The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-21 00:00:00

know that these armed processions were illegal. He hoped
that influential persons in Ireland would combine to put
down these processions in future. He wished to know
whether any special inquiry was to be instituted? Parlia-
ment would require it, and the country would expect it.
Mr. HUME said that these 1 Ages had been dissolved, and
he could not but regret that any efforts were made to keep
up party spirit and foster animosities amongst her Majesty's
subjects.-(Hear.) He trusted that any noblemen and gen-
tlemen who countenanced these proceedings would be re-
moved_ from the commission of the peace.
CORN DUTY.
Mr. HRRRIES then rose to make the motion of which he
had given notice. The remarks he had to make were of a
purely financial character, and he should deal with the ques-
tion as one of fiscal economy alone, carefully keeping out of
it all other topics, more especially that of free-trade. He
had two motives to address the House on the subject. The
first was in reference to the financial statement made some
short time since by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which
was certainly neither very flattering nor very satisfactory,
but which, nevertheless, was in his (Mr. Herries's) opinion
much more so than circumstances warranted. If that were
true, and if the Right Honourable Gentleman, to use his
own phrase, could only squeeze through the difficulty,
it became more material still that some resource
should be found to meet the difficulty. He ( Hr. Herries)
should not enter into a critical examination of the
budget of his Right Honourable Friend, but the accounts
submitted to the House sine the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer addressed it on the introduction of that state-
ment had not presented a more favourable view of the in-
come and expenditure of the country than was stated by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. And when he (Mr. Herries)
looked at the accounts for the year ending sth July, he was,
he confessed, led to apprehend that the probable deficiency
between the income and the expenditure would be far greater
than his Right Hon. Friend anticipated. In the first item of
expenditure, the Customs, he (Mr. Herries) found that the
sum received under that head, in 1848, was 19,883,0001.,
while, in 1849, it, was 20,827,0004, showing an apparent
increase of 1,000,0004 But when the amount of corn duties
came to be deducted from the latter year's receipts, a differ-
rents would be found to exist equivalent to 60,0001. or 70,0001.
It was clear, therefore, that there was no ground for expect-
ing an increase in this branch of the public revenue, under
existing circumstances. In the Excise the falling off in the
income of the last year, as compared with the year preceding
was still greater; and though the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer attributed it to the postponement of the hop duty and
the malt duty, still the fact warranted no hope of a speedy
increase. He apprehended the difficult position of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was not likely to be improved by the
events of the present year, and he (Mr. Herries) doubted
much whether his Right Hon. Friend would be enabled to
squeeze through as he expected. He would now come to the
question which he wished to introduce to the notice of the
Hpuse. Its object was to derive, from a moderate fixed duty
on corn, a large addition to the public income of the country
without imposing any additional burden upon the food of
the people. Within the last eighteen months much expe-
rience had been acquired as to the effect of such a duty. In
the course of that period the country had passed from a state
of free importation to a duty of 75., in March, 1848, which
was continued until February, 1849, when, as the House was
aware, corn of all kinds was imported free into this kingdom.
The argument against a duty on corn, however moderate,
was, that it would enhance the price of food to the consumer.
The. Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had, as a qua Protec-
tionist, proposed a duty of 10s., in 1841, stating that the price
would be kept np to 50s. or 605., and no doubt be acted with
the full conviction that such would be the case. But in
January and February, 1848, there existed no duty on corn,
and it would be seen that the importations in the subsequent
months were greater. They were-
January ... ... 82,000 Qrs.
February ... 97,000 „
March ... ... 84,000 „
April ... ... 116,000 „
May 121,000
June ... 112,000 „
In January the price was ... 50s.
February „ ••• ••• ••• Ms.
In these months there was no duty. The duty of 7s. then
came into operation, and the prices were-
March ... 51s. Od.
April ... ..• 495. 6d.
May „.
... 475. Bd.
June ... . . 465. 11d.
July 475. 11d.
August ... 525. 3d.
September ... 525. 93.
October ... ... 51s. Od.
November ... ... 51s. 6d.
December ... 475. 6d.
