§ Mr. Scarlettpresented a petition from Petermrough, complaining of the distressed state of Agriculture. He fully concurred al one statement of the petitioners; namely, that a great portion of the distress arose from the return to cash payments. He did not now mean to dispute the propriety of a measure of which he had been a worm advocate, but he stated the fact as 919 it was—that prices had been reduced by the increase which that measure gave to the value of the currency. The increase of the burthens of the people had been most enormous. He could prove, even admitting the argument of his hon. friend (Mr. Ricardo), that the increase in the taxes since 1819 amounted to 9,000,000l. This was made up by the increased value of the currency, and the three millions of taxes imposed in 1819. Taking the average of several years, it would be seen that the farmer had now a far greater portion of his produce to pay in taxes. He would not maintain, that the low price of commodity was not in itself a sufficient cause of the existing agricultural distress; but this he would maintain, that a superabundance of produce could not of itself have produced it. Supposing the farmer were to pay all the demands made upon him—for instance, his rent, tithes, and taxes—not in money, but in kind—would it not be clear that, in such a case, an abundance of produce would be of considerable advantage to him? How, then, could it be maintained, that abundance of produce, under the existing state of things, was the chief cause of the evils by which the agriculturist was now oppressed?
§ Mr. Ricardosaid, it was true, that, if the produce of the land was divided into certain proportions, every party would be benefitted by an abundant crop; but his learned friend having come to that conclusion, left his argument there, instead of extending it a little farther. Now, he would ask his learned friend whether, if the quantity of commodity were excessively abundant, that was to say, the double, treble, or quadruple of an ordinary crop, it would not be a cause of poverty to the agriculturist? He maintained that it would be so; for the farmer, after having satisfied the consumption of himself and family, would find, upon going to exchange the surplus of his commodity for other commodity, such a competition in the market as would compel him to dispose of it upon very low terms; and thus abundance of produce would be to him a cause of distress. It was true that, from the alteration of the currency, the evil had been aggravated; for it was clear that it rendered it necessary to sell a greater quantity of corn to answer the demands of the government and the landlord. But he now contended, as he had at all former times contended, that, up to a certain point, for instance, 10 per cent, great loss had been derived from 920 the change in our currency; but that the rest of the distress was to be attributed to the increased quantity of produce.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.