§ The House again resolved itself into a Committee, to consider further of the Corn Trade Acts. On the resolution being put, "That whenever the average price of Rye, or of Peas, or of Beans, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 35s., and under 36s. the quarter, the duty shall be, for every quarter, 15s. And in respect of every integral shilling, by which such price shall be above 35s., such duty shall be decreased by 1s. 6d. until such price shall be 45s. Whenever such price shall be at, or above, 45s. the duty shall be, for every quarter, 1s. Whenever such price shall be under 35s., and not under 34s., the duty shall be, for every quarter, 16s. 6d. and, in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be under 34s., such duty shall be increased by 1s. 6d."
§ Sir John Brydgessaid, he was anxious to say a few words, and they should be a few words only, not having hitherto had an opportunity to express his opinion upon the subject under discussion. But before 1272 he proceeded to the observations he had to make, he should take that opportunity to declare the just indignation that he felt, and he trusted the whole House felt, at the libel upon the landed interest, of England, uttered by the noble lord, one of the members for the county of York, in the debate upon this question the other night; and which, to this moment, he had had no opportunity to protest against, [cries of order !]. He should abstain, then, from further observation, and would now advert to the question. As a friend to agriculture, he lamented his majesty's government had thought it expedient to propose a fundamental alteration in the Corn-laws. He preferred the old system to that which it was intended to substitute for it. If there were errors in it, he would have corrected them; but he would not have destroyed it. The principle of the resolutions he did not approve of, considering them injurious to agriculture; and it was his conviction, from the date of its adoption, that the sun would no longer shine upon the landed interest. Notwithstanding his declaration, it was not his intention to oppose the measure, though he might suggest some alterations, which he might, consider improvements, in its progress through the committee. He resigned his humble opinion to the better judgment of that great statesman, from whom we were told this measure had emanated, and who, by the awful visitation of Providence, was unhappily removed from the councils of the nation— but he hoped in God only temporarily removed. A right hon. member, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, who spoke in the debate a few evenings since, had stated it to be his opinion, that the depression of agriculture, which was at one time heavy, had subsided, and that a favourable re-action had taken place. It was not for him to controvert that assertion, as the right hon. member must possess the best source of information. Granting, therefore, that it was so, yet it was no proof of prosperity; every one knew that, without manure, more or less, no good crops could be obtained. So reduced had been the farming interest, that the cultivators of the soil were, at one time, unable to furnish the necessary and accustomed help, and, from poverty, were starving their lands. But when they arrived at the period when, from want of manure, the lands were bringing starva- 1273 tion upon themselves, they were compelled, at whatever loss, to seek manure, in hopes of getting some return, instead of getting nothing. This might account, if the fact was so, for a renewal of importation. The bonding system, as it now existed, he considered very destructive to British agriculture. It enabled traders and speculators to pour in—under regulations, he allowed —an unrestricted quantity of grain, by which means the markets were constantly, he might say permanently, over-stocked, so as to keep the British grower always in a state of subjection, never allowing the tide to run long enough in his favour to reimburse him for depression. He wished to see the quantity permitted to be taken out of bond at any one time limited; which would afford more, protection than there was at present. In conclusion, he repeated how much he lamented the introduction of this measure, considering it as a fatal injury to the agricultural interests of the kingdom; and, through these, detrimental to all the other interests of trade, manufactures, and commerce; for one, as had been truly said, could never flourish when the others were in decay.
Mr. Gippssaid, he did not think that the averages had been preserved in respect to rye, as compared with wheat. They were, in the present instance, too low, and he would move, as an amendment, that 40s. be substituted for 35s.
§ Mr. Westerncomplained, that the proportion formerly observed between wheat and other grains had, in this instance, been departed from. The usual proportion of price was two thirds; but they had lowered the price of rye to 35s., and increased the duty to 15s., three-fourths that of wheat. He wished the duty to be reduced to 12s. 6d. or 13s., and the price to be raised to 40s., and recommended the hon. member to adopt his suggestion in his amendment.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that in rye, peas, and beans, as in oats and barley, the averages of the last six years had been resorted to, with a view to regulate the price, and the result was what had been laid before the Committee.
§ Mr. Wodehousesaid, that the resolution proposed left the farmers without any remedy, in the event of a losing crop. Now, the fact was, that every crop of the last year, except that of wheat, had been a losing crop. He would support the amendment.
§ Sir E. Knatchbullthought, that the whole calculation of ministers had been upon erroneous principles. The average taken had been that of the last six years: now the fact was, that during the whole of the last six years, the agriculturists, instead of making a profit, had been growing to a loss. The course of ministers ought to have been, not to consider the average, but to ascertain what was a fair remunerating price.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the question, though it lay in a narrow compass, was an important one; but the course of the hon. gentlemen connected with the landed interest placed government in rather an unfair situation. When it had been proposed to rely upon the average of the last six years, in the case of the oats and barley, the hon. gentlemen were quite agreed; because that gave them a better rate than under the old rule they would have obtained: but now, upon the rye and peas, when the weapon cut a little the other way, they wanted to turn about, and said, "Let us calculate upon the old principle." Now it was at least fair that the course pursued should be uniform; and certainly, that taken was one by which the landed gentlemen did not suffer.
