CORN DUTIES BILL-THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S AMENDMENT-MR. HUSKISSON'S EXPLANATION.

June 18.

On the 1st of June, the House of Lords being in a committee on the Corn Duties Bill, the Duke of Wellington moved, as an amendment, "That no Wheat which shall have been placed under bond, to his "Majesty, in any ships or warehouses, after the passing of the Act, "shall be entered for home-consumption, from the ship or warehouse "in which such Wheat shall have been so placed under bond, so "long as the average price of Wheat, as settled by virtue of this "Act, shall be less than 66s. per quarter." The amendment was opposed by Lord Goderich, as being at direct variance with the principle of the bill. If adopted, it must, he said, lead to the rejection of it. On a division, the numbers were, contents 78, not-contents 74; leaving a majority of four in favour of the amendment. On the 12th, the report was brought up; when, on the amendment being put, the House divided; for the amendment, 133; against it, 122; leaving a majority of eleven against the Bill as it stood. In consequence of which, on the following day, Lord Goderich announced, that after the decision which their lordships had come to, it was not the intention of ministers to propose the third reading of the Bill.

On the 18th, the House of Commons having resolved itself into a committee on the Corn Trade acts, Mr. Western moved 'the repeal of so much of the Act of the 3d Geo. II. cap. 60, relating to the importation of corn, as renders the provisions of those Acts dependent on the admission of Foreign wheat for home consumption, under the provision of the Act of the 56th of Geo. III. cap. 26.' Upon this, Mr. Canning moved as an amendment, "That any sort of corn, grain, meal, or flour, the produce of foreign countries, and now in warehouse in the United Kingdom, or which may be reported to be warehoused, on or before the 1st of July next, shall be admissible for home consumption at any time before the first of May 1828, upon payment of the duties following." [These were the duties imposed by the Bill passed by the Commons, but not proceeded with by the Lords.]

Mr. Peel, after expressing his intention to vote for the amendment, took occasion to observe, that if any gentleman should think that the

amendment proposed and carried by his noble friend, the Duke of Wellington, was connected with any purposes of a political nature, or still less with any purposes of party faction, he was satisfied such an impression was wholly erroneous. He believed his noble friend had made his proposition on a misconstruction of what had passed between him and his right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade. On Mr. Baring's stating, that he could not conceive any thing more absurd in legislation than the noble duke's amendment, Mr. Peel added, that if ridicule was to be applied to the transaction, it equally attached to his right honourable friend, for the assent which he had given to a part of the alteration. Upon which,

Mr. HUSKISSON rose and said:-I have, Sir, to request the indulgence of the House in the performance of a very painful but imperative duty. I certainly could have wished that honourable gentlemen had confined themselves strictly to the motion before the House, and that the dis cussion had not taken the turn which it has taken. My right honourable friend, the member for the University of Oxford, has said that all the ridicule and blame which an honourable member behind me has lavished upon the amendment of my noble friend, attaches in an equal degree to me as it attaches to my noble friend. I will tell my right honourable friend, that however great that ridicule may have been, I would rather bear with it, were it twenty times as great as it is said to be, than that the Amendment should have received the sanction of this House, and worked all the mischief, all the disadvantages, and all the distress which it must inevitably have produced. At the same time, however, I must deny that any part of that ridicule attaches to me. I am answerable neither for the merits nor the demerits of that amendment. It has been said, that I suggested the amendment; but it is quite clear that the noble duke has entirely mistaken the suggestion which I did make to him; and as certain documents connected with

this subject have been alluded to both here and elsewhere, I hope the House will allow me to read some extracts, which will place the matter in a clearer light than it has hitherto appeared in.

Sir, at a late hour on the night of the 24th of last month, on the eve of the day for which the Corn Bill stood for committal in the House of Lords, I received from my noble friend a private communication, which I will now read to the House.

"London, May 24, 1827.

"My dear Huskisson,-I beg you to look at the enclosed clause, and let me know whether you have any objection to its being inserted in the Corn bill, after the clause permitting the entry.

