ich he
deemed applicable to the disease. In regard to the one and the other,
the house had been left in the dark. While, however, he resisted a mode
of inquiry which promised nothing, he did not say that it was impossible
for parliament to do anything. In relation to the currency and the state
of our taxation, parliament might afford material relief to the
country. He thought parliament might also do something by a reduction of
taxation; for during the two years that he himself had been chancellor
of the exchequer, nine millions of taxes had been removed, and yet that
amount had not been eventually lost to the revenue: in some heads of
receipt there had been a diminution, but in others there had been an
increase. The Earl of Roseberry, also, spoke against the motion: he
could not support it, because he thought that in its present form it was
neither practicable nor expedient. The motion was supported by the Duke
of Richmond and Lord Eldon. The former insisted principally on various
facts proving the extent and pressure of the prevalent distress; and
maintained that in common sense the causes of the misfortune should be
investigated, before means for removing them were tendered. Lord Eldon,
in supporting the motion, accused his ancient colleagues of coming down
to parliament with a declaration that there were "other causes" for
the distress of the country, which they did not deem it expedient to
specify, and which they left to each one's sagacity to guess at as he
might. He contended that the smallest consideration of the causes and
remedies of the present all-pervading distress would have been received
by the country with gratitude. He was the more confident of this,
he said, when he bore in mind the pacific and loyal demeanour of the
numerous thousands who were suffering under the most pinching distress,
and who, he hoped, would be prevented from being drawn away from the
line of good conduct by the expressed determination of parliament to
inquire into the causes of their sufferings, with a view to remedy
them so far as circumstances might permit. The Duke of Wellington still
denied that the existence of distress was so extensive as had been
represented, and supported his opinion by the augmented consumption
of various articles, by the increase of buildings, by the state of the
savings' banks, and by the advanced traffic on railways and canals. He
still maintained, also, that the power of redress was beyond the reach
of