lower the standard of value, before going into a committee of inquiry. Colonel DAVIES was glad to bear Lord Althorp's explanation. The country demanded inquiry, and he meant to vote for it ; yet he did not think that he was acting dishonestly in so doing; he was averse from lowering the standard of value. Mr. M. ATTWOOD expressed himself satisfied with Lord Althorp's explanation, as far as he was personally concerned. Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY then rose to renew the debate. He was glad to hear that it was not considered dishonesty to support the motion, for he meant to support it. The circumstances of the country were

such—the distress of large classes of people was so apparent that, not- withstanding Mr. Poulett Thomson's statistics, he thought the House was bound to inquire into the causes of that distress. He was decidedly of opinion that the changes which had been made in our monetary system had much to do with our present embarrassthents. There were a variety of errors in the whole management of our monetary system. The evidence given before the Committee on the Bank Charter clearly proved the necessity of inquiry.

The events of 1825 also afforded very strong arguments for examining to what extent paper money was safe, in the encouragement which it gave to em- ployment. The great question now was, whether it was possible to maintain a metallic, standard without detriment ? They had heard much of the omnipo- tence of Parliament ; but could Parliament render the ounce of gold permanently equal to 31. 17s. 10bd., considering that the value of gold depended, like that of other commodities, on the amount of the supply, as well as upon the relative value of other commodities? In the reign of Elizabeth, the ounce of gold was only valued at 31. 4s. ; • in that of James the First, it was Si. 7s. ; in that of Charles the First, 31. 88. ; and:since that of George the First, about 3/.17s. 10d. i The supply of other commodities having increased, its value had increased ; and it was therefore impossible to assume a commodity as a standard of value, which was itself liable to so great fluctuations, and which was constantly subject to be enhanced in value.

Under these circumstances, he thought it advisable to inquire whether silver would not be the standard of value most convenient to the state of this country. Silver, as a standard, would give a greater scope to paper money, and would thus enable them to give to the currency that expansion which was so exceedingly desirable.

Mr. CLAY was prepared to maintain that there had been no injurious contraction of the circulating medium ; and that the existing circulating medium was abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for which it was required. There was therefore not the slightest ground for tampering with the currency. The measure of 1819 was both just and wise ; and he should have concurred in it, even if it had been accompanied by a great sacrifice ; which, however, was not the case. He proceeded to read some statements of the amount of Bank of England and Country Bank notes and gold in circulation, previously to and after 1821; from which he inferred, that four per cent. was the maximum of the con- traction of the circulating medium occasioned by the bill of 1819. He had no objection to a silver standard at its own marketable price ; but to the present motion, the object of which was a depreciation of the currency, he should give a decided negative.

Mr. W. W. WHITMORE was certain that no one hereafter would more regret the success of his motion than the author of it. The country was advancing in prosperity, taking it as a whole. There was much individual distress, which Government should endeavour to relieve ; but there was not the most remote probability of relief being afforded by the present measure.

That could only be done, in his opinion, by an increase of trade—by the de- struction of all monopolies—by giving the fullest extension to our commerce. It was true there were other great causes tending to the depression of prices, but he denied that they were attributable to the currency. Of this he would give one striking illustration from a work of Mr. Babbage. He accordingly read some extracts to show the extent to which reduction might be carried in the produce of articles at the present time ; and showed that locks which twenty years ago cost 13s. 6d. a dozen, could now be manufactured for is. 91,•d. The lathe was now turned by the steam-engine twenty times as fast as formerly. He only mentioned these things to prove the immense number of causes which were in operation to cause the depression so much talked of.

He could state, upon good authority, that the old mines were as good as ever, and that the new, ones were excellent in their produce. Their present produce was—gold, 720,000/. per annum ; silver, 6.50,000/. The mines of South Carolina and Mexico were very productive; and those of Brazil had increased in value to the amount of 300,0001.

Mr. FRYER maintained, in opposition to Mr. Poulett Thomson, that the distress of the labouring classes was severe and general. The prosperity of the Fundholders did not prove the prosperity of the nation.

They were entitled to their debt—to every farthing of it. But who were to pay it ? (Loud laughter.) He said; the labourers ought not to pay a debt to the land which the land itself had incurred. They had exacted their bond— they had had their " pound of flesh," and would suffer deservedly for it. He wished to have inquiry, but he was no advocate for a false and fictitious cur- rency. But what cared the Government about these matters, as long as the taxes were paid, and the Budget full ?

He considered that the monopolies were the great cause of the dis- tress of the country.

We ought to break up the monopoly of the timber trade—we ought to break up the monopoly of the sugar trade ; and till that was done no good would be done. Indeed he believed that the monopolists were a set of humbugs altogether. (Loud laughter, and cries of " Question.") He would not allow himself to be put down by cries of question. He advanced nothing but what was just and honest; he did not support an opinion merely because it was expedient, nor would he vote with the men who carried the Catholic question because it was expedient : no, no—he would do no such thing.

He was utterly opposed to the Corn-laws and be wished to see Mr. Attwood's motion altered from an inquiry into the effects of the mone- tary system, into an inquiry into the effects of the Corn-laws.

Mr. CAYLEY said, that the landed interest had suffered with peculiar severity from the system which had been adopted for the management of the currency. Rents bad fallen in some instances 45 per cent. Land which cost 60/. was now only worth 351., while a purchase of 60/. Stock was worth 87/. The manufacturers never flourished when corn was low in price ; but when from any cause the price of wheat was raised, every thing went on well. He did not think Lord Althorp right in saying that the, consideration of the state of the currency should form no part of an inquiry into the causes of national distress.

It was almost the same, as if, upon a question as to the existence of an impure atmosphere, he should say, " I will allow you to determine whether it is im- pure, and how its impurity may be remedied, provided that you carefully exclude from your consideration all questions about the introduction of oxygen gas ;" or it was as if Lord Althorp should meet with a starving beggar upon his domains, and should take that beggar' into his kitchen, and show Inni the smoking viands prepared for the table, and, after having thus exhibited to him what would cure his distresi and starvation, and should yet deny the use of them as a remedy.

That this distress was extensive and increasing, was at any rate very

generally believed. The increase of the poor-rates, and the increase of crime, went far to prove the truth of that opinion.

He insisted that the distress of 1815 and 1816 was attributable to the diminu- tion of the circulating medium ; and that the restoration of prosperity wa.s owing chiefly, if not solely, to the adoption of a contrary system, to the extent of more than five millions. He applied precisely the same remarks to the distresses of 1822 ; which was followed, in 1823 and 1824, by a contrasted degree of pros- perity, owing to the same cause. • The remedy for existing evils was an elevation of prices, and that remedy could be obtained with little or no injury to any class.

It was his solemn conviction, that if relief were granted in the way proposed, a child by a silken cord might guide the vast machine of Government. If re- lief were refused, not an angel from heaven could govern the helm of state. He called upon Ministers to grant now what they still had the power to concede, but which they might soon be without the 'means either of giving or refusing : it would be too late to comply when the flood-gates had been burst, and when all was involved in a wide deluge of dismay, ruin, and revolution.

Mr. BAniNo said, the question was, whether the House was prepared to sanction an arbitrary departure from the acknowledged measure of value. Every one who had, or who expected to have, any thing to lose, was on the tiptoe of expectation to learn in what way Parliament —the Reformed Parliament—would decide that question. It was said by the supporters of the motion, that there was an intense pressure upon the energies of the country. Granting such to be the case, he should be glad to informed how a departure from the standard of value would prove a remedy for the evil? The country was in a most arti- ficial state as regarded existing contracts with almost all nations.

With the variety of the co,mplaints of those interests before his eyes, he con- fessed it did surprise him not a little that any man out of Bedlam should dream of proposing any thing so preposterous, and at the same time so unjust, as that which had given rise to the present discussion. His surprise, he acknowledged, was somewhat lessened, when be recollected that to talent, and even genius, were often allied thas peculiar intellectual conformation which was frequently subject to aberrations that could be accounted for upon no admitted principle.

(Laughter.) He meant no disrespect to Mr. Attwood, the perfect honesty of whose intentions of course he admitted; but he really thought that lie would make an admirable Prime Minister for the Grand Sultan at Constantinople, who altered the currency in his dominions semi-annu- ally, or nearly so--the variations ranging between three shillings and three pence. He would not enter into the discussion of the question of the precious metals as substances exclusively to be used as the measure of value. With the exception of a few savages on the coast

of Africa, there was no people in the known world who had any other measure of value than the precious metals. If the House agreed with -Mr. Attwood, they must.throw away the experience of ages.

In his humble apprehension, the House could never, consistently with coin- mon sense or common justice, pronounce a decision in favour of a paper cur- rency of any other description than one convertible on demand : all he3ond that was vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory.; all paper currency, not convertible, must depend upon the discretion or the credit of the parties issuing- such paper.

Ile was aware it would be said, that the country enjoyed great pros- perity during the war, when there were extreme issues of paper money. But it should be remembered, that we had then a monopoly of the sea. Besides, the prosperity was fitlse and temporary. We were living upon our capital, borrowing twenty, thirty, or even forty millions per annum.

Suppose now in Norfolk. or any other county of England, there were three gentlemen, each having 10,0001. per annum ; and suppose they resolved to raise money upon mortgage to the uttermost farthing that their estates were worth,, and lining done so, were resolved to spend all the money in three or four years ; was there any living man who doubted that they would produce great prosperity and an affluence of wealth in their neighbourhood ? The case lie had been sup- posing was precisely analogous to the case of England during the war—the people of England were living upon their capital. The gentlemen who might spend the produce of their mortgages in four or five years, would at the end of that period probably find themselves in a poor-house, and at the end of the war the people of England would have found themselves in a poor-house, had there been one large enough to have received them. To this hour the country was suffer- ing and groaning under the immoral habits which were engendered during the profusion of the war, and the extravagance to which it gave rise.