"In my opinion, it will tend to diminish the apprehensions entertained, that the system of warehousing may be abused for the purpose of facilitating and ensuring the results of frauds in the averages; and will tend to induce some to vote for the bill who would otherwise vote against it.

"Let me have your answer as soon as you can. Ever your's, most sincerely,

The clause which lows:

“Wellington."

my noble friend enclosed ran as fol

"Provided always, that no corn shall be entered for home consumption from any warehouse in any port or place in this kingdom, previous to the entry for home consumption, or to the exportation of every other portion or portions of corn previously lodged in warehouse, in such port or place; without the consent in writing, under the hand and seal of the proprietor of such last-mentioned corn, so long as the average price of corn, within this kingdom, as settled by virtue of this act, shall be less than 70s. a quarter.”

To this letter of my noble friend I wrote an answer that same night, which I believe my noble friend received early the next morning. In replying to the letter which I thus received, I can assure the House that I communicated with the noble duke in the same spirit in which one colleague

would communicate with another; for in such relation I still supposed myself to stand with my noble friend, as far as that bill was concerned. I did not even keep a copy of the letter which I wrote, and I have to thank my noble friend for the copy of it which I now hold in my hand. This letter has been the cause of all the misapprehension which has taken place, and I must therefore beg to trespass on the House by reading it:

"Somerset-place, May 24, 1827. "My dear Duke,-I should certainly be disposed to acquiesce in any reasonable concession, which would conciliate some of those who object to the Corn bill in the House of Lords, without risking the loss of the measure when sent back to our House.

"I cannot take upon myself to say, whether the proviso, which I return, would be open to this objection. On other grounds, I am afraid you would find great practical difficulties in the execution of the proposed measure.

"It would give, as I understand it, the power to any one proprietor of foreign corn, in any port, to lay a veto upon the sale of all corn warehoused subsequent to his in that port, until the price reached 70s.

"This would put it in the power of one individual, by reserving a quantity, however small, of old corn, to stop any sale below 70s. as effectually as it could be stopped by a positive prohibition under that price.

"Supposing this objection removed, how, at any of the great ports, can you hope to get the consent, in writing, of every proprietor? I have no doubt, that the corn now warehoused in London is the property of at least five hundred firms or individuals, some living in London, some in different parts of England, some abroad. This corn, whilst in bond, is every day changing hands. How can it be satisfactorily certified to the Custom-house, that all the consents have been obtained; or how is any party to set about procuring them all, or to know when he has accomplished it?

"There are other difficulties of detail which occur to me. For instance, a party who cannot fulfil the conditions in the port of London, may not find any difficulty in doing so at Rochester, because of corn previously bonded at the latter port there is none. In that ease, the London owner may either remove his corn to Rochester,

or import fresh corn from the Continent into that port, and the law would be different in different ports, though possibly very near to one another."

I made these objections in order to show that the proposed clause was really not a practicable, and that even if it had been, it would not be a useful, one. The letter concluded in these words:

"Had your proposal been, that no corn bonded after the passing of the present bill should be allowed to be entered for home consumption till the average price had reached 66s., and that thenceforward all corn so bonded, or thereafter imported, should come under the regulations of the bill, individually I should not object to such a proviso. It would ensure that no quantity beyond that now in bond should be thrown upon the market, unless, in spite of that quantity, the price reached a level which might fairly be taken as an indication of our being in want of a further supply from abroad.

"But I am afraid that even this amendment would prove fatal to the bill, in our House. I remain, &c.

"W. HUSKISSON."

Now, Sir, what I meant to state was simply this,—that, up to the price of 668., the corn now actually locked up should have a priority, and that henceforth that and all other corn should be under the regulations of the bill. I had calculated that there were five hundred thousand quarters of corn in bond; which corn might be taken as the representative of so much British capital, a considerable portion of which had, in all probability, been brought here under the authority of measures either already taken or pledged to be taken, and I therefore did think that it was entitled to a priority, up to the price of 668. But then it was merely pro hac vice, and possessed nothing of a character approximating to permanency. My intention was to give a preference to this corn, and not to the foreign corn, as has been erroneously stated.

I shall presently pursue the correspondence further, but this I must say, I shall always look upon it as a matter of