best for all parties, and the rate of the tolls was calculated on that principle. The toll on the short stages, of which the petitioners complained, if the stage made eight journies a day, did not amount to one halfpenny a mile, while on other roads, further from town, the rate would be nearly 3d., and would equal that sum were the old system of separate trusts now in existence in the neighbourhood of Kensington. Moreover, the whole charge according to weight, and stopping waggons and carts to weigh them, had been done away, and as in fact, the House had lately investigated this system, and had greatly improved it, he did not think that it would be easily induced again to enter upon such investigations.

Mr. E. Davenport said, that the public was, undoubtedly, much indebted to the noble Lord for the trouble he had taken on the subject, but still, he must say, that the noble Lord had given no answer to the complaint made by his hon. friend, that tolls were taken on carts and coalwaggons every time they passed through the gates. A waggon which formerly paid 6d., and was then free for the whole day, would now have to pay 10s. if it went backwards and forwards ten times. For persons living in the neighbourhood of one of these tolls this was a great grievance, which, he trusted, the noble Lord would find out some means to remedy.

Lord Lowther denied that such an increase as that stated by the hon. Member had actually taken place.

Mr. C. Calvert said, that many of the regulations adopted by the commissioners, bore hard upon the public; wheels of 6 inches paid a double toll, but if they were 6 inches, they paid only a single toll.

Mr. Frankland Lewis said, the evasions were so skilful and numerous, that unless the regulations were very strictly enforced, as well as made with great discrimination, it would be impossible to levy any toll. The law said, that wheels of 6 inches in width should pay one toll, and wheels of 9 inches a less toll, because the narrow wheel does the more injury to the road. To escape the payment of the heavier toll, wheels were so made, that while they were 9 inches in breadth they only brought a surface of 3 or 4 inches into contact with the road, doing it an injury equal to a wheel of that width, and avoiding the friction of the greater surface. This was

an evasion of the Act of Parliament. The effect of the regulation proposed by his noble friend was, to levy the tolls in proportion to the real width of the wheels, and to levy them on vehicles every time they passed through a gate. Petition laid on the Table.

AVON AND GLOUCESTER RAILROAD.] Mr. Charles Dundas moved the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hart Davis opposed the Motion, on the ground that it had been brought into Parliament by the Kennet and Avon Canal Company, in direct contravention of an agreement which that Company had entered into with the Bristol and Gloucestershire Rail-Road proprietors. He trusted that the House of Commons would not sanction such a violation of a private agreement, that ought to have been binding on both parties. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Dundas supported the Bill, on the ground that the undertaking would be beneficial to the public, and he denied that any such engagement had been entered into as the hon. Member supposed.

Mr. Bright opposed the Bill on the same ground as Mr. H. Davis. He said that it was a breach of a solemn engagement.

Mr. Protheroe supported the Amendment of his hon. friend, the Member for Bristol. The question was one which affected the private business of the House, and the private rights of individuals. If the Bill were to pass, it would give the Avon and Gloucester Rail-Road Company the monopoly of the Coal markets of Bristol, which, instead of being a benefit to the town, would be an injury to all its inhabitants.

Mr. R. Gordon supported the Bill. The violation of the engagement, he said, which was made the objection to it, was nothing more than a misunderstanding between parties who had different interests. The object contemplated by the Bill was, to supply Bristol with cheap Coals, which, being a public benefit, he should vote for the Bill.

Sir Thomas Lethbridge denied that the dispute was a mere squabble between Rail-Road Companies. It was, on the contrary, the breach of a most solemn engagement, and thinking that it was his duty, as a Member of that House, to en

force the observance of such an engagement, he should certainly vote against the Bill. He would do so, however, without any feeling of hostility towards the hon. Member who supported it (Mr. C. Dundas) and with whom he had generally great pleasure in co-operating.

Sir William Guise said, he had heard enough to be convinced that the two parties had entered into an engagement up stairs, of which the Bill was a violation. To that he thought the House ought not to give its sanction.

Mr. Estcourt said, that he would be the last man in that House to give his sanction to a violation of a solemn engagement; but from the conversation he had had with the parties, he did not think that the Bill was any such violation. There were statements and counter-statements which a committee might examine, and to examine such conflicting statements was the very business of a committee. It was unheard of to oppose the second reading of a bill on such grounds. He would say, let the parties go before a committee, which would ascertain the justice or injustice of the opposition. The House heard a great deal, almost every day, against monopolies, and as far as he saw, the Bill was not intended to give one company, as was said, a monopoly of the Bristol market for Coals, but to throw open that market, which was now monopolized, to competition. The imputation against the Bill was, that it would enable one Company to under-sell another. He should certainly vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Monck thought, that the engagements between individuals ought not to bind that House. He should vote for the Motion, because a committee was the only place to setttle rival claims.

