41. 11s. 3d. annually. In November, 1828, the dates of the statements he spoke of commenced, and it would be found that the period at which the diminution began exactly coincided with the time when that law came into operation. The interest on deposits was changed from 3d. to 24d.; and it was further enacted, that in one year the amount of deposits should not exceed 307. from each individual; and that when the deposits, interest, and principal should amount to 2001. from that time forward all interest should cease. It must be obvious to the House, that the immediate effect of such a law must be, that considerable sums would be withdrawn from those establishments. He was sure his right hon. friend would be glad to hear that the persons making small deposits in 1829 were much more numerous than those making small deposits in 1828. He had lately obtained He had lately obtained returns of the number of deposits in and near the metropolis, and in other parts of the country, distinguishing those who had deposited under 207. and above it; those who had deposited 50l. and under 1007.; above 1007. and under 150l.; above 150l. and under 2001. He found from the return, that in 1828 the number whose deposits amounted to above 201. was 2,273, and in 1829 they were reduced to 1,850; but in the latter year the number of deposits under 201. had most materially increased, so much so, that the total number of one year was upwards of 4,000 above the other. In 1828 the total numbers were 66,240, while in 1829 the numbers were 70,150. He should make no apology for occupying so much of the time and attention of the House in details so minute, for he was assured that they could not fail to feel that deep interest in anything affecting the labouring classes which their condition called for, and which at all times the House of Commons was forward to manifest. This subject was one on which much stress had been laid by his right hon. friend, and from which, he was sure, when the real state of the case was known, his right hon. friend and the House would draw a different conclusion from that to which he had come. He would therefore state to the House the names of some of the places in which an increase of the deposits of the sums last mentioned had taken place, and he would do this to show that the improvement of which he took it to be a proof was not confined to one town, or one district of the country. He had returns from Liverpool, Norwich, Panton-street Haymarket, Shrewsbury, Sheffield, Southampton, Truro, Warwick, Worcester, Exeter, and Leeds, and in every one of those places the number of depositors under 201. had increased. Hence it was evident that the inference of his right hon. friend had no foundation -for the total increase of 1829 over 1828 was 4,000 depositors, and the diminution in the amount of deposits was fully accounted for by the law of which he had just spoken. No man could feel more strongly than he felt the imperative necessity which then existed of consulting the interests of the labouring classes, and no man could approach the consideration of those interests with a more earnest desire to promote them than he should. He thought it one of the first duties of the legislature to do all in its power to excite a taste in the humbler classes of society for those comforts and those enjoyments-those luxuries, he might add-of civilized society, the desire for which, and the habitual possession of which, would form the best guarantee for their good conduct, and the best guarantee that the higher classes could have for the possession of their property and their power, as at present enjoyed. It was urged, and with perfect justice, that the remission of taxes was amongst the means by which that most desirable object could be chiefly effected; and he would ask, had not the Government of the King proposed the remission of taxes to a great amount? The noble Lord opposite (the Member for Northampton) had given his Majesty's Government credit for the selection of taxes which they made for the purposes of repeal--for having made that selection more with a view to the real interests and necessities of the people, than to anything which might promote the influence of their own Administration in that or the other House of Parliament. That was testimony of a satisfactory kind, and upon which he set considerable value; but the facts spoke for themselves. Their best vindication would be found in a reference to the taxes actually repealed. His right honourable friend seemed to recommend a more extensive commutation than had yet been thought of, and the levy of taxes too, on something else, in lieu of what, for the relief of industry, might be repealed. The House could not fail to observe, that his right honourable friend most skil-provements that might be made in the fully avoided the enunciation of what system, to reconcile the interests of the that something else was to be; but his body to which he alluded with those of drift was not to be concealed. The House the public. Upon the nature of any immight naturally suppose that amongst the provements that might be made in the various subjects connected with the finances system, he was not then disposed to enter; of the country, which had occupied the but he must say, that to throw open the attention of Government, the question