He would ask the House to consider in what way the effects of the present motion would operate upon the interests of country gentlemen.

Their prosperity, whether right or wrong, depended on a monopoly of corn, and that it should be protected. If, by a depreciation of the currency, the pound was reduced to 10s., it would brine the protection of 60s. allowed to corn down to 30s. When the money standard was reduced in that ratio, corn would come down in reality to 30s., though its nominal price should be 60s. ; and this would be the result of the alteration at present sought for. Mr. Whit- more had contended that the 60s. might be advanced to 120s. ; be would not fight that battle with him, as most likely he would not come out of it with flying colours, but he would seriously advise country gentlemen to leave the 60s. alone. Few were aware how extensively this proposed alteration in the currency would operate: it would operate on the constitution of the country ; fir by it your ten-pounder, who had a right to vote, would become all at once a five-pounder.

He was opposed to everyattempt to lower the value of the currency, but he would state to what extent a judicious alteration might made.

The first alteration would be to make bank-notes a legal tender to distant country bankers. This would have the effect of obviating the disasters that generally followed a run on the bank. The distresses of the Bank of England might be caused by two things,—first, by a run upon it, or a general call for money ; and secondly, by drafts, for the purpose of balancing exchanges. The one frequently acted upon the other; and the result was the worst of all evils— a general panic. The drafts, for the purpose of balancing foreign exchanges, the Bank might meet ; and the conntry was so far safe under the present system, for one or two millions would set right balances of that description. The action of the other on the Bank was worse, and could not be easily met. He would make a short statement of the difficulties of 1825. There was tlaen a run on the Bank, which was caused by numerous failures in the metropolis and throughout the country. 'General doubt and distress prevailed, and the Bank was drained for gold. Everybody, wished to be paid in that metal ; and a country banker— a banker of Norwich—told him at that period, that he could not sleep quiet at night in his bed, unless he had obtained a sovereign for every one-pound note be had in the house. The consequence of all this was, that the Bank of England was, nearly emptied, and would have stopped payment were it not for a mere accident. No precaution that could be adopted under the present system could secure the Bank from dilemmas of this latter description. The banker of Nor- wich would have slept quietly if Bank of England notes were made a legal tender in the country. Let Bank of England notes become a legal tender to country bankers, and the Bank will be relieved from the danger he mentioned. The relief from that danger would be the benefit derived from this proposition of his.

The next object be would endeavour to promote, should be to make silver as well as gold a legal tender. Money bad its foundation in two metals, and it was bad to force the Bank to confine itself to one metal. Silver was the principal currency of Holland and of France, and of almost every country with which he was acquainted. There was scarcely a country where silver was not only the circulating me- dium, but where gold was not objected to. In the Netherlands, there were cir- culating ten million) of guild and four millions of silver. There was a premium upon the latter ; and it was considered cheaper to pay in gold than in silver. In France, for several years, the premium in favour of gold had been not more than one eighth per cent. ; and it had only increased in consquence of our de- mand for gold, and would in course decrease if this country adopted a silver currency.

His proposal was not to lower the standard, but to put it upon two legs instead of one.

if the public excitement on the deeper question then before them could be got rid of—and that excitement might be done away with by the vote of that night —then would it be safe to look to the two points he mentioned, and see Whether or not a material facility might be given to the circulating medium of the country. When those two points were settled, he should not object to inquire whether from their operation it would not be safe to come to a issue of one- pound notes. He did not mean to pledge himself to an issue of one-pound notes, but he saw no reason why, under the additional securities he pointed out, it might not be resorted to. Mr. Baring concluded by saying, that it was impossible for him to go into the proposed inquiry with Mr. Attwood ; for he could not separate his avowed opinions from any measures which he brought forWard, no matter how they were coloured or concealed. He might as well go into an inquiry respecting Irish distress with Mr. O'Connell, whose well known panacea was the repeal of the Union ; or into a committee with Mr. Owen, who recommended a community of goods, and wives, and every thing else.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he agreed with much that had fallen from Mr. Baring ; but there were some arguments made use of by him in the latter part of his speech, which excited much doubt and apprehen- sion in his mind.

Mr. Baring had first said, that he was prepared to adhere to the present standard, but yet that he was willing to have a Select Committee to inquire into two material component parts of that standard,—first, with reference to the re- issue of one and two-pound notes; and, secondly, as to the union of silver with gold. This would be a leading cause to that state of excitement and suspense which Mr. Baring himself mentioned as one of his main objections to the very same thing. Sir Robert would unhesitatingly predict what, in his decided opi- nion, would be the consequence of this reissue. He felt that the inevitable con- sequences would be, that the gold circulation would entirely disappear ; and he was prepared to prove this position by the consequence attending similar reis- sues in other countries. In Sent! rod, it had destroyed the circulation of coin. In Ireland, and in America, similar results had been produced. In fact, this system would be an encouragement to the country bankers to prevent the issue of coin, for the paper circulation would be a much cheaper one ; but the mis- chief would be, that there was herein no security for the excess of this paper circulation.

There would. be a temporary fictitious stimulus applied to trade, but it would only last it few months. In two or three months, the gold in the country would be found to be inadequate to supply the demand. Then there would be a sudden contraction of the issues of paper; stag- nation would ensue, and all the disasters which a metallic currency alone could prevent. He was perfectly willing to take upon himself the responsibility of the bill of 1819. He did not wish it to be laid upon Lord Liverpool's shoulders. It was a subject which be and others had thoroughly examined for several years; for it was no new subject in 1819—in 1810, Mr. Vansittart had moved that the bank should com- mence making its payments in cash. It was a gross fallacy to attribute the depression of prices to the bill of 1819. It ought to be considered as a warning and lesson to the people, not to return to the abominable depreciation caused by the paper system.

There was much said about distress ; but had they never heard of distress existing before 1819? In 1793 was there no distress? Did not one hundred bankers fail that year, notwithstanding that there was a paper currency? In 1797, was there no distress under the same circumstances? In 1810, was there none ? At the time of this 50 pa- cent. increase of prices talked of by Mr. Thornton, was there not a decrease of 50, 60, and 70 per cent. in the agricul- tural districts? These facts showed that there was no infallible defence against calamity, let the currency be what it may. In 1816, there was also severe dis- tress ; bankers failing to a great extent, though the Bank had not diminished its issue.

Its 1817, two years before the introduction of his bill, Mr. Attwood had written a letter to Mr. Vansittart, describing the monetary state of the country for six years before 1819; in which he showed that the value of money had doubled within five years frcm 1812 to 1817. In that letter, he described the starving condition of the nailers, and the depressed state of agriculture. This proved that the currency had been in a gradual state of appreciation since 1812, and that it was conse- quently not to the bill of 1819 that the increase in value was to be at- tributed. The letter went on to say, that the country was as if an in. wading army had passed through it, and that such a state of things had existed since the report of the Bullion Committee in 1810.

He would now state what effect this state of the country had upon the issues of Bank of England paper during those years, and he would beg the House to remember that at that period the Bank was allowed to issue IL and 2/. notes. The Bank issues in 1808 were 16,600,000/. ; in 1809, 16,545,000/. ; in 1810, 17,810,0001.; in 1811, 20,800,0001. ; in 1812, 23,000,000/. ; in 1813, 23,332,000/. ; in 1814, 24,000,000/. ; in 1815, 27,000,000/. ; in 18/6, 26,573,000/. ; and in 1817, 27,000,0001. It was coincident with these issues that that depression took place of which Mr. Attwood gave so lively a descrip- tion ; and did it not prove that an inconvertible paper money was no guarantee against distress. Mr. Attwood's proposed Committee could not give in their report until they Lad philosophically considered the consequences of the mo- nopoly of manufactures so long held by this country—the effect of the late war—the restrictions on the importation of corn, and other topics. Could England hope that it could maintain the same monopoly of manu- factures now that it had during the war, now that France, Germany, and America were able to turn their attention to their domestic manufactures? He would ask the House to look to the state, of the reanufacturea of those countries now, and compare them with their state at the close of the war. The next cause of the depreciation of prices was, that freight, insurances, Ls had Lilco. What was the cause of the lowness in the price of our cotton manufactures? Was itnot that the staple commodity of those manufactures had fallen? And if it had fallen, could the manufacturer hope to get the same price for the manu- factured article which he formerly got, when the raw Liaterial was four times its present price? Then there were the improvements in machinery, and the increased application of steam. Surely these had some ef(..ct im the depression in the price of manufactures. And was there no cause for the depression in rents: since the war ? Could any landlord expect the same rout now that he received during the war, when produce was so high that tniteli bad laud was brought into cultivation in order to meet the demand ?

The distress and crimes of Ireland had been imputed to the altera- tion in our monetary system.

Now he wished to examine that point. Mr. Attwood had stated that crime in Ireland had increased in proportion to the distress. He had not, however, said that if they were to restore paper money those crimes would be diminished. Sir Robert Peel admitted that crime had increased, but he did not on that account admit the infra renee drawn by Mr. Attwood. It appeared that in 1811, the number of committals had been .5,337; in 1813, 7,164; in 1815, 7,818 ; and in 1817, 9,091. Now, by Mr. Attwood's statement, there had only been two prosperous years during that period, and down to the present time— namely, 1818 and 182:5; and if. his argument were true, crime ought to have diminished during those years. But how was the fact ? In 1817, the com- mittals were 9,091 ; in 1818, they were 13,506; and in 1825, 14,40J. Thus, in the year 1818—the year of prosperity—the committals were higher than in any other, with one exception ; and in 1825 they were highest of all.

