The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-11 00:00:00

74i. ,
•

P 111 C StVENPENCE,

. _ .. .. .
foreign flour from being smuggled into home donsamp.tioti—
than which nothing could be more ruinous ttithd Agricultural
Interest.

Mr.-LOCKIIART also opposed the. Clause. • .
Mr. RICARDO supported the Clause. Unless the Agri-
culturists could shOW that any injury would arise to them Srom
the adoption of the Clause, he was at a loss taeonceive why
Parliament Should hesitate to give to the Foreign Importer the
proposed relief,
Mr.- BENETT Was indifferent as to the fate. of the ;
for if it were agreed to, it would probably endanger.the whole
measure, which, in his opinion, was one of the most ruinous to
the interests of agriculture that had ever been deviSed.
Mr. JAMES IiROWNE said, that in his opinion the Hon.
Member for Portarlington had attcnipted to fix upon the agri-
culturists that which he, would, fa his parr, beg leave to k:g
upon the planners of this grinding gcheine That Hon. Gen-
tleman had said that they (the agriculturists) were bound to
strew that any mischief could arise from this measure ; but un-
willing as he (51r. Brownef was to undertake an answer to the
Honourable Member for Portarlington, yet he must say that
the oases probaniii lay upon him and hi.; associates in the plan.
Nothing could be more delusive than the argument of se-
curity, and a snore pernicious project to what he .must always
call ,the most valuable interest in the State could not well be
produced.

Air. WILSON was persuaded that there was Something
more in the clause than met the eye. Ile felt it his duty to
oppose it.
Mr. CANNING replied to the arguments which had been
urged against the clause. He had brought forward the case of
the importer of foreign corn as the country gentlemen had
brought forward the case of the agricultural interest, as-one of
diStress which it might be in the power of Parliament to al-.
leviate: He would, however, vote for the hill whether this
clause should be adopted by the House or not. The House had
already agreed to allow the foreign corn warehoused in this
country to be let out for home consumption when the average
price of corn should be 10s, a qr. less than the
_general importa-
tion price. By this boon, which might be detrimental to the
home grower, they had established the claim of the foreign im-
porter to some relief. Why thenWithliokl from him the benefit
of the proposed clause, from which no detriment whatever
could by posiibility accrue to the home grower ? 'lf it was the
opinion of the Hon. Gentlemen connected with Agriculture,
that the importation of foreign corn should be entirely prohi-
bued, let them speak out ; for it would be much more just and
wise to prohibit it altogether than to abstain from doing so,' but
to take the oppprtimity from time to time of making the act of
importation ruinous to the importer.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that he agreed with
his Right Hon. Friend that the importers of foreign corn Were
entitled to some advantage, as they had undoubtedly imported
their corn with the expectation of benefits held out to them ; but
it could not be said that they were without their advantage. By
the present Bill they were allowed to bring their corn out of the
warehouses into the market at 70s.—ten shillings lower than the
sum at which the ports could be opened. In opposing the clause
it was some consolation to him to feel that its rejection would
not operate to, the ruin of the property of those parties, because
they were still not without their remedy, as if they were dispo-
sed to send their corn ground to the West Indies, they could,
with little inconvenience, have it ground in Holland. lie felt
that the clause'was likely to hazard the advantages of the Bill,
and he would therefore oppose it. With respect to the general
measure he did not propose it so much as a measure of mime-
diate relief, as one which might be considered a boon to the
agriculturists, as giving them protection in time to come. The
agricultural mind was much agitated on the subject, and it, was
another argument against the clause, that it would tend to in-
crease that anxiety.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
. • For the Clause - . 31
Against it .; . 116
Majority -
On strangers' re-admission, Mr. FORBES was found on his
legs, making some observations on the effect of the Bill upon
the West India Trade, but the noise was so great that not even
the import of the Hon. Member's remarks could be collected.
Mr: HUME said, that it was to be regretted that the Noble
Marquis should have changed his mind so often. A few even-
ings since, on the clause against which the House had just de-
eicied, he was one of those who had voted with the Noble Mar-
quis in a very large majority ? he had now voted in opposition
to the Noble Lord in a very small minority—a proof; if a proof
were wanted, that any thing Ministers were willing to do that
House was ready to support. To use a phrase of the Noble
Lord's, the fact afforded a practical example of what that
House really was—a House willing to do any thing Ministers
wanted—a llouse willing to change its opinions with Mini-
sters as often as. Ministers wished.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that it would be
recollected that that night was the first time the clause had been
discussed with a view to have a decision taken upon it. His
Right Hon. Friend was suffered to annex the clause to the Re,
port, but no pleklge had been given to support it. -
After. a few words from Mr. Di BRO WNE and Mr.
CARDO, the Report was brought up, and the Bill ordered to
be read a third time on Wednesday.