The Sun. — London, England, 1827-06-19 00:00:00

7 r al icland sufficient, did not do me the additional honour to oo lttninitiEire. to me another -clause of a diffegnt - fdestrip criPtion, which he afterwards proposed; and above all, as in so doing, my Noble Friend represented it to be in a ccordance with my suggestions. Never in my life i lv aa • I so surprised as on Saturday morning, the 44i • of June, on hearing from a friend of mine, not Member of the House of Lords, that a clause had been introduced by the Duke of Wellington, who had cl aimed for it whatever authority and support it alight derive from baying my concur rence, and represented it, in fact, a s b e i ng t h e very proposition I had myself suggested. As soon as I received this intimation I did not lose a mo ment in writing a letter to the Duke of Wellington, pro testing against the use of my name as authority for that el an B e, and declaring in perfect sincerity that I was altoge ther ignorant of his intention to propose any clause at all, and that he must have wholly mistaken the nature of my Proposition. I had then no copy of my former letter, but I had confident assurance that I had stated that any Amend ment affecting the duties would, if adopted , b e fatal to the - °' lll , Nothing could exceed my surprise when I found that a measure, prepared, digested, and brought into delibe ration under the patronage of a Noble Friend (the Earl of Liverpool), whom I may, indeed, call its parent, should, when sent into the world, meet with opposition from cer tain parties, who, in his absence, were appointed sponsors to watch over its welfare, and promote its success. On this feeling I acted, when I cautioned the Noble Duke that his amendments would prove fatal to the Bill, and that even my suggestion was dangerous, though intended only for a limited and temporary purpose. I ask my Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) if the amendment of the Noble Duke, which now forms part of the Bill, be really open to all the ridicule and all the objections, solid and real, which my Hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) has stated to apply to it— hour can it fairly on any construction of my letter, befit my Right Hon. Friend to, say that all those objections and that ridicule apply to me.—(Cheers.)—My Noble Friend moved this Amendment on the Ist of June. By the use he then made of my letter, he evidently was acting with my supposed concurrence, and possibly with that of my Colleagues. But on Saturday, the 2d of June, my Honourable Friend knew beyond all doubt, that he had miseoustrued the meaning of my letter of the 24th of May, and that his Amendment was entirely opposite to my views and prin ciples. Though that letter, as I said before, was hastily written, no passage of it would admit of any other accurate construction th an th at w hi c h I now pu t u p on it. My Noble Friend knew then certainly, that he had misappre hended me. Nothing further passed with regard to this Bill t ill the Thursday following. lf my Noble Friend, then that se eing his Amendment must be fatal to the Bill, and seeing th at he bad misconstrued my letter, and was altogeth er m i staken with regard to it, why did he not withdraw it, instead of persevering on the Report five days afterwards ?--(Hear, hear.) Wby did he not state to the House, of which he is so distinguished an orna ment, that he had brought forward the Amendment under rni aeonception ; and that, finding it would - operate as an fr i TPediment t o th e success o f th e Bill to which he was les( IIY, he would withdraw it altogether. At least, let not any portion of the blame, if there be blame—or merit, if there be any belonging to this Amendment—be attached to toe. I will not do the Noble Duke the injustice to de prive him of any share of the credit that belongs to this Amendment; but I claim in justice, that no part of it be fathered upon me. I protested against it from the first moment I heard of it, and I will now read to the House the letter which I wrote within half an hour after that intelligence reached me : FROM MR. HUSKISSON TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON. " Somerset-place, 2d June, 10 A.M. " 11Iy DEAR DUKE—I have this moment heard, with great surprise, that in moving an Amendment last night on the Cara Rill, you urged that Amendment as having ben -043 ented to by me, and to prove my consent you 4. 7 411 aprivate letter, which I had written to you in answer °lla which I had the honour to receive from you on the vi,th As I did not even keep a copy of that letter, and as Your Grace has felt yourself at liberty, without any subse quent cornnaunication of. any sort with me, to make this 1441 , 0 b k use of it, I feel it necessary to request from you a ( „,.... 1 1 that letter, as without it I cannot enter upon the - "PiltUation of my own conduct which the use that has been -- " Li t of my letter renders necessary. f . - 41 1 have only yet received a very imperfect Report im. ` ll(l t from any Peer) of what passed (last night on your at v i'le the Amendment, this is not the occasion to make ! further observations upon the subject. I must, however, be allowed to say, be the Amend eut What it may, it had not my consent ; and that if WY consent (as is, perhaps, erroneously reported to me) t L aal urged in any way as a ground for pressinc , its adop h;"? I must protest against the authority of ' my name ru ng been used for that purpose. l e :Though I cannot recollect the wording of my private I well know the feelings with which I wrote it. I — .'dered it as strictly private, addressed to a Colleague Z o ltil Whom I had sat in the Cabinet upon Lord Liverpool's W Bill, who had concurred in that measure, and who 4 ,, 4, therefore, considered by me as anxious for its success, t O ig MY recollection greatly deceives me if I did not convey . 1 -3 2: 4 Grace that any Amendment, such as I now under to to have been carried on your proposal, would be fatal th at measure. " I remain, &c. It (Signed) "W. HIJSKISSON." hied be very unjust and unfair if I were not to read ' ll .O-e's answer, which I received on the same day. It v,... follows r-- - 4 1 Tux DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO MR. lIUSEISSON. "London, June 2, 1827. you" My dear Huskisson—According to your desire I send (31)y of your note of the 24th of May, in answer to Mi ne of that date, in which I proposed for your considera hull a clause to be proposed to be added to the Corn Bill, tyi ng for its object to prevent the use of the warehouse e l: e t:ra ve : ag o promote . frauds in the proposed modes of taking Aly object in consulting you, was to obtain your Opi "len and sanction for what I proposed to do; and having 4titained, instead of your sanction to what I proposed, your "ggestion of another measure, I adopted it. " I showed your note, and the clause which I had drawn 14 , ' e o aformity with y our sugges tion, to Lord Goderich, Who, I erroneou s ly conc eived, consented to what I intended c t i c !ProPose; an d I s t a t e d the contents only when hestated his "merit from my proposition, which was in fact your own. fl!! respect to the Bill being thrown out in consequence Las or any other alteration, that is a matter that de entirely upon the Government. " Ever yours, most faithfully, " WELLINGTON." m e t : a4 Impossible, when