Oldham, Macclesfield, and Whitby, had been selected to prove the general distress of the country— The selection was admirable, and was on a footing with the whole of the arguments brought by those who supported the same side of the question. Old- ham, it was well known, had been one of the principal stations of the hand- loom weavers, who had suffered most severely by the introduction of maeliimsy. Macclesfield had suffered from the same cause; for that town not having :my equal capital with Manchester to invest in machinery and improvements, it could not compete with its manufactures. So far then these instances could not be held as forming a criterion of the state of the country in general. Tlmen as to Whitby, it was well known, and admitted even at the time when a repree‘a. tative had been given to it, that it was in a decline from local causes. ale argument, therefore, drawn from the situation of these three places—all of which had been depressed from local causes—was a complete fallacy.

He proceeded to enforce the argument that the labouring classes would be ruined by the depreciation of the currency. He admitted the present distress of the hand-loom weavers, but denied altogether the correctness of Mr. Fielden's statements respecting the general dis- tress of the country. He mentioned the amount of wages earned by several descriptions of mechanics of Lichfield, Coventry, and Birming- ham ; and said that with such wages, the labouring classes ought not to wish for a change in the currency which would raise the prices of the articles they consumed much higher than it raised the wages of labour. He referred to the speech of Mr. Cobbett-

Never had he heard a speech which disappointed him so much as the speech of the Member for Oldham. That gentleman said he was particularly en Lit led to address the House, because lie had studied the subject ; nay more, na speeelt

was made in the House which he dial not claim as his own. Lord A11 lie said, had made a clever speech, but he had copied it all from him. la that respect, he did:red from Mr. Cobbett ; he had not yet heard any ti:ing fall from hint which be envied, or which he was desirous of appropriatin; to him- self. In his speech Mr. Cobbett hail not touched on the currency question ; and an ingenious young member, who came into the House while he was speakia:;., asked, "Is the currency question, then, over ; for Mr. Cubbett is discia...:Iye the Navy Estimates? " (Laughter.) On the currency question, on whicii le: was to enlighten the whole world, he had not said one word ; and all be had done was to produce his notes of a speech pre aired for the Navy Estimates. fie would stick to gold—lie would have the King's coin—there was something so amiable in Royalty, that he must see the coin—he would have none of the rotten

paper phoney: and yet he consented to go into the Committee. But then, it was not to consider Mr. Attwood's propositions but to reduce the establishments. Mr. Richards, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Cobbett, and Mr. Thomas Attwood, all materially differed as to the remedies they would apply to the disease.

Was it wise, when a patient was in a dangerous state of disease, to bring physicians to consult on his case who were of decidedly opposite (Tit:ions? Vas Sangrado to go from Oldham and Cnchuelo from Birmingham to quarrel Over the dying patient? It might lie laughable to suppose, but what must be the condition of the country in the mean time?

But suppose they were to go into the Committee, what would be the consequence ?

Nobody would buy an estate or any thing else. If every man who had a sove- reign was sure of getting twenty-two shillings fur it in a short time, would not

ne take care of his sovereign ? Be assured an act of depreciation could not take place, except by some despotic Fever which carried it into effect while every body was in ignorance of its inteut ions. To notify a coming depreciation, was to cause inevitable ruin. Debtors, for whose benefit the scheme was proposed, would be ruined ; for then creditors would rigorously exact their debts. Those debts had been contracted in gold ; and dreading the liquidation

in paper, thev would hasten to demand them in gold. Equity and justieewould be on their side- as well as the law; they would recover their debts, and debtors would be ruined. What, too, would be the result of a general demand on the

banks ? The deposits were made in gold; the depositors, dreading the coming

depreciation, would demand back their gold, and the banks would all lie ruined. No money would be advanced ou mortgage; no man could self his estate ;

there would be no speculation ; and the attempt to depreciate the currency through the means of a protracted inquiry would be the greatest curse ever in- flicted on a country.

He cautioned the members of the House from being induced by the artful terms in which the motion was worded from giving it their sup- port. He quoted some passages from .Mr. Burke's writings, to prove that members of Parliament should riot, in a time of excitement, sacri- fice their deliberate opinions to the ill-considered desires of their con-

stituents. If, by their votes on this question, they lost the confider ea of their constituents, they would be consoled by reflecting, with conscious satisfaction, that they had done their duty.

They might depend' upon it, that whatever sacrifices they might impose on themselves in doing justice to all, their constituents would in the end dojustice

to their motives ; and as they acted from the purest motives, and fulfilled their real 'duties of representatives, there would not be wanting those who would always choosethem to protect their permanent interests.

Some conversation ensued between Mr. RonissoN,,Mr. T. Arr- woon, Lori A urumte, and Colonel. TOIMENS, relative to an adjourn- ment, whic:a was moved Colonel Torrens. The House divided : for the adjournment, 98; against it, 318 ; majority, 220. It was ulti- mately agreed, however, to adjourn, on the understanding that the de- bate was to close on the following night.

The House broke up at three .o'clock.

The debate was resumed on Wednesday by Colonel TORRENS ; who said, that there would be no inconsistency in voting far Mr. Attwood's motion for an inquiry into the fact whether an improvement might not be made in our monetary system, and like- wise for Lord Althorp's amendment, which stated that it was inexpe- dient to alter the standard of the currency. He had always been op- posed to depreciating the currency, and had published a pamphlet in 1519 to point out the evils which would result from it. But he thought that there had never been an instance of more erroneous legislation than the bill of 1819. Its avowed object was to restore the ancient metallic standard, but this it did not effect; on the contrary, it established another standard for that which had anciently prevailed.

By the ancient laws of the country, gold and silver were both of them legal tenders, and the payer had the option of the cheaper metal in which to discharge his debts. From 1257 to 1664, the value of gofd and silver was fixed by pro- clamation, and both were legal tenders. Fom 1664 to 1717, the relative value of gold and silver was not fixed by authority, and practically, silver was the only standard. In 1717, an alteration took place in the currency, and a guinea was declared to be equivalent to 21s. in silver ; but the gold in the guinea was at that time of less value than its silver equivalent. From that period, gold became practically the standard, although both gold and silver were legal tenders. In 1774, silver was declared not to be a legal tender for any amount exceeding 23/. ; but bullion, by weight, was still a legal tender. That was the law of the land up to the suspension of cash payments. Therefore, when in 1819 gold was made the standard, Parliament dial not reestablish the ancient standard, but fixed a new standard ; and that, as he was prepared to show, was an alteration fur the worse, which raised the value of the currency, and increased its liability to fluctuations.

He went on to show, that, as silver was so much more abundant than gold, if it should become necessary to abstract six or seven millions to meet unfavourable foreign exchanges, the stock remaining would still be so considerable, that scarcely any inconvenience would result from the abstraction of so large a sum. Parliament in 1819 returned to a standard of value which had risen during a period when an immense debt was contracted. There was also a demand for gold to the amount of twenty-five millions made by Russia, Austria, Denmark, and the United States, who all returned to a metallic standard about the same time. The mines in America ceased to be productive. Then came the climax of the evil, the withdrawal of the one-pound notes. All these circumstances combined to create unequalled distress. Colonel Torrcns then stated the plan which he would adopt for improving the monetary system of the country.

- In the first place, he would make silver the standard instead of gold. This, as he had already explained, would render the currency more steady, and would prevent, to a certain extent, those fluctuations which had proved so ruinous to trade. In the second place, he would adopt the principle of the late Mr. Ri- cardo, and make the paper currency payable, not in coin, but in ingots of silver, to the amount of 1001. or 200/. This would secure the banks of circulation from political passions, and from runs, having fur ohiect the embarrassment of the Government. In the third place, he would permit the reissuing of one and two. pound notes. This would extend to the agricultural and thinly-peopled districts the advantages of credit and circulation, of which they were now de- prived. And, in the third place, he would secure to the people the whole bene- fit of issuing paper money, which was now unjustly monopolized by the Bank

of England. This, which had been suggested un the soundest principles of.po- litical economy by Mr. Ricardo, would place 40,000,000/. at the disposal of the Treasury. Ile need not dilate upon the vast benefit which the adoption of this

arrangement would secure to time country. Thirty millions might be applied to the public service, and would, for a period of six years, allow of a reduction of ta:.at ion, to the amount of 5,000,0001. annually-. Ten millions would remain, which might be applied to the immediate relief of distress. He concluded by saying, that he would vote both for Mr. Attwood's and Lord .Althorp's motion, because he conceived that neither was con- tradictory of the other.

Mr. STEWART would vote for Mr. Attwood's motion, because he considered a convertible paper currency the best circulating medium for any country. He thought it would be desirable to extend the in- quiry into the whole of our banking system. He was convinced that we could only adhere to our present system at the expense of the ruin of our commercial prosperity. Mr. STRUT? would vote against Mr. Attwood's motion.

In the first place, it was founded upon the ex parte statements of persons in- terested in clamouring about distress ; and, in the next place, as its purpose was a depreciation of the currency, its only result would be the upturning all the ex- isting relations of trade and the security of property. One fact was decisive against the assertion of our declining prosperity,—namely, the increasing and productive application of capital to manufacturing industry. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the existing contracts had been made in the restored currency ; and to depreciate it, would be the de- struction of public faith and private property.

