The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-13 00:00:00

actually by law imported, that the corn actually ware-
housed, shall not be admissible till the price reaches 665.
What a strange mode of legislating is this ! Can any thing
be more absurd? Can any thing be more puerile? Can
any.thing be more contradictory than such an Amend-
meet ?—(Hear, hear, hear.)—l ask your Lordships whe-
ther one thing can possibly be more lit 'variance with
another, than the Resolution for which the Noble Duke
declares himself respontible, and the Amendment by which
the Noble Duke seeks to defeat the Resolution—(Hear,
hear, hear.)—Thee principle of the Bill is founded upon the
Resolution; and I ask your Lordships whether the Noble
Duke's Amendment is not directly subversive of the Reso-
lution ? What is the principle of the Bill ? It is the sub-
atltnaion of a protection by duty for o protection by pruhi-
'oition, that duty diminishing as the price rises, and rising
as the price falls. It is a substitution of protection to the
agriculture of this country by the principle of duty, in-
etnad of prohibition, and a sudden removal of prohibition
at a high price. The Amendment of the Noble Duke is
30*tive of the principle upon which the whole measure
is f d ; it goes to preserve, pro tanto, the principle of
prohibition, of which it is the object of the measure to get
rid of. I say, therefore, my Lords, if we have any regard
for the consistency of our votes, having agreed to the second
reading of the Bill, we ought to reject a Clause which is
subversive of its principle, and inconsistent with the Reso-
lution on which the Bill was founded. The Noble Duke
declares himself a friend to the warehousing system. Now
if be is really a warm friend to the warehousing system,
his attachment to that system makes his Amendment still
more at varianee with his real opinions ; for his Amend-
ment is so directly destructive of the principle of the Bill
of Which he approves, that it must end in the destruc-
tion of the warehousing system. The effect of the
I%Toble Duke's Amendment will be, to produce one of
two things—either to destroy entirely the warehousing sys-
tem, or to continue the evils and inconveniences which it
is the object of this Bill to remove. The Amendment of
the Noble Duke is unjust, impolitic, and disingenuous: If
your Lordships wish to destroy the warehousing system,
declare that system at once to be impolitic. I could un-
derstand. though I should not approve of the arguments
by which it might be attempted to get rid directly of the
warehousing st stem. But when I am told that it is the
object of this proviso to give advantages to the fair trader,
and to check speculators, I can see nothing in this but a
return to those principles which are long exploded in other
countries, and which, I had almost persuaded myself,
were also exploded in this. What is it, I should be glad
to know, that is called speculation? Is speculation to be
deemed a crime, and are speculators to be treated as de-
Unguents ? Such a notion is tenable only on'the principle
men which interference with the dealings of the farmer,
the merchant, and the manufacturer was wont to be de-
fended. The merchant may choose to bond his corn, and
the farmer to keep it in his farm-yard ; every trader will,
of course, endeavour to make as much profit, and to turn
his capital to as gool an account as he can. This is, of
course, the principle of all mercantile transactions, and I
utterly deny that it is to he considered as unfair ape-ilia-
tion.—(Hear, hear.)—lt is a fortunate dispensation of Pro-
vidence that men's interests make them peculate, as it is
reed ; and that those speculations, which short-sighted
.Levis!ators wish to check, do more good. for us than the
misdirected ingenuity of ten Howes of Parliament can do
harm by discouraging them.—(Hear, hear.)—Who are
these unfair speculators, as they are called ? Who. I
:huh! he sled to know, are the delinquents: They are
men who bond their corn in England, for the purpose of
making e :treater profit of it when corn shall reach a high
price, and we have no right to expect them to feed us
for any ett,er reason. They are the stewards of the pub-
lic—they keep granaries for the public during times of.
abundance, to supply oar wants during periods of
scarcity and distress.--(Hear, hear, hear.)—This, my
Lords, is one of the great advantages of the bonding sys-
tem, which the amendment of the Noble Duke is calcu-,
lated to destroy. A more formidable and statesman-like.
objection to the free admission of foreign corn is, that it
tends to increase our dependance on foreign countries for al
supply. But this objection is aggravated by an interfer-
ence with the bonding system. You may prevent specu-
lators from handing their corn in England, but you cannot
prevent them from lodging it in warehouses and magazines ti
on the opposite coasts ; and the effect of interfering with
the bonding system will be, that in case of emergencies,
we shall have to look to foreign countries for a supply, in-
stead of having recourse to the warehouses on our owu
shores. Another inconvenience arising front an interfer-
ence with the bonding system will he, to give a premium.
to foreign shipping over British shipping; but this he'll
been so clearly stated by the Noble Lord who opened the.
debate, that I shall not attempt to weaken the effect oft
what fell from him, by repeating his arguments. The
Noble Duke has expressed his belief that dealers wouldl
continue to band their corn, notwithstanding the diead-
vantages order which his amendment would place them.—
If there be any ground for this belief, whydo away with the
kw as it now stands ? What necessity would there be for al-
tering the system of prohibition? The Noble Duke's proviso
is, in fact, a re-establishment of the old system, which the.