my Noble Friend said that the a t a i n - i ro e u w , hich he ha d proposed was mine, .not his . , to ab -- w e nding him an explanation, which I did on the same day. It Was as follows : : /y B° r 7 l e ereet-place, June 2, 1827, 11 o'clock, p. m. mornin Duke,—Your letter which I received this cussopportunity of g ' fla kes me regret extremely that you did not afford n i of last minting out to you before the dis night the wide difference between what is yid my letter of the 24th ult. as to that which indi- Wh l . la i llY I should have no objection, and your Amendment, - len, from mistake, you rep resent as being my own pro- Position. The proposition in my letter of the 24th to which I stated that I should have no objection, was u i lt n . substan ce :--To suspend the regulations of the present Bill in respec t to any foreign wheat that should be bonded after the passing of the Bill until the average price had reached 665., and to provide that thenceforward (i.e. after the price should h ave once reached 665.) the provisions of the Bill should take effect in respect to all such foreign wheat; or, in the words of my letter, that it (such foreign wheat) should then come under the regulations of the Bill.' " The effect of your Amendment is, that at no time shall the regulations o f t h e Bill come into operation in re spect to any foreign wheat bonded after the passing of the Bill whenever the price shall be below 665. contemplates a measure, " My proposition obviously the extent and limits of which are as follows :---That the wheat now in bond (upwards of 500,000 quarters) should be the only foreign wheat entitled to come into the market of this country till the price should have reached 665. ; that this price once attained, the preference should cease ; a n d that all other foreign w h eat should thence forward be equally entitled to come in ' under the regu lations of the Bill'—which regulations enact that it may be taken out of warehouse at all times, upon payment of the duties specified in the schedule. " Your A men d ment i s not proviso pro l ac v i ce, quali fying for a spec i a l purpose, an d , according to all probabi litp for a very limited time, the general regulation s of the Bill ; but it is a permanent enactment directly contravening those regulations " Having thus, I trust, made clear the difference be tween your amendment and the proposition .contained in my letter of the 24th, it is only further necessary for me to state the reason which induced me to intimate to you, at the close of that letter, my apprehension that the giving effect to such a proposition would be fatal to the Bill. " I conceived that'you wOuldthink it better,not to risk the fate. of :this important, measure, by proposing any Azneudment, however much it might be agreeable to some Pan* if you were aware that the necessary effect ,of its be ing adopted would be to put an end to the measure aI %%WM I ` Its isu n d men t which you have carried cannot, I am peritaded, be acceded to:by the House of-Commons. — This is not Alatter.O : lat flepepds , upon the Government.; and you. must allow me,to add, titat were a new Bill to be brought in, embracing ;drat Amendment, it would be no ra n kei, even 'in ierinesii/e, the measure agreed to in Lord Liverpool's Cabinet, but one of a very different character. " W. HUSKISSON." • (Hear, hear, hear.)—When my Noble Friend discovered that the principle of his measure was entirely different from the principle of mine, he still persevered in bringing his measure forward. Conceiving it to be an expedient ono., he was bound to persevere in it ; but it is too much that any one should still charge it on me. I have discharged 3 painful duty in reading to the House this correspon dence; a duty almost as painful as it was to me tc, engage in it. For, however we may have differed with respect to the Amendment introduced by my Noble Friend into the Corn Bill, the unbounded respect which I entertain towards my Noble Friend for the great ser vices which he has rendered to the country—(hear, hear, hear,)—my personal feeling towards him for the acts of kindness which I have received at his hands, render the duty which I have discharged so painful to me, that nothing but the indispensible necessity of a full and fair statement of the facts Could have induced me to perform it.— Having disposed of this part of the subject, I shall now take the liberty to make two observations on the proposi tion before the Committee. I think it might be very na tural for the Hon. and Gallant Member for Brecknock, to feel the wish he has expressed, but I do own that I feel considerable surprise that the person who was to bring for ward that proposition should be found in the Hon. Mem ber for Essex. I say this, because the last words of that Hon. Member on the third reading of that very Bill, which he now wishes to call into operation, were, " I have come down here only for the purpose of giving my parting male diction to this Bill." When, Sir, I recollect this, the Committee will not, I think, feel with me, that it would be much less surprising, that the proposition before them came from the Hon. and Gallant Member for Brecknock, than from my Hon. Friend (Mr. Western). At the same time, however, after the proceedings we have witnessed during the present Session, perhaps I ought not to be sur prised, that any one should seek to review the measure of 1822. But what do the persons who support this propo sition require of us? Why this, that we should directly negative every opinion, and every vote which we have given during the whole Session. We are called on to dis claim and to discredit all those measures which were adopted by us upon most mature deliberation, and by so doing, not only disclaim our own consistency, but bring discredit and disgrace upon the House of Commons which sanctioned them.—(Hear, hear.)—Since the Hon. Mem ber for Essex has explained his views, so shall I mine. My wish is, that the trade in foreign corn should be al ways open, under proper guards and securities ; but the Hon. Member, on the other hand, wishes that foreign corn should be altogether excluded, and that a rigid sys tem of prohibition should be enforced. But let it be recol. lected, that, since the year 1822, wheat never reached the price of 80s., nor even that of 70s. ; and that, if even the latter had been the importation price fixed by the Bill of 1822, it would have remained a dead letter, and always will remain so ; and now let us see what is required—that, after the House has given its opinion, that 70s. was a price at which wheat should be admitted at a duty merely nominal, the Hon. Member for Essex Wishes us to pass a law that, until Wheat has risen to '7os., and even more, until it has remained for six weeks at that price, not a grain of foreign corn is to be admitted into the country. Does the Hon. Member think then that he would spew more patriotic feeling, by following this course, than whatever obstacles he opposed to it, by getting rid of that system of averages, which leaves the country dependant upon the difference of a fraction, either to be inundated at once with all the foreign corn of Europe, or to keep up a rigid prohibition. This is a principle, which, up to the Act of 1815, was never before the law of the land, and which, ever since that period, has never