TOPICS OF THE DAY.

COLLECTIVE WISDOM.

- REMARK ABLE SAYINGS OF THE LORDS AND COMMONS.

MR. O'Coensatei. objected to the abolition of the Viceregal Govern- ment in Ireland, because there were seven thousand persons in Dub- lin living on three halfpence a day ; and but for the Lord Lieutenant's thirty thousand a year, that number, he alleged, would be doubled. Mr. Humes remark, that every sinecurist would willingly spend money for the good of the country, is unanswerable so far as regards Mr. O'Cost- Nimes proposition ; and in so far as the proposer is concerned, we would hint, that to talk about the good of the country is quite as cheap ser- vice in one class as is in another the willingness to save the country the trouble of spending its own money. Taxation must be a blessing if any sinecure be a public good. But leaving that—how and in what degree are the poor of Dublin benefited by the Duke of NORTH- UMBERLAND'S salary? Does he give it in charity ? or does it pass into the pockets of those who support the pageantry of his office? HOW much of it finds its way to the class of whom Mr. (Most- NELL talks as deriving subsistence from it ?—Ignorant as the Mem- ber for Clare is of the principles on which alone taxation is de- fensible, he seems equally ignorant of the channels through which taxes, when collected, diffuse themselves over society.

Mr. BARING declared the distress to be general—but he did not believe that there was any general cause for it. He thought that agriculture had no claim to protection—yet he would not sanction the removal of the monopoly which agriculture enjoys.

"A removal of the protection of agriculture would be an act of extensive injustice, and would occasion a great revolution in property. It was well known that nine-tenths of the landed property of the country were suffering under mortgages and incumbrances. If the existing protection were re- moved, the proprietors, without any mismanagement on their part, would be utterly ruined, and the property would Piss into other hands. Nothing, therefore, but some extreme necessity, would ever induce him to vote against the continuance of the protection which the land at present enjoyed."

Pray, Mr. BARING, how would the removal of agricultural protec- tion be an act of injustice? and what does it import to the country at large to whom the land may belong ? Was it less unjust, Mr. BARING, to deprive the ill-used bankers of the protection which they at one time enjoyed in their vocation of coining? And yet for that act of injustice you voted. Above all, Mr. BARING, how can you be guilty of the nonsense of ascribing any part of the present distress to a scarcity of money, when it is undeniable that there is more money in the country now than there ever was at any former tune?

Mr. ATTWOOD observed, that

"He had the authority of the Committee appointed to inquire into Agricul- tural Distresses to state, that those distresses had been occasioned by a recur- rence to cash payments."

Yes, truly ; but the distress of the agriculturists is simply that of men who cannot have money for the asking.

Mr. MABERLY declared that the Corn Laws were laws to starve the people—yet he thought the distress referable in part to a pure cur- rency. Be consistent, Mr. MABERLY. The landowner who, excludes foreign corn, and the banker who may increase the amount of money at his pleasure, conspire equally to raise prices and "to starve the people."

Mr. MABERLY farther stated, that "Mr. Ricardo had observed, that when a country became extremely rich, capital competed with capital, and profits were low; so that low profits were proofs not of poverty, but of wealth. England had arrived at that state, and o had other countries, it was evident, from their lowering the interest of their money." This is scarcely ingenuous. The opinion alluded to was that of the celebrated economists who preceded Mr. RICARDO. He certainly adopted it in his,early treatises on the Bullion question ; but he after- wards pointed out its fallacy. He showed that the competition of capitals can never lower the rate of profit,—that competition can only equalize that rate, while agricultural profits regulate it.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, while he dwelt on the merit of the East India Company in supplying us with cheap tea, admitted that their finances were not in a flourishing condition. The reason is obvious— the tea they sell us is too cheap !

Lord MELVILLE observed, "It was very well to talk about the independence of the Judges in India, but it was not an independence in truth. They must have that sort of dis- cretion not to put the country into danger, by exercising the power which belonged to their courts." It seems to us very well to talk about the discretion oftjudges ; but we have always understood that it was the duty of legislators to exer- cise "discretion" in framing laws, and that judges had no other duty 'than to administer them.

r Mr. WAITHMAN has discovered that five out of six of the retail [dealers in London are bankrupts ; and that the country loses annually ight millions a year by its exports. "These," he added, "are the milts of the march of knowledge and the e of the school- aster." Mr. WAITHMAN'S schoolmaster must have been a bungler; e must have forgot to teach arithmetic to the people who carry on his losing trade of exportation.

Mr. ATTWOOD'S bon mots would fill our columns.

"He set as much value as any man upon the advantage to the country of ow prices—that was, when the prices were really low—when cheapness arose ora an abundance of all the necessaries and luxuries of life ; but that was a ay different thing from low money prices."

