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

7ralicland sufficient, did not do me the additional honour to
oolttninitiEire. 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
accordance with my suggestions. Never in my life
ilvaa • 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
claimed for it whatever authority and support it alight
derive from baying my concurrence, and represented it, in
fact, as being the 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
elanBe, 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, be 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 than that which I now put upon it. My
Noble Friend knew then certainly, that he had misappre-
hended me. Nothing further passed with regard to this
Bill till the Thursday following.lf my Noble Friend,
then that
seeing his Amendment must be fatal to the Bill,
and seeing that he bad misconstrued my letter, and was
altogether mistaken 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
rniaeonception ; and that, finding it would-operate as an
friTPediment to the success of the 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
-043ented to by me, and to prove my consent you
4.7411 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
(„,....11 that letter, as without it I cannot enter upon the
-"PiltUation of my own conduct which the use that has been
--"Lit of my letter renders necessary.
f. -411 have only yet received a very imperfect Report
im.`ll(lt from any Peer) of what passed (last night on your
atvi'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)
tLaal urged in any way as a ground for pressinc, its adop-
h;"? I must protest against the authority of' my name
rung been used for that purpose.
le: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
Zoltil 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,
tOig MY recollection greatly deceives me if I did not convey
.1-32:4 Grace that any Amendment, such as I now under-
to tohave been carried on your proposal, would be fatal
that 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---41 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
Mine of that date, in which I proposed for your considera-
hull a clause to be proposed to be added to the Corn Bill,
tying for its object to prevent the use of the warehouse
el:et:rave:ago 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, ' eoaformity with your suggestion, to Lord Goderich,
Who, I erroneously conceived, consented to what I intended
ctic!ProPose; and I stated 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."
met :a4 Impossible, when my Noble Friend said that the
atain-iroeuw,hich he had proposed was mine,
.not his., to ab-
--
wending him an explanation, which I did on the
same day. It Was as follows :
:/yB°r7leereet-place, June 2, 1827, 11 o'clock, p.
m.
mornin Duke,—Your letter which I received this
cussopportunity of
g 'flakes me regret extremely that you did not afford
ni 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-
Whl.laillY I should have no objection, and your Amendment,
-len, from mistake, you represent 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
iltn. substance
:--To suspend the regulations of the present Bill in
respect 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 have 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 of the 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 ; and that all other foreign wheat 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 Amendment is not proviso pro lac vice, quali-
fying for a special purpose, and, according to all probabi-
litp for a very limited time, the general regulations 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
being adopted would be to put an end to the measure aI-
%%WM
I` Its isundment 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
rankei, 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 should he
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 aced 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 sentr'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
way 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 wishß to continue
Hon.ontinu eFtiliieenddisacucessoitionntaabniye
further, but lie felt called upon to vindicate himself 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. HUSKISSON was understood to reply in the affir7
mative. He begged,pardon for further occupying the at- .
tendon of the House, but be wished, just
ftoer
illustration, to observe upon the present 4
NOthing,conid.more strongly evince than: it did„
state
fhe thesa
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
tl 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
alter my 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
supply 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
thei° i
only objection I have heard to the resolutions I proposed to
substitute instead of those of the Hon. Mover. It is
asked, why I do not introduce
was a permanent Bill ? That,
Sir, asld
myself to it. But theid not wish to subject
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 answer fairly, that it was because
there existed in the other House of Parliament, a deep_
rooted spirit to reject whatever 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 in 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 streets—(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 course 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
jurisdiction 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.