Star.
London, England, 1827-06-13 00:00:00

a the price of wheat reached 665. but drat afterwards
ohould be subject only to the same regulations at
don directly imported for consumption. What was
th;s but to defer to an indefinite time what the present
amendment prohibited altogether. What was the
1„p objection to the present law ? Why, that it did
not come
iiito operation till the price of wheat had
readied 80s. per quarter ; and in the same way the pro-
position of the Right Honourable Gentleman was ob."
.eeticeobte, which went to prohibit the taking corn
Josss of bond till wheat reached 665. per quarter. It
Ins an indefinite period. It might be one year or
teo, and a permanent prohibition was preferable to this
previous and indefinite enactment. Yet this temporal y
prohibition bad obtained the sanction of the President
irk Board of Trade, and be concluded also that of
*Noble Lord, the Secretary of the Colonial Depart-
ment, The difference between actual prohibition and
prohibitive duty was merely nominal. They must
produce nearly the same efft, and he dee the most
vocood political economistec to define the difference
between actual prohibition and such a duty as he had
described. The Noble Lord then adverted to the limi-
tations to the Act authorising the importation of foreign
silks. The importation of this article was confined to
the post of London, and some kinds of manufacture
were totally prohibited. The present Warehousing
Act gave a right to the Lords of the Treasury
the poWn of determinigg what goods should or should
mot be warehothed, and in some instances the power
of fisiag the duty at which they should come out, with-
out ttfavece to the circumstance of Parliament being

;;liied or not. This power was left at the arbitrary
discretion of the Lords of the Treasury. The Noble
Lord inferred from these facts, that the amendment was
in no degree repugnant either to the. general principle
of the present rne4sure, or to the spun by which the
Legilliture had been generally actuated.
Lord FALMOUTH did not rise to vindicate the No-
ile Duke from the charge of inconsistency, but to de-
clare that he intended to vote in favour of the amend-

■at. The Bill was impolitic and unjust, and the time
Bits introduction appeared to him to be entirely ill.
doom He would discharge from his mind all party
antiderations, and give his most cordial opposition to
netoessote. with or without the amendment.
Lord DARNLEY did nbt intend to enter into any
dicssiion of the prohibitive system. The question was,

Whether they had hit upon the right degree of de.
intim from shat system in the scale of duty? His

opinion was, that the best way of obviating all in•
convenience would be to fix the duty at the time of
importation, and not to leave it to speculators to
choose their owu duty by throwing it upon the market
whenever they thought proper. It might be useful,
combined with this, to adopt the amendment of the
Noble Duke, so far as regarded the corn now in bond.
There nrver was a period when the prospect of the
harvest, at this season of the year; was more propitious
than at the present moment. He thought it would be
fair to the growers of coin in this country to give them
time before they were exliosed to the permanent opera-
tion
of this Bill. As a permanent me.uure it might be
beneficial, but it would be materially amended by ap-
plying the amendment of the Noble Duke to the corn
now in bond, and to fix the duty upon future importa-
tions at the time of the corn being bonded. His Lord.
ship concluded by moving, or that the provision con-
tained in the amondsneot of the Noble Duke should
apply to all corn in bond, and not to corn hereafter to
le imported."
Lord GODERICH said, that if he rightly under-
stood the amendment of the Noble Lord, at was to ad-
nit the corn to be henceforth imported accor dins to the
provisions of the Bill, and to leave that now us hand
abject to prohibition till the price reached 665. This
nu a probosition to which he felt very considerable ob-
jections. It imposed a very considerable hardship upon
the present holders of bonded corn.
After some farther conversation as to the propriety of disposing
sitlit smendment in the present stage of the discuss sae the gees-
du was pot, that the word ~ after" stood part of the clause, which
ws earned is the allirntative, and the amendment of the Noble
lard consequently rejected.
Lord CALTHORPE contended, that the landed
interest was entitled to a protecting duty from the cir-
nontances of the country, which made the price of
British corn frequently se high as to preclude its
etpottuion. The propriety of admitting the impor-
tation of foreign corn at all was questionable. He
vindicated the motives of the Noble Lord who pro-
posed and supported the Amendment, which was one
tbat Lord Liverpool himself might have promoted
without any impeachment of bin consistency. At the
saroetime, as he thought the Bill upon the whole an
improvement upon the existing system, he was an-
Willing
to endanger it, and should therefore vote
against the amendment.
The Earl of HAREIA'OOD said, that the Bill bad
been brought in, and they were told that they were not
*liberty to make any alterations. He would. ask whose
fra!t was that ? It was the fault of the title and the
hem of to e 131.1. He, however, regardless of this, and
hiding an amendment proposed, which he really
thought an improvement, would candidly support it.
lle wished to be distinctly understood both in the House
and out of it, and be would therefore declare why he
thought the clause a good one. He voted fur it. be-
cause he wished to restrain the warehousing system,
sat because in the event of a deficient harvest, he wished
to give the landed interest the turn of the scale.
The Marquis if LANSDOWN had too much respect
foe the Noble Lords who supported•the amendment, to
impute to them any other than the most honourable
motives. And he admitted that it was the duty of those',
who brought in the Bill so to frame it. as to afford
every facility to the expression of its opinion by that
House. But there was no title which could have been
given io the Bill, and no form under which it could have
been introduced which cJuld have admitted of the
amendment which the Noble Duke had prevailed upon
the Committee of that House to adopt. What that
amendment was they already knew, but as to its effect
and import, the opinion of the Noble Duke was exceed-
Illy ciffeient from that of its other supporters. Ac-
t ring to he Noble Duke, it did not militate against
t...e warehousing system, while its supporters cherished
!, upon the declared ground of its tendency to restrain
tut system—a system, he must observe, which bad been
sanctioned.. and matured by the wisdom of successive
Parliaments, but which Noble Lords now, for the first
rtimes and haying the benefit of the new light which had
bredla) broke upon them—for new light was not eon-
to ~. -
. the prcfessors of political economy—thought
jit,PT°Per to condemn. With respect to the measures
wrilm
cioss hadbeen
alluded to by the Noble Earl upon the
en, .he must say, that they were inteuded to
' ig', and not to restrain, the warehousing system,
ad go',
those of 1825, to which the Noble Earl
..."1
'lrrht'l beets a party. The powers given to the