Well, granting to Mr. ATTWOOD that there is not at present "an abundance of the necessaries and luxuries of life," would such abun- dance, let us ask, be secured to any class but bankers, by an " abun- dance" of paper - money ? Genius is proverbially creative—it gives value at least to slender materials. Legislative wisdom is in like manner self-sustained. It contrives to elicit searching conclusions from facts that to ordinary minds are barrenness itself. Mr. HART DAVIS, for instance, was convinced that England and Ireland were flourishing, because a cor- respondent in Gloucestershire and a friend from Dublin had told him so. Mr. SADLER, on the other hand, was convinced that ruin was at our door, because he had heard as much from a person in Manchester. Mr. BARING, again, " had seen a letter, in which it was stated that the manufacturers had nothing to complain of." With such autho- rity to the contrary, who can believe the distress to be general ?

Mr. HUSKISSON gave counsel to the House on " the best means of guarding against the growing danger of the prevalence throughout the country of abstract principles of reform."—Be . kind enough, Mr. HUSKISSON, to point out to us any principles that are not abstract. In rejecting abstract principles, you confess yourself to be without principle. You are right, perhaps. We like your frankness ; and we expect soon to have further proof of the honesty of your con- fession. To whom, however, are abstract principles dangerous ? To those who recognize their truth ? Does the " growing danger" menace the country, or the House of Commons ?—tax-payers, or place-hunters? Answer the country these questions, Mr. HUSKISSON ; and when you next descant upon the various kinds of principles, do tell us whether the desire to be reinstated in office may not be as troublesome to the nation as any " abstractions ?"

Mr. Husgissors supported the transference of the East Retford franchise to Birmingham, because . . . " there was a necessity for showing to the productive classes that the House sympathized with them, and were anxious to give them additional means of having their interests represented in Parliament."

We cannot perceive much consistency in the man who opposes general reform, and yet prates about the necessity of representing the produc- tive classes. Are the productive classes confined to Birmingham and large towns ? Mr. HusiossoN, in truth, advocates the rights, not of the productive classes, but of capitalists engaged in production. Are representatives to be given to all those who have" a stake in the country ?" Well, every man who must labour for food has a stake in the country which supplies it; he has an interest in procuring that food as cheaply as possible, and in handing over to the tax-gatherer as small a portion as possible of his wages. The productive classes have a right to be represented, but the poorest consumer has quite as strong a right as the greatest capitalist.

Mr. Husitissoet, moreover, felt convinced that it was . . . "much betterto discuss such questions as that of Parliamentary Reform dispassionately in the House of Commons, than to send overcharged appeals through a country, unfortunately too prone at the present moment to act upon them." Really Mr. Husitissosr improves apace. The country and the House of Commons are parties to the question of reform. The House of Commons plays the part of judge as well as of defendant in the action; and Mr. linsitissoet is lost in admiration of the "dispassion- ate" mode in which the defendant-judge denies the claim of the plaintiff.

Mr. PEEL did not believe the boroughs generally to be corrupt; Westbury, he was sure, was not,—A sorry jest. The Right Honour- able Secretary . . "

Wished simply to observe, that the county of Nottingham return- ing only eight members, he did not see any sufficient reason for reducing this number to six, by giving two to Birmingham."

The necessity of representing the weighty interests of the county of Nottingham, serves Mr. Peel as a reason for withholding Re- presentatives from Birmingham. The necessity of representing Bir- mingham would serve better to justify the disfranchisement of such places as Westbury.

Mr. G. BANKES was good-natured enough to attempt to defend Lord ELLENBOROUGH'S Indian letter. That noble person, he stated, had intimated to Sir JOHN MALCOLM the intention of Government to review the Charter, not to renew it, as the printed translation bore.— The context forbids us to believe that " review " could have been the word; and Lord ELLENBOROUGH himself had not the audacity to allege that it was.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said he had been forty-five years a member, and during that time he had acted with the party called the Whigs ; but that party was now almost gone from his side of the House, and he was left nearly alone. He had fermed no connexion with the members of this Administration, and might therefore put to their most inveterate opponents a disinterested question—he would ask, where were they to find a better ?—The House laughed at this home question of honest Mr. TAYLOR, and cheered after their fashion.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in his eloquent speech last night, remarked that the Bank restriction " produced two very striking effects—first, it depreciated the value of money; next, it raised prices." Thefirst and the next happen to be the same thing. Sir JAMES contended, that as public salaries had been raised when money fell in value, they'should be lowered now when, money had risen. He afterwards added "Wheat was, after all, the real standard. Mr. Locke thoughtlso too. Wheat had sunk to half the price it commanded when salaries were increased—and consequently it was unfair to have our salaries doubled while our standard is at half its former value." This is leaving no stone unturned, Sir JAMES: you have two standards of value, money and wheat, and either serves your purpose equally well. "Reduce official salaries," you say, in the first place, "because the standard of value has risen." "Reduce them," you afterwards say, "because the standard has fallen.": We must express our. admiration of Mr. G. DAWSON'S notions of the real standard of value. The honourable gentleman has declared for mutton. He opposed farther reductions because

"In 1822, when the reductions under the Treasury Minute took effect, the leg of mutton was to be purchased for 6c/. a pound, but in 1830 the price was 83. a pound."