HC Deb 02 March 1842 vol 60 cc1360-71

For every quarter;

A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of barley."

2. "That it is expedient to amend the laws relating to the mode of taking and determining the average prices of corn."

Mr. E. Buller

rose to move an amendment. It was from a feeling that this measure could give no satisfaction that he overcame his reluctance to protract the debate. He wished to preserve Ministers from the consequences, and the country from the mischiefs of this ruinous measure. Were the question at issue solely between himself and the right hon. Baronet, or himself and the hon. Members for Dorsetshire and East Kent, it would be very considerably narrowed. It might be recollected that, on a former occasion, he ventured to say that he thought there were terms in which a compromise might be come to. He ventured to say that the principal part of the compromise ought to be protection to the agricultural interest up to the point where it was expedient that the interest of the consumer should be attended to. The right hon. Baronet, in his reply, fully admitted that. He said it was perfectly right to consult the interest of the agriculturist up to a certain point, and beyond that, it was the duty of the House to look mainly at the interest of the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman went further, he said he was satisfied that if the agricultural interest was protected at 60s., then it was their duty to look only to the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed his scale, which was to give protection to the agricultural interest up to 60s.; he proposed his scale, which was also to give protection to the agricultural interest up to 64s. The first question at issue was, the degree of protection which the right hon. Baronet himself held the agricultural interest to be justly entitled to; the second was, whether his (Mr. E. Buller's) scale did not afford adequate protection. If it did, and if it were at the same time better for the consumer, the right hon. Baronet was bound to accept it. The great question at issue was this,—whether, having arrived at 66s., with a duty of 6s., the duty ought to be gradually remitted; or whether it ought, under all the circumstances, to be permanently maintained. The question between himself and the hon. Members for Dorsetshire and East Kent, was a narrower question. They said that a fixed duty was the best mode of protection, provided it could be maintained. Having undertaken to bring forward a scale, and place it in contrast with the right hon. Baronet's, he felt it his duty to enter more fully into the question—to point out the defects of the scale of the right hon. Gentleman, and having so done, he should proceed to show that his own scale gave adequate protection to the farmer, and was infinitely better for the consumer. The great difference between the two scales was, that the right hon. Baronet proposed gradually to lower the duty as the price of corn rose to 73s., whereas, he proposed only to lower the duty till the price reached 64s., and then to retain a duty of 6s. The right hon Baronet fully admitted all the mischiefs of the present law. He admitted that it had acted with undue severity on the consumers. He admitted that it held out a sufficient inducement under almost all circumstances to the holders of corn in bond to keep it from the market; but the right hon. Baronet said that in the plan which he now proposed he had reduced the inducement to withhold corn— that his new proposal would not have the injurious effects of the old law. He took issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He told him that, inasmuch as he had left the maximum of price and the minimum of duty precisely where it was, he had given no effectual relief to the consumer when prices were high— that it would be found that the law, as at present, would naturally force up corn to the maximum price of 73s., and a minimum duty of 1s. The right hon. Baronet said that he had reduced the temptation to withhold corn in bond from the market, in which he did not concur. Comparing the existing scale with the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet, he found that by the proposed scale, when corn was at 73s. there was a duty of 1s., and it held out an inducement to the holder of corn in bond when the price was 64s., to retain it there, and speculate for a high price, by which, he would obtain an advance of 1s. upon each quarter of grain, and, if the price reached 73s., 8s. per quarter, in the duty. On the other hand, there was the possibility of a loss by the fall of price and the rise of the duty of 1s. upon each quarter of corn. The measure of the right hon. Baronet was in fact the same in principle as the existing measure, but the profit or loss to the corn dealer consequent upon a rise or fall in price was more gradual; but still a prudent man would withhold corn in the one case as the other. The result, as all might perceive, was that so far from corn flowing freely into the market when the price was at 64s. or 66s., it was retained in bond in order to obtain the higher price and escape the duty. In 1841 the price of corn, early in September, was 72s. 8d., and the duty 2s. 8d., and there was at that time in bond no less than 1,900,000 quarters of wheat ready to come into the market. Of that quantity only 28,000 quarters were brought in at the duty of 2s. 8d., and the great bulk was retained until the price rose and the duty fell, and the whole of the remainder was brought in at the duty of 1s. Again in 1838, the average price on the 4th September, was 72s.11d., and there was then in bond and ready to be brought into the market 1,200,000 quarters. Of that quantity again, 28,000 quarters were brought in at the duty of 2s. 8d., while upwards of 1,100,000 quarters were retained till the duty fell to1s. In 1831 the same results occurred with a smaller quantity in bond. In February of that year there were 200,000 quarters in bond, and the price was 72s. 8d.; 1,000 quarters only were introduced at the 2s. 8d. duty, while 195,000 were brought in when the price rose to the highest point and the duty fell to 1s. In 