The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-01 00:00:00

/

tection to the growers of barley and oats as contrasied with
wheat. The important consideration was, at what prices large
quantities of gra'n couldbe brought into the country. He might
assitne that the calculetions made by gentlemen on both sides
of the House, and by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for
Dublin—in the first place, that Right Hen. Geatletnan (Mr.
Shaw) said, that, in 1829, there were 193,0'. 3 quarters of oats
laid I Is. duty; and, therefore, assuming that those oats were
got at average price, that lc ft the price of foreign
oats at something, under 125., which was the lowest
it could be introduced for—but the figures before the House
showed that in that year there were ma 190,000 quarters of
oats, but 530,000 quarters ; that clearly showed that the trans-
actions were not good mercantile transactions; 19'1,00 quar-
ters of oats sounded a large quantity in that House, but if any
one reflected upon the quantity which was sufficient for the
consumption of the country, that could not be considered a
great
deal; there were 2,500,000 quarters of oats for instance
imported from Ireland. Now, suppose 15,010,000 quarters
were taken as sufficient far the United Kingdoms, it
was a very moderate calculation, and 190,000 quarters
was only one-eighth • part of that quantity. There
was another case quoted by an Hon. Member: that
Hon. Gentleman said that there were three hundred thousand
quarters of oats importer! in 1836, and the average price he
slated was 21s. 91 The lion. Gentleman referred to impor-
tations which took place in speculative years; the duty then
paid was I Is. Suppose the (lay as it is now proposed, it
would make the price 145., so that it Would allay the whole
alarm of the agriculturists, which arose from the idea that by
the proposed scale oats canki be imported at I Is., 125., or 133.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex referred to
several cases too he said he had been told, and there was
no doubt the Hun. Gentleman's mercantile exeerienee was
entitled to great weight, he said that the best oats coul4 be
had on the Continent at lis. 61 Now, suppose, freight and
other charges were added to that, it would make it ltis. Ile
(;11r. Gladstone) did not deny that particular parcels of oats
might be had at that price, but I 1 s. 61 could not be taken as
the averaee price. Again, according to the returns, it would
be seen that Sweden, for instance, was not likely to supply
mare than 12;000 quarters of eats annualy. Then what was
the official information before the House? Ho was certainly
disposed very much to place the most implicit reliance, both
upon the returns of the Consuls and the calculation in the
Report of Mr. Meek—he was the more disposed to do so, as
he did not know that lion. Gentlemen, or any body of men,
had come forward to complain of th )se calculations, or
say that the estimates included in that Report were
erroneous or unworthy of credit; and upon the discussion upon
the wheat question, both . sides of the House relied upon the
geaeral returns of the Consuls. •He (Mr. Gladstone) (Id not
therefore think that the returns of barley or oats were at all
less worthy of credit than wheat was. The returns showed
that the average price of oats was 18s. 2d. ; and the quantity
that could be embarked at that price was 835,€30 quarters.
Suppose freight and other charges of that sort amounted to 53.
a quarter, that would make the price 235. 2d. a quarter.
793,000 quarters of oats was the quantity. supposed to be
annually imported; and. that could be had free in bond
at - 1 Is. mi. a quarter. Suppose freight to be ss.
a quarter too, that would be 163. as the pries at which
sets could be imported, and the diity of 6s. added would give a
total of 225. ; and, surely, no gentleman who was at all reosun-
able in his calculations could expect oats would be admitted at
less than that. By Mr. Meek's report it appeared that oats
could be obtained in Ostend at 293. Bd.; but the lowest price
he stated was at Elsinore, where oats were only 13s. ;
if 4s. were added for freight, and 6s. duty, it would make oats
235. 6d. a (parter. It was quite plain that, according to the
statements relied upon by both sines of the House, the protec-
tion afforded to barley and oatse according to the scale proposed
by the Government was very ample, and bore sufficient rela-
tion to the duty upon wheat. It was said that barley and wheat
had frequently sold at I4s. and 16s. a quarter. These
were extremely low prices ; that might be, and no
doubt it was, a great grievance upon the grower,
but these low prices were not owing to the alteration
proposed by the Right Honourable- Baronet- (Sir It. Peel);
on the contrary he (Mr. Gladstone) was firmly convinced that
in point of fact the glutted state of the markets with reference
to'oats particularly, was the real cause of the law that existed.
When agriculturists were getting low prices for their produce,