of Banking System to every adventurer,—to a Property-tax had not escaped them; it consent to the establishment of Joint was one of those that they had most seri- Stock Banking Companies, with only a ously mooted. It was a question which, limited responsibility, while the responsiif they had not most maturely deliberated bility of the private banker extended to on, they should ill have discharged their his entire property, were measures which duty as exercising the executive power of ought to be considered with great caution. the State. They had most attentively He would now approach some of the reconsidered the bearing of such a tax as marks made by the hon. Member who last affecting the commercial, the professional, addressed the House, and he must own and the landed incomes of the country; that the speech of the hon. Member conand also the question, if such a tax were firmed him in what he had all along feared, resolved upon, what might be the effect of that whatever might be the views of the confining it to the landed incomes, and hon. Member who brought forward this excluding the other two classes. After Motion, those of very many by whom it those mature deliberations, then, the con- was likely to be supported would be diclusion at which they arrived was, that rected to some inquiry, which would go they should best discharge the duty they to a revision of our Currency system, and owed the country, by repealing this year also to that of Free Trade. If he might 3,400,000l. of taxes-that was the mea- take the hon. Member's speech as an indisure which to their minds appeared best cation of the general intentions in this calculated, in the way of reduced taxation respect, there could be no doubt on the at least, to relieve the necessities of the subject; and he was glad of it, for he did people. In doing that, however, and in hope that their discussion of that night making these observations, he begged to would put an end to the Currency Quesbe understood as giving no pledge upon tion. He knew the hon. Member could the subject of a Property-tax, or making agitate it again and again, if he pleased, no assertion with respect to it one way or but he was willing to believe that this, the the other-standing in the situation in seventh or eighth decision of the House which he did, it would be extremely inju- upon it, would put an end to all further dicious in him to restrict himself by any doubts upon the subject, and that they pledges whatever on either side. The would now debate it for the last time, by course which they had adopted pretty showing that it was their firm determinaplainly proved that they had not resolved tion to adhere to the system already upon submitting to Parliament any pro- adopted with respect to our currency. position for a Property-tax. Another But the hon. Member (Mr. Attwood) subject which had been touched upon by asked with great force of declamatory his right hon. friend was the system of eloquence, "Will you abdicate the funcBanking, and what might be done with a tions of Parliament by refusing to enter view to its improvement. This also was a into an inquiry on a question so important topic which he thought could not be ad- to the country?" He (Mr. Peel) would verted to by him with too great care and answer, Yes. Parliament had now disdelicacy. He was not one of those who cussed the question so frequently and so under-rated the value of the important fully, that Members were already in posservices which bankers rendered to the session of every thing which could be country. Indeed, in looking to the utility known respecting it. Did the hon. Memof the whole as a body, he thought they ber, by the proposed inquiry, mean that were too apt to overlook the general ad- the standard of value should be altered, vantage derived from them, and to dwell or was there any great error which he would on individual cases of abuse. He, how- wish to have corrected in the measure of ever, was not of this number, and he did 1819? If he did, he hoped the House hope that it might be possible, in any im-I would now pronounce its opinion upon both points. As the author, in a great whom the depreciated rate of payment degree, of the measure of 1819, he was to be made? A great majority of begged the House would indulge him the original contractors had passed away, while he offered a few remarks in sup- and since 1816 a vast portion of the pubport of its principle, and the more par- lic funds had got into the hands of persons ticularly as he trusted they were now dis- who did not pay for it in a depreciated, cussing the question for the last time. but in an improved currency ;--not in the The two questions he would ask the hon. | value which the hon. Member would set Member were had there been an error upon it, but in the improved mercantile committed in the measure of 1819, and in value. Surely the hon. Member would what way were they to correct that error? not turn round on those parties and say to Let the House bear in mind that ten years them, "you must be the dupes of your were now elapsed since the adoption of confidence in the resolutions of Parliathat measure, which had since been far- ment, which state that faith should be ther confirmed by repeated decisions of kept inviolable with the public creditor!" that House. Upon that adoption, and