been called into operation but on two occasions—in the years 1816 and 1819, when, in the one case, it caused the universal re probation of the consumers; while in the latter, it brought that of those very persons for the protection of whom it was originally intended—the agricultural interest. What the Hon. Gentleman really wishes is, that corn should not be admitted until it reaches the price of 70s, in the market here, and then with a duty of 175., while the idea entertained and agreed to by the House is, to afford protection by a duty of 205., when wheat is at the price of 60s. The Hon. Gentleman's object would, in that, seem to be, to lock up all the corn of Europe for years in foreign warehouses until it became a, mere drug to the holders, to be poured iu here, at any mo ment of scarcity, in an overwhelming profusion. There is another observation which I wish to make upon this part of the subject, namely, I am very much mistaken if the Hon. Member for Essex, on Thursday night, in a discus sion on the currency, did not say, that 60s. at the present period were equal to 80s. in 1815. I am not willing at this moment to go into that question, but if I was to give my opinion, I would say that it approximates to that of the Hon. Gentleman's. But, now, what is the inference to be drawn from this ? Why, that a price of 70s. now would be equal to one of 955. then, and the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman is, that we should now adopt as our im portation price that which even the advocates of the Corn Laws in 1815, thought would press tpo bard upon the consumers. Is it then, I ask, either reasonable or con sistent, to fix the price not as in 1815, at 80s., but now in 1827, at 955., with this further difference too, that if corn reached 80s. in the cheap currency of that day, it was to be admitted without any duty whatever, while in the present currency the proposition is, that at an higher price, an additional duty of 245. is to be added. To be consistent in carrying such a plan into effect, the Hon. Member should have recourse to a cheap currency, and depreciate that which we have at present to the standard of 1815. Then, indeed, there might be some shadow of reason for fixing the price at 80s. But in legislating for what is so vitally necessary to the prosperity of the country, it should be considered, and , I defy any one to say to the contrary, that the system of averages has never been fixed at any period since 1773, without a calculation of the annual average prices for a period of five or six years. It was so done in 1791, and also in 1815, in several years preceding which the average price of wheat had been 955. and with the exception of one or two years, had never been under 80s. It is, there fore, plain, that even in the passing of that Act, it was not thepolicy of Parliament to make a prohibition ; on the con trary, it was their opinion, that at that price, corn would habitually find its way into the country, while the duty imposed would occasionally operate as a restriction upon excessive importation. But in place of that, the system has been altogether changed by the alteration which took place in the currency. I will now give the reasons which convince me, that the repeal of the Bill now proposed, and substantively making 70s. the importation price, must be altogether vain and nugatory. Since the year 1822, wheat has never reached 70s. nor was it ever near it, save 1825, when it rose to 675. which some Hon. Gentlemen attri buted to the greater quantity of money supposed to be then in circulation, although, in so doing, I think they rather confound the principles of cause and effect. But this I do say, that if you adopt '7os. as the price, you adopt that which, there are forty chances to one, may not in five years come into effect. When too, your price is raised to 70s. which is nearly double that of the highest markets on the Continent, consider what a number and variety of frauds you will give rise to, at both sides, in the efforts and ma noeuvres which will be resorted to, in order either to open the ports or to keep them shut. And I ask the Hon. Gentleman, does he think it right that the principle of the averages should be acted on, and that practices similar to those which have lately taken place with respect to oats and barley, should continue in the same way ; or does he wish, that, when, the country is in absolute want of corn, the decision whether the people are to have it, or to do without it for three months, is' to depend upon time turn of a penny? Upon this consi deration I would prefer that 80s. should be the price fixed, because it is one to which corn could never be permitted to.reach without the interference of Parliament, or, if it did not then sit, that of his Majesty's Government. That price would also operate as a prohibition, and would do away with the mischievous system of averages, which would then remain a dead letter, as in fact they have done with respect to wheat since 1819 ; and that I sh ou ld h e most happy at, as I consider the mischief arising from such a system, as almost greater than any other which I could name. I feel, with my Right Hors. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, and with others, what a misfortune it is that this country should remain for another twelvemonth without any permanent provision upon this subject. I feel it, indeed, to be a severe misfor tune ; at the same time, that I cannot but rejoice that I am not one of the individuals who lie under the heavy charge of having been the cause of so great an evil. I feel this deeply to be a misfortune; and when I hear it talked of as a mischief, that the law is not completely settled with respect to a portion of our commercial rein ' ti "s, I join in the regret,.—.but how much is that in creased, when I eonsider,that our internal condition, that ,all the relations between landlord and tenant, must remain in so unsettled a condition, at a'periOd, too, when there * al SO haptiy ft .- prospect of their t;eing ace d on a firm footing ? feel; too, that it would ' be most desirable if same`-permanent ariangernent could be come io, and that aofiethtegestiott tami,rd he agreid on, even . lateperiod! Bat when the -Right HOnoUrehleMeMber; for the' trayinity of Oxford recokunendilhat • ( should sit even up to the month, of July for this purpose, I say that so alio, if I could flatter myself with • the expectation: of any, such result. The Right 11Onourable Gentleman says, that .he would be glad to see the Bill, with the .arnendMexits 'the House of Peers," taken up here, and sent r 'baCk to the other house with my amendment incorporated in it. To this I say candidly, that, if he will 'undertake it—or if he or any man can believe that the desired relief will be thus attained—or that any thing but a six weeks' angry discussion will he provoked, without the attainment of that relief—or that any individual, after what has occurred within the last ten days, can believe there is a prospect of success, I will con sent to gO on.—(Hear, hear.)