The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-23 00:00:00

should make use of those treasures which the
bounty of nature afforded us in the quarter most
.at hand ; and when that was exhausted, go fur-
ther off. It was contended in support of the
present system, that it was in favour of the ship-
ping ; and• indeed the Report on Cle table laid it
down distinctly that the slipping-interest-was the
principal one concerned. So that for ,the Rapport
of a number of rotten transports unfit to swim any
thing but timber, the country was to have forced
upon it an inferior article. It was not this ship-
ping, but the old shipping interest that was at
all concerned in the Colonial timber trade.—
But he (Lord Lauderdale) contended that there
were two interests—the one was the old ship-
ping, and the other a capital of some 150,0001.
laid .oat in the construction of saw mills. It
could not be contended that it was beneficial to
our Colonies, because the profit of their timber
enabled them to clear lands; for it had been
proved 'that clearing their lands by burning,
which produced the exportable article of pot-ash,
was more beneficial to the lands. With these
views of the question he would not trouble-their
Lordships with any further observations, but
move, as an amendment, That the Bill be com-
mitted that day six months.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII said, that although he
agreed in almost every point offered by his Noble
Friend to their Lordships, he could not agree to
his amendment, because he thought there was
some little good in the Bill before the House,
and because he feared that if they rejected that
Bill the shipping interest had that extraordinary
power in the country to prevent any other mea
sure with any good in it from being brought in.
With respect to the Bill itself, he regarded it as a
measure offering a bounty for the introduction of
the dry rot into every building in the country.
He would not detain the House at that time ; but
before he sat down, he must declare that he should
never again attend a Committee of that House on
foreign trade with any expectation of doing goo(
to his country.
Lord K ING took the same view of the ques
ion as the Noble and Learned Lord, and strong
y deprecated the Bill.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that the -13

before the House had not his entire concur•
rence, as he considered it to bo drawn up on
an erroneous principle ; but at the same time
although it did not apply a remedy of that
full and universal nature which was so de-
sirable, it contained some good in it, and as
" half a loaf was better than no bread," he
should support the Bill. lle admitted that the
plan on which the measure was framed was con-
trary to the doctrine which inculcated the seek-

ing the best article at the lowest price ; yet it
must be obvious to their Lordships, that there
might be circumstances, not of 'policy, but of jus-
tice, which would authorise their acting in contra-
diction of that principle. Interests, connected
with this branch of trade, had been so fostered and
encouraged during the war, which it would not
be altogether right to abandon now. The ques-
tion was, whether the Bill went further than the
Report on the table ? and also, whether it did
not go to place the trade on a better footing than
it was before ? With regard to the first of these,
he was ready to admit, that it did not go further
than the Report : but it did also place the trade on
a better footing than it was before, for it reduced
the duty on foreign timber from 31. 15s. to 21..155.
which was an alteration for the better not to be
slighted. Another consideration of some weight
was that it employed a great number of
our transports. And in reply to the arguments
of Noble Lords on that particular point, he had
only to observe, that it was not the employment
of the vessels alone that was to be considered,
but the value of the employment of British sea-
men as well as the ships. It had been the prac-
tice of their Lordships to give protection to the
industry of their own country, in preference to
the industry of a foreign, and that was a prin-
ciple he could perfectly understand ; but he
could not understand why we should give the
preference to the industry and productions of one
foreign nation over another. It was that prin-
ciple of the Bill alone that he disapproved of ; in
other respects, for reasons he had stated, he was
willing to support it.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that after
having obtained an unanimous concurrence of
opinion in a Committee of their Lordships, which
recommended measures founded upon right prin-
ciples, ,they were told by the Noble Earl at the
head of his Majesty's Government, that they were
to pass a Bill founded upon other and erroneous
principles, and that such a measure was to remain a

part of our permanent system. The Noble Marquis
argued that Norway ought to receive the same
encouragement as Russia, and contended that
the latter was favoured by the Bill on their
Lordships' table. He confessed that hencefor-
ward he should look with deep despondency to-
wards the placing our commerce upon principles
of soufid policy, aftk r* the failure of such efforts

as had been made upon the present occasion.
lie should be anxious for one to continue those
efforts, although he did so in perfect despair, and
always to adhere to principles, and to resist the
consideration of local interests. There was one

question which be wished to ask of the Noble

Secretary of State, namely, whether there was

any understanding- with the Colonists, or any
other body, that these defective arrangements
were to be considered as permanent. He was

aware there could be no direct engagement of
ibis kind, but what he wished to be satisfied of
was, that there was no indirect understanding.
Earl BATHURST could only repeat, in reply to
the question of the Noble Marquis, which he had
before stated, that he knew of no engagement what-