§ Freight of wheat, 5s., duty, 1s.—6s.
§ Do. as flour, 3s. 1⅓d., duty, 11¼d.—4s. 0¾d. Bonus 1s. 11½d.
§
He would now proceed to show them that it was not the millers and the farmers only who were injuriously affected by the operation of the present ruinous system. All classes of manufacturers, labourers, artisans, and tradespeople throughout the three kingdoms, were of necessity severe sufferers from the practice of grinding in foreign countries rather than in our own. The relative quantities of grain and flour were given as follows:—"3½ cwts. of flour, or 392 lbs., equal a quarter of wheat; a sack of flour is 2½ cwts., or 280 lbs.; a barrel from United States or Canada is 1¾ cwt., or 196 lbs. A quarter of wheat
850
of the growth of the past season would average 60½ lbs. per bushel, or 484 lbs. per quarter—such would produce, in wheat, 484 lbs., or 34 st. 8 lbs. (stones of 14lbs.); in flour, 25 st. households flour, 3 st. coarse bread flour, 1 st. biscuit flour, 2 st. fine pollard, 4 st. bran, 8 lb. loss in grinding—total 34 st. 8 lbs. A sack of good Norfolk or Essex households flour can be bought in London at 27s. per sack, or 10s. 4½d. per cwt." Now, a great number of farmers and artisans made their bread from the coarse description of flour, and, moreover, the farmers went to the millers to buy bran to feed their pigs and cattle with. The whole of that was now lost. There was a scarcity of that coarse flour, bran, and pollard; and, in fact, all those useful articles were now lost to the poorer classes, for the coarser qualities of flour, which were of such essential importance to them, were now only to be had at such prices as placed them beyond their reach, for the French sent the finer descriptions of flour to this country, and reserved the inferior qualities for their own service, and the use of their cattle. There was but one point more upon which he should touch, and he would not trespass much longer on their Lordships' attention. The working of the free-trade system had falsified the predictions and belied the anticipations of its most distinguished advocates. What had been said by two of the most influential organs connected with the free-trade movement?—that any individual should be found advocating free trade at this moment was to him most astonishing. On the 25th of March an influential organ had said, "If the American and Frenchman find that it answers their purpose to send in their own produce, in the shape of flour, we have not much to complain of. It is enough if we can prevent wheat from being taken to France for the purpose of being there converted into flour for reimportation to this country." Such was the opinion of the great organ of free trade. Another great authority, a noble Earl in that House, said—
France had a very restrictive law against the admission of foreign corn. The consequence was, that French millers were restricted to the particular corn which happened to be grown in a particular year in France; whereas under our law the English miller had the range of the whole world, and could select the various qualities of wheat which were calculated to produce the finest article, and with this advantage, combined with the advantage in respect to steam power, he had not the slightest doubt that very soon they would
851
entirely distance the French miller in the race of competition.
Now, to prove the fallacy of these arguments, he would refer to a certain inquiry which had been set on foot in France by the millers of this country on the subject of grinding foreign wheat in bond. The first question sent to France by the millers was—
Is it permissible to receive foreign wheat in every French port to be ground in bond, or is that privilege only to be enjoyed by Marseilles?
Answer—
Every bonded French port has the privilege; for instance, not only Marseilles, but Nantes, Havre, Dunkirk, &c.
The second question was—
What quantity of flour must be exported for a certain quantity of wheat imported?
Answer—
70 per cent of the weight of the wheat; for instance, for a quarter of wheat weighing 500 lbs., 350 lbs. of flour. The flour must be exported within twenty days from the time the wheat was imported. The flour must be exported from the same port at which the wheat was landed, or from one of the same division. For example, it would not be practicable to import wheat into Marseilles, and avoid the duty by giving a bill of export for flour for Dunkirk. France will not allow any flour to be imported into France.
So that notwithstanding what had been set forth in the great free-trade organ, it appeared that they were, at the present moment, importing foreign corn into France to grind it there, and then export it into this country. It was little better than an insult to tell the Irish and English millers that they ought to improve their machinery and introduce such improvements into their mills as would enable them to produce as good an article as the French, for if they were able to excel the French to-morrow in the production of flour (a thing they never would be able to do), they could not hope to establish an export trade with France. If they were to venture on the experiment of sending a cargo of British flour to that country, notwithstanding all that we had heard about reciprocity of mercantile conduct; notwithstanding that it had been said, "Oh, if we take French articles of manufacture, they will take ours in return," it would infallibly be seized and confiscated, because it was against the law of France that a single pound of flour should enter one of her ports. Such was the charming system of reciprocity from which the champions of free trade augured such magnificent results. The millers of this country said their mills and machinery
852
were far superior to any used in France; and if a Committee of that House were appointed to inquire into the matter, it could be proved that there was more capital sunk in those mills than there was in all the cotton mills and other manufactories of the empire put together. He had to apologise for trespassing at such length upon the attention of their Lordships. He would conclude by expressing his conviction that the free-trade system was destructive of the best interests of this country—that capital could not now command as profitable a return as in former times—that industry did not meet with the same remuneration—and that skill, enterprise, and ingenuity could no longer be applied to beneficial purposes. Most earnestly did he hope that all these evils would be set right at the new election—that a happier state of things would be established—and that these kingdoms would resume their ancient prosperity through the introduction of a fair system of protection for native industry.