—But, Sir, how stands the fact? The amendment for which tl.e Right Honourable Gentleman wishes, was in the power of those persons to have effected; and I am much mistaken if a Noble Friend and a late colleague of mine did not suggest that very mea sure which is now cried up as a panacea, in the proper place. And really now I am obliged to express my opi nion, which is, that, even in despite of these clauses which have been foisted into the Bill, there is no chance of passing any Corn Law, unless we so far stultify, and bring dis grace and shame upon ourselves, as to admit an amend• ment which is at once a deathblow to our warehousing system, and which will throw the whole benefit arising from it into foreign hands. Foreign stores will then be created in ports which are nearer to our markets than many of those which were proposed to have an existence in our own country, and we shall thus be exposed to the mercy of foreigners, should any derangement of finance or of' seasons make us need an importation of corn, and we know that they will naturally take advan tage of our situation. I confess I have no hope of having the Bill passed, unless we consent to expose ourselves to all these inconveniences, and, therefore, in supporting a temporary measure, I do so under the conviction, that obstacles at present exist, which will pre vent the passing of a fair and reasonable Corn Bill. Under these circumstances, I confess I have no expectation, and no hope; the more especially, as persons who made the al terations in the Bill well knew, that measures would at once have been taken, if they wished it, to assist them iu what is now affected to be proposed. When my Noble Friend (Lord Goderich) opposed the amendment, and brought forward every argument against it, as strongly and as ably as it was possible for any one to do, what was the course pursued? The parties did not even attempt to answer his arguments ; but said, " there is our amend ment ; by that we will abide, and we will take no other course." Iris not, therefore, without a feeling of deep re gret, but from necessity, that I feel myself compelled to vote for a course which will cause a postponement of a permanent measure until "the next Session. Amongst other sources of that regret, is this—that that Bill (when it went up from this House, accompanied as it was with so much expectation and hope, on the part of the population of every part of the empire), had, produced even then incalculable benefit,. by lulling that irrita tion; which had grown and increased for several years amongst the different classes of the community, who bad brought themselves to believe that their interests were necessarily irreconcileable, and that it must come, that ei ther one or the other of them should he sacrificed. All, then had hopes ; and all the strife and warfare of pamphlets which had, for years, agitated the public mind, had then subsided. I do believe this also, that if the Bill had pro duced no other benefit, it would have at least done this— it would save the landed interest from the imputation, which (although I admit unjustly), had been thrown upon them, of being only alive to their own interests and which imputacion had been transferred to them from its real cause, the Bill of 1815. It is because there were such prospects, and from nothing like party feelings or irritation, (which, if displayed here, will soon find their wa y out of doors), that I wished to have seen that Bill passed. The Hon. Member for Essex, and one or two others, have charged me with departing from my opinion, once expressed—that this country should not depend too largely for supplies on foreign countries. That opinion I did express, in the Committee of 1815, as the Hon. Member for Dorset will recollect—and I do still think that it would be a great mischief to depend too largely upon foreign supplies for our immense population. But I also think, that it is bad to deprive any portion of it of the means of support; but it should be borne in mind, that my object was, that by having our stores at home, iu case of war, or any other accident, that we should not be obliged to depend on fo reign supplies, which might be interfered with, and be come a source of mischief, and an element of weakness. We, Sir, are not a small trading people, whose wants may be at a moment and easily supplied —we are a great na tion, possessing a lead and an ascendancy, which are likely to excite jealousy, and a wish to embarrass us whenever an opportunity may occur. The principle which I have at all times advocated, and which I never expected to be under the necessity of opposing, is that of free importation, sub ject to an adequate protecting duty. The value of that principle would now be fully felt and acknowledged, had it been, at all times, acted on since 1773. Since the year 1806, the quantity of Irish corn that had,been imported into this country exceeded all that had been obtained from the rest of the world besides. This quantity, positively considered, proved the necessities of Great Britain, and established the truth of the proposition, that the state of the country demands some measure that will not only give 'an adequate supply from abroad, but also keep alive and stimulate our native powers of agricultural production.— But this is not to be effected by damming up the current of our commercial prosperity—this is not to be effected by a system of prohibition—but by duly checking foreign im portation, and duly protecting home production. Thus, and thus alone, can be preserved that true national inde pendence, of which prohibition is the most inadequate support. What would prohibition avail us in the event of a bad harvest ? Must not, in all times, the system of prohibition have the effect on the one hand, of extreme depression, or, on the other, of extreme high prices? Foreign Powers would be at one time drained by our de mands, at another, embarrassed by the excessive produc tion which the probability of our wants might occasion; and was it to be expected, that, under such circumstances, they would remain quiescent and insensible? Assuredly they would avail themselves of our commercial distress, and take every advantage of our political discomfiture. It was for these reasons, as well as for those stated by my Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the previous discussions on this subject, that I am anxious on the present occasion, as in the year 1815, to discourage the principle of prohibition, and, as far as my humble powers can accomplish it, to establish that of protecting duties. There is one other topic to which I should desire to advert, before I sit down—l mean the letter to which the Hon. Member for Wiltshire has alluded, and which, here and elsewhere has been so often made the subject of discussion —that has been published and commented on, in almost every newspaper ; and in reference to which, even in other publications, I have been charged with inconsistency; but I would refer to every vote I have given, even to every single and isolated observation I have made, in refutation of this charge, and I would rely upon the voice of all who hear me, to hear me out in the assertion, that I have maintained the principles with which I originally set out, and that no one act of my public life can be adduced to falsify this as sertion.