nomy as far as practicable, and deprecated the adoption of any coercive measures against the people. There was then a great call for the question, and the amendment was negatived without a division. The address was then carried.

On the commons assembling this day, they went, preceded by the speaker, to Carlton-house, to pre sent the address. At five, the members having returned, the house resumed.

Lord Cochrane presented a peti tion from Bristol, signed by 20,700 inhabitants, attributing the nation's misery to the enormous amount of taxation and debt, and praying for parliamentary reform.

Messrs. Protheroe and Davis, the members for Bristol, said they were certain the petition did not speak the sentiments of their constituents, nor was the meeting where it was agreed upon attended by onehundredth part of the population. -Ordered to lie upon the table.

Another petition from Saddleworth, in Yorkshire, was presented by lord Cochrane: it was worded in very strong terms. Considerable discussion took place whether this petition should be rejected or not. Messrs. Brougham, Brand, W. Lamb, F. Douglas, and sir W. Geary, spoke in favour of its being received, but disclaiming at the same time any knowledge or concurrence with the reformers out of doors, whose conduct they conceived would be prejudicial to that

cause.

Messrs. Canning, C. Wynn, B. Bathurst, and C. Grant, spoke for its rejection, as a libel on the house. On a division, the petition was rejected, by 135 to 48.-A third petition from the township of Leeds, in the parish of Ashton-under-Line, was read, and ordered to lie on the

table. A fourth, from the town of Ashton-under-Line, was reject→ ed, because the signatures were not written on the same sheet of paper which contained the petition.

The adjourned debate on the ad dress was then resumed.

Mr. Curwen said, that the speech from the throne was calculated to mislead the country, and that no faith could be reposed in the pro. mise made by ministers of economy and retrenchment. He then drew a gloomy picture of the situation of the country.

Mr. Bankes reprehended the amendment, and conceived that the committee of inquiry, which ministers proposed to institute, would make a faithful report, and satisfy public expectation. Retrenchment in the expenditure was not an un mixed good, as many persons were thereby reduced to distress. Sevens teen millions of taxes had been taken off last year, but our state was not at all improved. It was highly satisfactory to learn, that no fresh taxes would be imposed.

Mr. Brougham, after characte rizing Mr. Bankes's speech as calculated to delude, and as much more dangerous coming from a neutral territory, entered into a variety of arguments to show the great difficulties in which the country is involved. "It seems to me," said Mr. Brougham, "that a committee to inquire into the state of the nation will afford ministers the best opportunity of showing why no attempt has been made to benefit our de caying commerce:" however, for the present, he [Mr. B.] was willing to postpone any further observations upon these topics, because of the absence of a noble lord, whom he hoped to have seen in his place, and who, he lamented, was not now present. "The policy which

we

we are pursuing abroad is by no means calculated to promote the interests of our commerce: the continental system did not expire when Bonaparte quitted France, and if we do not alter the line of policy which we are at present pursuing, we shall perpetuate its existence, a thing which it is very easy to do, as its renewal was with the concurrence of the people. No little or vain retrenchment will suit our present situation. Some establishments must be destroyed entirely, in others the reductions must be carried on to a great extent." In conclusion he said He was an enemy, as much as any man, to certain delusions practised out of doors, respecting rights that never had an existence. He despised such efforts from the bottom of his heart.-To say that the whole of our grievances were owing to the want of an equal representation of the people was a great exaggeration. But the intolerable weight of our taxes stood foremost, in his opinion, in causing a continuance of the sufferings under which we laboured. He concluded with repeating his desire for a committee on the state of the nation, which would prove that our only alternative was retrenchment or national bankruptcy.