1828, in the first week of November, the duty was 2s. 8d., the price being 72s. 8d., and at that time there was between 400,000 and 500,000 quarters in bond. Of that quantity only 1000 quarters were brought in at the duty of 2s. 8d. — it was retained in bond till the duty fell to 1s. when the whole of the remainder was freed. Now, what he ventured to assert from these results was, that whenever the price rose to a certain amount in this country it clearly indicated that a supply of foreign corn was necessary, and if that supply was withheld corn would necessarily reach the maximum price. He would venture further to assert that 66s. was the price which indicated the necessity for that foreign supply, and which would most certainly bring up the price of corn in the English markets to the maximum. He believed there was scarcely an instance on record in which, when the price had risen to 66s. it had not eventually reached the maximum point [" Hear, hear."] He had, unfortunately for his sins, been guilty of the offence of putting a notice of an amended scale upon the books, and he trusted he might be allowed to explain his motives for so doing to the House. In 1828, on the 30th October, the price of corn was 66s. and 67s., and on the 27th of November it had reached 75s. In 1829, on the 9th of April, the price was 66s. 3d., and in September it was 72s. 11d. And that certainly was an instance in which it did not quite reach the maximum point. In 1830, on the 10th of December the price was 65s. 11d., and on the 3d March, 1831, it was 73s. 2d. He would pass over the years in which there was no importation of foreign corn. In 1838, on the 19th July, the price was 66s. 4d., and on the 13th September, it was 73s. In 1839, on the 13th October it was 66s., and on the 13th December it was 73s. In 1839, on the 26th December it was 66s. 5d., and on the 3d September 1840, following, it was 72s. 3d., being the second and only other exception to the general rule. In 1841, the price in July was 66s. 3d., and on the 12th August it was 74s. 7d. Now, if that view were a correct one, and that it was all but certain that the inducement to withhold corn at 66s. was so great as he had shown, the scale of the right hon. Baronet would act in the very same way. He maintained that the result of the scale proposed by the right. hon. Baronet, would be, as was the case with the present scale, to retain corn in bond until the price was forced up to 73s. It was true the inducements held out by the scale of the right hon. Baronet were not quite so strong as those under the existing scale, but still they were sufficient to produce similar results. The only way in which the sliding scale could be retained without producing that result was to lower the maximum point of price, and by that means relieve the consumer from the pressure under which lie at present laboured. It was said by the right hon. Baronet that there were four locks on the door that kept the corn in bond, and the key which opened the door was the maximum price and the minimum duty. The right hon. Gentleman said he had removed two of the locks, by which means the door would be opened more easily, and more frequently; but he (Mr. Buller) would tell him that the two locks he left behind were sufficiently strong to keep the property secure, unless he applied the master key of lowering of the duty. It was for the reasons he had stated, that be objected to the scale proposed by the right hon. Baronet—the material difference between his plan and that of the right hon. Baronet was, that whereas the right hon. Baronet made a rest at 66s. and retained the sliding scale up to 69s.—not, as he said, for the benefit of the grower or the producer, but solely and entirely for the benefit of the consumer—that being so, he (Mr. Buller) took a different view of the matter, and proposed that at 64s. there should be a fixed duty of 6s., which would give the people of this country, when corn had reached that price, the absolute advantage of a free-trade in corn. 64s. was the highest price the farmer obtained when this country was supplied by the home growth. He would now show what would have been the effect of the right hon. Baronet's scale had it been in operation in 1841, and he would next show what would have been the effect of his own scale. During the whole of the early part of that year the prices rose gradually and steadily, and if the view which he took of this subject were correct, the certainty of obtaining a rise in price and a reduction in duty would have been sufficient, under the right hon. Baronet's scale as well as under the present, to keep up the whole of the corn till the price rose to 73s. and the duty fell to 1s. He would show the effect of his own scale. In July there were in bond in this country 558,000 quarters of corn; the price at that time was 61s., and the whole of that might have been purchased at Dantric— the price at which port he would take to be the ruling price of the Baltic—at 40s. Adding 10s. for the cost of importation, and 6s. for duty, the whole of it might have been sold in this country at a profit at 56s. a quarter. But it all remained in bond. In August there were 800,000 quarters in bond, which might have been sold at some profit at prices varying from 60s. 6d. to 66s., paying a duty of 240,000l. But none of this was sold till the prices rose to 76s., and the duty fell so low, that the entire duty then paid was only 40,000l. In September there were 1,300,000 quarters in bond, which might have been profitably sold at 71s., and would then have paid a gross duty of 380,000l.; but it was kept up till the price rose in the country to 77s. and in London to 80s., and the duty fell, so that the entire amount paid was 65,000l. In July, when the price was 64s., if his scale had been in operation, the markets would have been relieved, instead of suffering from such an increased rise in prices, and the public generally would have been benefited. He could not believe, with Mr. Hubbard, that the country would be ever again in the same situation in which it was in 1817. The hon. Member concluded with moving the following scale as an amendment, to leave out the words—

