HC Deb 27 March 1827 vol 17 cc95-105
Sir A. Grant

brought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the Corn Trade Acts. On the question, that it be read,

Mr. Hume

said, he wished to take that opportunity of delivering his opinion on the general policy of the Corn-laws, which opinion, in some respects, was different from that of any hon. gentleman who had yet spoken on the question. He began by recapitulating some of the points urged by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,when he first brought forward the subject, and dwelt particularly on the claim put in by the agricultural interest, and admitted by the right hon. Secretary, to protection. Ministers had professed to adopt a course between the two extremes: but, at the same time, taking the average price at 60s., they had given the balance in favour of agriculture, and had professed to do so. They had avowedly proceeded upon no fixed principle; and he was on this account the more anxious to state his view. He was decidedly convinced that protection ought not to be afforded to the landed interest to the extent of a single shilling, unless they could prove that they sustained a weight of taxation which was not borne by other classes of the community: to whatever extent they could establish, that they were sufferers beyond others, to that extent he was ready to give them protection; and upon that principle ministers and parliament had already proceeded in the recent improvements of the system, by the establishment of free trade in other commodities. Three or four years since, ministers had made their declaration on the subject of free trade; and they had properly felt bound to take a course between contending interests, but they had shewn no partiality, no undue favour as in the case of grain. Instead of benefitting one party to the injury of another, they ought to adopt only measures consonant with the general advantage of the whole community. He could see no difference between the claims of the grower of corn, and of the maker of shoes, or any other article: both had invested capital, and both ought to have the same fair play in employing that capital to the greatest profit, as far as it did not prejudice the prosperity of other classes. It was the height of injustice to give to the few an advantage at the expense of the many; yet this was what the right hon. Secretary had admitted he had done, in reference to the importation of grain. It was the decided opinion of those who had given the subject more and deeper consideration than he had been able to apply to it, that the farmer was really as much interested in having food at a low price, as the manufacturer of cotton or wool. The present was a question between the proprietors of the soil and the rest of the community. It was not to be denied, that farmers who had leases might be injured, to a certain degree, by any sudden depression; but the claim put in by the growers of corn generally, for what they called a remunerating price, was one of the most preposterous that had ever been submitted to any assembly. Because corn had been at a high price when their leases were granted, and was now likely to be lower, the farmers, as was natural to all speculators, called upon the House to assist and support them, and to keep up the cultivation of poor lands to the exclusion of the produce of other soils. He protested against any such principle, and called upon the House to apply to the trade in grain the same system which it had applied to various other branches of commerce and manufactures. The foundation of the resolution which he meant to submit was, that corn ought to be bought by the subjects of this country wherever they could obtain it cheapest, and that importation ought to be allowed from any part of the globe. Nine-tenths of the community, upon this important question, were opposed to the landed interest. Now, if any man could procure for the price of his labour, two bushels of wheat instead of one, he wished to establish a law by which he might resort to that country where he could so obtain for the same sum twice the quantity of food that he could procure in another. The object of the law which ministers wished to establish was, to compel nine-tenths of the community to give their labour for one bushel of corn instead of two. He might be told, that the landowners wished that every person should receive a just remuneration. But how did their conduct bear out that assertion, when they endeavoured to keep up the price of every necessary of life, and thus prevented the manufacturer from competing with foreign countries; the consequence of which must necessarily be, the decrease of wages, and the throwing many individuals out of employment? It was, however, said, that unless this system of protection was continued, the country would run the chance of being visited by a famine. "It is not," said the land-owner, "for my own sake, but for the sake of the public, that I desire this protection." A more fallacious argument never was advanced. If they would suffer corn to be imported only when it arrived at those very high prices which could rarely occur, then foreign countries would not be encouraged to grow corn, which they might exchange for English manufactures; but if, on the other hand, corn was freely admitted, then the whole world, on whom they must depend for trade, would be able to prepare an abundant supply of grain, to assist this country, if it suffered from the failure of the crops, or from any other circumstance. Without looking to averages a system which might be abused—without looking at the price of grain—he would open the ports to corn, in the same way as they were open to other articles. He would open a trade immediately with every country that had surplus corn to sell, and thus increase the demand for the manufactures of England. But, if they went on imposing a duty of 20s. 8d. when wheat was at 62s., it would be a long time indeed before they secured such a trade. A contrary course would open a wide door for the manufactures of this country, and would be exceedingly beneficial to those who were at present starving. As the law now stood, it was not worth the while of the foreigner to cultivate grain; and if there should be a bad harvest, the country would most likely be afflicted with a famine. Foreigners, under the existing system, would scarcely be induced to speculate in the cultivation of corn, which they would probably be obliged to keep for years, until it was spoiled. Suppose the duty were fixed at 15s., without reference to average or price, the