CORN IMPORTATION BILL. (Hansard, 3 June 1822)

§ Mr. Canning
rose, to move an instruction to the committee, the subject of which, he said, was not new to the House, having been introduced to its attention in a petition from the holders of foreign corn at, Liverpool. It was undoubtedly a great object to get rid of the accumulation of foreign corn, and the holders entertained, the hope, that if it were ground into flour there would be an opportunity of exporting it to the West Indies or some other place, and it was wished that permission should be given that it might be taken out for the purpose of being ground for exportation, and failing of exportation, that it might be returned into warehouse. The first regulation would be, that the person taking out foreign corn should enter into bond to return even a larger than the usual proportion of flour. It might be permitted to remain for the chance of exportation a certain time, say six weeks, and then be returned into bond, and not suffered to come out for home consumption until the ports were opened. He would move, "that it be an instruction to the committee, that they have power to make provision in the bill to allow the taking of foreign corn out of warehouse, for the purpose of being ground into flour, for exportation."

Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that the agriculturists had been so completely ground already, that he must take the liberty of opposing this grinding clause, in whatever shape it appeared. Nothing was more likely to promote the introduction into our market of foreign corn, in the shape of flour.

§ Mr. Ricardo
agreed, that if the clause could not be introduced with a full security against the flour coming into the home market it ought not to be admitted; but, if that security could be found, it would be most unjust to deprive the holders of foreign corn of it. He thought the bill of the noble lord would be a great improvement on the present law. The hon. member for Cumberland founded all his arguments on the value of corn in pounds sterling; but he (Mr. R.) did not regard the pound sterling. He was anxious that the people should have an abundant supply of corn and an increase of their comforts, and he thought a greater freedom in the trade calculated to produce those effects. He differed entirely from the hon. member, as to the ill effects which it would have upon the demand for labour.

Mr. Western
would acquiesce in the clause, if security could be given that the corn reduced to flour should not be brought into home consumption; and he was disposed to think that such security might be given.

§ Sir J. Newport
had no objection to the clause, on the understanding that proper means: would be applied to prevent the flour from being brought into home consumption.

Mr. Whitmore
said, that the bill had two objects—to raise the price of corn in this country above the level of other countries, and to induce the agriculturists to grow a sufficient quantity of corn for the whole supply of the country. He decidedly objected to both these proposals. In a country densely peopled like this, it was necessary, that much of the supply should be obtained from other countries. Without, imports we could not expect to; have exports. It was true that of late we 789 had not been importing corn; but we had, from the necessity of our peculiar situation been largely inverting gold, which had given an artificial stimulus to commerce. High prices of the articles of subsistence in this country must destroy its trade or its capital. There were two opinions as to the effects of high wages, which high price of food rendered necessary; one, that they entered into and increased the price of the commodity to the consumer; the other, that they lessened the profit of stock. Whichever of these views was correct, the effect must be ruinous to commerce. He was convinced that corn could not be procured in any great quantities from the Baltic, at a lower average than 40s. to 45s. to which the import charges and duties were to be added. As to currency, he expressed his doubts, whether the demand in behalf of this: country for gold in the foreign markets, had not raised the value of that metal, and consequently the value of our present currency, to a greater degree than was calculated by his hon. friend, the member for Portarlington. The supply of gold also it was to be recollected, had been stopped from political causes. This was a subject which required to be sifted to the bottom; and he lamented that the plan of his hon. friend for a paper currency payable in bullion had not been resorted to. He concluded by moving to substitute 64s. for 70s.

Mr. Wodehouse,
instead of agreeing to reduce the import price to 64s. said, he should move an amendment to raise it to 75s. as it appeared from the whole tenor of the evidence, that 80s. was necessary as a protective price.

§ Mr. Ricardo
expressed his surprise at the proposition of the hon. member for Norfolk; since the most active supporters of the agricultural interest had declared that 67s. would afford adequate protection to the farmer. He thought the proposition of the hon. member for Bridgenorth deserving the support of the House. High protecting prices would only benefit the landlord at the expense of the rest of the community, not excepting even the farmer.

Mr. Bankes
then moved an amendment, that the importation duty should be paid 790 at the time of importation instead of the time of taking it out of the warehouse.

Mr. Robinson
saw no sufficient reason for adopting the amendment. It would have the effect of preventing the warehousing of corn under any circumstances.

Mr. Marryat
contended, that the amendment was in opposition to the whole warehousing system of this country.

§ Mr. J. Benett
contended, that there was little or no analogy between the warehousing of corn and other articles.