52s. and under 53s. 18s.
53s. 54s. 17s.
54s. 55s. 16s.
Sir R. Peel

thought that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman's resembled his own, so far as it was said to please nobody, as he conjectured by the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman had in obtaining a seconder. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not attribute to any feeling of personal disrespect his intention to decline entering into a discussion on the present occasion. It was desirable to have an end to these discussions. If they were to have a perpetual renewal of these debates, though he might travel over the ground even at a canter, he could produce no effect but that which the hon. Member had deprecated in his own person—that of wearying the House. The hon. Gentleman proposed a duty of 20s. when wheat was below 50s., and a duty of 6s. when wheat was 64s. and upwards. The hon. Gentleman's scale differed slightly from his. At 66s. he proposed a duty of 6s.; at 64s. the hon. Gentleman proposed the same rate of duty, but the hon. Gentleman's 6s. duty was at that point to be permanently fixed, and therefore at certain prices it would be higher than his. He thought they had sufficiently discussed these preliminary ques-

* The following is the scale which Mr. Buller meant to have substituted, had he succeeded.

Under 51s. Duty 20s.
51s. and under 52 19
52 53 18
53 54 17
54 55 16
55 56 15
56 57 14
57 58 13
58 59 12
59 60 11
60 61 10
61 62 9
62 63 8
63 64 7
64 and upwards 6

tions, to render it unnecessary to say any thing upon them at this period of these debates. He must remind the hon. Gentleman that had the noble Lord the Member for the City of London been in his place he would not have agreed with the hon. Gentleman, for that noble Lord said, in reference to a fixed duty of 8s., that it would be necessary to provide by law for its cessation under certain circumstances. He did not think that he could be charged with having shrunk from a discussion during these debates, but, considering that it was for the public advantage that there should be a limit to them, that they had had nine nights' debate already, and that at other stages of the measure there would be ample opportunity afforded for discussing it, he trusted that the House would excuse him if he declined entering now into the discussion to which the hon. Gentleman seemed to invite him.

Mr. E. Buller

said, he was surprised and disappointed to find that the compromise which he offered, and which he had been led to suppose would be cheerfully accepted, was now, on the contrary, contemptuously ejected.