§ EARL GRANVILLEobserved, that it was always a disagreeable task to make a reply to a statement of distress, when, in admitting the existence of that distress to a certain extent, you had to deprecate the remedy which was proposed for its relief. He did not feel himself bound on the present occasion either to reply to the objections which the noble Earl had urged against the system of free trade generally, or to enter into a discussion on the state of Ireland, into which the noble Earl had entered so largely, especially when the accounts which he had received from various quarters disproved, rather than proved, the accuracy of the noble Earl's information. He believed that the distress suffered by the millowners of Ireland, and so elaborately detailed by the noble Earl, existed to a considerable extent; but he could not agree with the noble Earl that it arose from increased competition with the French millowners, or with his suggestion that protection to home-made flour would be the best remedy for it. He also believed that distress was sustained by the millowners of England. They were undergoing at this moment the same fate which often befell the other manufacturers of the country. Amid the improvements which had recently been made in the construction of mills and machinery, it was found that those millowners who had a limited capital, and resided at a distance from the best markets, were gradually displaced by 853 those who had a larger amount of capital, and who had the benefit of the best markets. It could not be disadvantageous to the millowners to have the raw material of their trade cheap; for its cheapness led to greater consumption on the part of the people; and, therefore, they must derive advantage, as well as the bulk of the community, from having a larger introduction of grain than formerly into the markets of this country, for they not only had the monopoly of grinding English corn, but they ground also a large quantity of foreign grain. With regard to the competition of the French millowners, he had recently seen a French gentleman, well known to many of their Lordships, who had recently held high office in France, M. Delessert; and that gentleman had informed him that there was no branch of industry in France in which so much progress had been made in the last twenty years as that with which the millowners were connected, and that, nevertheless, the millowners were at that moment complaining loudly of the insufficient remuneration which they received in return for their labour and their capital. It was clear, from the statement made to him by M. Delessert, that some of the minor millowners of France must have given way in the competition which they had recently undergone with the larger capitalists, and yet he did not expect that any of their Lordships would be prepared to say that it would have been a wise measure on the part of the French Government to have bolstered up the weaker portion of this trade by aid furnished from the resources of the State. Another observation which had fallen from the noble Earl was, that the French farmer was deriving great profit from importing corn to England. Now, he (Earl Granville) had every reason to believe that the contrary was the fact. The same complaints which were made in England of the distressed condition of the English farmer, were made in France repecting the distressed condition of the French farmer. He likewise believed that the great distress alleged to be suffered by the British millowners was disproved by the success of the mill recently erected at Battersea, and by the numerous new mills now. in course of construction in different parts of the country. The noble Earl had suggested that flour should be immediately protected by a duty, which would enable the miller to continue his operations. He (Lord Granville) was not disposed to under- 854 rate the very dangerous commercial, political, and social consequences which he believed would result if the Legislature determined to revert to the system of protective import duties upon grain; but he must say he thought such a measure would be infinitely more defensible than to afford protection to the millers because a portion of that body were involved in some distress in consequence of the altered circumstances of their respective localities. The noble Earl had said that this question would be brought forward again; and he could only say, that if a definite proposition was submitted to the House, his noble Friends behind him would be quite ready to discuss it.
§ The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, it was not very long since he had taken particular pains to ascertain the real reasons of that extraordinary influx of French products which had flowed into this country. The noble Earl had spoken of the opinion of one French Minister. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) had received some information on the subject from another French Minister. Their Lordships were aware that the French Government had at any time the machinery ready to ascertain the amount of corn grown in the country. That individual had told him that during the year 1850 the amount of wheat and barley exported from France to this country was equal to an additional consumption of 2,000,000 of its inhabitants. They had received no less than 2,000,000 of sovereigns since 1850. There were 1,000,000 of quarters of corn exported into this country. When a comparison was drawn between the distress in this country and in France, he denied that the state of both countries could be attributed to the same causes. In three years the exports from France, had increased from 216,000 quarters to 590,000 quarters, and in three years subsequent from 362,000 to 1,900,000 quarters. That importation was not carried on from any particular love to England. They who sat at his side of the House could do nothing but suggest, but were not strong enough to pass measures which they believed to be essential for the welfare of the country; the consequence was, that the Session preceeded on without anything being done, notwithstanding that the noble Lords opposite on the Government benches had told them that the agricultural interest was in a state of great distress. The Session was now more than half over, and we had arrived at the mid- 855 dle of May, and not one word was spoken, not the slightest attempt made to meet that distress which it was fully acknowledged existed. He maintained that they at his side had a perfect right, unless they were told they were in error, to know what were the remedies contemplated to heal that state of things which it was said ought not to continue.
