The house, it was said,
had long been in the habit of hearing complaints from individual classes
in the country; but these complaints were no longer reiterated from the
old quarters. The productive and industrious classes of the community
were in a state of great misery; their distress was settling-down into
universal discontent, and the voice of their disaffection would soon be
heard, he said, with alarm. It was urged, also, that the pressure was
severe on the classes immediately above the industrial portion of the
community; and that those who dealt in manufactured goods were in no
better situation than the agriculturists. It was stated in proof of
this, that among the great body of the traders in the city of London,
their stocks had suffered a depreciation of forty per cent. Sufferings
so general, it was argued, affecting every interest of importance
throughout the country, could not be the result of local causes. The
amendment, it was said, corrected a most erroneous representation of
a matter of fact, and it pledged parliament to nothing more than a
cautious inquiry into the origin of the state of things which in fact
existed. On the other hand the chancellor of the exchequer maintained,
that no amendment had ever been moved so little at variance with the
speech to which it was intended to apply; and that, although there was
distress among both agriculturists and manufacturers in some parts
of the kingdom, other parts were in a comparatively flourishing
and prosperous state. Mr. Goulburn contended that there was great
agricultural prosperity enjoyed in Ireland. This called up Mr.
O'Connell, who denied that such was the case. He had, he said, travelled
through the provinces of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster, where he not
only had not seen proofs of prosperity, but had observed much distress.
Mr. Huskisson supported the amendment, thereby giving the signal for
his friends to divide against the ministry. It was of the greatest
importance, he said, in the present season of universal disquietude
and dissatisfaction, not to provoke a hostile discussion between the
representatives of the people and the people themselves, and not to call
down reproach on the house of commons by understating the distress and
difficulty of the time. He believed that the country, in so far as the
productive classes were concerned, was suffering greatly; and that if
parliament looked at the subject properly, and acted with the caution
which o