Sir R. Peel

disclaimed having said a word which would at all justify the hon. Member in supposing that if he brought forward any scheme in the way of a compromise, it would be at once cheerfully accepted by him. Having succeeded in carrying through the committee every proposition embodied in his resolutions, if the hon. Gentleman believed that any alteration of his scale would be at once accepted by him, the hon. Gentleman was more credulous than, from what he knew of the hon. Gentleman's character and conduct, he should have been led to believe.

Mr. Ward

said, that as a compromise, the proposition of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, would be quite as unacceptable to many hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House as it appeared to be to the right hon. Baronet, because it contained at one end a duty which amounted to a prohibition, and, at the other, a fixed duty of 6s., to both of which they were opposed.

Amendment withdrawn, resolution again put.

Mr. Hastie

would not detain the House with any long statements. He would only remark upon some of the effects of the present sliding scale, which he believed to be most injurious to the country, and then proceed to propose the amendment of which he had given notice. By the scale proposed by the right hon. Baronet opposite a prohibitory duty would exist when the price of wheat amounted to 56s. Now, the consequence of this prohibitory duty would be, that in years of comparative plenty, such as 1834-5-6, when the average price of corn ranged at about 44s., great quantities of grain would accumulate in the continental ports, as well as in bond in this country. A sudden demand in consequence of a bad harvest arises, and will necessarily cause an immense circulation of bills upon the continent, for the purchase of the wheat in store, and the exchanges would thus be turned against the country. The Bank would at once feel the effects of this state of things in the drain of gold which would follow. The monetary and commercial relations of the country would thereby be deranged, and the interests of the manufacturer and the merchant seriously injured. This was the effect of prohibitory duties of the present law, and will be the same under the one proposed. But did the farmer benefit by them? From the derangement of the currency, the merchant and the manufacturer's trade was paralysed, workmen thrown out of employment, and the wages of those retained lowered; in these circumstances was it likely that, with reduced means, people could afford to buy the quantity of food they otherwise would consume? He had no hesitation in saying that consequences such as he had described would probably be felt in the present year from the want of consumption, and the quantity of wheat imported. The wheat market was then dull, and prices were falling, on account of the immense quantity of wheat imported in consequence of the jerks of the present sliding scale. Having thus alluded to some of the effects of the sliding scale, he would proceed to demonstrate how he believed the measure he was about to propose would operate in curing them. Supposing that 1,000,000 quarters of wheat were allowed to be annually imported at a duty of 1s., he did not believe that the consequent reduction of price would injuriously affect the interests of the farmer, but it would have the excellent consequence of forming a steady trade with corn-growing nations to the amount in value of the quantity of corn regularly imported. And not only would these good effects as regarded extension of trade follow, but the imported corn, being of the best quality, would be mixed with the second class of English wheat, and thus give it a currency and price, which, in bad seasons, it would not otherwise obtain. He would allude to the effect his motion, if agreed to, would produce in Ireland. It was well known that in that country there were very few seasons when the quality of corn grown was such that the grain could be used by itself, and without mixture with corn of a superior quality. Now, under the provisions of his proposition, corn could be at once brought to Ireland in order to improve the quality of the native grown wheat. But in years such as 1835, when corn was comparatively low-priced, the land-owner might say that the introduction of the proposed quantity of a million of quarters of corn would lower the price so far as to prove most injurious to the home grower. He, however, thought that such would not be the case, for under such regulations as he was about to propose, the prices of corn would be such that they could export large quantities to the colonies, and even supply the Brazils. Thus the surplus quantity of grain would be got rid of in a way which would employ both the capital and the shipping belonging to the country. Having stated some of the effects which he believed his proposition would produce, he could not help saying, with regard to the sliding scale, that he believed that if the original contrivers of that measure had laid their heads together to invent a mode whereby the farmer should have the greatest amount of nominal, without any real protection, they would not have contrived a better. And if at the same time they had studied how best to contrive it, so as periodically to derange the currency and paralyse the commerce and manufactures of the country, it is impossible they could have devised a plan better calculated to produce those evils, and which must ever attend any sliding scale of duties which has in it, under any circumstance of price, a prohibitory duty. He would detain the House no longer, but proceed at once to move the addition of the following words to the end of the resolution:— And that in each year, and before the scale of duties comes into operation, the following quantities of grain shall be admitted for home consumption at a duty of 1s. the quarter, viz. 1,000,000 quarters of wheat, 250,000 quarters of barley, and 250,000 quarters of oats.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that he hoped that he had not said anything which would lead the hon. Gentleman opposite to be- lieve that he would accede to his proposal. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman was not labouring under the delusion which appeared to have possessed the last hon. Member who had spoken from his side of the House. Of all the schemes which had been submitted to the House, that of the hon. Member appeared to him to be the most extravagant. The proposition of that hon. Gentleman was, that a certain given quantity of wheat, of oats, and of barley, should be admitted at the nominal duty of 1s. in every year. This quantity was to be admitted regularly, no matter what the necessities of the country might be, no matter what the prices of corn might be—1,000,000 quarters of wheat, 250,000 quarters of barley, and 250,000 quarters of oats were to be regularly admitted during each year. It would of course be necessary to define the exact limits of the year. Take it from the 1st of January to the 1st of January, suppose it to be limited by these periods—then suppose that on the 2nd of January 2,000,000 of quarters were in bond—the holders of 1,000,000 quarters of this quantity would be entitled to introduce it at the duty of 1s. per quarter, what a scramble there would be among the holders. Suppose 2,000,000 of quarters were to be imported, one half of which was to be imported almost duty free, who was to decide between the rival holders?