§ The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, it was a remarkable thing that every single interest which came before either House of Parliament was admitted to be in a depressed condition. How did it come to pass that the millers, themselves distinguished Free-traders, were now turning short round and asking for protection for themselves? His noble Friend said, it was the small millers who complained. Why, they had a miller in Wakefield, who fed no fewer than 200,000 persons, coming to his representative, Mr. Cobden, and begging him to get a reversal of that policy which they had lately pursued. It was the same way with the shipping interest; and they would have that coming before them to complain very soon. Were the reports from Manchester full of accounts of the prosperity of trade there? How was it that we who were, according to some accounts, so prosperous, were yet suffering in so many interests? and when the Government were told it, they admitted the fact, but ascribed it in all cases to particular circumstances. Some parties might be benefited now by free trade; but those parties were producers as well as consumers, and must sooner or later be materially affected if that state of things went on. Although the state of distress which existed was admitted and deplored, nothing was done to relieve it. He did not wish to go into the subject of the petition. But it appeared by that, that Ireland, which formerly was so great an exporting country of corn and flour, was now itself a large importing country, and no longer remained what they wished it to be, a flourishing and improving nation.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that if the noble Lord thought it necessary at any time formally to bring under discussion the state of the country, they would be able to show that it was not in so I distressed a state as he had represented. The question raised by the petition, however, was whether or not there should be an import duty on flour. The whole question of protection and free trade was involved in that issue, and that was too great 856 a question to be entered into in so discursory a manner. They had had, however, several debates on the subject, and more might arise; but he hoped that in future the noble Lord opposite and his Friends would not argue so positively that the restoration of protection—protection as such—would get rid of that distress. The pauperism of Ireland made a great part of the speech of the noble Lord (the Earl of Glengall), although it formed no part of the petition, and he was afraid that his Lordship's statement as to the state of the south and west of Ireland was true. The workhouses in those parts undoubtedly were extremely full; but he would ask what would be the condition of the ratepayers and paupers of those unions, if, instead of food being at a reasonable price, they had to pay a high price in consequence of the action of a protective duty, for high prices were the object of a protective duty. As one of the guardians of one union, he spoke with confidence on that point; and during his recent visit to that country, when he was thrown into contact with many guardians, he never mot with one who was not an advocate of free trade so far as to say that if it were not at this moment for cheap food it would be utterly impossible for them to support their paupers. He differed with the noble Lord with respect to the condition of the agriculture of France, because he did not find in general that rents (and that was the best test) were well paid.
§ The EARL of MALMESBURYThat's the result of Socialism.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEstated the facts; he did not want to go into the causes. He fully believed that the millers and the tillers of the soil in the south and west of Ireland had felt the pressure of the recent changes more than any other part of the community; but their case could not be taken in an isolated point of view, as it involved the whole of a great question which affected the general welfare of the country. He must say, however, that there had been a great deal of land broken up for corn, which never ought to have been so cropped, and by its return to grass, the country (and he spoke particularly of his own neighbourhood) would be benefited. The occupation of land also had been far from unprofitable in the last year, and sheep farmers had done as well as during the war prices.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, that the noble Lord would find that the cheap 857 food upon which the paupers were fed was not made of wheaten flour, but of that ground from Indian corn.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Glengall) had let out a secret. He had often heard it said that the guardians in Ireland gave 2s. 6d. per head to get rid of their paupers; but he was surprised to hear it asserted as so notorious a fact by the noble Earl. He (the Duke of Argyll) believed that it was a most illegal disposal of the poor-law funds. The great towns of Scotland, such as Glasgow, had suffered so much from the pressure of the immigration of Irish paupers, that they had frequently been glad to give 2s. 6d. a head to send them back. He hoped these so-called guardians would send them no more half-crown paupers.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, his noble Friend (the Earl of Glengall) never intended to say that such a system was practised in Ireland by any one, much less by the guardians. To hear the speech of the noble Marquess, those who were ignorant of the real state of Ireland, would imagine that agriculture there had improved, and that it was in a state of gradual progress. He (the Earl of Lucan) had resided in Ireland for the greater part of every year for the last ten years, and he spoke the truth when he said that at no former period had there been equal distress in the west of Ireland; that at no former period was the cultivation of the land more totally neglected than at the present moment. There had long been emigration from Mayo and Galway; but never before was there such a general runaway from the land as at the present moment. The statement of the noble Marquess was therefore, begging pardon of the House for the expression, a tolerably audacious one. The noble Marquess had never heard a member of his board of guardians speak in favour of protection; but did the noble Marquess know what they said when he was not present to hear them? He (the Earl of Lucan) was chairman to four boards of guardians, and they were all Protectionists to a man. He had never heard any of them congratulating themselves on cheap food; but often and often had he heard them lament that "cheap food" should have created so much depression, ruined so many farmers, thrown so many acres out of cultivation, expatriated so many labourers, and thrown their wives and children upon the poor-rates. The statements of the noble 858 Marquess were so unfounded in fact, that it would have been most culpable if he the Earl of Lucan) had not contradicted them.
§ The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE explained.
§ Petition ordered to lie on the table.