§ — Earl Fitzwilliam, in making the motion of which he had given notice, as to fiar prices in Scotland, observed that the present high price on the import of foreign com arose from the comparatively low average price of corn, as compared with the price of that which alone was fit for human sustenance. It was clear that it did not arise from plenty; it arose from another source. He was about to move for papers which would illustrate the singular coincidence which he had stated. The fact was that we had a low average price and a high import duty, not because corn was plentiful, but because it was bad. And now, let their Lordships observe the work- 1146 ing of the Act of Parliament. At the very moment that it was most desirable that an ample supply of the best corn that could be had, whether British or foreign, should be brought into our markets, the average being brought down by the unpropitious circumstances of the last harvest, the import duty was raised, and, when we wanted foreign corn, there was an obstacle to its introduction. He knew not whether a more powerful illustration of the fact he was now stating—namely, that loreign corn was excluded because our own was bad—could be given, than the results which must be elicited from the papers for which he was about to move. In one county in Scotland he understood the fiar price of corn was 56s. a quarter; but if he was not mistaken there were other counties in which it was much lower. And not only in Scotland, but in the north of England, the price was exceedingly low, as compared with the price of bread corn. In one county where corn was 57s. a quarter, the quartern loaf was 9½d. These were a few of the circumstances which he ventured to say must—he hoped he need not add unwillingly—force this question on their Lordships' attention. It was impossible but that the Legislature of this country should consider the question of the Corn-laws when bread was sold at a price which far exceeded that which would enable the people, at their present wages, to purchase a sufficient quantity of food. He should conclude by moving for returns showing the fiar prices of wheat in the several counties in Scotland during the years 1838 and 1839.
The Marquess of Salisburywished to know what proof the noble Earl was prepared to give of the assertion that the price of bread corn was dear, while the average price of wheat was low?
§ Earl Fitzwilliam, in answer to the question of the noble Marquess, said, the last crop, particularly in Scotland, was very bad, and consequently brought a low price in the market. In the county of Stirling the fiar price was 38s. a quarter. If the noble Marquess knew anything of the trade of a miller, which he hoped he did, because it was the duty of every man who acted as a legislator to be well acquainted with a great number of details which were very unaristocratic, but without being acquainted with which he, nevertheless, could not legislate wisely—he must be aware that the corn which the miller 1147 bought at Stirling at the price of 38s., and in Westmoreland at 57s., was not fit to enter into the composition of bread for human subsistence. It must be kept a long time, and must (unless the miller meant to make his own bread) be put through extensive processes, and require a large outlay of capital, for which he must be remunerated by the higher price at which he sold. These were the grounds on which he ventured to say the price of bread corn was not fairly stated by the averages as exhibited in the Gazette. He was wrong in saying that the quartern loaf was 9½ d., for the quartern loaf no longer existed; but the 4lb. loaf was selling at Peterborough for 9½ d. He would state another circumstance. Four years ago the Poor-law Amendment Bill came into operation. Four years ago the contract for supplying the poor of the Peterborough Union was 4d. for the 4lb. loaf, and now it was 7d. or 7¾ d., making a difference of 70 or 80 per cent, in that period.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, the reason the corn was carried wet to market by the farmers was, because the noble Earl, and others like him, kept up agitation on the subject. With respect to the contract for the Peterborough Union, the poor of that union, he presumed, were fed upon thirds, and any contractor would furnish bread of that quality at 4d. the 4lb. loaf. He could not see what change the noble Earl wished to have accomplished in this respect, unless he meant to bring the poor to live upon oaten bread, as suggested by the noble Earl (Radnor) near him.
Earl RadnorI beg leave positively to deny that. I contradicted it at the time, and I beg to contradict it now. I never said any thing of the kind.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that the noble Earl had said so, as far as he understood him. The noble Earl certainly said he did not see why the people should not live on oaten bread. At all events, the noble Earl need not have said that he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not hear him.
The Earl of RadnorThe noble Marquess could not hear what I never said. I never said anything about wholesomeness of oaten bread, or anything of the sort; what I said was, that it would not be a bad thing for the people of England to fall back upon roast beef and plum- 1148 pudding with barley bread. He had laid the stress on the roast beef.