Mr. Hastie:

The point would be settled by the order of the arrivals of the importing vessels.

Sir Robert Peel:

Supposing corn to be at the time of the introduction of the duty free quantity about 56s. in price, importers would be entitled to introduce it upon paying a duty of 16s. Suddenly, without any peculiar necessity or demand,1,000,000 of quarters would be poured in, prices would immediately fall, and duties would be raised as regarded the holders of the remaining stock in bond. The price would fall to 50s., the duty would rise to 20s., and how the hon. Member could propose a measure having such effects as a remedy for the evils of having sliding scale he could not understand. Then the measure of the hon. Gentleman appeared to le intended to facilitate intercourse with the United States of America. [Mr. Hastie : "It will do so effectually."]" He could not understand how." The right hon. Baronet proceeded: If 1,000,000 of quarters of corn were every year to be introduced, say on the 2nd of January, the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp would have a great advantage over the ports of America, because the quantity to be admitted was limited, and as every party would be desirous of having his grain entered as soon as possible after the 1st of January, it was obvious that the result would be a great disadvantage to the more distant corn growing countries. His great objection to the proposition was, that in all years corn was to be regularly thrown in upon the market free of duty. Such a proposal he thought was vicious in its very nature. When the price of wheat was 50s. per quarter, 1,000,000 quarters were to be poured in, when it was 70s. per quarter, no additional quantity was to be introduced. The same degree of relief was to be given in every year, without reference to public necessities, and, after the stated quantity of grain was introduced, the sliding scale was proposed to be left in full operation for the remainder of the year. He could not understand in what manner the proposed measure was to affect the stability or the extension of trade. It appeared to him that it would aggravate the evils of the present system, instead of producing a tendency to mitigate their effects; and if relief were to depend on the accidental length of time in which corn might happen to have been kept in bond, a very great advantage would be given to the countries along the shores of the Baltic over America. Under these circumstances he felt it to be his duty not to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member.

Mr. Hastie

rose to explain the mode or introduction which he intended should be pursued, and which he believed the right hon. Baronet did not clearly comprehend. Vessels with wheat would not all arrive at once, but in succession, and his plan was, that they should take precedence in the order of the arrival, until the required quantity of grain was made up.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that this would still be giving a great advantage to the nearer over the distant ports.

Mr. Hastie

replied, that the distant ports would be aware of the law, and would ship their cargoes so as to be in good time for the period of free admission. If the cargoes did not arrive until the million of quarters had been filled up, the corn must be kept in bond until the next year. He feared that, from want of prac- tice in addressing the House, he had not made his plan sufficiently intelligible.

Motion negatived.

Resolution agreed to.

Second resolution agreed to, and bill ordered to be brought in.

Back to