HL Deb 05 July 1822 vol 7 cc1504-11

On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,

Earl Bathurst

said, he did not intend to go at all into the consideration of the cause of the present agricultural distress. Whether that distress arose from a superabundance of production, from a deficiency of demand, from the alteration of the currency, or from all these causes combined, was immaterial with regard to the present measure, the object of which was, simply, to remedy the defects of the Corn act of the 55th Geo. 3rd. By that act there was an absolute prohibition of the importation of corn until the price rose to 80s., and then the importation was to be unlimited. This sudden transition, from prohibition to unlimited import, tended to produce an equally sudden transition of prices, which unsettled all the contracts between master and servant—between landlord and tenant—which interfered with all the relations of society that had been previously accommodated to the then existing prices, and thus produced great confusion and many injurious consequences. To avoid this, there were only two modes of proceeding—the one to limit the quantity imported, and the other to impose a graduated scale of duty. It must be evident to all their lordships, that to limit the importation was impossible, even if it was all confined to one port, the difficulties would be so great as to render it nearly impracticable, but the number of ports rendered it utterly impossible. The only other mode, therefore, was a graduated scale of duty, which it was the object of the present bill to enact, in order to prevent the evils to which he had already alluded, and also to prevent that inundation of corn into our ports, which had taken place some time since on their being opened, and which grain, so imported, being afterwards thrown into our markets (though the ports had in the mean time been shut), operated upon them like a nightmare, and continued the depression of our agriculture. The present bill still gave a complete protection to our agriculture up to 80s. but in order to prevent the recurrence of the evils to which he had alluded, it was proposed, that when the price of wheat reached 70s. corn might be imported at a duty of 17s. per quarter, which duty, after the first six weeks, was to be reduced to 12s. when the price reached 80s. and from 80s. to 85s. the duty was to be reduced to 5s. and when it exceeded 85s. the duty was to be reduced to 1s. or in fact to be merely nominal. This scale of duty would prevent a glut of importation, as the duty must be first paid before the wheat im- ported could be warehoused. It was objected, that owing to the low price of foreign wheat, the duty proposed would afford no protection to our own farmer. It was true that foreign wheat might now be obtained at from 30s. to 35s. per quarter, but then, in addition to the duty of 17s. there were the expenses of freight. &c. amounting to 12s. per quarter, and interest upon capital, which at the least must be estimated at five per cent. The duty and expences would amount to 29s. per quarter, which, he contended, would afford an ample protection to our own agriculture, because, before noble lords gave any weight to the argument arising from the present price of foreign wheat, they must totally forget that any rise in the price of wheat, tending to produce an expectation of the ports being opened, would immediately produce a corresponding rise in the price of wheat upon the continent. This was rendered evident by what had actually taken place not long since, when the consequence of a rise in the price here was an immediate and considerable rise all over the continent. The fact was, that the present price of foreign wheat was not what the foreign farmer could afford to sell it at, but that the agricultural distress en the continent was infinitely greater than it was in this country. Instances were almost innumerable, in which mortgagees had taken possession of lands, the possessors of which were unable to pay the interest of the mortgages, and in numerous instances, tenants who held under the Crown had given up their lands, being unable to pay the arrears of rent. Lands, which had, under these circumstances fallen into the possession of mortgagees and the Crown, had been offered to sale, but no purchaser could be found. Such was the state of the continent; and it was under these circumstances of distress that foreign wheat sold at the low price which it at present bore; but it must be obvious, that it there was any prospect of a demand for it in this country, that price would immediately experience a very considerable rise. Objections had been made against that part of the bill, which allowed the foreign wheat now in warehouse, amounting to 650,000 quarters, to be admitted into our markets when the price was at 70s.; but before it could be so admitted, the duty of 17s. per quarter must be paid upon it, and therefore it would become a matter of speculation with the holders, whether they would pay the duty to bring it to the market, or whether they would wait if there was a prospect of a rise to 80s., at which price they were entitled, under the faith of the Corn act, to bring it to market without any duty. The amount, at all events, was limited, and our agriculture would, he contended, be sufficiently protected. Another objection made against the bill was, that it would, in the present state of the markets, be entirely inoperative. This he admitted; but he maintained, that it was precisely under these circumstances that they could best legislate upon the subject, as they could do it temperately and with due deliberation, which would be impossible under the pressure of high prices. Some of the agriculturists had proposed a permanent duty of 30s. per quarter; but he was satisfied that such a duty could not be maintained under the pressure of high prices, and that, if it was enacted, it would, only be for the purpose of repealing it as soon as it came into operation.

