EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 23 April 1833)

§ Lord Althorp
rose to make an Explanation as to the expression he had made use of last night, that he, as an honest man, could not consent to the Motion. The hon. Gentleman thought that he meant to imply by that, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Attwood) was a dishonest man. He had no intention to apply the words in that sense, and could not have, for he must have applied them to many of his personal friends who supported the Motion. He should have considered himself acting as a dishonest man if he had not opposed the Motion, whether he referred to the former opinions he had delivered, or to the public situation he held. He was surprised that the hon. Member should for one moment have supposed that he meant to imply anything dishonest on his part in bringing forward his Motion.

Mr. Attwood
complained that the noble Lord's speech of the night before was totally inapplicable to his Motion, which was for an inquiry into the state of the country, to see how far its evils had been brought about by our monetary system. The noble Lord had, however, spoken of his Motion as if it were a Motion for a Committee to alter the standard of value. The noble Lord might substitute any Amendment he pleased for the Motion; but he had a right to complain that the arguments urged by the noble Lord were not directed against anything he had said. He could scarcely believe, that the noble Lord could so have misinterpreted his speech, but certainly the version given by the noble Lord of his speech was altogether different from that he had the honour to deliver. The noble Lord's arguments were all directed against depreciation, and the noble Lord used these arguments as if he had proposed depreciation. He had made no such proposition. He had urged the House of Commons to inquire into the condition of the country, and what had been the effects of the monetary system as it now stands? His proposition was, to inquire if they did not possess some means of relieving that condition without committing injustice in violating the faith pledged to the public creditor. He did not suppose the noble Lord meant to commit an act of injustice; but he had, by his mode of 467 arguing the question, raised a prejudice against the Motion submitted to the House. The noble Lord had endeavoured to gain votes by alarming timid minds. He wished to inquire if there were no means of relieving the people, as he believed there were, without any breach of faith; and if there were not, then certainly he should propose an inquiry into the propriety of reducing the burthens of the people. His opinions might be wrong, or they might be right; but the question was, that the Reformed Parliament should inquire into the distresses of the people. The noble Lord said in his Resolution, that they should not lower the standard of value. What did the noble Lord mean? Did he mean the old standard, such as it existed down to the period of the Bank Restriction Act? Did he propose that the House should never Inquire into this question to ascertain whether that standard were just, and whether they did not commit a great injustice in now adopting it? He would undertake to show, that his Majesty, by issuing the Proclamation prescribed by the Act of 1816, which was a part of the standard, could at once give considerable relief to the industrious classes, and particularly to the agricultural class, by raising the price of agricultural produce. Why should the House and the country be forbidden to inquire into this question? The Motion did not rest upon the footing it was put upon by the noble Lord and the right hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, but entirely and solely upon the circumstance whether the condition of the country did not demand the attention of that House.

§ Lord Althorp
complained of the unusual conduct of the hon. Member, who certainly had not trespassed upon the Orders of the House, because the motion for reading the Order of the Day was entirely a new Motion but he certainly had trespassed upon its usages in making a second speech upon that occasion, while he reserved himself in his reply to refute the opinions of his right hon. friend, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and his other opponents. The hon. Member had spoken for three hours last night, and to-night he had spoken again. The hon. Member said he had misrepresented him, and the hon. Member could not suppose that he had heard the hon. Member's arguments, but the hon. Member heard his reply last night, and did not then contradict it. The tendency of all the hon. Member's argu- 468 ments were what he had stated. The hon. Member asked what was the meaning of his (Lord Althorp's) Resolution? Nothing could be more remote from vague and indefinite than that Resolution. It was, he thought, extremely precise. It said, "that any alteration of the monetary system of the country, which would have the effect of lowering the standard of value, would be highly inexpedient." Could the hon. Member doubt the effect of that? Did it not precisely pledge the House not to lower the standard? It did not preclude the Committee from making silver the standard instead of gold, if that would not have the effect of lowering the standard. The hon. Member, however, went back to the old standard, and if the pound of silver were to be coined as he wished it, the effect would be to lower the standard." The hon. Member said, he wished to alarm persons; the object, however, of his Resolution was, to relieve Gentlemen from their alarm. By the Motion of the hon. Member—he did not say that such was the intention of the hon. Member, but it was the tendency of his Motion—to make Gentlemen who were pledged to vote for inquiring into the distress of the country, also vote for an alteration of the standard. The hon. member for Oldham, for one, had been caught by the mode in which the hon. Gentleman had worded his Motion. Tonight the tone and language adopted by the hon. Gentleman were different from those he used last night. In his speech last night, he had applied himself—and this was the beginning and the end of his speech—to show that the distress of the country was caused by the monetary system, and that by an alteration of the monetary system, a rise of prices might be produced, and distress relieved. He asked the hon. Member how he could produce a rise in prices if he did not lower the standard of value? In that sense he had argued the question, and said that the common sense view of the matter was, that the effects described by the hon. Member could only be produced by lowering the standard of value. The hon. Member said his Motion had nothing to do with that, and that the Amendment had been directed wholly to that. He certainly thought, that if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were carried, and the Committee were appointed under the notion that the standard of the currency was to be lowered, it would have a most disastrous effect. Therefore he had thought it his duty as an honest man, and 469 taking into consideration the situation he filled, to call upon the House to pledge itself before going into a Committee of Inquiry, not to lower the standard of value.