when even the prices of agricultural productions were extremely
low in this country, the agriculturists had been always disposed
to consider that it was because the protection was not sufficient.,
and whenever the prices were low they always i atitioned Par-
liament upon the subject. They did so for instance in 1821,
and the Committee then pertinently replied that it was quite
true distress did exist, but that the protection upon
corn could not be decreased. Upon the whole, he conceived it
was quite manifest. that the scale of duty upon oats and barley
proposed by the Government afforded as sufficient protection
as it afforded to wheat.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL regretted that he had not had
the pleasure of hearing the whole of the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down. He had risen merely
to ask why the ground which was 'taken up on the ori-
ginal proposition :of this question had been departed
from ?—( Cheers from the Opposition.) It was stated by the
Right Hon. Baronet, when he first. addressed the House upon
this subject, that he intended to abide by the relative propor-
tion of duty upon wheat, barley, and oats. It appeared to
him (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) most strange that the Right Hon.
Baronet's proposition should be held between wheat and
oats in the maximum duty, but the proposition be-
tweea the minimum parts was not at ail held.—( Hear.)
As 5 rises to 2, so does 50, not to 18, but to 20. That was
the proportion, and he wished for an explanation why the scale
had been departed from in the maximum and minimum duty
up.—(llear, hear.) All that he heard the Right Hon.
Gentleman say went to prove that the scale was sufficient for
protection, but he required to know why the proportion had
been departed from in the case of oats. —( Hear, hear.) The
Right lion. Gentleman had stated that the trade in oats was
the most satisfactory of all under the existing law, because
there was not the same over-holding to obtain the lower duty as
in the instance of wheat; and yet it was with regard to this
trade that the' greatest change was to be made.—( Hear, hear. )
Ile (Mr. Gladstone) stated that out of the 3,000,000 quarters
taken out of bond, there were 248,000 quarters taken out for
home consumption at a duty of Is. 9d. ; 690,000 quarters at
3s. 3d. ; 243,000 at 4s. 9d; 9.10,000 at 6s. 3d; anti
when it thus appeared upon the Honourable Gentle-
man's own corifesoan that the trade in oats worked
better-than the trade in any other sort of grain, he yet proposed
to make in that trade a still'greater change than in that which
had worked less protitably.—( Cheers.) He might have shown
that the duty was 7s. 9d. on 545,000 quarters, fP. 3d. on
193,000 quarters, and 10s. 9d. on 485,000 quarters, which had
been taken out for home consumption ; and, with that result,
how could it be said that a fair proportion could have b;-en kept
with regard to the duties on oats and wheat? Ile heard the
cause of that divroportiqu, but of emir. e (Mr. 111. .1.
O'Conn,li) did nut believe it, attribute,l to political antipathy
or, the part of the Right Hoe. Baronet ;, but it was,
at all evenfs, unfortunate. that . his conduct on this
question should appear so utterly inexplicable -and
irrational. With regard to the speech of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, if the protection he proposed were so ample with
regard to the inferior grain, he would ask him hoW it happened
that in the oat market so great a fall in the price of Irish oats
had taken place within ten days after his plan had been 'an-
nounced ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. M. J. O'C. ) was
of opinion that protection was not beneficial to any interest. in
the country, but if a certain amount of protection were given to
peculiar interests in this country, he should like to know why ft
proportionate amount of protection was nut given to the con,ti-
tuency—unrcasoning, perhaps, Hon. Gentlemen, might cow icier,
but who would understand that question very well—which he
yepresented.—(llear, bear.) He hoped the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman would give an explanation on the Subject; and he wrs
aware that for himself it might not be consistent to require an
increase of duty, as he hitd already voted for the removal of
protection altogether.—(Ministerial cheering.) Ile hoped the
Right Hon. Baronet, however, wads( show why he did nut
keep up the proportion of the duty on oats, and why he departed,
in the interval when he produced his proposition, and the pre-
Sent-time, from what he stated in his first proposal —(.Hear. )
Sir 11. PEEL said that the greater part of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's speech went to show that it was impossible to
keep up an exact arithmetical proportion between the duties
that applied to oats and wheat ; buy his Hon. Friend did
prove that the proportion, though not arithmetically correct,

