AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. (Hansard, 25 May 1820)

§ Lord Milton
presented a petition from certain owners and occupiers of land in the county of York. It was, he observed, one of the numerous petitions on the part of the agriculturists complaining of the distresses and depressions tinder which they laboured, and praying for relief. He was fully aware that the complaint of distress was not only well founded, but was particular deserving the attention of the House. At the same time he admitted that any interference by the legislature in the price of human food was a subject which should be touched with great delicacy. The petitioners attributed their distresses to the competition of the foreign markets against them, and they prayed that protection from such competition which was enjoyed by the commercial and manufacturing branches. How far the inquiry, a notice of motion for which had been given by an hon. member (Mr. Sumner), was intended to go on this important subject, he was not aware—whether it was to be limited to an inquiry into the capacity of the farmer to bear those burthens to which he washable, or to go more generally into the nature of those burthens which affected all other classes, and of which the farmer, like others, felt the weight. If the object of the hon. member was the more limited one which he had mentioned, he apprehended it would only be considered by the people at large as an attempt to enhance the value of lands, and to raise the price of their produce; but if the inquiry should not only go to the agricultural distress, but to the general distress which affected the whole body of the trading part of the country, then he thought that considerable good might be 534 derived from it, as it would show that the object of the House was not to confine itself to one particular class, but to find a remedy for that general, distress which affected the Whole.

§ Mr. Sumner
said, it had not been his intention to offer any. observations on this subject, or to promote a partial de bate on its merits; but having been alluded to in the observations of the noble lord, he felt it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the object of his intended motion. His object was of a double nature. The first part of it would be exclusively applied to the protecting duty, as it was now fixed. It would be recollected that, in consequence, of an inquiry into this subject in 1815, the legislature had fixed 80s. as the highest price at which corn should be sold, and they accordingly devised means for preventing any excess beyond that price, by allowing importation of foreign corn, when ours rose beyond it on the average of a given time. Now one object of his inquiry would be to ascertain how far this remedy had answered the end for which it was intended. The next object of inquiry would be to ascertain how far the agricultural interests was affected by that general depression which was complained of by all classes. Her was anxious that this inquiry should be gone into by a committee of both sides, for the two objects; but he thought that a separate inquiry, as to how far the regulations of 1815 had answered they purpose, would tend to tranquillize the country.

Mr. Curwen
was of opinion that a committee should be appointed, to inquire into the state of the farmers; for if some alleviation of their burthens did not take I place, the growth of corn must be checked, and we should be left entirely at the mercy of the foreign grower. He hoped that, whenever the committee should be appointed, it would consist of both interests; for if it were confined to one, the country would look upon it as of that kind from which no benefit could be derived.

Mr. Coke,
of Norfolk, thought that the system of taxation which had been so long pursued was the chief cause of that distress and depression which were felt by the farmers and other classes. He agreed that the farmer should be allowed a fair remunerative price for his produce; 535 for unless that were done, large quantities of land which had been cultivated with artificial manure must be let run to waste. One great cause, however, of all the depression was, the heavy taxation.

§ Mr. Ricardo
said, that the object of the petitioners seemed to him to be nothing else than to get a monopoly of the English market. The consequence would be, that the price of corn would be raised, and laid generally on all the other classes. The idea which the petitioners had of protecting duties was a most erroneous one, and would, if acted upon, be destructive of all commerce. If they meant that the countervailing duties should be equal in amount to the difference between the price at which corn could be sold here and that at which it was sold in a foreign market, they went upon a most erroneous principle, and one which, he hoped, would never be introduced. Suppose corn sold here at 80s. and that in Poland it could be procured for 40s. or 50s.; if, under such circumstances, it were intended to put on a countervailing duty of 30s., there would be an end of all importation, and of every principle of commerce. In that case, the importer would be at a certain loss by the amount of freight, and of course no one would import; the consequence would be, that the price of corn at home would be raised to an exorbitant height. Viewing the question in this light, he hoped that the motion for a committee, whenever it came before the House, would be negatived.

§ Mr. Benett,
of Wiltshire, could not agree with the last speaker that it was the wish of the petitioners that an entire prohibition should be made against foreign importation. They did not think that a free importation of foreign corn should be allowed. They conceived, and it seemed to him that they were justified in thinking, that they ought to be allowed those fair protecting duties which were given to other classes; but for doing this, they were accused of illiberality and ignorance of the general principles of commerce. As far as he knew, the object of the agriculturists was not to increase corn to a great height, but to keep it at a steady remunerating price. At present the price was not sufficient to pay taxation and poor-rates. It would be idle to say that the price of corn was the cause of distress among the poor. That distress was occasioned 536 by the great reduction in the price of labour, and the decreased demand for it. The labourer was now worse situated than when the value of corn was much above its present amount, for then he was employed, much better paid, and could afford to purchase at the high price. It should be remembered that corn was much lower during the time that a bounty was given on its exportation than it was after that bounty was withdrawn. He fully agreed with an hon. member, that the great evil arose from the pressure of enormous taxation. That should be remedied as far as possible, as the first step; and then he conceived that equal protection should be given to the manufacturers and agriculturists.

§ Lord Milton,
on a question so important as the present, felt it necessary to look at the objects and views of the petitioners. He had before stated, that he would not then declare whether he would or would not vote for the appointment of a committee. When that subject came before the House, the way in which he should give his vote would depend upon the nature of the objects which the movers might have in view, upon the members who were to constitute the committee into which it was proposed to enter, and upon the subjects into which the committee were to be empowered to investigate.