its When the hon. Member deducted from subsequent confirmation, a variety of con- this 800,000,000l. the amount standing in tracts, mortgages, and other pecuniary en- the names of those who purchased at a gagements, had been entered into, on the rate nearly equal to the present value, and faith that the measures of Parliament those who had since purchased at a full would be strictly persevered in. He asked, value, he would find that this sum would then, was it advisable that the whole of be reduced to a very small amount indeed. those engagements should be given up? He would now come to, the alteration in --that the faith of Parliament, pledged the standard of value. It had now existed for the measures in which they were for eleven years, and under it a variety of founded, should be broken? But what contracts and obligations had been entered course would the hon. Member take? | into. Would it not, then, he would ask, Would he have a paper currency converti- be a greater evil to depart from the system, ble into gold? Would he alter the than to persist in it as it is? If the hon. standard of value, or would he have an Member thought not, he would again tell inconvertible paper currency? If any him that his best mode of bringing the one of those were the measure he would question to an issue would be to introduce point out, and to some of which in his a measure by which he might show, if it own declamatory mood, he had alluded, could be shown, that no inconvenience why should not he, who knew so much on would result from the alteration. Referthe subject, provoke a discussion by the ring again to the Bill of 1819, however unintroduction of a short bill? A single popular the assertion, or to whatever degree sheet of paper would contain a bill for of obloquy it might subject him, he would any of those objects: why then not intro- affirm that the introduction of that bill duce it at once? But as the hon. Mem- was no error. No doubt many hon. Member had shrunk from such discussion, he bers then in the House, who had taken would not then enter minutely into it, but an active share in the discussion of that would make a few observations on the measure, would be ready to relieve him facts brought forward by the hon. Mem- from any degree of personal responsibility ber. The hon. Member stated, that we attached to it, by stating that it was one had 800,000,000l. of debt, which had in which they also had joined. Indeed, been contracted for in a currency depre- when he mentioned that it was a meaciated more than twenty per cent below sure that had been sanctioned by the that in which it was to be paid. But if legislature, he might relieve himself from the hon. Member looked to the real facts all equitable or legal responsibility. But of the case, he would find that this was without sheltering himself under that, he not so. Let him consider that a large would then contend, that in that meaportion of this debt was contracted in a sure Parliament had pursued the wisest currency nearly as high as that in which and safest course for the welfare of the the public creditor was now paid. But country, and nothing could be more grossly suppose the public creditor was to be paid incorrect than the assertion that it was only in the currency in which the debt was not so. It was said, that this change in contracted, he would ask the hon. Member the currency had depreciated the value to discriminate who were the parties to of commodities more than twenty per cent, | OC another point connected with the subject namely, the decline in prices. He would admit, that great distress was occasioned by that decline, but he did not believe that one tenth of that distress could be fairly attributed to the resumption of cash payments. While he was on this point, he begged to say one or two words to rescue the memory of the late Mr. Ricardo from an imputation which had been unjustly cast upon it. Mr. Ricardo was stated to have said that, the differences between the prices before and after the resumption of cash payments was only from three to four per cent. Now Mr. Ricardo said no such thing. What he did say was-that the great difference between prices before and after the resumption of cash payments was a difference and in fact every degree of distress, every depression of trade, every panic or commercial revulsion that had since curred, had been attributed to that bill. Now it might not be unimportant to ask whether there had been no convulsions, no panics, no depression, before it became a law? Let him beg of the hon. Member to consider what had taken place in 1793, just at the commencement of the war. What was the situation of the country in 1797, when we had restricted the issue of gold, and had substituted a paper currency? What was the state of the country in 1810, when there was not even a whisper of intention to return to cash payments? Why, in that very year, a committee was appointed to inquire into the distress, and it reported that credit had been destroyed in the country, that he (Mr. Peel) did not know at what many of the commercial transactions of the country were carried on at a loss of from sixty to seventy per cent, that a number of manufacturers continued their men in employment only to afford them a precarious subsistence, and to prevent the injury to their