was subAantially so, and that practical and equal proportion
was kept up between the duties on oats and • wheat; and

. .
when the Honourable Gentleman called fer au expla-
nation, he (Sir Robert Peel) thought that it was from
the Honourable Gentleman the explanation ought to come—
from him who voted against all duties at one time, but who
now rayed for an increase of them.—(Cheers.) The llon.
Gentleman quoted his (Sir R..Pcel's) speech with reference to
the importation of oats, and said he was not dealing fairly with
regard ,to the importation of Irish oats, but how he c",hl
reconcile that with the vote which be had given fur Ime
removal of all protection to Irish oats, he (Sir 11. Peel)
could not understand. They could obtain from Denmark,
fi out Stettin, and from every part of the Continent, that arti-
cle which constituted almost the whole agricultural produce of
Ireland, on which Irish prosperity so much depended.—(Laugh-
ter.) The lion. Gentleman loo!Ail with much dislike on
some !mall difference between the degree of protection in oats
and wheat, and hinted that Ireland was to be ruined becans4 slut
had not that sixpence of protection—(Laughter)—to which
Elie had a ri4lit, but. the Hon. Gentleman would make an in&
/lite! y greater hardship, by depriving Irish produce of allprotec-
tion whatsoever. flow the lion. Gentleman could reconcile that

to the House— tohis unreasoning constitu ncy the unreasoning'
part of his constituency—not to men who could examine into it
with nice arithmetical calculations—(A laugh)—he would
leave the Hon. Gentleman to s3y. But the greatest injury to
the progres, of free trade proceeded from the unrersoning part
of the community. When the lion. an

exit] ination from him, he ( Sir IL Peel) doubted if the
tants. of Kerry, if that were a-great oat-growint., county, woul►l
not rather demand an account from the Hon. Gentleman, nho

voted last year for a duty of 3s. 411 and never whiapred any
objection. Ile hoped that the longer the,e debates lasted the
country would be more enlightened; and he would ask lion.
Gentlemen who abused him for insulting the people of Eng-

lied by proposing his Corn-law--Hon. Gentlumen should re-
collect that to touch their protecting monopolies was a ttifficult

to,k.---( Hear, hear.) Yes, but 1-6. n. Gentlemen were loud in
their outcries minst them, and charged him with in tilting
the people of England ; and now, when the interests of their
own constituencies were touched, their outcry was raised on
the other side, anti they called for explanations, because he was
guilty of the enormity of touching Irish oats.—(Cheers.) The
people of England paid 300,0001., and he was asked if he was

going to increase Bic misery by reducing the duty on Irish oats.
But the longer these debates continued the more the coital
would be enlightened, and the people would see that the course
he had taken was the most moderate one and the bost calculated
to reconcile the conflicting interests of the country. He deprecated
as one of the greatest evils the increasing of the present dis-
tress by any violent disturbance of agricultural interests,
which would be sure to reach the commerce and manufactures.

—( Cheers.) He trusted the people of England would come
to the conclusion that his measure was founded on fair and just
principles. And he firmly believed that p:-actical experience
would confirm the impression which a great portion of • the
communil were coming to, namely, that it was the best set-
tlement that could be made.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ORMSBY GORE agreed with the Right Hon. Bl•
moot as the inconsistency of the Hon. Gentleman. It
should be recollected that. oats was the main produce of Ireland.
Ireland had a much larger extent of uncultivated land than
England, and they all knew that when waste land was sought
to be reclaimed, oats, awl not wheat, was the grain which was
tried in such soil, and which would best repay the cultivator.
Uniler those circumstances, he entreated the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet to consider fully this question before he had fluidly do•
cidcd upon it, He (Mr. Gore) diet not wish to throw any dif-
ficulty in the way of the passing of the measure of the Right
Hen. Baronet, but he entreated that, as a specific point in the
measure, oats might be considered not merely with -regard to
Ireland but this country also. Oats •NaS one of. the chief pro-
ductions of IsTxtja Wales, where a bad season, wiih respect to
that article, was almost destruction to the farmer; it was, there-
fore, a matethl. subject in the consideration of this goes-
tion. He could not conclude without alluding to the taunt, of
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who charged Honourable Mem-
bers on that (the Ministerial) side of the House with
tergi.
versation, with advoewing one opinion sylien they were on the
benches opposite, and a different opinion when they had come
to that side of the House. He wished he had some proof to
bring clown—some Mirror of r.Vlia,nent to show what had
been the sentiments he had expressed on this subject when he
sat on the other side. Although he had totally disapproved
of the repeal of the duty on corn altogether, yet ho had thought
that the present scale was most defective, and he had been
prepared to support any measure brought in even by his op-
pownts,provided it *as an improvement on'the existing scale,
b ut-preserving the principle of the sliding-scale. Lie was glad