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—ln making these few ob servations on a subject most repugnant to my feelings, I trust I shall not be considered as arrogating too much. Were it necessary, I would refer to the part I took in the year 1814, but though it be not necessary for my own personal justification, yet for the general purposes of the discussion now before the Committee, it will not be alto gether inapplicable. Whatever might have been the merits or demerits of the measure introduced to Parliament in the year 1814, it was, at least, a proposition for a graduated scale of duties. In principle, then, it coincided altogether with the present measure, and differed from it only in degree; therefore, to have supported the measure of the year 1814, is only, in other words, to support that which had not long since passed this House. The measure of 1814, I had, in my in dividual capacity, brought under the notice of this House, and took the liberty of recommending for its adoption. It is very gratifying to me at this period of time to reflect, that my Noble Friend, after much deliberation, arrived at the conclusion which I had the honour of submitting to the House in 1814, as the best principle on which the Corn Laws could rest. In the exercise of his discretion— in the application of his wisdom and Isis judgment to this momentous question—he applied the principle of my Bill of 1814, and made them the foundation of the very Bill that had passed this House almost unanimously, and which I lament to say has been substantially lost in another place ; but I sincerely trust, that we, as well as the other House of Parliament, will, early in the ensuing session, repair the loss. (The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud and continued cheering.) Mr. PEEL did not wish ß to continu e Hon.ontinu eFtiliieenddisacucessoitionntaabniye further, but l i e felt called upon to vindicate hi mse lf from the charge of making his Right for any particular clause in the Bill. Being then in pos session, he would take the opportunity of inquiring, whe ther it was intended that the averages should be published every six weeks, and whether it was proposed to bare dou ble averages? Mr. HUSKI S SON was understood to reply in the affir7 mative. He begged,pardon for further occupying the at- . tendon of the House, but be wished, j ust f t o e r illustration, to observe upon the present 4 NOthing,conid.more strongly evince than: it did„ state fhe th e sa cornke of the utter abiurdity of the opulent,: by which the rejee-: tion of the late Bill had been effected. At the present .moment there were 200,000 quarters of foreign barley in bond. The distillers could obtain no supply, and the price was up to 50s. How vast would be the relief if those 200,000 quarters could be thrown in upon the market. The present season gave every promise of an abundant harvest. On the 15th of August the ports would be open, and when the home supply was at its height, an additional influx of foreign corn would spread over the country.—(Hear, hear.)—ln the same way the Bill pro posed by the Hon. Member for Essex, if it passed into a law, would inundate the country, when its native supplies were the most abundant. From the 15th of August to the 15th of November, the country would be made fully sen sible of the evils of the system upon which they were thus violently thrown back. The agriculturists especially would he made sensible of the ruinous effects of having mil lions upon millions of quarters let in upon them at a time when they already bad enough of their own ; and they would be made to understand that this was the conse quence of a system which proceeded by alternate opening and shutting of the poi ts. There was no person possess ing any acquaintance with the state of our currency, but must he fully aware of the almost certain effect which such a system must produce upon foreign exchanges ; and when he recollected the events of 1825 and 1826, it was with extreme apprehension he contemplated the possibility of the exchanges being against us.—(Hear, heara.hear.) Lord MORPETH, after adverting to the unanimity with which the late proposed Corn Bill had passed that House, observed, that a fond and foolish credulity had in duced its friends and supporters to - hope that, in a place where bat one interest was represented, there would be found a generous and liberal spirit sufficient to insure its success. It was not for him to inquire into the causes which had prevented that consummation, but he confessed he did not understand how, after they made the Bill all that they appeared to wish, they could then consistently hold back from carrying it forward to maturity. It was perfectly evident that, altered and mutilated as it was, its original framers could no longer give it their sanction or support. It had been said that, for the measures of Go vernment generally, the whole of his Majesty's Ministers were equally held responsible, or equally to become the ob jects of national gratitude. Were not this doctrine opposed by a strong moral conviction to the contrary, there might be some force in that strict and technical position. He and some of his friends had been charged with supporting a Mi nistry on some occasions, of whose general principles they disapproved; and of giving their unqualified support to a new Ministry, the majority of whose Members formed part of the'old. It was, perhaps, scarcely necessary for him to observe, that the few measures of the former Government, which they had supported, were those which were known to have proceeded from such of its Members as belong to the present Cabinet; while those to whose principles they were most adverse were the identical individuals who had recently retired from office. These were the principles upon which they had acted ; and these, he rejoiced to say, had been recognized by the whole body of the people. After a few words from Mr. 0. CAva, Mr. WESTERN replied—lt might be proper, and he did not deny it, to adopt the Right Hon. Gentleman's re solutions, but they did not answer his proposition. In conclusion, be begged to say, that he thought it alweys more satisfactory to divide the House, but, on the present occasion, he should defer to an opinion lie had heard ex pressed by others, and leave the matter as it was. Those who had supported his motion might, if they thought fit, divide the House ; and whatever might be the result, he should sit down, conscious that he had done his duty in t l bringing the subject forward.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. CANNING rose.—l shall trespass on the indulgence of the House for a very few minutes, to reply to the only objection I have heard advanced to the resolutions I have bad the honour of proposing. My answer to the only objection I can recollect will be brief—but I beg to begin by replying to a question that has been put to me by an Hon. Gentleman opposite. He asks me whether I do not think it right to protect the Agricultu ral Interest? I do consider that the Agricultural Interest ought to be protected, aye, and that above every other in tn.est. Such is the bounden duty of this House.