House had so strongly condemned, in one of its most material:
and essential particulars—the bonding system. Those Noble
Lords who wish to maintain the old system of prohibition;
will, no doubt, best effect their desire of ruining this Bill.
by supporting the Noble Duke's Amendment. It may be
no unfair exercise of Parliamentary tactics to do so ; and I.
believe: that, if I participated in their opinions, my virtue
would not be so stubborn as not to give my hearty support'
to this particular clause. If the Noble Duke were to walk;
round the benches, mad canvass the opinions of Noble'
Lords, I believe be would not find a single enemy of the
Bill who was not ready to give his hearty vote for the!
Amendment. As to the principle of the Bill, this is me
the most convenient season to discuss it. For my own
part, I do not affect to be very conversant with the theory
of the subject, for I never read political economy by any
chance; but I must say, that, as far as I can form a judg-
ment of the subject from experience, from analogy, and
from principles of common sense, the present Bill is infi-
nitely preferable to the former system, and upon that
score I have given my hearty vote in favour of the mea-
sure. There is another point to which I cannot but ad-
vert—l mean the time during which this important ques-
tion has remained unsettled, and the pernicious effects
which are likely to result throughout the country from its
continued agitation. I will ask Noble Lords who support
this clause to lay their hands upon their hearts, and say
whether they feel assured that another year of discussion;
with an intervening harvest, may not be the densequence
of the vote which they intend to give this night? This
consideration alone ought to induce Noble Lords, who
imagine themselves more particularly interested in the
land—though, in my opinion, the whole community is in.
terested in the prosperity of the land—even if they believe
that there is any slight objection to the Bill, to gulp it
down, and vote for it. Should a time of scarcity arrive,
and this questeo be still under discussion, do those Noble
Lords imagine that any Government will be strong enough
to pass a Bill, such as that which is now under your Lord.
ships' consideration.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—lf you get
rid of this Bill, depend upon it you will never have such
another

Take it for all in all,
You ne'er will look upon its like again."
it behoves your Lordships to exercise some little foreeight,
and not to reject a measure for which your Lordships may
be under the necessity of substituting one far less favourable
to the interests of the agriculturists ? Do I mean to say
that your Lordships will be compelled to yield to popular
clamour ? No, my Lords, not to popular clamour, but to
that strong c:irrent of popular opinion which must influence
legislation in a free state, and which every branch of the
legislature is bound to respect. I cannot help thinking,
therefore, that prudence suggests the propriety of legislating
on this subject at a time when corn is comparatively cheap
and the people comparatively quiet, instead of adopting a
course which will probably have the effect of postponing the
discussion of this question to a period when the interests of
the agriculturists may be affected by circumstances which
it would be invidious more particularly to describe. Such,
my Lords, are the general principles upon which I support
the Bill; such are the grounds upon which I oppose the
proviso—a proviso, which is directly contrary to the prin.
ciple of the Bill, which contradicts in terms the Resolu-
tion on which the Bill is founded, and which i:; calculated
to arrest the progress and defeat the success of the whole
measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl BATHURST contended that there was no esseni.
cial difference between the Amendment of the Noble Duke
and the proposition of the President of the Board oIS
Trade, as explained in the speech of the Noble Secretary
for Colonial Affairs. The objections which had been
urged against the Amendment applied just as strongly to
the proposition of the President of the Board of Trade.
Thee proposition was, that after the passing of the present
Bill, corn should not be taken out of the warehouse, nn.
less the average market price was 665. This might hap('
pen the next year, or it might not happen for ten years tft
come. He objected strongly to the reciprocity clause, an 4
to the arbitrary power which the Government would posh.
noSB of determining what goods should not be warehoused:
The Earl of FALMOUTH did not rise to vindicate tl4
Noble Duke from the charge of inconsistency which had
been preferred against him. It was unnecessary he should
do so, for the Noble Duke had done it: himself tritursi-
phantly. He was entirely opposed to the Bill, which hi
considered to be in the highest degree unnecessary, impoi-
litic, and unjust. Not only was the Bill detrimental to