Lord Erskine

observed, that the object of the present bill was to repeal in part the Corn act of the 55th George 3rd. The principle of that act was, that the farmer could not afford to sell at a less price than 80s.; but what was the principle of the present bill? To allow the foreign farmer to come into the market, in competition with our own agriculturist, at 52s. How was it possible that the British farmer could afford to sell his wheat at such a price, with all the burthens of tithes increased in amount, in proportion to the capital laid out in improving the land, the poor rates, the assessed taxes, charges for roads, &c.? At any rate, let the burthens be equally distributed. A report had been sometime since made from a committee of the House of Commons, which stated, that it was the intention of the legislature that the poor-rates should be assessed according to the 45th Eliz, that is to say, that personal property, as well as the land, should be assessed to, those rates. But what was the fact? At a period when, instead of 7,000,000l. the poor-rates only amounted to a few hundred thousand pounds, the rates were improvidently made a local tax, and thus personal property altogether escaped, and the whole burthen of the sates fell upon the land: a large manufactory, from which its possessor received immense profits, was rated no higher than a barn of the same dimensions. He felt; this so strongly, that it was his intention next session, to introduce a bill, for the purpose of declaring the law to be, that personal property, as well as the land, should be rated for the support of the poor. The noble earl had spoken of mortgagees and the Crown taking possession it lands upon the continent; but let it be recollected, that the mortgagees and the Crown could sell the wheat produced, upon those lands, and that it was not a question as to the price at which it was first sold, but as to the speculation which would be caused by the operation of the present bill, and which would have such an injurious effect upon our agricultural interests. He did not mean to stigmatise the dealers in corn; but there were a number of speculators who, would not mind cutting the throat of any; noble lord, if they could get half per cent more by it; and it was the speculation to which this bill would give rise that would so much increase the distress of our agriculture. In the present state of our agriculture, to take away any part of its protection would be adding to its distress: so far from taking away protection, it required a still farther protection, to prevent the land from being altogether thrown out of cultivation. It was as monstrous to talk of throwing the poor lands out of cultivation, upon which so much capital had been expended as to propose not to pay the public creditor; although, if the depression of agriculture was to be increased, the whole of the land must be thrown out of cultivation; and then it would be impossible to pay the public creditor. As to the supposed proposition, of a permanent duty of 30s. he did not believe, that any such proposal had seriously been made on the part of the agricultural interests. Viewing the bill as a repeal in part of that protection, given by the act of 55 Geo. 3rd, and, which was now more than ever needed, he felt it his duty to oppose it, and should therefore move to postpone the commitment of the bill for three months.

Lord Dacre

thought, that as the measure could not produce any immediate effect upon the agricultural interest, as it looked only to prospective good, and might produce much present mischief, it would be better that it should be postponed for the present session. The question before the House was one of comparison, and he would ask bow the mea- sure under consideration was better than the measure which it was intended to supersede? It was possible that some of the causes of the present distress might be removed before the next session. We might then see the whole of the effects produced by the late alteration in the currency. There might be a reaction of prices before then, which would have the effect of rendering the measure injurious to the country. It would not be denied, that taxes had a great effect on the condition of the agriculturist. How happened it, that with the same prices as 1792 their condition was so much worse? The poor-laws had also their effect. Superabundant production was said to be another cause; but if before the next session it could be proved that that was not a cause, then a different mode of legislation on the subject from the present would be necessary.