—(Hear, hear, hear. )—But I also consider, that the course of legis lation pursued for some years past, has not been to the permanent interest of the agriculturists. The mistaken views that had obtained, and the erroneous notions that were acted upon, in the period that I allude to, are in no instance more flagrant—not that I mean to cast blame on those who committed these mistakes, and it was by accident that I did not participate in the acts which led to them— but the erroneous notions that they had acted upon, ap pear, in no instance, more flagrant than in the ope ration of the Acts of 1915 and 1822. Can any man look to the consequences of these Bills and say, they have not been most grievous to the agricultural interest? I must -also say, that I consider the Bill now before the House of Lords, calculated, had they been pleased to adopt it, to afford more secure protection to that interest, than any other measure whatever that has hitherto been proposed, professing to have that object in view. I consider that it was calculated to produce that which, of all effects, I should consider most desirable, not highness nor lowness, but steadiness of price.—(Cheers.)-1 consider that it was calculated to guard against those ruinous fluctuations which ever since the Bill of 1815, have pressed with alternate but equal violence on, as they are called, the two conflicting interests, which, I say, are not conflicting, but consentient interests—fluctuations, which, in times of plenty, caused alarm; and in times of scarcity, aggravated the miseries of famine. The adoption of the Bill in the House of Lords would have gone a greater way to curb those evils and prevent their recurrence, than any, which, in my me mory, or in those of all I have conversed with on the sub ject, has yet been presented to the consideration of Par liament. It was upon that ground, and not from any undue partiality for a particular plan, that I originally gave my concurrence to the Bill that passed this House. And I beg to inform the House, that, unless I find reason to a lt er m y present opinion, it is something very like that Bill which will receive my support. The principle of the measure that will receive my support will be, to make the Corn Trade, instead of a series of successive specula tions and experiments: to make it to the home trader, of course I mean the grower, and foreign trader, or importer, instead of being mutually ruinous, to make it mutually a matter of convenience—to make it, in short, a trade which would assist, and be beneficial to both, and, at the same time, be conformable to the interests of the country at large. Such are the grounds on which I shall approve a Bill, and such ought to be the grounds, and those only, on which Parliament should grant its sanction to any measure what ever connected with the trade in corn. An Hon. Gentle man has asked another question, which I shall answer. He asks, what is the difference between prohibition and a pro hibitory duty? and says he cannot see any. But it is dif ferent in the corn trade, as it would be in any other trade, and no man could propose to prohibit any other trade with out being convicted of absurdity. The difference between prohibition and a prohibitory duty is this—where the trade is not actually prohibited, but is allowed, under certain re strictions, it never will become totally stagnant ; there will always be more or less of speculation in it, which will keep it alive; but if the trade be altogether prohibited,the consequence would be, that in time of scarcity, there would be no supply, and, afterwards, we should be overflowed, when moderate su pply would be mischievous. A duty would not prevent capital being employed in a trade; nor would it apply such irresistible stimuli as would be afforded by a scarcity after a prohibition. That is the difference between the effects of prohibition and prohibitory duty. When once a stea diness of price is introduced, that temptation to extrava gant speculation, raised by what took place in 1816 and 1819, when both grower and consumer were ruined, will be taken away. These are my answers to the questions that have been put to me. I now proceed to reply to the to a the i° i only objection I h ave h ear d t o the resolutions I proposed to substitute instead o f those of the Hon. Mover. It is asked, why I d o not introduce was a permanent Bill ? Th a t, Sir, asld myself to it. B u t theid not wish to s u bj ec t myself necessity yidedof applying question has been asked, and I shall reply to it. .1 know no reason why I should hold one language within the walls of this House, and another out of them; but if I were out of them, I should a nswer fairly, that it was because there existed in the other House of Parliament, a deep_ rooted spirit to reject w hatever Bill of that sort the House of Commons might think fit to send up.—(Loud and long elleering.)—ls there any man, either out of or in this House, who will lay his band on his heart and say, that he believes no such spirit to exist—(Hear.)—l have conversed with men of all parties i n the House, and they have all seen it, and agreed with me in opinion. Some did it in lamenta tion, others in indignation and anger, and some again in triumph. Out of this House the same opinion prevails, and not a single man that I conversed with but what seemed convinced that the 133 voters for a certain amend ment were guided by no bond of sympathy beyond a disin terested conviction of the advantage to be derived from the course they pursued.—(Loud laughter) -1 have conversed with those who walk the str eets—(Continued laughter) —and never yet have found one who was not convinced that the coincidence of these voters was perfectly a matter of ebanC.e.—(Laughter.)--I, for one, am convinced, from the correspondence produced by my Rt. Hon. Friend, that the Duke of Wellington was satisfied as to the result of his amendmenteand also, that he considered he was doing his 'a 'service by the cours e country he was pursuing.. But, ,looking te, ; al,l this circumstances, 1 cannot help thinking that even eo great a man a 4 the, Duke of. Wellington has been something like an instrument in the hands of others. —(Loud cheering. )—There are'several instances of su things happening, in other times, to as great men as tt Duke of Wellington.—(Cheers.) —Many circumstancls lead me to this conclusion. Amendments which precederi that of the Noble Duke had paved. the way for him—il believe, unconsciously to himself. Certain words were omitted in the first clause of the Bill, without which th,3 Amendment of the Noble Duke could not have been mooted.. When, I say, I see these and other little circumstances, I cannot help thinking there was some master hand which directed the movements of the various machinery by which the object was attained. That that surmise is correct, I have no doubt, for else it would not have been possible to have got together voters, so discor dant on every other subject, to agree upon a point which every impartial person must concede to he any thing but advantageous to the professed object of the Bill. We do not, therefore, propose to bring forward any permanent mea sure. In honesty, lam bound to make that answer to questions put to me. But I have no doubt, that whatever temporary delusion may exist upon this question, that it will pass away in the course of another Session of Parlia ment, and that that in particular on the clause which his been under discussion to-night, will not stand in our way, as it will be discussed out of doors, and its true nature be made to be understood by the country. Other amencl ! - ments also the House will then be prepared to acquiesce id, and, altogether, I have no doubt that that which is now difficult, will shortly be easy. Before I sit down, I beg to say, that any