Lord Stanley, in presenting Petition from Manchester, praying for the abolition of all taxes which enhance the price of the necessaries of life, and impede the national 698 prosperity, took the opportunity of declaring that, although he was anxious to give relief to the people, he could not vote either for the Motion of the hon. Member, or the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, on which the debate was again to take place to-morrow night. He wished to call the attention of the House to the petition which he held in his hand. It was signed by upwards of 13,000 people, and was agreed to at a public meeting, convened for the purpose. He should have felt great difficulty in believing that so much distress existed in Manchester, had he not been assured of the character of those individuals who had borne testimony to the extreme sufferings of the poor. There were many points, however, on which he could not agree with the petitioners. They ascribed our great distress to the change in the currency, the profuse expenditure for the army and navy, and the high salaries given to every public servant, which the petitioners considered quite disproportionate to the present value of money. He agreed with these petitioners that taxation was unequal, but he thought, not with standing the reduction of taxation which had been made by his Majesty's Ministers, for which he felt very grateful, that a much larger reduction must yet be made. The present distress was, in particular, complained of by the shop-keepers, who suffered very much from the general pressure. Not finding any thing like the same demand as formerly, they were gradually sinking to decay. The petitioners earnestly prayed for a large reduction of taxation, for the removal of every monopoly, and that the expenditure of the Government may be reduced to what it was in 1793. On the whole, he could not do otherwise than warmly support the prayer of the petition, though he did not agree to all its statements. In conclusion he would repeat, that, though as anxious as any man to relieve the national distress, he could not vote for either committee of inquiry, because he thought no good could result from them. Erroneous impressions would be caused, and hopes excited only to be disappointed.
§ Sir G. Phillipssaid, that although there might be various opinions as to the cause of the present distress, no person denied that distress existed to a great extent. He knew that the people of Manchester were exposed to much suffering, though 699 the distress was not so great as it had been represented. He knew also that they were extremely desirous, as he was, of obtaining every possible reduction of taxation, and of putting an end to every monopoly, particularly to the monopoly of the Corn Trade and of the East-India Company. The expectation that the last would be abolished was very strong in the manufacturing districts. If the hopes of the people there were disappointed, they would be very likely to emigrate in large numbers, and carry their capital with them. There was an impression abroad, indeed statements had been made to that effect in the newspapers, that there was something like partiality in the investigation going on into the East India Company's Charter. The East India Company were raking up every instance of bad conduct in the East Indies for many years past, with a view to excite prejudices against alteration, and they, as well as the Board of Control, were opposed to the liberal policy of Lord William Bentinck. He also took that opportunity of saying, that he had not represented the other evening that there was no distress in the manufacturing districts, as the noble Lord (the Member for Northamptonshire) had seemed to suppose. He had on the contrary expressly stated, that among the hand-loom weavers the distress was very severe.
§ Lord Althorpexplained, that he had not attributed to the hon. Member the opinion that there was no distress in the manufacturing districts.
§ Petition printed.