consequence would be, that every state in Europe which was able to supply a small quantity of corn, would be ready to open a trade with Great Britain; and he was perfectly satisfied there were very few hon. members who looked to the amount of the supply of corn from 1815 to the present moment, who could entertain any great fear, that the quantity of corn likely to be imported would injuriously affect the landed interest of this country. His proposition was, that the duty should now be laid at 15s., and that 1s. should be taken off every year, until it came to a permanent tax of 10s. Though he was willing to do this, yet he was convinced that the agriculturists were not able to show that they paid in taxes more than four shillings above the other classes of the community. If this were done, the population would consume all the corn that was imported, as well as that which was grown in this country; the workman would be well paid, and the manufacturers would be enabled to get off their goods. Such would be the effect of setting free the trade in corn; but the present law tended to produce want and destitution in the country. He wished to introduce a countervailing tax, to the amount which the land-owners could show they paid beyond the other parts of the community. He was perfectly willing to do one of two things; and he should like to know how far the hon. member for Wareham (Mr. Calcraft) would meet him. The land-owners, it was said, paid ten or twelve millions more of taxes than the other branches of the community did. Now, he would either repeal those taxes, or give them a countervailing duty in proportion to the amount which they could prove they paid beyond the other classes of the community. It had been asserted by a noble lord in another place, that the land-owners paid 24–25ths of the poor-rates. This, however, was not the fact. Last year the poor-rates and parish-rates amounted to 6,900,000l. Of this, 2,700,000l. was raised on dwelling-houses, and the remaining 4,200,000l. on the land; therefore, the land appeared to contribute two-thirds of the poor-rates, or 2,000,000l. more than the other classes of the community. If, however, this sum of 4,200,000l. were divided into three parts, it would be found that one third was not paid by the land-owners. The remaining two thirds, or about 2,500,000l., were paid by them. But, of this 2,500,000l., nine-tenths, he was prepared to show, consisted of wages. He had compared the rate of wages in Scotland, where there existed no Poor-laws, and in some counties of England where they were comparatively light, with other districts differently circumstanced; and he found that, wherever the poor rates were burthen some the wages were low, and that, adding the amount of poor rates to the rate of wages, both were still not equal to the rate of wages paid in Scotland. Twenty or thirty years ago, the wages of agricultural labour in Scotland were twenty per cent below the wages of agricultural labour in England; but it was a curious fact, that they were now twenty per cent higher, arising entirely from the mal-administration of the Poor-laws.—Next, as to tithes—it was his firm conviction, that tithes were, in a great measure, paid by the consumer, and therefore the land-owners had no claim to peculiar advantages. As to the land-tax, when first it was imposed, it was not confined exclusively to land, nor was it so now: it applied to all branches of industry in a greater or less degree; but he was willing to take into consideration whatever sum was borne by the landed interest, to the exclusion of other classes of the community. Another item in the claim of the owners of the soil arose out of county rates; but it ought to be recollected, that country gentlemen were themselves the authors of county rates, and they ought only to permit them to be raised for legal purposes. If, indeed, the land only had to bear the charge of the prosecution of criminals for instance, relief to that extent ought to be afforded, and the expense paid out of the general funds of the country.—The agriculturists had a monopoly of the sale of various articles of agricultural produce—such as pork, mutton, tallow, and other things, by the imposition of duties on the importation of those articles, amounting to a prohibition. It was with astonishment that he had heard it asserted by some, that it would be better that no free trade at all should be allowed, and that the people should be compelled to purchase from the home-growers alone, such articles as the home-growers could sell them. He maintained, however, that the prosperity of the country depended mainly upon the freedom of foreign importation, and that if this was put an end to, the agriculturists would ruin their own customers, and bring the population of the country to a state of starvation. The amount of the value of goods manufactured in 1824 was 44,000,000l.; in 1825, 49,000,000l.; and in 1826, 47,000,000l. Now, it was impossible that this country could consume manufactures to this extent. But if the trade in corn were thrown open, it would afford a vent for those manufactures; and every knife or stocking sent abroad would produce a profit, that would enable the manufacturer to pay his portion of the interest of the national debt. The landholders appeared to think that the country could not do without them, since they paid so much of the revenue out of their rents; but he contended that the taxes would be much more easily paid by the mass of the population, if there were no rents at all, and therefore the country would do very well without the land-holders [coughing]. He did not mean to deny, that the depriving them of their rents would be a gross injustice; but he repeated, that the people could, with much less difficulty, pay the taxes, if there were no rents at all. He thanked the House for the attention they had paid him, and trusted he had stated his sentiments so as not to be misunderstood. He concluded by moving his first Resolution:—

That from and after the 5th of July 1827, and until the 5th of July 1828, a duty of 15s. shall be imposed on every quarter of wheat imported from any foreign country into the United Kingdom; and, for the year from the 5th of July 1828, to the 5th of July 1829, a duty of fourteen shillings per quarter; and, in every succeeding year afterwards the duty shall be reduced one shilling, until the 5th of July 1833, after which time the duty of ten shillings shall remain a permanent and fixed duty, payable on every quarter of wheat imported from foreign countries, except Canada, as hereafter provided for."