§ Mr. Calcraftcontended, that every case should stand upon its own merits, and that it mattered little what was the average price of the last six years, if that price afforded no remuneration to the farmer. Now he contended, that it was the duty of the House to enable the grower to sell his corn at the lowest possible rate. The circumstances of the country were such as to call for as cheap a supply of corn as it was possible to obtain. But how was it possible to have cheap corn from the farmer, if his rye and his beans were a continually losing crop? Let the farmer have something like profit on those two articles, and then he could afford to give the corn on more moderate terms.
§ Mr. G. Robinsontrusted, that it was not the intention of ministers to give way upon this point, as they had done in the case of oats and barley. The landed gentlemen should recollect, that there were other interests to protect besides their own.
Mr. Crippssaid, that the agriculturists and manufacturers hung together, and it was impossible to depress either, without injury to both. The manufacturers had never been worse off than, when corn was 1275 low. The first object was to employ the community. He thought the alterations introduced into the original resolutions, by ministers, had been made in accordance with the voice of the nation; and for having acceded to opinions so generally expressed, they deserved the thanks of that House. For his own part, when he first saw the original resolutions, he said that the resolution respecting rye, peas and beans was the result of some mistake, and that he hoped some alteration would be made.
Mr. Whitmorehoped that the committee would not be led away by the supposition that, the alteration proposed was of a trivial nature. He trusted that ministers would persevere in the original resolution.
§ Sir T. Lethbridgecontended, that there ought to be an alteration in favour of the home-grower, and that the resolution, as it now stood, could not be agreed to without injuring the agricultural interest. A great deal had been said about the conduct of landed gentlemen; but he begged the House to recollect, that they were there upon their defence, and that they would not do their duty if they did not watch every item of the resolutions.
Colonel Woodsaid, that the importation of peas and beans was not worth talking about. He put it to the hon. member who had proposed the amendment, whether it was worth while dividing the committee upon it.
§ Sir T. Goochdenied that the quantity of peas and beans grown in England was trifling. Two thirds of the land in England were capable of producing that crop, which was generally sown as a preparation for a wheat crop, and it was called by farmers the "golden crop;" but if the political economists were to carry their point, that crop must be henceforth called the "copper crop." He gave his hearty concurrence to the amendment.
§ The committee divided: For the amendment 102. For the original resolution 150. Majority 48. The resolution respecting wheat, meal and flour, viz., "for every barrel being 196lb., a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on five bushels of wheat," was then put;
§ Sir J. Newportproposed as an amendment, that the following words should be added to the resolution, "and also a duty not fluctuating of 4s. on each barrel of 196lb. at all times." The hon. member said, that he made this proposition in 1276 order to confer a benefit on the lower-classes. If grain was imported, the worst, and middlings went to support the poor; when flour was imported, it was of the best sort, and consumed exclusively by the rich. In the first instance, our own poor derived the benefit; in the latter, the poor of other countries derived it. He was sure that the House would not give away this benefit to foreign countries.
§ Mr. Frankland Lewiscalled the attention of the committee to the scarcity which prevailed in 1801, and hoped that they would not adopt any system, but one that would work in all seasons—in seasons of plenty as well as scarcity. If they did, it would certainly break down. Millers, from the very nature of things, possessed a monopoly. He knew it to be a fact, that during the great scarcity in this country, when the quartern loaf was at 22½d., some large purchases of flour had been made, the market price of which would have brought the loaf to only 18d. This was the open competition price. It would not, therefore, be wise to shut up the trade in flour, by charging a high duty on that article. It was well known, that many of the corn-factors' shops in and about town were the property of extensive millers; and if the House left the public exposed to the combinations of these capitalists, they would have occasion to rue it. Competition was the only security against such effects. The milling trade was by no means free; for all the sites for wind and water mills were already occupied. He hoped the House would guard against such monopoly.
§ Mr. Irvingsaid, that considering that the manufacture of flour was of great importance, that a large capital was employed in that manufacture in this country, and that it was a staple manufacture in the sister kingdom, it behoved the committee to take care how they interfered with that trade by permitting the importation of foreign flour. He gave his unqualified support to the amendment.
§ Mr. Spring Ricethought the amendment proposed by his right hon. friend was fair and reasonable. If the importation of foreign flour were sanctioned, upon payment of the duty stated in the original resolution, the consequence would be that the difference between the freight of wheat when imported raw, and when manufactured into flour, would reduce the protection price of wheat from 60s. to 56s. 6d. 1277 per quarter. There was another view to be taken of the case. The establishment of mills in Ireland had been a great means of promoting the culture of wheat; and the substituting that grain for the potatoe, as a general article of food, was said on all hands to be a great step towards raising the moral character of the Irish peasantry. But, by this encouragement to foreign flour, the milling interest in Ireland would be wholly ruined. The great support of that interest had been the supply of the English market. He called, therefore, upon those gentlemen who were friends to these new measures to be consistent, by giving the same protection to flour which was already given to wheat. The proposition of his right hon. friend was not only fair but moderate. He should regret the failure of this corn question as a great national evil; but, if it was disfigured by inconsistencies and unjust partialities, he must raise his humble voice against it. All he wanted was fair play for the agriculturists of Ireland, upon the recognised principle on which it was conceded to the same class in England.