Mr. ROBINSON would also vote against Mr. Attwood's motion ; which. Went to unhinge all our social relations, and create an panic, the consequences of which would be terrible. The depreciation of our currency in 1833, would be productive of far more mischief than the bill of 1S19, though that might have been a politieal error. He wished that some arrangement could be made, by which an inquiry would be instituted into the state of the country, and the effect of our present mo- netary system; but not with a view to the depreciation of the standard, to which he -was as much opposed as any one. The distress of the country was very severe.

He did not place any faith in the arguments of Mr. Poulett Thomson, and Mr. Grote, that, because tea and other exciseable articles had increased in con- sumption, the comforts of the people had been augmented. In his opinion, it could only be taken as a change in the habits of the people • that, instead of

a havino• the good old roast beef, they used articles of a less substantial and less strengthening character. Sir HENRY PARNELL agreed with Lord AlthOrp in thinking that Mr. Attwood's plan consisted essentially in lowering the standard. of Money. No doubt he disclaimed a wish to depreciate the currency ; but between the relaxation that he advocated and positive depreciation, $ir Henry could perceive no difference.

In point of fact, whatMr. Attwood desired was to require that the sovereign, which now passed for • 20s. should hereafterpass for 25s. But when this came to be fully understood out of doors, as it no doubt soon would be, the public would see nothing in the plan that would be productive of any other result than great national injury. It was for these reasons he would give his vote against the motion ; but in doing so, he wished to be understood, he was by no means opposed to inquiry into the state of the country. He was anxious, on the con- trary, that inquiry should take place ; and he was sorry Lord Althorp had not proposed on the present occasion that Committees should be appointed to make thnquiry! He did not mean an inquiry in all those subjects which had been introduced into discussion in this debate, but a practical inquiry into the state of trade and into the condition of the working classes. He thought an inquiry into the state of trade would not only he attended with the good effect of ascer- taming to what extent distress really existed, but into that of showing means by which the interests of it might be promoted. He conceived it would lead to the taking off of many restrictions which now fettered it. With respect to the working class, an inquiry into the wages and the expenses of this class would produce a great deal of useful information, and besides leading to measures for the improvement of its condition, would make it known how tar distress really existed.

The establishment of a double standard had been repeatedly men- tioned in the course of this debate. He thought that a great deal of misapprehension existed on that point-- •

If the facts of the.case were examined, it would he found that every attempt which had been made in this country, and every other country, to have a double standard had failed. We had a double standard in this country up to the year 1816 ; but what was the state of the silver coin ? No legal silver coin existed. The cause was, that the Mint prices of gold and silver were so adjusted, that silver coin could not be kept in circulation : but if the relative value should he ever so properly adjusted in the first instance, it was impossible the two metals could continue in circulation, because the value of both was liable to fluctuation ; and when any such fluctuation took place, then one of the metals would be of more value in bullion than in coin, and would be melted. There had been much error in the course of this debate, in assuming that silver had been the standard of the value in this country. It had been so nominally, but it was held by all the best authorities that, in point of fact, during the whole of the last century gold was the standard. This was proved to be the case by the reduc- tion of the value of the guinea, in 1717, from 21s. 6d. to 21s., being followed by a reduction in the price of gold to the. same amount.

Sir Henry concluded by saying, that the subject had been exhausted by previous speakers, and lie would not go over the old ground again ; but would content himself with declaring, that he knew of no greater calamity that could befall this country, than making any alteration in the long-established standard of the value of its money.

Mr. LAMBERT said, the alteration in our monetary system, which was effected by the bill of 1819, had doubled the incumbrances of every landlord.

The question might be simplified thus—suppose a quarter of wheat repre- sented 41. ; if 21. were taken out of circulation, we might still say that the quarter still represented -1/., but in fact it represented but 21. The landlords in Ireland, as well as the hauliers, had been the subjects of much unjust and un- merited opprobrium. They were the sufferers by tit:: change in the circum- stances of the country, not the causes of it. He had seen successive transfers of property which bad been in families almost silica the Conquest, and which was now held by new men : this could not be owing to sudden extravagance ex- tending through a whole class.

Sir Robert Peel had referred to the authority of Burke : lie wished be had referred to that of his own respectable father, who bad never ceased to denounce the bill of 1819, as an act of cruelty and injustice for which there was no necessity whatever.

The House had been told that there was no distress in the country : he was astonished at hearing that statement, from the quarters whence it came. They would find themselves deceived, when the middle classes were exhausted and re- duced to the last penny, and a few capitalists were surrounded by a starving multitude. He was disgusted at the theories of over-population and the speci- fics of emigration—to hear a wealthy philosopher stand up and say to a starving and once-happy population, " Go elsewhere ; here you are superabundant ! " When those with whom he now voted asked for general inquiry into these sub- jects, they were told that it would lead to too great lengths; and if they asked for inquiry on one point only, they were then told that was precisely the point which should not be inquired into ; just as if, on the commission of a murder, when a man was suspected of being the murderer, it should be said, "Let us not enter into the slightest examination that may bring the crime home to him."

Mr. WALTER. highly approved of the good sense and firmness which Ministers displayed in opposition to Mr. Attwood's motion. The bill of 1819 had met with the approval of almost every one whose opinion On these subjects was worth having. The necessity of reverting to cash payments had been strongly insisted upon by Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, and Lord Grenville. The present distress was certainly not owing exclusively to the return to cash payments.

The evidence of facts contradicted that supposition ; for if the present state Ofthe currency had created the distress, it would have affected all articles of sale alike; whereas the pressure upon them had been by no means equal or similar. Take cotton, for instance : that article was at a very low rate; but as to tha chief article of human subsistence—corn, corn was even now at as high a price as when the bill for the resumption of cash payments came into opera- tion, and had even been much higher. The average price of wheat in the five years preceding 1825 was 57s. a-quarter; in the five years following, 62s. ; and en 1830, 64s. Now corn and cotton were paid for in the same currency ; and, indeed, the prices of articles varied in almost every possible degree—which could not be the case if the currency were the sole cause of generally low prices.

Unless the House wished to seethe dishonest and bubble schemes of 1825 renewed, they would abstain from tampering with the currency.

Sir C. BURRELL said, the supporters of Mr. Attwood's motion only desired such an addition to the paper currency as should be based upon and convertible into gold.

If the plan which had been proposed by the late Sir Robert Peel had been followed, much of the distress which had since taken place in the country would have been avoided. His plan was, that a country banker should. deposit 20,0001. for instance, or any given sum to the proposed extent of his business; that this stun should invested in the public Funds; and that while the banker should receive the interest, he should be allowed to issue notes to the amount of his deposit, the deposit itself being retained as a security to the public for his paper issues. That would have afforded to the country an efficient circulation, and at the same time would have been_a perfect security to the holders of the notes.

Mr. MORRISQN denied that the proposed investigation was called for by the public : on the contrary, every one whom he met with in the City looked upon the motion of Mr. Attwood as one which it was im- possible for the House to entertain.

If it were thought that Government intended to supporters proposition, there would before now have been remoustrances against it from all the conunercial and manufacturing classes. That the circulation of the country was sufficient for all its wants, was proved by the fact of the large number of deposits in the banks. Such deposits, and to so large an amount, would not be left if the cie, culation were less than the wants of the country required. The landed interest would not, he maintained, be benefited by theproposed change, unless by such an issue of paper as would drive the gold out of the country, and raise rents aud prices to a large amount.

With regard to the question which had been mooted, of the coex- istence of a gold and silver standard, he would have no objection to it, provided the standards could be made of exactly equal value ; but this he believed to be impossible.

Sir Jons: WROTTESLEY could not obtain a bearing for some time. He said that if the House would not listen to him, he was determined- that no other person should be heard. ( Cries of " Order i") He then proceeded to observe, that in voting for Mr. Attwood's motion, he was Trot voting for a depreciated currency. He maintained that the dis- tress of the country was general.

That distress was strikingly apparent among the manufacturing portion of the community ; and might be proved merely by the increase of the poor-rates, which in Wolverhampton alone, to state a particular instance, had doubled since 1824. Mr. Poulett Thomson had, it appeared to him, fallen into some env.. nevus notions with respect to the value of property in canals. In the case of the Birtningham canal, instanced by hint, the receipts were not the consequence of the tolls, but of the circumstance of 500,0001. in money being thrown into that speculation. The property of that canal was, in point of fact, much de- preciated in value; and he could instance other cases of equal depreciation ca canal property. It was, indeed, a farce to talk of the prosperity of this particu- lar description of property. \Vhv, in the most favoured of the English counties, it was with difficulty that purchasers could be found for any description of property.

He said that the Government had generally contrived to issue large quantities of Bank paper immediately before a dissolution of Parlia- ment, in order to impart a fictitious prosperity to the country, and to gain popularity.

To instance one case in point, the year 1815 was a period of the greatest dis- tress; but in 1818, a dissolution of Parliament was to take place, and in 1817 the circulation, which the year before was 26,000,0001., was suddenly increased by :3,000,0001. of bank-notes. This was one instance out of many, and a pretty mode it was of bolstering up the prosperity of the country.

He thought it quite possible that some plan might be put in practice by which one-pound notes might be issued, and gold be prevented at the saute time from leaving the country. He wished the motion to be carried, for he wished the distress which pervaded the country to be traced to its source.

Mr. JOUN SMITH observed, that Sir John Wrottesley had mentioned the depreciation of canal shares as a proof of distress ; but he could re- fer him to a better test of the state of the country—the price of the public Funds, which, in spite, of the alleged distress, continued high ; a fact tending; directly to refute the assertions of depression and scarcity of money. It had been stated on respectable authority, and he believed the statement, that taking the population of Manchester front the age of nine years their

average earnings per bead amounted to 10s. a week. lie was not acquainted.

with the town of Oldham, of the misery of which so much had been said ; but Ire understood that the amount of poor-rates in that place was remarkably small. In his opinion, the distress had been greatly exaggerated and attributed to any thing rather than the right cause. He felt as certain as that the sun would rise to-morrow that if we reissued U. notes we should again have a panic, and a re- petition of all the crib of 1825.

