Star.
London, England, 1811-04-03 00:00:00

lUght Honourable Friend had' Aid; Olaf byttie itn
before the House we should depart from the wise prin-
ciples which had governed the Legislature for a cen-
tury. He must be permitted to say that this state-
ment was not correct—not more than eighteen years
ago, an Act passed for the purpose Of prOmoting
the growth of Sugar by a reduction of the &Sties.
At the present moment all West-India property Was
labouring under peculiar embarrassments—it had
none of the encouragements, or even ordinary returns
which are always esteemed essential to the pteserea-
tion of property in land. The whole profit on West
India produce was no more than a small profit on
stock, affording nothing for rent. His Right Hon.
Friend had attributed all the misfortunes of the colo-
nial proprietors to excessive speculation and to the
spirit of overtrading. There could not be, he was sorry
to say, a more convincing proof of the extreme want
of information on this subject, on the part of his Right
Hon. Friend, than this observation. The distress of
the West India planters arose from various causes,
many of which were entirely out of their controul.
'The nemerous conquests achieved, and the immense
quantities of produce brought into the market in con-
sequence, had necessarily operated to depreciate the
value of colonial property. It appeared by the Re-
port of the Committee in 1808, that the use of barley
might in many cases be superseded by other grain;
and although any change operating to this effect
might be injurious to individuals, in a question of this
nature the general interests were entitled to the first
consideration. If the coloniei were important to the
mother-country, their interests ought not to he ne-
glected, and he challenged any gentleman to produce
an instance in which they had been backward in sup-
porting the interests of the country.
Mr. MARRYATT followed on the same side in
an ingenious speech, in which he strongly remarked
on what he termed the invincible repugnance of ate'
land owners to bear their equ;table share of the bur-
dens of the people, and endeavoured to prove that the
event nal ruin of the colonies m ustnecessarily be deeply
fdt by the agricultural interest at home.
Mr. SHAW (of Dublin), complained in strong
terms of the introduction of a clause into this Bill,
which was not only foreign to the avowed object of i
the Bill, but in direct violation of the 6th article of
the Act of Union. [Here the Honourable Gentle.
man read the article, and compared it with the pre-
amble and title of the Bill, in neither of which, he
said, was there one syllable about Ireland.]—This
Bill was now on its way to Ireland ; and what must
the people of that country think at finding in it a clause
continuing the suspension of the intercourse between
the two countries? The clause and the mode of intro-

clueing it was enough to excite the suspicion of its
having been smuggled into the Bill, for the purpose of
taking the Irish members by surprise. (Hear, hear.)
Gentlemen were quite indignant at any wish of the Irish
people for a repeal of the Union ; but hecould not help
saying, that, if after all, Ireland had been promised,
for consenting to part with her resident Parliament, she
-should find het interests thus treated, either with such
Leqligence or injustice, he could not see how she could
avoid complaining. He, for his part, was determined
not to let such unseemingly negligence towards that
part of the United Kingdom pass unnoticed. He
then went into the question as affecting the interests
of the Irish distilleries, compared with those of the
Engli'sh, and said, that the former were now ready to
meet the latter on the question of the countervailing
duties and drawbacks.
Mr. COKE opposed the measure, and gave a prac-
tical example of its evil tendency, as particularly af-
fecting the county of Norfolk, in which even barley
'was not to be produced but by the arts of husbandry,
and a careful amelioration of the soil. In Norfolk
33 shillings was certainly not a remunerating price to
the growth of barley. The Honourable Member read
several extracts from Mr. Burke's pamphlet of
a, Thoughts on Scarcity," in which he strongly dis-
apptoves of throwing any artificial obstructions in the
way of men who never get a return gem their capital
in less than a year, and, in many instances, not in a
less period than two or three years ; and declared that
in the 35 years during which he had been a Member
of that House, he had never known or seen a Minister
who attempted to carry any measure favourable to
the_ general interests of agriculture.
Mr. ROSE explained.
Mr. ELLIS urged a variety of arguments in illus-
trazion of the convertibility of different species of
grain to different uses; of the impossibility of the bill
creating' any competition except under circumstances
unfavourable to the latter, between the foreign grower
of barley and the West India proprietor.
Mr. WESTERN contended, that the great cheap-
ness of sugar would give a decided preference in the
re,ll consumption created by the demand of the Dis-
tirerics.

Lord BINNING acknowledged that he had com-
munications from counties in Scotland about their
distresses; but these were not ascribed to this mea-
sure. He had indeed presented a petition from the
county of Haddington complaining of this measure.
But he believed these distresses to be attributable to
ether causes, much more efficacious than this of which
so much apprehension was vainly entertained.
Mr. ADAM stated the question to be, whether the
second reading should be postponed for six weeks ;
not with a view to get rid of it altogether, but for
the purpose of investigation. The result might indeed
Le the loss of the measure ; but if-that should appear,
to he in itself proper, it was a result not to be de-
r recAted. The Right Honourable Gentleman who
eriginateil the measure was wrong in the principle on
which he had founded it, and his results were very far
from being correct. But before he came to that point,
)•,' observed that there were certain general principles
kwerning the subject, of which those who origina-
ted and supported the measure did not seem to be
r.vare. A Gentleman on the other side had said
that they had called the distilleries a granary. What.
sc.rne individuals might haie said he did lint know; but
of this he was sure, that when he had before spoken
upon the subject, he had considered the distilleries, not
as a granary, but as a consumer. Such was the nature of
agriculture that you could not destroy a great consumer
without at the same time destroying the energy of the
farmer in improvement. The return upon his capital,
is had been truly stated, be could not have in less
thin' a year, and his risk was increased'by the uncer-
tainty of the. seasons: This went to increase the risk
still More, and prevent the good year from being a
compensation fur the bad. This measure zed a
11.6"initsw [nice for barley. It was a bounty on au.