Mr. C. Grantfelt great reluctance in opposing the amendment of his right hon. friend; but he thought the subject had not been rightly understood by the committee. For a long period, the duty on wheat and on flour had been unequal; the disproportion had always been in favour of foreign flour. The resolution went to enact the same duty on flour as on the wheat which would produce it. The resolution said, that 196lb. of flour should correspond with five bushels of wheat. Strictly speaking, from eight bushels of wheat, 336lb. of flour ought to be produced; but the resolution assumed that eight bushels of wheat yielded only 313lb. of flour: the five bushels of wheat were assumed as equal to 196 lb. of flour, when in fact they were equal to 210 lb. By the existing law, when wheat paid a duty of 20s. flour paid 5s. 5d.; but by the present resolution, it would pay 7s., being an increase of from 20 to 25 per cent. Could a larger protection be given than this? The complaints of the millers were, he thought, unreasonable. They had the grinding of 15,000,000 of quarters annually; and because there was a prospect of 80,000, or say, 200,000 quarters of foreign flour being imported, they became discontented. With respect to Ireland, she had the advantage of being 1278 close to the market, into which she could pour her produce with facility; whilst the flour of the United States, the competition of which was feared, had to cross a large extent of water. Yet Ireland wished for a prohibition against the importation of foreign flour. This prohibition had been withdrawn last year, through accident, rather than design; and he believed there was no objection to restore it. But where was the necessity? Irish flour might be bought for 35s. the barrel; and he found from a price current, that American bonded flour was 25s. and 26s., subject to a duty of 15s. or 20s. There could not, therefore, be a more complete protection. No other country besides the United States could enter into a competition with our market; and she had not much to send. The largest importation of American flour was in 1817, and that was only 100,000 barrels. By a statement which he had received from a person of eminence in the American trade, he found, that the barrel of American superfine flour was six dollars; which, with the charges for freight, insurance, &c. was equal to 1l. 13s. 9d.; adding the duty of 1l. 4s., the cost would be 2l. 17s. 9d. The difference between that and wheat was only 9d. Our relations with the United States rendered it a very questionable policy to add a further unnecessary protecting duty upon her flour, which would operate as a complete prohibition.
§ Sir J. Newportasked why, if the right hon. member's reasoning were correct, a prohibitory duty had been laid on the importation of American flour into the British West-India Islands?
Mr. Whitmoreobjected to the amendment, on the ground that it did not apply to any particular price. He was sure if an additional duty of 4s. were imposed, that supply would be cut off which was of much importance in the policy of this country. He agreed that a monopoly to a considerable extent was possessed by the millers in this country, and that it existed particularly in a time of dearth; when they were able to make very advantageous terms for themselves. Surely, then, if no competition was to be entered into with those millers, the effect would be to increase that monopoly. Under these circumstances he trusted the government would remain firm to their original proposition.
§ Mr. Mooresaid, that the milling inter- 1279 est in Ireland was entitled to protection, because it had been fostered by various legislative enactments, and a great capital had been extended to increase and to spread it.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that when a proposition was made the other night for increasing the protection on bailey and oats, he assented to it, because he thought that the question had not been fairly considered; but, as he now thought that there were no grounds for the amendment of the right hon. baronet, he would support the proposition of government, no matter in how small a majority he might be left. His right hon. friend had stated, that the present bill would place the duty on wheat and flour on an equal footing, and that previously it had been most unequal; the duty on wheat being 12s., while that upon the quantity of flour produced from it was only 9s. 9d. The resolution not only went to this extent, but it estimated the quantity of flour produced from a quarter of wheat at 313lb. only, whereas, in fact, it produced 336lb. Could a greater protection, then, be expected than this resolution would grant? Let the quantity of flour imported into this country be compared with the quantity of wheat, and it would be seen how little proportion the one bore to the other; either because of a greater danger that was apprehended in the exportation of flour, or from some other cause. Now, the House was called upon to fix an undeviating and rigid duty of 4s., applicable under all circumstances and changes to foreign flour—a course to which he could not give his sanction. He did not believe, that the quantity of hour imported into this country by America, could ever in any way injure us; but he felt that, if the House did prevent the importation of almost the only article we obtained from that country; if it did appear to say, that it availed itself of the first opportunity of excluding the only article they were enabled to send us, America would conceive the measure to arise from some lurking animosity, and this country would lay itself open to the danger of retaliation; which would infinitely outweigh any evil that might be dreaded by our millers.
§ The committee divided: For the Amendment 116. For the original Resolution 152; Majority 36. The rest of the resolutions were, after some conversation, agreed to.