the public. Distress, he added,
unquestionably existed to a lamentable extent; but he concurred in the
recommendation that it should receive the most cautious attention. On
a division the amendment was lost by a majority of seventy-one against
nine.

In the commons the battle on this subject was much more fierce than
in the lords. An amendment to the address was moved by Sir Edward
Knatchbull, founded, as in the lords, on the alleged misrepresentation
contained in the speech regarding the distresses of the country, and
the consequent determination of ministers to adopt no measures either of
inquiry or relief. Sir Edward Knatchbull contended that the distress was
universal; and if he were called upon for other proof than that of his
own testimony, he would say, "Let every member who now hears me state
honestly and fairly, and without reserve, what is the situation of the
place with which he as a representative is immediately connected." The
house was asked on this first day of the session to approach his majesty
with a declaration something like a downright falsehood. He did not
mean, however, to advert at present to any remedy for the distress. All
he asked was this, to state in their address to his majesty the naked
truth as to the distress of the country. He therefore moved to strike
out of the address the clause affirming existence of partial distress,
and to insert the following:--"We lament the existence of that distress
which your majesty informs us is confined to some places; but in the
painful discharge of our duty we are constrained to declare to your
majesty that that distress is not confined to some places, as your
majesty has been advised, but is general among all the productive
interests of the country, which are severely suffering from its
pressure. We beg to assure your majesty that we shall adopt the caution
which your majesty recommends in the consideration of the measures to be
adopted in reference to these interests, and that our earnest
endeavours shall be employed to alleviate and remove the distress now so
unfortunately existing." The amendment was supported by Messrs. Western,
Protheroe, Davenport, Maberly, Duncombe, and R. Palmer, who all joined
in condemning the extenuating phraseology used by government, as either
being the result of gross ignorance regarding the true state of the
country, or betokening a reprehensible determination to propose no
measure of relief, and to institute no inquiry.