allusions I may have made to the Duke of Wellington, have been made in no spirit of hostility to him, as I am satisfied that however much we may differ as to the value of his clause, and that he over-values it, I think will be shortly seen, he yet thought he was acting rightly. In conclusion, I beg to say, that unless I ant better advised than at present, the measure that is brought forward next Session shall be the same in principle, and tend to the same object, and I trust in God it may be under the same advantages as the Bill of this Session,— (Ch eers. ) _ . _ The House then divided, when there appeared— For the original Motion For Mr. Canning's Amendment 258 Majority for Ministers —lB6 The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the third read ing of the Mesne Process Bill. Mr. HOBHOUSE wished to know whether the Hon: and Learned Member would object to this being made a temporary measure, in order to try its effect ? The answer of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL was inaudible; but the third reading was appointed for to-morrow. On its being moved that the other Orders of the Day be now read, Mr. HEATHCOTE moved, as an amendment, that the Coventry Magistracy Bill be read a third time. The House then divided : For the Amendment 94 Against it 7l Majority for the 3d reading of the Bill —23 On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. FYLER opposing the Bill. The Hen. Member concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. Lord W. RUSSELL did not wish to blame one party or the other; but the great •objection which lie felt towardi the Bill, was, that it inculcated a dangerous principle, and went to establish a bad example. In his opinion no power should be held without responsibility in some quarter or other. Under these circumstances, he felt compelled, re luctantly, to oppose the Bill. Mr. BARRETT said, that during the Luddite riots, the town Magistrates of Coventry exerted themselves to put down the disturbances. In consequence of the course they took on that occasion, they were thanked by the then Se-; cretary of State, and the most beneficial results were pro= duced. At the time referred to, the County Magistrates were supine, or absent from their posts. For these rea sons he could not give the proposed measure his ap probation. After an observation from Lord RANCLIFFE, the pur port of which we could not collect, Mr. VAN HOMRIGH said he would tell the supporters of the Bill that the present was a novel, ex post facto, capricious attempt at legislation, and not calculated to do credit to the House, if it were adopted. He did not know a single individual in the city of Warwick or the county of Coventry—(Great laughter)—he meant in the county of Warwick or the city of Coventry—but opposed the measure on the ground of his honest conviction of its impropriety. Lord SANDON supported the Bill, and, in doing so, took occasion to allude to the conduct of a person who had been clearly convicted of perjury. This was not an in dividual vice, but a part of the system which had been complained of. The present measure was the only course that could be taken to remedy the grievance; and he had no hesitation in defending the Committee from the imputa tions that had been cast on them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that there was nothing of an unconstitutional nature in the Bill. Lord W. RUSSELL explained. Mr. PEEL declared he was not satisfied with the evi dence adduced in support of the Bill; and opposed the Bill, as one giving to officers appointed by the Crown—the Ma gistrates of Warwickshire—the power of assessing taxes on the people of Coventry. Lord SANDON explained. Dr. PHILLIMORE vindicated the conduct of the Com mittee and supported the Bill. Mr. STANLEY vindicated the motives of the Com mittee, and felt great satisfaction in voting for the third reading of the Bill, as he considered the Magistrates of Coventry to have grossly neglected their duy. Mr. PEEL explained. Mr. G. BANKES would not give his vote in favour of the Bill, as he did not think any case of improper conduct proved against the Corporation of Coventry. Mr. WYNN thought there was sufficient ground made out to warrant the Bill. Unless the House passed the present measure, there were no other means to suppress those riots and outrages which had existed to so great an extent for so long a period in the city of Coventry. Lord LOWTHER thought the House ought to take into consideration the excitement that prevailed during the elec tion for Coventry, together with the fact, that, no individual received any serious bodily injury. It was his opinion, that no case had been made out against the Mayor ; the utmost extent of the charge against him was, that he had on one occasion waved his band to encourage some party. Looking at the great excitement of popular feeling that prevailed, and considering the circumstances altogether, he considered the election as a fair election, and would, there fore, oppose the Bill. The calls of " Question' then became general ; strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the third reading Against it Majority —lo _ The Bill was then read a third time. On our return to the Gallery we found Lord Lownira proposing the insertion of a clause, to the effect that the j urisdiction of the Magistrates of Warwickshire should only extend from the issue of the writ for the return of Members to the return of the same. The clause was opposed by Mr. STURGES BOURNE.. After a few observations from Mr. Croker, the Attor ney-General, Mr. Birch, and Lord Bancliffe, the House divided— For the clause 53 Against it 64 Majority The Bill was then passed. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Three o'Clock this morning. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'S. Yesterday was Ascot Settling-day, and the paying and receiving; occupied till near five o'clock, when it closed with out any thing having occurred to disturb the quiet of the day. Betting then commenced, and was tolei ably brisk till six o'clock on the Great St. Leger and the Gloucester shire Stakes, which latter will be run at ChAtenham to morrow week. Mameluke, it will be seen, has made a spring since he got into Yorkshire hands, but for which, it is very probable, he would never have got so high. The other Derby horse, Glenartney, is not expected to start. Mr. Metre's lot still keep in good request, and large sums have been laid out upon them. Mr. Udny's Antiope colt is also on the advance, and has many friends. Excepting these two Stakes, the only offers were 10 to 1 on the field for the Oaks (Trampoline the favourite), and 3 to 1 on the field for the Newmarket July Stakes. The closing prices at six o'clock, were as under GLOUCESTERSHIRE STARES. 5 to 2 agst Doctor Faustus I sto 1 agst Liston (taken) ST. LEGER. 41, to I agst Illameluke -2270 1 agst Pedlar 9to 1 agst Granby ' 25 to 1 agst Malek 11 to 1 agst Nonplus 25 to 1 agst Sancho 12 to 1 agst Reviewer 25 to 1 agst Antiope 17 to I agst Lunaria 28 to I agst Lumley's colt 18 to 1 apt Matilda 33 to 1 apt To Jones 50 WI PiPt Translation. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The news from Greece —now, we fear,placed beyond all dotibt of its authenticity, by the va rious and independent quarters from which it proceeds—is most disastrous and afflicting ;we must add, not a little provoking also. It seems as if the famed and boasted negotiations among the European Powers on behalf of Greece, had been so measured in respect of their rate of tra velling, as just to reach the end of their journey when the object of the journey itself was no more. The Morea was conquered, and Misso longhi taken after a- cruel slaughter of the Christian garrison. Athens is besieged, and the Acropolis now, as a matter of necessity, falls to the infidels, or is blown to pieces by its brave de fenders, hopeless of human succour. The noblest monuments of the most illustrious ages of antiquity are annihilated by Greek despair or Turkish barbarity. The flower of the Christian warriors perishes, the land becomes one field of desolation, no longer a prize worth winning at the cost of human blood ; and we shall next be presented with a pompous exhibition of the results of liberal diplomacy, acting upon the councils of every Court in Europe, after the evil has ceased to admit of cure,—after the population of Greece shall have been wasted, —when there are none to be rescued, none left to enjoy the triumph of " diplomacy," or to taste the sweets of liberty—when the barbarians of Asia Minor and of Egypt shall have wreaked their sweeping vengeance upon all that has life from Crete to Thessaly, and cast away the vile inanimate re fuse as an offal unworthy to be retained;—then it is, we say, that the diplomatic magnates of Europe will come forward, vaunting of the provisions which they have made for futurity—what pledges they have re ceived from Turkey—what prospective rights they have secured for Greece ! Alas ! they come but to attend her obsequies: what has been Greece is gone for ever ! The Turks, it is pretty evident, have been acting, while 'England was negociating. Feu dinand of Spain, another sort of Hottentot, has been acting, while England fancied he was negociating with her. Diplomacy is a mighty 'fine thing, and so is physic; but it seldom does good to physic a patient after he is dead and buried; or to make trea. ties, however binding, for the protection of States and Constitutions already extinct. Alas ! poor Greece, and wretched Portugal, how have ye both been shuffled with !—Timea. We have first to notice, on the important subject which now interests the country—the fate of the late Corn Bill—that there was no mate rial increase beyond that last noticed in the markets yesterday. This, we believe, has been in a great degree owing to the intimation given by us, that his Majesty's Ministers had the courage to apply a remedy to the unexpected evil which had occurred ; and the proceedings of the House of Commons last night prove that our conjectnre was not unfounded, though we did not point out the precise remedy which would be first applied. The resolution propo sed by Mr. Canning is to the following effect : '—" That any and eve!) , description of corn, the produce of foreign countries, which was either now in warehouie*, or should be reported to be in warehouse before the Ist of July next, should be admitted for use at any time prior to the Ist of May, 1828, upon the payment of duty at the rate, and subject to the scale, set forth in the Bill lately withdrawn in consequence of the Amendment of the House of Lords." We think it will be allowed, that this new measure, which was indeed ap proved of and supported by Mr. Pee], has one at least recommendation—namely, that there is no indication of pique in its composition. It gives no facilities for pouring foreign corn into British warehouses, for it limits the season of its admission there to the Ist of next month ; so that no fresh orders can be sent out : and then, by extending the period at which bonded corn may be sold till the Ist of next May, it prevents a sudden glut in the market ; a', the longer the period is during which bonded corn (of which there is a definite quantity to begin with), may be sold, the less will be sold in any given portion of that period. The proposed measure is therefore of a merely protective nature: it protects the wheat which has been bonded, or shall be bonded up to the Ist of July next, under a conviction that the Bill would pass : it admits 'of bringing that wheat to market 'till next May, but only on the terms to which the importers thought that they should be liable when they imported it—that is, only 1 according to the scale of the Bill which has been list. But that which we would more particularly recommend to attention, or, shall we not rather say, that which will attract attention without any recom mendation ?—in the debate of last night, is the cor respondence between the Duke of 'Wellington and Mr. Huskisson on the subject of the well-known clause; which correspondence was read in the House by the latter. Never were two things more distinct confounded by any man, than the thing contained in the Duke's clause, and the thing I a llowed in Mr. Huskisscin's letter. The Duke's clause is a direct contravention of LOrd Liver pool's measure, in which his Grace, as one of the Cabinet, had acquiesced, and according to which 625. imperial measure was to b the centre point of admission. Mr. Huskiseon's concession (only half conceded) made no change whatever in the grand principle that 625. should be the centre point at which foreign corn might be sold with a 20s. duty attached; but merely restrained corn bonded after the passing of the Bill from coming into the market, unless the price previously mounted ! up to above 665., which price being attained or stir passed, it was then upon the same footing with corn bonded before the passing of the Bill. His Grace, with great 'naivete, and bona fide, seems to have thought the two things the same. We are not sure, however, that some kick would not in any case haul. been given to Lord Liverpool's measure, when it fell to the lot of Mr. Canning and his present col leagues to carry it into effect. Mr. Canning's reso, lution, it will be seen, was carried by a triumphant majority ; there being for Mr. Western's motion 52, for Mr. Canning's 238, giving a majority of 186. We observe that two petitions were presented to Parliament on Saturday, praying that thq practice of burning widows in our East J r ,a ia territories might be abolished. As to the pr o . priety of putting an end to a custom so inhuman and revolting, there can be, we imagine, but one opinion, but the mode of doing it is another question. There are persons who think we ought not to interfere with the usages of the native Indians, however barbarous they may be, when those usages do not militate against the power or security of our Indian govern ment. But all such reasoners must look upon power as a thing to be held only for the advantage of those whogovern, and not for the improvement and happiness of the governed. There are two ways of governing nations—by force, and by intelli gence. The one rules mankind by encouraging their vices, the other by enlightening their minds. It is certain that, although our dominion in India was obtained by military power, it is not the in terest, and cannot be the wish of our Grn ove ment, to co n ti nue to rule a hundred millions of people by that alone. Why, then, it may be asked, do the horrible practices of self-immola tion to the idol Juggernaut, and the burning of widows, coal= 19 disgrace a sal over which