Mr. AI. Arrw000 replied. He absolutely denied that his motiOit carried with it a depreciation of the currency.

It was rather singular, that although so much horror was expressed at med- dling with the standard, the House had frequently raised it, till at length it was brought up to 5 or 10 per cent. beyond its rate of value in 1797. Did not these changes affect contracts? It would have been fairer in Lord Althrop to have brought forward a resolution declaring the inexpediency of further appreciations

of the currency, instead of moving, as lie did, that it ought not to be lowered.,

Yet, though he brought forward it motion stating it to he inexpedient to lower the standard of value, he appeared willing to admit of silver as a sort of joint standard at 60s.—its actual value being 62s. Was not this, pro tanto, a depre- ciation of the standard ? Lord Althorp would not go the length of saying to the debtor who owed 1001. " take thy bill and write 931.," but he was willing to say "take thy bill and write 93/. 10s."

Lord Auntoar here observed, that be did not know that taking silver at 60s. would cause a depreciation ; but if he found that it would, that with him was a fatal objection to its adoption.

Mr. Arrwoon proceeded to remark upon a speech delivered .by Mr. Baring in 1830; in which he objected to repealing the act of 1826, but approved of the introduction of a joint currency of silver, "as giving the country a better chance of maintaining its standard." Was it fair, then, to blame him now, should he wish to introduce silver? He then proceeded to remark upon Mr. Poulett Thomson's argument, that the increased consumption of tobacco, tea, and sugar, was a proof of The prosperous condition of the people. Mr. Thomson's results had been incorrectly and unfairly stated.

He haul said, that in 1814 the consumption of tobacco was 15,273,0001bs; and in 1832, 20,205,00011m ; which showed an increase of 31 per cent. on the consumption, while the increase of the population was 24 per cent. This, how- ever, arose from the circumstance that tobacco had been entirely excluded front the country during the years 1813-14, on account of the American war ; and such was the effect of the exclusion, that the price had risen en 1814, from 13& (the price in 18121 to Is. 2d. Taking, however, the average of the three years previous to that period, which were not affected by any such cause, it would be found that the consumption for Great Britain and Ireland was 20,691,0001ln, and while in 1832, it was only 20,235,000am ; so that there was a falling as notwithstanding the advance of population.

Then with regard to tea and sugar— The House would hardly believe that Mr. Poulett Thomson had stated the amount of tea consumed in Great Britain alone, under the date of 1814, whilst for 1832 he bad stated the amount consumed in Great Britain and Ireland. Was it becoming in the Ministers of the Crown to meet an important question of this nature in such a manner.? Taking the case as it really stood, the con- sumption of tea in the three years preceding 1832, exhibited an increase of only 24 per cent. over that of 1801, 1802, and 1803, although the population had in- creased 50 per cent. He need not explain the cause of the diminished consump- tion of sugar in 1814: the Continent, which had been closed against the im- portation of sugar for many years, was then opened, and the consequence was an immense exportation of sugar to the Continent, and an extraordinary rise of price in this country. In 1814, the price of sugar was 103s. 4d. ; and in 1831, It was 48s. It appeared, that on an average of the six years previous to 18:2, the increase in the consumption of sugar had only been 20 per cent., while the advance in the population had been :14 per cent.

The House at this time began to be very impatient ; and Mr. A TT- woon concluded by saying, that if his motion were rejected, the people would consider that they were unjustly treated.

The House then divided : for Mr. Attwood's motion, 139; against it, 331 ; majority, 192.

Lord ALTHORP'S 'amendment was then put as a substantive motion; and Alf. Arrwoon moved as a rider to it—" That a Select Committee be appointed, having regard to the subject,of that motion, to inquire into the general distress of the industrious classes. and suggest some effectual measure of relief." Lord Auriroar, Sir Ronsar PEEL, Mr. HOME, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Lord EBRINGTON, and Mr. BeaumoteT, all briefly opposed the amendment ; which was supported by Sir FRANCIS BURDErf and Mr. O'CONNELL. Lord Sronsiosrr moved an adjournment, but subsequently withdrew his motion.

The House then divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. Att- wood : for it, 134; against it, 271 ; majority, 137.

Another division took place on Lord Althorp's original amendment, now become the motion before the House—" that any alteration in the monetary system of the country which would have the effect of lower- ing the standard of value, would be highly expedient and dangerous:" for the motion, 304; against it, 49; majority, 255. The announce- ment of these numbers was received with loud cheers.

The House adjourned at a quarter past three.

2. COMMITTEES OP INQUIRY. Lord ALTHORP, on Thursday, gave notice, that on Tuesday next lie should move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of Agriculture ; and on the same day, for a similar Committee to inquire into the state of Trade and Manufactures.

3. THE AGRICULTURAL INTEREST. Last night, when the House should have gone into a Committee of Supply, the Marquis of Outs:Dos moved the following resolution.

" That, in any reduction of taxation which may he considered expedient, it is necessary that the interest of the Agricultural portion of the community should he duly considered."

Mr. R. PAI.MEIt seconded the resolution, and it was supported by Mr. CORBETT, Sir T. YREMANTI.C, Mr. II ENav HANDLEY, Mr. Curssat FEacussoN, Sir JOHN TYRRELL, Mr. SINCLAIR, Sir Lon-.RD KNATCHBULL, and Mr. 01..:ONNELL.

Lord At:rimer opposed it. Many gentlemen seemed to think, that relief was only afforded to the Agriculturalists when taxes which pressed directly upon them were taken off: but the cultivators of the soil were in reality most relieved by the repeal of those taxes Which pressed upon the community generally. Ile had given notice of his intention to move for a Committee to inquire into the state of the Agricultural interests ; and he would oppose this motion, because it would needlessly- interfere with it.

Mr. HUME reminded the Landed gentlemen, that the tax on bread was imposed upon the nation generally for their especial benefit.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lord EBRINGTON, and Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, also opposed the motion.

The House divided : for the motion, 90; against it 118; majority for Ministers, 28.

4. Kencerrox OF TUC MALT DUTY. Sir WILLIAM INGILBY, then moved that the duty on malt be reduced from 20s. Pc/. to 10s. per quarter. He was at a loss to conceive why the landlords should bear so large, and the Fundholders so small a share of the burdens of the. country. He conceived that the reduction of the Malt-duty would be an exceedingly proper reduction, and a great relief to the country.

Mr. PARROTT seconded the motion. The revenue derived from the Malt-tax was 4,82.5,000/. But if half the duty were taken off the increase of consumption would he so great, that the actual deficiency would probably not exceed 1,200,000/.

Sir J. SEDITIGHT thought that the agricultural interest would be greatly benefited by the adoption of the motion ; but be did not see bow the money could be spared, and would not vote for it, therefore, for the discreditable purpose of gaining popularity.

Mr. BENETT would certainly vote for the motion. The reduction of the duty would benefit the country at large. They ought nut, how- ever, to reduce any tax in the present state of the revenue, without finding a substitute for it. It was his opinion that a very good substi- tute might be found, in a Property-tax, for many of the taxes on pro:. duetive industry.

Sir Gronoe Pitturs would vote against the motion ; because, if carried, it would embarrass Ministers.

Mr: Wannuarox would not consent to the repeal of the Malt-duty, until he had made terms with that great body of Landholders who ob- jected to a Property-tax. Be thought that the barley-growers, not the beer-drinkers would be benefited by the repeal of the tax. The barley crop was an uncertain one. There was sometimes a difficulty in pro- curing a sufficient supply of it. If the consumption was to be much increased, the difficulty would be greater. Lora Althorp should re- quire those members who voted for the repeal of the Malt-duty to vote for the abolition of the duty on foreign barley. He also observed, that by reducing the duty only one half, the expense of collection re- mained as great as ever.

Sir EARDLEY WILMOT said, he would vote for the reduction. He wisbed to support. Ministers; but there was so much vacillation in their conduct, that he found it very difficult to do so. They ought to fulfil the promises they had solemnly made. They were getting into a difficult and dangerous situation.

Major BEAUCLERI expressed his intention to vote for the motion.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, Ministers were now called to reduce the Malt-duties ; in a day or two they would be called upon to repeal the Houseand Window Taxes,—together, upwards of seven millions. He would vote to make good the deficiency which would be thus occasioned by the substitution of a Property-tax. Ministers should have been prepared with a plan to that effect; and then, if it were rejected, the blame would not have rested with them.

Lord ALTHORP admitted, that if the proposed reductions were car ried, some other taxes must be substituted : a commutation must take place—was the House prepared for that ? He objected to a Property- tax. It was surrounded with difficulties out of which he could not see his Ivey. The agricultural interest had already been relieved by the repeal of the Beer-tax, by which the consumption of barley had been enormously increased. He was aware that his refusal to take off the House and Window-taxes had made him unpopular in the City, and that his refusal to repeal the Malt-duty had made him unpopular in the Country. That lie could not help. He was determined, as long as he retained his situation- in the Government, to act with impartiality towards all parts of the country. He ;should decidedly oppose the motion.

Mr. Coeur:Tr made some remarks respecting the Corn-laws, and the burdens which the landlords complained of: he would not abolish the one without reducing the other. He proceeded to argue, that to take off half the Malt-tax would do little good. He was for entirely abo- lishing it. It was a most vexatious, demoralizing, and ruinous tart Government, it was said, could not spare half the duty that was in correct—they could spare it all. Ile concluded by saying that he would oppose Sir W. Ingilby's motion, because it did not go far enough.