January, 1849, was the last month of the duty, which, in
February, dropped to Is. per quarter. But the price of corn
which, in January, was 405., was in February, 455. 7d., in
March 445. 11d., and in April about the same. From the
beginning of the present year to the present time the average
was about 45s- It followed, therefore, as a matter of course,
that these variations in the duty bad not affected the con-
sumer in the smallest degree, as regarded the increase in
price of the article. This conclusion opened new lights on
the subject of fiscal economy against which the House should
not close its eyes. The question he should propose was
resolved by these facts-namely, that a moderate duty on corn
might be levied without altering the price of bread to the
consumer. If it could be imagined that prices in the country
would descend so low as that they would be upon a par with
the price at which foreign corn could be brought into the
country, they would produce the effect of deterring the
importation of foreign corn altogether. That, however, was
a question which he would leave to the Government to con-
sider, and it would be for them to say whether that con-
sideration, should deter them from that mode of raising
revenue at the expense of a portion of the foreign produce
at.present imported. There was no doubt that if the price
went Bs. or 10s. below what it was at present the effect would
begin to show itself by importation being repressed. And
a fixed duty would have this effect, also; for he was anxious
to state everything openly, fairly, and distinctly. The effect
of a fixed duty would be, first of all, to discourage importa-
tion from those countries in which the price approached most
nearly to our own. He did not wish to name any price-he
was anxious to avoid fixing any precise duty, and only
wanted to discuss the principle of a fixed duty; but what-
ever duty they imposed, whether it was 65., or Bs., or 55.,
undoubtedly whenever their price came near that of France
or Belgium, or any of the richer countries near to them, they
could expect no importation whatever. Other countries in
which the corn was of a cheaper character would be still open
to them. It was clear that by the imposition of a moderate
duty on corn imported from foreign countries, we could de-
rive an addition to our revenue; and even if that addition
were only to amount to 100,0001. a year-whereas the truth
was that it would amount to millions-he said that we ought
not to neglect ensuring to ourselves that sum, which
would come into our Exchequer from the pockets
of foreigners. He believed that even a rich Go-
vernment had -no right to give up such an ad-
vantage. But a rich country, with a poor exchequer-
and he believed that was at present the condition of this
country-ought, above all others, to raise as large as possible
an amount of revenue from sources which would not press on
the incomes of the people. Considering how many great in-
terests in this country were at present calling for relief from
taxation, he could not help thinking that it was one of the
most imperative duties of her Majesty's Government to throw
the burden of our expenditure as much as possible on the
foreign producer. Let him remind the House that in the
month of January of this year we bad imported 710,000
quarters of wheat. besides 713,000 cwts. of flour ; the total
amount which would be derived from that wheat and flour,
at a duty of 10s., would not have been less than 530,0001. or
540,0004 In the succeeding four months, that was to say in
the months of February, March, April, and May last, we had
imported 1,768,000 quarters of wheat and 1,228,000 cwt. of
flour, and if the average duty of the five months had been
paid on those importations, we should have derived from that
duty a sum of not less than 750,000/.-(Hear.) The sums
we had actually received from the Is. duty imposed on those
importations was only 210,0001. ; so that we had lost in that
way no less a sum than 040,0001. And that had taken
place in four months. The total loss at that rate in a
year would have been 1,500,0001. It might be said that a
10s. duty would have caused considerable variations
in price. But he did not believe that' it would
have produced such a result. He found that in the month
of January, 1849, prices had fallen to about 455., and that
they had continued at about that amount for several suc-
ceeding months, although the duty had in the meantime
been removed. He did not like to point out any particular
duty which it would be desirable they should adopt, but let
him suppose that they were to have a ss. duty on wheat, and
a 2s. duty on all other kinds of corn-and that was a more
moderate proposal than that which the Noble Lord had for-
merly made-that duty would have brought to the national
exchequer during the four months he had mentioned a sum
of 760,000/. The mare he considered that subject the more
did he become convinced that we might derive a large re-
venue from a duty on foreign corn with..ut the slightest in-
jury to any British interest. He admitted that in arriving
at that conclusion he took it for granted that the foreign
producer regulated his prices by the duties, and the charges
to which it was subjected. In fact, the foreigner was com-
pelled to regulate his prices by the charges he had to meet
in the country with which he carried on his trade. It
appeared from a statement of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer on a former evening that we had imported in the
year 1847 not less than 33,000,0001. worth of
grain; and he found that we had imported about 12,000,0001
worth in the year 1848, and about the same amount in the
first five months of the present year. Indeed, he believed we
had imported more than 12,U00,000/. worth in those five
months, because he had taken as the basis of his calculation
the average price of corn, while it is well known that the
foreign corn introduced into this country, and especially of
late years, was above the average quality. France had sent
to them in the course of the last year a very large amount
of flour and corn at the price of 455. He presumed, therefore,
that the importers and growers were enabled to obtain a
profit even with the duty of 10s. which was then imposed.
If that be so, then it must be obvious that the profit would
be considerably greater in the event of no duty being levied.
If, as was generally supposed. they paid 25 per cent. beyond
the real value of the corn, then France had obtained upon
these 12,000,0001. in value 3,000,000/. of our money in the
course of the last year. He did not mean to say that the
grower and importer were not entitled to a profit, but he
maintained that even with a fixed duty the margin would
be sufficient to leave a fair profit, while a considerable sum
would be obtained for the revenue. It appeared to him that
they would be neglectful of the interests of the country, and
forgetful of the pressure of taxation if they did not adopt the
suggestion he had thrown out to them. lie could not under-
stand what objections the Government could urge
against that most obvious mode of improving their financial
condition. The first objection that was urged was, that it
was a tax upon food; that was an excellent one when they
were repealing the corn-laws. It was an excellent and a
popular argument-it was a cry, but it was easy to see the
fallacy and the nonsense of that cry. The question was
whether it was a tax upon the English subject for his food,
and his answer was, that it most certainly was not. Another
argument urged was, that it would prevent the importation
of corn, but that he had already disproved. A third objec-
tion was, that the present movement was getting in the
small end of the wedge, and that the ultimate object was to
obtain a protective duty on corn. But the distinction was
easily seen between the imposition of a duty for the pur-
poses of revenue and the imposing a duty to prevent the im-
portation of corn. If the statesmen then at the head of
affairs could not tell where to stop, then the affairs of the
country must be badly managed indeed. He did not mean
to mix the present question up with the great questions of
protection. It was not protection, but only the means of
deterring importation from abroad when prices were very
low. It was, therefore, not in any sense of the word a
protective duty. He regretted extremely that at a time
when trade and commerce here were by no means pros-
perous they should continue to send such large sums
abroad for the purchase of corn, and they ought to bear in
mind that they were there to maintain English interests in
contradistinction to foreign interests. lie would, therefore,
strongly and earnestly urge opon the attention of the Go-
vernment and the House to take up that question. It
was not in his power, or that of an individual Member, to
propose the imposition of a fixed duty; and although he
might have obtained the same end indirectly by submitting
a resolution declaratory of the opinion of that House that it
was wise and politic to adopt that mode of increasing the
public revenue, he thought it best to leave the question in
the hands of the HOUR and the Government. Entertaining