The House then divided For the second reading 37: Against it 44:-Majority 7.

DISTRESS.] Mr. Liddell presented a Petition, agreed to unanimously at a public meeting at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, complaining of the Distress of the Agricultural, Commercial, and Shipping Interests. The hon. Member admitted, that the suffering in the north of England was not as great as in the south, owing principally to the determination of the Coalowners to continue giving employment to the people, though at a greatly diminished rate of profit. Nevertheless, the state

ments of the Petitioners were substantially borne out by facts. In particular, the agricultural part of the population, as well as the persons connected with shipping, and the lead-mines, were in great distress. The evils arising from two bad harvests in succession had been greatly increased by the abolition of Small Notes, and all the mischiefs arising from that measure were not yet apparent. The Act of 1826 was violated in the north of England continually, and notwithstanding the prohibition, the Small Bank Notes of the Scotch Banks circulated freely to the amount of 40,000l. or 50,000l.; on the south side of the border, the people there, like Tantalus, were placed between a paper and a gold circulation, but had very little of either. To these observations he should add nothing more, as he understood his hon. friend intended to present a Petition on the subject. He begged the House to remember, that if it expected impossibilities from the people, the people would expect impossibilities from it. If Members were not prepared to give the people the assistance which their necessities required, they ought to be prepared to contract their own expenses, so as to leave no grounds for popular discontent. The state of the currency was supposed to have material influence in producing the present distresses; but he should probably be told that nothing could be done with the currency; that was a settled question in the minds of most hon. Members: he by no means regarded it in that light; to him it was any thing but a settled question. It was stated that the annual supply of gold received in Europe had been gradually decreasing since 1800, it being, between that year and 1810, on an average, equal in value to 4,761,000 dollars, while the average supply, since 1820, had only been equal to 1,200,000 dollars; or about one fourth of the average during the former period. He would not vouch for the statement being correct, but it was worth inquiring into, and if it were correct, it would show the origin of that diminution. of money-price which had taken place throughout the world. The necessities of the country would, at no very distant time, compel the legislature to reconsider its decision on the subject of the currency, and then it would be well worth considering if the Scotch banking system might. not be advantageously introduced into this country, and whether, if introduced, it

"They submit to your honourable House, that the diminished means of the people cannot sustain the same weight of taxation, pressing as it does upon all the necessaries of life. That the present state of the country demands every possible reduction of the national burthens, and the removal of the most oppressive taxes. That the proposed reductions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are quite inadequate to the alleviation of the present sufferings, and cannot satisfy the just expectations of the public; and it is with the deepest concern they find, after fifteen years of profound peace, enormous civil and military establishments are still to be kept up, a profuse expenditure in places, pensions, and appointments is still to be continued, many of them necessary only for purposes of patronage and parliamentary influence.

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting, the general and overwhelming distress which now pervades all ranks and classes in this country, who are not annuitants, and who do not live upon the taxes, originated in the long, bloody, and extravagant wars waged and carried on against the liberties of the people of America and of France, during the reign of George the Third, which wars were sanctioned and abetted by a very large majority of a corrupt and self-elected House of Commons.

"The petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray of your honourable House to direct an immediate inquiry into the extent and causes of the general distress that now unhappily prevails throughout the kingdom, in order that your honourable House may be enabled to apply those remedies which in your wisdom may appear best calculated to arrest and remove the evils above respectfully detailed."

The petition spoke his own sentiments so fully that it was not necessary that he should trouble the House on this subject. He could add that amongst all classes of the people there was a demand for relief. He, of course, could not know what would be the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or what he intended to submit to the House for the relief of the people; but he must say, that in order to satisfy the just expectations of the people, the diminution of the public burthens must be very great. The petition, amongst other causes of the public distress, asserted that much of it was attributed to the ruinous