Mr. CURTEIS, Mr. MARK PHILIPS, Mr. R. PALMER. Captain GORDON, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. HODGES, and Mr. LLOYD, all sup- ported the motion in brief speeches.

Mr. Husto said, he was certain, that owing to the great increase of consumption which would take place, tine loss to the revenue, arising from the repeal of half the Malt-ditty, would not exceed 800,0001. or 900,000/. He would prefer, if necessary, to put an additional tax on spirits.

Mr. ALEXANDER BARING said, he would vote for the motion. In SO doing, he by 110 means abandoned his principles ; but as there was so little chance of getting the Ministry to adopt them ; and as the scramble appeared to be between the Crown and Anchor gentlemen anal the Agricultural interest, as to who should have the benefit of the anticipated surplus, he would vote for giving that surplus to the latter.

Lord JOHN Ressest expressed his great surprise at the extreme in- consistency. of Mr. Baring. He had heard him for several years de- clare, and indeed only a few nights ago, that a surplus revenue should be raised for the purpose of forming a Sinking Fund ; and now lie wins prepared to vote for talking off a tax the produce of which wits necessary to curry un the Government. lie firmly believed, for his own part, that it Property-tax, which would be rendered necessary if the other taxes were repealed to the extent proposed, would produce the greatest irritation in the country.

The House divided : for Sir William Ingilby's motion, 162; against it, 152; majority against Ministers, 10..

Mr. IloieNsoo then observed, that the vote which had been just passed was no sign of the hostility of the House to Ministers : he was

aware, however, that it might embarrass them. He considered that the system of indirect taxation was at an end. He called upon the Agricultural interest to lend their assistance next week for the repeal of the House and Window taxes, in return for the assistance which had just beer rendered them.

Lord ALTHORP said, that whatever the intention of the majority might be, their vote had certainly placed Ministers in a situation of embarrassment. lie would, however, offer no further opposition to the resolution, though the majority in its favour was small.

'f he resolution that the duty on Malt be reduced from 20s. 8d. to les. per quarter, was then put from the Chair, and carried amidst loud cheering.

Lord AIMIORP then declined going into the Committee of Supply, till Monday.

5. VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. GROTE, on Thursday moved, That it was expedient, in all future elections of members to serve in Parlia- ment, that the votes be taken by way of Ballot." He reminded the House, and especially Lord John Russell, that when the Reform Bill was introduced, time .question of the Ballot was left open for future consideration. The question now stood upon a better footing than it did previously to the passing of the Reform Bill: when the whole business of vaing was illusory, it would have been useless to propose any better mode of taking the votes : but now that nomination had given place to real representation, it was the duty of the House to render the new system as complete and effectual as possible. He called upon the House to complete the work of Reform ; to review the mode in which the votes were taken, and thus prevent the good effects of the Reform Bill from being nullified by au unwise and mischievous way of collecting them. Secret suffrages was preferred in France, and in twenty out of the twenty-four States of the American Union.. Open suffrage had been hitherto the practice in the Unreformed Parliamen- tary tlectionS of this country ; but however well open suffrage might have Aimed in with that borough-holding ascendency under which the Unreformed Parliament was cast, he thought he should be able. to show- that secret suffrage was the only' arrangement compatible with the genius and purposes of a Re- formed Parliament--the only sure method of attaining a House of Commons pos- sessing the confidence of the people. He believed that the Reform Bill gave them a constituency of about 1,000,000 persons. What would they have said, if there had been a special clause in the Bill, dividing. that constituency into two classes —voters juris sui, and voters juris .alient—self and servile voters—voters entitled to a will of their own, and voters under legal: compul- sion to express only the will of another? He did not assert that. the ballot, directly and of itself, would put an end to all persecution fon•. political sentiments expressed elsewhere • but he would assert that it would most infallibly.. put an end to compulsory and insincere voting.

In France it was notorious, that during a ten years' struggle with the Bourbons, the ballot had been proved to be the all-sufficient guarantee

of electoral independence. He relied upon the ballot as a means of cut- ting up the practice of bribery, though there was a description . of wholesale conditional bribery which might still be practised under it. But the transaction would be hazardous, and very likely to be exposed. The ballot, however, would certainly render the practice of. bribery much more difficult, complicated, and dangerous, than it was at pre- sent. It should also be recollected, that for one vote perverted by bribery, fifty were perverted by intimidation. He examined the argu- ment used against the ballot, that it tended to mendacity and promise- breaking ; and contended, that of two great evils, it was certainly the least to break a promise to give a dishonest vote, than to keep it. A promise extorted from a man to give an insincere vote—to tell a deli- berate and known lie at the poll—involved the necessity of lying one way or the other : the voter must play the liar to his country, or to his superior ; and in this dilemma, to break his promise to the latter would be the less offence of the two. He prized, as highly as any .man the sanctity of a promise: but it was preposterous to treat promise-keep- ing as the sole dutrat..: h a man had to perform. The ballot, take it at the worst, got: a noxious.lie, and substituted an innoxious lie in its place.

The same gentlemen who thundered so loudly against secrecy, were profuse in extolling the frankness, the ingenuousness, she manliness of open voting. Were they really simple enough to believe, that because the voter spoke aloud, he therefore of necessity spoke from his heart ? It was the very mischief of which he complained, that the voter was in numberless cases constrained to speak the opinion of another, not his own. And was there any thing frank and manly in this compulsory voting? Was it not in its very essence tyrannical, fraudulent, and servile ? Frankness, indeed, there was, in some feu? cases, where a de- pendent voter braved ejectment and ruin, because he would not sully Isis con- science with a dishonest vote. There was frankness, indeed, combined with the constancy of a patriot and a martyr. But how fared the man who behaved thus noblv—hetter or worse than others? He suffered the full amount of in- jury which an offended superior could inflict ; while the complaisant or un- principled voter, who surrendered his conscience without a murmur, swam along prosperously in all the favour and bounty of those above him. "Look on this picture and on that," and then say, whether open voting, instead of being frank anti ingenuous, did not operate as the severest penalty on frankness and inn-en ? . e'He answered the objections raised against the ballot by those who considered the electors as trustees for the non-electors, who had there- fore a right to see how the trust was executed. But he denied that open voting was a security or benefit to the great mass of non-electors. It was a misconception of the nature of the electoral trust, to suppose that it was a benefit. What was the nature of that trust? It con- sisted in this—that a man should pronounce his conscientious prefer- .ence between two or more candidates at the poll. Could men be 'forced to choose! honestly, merely because they chose publicly ? The thing was impracticable: a man might give a dishonest vote as -easily in the face of the fullest congregation as in his own closet. Therefore lie would maintain, that publicity was fruitless and impotent -to secure an honest vote, if the voter himself were dishonest.

The voters, it is said, are to be accountable to the non-voters : the non-voters -.are to watch over the voters, and to keep them straight in the path of ditty against the voters' own inclinations. Did they really imagine that the non- voters were competent to this arduous task ? Why, the only ground for their being non-voters—the only reason whereby they stood excluded from the elec- -five franchise—was their presumed incapacity of forming any judgment on poli- tical subjects. Whether this presumption were a true one or not, it was a com- mon ground, and the only just ground, for debarring them from the elective .franchise. Now, reasoning upon this presumption, how was it possible to sup- pose that these poor incapables could be qualified to exercise surveillance over voters, to dive into the bottom of their hearts, and to restrain them from giving those dishonest votes to which they were supposed to be inclined ? Why, this was a surveillance possible only to guardian angels—to beings of a higher stamp, like Minos or Rhadamanthus, who could sound every depth and corner of the 'human heart. It was far above the faculties of men like himself, or those he ad- dressed, with the grossness and infirmities of earth about them. '

But how'clid the non.electoral population comfort themselves at an -election ? They espoused the cause of one of the candidates, and be- came his partisans ; and denounced every man who voted against him. This dictation by an assembled crowd was no less odious than dictation 'by an individual. The voter's sincere determination should not be shaken by the " vultus instantis tyranni," nor by the " civium ardor .prava jubentiurn."

He would allude to one more argument against the ballot. They -were often told that the influence of the rich over the poor was a very salutary influence, and: that the ballot would' destroy it. There was a -distinction drawn between legitimate and illegitimate influence, and he -admitted that such a distinction existed. But he thought that much of the influence, which was termed legitimate, because not expressly for- -bid by the law, was more pernicious than the bribery which was con- demned.

How much.influence over voters ought a rich man to have? As much as he could purchase ?. No,. certainly ; for even the present law forbids the idea of

-his purchasing any influence at all. He (Mr. Grote) said, not as much as he ;could purchase, but as much as he deserved, and as much as unconstrained free- men were willing to pay him. Amongst unconstrained freemen, the man of recognized superiority, moral and intellectual, would be sure of obtaining spon- taneous esteem and deference. These were his just deserts, and they came to him unbidden and unbespoken. But they would come to him multiplied ten-

tfold, if along with these intrinsic excellencies, be possessed the extrinsic advan-

tages of fortune—if he were marked out to the attention of mankind by the conspicuous blazon of established opulence and station—and if he were thus

:furnished With the means of giving ampler range and effect to his virtuous dis-

positions. These were the primary elements which, when combined in the .same person, raised to its highest pitch the admiration of mankind, and insured

'their willing obedience; this was the meed which awaited amen of birth and

'fortune, if they employed 'their faculties industriously, and to the proper ends. He did not deny that poorer men might attain it also; but with them the ascent

was toilsome, the obstructions numerous, and the success .at hest uncertain. With the rich man, the road was straight and smooth : the willing public met him half-way, and joyfully bailed the gradual opening of his virtues. He maintained that in all cases where the influence of the wealthy -was legitimate and beneficial, the ballot would strengthen and exalt it. & banished from the mind of the voter both the hope of' private favour and the fear of injury ; but that affectionate and willing homage. which wealth combined with mental excellence so infallibly awakened, was left- in full empire over his heart, and became the determining principle of his vote. Fear not, ' that the rich man who employed wealth and leisure as they ought to be em- ployed—in elevating his own mental character, and in affording conspicuous evidence of active virtue—fear not that such a man should lose one particle of influence by means of the ballot. His standard was planted in the interior of men's bosoms; his ascendancy was as sure and operative in the dark as in the light ; his admonitions and recommendations needed no coercive force to insure attention. And what harm would ensue, if that coarser and baser influence, which could not exist without coercive force, were suppressed and extirpated altogether?

