Lords Sitting of 11 May 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Criminal Justice; Turnpike Roads and Highways.—Read a second time:— Slaves Compensation; Arms (Ireland); Dublin Wide Streets.—Read a third time:—Entails Acts (Scotland) Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord Abinger, and Viscount Beresford, from Norton-st., Marylebone, and Piccadilly, for the Abolition of the Tolls on Waterloo Bridge.—By Lord Strafford, from Londonderry, for the Abolition of Church Patronage (Scotland).—By the Bishop of Winchester, from Clergymen in Yorkshire, for a more equable Rating of Tithes.—By Viscount Melbourne, from Wandsworth, for the Abolition of Church Rates.

USURY LAWS—RATE OF INTEREST.
The Marquess of Lansdownebegged leave, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to move for the appointment of a committee to consider the amount of interest now payable by law on promissory notes. In making this motion he did not think it was necessary for him to offer any arguments in relation to any opinion which he might have formed on the Usury Laws as they hitherto existed, or as they might be amended. All that he should do at present, was to call the attention of the House to the law as it existed at present. By the 4th of William 4th, upon certain representations from the Bank of England, promissory notes under six months' date were taken out of the Usury Laws, and by the 1st of Victoria that exemption was extended to all bills under twelve months' date. That Act would expire towards the end of 1840, but in that year an Act was passed to continue the experiment until the year 1843. It was expedient, therefore, to come to some decision before the commencement of the next year. The object of the inquiry which he proposed, was confined to the expediency of giving a certain latitude to the money market, by permitting certain bills to be charged with more than the old legal rate of interest. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for "a Select Committee on the subject of the interest payable on promissory notes and bills of exchange."
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that he had at present anything but a fixed opinion upon

181
this subject. He had received applications from various parties relative to the change which had been made in the Usury Laws. All the money brokers and money lenders thought it the greatest godsend which they could receive, whilst other parties viewed it quite in a different light. He confessed, that he should have preferred if his noble Friend could postpone the question for another year; for as yet they had not had any great experience of the change. He should say, that a committee in the year 1842 would do quite as well as a committee in the present year. He must also say, however, that he thought the notice of his noble Friend was rather too confined. He wished to see it extended to other securities, such as dock warrants, &c. He also wished to see it comprehend the question of the Usury Laws generally.
The Marquess of Lansdawne: he had no objection to the extension proposed by his noble Friend; he would, therefore, amend his motion so as to include the Usury Laws.
The motion, in its amended form, agreed to, committee nominated.

CORN-LAWS (IRELAND AND SCOTLAND)
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that on the previous night he had stated to their Lordships that Scotland had ceased to be an exporting, and was now an importing, country of corn. Since then he had looked at some returns on the subject, and he found his statement was correct, and that from the year 1829 up to 1839 Scotland had been an importing country at an annual average of 121,436 quarters. He had also stated, that the exportations from Ireland had been gradually decreasing; and he found, on reference to some returns on that subject, that since 1832 the quantity of wheat, wheat-meal, and flour exported had decreased every year.
The Earl of Haddingtonhad not denied that grain was imported into Scotland. What he said was, that corn was imported into this country from Scotland, the corn received by the latter country from this being chiefly for the purpose of seed. There was also a large quantity of the finest flour for confectionery and the like exported (especially from Hertfordshire) to Scotland. But this bore no proportion to the whole consumption.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that the argu
182
ment of his noble Friend (Earl Radnor) was complete, and showed from the Custom-house returns, which could not be impeached or disputed, that Scotland had lately become an importing country to a much greater extent than an exporting one. In four of the years referred to in the returns, Scotland imported more wheat than the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Haddingtonbegged to ask if the noble Earl (Radnor) meant to say, that Scotland imported 121,000 quarters more than she exported?
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that was precisely what he meant. He believed the returns were correct in showing the excess of imported corn above the exported to be of that large amount, but he was not prepared to take his oath of it.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that in examining the returns which had been laid on the Table, he found, that from the year 1820 up to 1838, or from the year 1828 up to 1838, there had been an immense progressive increase in the quantity of wheat exported from Ireland. Recent returns had shown, that the annual consumption of spirits in Ireland had decreased to the extent of 2,800,000 gallons. This might naturally lead noble Lords to suppose, that there must therefore be a diminished consumption of grain; but the effect of the change was to augment the consumption of coffee, and therefore of wheaten bread. Large baking establishments had been opened in various parts of Ireland, and thence the inference was obvious, that a greater quantity of Irish corn was now consumed at home than formerly was the case.
The Earl of Radnorwas delighted to hear such a statement, but it certainly corroborated his conclusion that the exports of Ireland had decreased. Indeed it admitted the fact, and assigned a reason for it.
Lord Ashburtonobserved, that the returns made on the subject of corn, clearly showed that from 1820 to 1828, the quantity of corn produced in this country afforded a sufficient supply for the use of all its inhabitants, and as regarded the future, he did not hesitate to say, that the vast improvement which had of late years been effected in agriculture afforded the best grounds for believing that we should at all times be able to command that supply. On a former evening it had been stated, that the prices of corn at

