§ Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, that considering the feeling which the House had displayed a short time since upon the subject of his motion, he should deem it best now to withdraw it, reserving to himself, at no distant time, the right of bringing the question before the House, not exactly in the same form, but, undoubtedly, in a similar shape.
§ Mr. E. D. Davenportsaid—Sir, having, on former occasions, tried in vain to attract your attention in the earlier stages of this bill, I hope I shall be allowed to avail myself of this opportunity to address the House on a subject to which I have paid of late years much attention, and of which I can scarcely have avoided to acquire somewhat of practical experience; and I am the more desirous to do so, because I take a view of it somewhat different from many of those with whom I have voted. The measure itself has my 287 unqualified approbation. No candid man can fail to recognise in the principle of the bill, a salutary, though somewhat tardy, wish to mediate between the conflicting interests; whilst the provisions of it give us all the protection we have any right to ask, and possibly somewhat more than we may eventually be found to require; and if such should prove to be the case, I for one shall have no objection to assent to the modification of the scale of duties. For, though few persons in or out of this House feel a more sincere solicitude for the maintenance of British agriculture, this feeling has never made me unmindful of the impolicy and injustice, towards other classes of consumers, of pushing protection one iota beyond the mere point of bona fide remuneration; by which I understand the cost of production, with moderate rents and moderate profits. On this principle, I and my friends opposed the 64s. amendment, because the price was too high if it ever could have been realised; and if (as I believe it would have proved) delusive, it would have done mischief. If I did not vote for the amendment of my hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, it was not because I presumed to impugn it, but because my hon. friend, not satisfied with the recognition of his own principles in the bill before the House, insisted on our taking a leap in the dark, up to the precise point to which he thought fit to carry it. Now, I am extremely anxious that the landed interest should riot believe that we have settled all that is essential, to procure for their productions a remunerative price; and I have my fears that certain expressions of the Secretary for the Home Department, relative to "an oscillating price between 55s. and 65s. for the quarter of wheat," may tend very much to mislead those whose hopes we ought rather to depress than encourage, under present circumstances. We have been very busy discussing values in "the integral shilling, and parts of such integral shilling;" but we say not a word about the pounds, in which the main question lies. Much delusion has already gone forth, and much unmerited obloquy against that interest to which I belong, and to which, under such circumstances, one is almost ashamed to belong. But the true cause of that pressure, which has produced numerous meetings and angry discussions on corn, may be traced to a source which I shall describe in the words of Mr. Locke, under 288 the persuasion that the authority will insure the respect of the House. After enumerating the various causes which lower rent, such as when "The markets are supplied with the same commodity cheaper from another place," Mr. Locke says—"Or when the money of the country is less; for the exigencies and uses of money not lessening with its quantity, and it being in the same proportion to be employed and distributed still, in all the parts of its circulation, so much as its quantity is lessened, so much must the share of every one who has a right to this money be the less, whether he be landholder for his goods, or labourer for his hire, or merchant for his brokerage." And again; "indeed, people not perceiving the money to be gone, are apt to be jealous of one another, and each suspect another's inequality of gain, to rob him of his share, &c.; but this is but scrambling amongst ourselves, and helps no more against our want then the pulling off a short coverlet will, among children who lie together, to preserve them from the cold. Some will starve unless the father of the family provide better, and enlarge the scanty covering. This pulling and contest is usually between the landed men and merchants; for the labourers' share being seldom more than a bare subsistence, never allows that body time or opportunity to raise their thoughts above that." These observations were printed a hundred and forty years ago; but they are as appropriate to our present condition as if they had been composed expressly for the occasion. I herewith submit an illustration in a table, containing the price of wheat, compared with the total computed amount of our currency during the last nine years, whereby it will be found that their variations sympathise as nearly as possible:—
Years. Wheat. Millions aggregate Currency. 1818 84 46 1819 73 42 1820 65 38 1821 54 34 1822 43 31 1823 52 35 1824 61 39 1825 66 42 1826 57 36 I moved for the Greenwich Hospital Contracts Returns without the least knowledge how they would bear me out; and I find they tally with the above exactly, with one very slight exception.