He concluded by saying that if he had no other ground on which to ask for the ballot, he would ask it on this—it was the only school- master of a frivolous and self-indulgent aristocracy. It was among the most important topics to which legislative attention could he directed, to calculate the force of temptation to which every man stood exposed, and to remove it altogether if that could be possibly done—if not, to diminish it to the utmost practicable extent.

Sir W. INcitav cordially seconded the motion. He had been en- gaged for six months in canvassing for votes, and be could speak as to the species of compulsion to which electors were liable. Ile regretted that the Clergy were meddlers in elections ; for nothing had a more direct tendency to bring the Church into disrepute—that Church of of which he considered hiniself to be part and parcel.

. , The Earl of DARLINGTON would oppose the motion, because it was uncalled for, unnecessary, and would lead to bad consequences, moral, social, and political.

Mr. W. PETER also opposed the motion. The ballot would free the voter from all responsibility in the exercise of his franchise; pub- licity being the best and only means of ensuring responsibility. The franchise was a public, not a private right; and the man who feared to exercise it publicly was unworthy of it.

Mr. TAYLEURE thought the ballot necessary to protect the honest and poor voter.

Mr. F. T. BARING opposed the motion. He objected to Mr. Grote's division of the constituency of the country into two classes— the landlords and the tenants—the tyrants and the slaves. The ballot, it was said, would prevent the landlord from compelling his tenant to vote for his nominee :

Now in his humble judgment the ballot would not even have this effect; for the landlord who was inclined to compel his tenant to vote as he pleased, would, when he became suspicious of the mode in which the tenant would vote, get rid of the possibility of his tenant's voting against him, by insisting that he should not vote at all,

The way in which the ballot worked in America had been referred to : he would read them the sentiments of the Governor of the State of New York on this subject. This was his language.

" That many persons holding offices in the public service of the United States have acted most improperly, by interfering in our elections, is known to every man in the community, who has eyes to see, and who is not steeled by prejudice against the ad- mission or truth." The Governor then went through the different offices beginning with those in the Navy-yard. After enumerating the holders of different offices. he added—" The doctiments herewith produced will show that at the last election officers in the public employ were brought up to vote, not according to their own feelings, but according to the feelings of the different chiefs in their respective departments, and that improrr attempts were made upon all of them, in order to influence the result of the contest."

Dr. LVPHINGTON supported the motion.

No man, however: great his eloquence and ability, should induce him to believe that if the system of voting by ballot were made the law of the land, and if, as a consequence, the voting at elections was secret, time effect would not be visible in the diminution of that intimidation, corruption, and bribery, of which every member in the House complained, and of which all men professed their desire to obtain a remedy. He had stood contested elections—one lately, for the Tower Ham- lets, which contained the most numerous constituency in the empire ; and lie would aver from facts which came within his own knowledge, that intimidation of the most revolting character was practised upon the poorer classes of electors. As individual instances were called for, he would give them one.

He had fiad to contend at his last election against the whole weight of the West Indian interest. The principals of a large West • Indian house went to a tradesman, with whom they ,..;ere in the habit of dealing. They said to him, " Will you giVe us one vote for Captain Marryat?" He replied that he would. The next question was, " Will you give us another against Dr. Lushington ?" The tradesmen replied, that he was ready to give. one vote to please them, be- cause they were his customers, but said that he must give the other vote to please himself. "Then," said they, " make out your account immediately, there is a draught for the balance, but on no account shall you ever have another order from our house." It so happened that the tradesman was in independent circumstances. His spirit was roused by this mixture of insolence and oppres- sion ; and within an hour of the occurence of this transaction he came and in-

formed Dr. Lushingtun of its particulars. .

Sir GEORGE 'PHILies" was averse to secret voting ; but was obliged to admit, that gross interference with the rights of electors had been practised by those persons who were generally most opposed to the ballot.

Major FANCOURT argued at considerable length against the motion; on the ground that wholesale, irresponsible bribery, would be increased and facilitated by the ballot ; and that it would induce the practice of designing and heartless duplicityamong the people. It would also, he contended, root up the due and legitimate influence of property in the country. Lord ALTHORP wished to explain the reasons for the vote he should Five against the 'notion: ' He had voted for MT. O'Connell's motion . in favour of the ballot, and had since expressed himself in fiwour of it ; but he had never stated it as a sine qua min of good government.

There was one ground on which he should not be justified at present, and in the circumstances of the country; in giving his vote in favour of the motion

He never should have supported the ballot, in a Reformed Parliament or any other, unless be saw great practical inconveniences without it. He did not

deny that great oraetical evils were produced, but those evils must exist ttri great extent, and become a real public evil, before he could adopt so great • a change in the Constitution in order to remedy them. He did not think that under the present system of Reform such evils existed to any extent; and, therefore, not believing them to exist to such an extent as to influence the

public ins: Tests, he certainly did not think we ought to adopt such a change as Ws.

He appealed to every gentleman who was in the last Parliament, to say whether, as far as the representation of the People was concerned, that measure was not ploposed and considered by its promoters as a final measure? He had stated so frequently to the House. He ad- mitted that his vote of to-night would be inconsistent with his former vote on Mr. O'Connell's motion ; but if he were to divide with Mr. Grote, he should be acting still more inconsistently with every thing which he had stated during the whole progress of the measure of Re- form. He was conscious that he was liable to attack for the vote he gave, but he should be liable to still greater attack if he gave it in any other way.

Mr. CORBETT said he could tell the House a pretty story of the effect of the ballot in America, but he supposed they would not let him. Much had been said about America ; but one fact had been omitted— which was, that in the Slave States there was open voting, in the Free States vote by ballot. As regarded bribery, there could be no preven- tion of it, without the ballot. He would vote for the motion, though the ballot was no great favourite of his. Mr. O'CONNELL said, the question was: to whom should the vote belong—to the elector or to some other person ? Those who thought it should belong to the former, would vote for the motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL contended, that even if secret voting were desira- ble—which was not his opinion—it was impracticable.

Was it to he expected that the voters themselves were to keep the secret as to how they had voted? Was it credible that they would remain silent on a sub- ject of such importance? Were they to keep it secret from their wives? Why, what an abominable system, which would destroy the confidence between the nearest connexions in life ! But, he would ask, could it be expected that men in their private societies, in their familiesj in their clubs, or is their markets were not to mention it ; and if they did, how Was it possible to prevent it from getting abroad ? If this strict silence were to be observed, there would be an end of all public discussion. It was said that this would put an end to bribery : now, if a disposition to bribery existed, could it be supposed that it would be prevented by these paper regulations? Might not clubs be formed, and would not the means of disposing a votes be still as numerous as before? But his objection to the system of ballot was, that it would make the House, already sufficiently Democratic, more Democratic still. It would tend to destroy the influence of property. If a man of 1,000/. per annum were to have no more influence than a man of 1001. per an- num, property would become of little value, and a system of represen- tation would be established against which no government could stand. The arguments in favour of allowing women to vote for members of Parliament, were very ingenious, and were as cogent as most, if not all, that were advanced in favour of the ballot. He maintained, that last year, when the Reform Bill was in progress, the consent of the country was given to the measure on the understanding that they were to go no further until they had some experience of the working of their experi- ment. He would opppose this motion, for be verily believed that one change would beget another, and that the changes would be endless. And he trusted that both Reformers and Anti-Reformers would unite in refusing to alter the Constitution until they had proof of its ineffi- ciency.

Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY supported the motion.

IVIr. GROTE briefly replied.

The House divided: for the motion, 106; against it, 211; majority, 105.

6. INCREASE OF CRIME: PROGRESS OF DISCONTENT. Mr. LEN- alarm, on Thursday, in presenting a petition from Epping and Harlow, `calling upon the House to adopt some plan for the education of the poorer classes, observed, that if the gaols, workhouses, and peniten- tiaries of the country were examined, it would be found that crime pre- smiled most among the uninstructed. The criminal returns made in .France proved that this was the case in that country in a remarkable degree. Mr. HUME said, the subject of the petition was of the greatest im- portance. The Report on the Poor-laws presented a state of igno- rance and crime in the country, which ought to be appalling to every person : it amounted to this—that if sonic speedy and effectual check were not put to the march of demoralization, no property would be safe. Lord Brougham had grievously disappointed the hopes of the nation on this important subject. The people had got nothing by the Reform Bill. The Government did every thing by halves ; but the nation would not be insulted much longer ; and if the present system were persevered in, Sir Robert Peel in the course of a few months would be borne into office on the shoulders of the people. He had just been at a meeting of 4,000 or 5,000 orderly shopkeepers—not the rabble—at the Crown and Anchor, and he wished some Cabinet Ministers had been there also to see the manner in which the mention of their names had been received.