Mr. Canning began one of the most brilliant and argumentative speeches ever delivered in parliament, by saying, that he must claim the liberty, on the part of himself and his colleagues, of asserting, that they were equally as sensible as any gentleman who had taken part in that debate, of the extreme distress, and also of the perils, that pervaded the country. We had seen many important crises. Important indeed was that when parliament determined, at the commencement of the late war, to arm

the nation against foreign hostility and domestic treason. Important above all was the crisis of the pre ceding year, when we were sudden ly called on to exert all our energies to redeem the prize about to be wrested from our hands; but not less important than either, would be the result of this night's proceed. ings, which would decide whether or not we were to carry to the foot of the throne an address of our de termination to stand by it, and do the best in our power to support it. What was it that so inopportunely interfered to prevent this unani mity? Must it be presumed that there was something in the address which gentlemen could not adopt without abandoning some principle to which they had attached them selves, or some pledge which they had given to their constituents? or must it be presumed, that the appearance of a division in the house upon such a question will be con strued out of doors for more than it really meant? But what was the mighty difference between the address and the proposed amendment? It was, that ministers on their part echoed the sentiments of the speech from the throne, in recommending the institution of an inquiry into the national revenue and expenditure, with a view to economy and retrenchment, while the gentlemen opposite thought it better to say, that we should have a committee of inquiry into the state of the na tion!-This was the only point of difference between the gentlemen opposite, and those on his side of the house. He should have sup posed that the most fastidious critic would have approved of the sentiments so independently declared by his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes); for he had declared a sort of ner trality, and that he would not at

tach

tach himself to this or that side of the house; consequently, in theory, it would appear that he was a perfect model of an independent member of parliament. But how was he reviled and ridiculed, when he attempted to act up to this theory? The honourable gentleman opposite seemed to think, that on this, as on other occasions, they were at liberty to assume to themselves the exclusive right of feeling for the distresses of the country; that they alone feel them, and that govern ment are callous and insensible to any thing of the kind. But he would tell those gentlemen that go vernment had as deep a sense of the difficulties under which the different classes of the community laboured as any man, and far more than those who attempt to found a shallow popularity on public clamour. The causes of our present distress he firmly believed to be beyond our control. He would appeal to some of the best authorities in the country in support of this opinion. In the case of agriculture, for example, the difficulties were so great, that persons of the most extensive knowledge and best dispositions could not find suggestions that were practicable suddenly to overcome them. Every consideration had been given to this subject, and the difficulties had been found insuperable; yet they did not exclude any remedies that might hereafter be found practicable. The difficulties of the country were great and severe; he stated the fact with regret and sincerity; but we were not without hopes that they could be overcome. He denied that taxation was the chief cause of the general distress, particularly in agriculture. There was an honourable and learned gentleman, whom he did not just now. see in his place, who had written a

very able pamphlet on this subject, in which he enumerated no less than thirteen causes for this distress, of which taxation was only one. This gentleman said that many of them were only of a temporary nature, and might soon be relieved, though, from what he had said to-night, he appeared to think that things would grow worse before they mended. But we were not entitled to consider things worse now than we could have imagined. This was not the occasion to state what were the reductions which government had to propose; but he would say, that in the intended reduction of the military establishment, one principle had been kept in view, the safety of the country. As to the colories, they had their price, and. when we risked them, we knew what we risked; but when we risked the safety of the country, and put to hazard the constitution of the empire, there was no price that. could compensate us! This was the principle on which ministers were, prepared to propose their estimates, and these only for a limited time, reviseable even during the present session of parliament. He thought this would show, that as much consideration had been given to the subject of reduction, as could possibly be bestowed on it. He denied that there was any comparison between this last war and that with America; for at the end of that war taxes were immediately laid on, to, a considerable amount, to enable us to bear our existing burdens; but now, in the very first year of peace, nearer one-third than one-fourth of the taxes had been repealed; and in the second year of peace, ministers proposed to go on without, imposing any new burdens at all.— The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to animadvert on

the

the proposition of Mr. Brougham, for compelling the committee to report every resolution to the house as soon as they had come to it. Respecting the royal speech he ob served, that if ever pains had been Taken to separate a description of the deluded from the deluders, they had been taken in that most interesting document: yet the honourable gentleman opposite had ac cused ministers of treating the deluded people like insurgents and rebels. He admitted that they were mostly deluded people who had assembled in Spa-fields; but amongst them was a waggon laden with ammunition, and surmounted with tri-coloured flags. Were these necessary materials for obtaining a parliamentary reform ?Those who were stigmatized in the speech were the deluders of the poor people who were suffering under pri vations, and who had heads wicked, and hearts hard enough to leave their starving auditors, and retire to their comfortable homes, after stimulating them to rebellion as a duty, and execrating charity as a vice!-[The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to descant, in a most animated strain, on the attempts to effect a revolution under pretence of obtaining a reform. Our limits will not allow us to follow him through the details of one of the most brilliant, eloquent, and impressive speeches that have been heard for years in that honour able house. We, therefore, for want of room are most reluctantly obliged to compress the remainder of his remarks into very brief limits, without the possibility of bestowing on them any portion of that justice which their importance would otherwise require.] He contended that no sort of reform in parliament could benefit