The Earl of Harrowby

observed, that if they refused to legislate until all the causes alluded to by the noble lord were ascertained, their proceedings might be postponed for a century. Some of the obvious causes of the depression of price were the large quantity of foreign corn imported in 1818 and 1819, and three successive superabundant harvests. The evil against which they ought to guard most cautiously was that of too sudden a depression of price by unlimited importation when from any cause the price was raised so high as to open the ports, and he thought that in the present state of the circulating medium, 70s. was as great a protection to the agricultural interest now, as 80s. was in 1815. The distress could not be attributed to taxation, because in some of the Swiss cantons, where there was comparatively no taxation, the same depression was to be found. If the present bill did not contain the best system that could be devised, it was at least a compromise with conflicting opinions; and that be conceived to be no small advantage in the present state of the public mind upon this subject.

The Earl of Carnarvon

admitted, that the British agriculturist could not meet the foreign grower in the home market without some protecting duty; but when their lordships were about to establish permanent duties for the importation of corn, they should consider what ought to be the minimum of protection. If it were fixed at a rate which would constantly keep corn high, trade would be destroyed, capital driven out of the country, and the interest of the agriculturists themselves completely ruined. It was necessary that their lordships should have the fullest data to go upon. Were they in possession of all the effects produced by the recent alteration in the value of the currency? Now he would assert, that the greater part of the present distress arose from the altered value of the currency. As to the new import price of 70s. and 80s., did any noble lord expect that such prices could continue in this country? For two centuries before the restriction of cash payments, the average price of corn did not exceed 50s. Those prices rose twit great height during the restriction; but now that the currency was restored, it would be absurd to suppose that the same high prices, if they at all occurred, could be continued for any time.

Lord Redesdale

maintained that the present was not the time for legislating on the subject, and described the bill as offering an encouragement to the same species of gambling which prevailed in Change alley. It was for the advantage both of the grower and the consumer, that the price of corn should be kept as near an average as possible; but this gambling system would give rise to perpetual fluctuations. One of the cause of distress, he conceived to be the taxation; for if it took two bushels now to pay what one bushel would pay before the agriculturists must feel it burthensome. The present measure was not calculated to give satisfaction to anyone: By waiting, they might have better information as to the foreign markets. He did not see why postponement should not take place, when it was evident that unless the price rose to 80s. the bill could have no effect before next session; and, with regard to the corn which was ware-housed, though it was no doubt an injury to the country to have capital locked up, yet, if it should be brought out at a low rate, it might have a Very effect upon the agricultural interest. He felt convinced that the measure would productive of no good.

Lord Ellenborough

said, his reason for supporting the bill was, not because it was a permanent measure, but because it went to provide against an evil which might be attendant upon a sudden return of high prices. He admitted that the bill would give no relief to the farmer; but it would prevent the danger which might arise from the operation of the present law. He would ask any of those who petitioned against this bill, whether, if corn suddenly rose to 80s., they would not prefer it to the law as it stood at present?

The Earl of Darnley

said, he had always deprecated inquiries into this subject, because he was satisfied they would not be attended with any beneficial effect to the agriculturist. The distressed situation of the farmer had been truly described; for he had, in fact, to give twice the amount of produce now for his tax that he did some few years back. It had been truly said, that it would be impossible to continue corn at the high prices of 80s. or even 70s. One reason why he wished that the bill should not pass was, that those for whose benefit it was introduced were to a man against it.

The Earl of Morley

said, that looking at the quantity of corn in the country, he did not think it an impossible case that the ports might not, as the law now stood, be opened before the next session. To guard against the chance, however remote, of a circumstance, the evil effects of which would be felt for years to come, he would vote for the present bill.

The House divided: Contents, 37; Not contents, 19. The bill then went through the committee.