Star.
London, England, 1827-06-26 00:00:00

the codntty. lam the more unwilling to chi so front
the tone of moderation—if not of apcifogy.i.adnOted by
the Noble Viscount (Goderich) who introdticed ti:e
Bill I and, in imitation of his example, 1 am anxious w
abstain from any expression that mar be calculated to
excite angry feeling
_in any quarter-0:u feeling which,
I trust, is now fast subsiding every where=,-(Hear,
hear).-4 have also the satisfaction to feel and declare,
that it a tharmore unnecessary for the to trespamat acri
length upon the attention of your Lordships after the
statement of the Noble Duke, so remarkable for its pro.
priety and clearness, and which placed the motirei of
those who acted with him on a late occasion in so pert
spicuons a light, that it would be presumptuous in me,
or in any man after him. to attempt his vindication; or
to justify the motives by which they were influenced
who Concurred with him in a late Amendment—an
Athendment sanctioned by a maj rity of this Holm.
After what has fallen from my Noble Friend, I am „le
there is no man with a spark of candour and honesty
who can say that that Amendment was proposed with
the intention of defeating the Bill before it was sub.
miued, or that it had beets persevered in after it had
been first adapted for such a purpose. This has been,
1 know, caltfmniously iuserted, but the calumnious
,assertion bad been met by the indignation that it merited.
It had been admitted by the President of the Board of
Trade, that the Amendm nr, which had been the sub-
ject of such animadversion, might possible originate
in an ambignous.expreuisn of a letter written avowedly
in haste by that Right Honourable Gentleman to the
N,.ble Dake. The mind of the Noble Doke became
impressed with a conviction of the utility of introducing
that proposition into the Bill, as he understood it;
iced he persevered in it, not for the purpose of de.
dating the Bill, but for the purpose of furthering it,
by the introduction of such regulations as he saw inci.
dent to the completion of its regulations. Yet for such
a course of conduct was the Noble Doke, and those
who acted with him, visited with the most calumnious
aspersions—aspersions, however, which no one had the

I i'decency to cast upon him in this House--(Loud cries
of is Hear, hear"). Yet were those aspersions molt
insidienady and industriously circulated throughout the
country, so that no person could take up a Newspaper
without meeting them. Yes l--the calumnious asper.
don had been widely spread ; that our object in the
Introduc ion of an amendment into a Bill, lately before
this House, was to defeat, by indirect means, that
which we dared not openly to oppose. It had
been alleged that it was our object to procure the
rejection of that Bill, and thereby refuse relief to the
poorer classes in one of the first necessaries of lift...
By the admissions of the Noble Viscount, we stand
acquitted of entertaining such purposes; and in the
deliberate j.idgmeot of the whole country, I am
satisfied that it will be admitted- that e "meld
have acted inconsistently with our duty as Legislators,
if, from the apprehension of such calumnious aspersious
as I have alluded to, we had hesitated in the adoption
of such amendments as we conscientiously conceived to
be au amendment of the Bill, conducive to its effective
operation, and a corrective against possible dangers—
(Chen.) But if this Bill has. been lost, it was not by
this Amendment it was lost. We were disposed to
adopt the rest of the Bill, with this Amendment. The
Bill was lost by the refusal of the Noble Visage
(Goderich) to persevere in carrying through the Bill,
with this Amendment annexed to it. For his refusal u
persevere, I have no doubt the Noble Lord had seasons
which were satisfactory and conclusive ter his mind, as
to the propriety of the course upon• which he de-
termined. The Noble Lord bad it in his power to
choose between two courses—either to carry through
the Bill, and submit to. what he thought the incise-
venience of an Amendment whicb did not meet his
approbation, or to withdraw the Bill rather this
have it encumbered with au Amendment from which
he so widely dissented. The Noble Viscount male
choice of the Latter course, and in doing, so, I am dis-
posed to give him credit for what he conscientiously
believed to be the right and proper line of conduct, to
panne. But this I must sayohat I myself, and those
by whom that Amendment was supported, had no ap
prehension that the Noble Viscount would be reduced
to that alternative, and it was with the greatest surprise
that We saw him placed in such a predicament—(Bar,
hear). As to the present Bill I shall support it—(Cries
of Hear, hear); and I am in no small degree induced
to do so, as I find there is nothing in it inconsistent
with the late Amendment proposed by the Noble
Duke. Although I own there has not been, in my
opinion, a case of necessity made oat to warrant its,
introduction, yet I will give to it a reluctant assent, as
it contains nothing necessarily detrimental to the ge-
neral interests; because it is but a temporary masers;
and because, during the interval of. its operation,
an experiment will be tried upon the scale of duties,
which will enable us to come with the advantage of as
enlarged information to the discussion of a mesnue
which we are told is to be submitted upon this subject
next year—(Hear, hear). I would now ask, what don,
the present Bill propose to do, as compared with the late
Amendment ? Is it proposed by this Bill to. remedy
any alleged evil that might be consequent upon that
Amendment ? No such thing. There is nothing in this
Bill inconsistent with what that Amendment proposed.
Yet it was given out that this Bill was rendered neces.
sary, in consequence of the passing of that Amendment
in this House—(Hear, hear). What is this,
I ask, but
a wilful misrepresentation ? A mistake may be set
right—a prejudice may be removed—an argument
may be combated by reason—but a determined spirit
of misrepresentation could not in any way be fairly
encountered, for its malignity was only excited by
every exposure of its falsehood—(Loud cheers). I
say, first, then, for the thousandth time, that it is a
gross misrepresentation to say that the Amendment was
adopted in this House with the view of defeating the
Bill; and, secondly, I say that this Bill is not rendered
necessary to correct any evil that it is even asserted
would result from the adoption of that Amendment.
Have they who made this assertion read this Bill and
the Amendment ? Have they compared them, and in
what do they find an inconsistency between them to
consist ? For my part, as far as any feeble words of
mine may reach and may have influence,
I wish it to
be known that I support it because there is no past of its
provisions inconsistent with that Amendment. The ob-
ject of that Amendment was to prevent too great an
accumulation of corn in bond, and to prevent frauds by
providing that no 14 wheat should be taken out of bond,
so long as the average price of wheat, within this king-
dom, as settled by virtue of this Act, shall be less than
66 shillings a quarter." Now, from the correspondence
between the Noble Duke and the President of the Board
all Trade, from whose opinion it was to be presumed his
Ministers would not dissent, it was admitted
to be a desirable thing that "no corn bonded 4.l)er fit