Mr. Marshall

seconded the motion, and stated that a great part of the very numerous and intelligent population which he represented, were not satisfied with the arrangement which the ministers had proposed on the subject of the Corn-laws, from which they expected no substantial relief.

Mr. Irving

began by paying personal compliment to the hon. gentleman who had preceded him, but to whose opinions on this subject he was diametrically opposed. The price of food, he contended, was of little importance to the welfare of the nation, compared to the greatness of its capital. He totally differed also from the hon. gentleman who had brought forward the amendment, and who, in support of it, had argued, that if the land paid no rent, the country might prosper as well as ever. Did that hon. gentleman not see, that if such a state of things existed, the occupier of the land would be in effect, the proprietor? This, however, was not entirely a question of conjecture Prussia, Poland, and a great part of Russia, were cases in point; and what was the condition of the landowner, in those countries, but one of constant need? Was that the state to which. the hon. gentleman wished to reduce the landed gentlemen of this country? Nothing could be more frightful than the distress that pervaded the countries to which he had referred. The people were sunk into the lowest stage of want and wretchedness; and, in reality the government had become the general proprietor of the land. The main doctrine of the hon. gentleman was, that the intercourse of nations should be equal and unrestricted. He admitted that the principles of free trade were good in the abstract; but they were unfortunately impracticable. This country might make what regulations she pleased for her own trade; but do what she would, other countries would, in their own defence, continue to prohibit as much as they could the introduction of her manufactures. No advance, he maintained, had been practically made, towards a system of general reciprocity. He denied that the Corn-laws had been injurious in their operation on any branch of the public welfare. The law of 1822 certainly could not; for it had never affected prices; but, if it had, agriculture was entitled to protection. What right had any body—even the House of Commons itself—to tell any class of the community, that their industry should be placed in a worse condition than that of any other class. Yet the effect of the new doctrines of the hon. gentleman would be, to subject the most important interest in the country to a course of slow but constant depression and decay. It had been proved that the land of this country was capable of raising corn sufficient for the subsistence of the population. Justice, he said, therefore, required that the consumption of grain should be confined to our native produce, as it was with regard to our own manufactures. That would be the best system of national policy, because it was founded on a due regard to all the great interests. In illustration of its advantages, he cited the instances of Ireland and Scotland, both of which were formerly importing countries, but which now yielded a large supply of corn to this country. He had no doubt, if further capital were applied in those countries to the growth of corn, that there could be no fair apprehension that this country would ever have occasion to depend upon foreign markets for a supply. Such being the case, it became the duty of the House to consider well before it permitted the home-grower of corn to be interfered with by the foreigner at all times.