183
Rotterdam did not fluctuate to the same extent as in London. Now, from the report of Mr. Jacob, it appeared that the prices of corn at Rotterdam varied from 104 s. to 26 s. What an outcry there would be in this country if the fluctuations in our prices made any approximation to this. In the year 1817 our price rose to 94 s., but never since the enactment of the present corn laws had there been any such prices paid. On that and other grounds he was fully warranted in saying, that at no time and in no country had there been such steadiness in the prices of corn as in England during the last few years.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that the noble Earl opposite the (Earl of Radnor), had produced his own calculation in support of the views which he entertained, while his noble Friend (the Earl of Glengall) had supported his opinions by references to printed documents accessible to every noble Lord. He must say, that he thought it rather unfair thus to come down unexpectedly with statements and calculations which were difficult to be met, merely because they were unexpected. As he had risen to address their Lordships, he thought it only right to say, that in Ireland great improvements in agriculture had recently been effected, and therefore a great increase in the cultivation of wheat.
The Earl of Radnordefended himself from the charge of reading any returns which might not be exactly accurate. If they were not so, he could assure their Lordships it was unintentional on his part. He was surprised to have heard the opinions just expressed by the noble Lord opposite, when, in 1815, he had expressed sentiments exactly opposed to them. [The noble Lord read an extract from a speech of Mr. Baring, on the presentation of a petition from the merchants of London to the House of Commons, in which he expressed his strong approbation of the principles of free trade.]
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that the opinions contained in the speech which the noble Lord had now read for about the hundredth time—were those of a young man who had been captivated by the delusive doctrines of free trade—particularly attractive to young minds. Those opinions the experience of twenty-five years had altered to a considerable extent, though he would still say, had not altogether removed.
The Duke of Wellington: it would be
184
very desirable, my Lords, when it is intended to bring forward subjects of this nature, that some notice should be given of that intention. If that were done, we on this side of the House would take care to have our documents in our pockets as well as noble Lords opposite, and then, I have no doubt, that we should be able to meet the calculations they bring forward. The noble Earl has read a paragraph of a speech of my noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) which he made some years ago. Now, my Lords, the sentiments of that speech are perfectly true in relation to the principles of political economy in general—and, I believe, have been acted upon by all Administrations in this country. But, my Lords, you must know, that the first man who brought forward those opinions (Adam Smith), which I have read, as well as noble Lords opposite, made an exception upon this very subject. He excepted corn from the doctrines he laid down as to all the other articles of trade. In relation to the subsistence of the people he says, that we must always take care to ensure that subsistence within the country itself—and accordingly he excepts corn from the several doctrines which he lays down. I confess that I have heard nothing during these discussions to alter my opinion, that the Corn-laws which were adopted almost unanimously in 1828 have perfectly answered the purposes for which they were intended, and have kept the prices as steady as the nature of the commodity will allow. Yes, my Lords, in this country, when we have produced corn for our own subsistence, and it is our object invariably to produce it, prices have been more steady than in any other country of Europe. It is my opinion, on all these grounds, that these laws have operated as successfully as any laws could have done.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, it would, perhaps, be necessary for both his noble Friend and himself to read Adam Smith again, in order to be sufficiently familiar with him— but his own impression was, that Adam Smith's doctrine was, that the laws relating to the protection of corn were great favourites with corn dealers—not that they were really advantageous either to the agriculturists or the public. He did not himself remember that Adam Smith had made any very pointed exception with respect to corn, from the opinions which he advocated with respect to free trade in general.
Lord Portman said, he would prefer the former opinions of his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) to his present ones.
The conversation was dropped.
Adjourned.