§ Sir C. Colehoped the right hon. gentleman would consent to substitute a lower price for that at present contemplated, at which to allow a free importation of foreign grain. In a petition which he had presented to the House, from his constituents, there was a prayer to substitute 70s. for 80s., as was the law at present; but he, himself, thought 64s. would be still more likely to meet the wants and wishes of the country. Such a proceeding would have been but an act of justice towards the agriculturists, to which they were entitled. The supporters of the present bill had advocated it, on the ground that it would afford relief to the poorer classes; but he was of opinion that it would not operate in that way. The moment the price of wheat was reduced, the manufacturers would reduce the rate of wages. At all events, the agriculturists could not continue to pay their labourers at the same rate under the proposed law, as they did under the existing one. The moment the present measure should he adopted, the landed interest would be entitled to call for a considerable reduction of taxation.
§ Mr. Birchthought it desirable that it should be clearly understood whether or not the warehousing system would be applicable to corn under the proposed measure: for unless that were the case, it would, in his opinion, be perfectly nugatory.
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
Mr. C. Grantbegged to offer a very brief explanation of the connection between this bill and the general warehousing system. It certainly was the intention of ministers, that bonding should be applied as well to corn as to all other commodities paying a duty; and by the second clause, he conceived that that intention was carried into effect. The warehousing system was the general law of the land at this moment, and without reference to the particular provisions, it would be applied to grain as a matter of course. In order to render this object more clear, he should propose to leave out the words "imported or," and to leave the clause only with. the words "all corn which shall be entered," &c.
Colonel Woodwished to know distinctly whether, as far as warehousing was concerned, corn was to be put on the same footing as any other article on which duty 290 was paid? If so, whether the duty was to be calculated at the price of wheat in this country when the imported grain was warehoused, or at the price of wheat when the warehoused grain was thrown upon the British markets?
§ Mr. Alderman Atkinsrecommended, that the duty should be paid according to the price when the wheat was first imported.
Mr. C. Grantexplained the general nature and object of the warehousing system, and re-stated that the duty upon warehoused articles was calculated according to the price of the day when they were taken out for home consumption. The simple principle adopted in the bill upon the table was, that the duty upon corn was to be fixed exactly like other duties: the only question for the collector ought to be, what was the price on the day when the corn was removed from the warehouse? It was true, that the duty on corn was fluctuating; but the duty on sugar was also fluctuating; and when that was entered for home consumption, the duty of the day attached upon it. The warehousing system had been applied to corn as long ago as the year 1773, when the great corn act was passed. It was provided by it, that corn, grain, flour, &c. should be admitted into warehouse, under the importers' locks, without payment of duty, and that when the importer brought it into home consumption, the duty to be charged was at the rate of the day when it was released from confinement. The duty at that time could not be correctly called fixed, inasmuch as it was 15s. per quarter, when the price was under 53s.; and only 6d. per quarter afterwards. The principle now revived had, therefore, in fact, been in operation fifty years ago.
Colonel Woodsaid, he had been desirous of clearly understanding the point; but what had just been stated made it necessary for him to propose, that constant importations of corn should not be permitted under the new system. To effect this object, he would strike out the words "at all times," in order to substitute an amendment. He denied that the Corn-law of 1815 was the only instance of absolute prohibition. There certainly -was in the former Corn-laws a proviso, which, under some circumstances, amounted, in effect, to an absolute prohibition. With respect to fluctuations, it was impossible 291 to prevent them by any description of regulations; and, in truth, fluctuations ought, in certain cases, to prevail. It was impossible that corn should be at the same price, in good and in bad harvests. In abundant harvests, the prices would be reduced; and, in cases of deficient harvests, the price must rise; and rise the more, because it was more expensive and difficult to get in a bad crop than a good one. A right hon. gentleman had, the other night, contended, that farming could not be in such a depressed state has had been represented, since so much manure had of late been imported; and he had instanced particularly bones and rags. Whether these bones and rags were imported for the purposes of manure or not, he could not tell; but at any rate, the inference might be unfounded. When a farmer cultivated land, which could not be rendered productive without such manure, he must have them, or entirely abandon his business; and in point of fact, in 1821 these farmers were, in many instances, obliged to abandon farms of about 700l. per annum, and take farms of 300l. per annum; and these they continued to cultivate as they best could, living from hand to mouth; but liable, on additional pressure, to be completely overwhelmed. He concluded, by proposing that the words "at all times," should be left out of the clause, and that an amendment should be inserted instead; the effect of which was, that the ascending part of the scale of duties should be allowed to remain, but that the descending scale should step when the price of wheat was at 62s. per quarter, so as then to occasion a prohibition.
