HL Deb 10 July 1822 vol 7 cc1556-7

On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,

The Earl of Lauderdale

said, he wished their lordships to pause before they passed a measure of so much importance. He took a view of the operation of the existing act, and contended that instead of providing a minimum protection price, it had established a maximum. He complained of the inconsistency of the noble lords opposite in now turning against their own measure, and read a passage from a speech of the earl of Liverpool, in which the noble earl expressed an opinion, that the Corn bill having passed, no alteration ought to be made in the system. In this opinion he also coincided, and therefore could not give his support to the present measure. He objected particularly to the time at which it was proposed, and thought it would be injurious to legislate prospectively. He would therefore move, "That the bill be read a third time this day three months."

The Earl of Harrowby

conceived, that be was giving more effect to the existing act, by remedying the defects which it contained, and vindicated ministers from the charge of having abandoned the principles which they had formerly professed. It was better to legislate now, than to wait till prices should rise, and the public mind grow full of anxiety and alarm. He contended, that the bill would prove advantageous to the British farmer, by preventing unlimited importation whenever corn should rise above the protection price. He was not one of those who wished that the price of corn should reach 80s., for it would produce a corresponding rise in the price of provisions; and as all evils were attended with some compensation, so the present low price of provisions had proved beneficial to our manufactures.

Lord Erskine

said, it was cruel to tarn upon the agriculturists, and tell them that they had not suffered from the change in the currency, and that they would be as well protected with 70s. as they had been with 80s.

Earl Grosvenor

said, that when he found the bill petitioned against by the whole agricultural body, he could not consider it as a measure of relief to them. He thought it was favourable to every other interest, save that of agriculture. There was no necessity whatever for legislating at present upon the subject. Why, therefore, should there be any objection to delay?

Lord Redesdale

maintained, that every bill founded on the principle of averages was founded on a wrong principle, as the average prices returned were not the true prices. But even if those prices were correct, he should object to the time at which the present bill was brought in. He should prefer throwing the ports open to the importation of foreign corn, with such a duty as would enable the British farmer to meet it in the market.

The Earl of Carnarvon

contended, that a great protecting duty was necessary, in consequence of the alteration in prices produced by the change in the currency. He thought the present bill preferable to the act already in existence, though both were founded on erroneous data.

The. House divided: Contents, 32; Not-contents, 16. The bill was then passed.