machinery which inaction occasioned. Every symptom of the country at that time was much worse than at present, and yet there was then no appearance of a return to payments in gold. He would next direct the attention of the House to the year 1816, and he begged, in doing so, to remind the hon. Member for Essex, that he then brought forward a resolution affirming that agriculture was, at that period, in a state of very great distress. He did not know whether the hon. Member had lately referred to the able speech which he then delivered on the causes of the distress, or whether, if he had, he might not think that the different circumstances of the country since then would be a just ground for having altered his opinion. In that speech, the hon. Member attributed the agricultural distress to a fall of prices, and he argued very powerfully to show, that an inconvertible paper currency would have a prejudicial effect on the value of the produce of home tillage. The hon. Member had also then argued that a paper currency was the effect, and not, as it had been since asserted, the cause of high prices. He (Mr. Peel) was willing to admit, that at the time when the hon. Member made his speech, the Bank of England had given some intimation of returning to cash payments. This induced him to revert to amount Mr. Ricardo stated it-not referable to the change of currency, but referable to the change from war to peace; but he said that the amount of reduction of price in consequence of a return from paper to gold was not more than from three to four per cent. Now, when he (Mr. Peel) admitted that a great change took place in prices after the resumption of cash payments, he must look to other causes for that change. Let him refer to the war, which was of thirty years' duration, and let him look at the prices to which all articles were raised during that war, and he would ask whether it would be possible, under any system of currency, to have kept up these prices in time of peace. To the return, therefore, from war to peace must be attributed the difference of prices, and not to any change in the currency. Now, going to the period of the French war, which he would not stop then to defend, he would only say, that in his opinion-and he agreed with an hon. baronet who said it was a war for the support of existing institutions-that it had tended to promote the (he hoped) permanent settlement of Europe. Now, if he divided that war into two periods of fourteen years, in the first of these, the expenditure of the country exceeded its revenue by 189,000,000%. In the second period, the excess of expenditure above revenue was 236,000,0007., making an excess in the two periods of 425,000,000Z. After such an extraordinary expenditure as that, could it be expected, he would ask, that the country should resume its ordinary condition without great depres On have any possible control? Even from the sion, and whether the same high prices | could be continued as in war? It was with a nation as with an individual: if he had, for some cause, whether necessary for his credit or not, made a large anticipation of his income, he could not return to his former condition without great weakness being apparent in his resources. Another cause of this great difference in prices was, that by the system which Napoleon obliged us to adopt with respect to our colonies, we became possessed of the monopoly of the trade of Europe, and of course that monopoly raised the price of every article here, and of the value of the labour expended in its production. That system was now at an end, and of course the high prices ended with it. It had been repeatedly said, that the transition from a state of war to one of peace ought to have been over before this; but no mistake could be greater than that under which those persons laboured who entertained such an opinion. They should have recollected that it was not possible for countries on the continent of Europe to enter all at once into a competition with England, the seeds of manufacturing industry were so completely blighted every where amongst them by the long continuance of hostilities. In fact, immediately after the ces-luded to the labours of Mr. Tooke, to sation of the war, our manufactures received an impetus rather than a depression; but gradually, as continental industry resumed its tone, we were driven to the necessity of struggling to maintain that pre-eminence which we had before uninterruptedly enjoyed. And who could now shut his eyes to the conviction that we should be obliged and compelled to regulate our prices by theirs, if peace continued and capital increased in the hands of our competitors, and machinery should be introduced amongst them, which we, even if that were desirous, had it not in our power to prevent? We should be obliged, he repeated, to regulate our prices by existing circumstances, altered as they were to our prejudice, and to abandon those which we could exact in the days of our monopoly during the war. Was it fair, then, to load the authors of the Bill of 1819-he could not say with calumnies, because no personal charges had been made against him, but-with accusations of being the causes of evil which was referable to circumstances over which neither they, nor Parliament itself, could whose abilities and information he was un he |