§ Lord Althorpwas decidedly opposed to the principle of prohibition, which always gave rise to the most mischievous speculations. Whenever a prohibition was fixed, the moment the prices approached close to the prohibitory price ruinous speculations were entered into, and tricks played.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested that the amendment had better be proposed at a future stage of the bill.
§ Sir E. Knatchbullthen rose to propose an amendment, of which he had previously given some intimation. He wished his proposition to stand thus—that the duty taken on all foreign corn should be estimated by the amount of the home price at the time of its importation, and not at 292 the time when it might be taken out of bond and brought into the market: with a proviso, that the duty so levied should never be more than 20s. a quarter, and that the duty should not be actually paid, until the time when the corn was taken out of bond. The effect of the law otherwise, as it was brought forward originally, was to give an advantage wholly unreasonable to the speculators in foreign corn, who held their grain in bond. If they imported when the price was 60s. the duty immediately chargeable to them, if they carried their corn to market, was 20s. a quarter. But if they held back, and the price rose to 65s., then, while the home agriculturist gained an advance of 5s. a quarter on his commodity, the foreign speculator gained an advance of 15s.; for he gained 5s. upon the advance of corn in price from 60s. to 65s. and 10s. more upon the diminished amount which he had to pay in duty.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that his proposal of a fixed duty had been constantly objected to, upon the ground that, in a time of scarcity, no fixed duty could ever be maintained. Now the amendment of the hon. member for Kent, involved a fixed duty of a peculiarly oppressive description. It was possible that corn might be at 80s. or 100s. in the home market, and yet 20s. duty would be charged on the letting into the market of foreign corn, because that corn had been imported when the price was 60s.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the original clause agreed to.
Mr. C. Grantbrought up a clause, the object of which was, to give to his majesty in council a power of prohibiting the importation of grain or flour from any country in which higher duties should be levied on the produce and manufactures of this country than on the produce and manufactures of foreign countries, or in which higher duties should be levied on British shipping than on the shipping of that country.
§ Sir H. Parnellwas of opinion that the power of prohibiting the importation of corn might be abused.
Mr. C. P. Thompsonobjected most strongly to the introduction of this clause. He objected to it on principle in the first instance, and as contrary to the professed 293 doctrines on which the trade of this country was to be regulated; but he objected to it more particularly, because he considered it as liable to misinterpretation in foreign countries, and likely to raise feelings of animosity and of jealousy, which it was our interest most certainly to avoid. He would instance Russia. It was well known that we had no treaty of reciprocity with Russia, and he felt convinced that this clause would be considered in that country as a blow aimed at their commerce. The utmost jealousy and distrust already prevailed in that country, on the subject of our restriction regulations, and especially as regarded corn. He was sorry to say they had been materially increased by the new law. It was only that day that answers had been received from St. Petersburgh to the letters conveying the resolutions proposed by the Secretary of State, and they were considered to be almost as bad as the old system. The new plan was considered to be a finishing blow aimed at the commerce of that country. These were not only the sentiments of the merchants and landowners, but of the government. A newspaper edited under the eye of the authorities there, said of the resolutions, that the proposed law was a final blow aimed by Great Britain against the agriculture and industry of Europe. Such were the feelings entertained by that country, which it was not our interest to excite. He, therefore, earnestly hoped that the right hon. gentleman would reconsider the clause, or reject it altogether.
After some desultory conversation, the clause was agreed to. The House then resumed.