Mr. HALL DARE concurred in the prayer of the petition.

Mr. BENETT reprobated Mr. Hume's attack on Ministers.

Mr. O'CONNELL defended Mr. Hume. He had been at the Crown and Anchor, and could say that never was any Ministry more thoroughly execrated than the present on this occasion.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY deprecated these attacks on Ministers, and pro- tested against the doctrines held by Mr: Hume and Mr. O'Connell, which were calculated to overturn the Constitution.

Here the conversation dropped.

7. MANUFACTURERS' JOINT FUND. Mr. SLANEY, on Thursday, moved for leave to bring in a bill " to enable manufacturers and me- chanics to insure themselves against temporary want of employment, by giving them facilities for creating a safe joint fund, vested in the public Funds, or other approved and available security." He stated, that the increase in the manufacturing population during the present century, was 50 per cent., whilst the increase in the general population 'was only 25 per cent. This population was constantly subject to the great- est distress, arising from fluctuations in trade, and the consequent want of employment. The improvements in machinery of various descriptions bad increased the facility of production to so great an extent, that gluts were constantly occurring. Want of bread almost instantaneously followed want of employment; because the operatiiMS-Frd-iiiiliiiiirto fall back upon. Benefit and friendly societies were restricted in their objects to the relief of people suffering from accidents, sickness, ad- vanced age, widowhood, and other natural contingencies. He proposed to facilitate the formation of similar societies, in order to afford relief to the members of them, when there was a scarcity of work. The me- chanics should be allowed to deposit joint funds in Savings Banks or the Stocks. The tailors had the best means of support when out of em- ployment of any class of mechanics. They were divided into first, second, and third class workmen ; and when any one of the body was out of work, he went to the House of Call, and received a trade al- lowance in proportion to his skill. There was scarcely an instance among the tailors of their applying for parochial relief. It might be said that the funds, which according to hisplan would be raised, might be applied to mischievous purposes. But was it expedient to prevent the accumulation of those funds lest they should be misapplied?

But he denied that the creation of such funds would foster a spirit of violent and intimidating combination amongst the workmen ; on the contrary, it would have an opposite effect. What produced violent outbreaks of combination, attended by great destruction of property, and, in some cases, of life, in manu- facturing districts ?—want—want of employment, followed by instantaneous want of bread, the people having no reserved fund to fall back on for support. The possession of such a fund would give time and opportunity for reason and truth to work their way, and patience would not be at once abandoned through necessity.

Mr. CORBETT thought it would be much better to leave the money, if there was any, in the pockets of the people, instead of depositing it in Savings Banks or the Funds.

Mr. HARDY supported the motion, and hoped that the funds would not be misapplied to the purposes of combination.

Mr. HUME thought that the word combination had been too much used in reference to the association of workmen for their own protec- tion, while no such opprobrious term was used to designate similar as- sociations on the part of the masters. He would support the present measure as a whole, but would object to any part of it which laid re- striction upon the working classes in the disposal of their funds. They should be allowed to manage their affairs according to their own judgment.

Mr. HILL, supported the measure.

Mr. T. .Arrwoon objected to that clause of the bill which rendered it imperative upon these societies to invest their money in the Funds, and thus be brought under the surveillance of Government. The Go- vernment would form a terrific partnership with the working classes, arid govern and scourge them at pleasure. The decision of the pre- vious night had sapped the foundation upon which the Funds rested. (Cries of " Oh ! " and " Question ") He was sure of it—the founda- tion of the National Debt was rendered rotten and unsafe.

Mr. MAXWELL adverted at some length to the Currency debate, and declared his intention of voting for Mr. Slaney's bill.

Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON said, he would give his cordial support to the bill.

Mr. SLANEY said that his bill contained no coercive clause. It al- lowed the societies to employ their funds as they liked. He would ask Mr. Attwood, whether he thought the money would be safer in the hands of private bankers than in the Funds ?

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

8. FACTORY COMMISSIONERS. Mr. HUME, on Tuesday, asked whether the medical members of the Commission to inquire into the state of Factories were to receive five guineas a day ? Men were taken from the Medical Staff when the cholera was raging, and were only paid 10s. per day. Lord ALTHORP said, the Commissioners would re- ceive 2001. each, and reasonable travelling expenses. Mr. HUME pro- tested against so expensive an arrangement ; and again recommended half-pay officers for the service. They were employed in the cholera times, but were excluded from this business which would be a pleasant little jaunt.

9. BRIBERY AT STAFFORD. The Earl of RADNOR, on Monday, moved the second reading of this, bill. He said that the bribery which prevailed in Stafford was notorious. One of the candidates at the last election had been promised, the day before the polling commenced, two 1,thirds of all the votes ; but another candidate came down and offered 3,000/. more for the votes, and consequently he had them. The object of the bill was to indemnify those persons who would give evidence as to these shameful transactions.

Lord WYNFORD opposed the bill; on the ground, that it was unpre- cedented, and that there was nothing which rendered it necessary to treat the Stafford case differently from any other case of bribery. He would move that the subject be referred to a Secret Committee, to re- port as to what persons ought to be indemnified.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of the bill for a day or two.

Lord BROUGHAM thought that the novelty of the proposed measure ought not prevent its passing. It was the duty of the House to give every possible facility to the execution of justice. Every body knew that bribery was almost universal in Stafford. The electors walked about the streets with bank-notes in their hats for cockades.

Some further conversation occurred, and the debate was adjourned to Friday.

Last night, the bill, on the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, was referred to a Select Committee.

10. TRADE WITH BRAZIL. Sir HENRY PARNELL, on Friday, pre- sented a petition from the Chambers of Commerce for the County of Forfar, and from the merchants and shipowners of Dundee, which stated that the chief market for their linens was the Brazilian, into which they were freely admitted; but that their ships returned home without back freight, in consequence of the excessive duties with which Brazilian produce was loaded. This very serious evil, Sir Henry said, might be remedied, by allowing the importation of Brazilian sugars duty free, for the purpose of refining for reexportation. Any fur- ther monopoly than that now enjoyed by the West India planters in the home market, could not be justified. IL IRISH JURY Dime On the question being put, on Friday, that this bill be read a third time, the Duke of WELLINGTON strongly ob- jected to it. The Coercion Bill had been passed because Jurymen who would do their duty, were not to be procured; and now they were called upon to pass a bill which would extend the right of sitting upon Juries to a class of persons who were notoriously under the do- minion of their priests. He concluded by moving a technical altera- tion in the 11th clause, which relates to the summoning of Juries by the Sheriff.

Lord MELBOURNE said, because it was necessary to suspend trial by Jury in the disturbed districts, it did not follow that improvements were not to be made in the Jury system, which might be extended to the tranquil parts of the country. The bill would provide a respectable body of Jurors. The amendment proposed by the Duke should be inserted in the bill, if its passing were delayed till Monday.

The bill was then read a third time; and the question that it do pass was postponed to Monday.

12. PENSIONS. Mr. D. W. HARVEY, on Wednesday, said that lie meant shortly to appeal to the gallantry of the House, to set at rest the ungenerous supposition that certain noble ladies received one six- pence of the public money for which they had given no equivalent (Laughter); for on the 22d May he intended to bring forward his mo- tion for a return ofthe names of the male and female pensioners, of the services by which they had merited their pensions, or the consideration which they had given for them.

13. MALLOW ELECTION. The Committee on this election reported on Wednesday, that Mr. W. J. O'Neill Daunt was not duly elected, and that Mr. C: D. 0. Jephson was duly elected; that Mr. Daunt's election had been frivolous and vexations; and that the Committee had struck off from the poll the names of several persons who were not en- titled to vote. On the motion of Lord EASTNOR, the clerk of the Crown was ordered to attend on Thursday and amend the return.

14. CORPORATION OF LEICESTER. Mr. EVANS, on. Monday, pre- sented a petition signed by five thousand persons, complaining of abuses in the Leicester Corporation. Mr. Heaeronn defended the members of the Corporation ; who, he said, were men firmly attached to the Church and the Monarchy. Mr. WYNN ELLIS said, 1,2001. had been received by the Treasurer of the Corporation, which was unaccounted for. All their accounts were mystified : it was impossible to make bead or tail of them. Mr. HALFORD said, that one -a the sums alluded to, 1,3001., had been expended in a contested election. Mr. EVANS was glad to hear that admitted : he knew that more than 10,000/. of parochial money had been expended in opposing the return of a popular candidate.

15. APOTHECARIES MONOPOLY. The Earl of ROSEBERRY, on Thursday, in presenting a petition from the medical practitioners of Manchester for the repeal of the Apothecaries Act, stated that the subject was under the consideration of Government, and it was pro- bable that the clause in the bill which prevented Edinburgh graduates from dispensing medicines in England would be amended.

16. CARLILE's IMPRISONMENT. Mr. ROEBUCK, on Monday, presented a petition from Richard Carlile, complaining of being detained in prison after his term of punishment—two years—had expired, in consequence of his inability to find sureties for 1,0001. and pay a fine of 500/. more. Be commented in strong terms upon the severity and impolicy of the sentence. Mr. GEORGE LAMB admitted that the sentence was very severe; but the offence was of an aggravated kind. When fires were blazing. in every part of the kingdom, Carlile wrote an inciting address to the insurgents. He would inquire into the truth of the fact stated in the petition, that he was detained in confinement for want of sure- ties. That certainly would amount to a sentence of imprisonment for life.

17. NEW WRITS. On Monday, new writs were ordered to be issued for Worcestershire, in the room of Mr. Foley, now Lord Foley; and for the Inverness district of Burghs, in the room of Mr. Evan Bailie, deceased.