wars against America and France, which a corrupt and self-elected Parliament had enabled the Crown to carry on, and he therefore hoped that the time was at length come when the Parliament would seriously think, in obedience to the voice of the people, of reforming itself. He had often heard it said, that the sufferings of the people were owing to a transition from a state of war to a state of peace, and to the effects of machinery upon manufactures. He thought the peace had now lasted for too many years to allow the argument founded upon the transition to have much weight; and as to machinery, that also was too long in use to leave such mischievous consequences as had been attributed to it. Up to the year 1820, trade was suffering to the extent of at least twenty per cent, as compared with its former more prosperous condition. Between that period and the present time, the depreciation could not have amounted to less than thirty-seven per cent; and altogether the manufacturers of this country had, in competing with those of the Continent, to contend against difficulties equal to sixty per cent. He fully concurred with those who thought that many of those evils, he meant the evils out of which the present distress arose, proceeded from the changes in the currency, and he was quite ready to admit that effectual relief could not be obtained by any removal of taxation which was within the power of any minister. It was totally impossible that his Majesty's Government could take off a sufficient amount of taxation to afford the required relief. On that subject he should say no more, nor did he mean to detain the House by any observations on the subject of free trade, or rather what was improperly called free trade, but what was so called was no such thing; it was any thing but free trade. The trade of this country was taxed seventy-five per cent, and yet, when admitting foreign manufactured goods at thirty per cent duty, they were told that that was free trade. For his own part he entertained not the slightest doubt that the accumulated evils under which the country was suffering proceeded from mistaken and pernicious legislation. As to the meeting from which the petition emanated, he could assure the House that he never witnessed a meeting more free from party feeling. The individuals composing it appeared to have been animated with but one spirit; they had no animosity

against his Majesty's Ministers, or against. any body of men who might be called to the councils of the King; they sought but one object, the alleviation of the present distress, and seeking that earnestly, they were indifferent from whose hands they received the boon. He concluded by entreating his Majesty's Ministers to turn their attention seriously to the alarming state of the country, for if prompt and effective measures were not taken, they might look forward to a degree of discontent and clamour with which they might

in vain endeavour to contend.

Mr. Hume said, he agreed with the petitioners that the House, as at present constituted, was not the actual representation of the public or of its mind; but he should, notwithstanding, be very sorry to let several of their statements go forth to the public as though they were the echo of, or in unison with, the sentiments of that party in the House with whom he generally acted. The burthen of this petition, and the continued burthen of the hon. Alderman's speeches, who, no doubt, had a great hand in the composition of this petition, and a number of others like it, was, that export prices had experienced de

Mr. Alderman Wood would say nothing about free trade, and as to taxation, he hoped that the country might look for considerable reduction. He begged leave to be allowed to state, in reply to an observation from the hon. Member for Clare, made on a former evening, who had censured the Lord Mayor for not allowing the meeting to be held in Guildhall, that this was appropriated to the meetings of the Livery of London, and it could not be used for any other purpose without the leave of the Corporation. The Lord Mayor had only done his duty, and the hon. Member had cast an unjust reflection on a humane and honourable-minded man, who was anxious to do every thing in his power to promote the liberties of the people. Mr. Ward said, he was unable to attend the meeting, in consequence of having to be present on a committee of that House, but he had every reason to believe, though many persons of much consideration in the city were absent, that, generally speaking, the meeting was very respectably attended; he, therefore, though not concurring fully in the statements of the petition, thought it his duty to recommend the petition to the serious consideration of the House. He could not agree with the petitioners that any portion of the distress was owing to the malconstruction of the House; and he should always be opposed to parliamentary reform.

was echoed back again from other parts of the kingdom; the hon. Alderman and his supporters all the while forgetting that the raw commodity, out of which these articles were manufactured, had fallen to a third, or even in some instances, to a fourth part of their former prices. The cost of cotton had fallen from 150 to 200 per cent. If only three-fourths, then, of our exports consisted of cotton, the merchant, manufacturer, and exporter, must put the difference between this depreciation and the depreciation of sixty or seventy per cent on the price of the wrought article into their pockets. Thus on one article the total depreciation was accounted for without any loss whatever to the weaver. Taking, however, the average fall of price on all manufactured articles as equal to one half, still the depreciation of price on the raw material was so much greater, that the manufacturer or merchant must always be putting into his pocket a profit on the transactions between this and other countries importing our goods. Besides, when cottons rose, as they did, from 6d. to 8d. to 10d. to 1s. a yard, did the manufacturers ever come to Parliament and beg to be restrained in their excessive profits by an act of the legislature, cheerfully giving that excess of profit towards the reduction of taxation? But it was really a matter of wonder to him how assertions such as this petition was crammed with should be echoed from Manchester and other places, the abode of intelligent beings. Was it that they treated every thing which came from the hon. Alderman as gospel, because his views were most convenient for them to adopt? The hon. Alderman complained, that the system was not one of reciprocity; but so said he; there was no reciprocity in the hon. Al