the people; and whenever the sti ject should be agitated, it would be met by a direct and positive denial of its necessity. He, for his own part, would prove himself a most unwilling reformer at heart, and he was not ashamed to avow it. There was nothing either in the theory or practice of our constitu tion by which parliament could be reformed. Other countries, less acquainted with the genuine principles of liberty, might take the basis of our system to improve their own; but ours was happily adapted to all the purposes of our rights, privileges, and necessities. He trusted, when the time came, the house would repel with indignation the attempt to make them the mere creatures of the people, instead of the guardians of their rights; otherwise, from the moment they admitted the principle of necessity for a reform, the British constitution would be gone. We might be England, but we should no longer be that England which was enabled to give deliverance to Europe, and crush its oppressor.-Against all such theories he was determined to take his stand. He warned those who listened to these doctrines, that those who set the stone rolling were not always able to control its im petus. The honourable and learned gentleman had called them wild and visionary reformers, but they were in fact the masters of the honourable and learned gentleman, and of all those who called themselves moderate reformers; they made use of them as far as they suited their purposes, and treated their counsels, when they did not, with contumely and scorn. They well knew what they were contending for, and how far they would choose to go, although, God willing, care should be taken to prevent them. Who

could

could believe that the wish of such persons was merely that the house of commons should do its duty better, when there was not one act which they were ever heard to approve, and when they were known at all times to describe the last twenty years as a continued period of calamity and disgrace? Whether the blame or the merit lay with the house, it was a period, however, which had immortalized our name, and saved our constitution. The honourable and learned gentleman had said, these radical reformers had nothing substantial in their projects; he begged to differ with him, they had nothing less than the whole land of the country. If the house would submit, like innocent lambs, they would soon find that they would be sheared to thevery quick. The ruin of France had been accomplished by despising the first indications of mischief as too contemptible to deserve notice. It was indisputable, that the poison of doctrines at once the most pernicious and the most absurd, had been long circulating through the body of the community; doctrines not expressed in the diction of illiterate men, but penned in the well-wrought pe riods of practised writers. Let them hear the ingenious creed of these patriots of the soil. [Here Mr. Canning read an extract from a publication, entitled, we believe, "The Spencean Plan."] Among other principles it was stated," that the only security for freedom was the restoration of the land to the people; and without that, even revolution would be unnecessary." Again it was declared, "that the people were the only proprietors of the soil." How far did the plans of the moderate reformers fall short of these principles? and how were they sure that when they set the 1817.

whirlwind in motion, they would be able to direct its course? They would in all probability be its first victims; and if successful, the country itself would soon follow. The blazes of war had ceased, but the sun of peace had not attained its meridian: let not robbers and assassins take advantage of the twilight. England was not, he trusted, to be blotted from the list of nations, because, after an over-strained though necessary effort, she was sunk in comparative exhaustion. All that we had to do, was to wait patiently, to bear and to forbear; to restore what lord Clarendon called "the ancient good temper and good humour of Englishmen," and to abstain from all chimerical schemes, and all irritating invectives. Then he doubted not that, at the close of the session, painful and laborious as it must necessarily be, they would all join in a common sentiment of satisfaction, as they looked back at the dark phantoms which had appalled them at its commencement. The honourable gentlemen opposite wished for a committee to inquire into the state of the nation, instead of a committee to inquire into the revenue and expenditure. If the object on the other side was nothing more than to put the government into other hands, he for one should not envy them the inheritance; but to whatever hands it might be confided, and whilst any government continued to subsist in the country, his earnest hope was, that the constitution committed to its charge would be sacredly preserved.

Mr. Tierney observed, that the right honourable gentleman had talked a good deal of sudden transitions, and his speech certainly abounded in examples of them. The whole of his eloquence had C

been