Sir Henry Parnell

said, that the more this subject was investigated, the more evident it would appear, that the policy of forcing a home supply, by restraining importation, was injurious to the public interests. There was no doubt that, in the produce of manufactures, capital might go on to be applied almost unlimitedly, and that the result would be a continued reduction of the article produced, in price; but the case of agricultural produce was entirely different. The extent of the fertile land which we had to cultivate, must determine the extent in which capital could be applied to cultivation with advantage. Up to a certain point—so long as we worked only upon fertile lands—the application of capital tended to produce increased cheapness of price; but when the continued application of capital led us into cultivating poor soils, then the effect of that course would be a rise of price; the quantity of labour, &c., requisite to make those soils productive, was greater than that which we had been accustomed to apply before. If we cultivated poor land, while land of a superior quality was at our disposal, we in fact paid so much more than we need do: it was so much labour or capital thrown away; and this was exactly the effect of our refusing to take corn from foreign countries. To look at this system, therefore, as it affected the manufacturing interest, the quantity of corn consumed annually in this country was about fifty millions of quarters. If, by any law or arrangement, all that corn was purchased at the rate of 10s. a quarter higher than it need be, the charge so laid upon the public would be 25,000,000l. in money. And this was the system which gentlemen argued produced no injury to the country! What would be said, if the Treasury proposed to levy a tax of 10s. upon every quarter of corn consumed? If all this 25,000,000l. went even to the landlord, that would not be entirely ruinous: all events, it would be a transfer simply of so much money from the pockets of one class of people to those of another. But the fact was, taking the admitted average, that only one third of the gross produce of land went for the landlord's rent, the landlord got only a third of it; at the utmost, he did not receive half. And what became of the rest of the 25,000,000l.; that was, of the additional 10s. a quarter? Why, the rest was directly wasted—thrown away—laid out in producing that from a lower soil, which a higher would have produced without its expenditure; it was wasted in growing corn at a higher price than we could purchase it. The consequence of this wasting so much money in growing corn on bad land was the lessening every year of the power to accumulate new capital, and the keeping the amount of the national wealth below what it would otherwise be. It served to check that progressive prosperity, which the hon. member had said was so desirable to be maintained; it curtailed the power of employing labour, and also the resources of taxation: it produced all the evils which can arise from keeping the wealth of the country from making such advances as it was capable of making, if not obstructed. The hon. member had stated opinions respecting the effect of the protection of corn upon our manufactures, to which he could not agree. In place of the protection of the landed interest being of any service to manufacturers, it was particularly injurious to them. The rise in price which it occasioned of corn, produced a rise in wages and, as such a rise of wages was followed by a lowering of the rate of profit which manufactures could derive from their capital, it depressed the progress of the accumulation of agricultural capital; but what was of more importance it seemed to make it more advantageous to the owners of it to transfer it to foreign countries, and employ it there, than to continue to employ it here. This was the way in which the stability of the British manufacturers was the most exposed to he shaken. It was not by allowing artisans to go to foreign countries, or machinery to go to foreign countries, that we incurred any risk; but it was by making it more profitable to employ English manufacturing capital abroad than in England, that a real danger was created of losing the superiority that British manufactures now had in competition in foreign markets with foreign manufactures. The hon. member had spoken of our commercial connection with foreign countries, as if our Corn-laws had pro- duced no inconvenience to our manufactures; but, in this respect, he was quite mistaken. Every country that exported corn had taken umbrage at our having excluded their corn, and had retaliated by raising the duties on the importation of our manufactures. What took place in America in 1823 was particularly in point. The grand and only popular argument of the supporters of the new tariff in America, in that year, was entirely bottomed on the Corn-laws of England. "England," it was said, "is now deluging the Union with manufactured goods, but will she take our raw produce in exchange? Is there any reciprocity in her proceedings? Has she admitted a single bushel of foreign corn, the staple product of our country into her markets during the last three years? Is it not absurd, then, to expect to continue your commerce with a nation acting on such exclusive principles? Ought we not rather to profit by her example; and, as she excludes our corn, does not sound policy dictate the propriety of excluding her manufactures, and of raising up an internal manufacturing population in the Union, sufficient to take off the surplus produce of our agriculturists." Here, then, was decisive evidence of the direct inquiry which the restricting of the importation of foreign corn produced to the public interest. In regard to what the. hon. member had said of the necessity of sustaining high rents, in order that the taxes might be paid, if what he had advanced was true, that the additional price of corn produced by protection served to diminish the national capital and wealth, the consequence of that protection, as to the public Revenue, must be, to diminish the produce of the taxes; as that would always be in proportion to the general wealth of the country. The hon. baronet concluded by saying, that he was sorry the hon. member for Aberdeen had proposed his plan to take effect so soon as the 1st of next July. He considered it a better plan than that proposed by ministers; but, seeing that the existing law was one of prohibition, he thought a longer time ought to be allowed for making so great a change, and therefore he could not vote for the amendment.

Mr. Whitmore

said, he could not concur in the amendment of his hon. friend; but his dissent arose, not upon the amount of duty proposed by his hon, friend, but because he objected to a fixed duty, of whatever amount, under any circumstances; and he trusted that the House would not support resolutions, which would be applicable in times of scarcity. Another objection to a fixed duty was, that it frequently happened, that a year of scarcity in this country was a year of scarcity in France; and, in that case, both countries would be competitors in the markets of Poland; and the fixed duty proposed by his hon. friend must lessen the quantity of foreign corn which could be brought into this country. The hon. member here mentioned the years of scarcity between 1794 and 1825, and, having mentioned one year, during which the price of corn rose as high as 177s., asked the House, whether they could sanction resolutions which would impose a duty of 10s. per quarter, even if corn should again reach that excessive price? His own opinions upon the measures proposed by government remained unchanged; but, he must admit, that those measures appeared to him to proceed upon a better principle than the resolutions of his hon. friend. For these reasons he should vote against the amendment.

Mr. Cripps

said, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that we ought not to expose ourselves to a foreign market, because the cultivation of poor land might cost a little more than that of rich land. For his part, he had not the good fortune to possess much land, but he thought the corn question had been fairly settled, and he should therefore oppose the amendment.