The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-26 00:00:00

would secure the country against a glut. He should be
very happy if the Government would take it into their con-
sideration. As to the Bill before their Lordships, if he
did not object to it on principle, he would oppose it as a
Money Bill. Such a measure was without precedent ; it
was, in fact, a regular Commercial Bill. Now, he would
contend, that corn was an article of commerce and barter.
He objected to the Bill, on the ground, that the preamble
declared, that it was expedient that corn should be at
all times allowed to be imported into this Kingdom.
Now, he would not concede that corn ought to be at
all times allowed to be brought into the Kingdom. He
objected to it also, on the ground, that it contained reci-
procity clauses, and unnecessarily too ; for, if corn were
wanted, it would come without the aid of a reciprocity
system; and if it were not wanted, the reciprocity system
was useless. The first duty of the Parliament was to pro-
tect the interest of the home grower of corn ; its second,
was to provide for the people so much food as the home
growers could not supply, by measures, the most reason-
able, and consistent with the safety of the British agri-
culturists. As to the prospect held out, that the present
Bill would afford a remunerating price, for instance, 60s.
to the British, farmer, if it did so he would be satisfied ;
but would the Noble Baron say, it would give a price of
if foreign wheat were admitted at only a duty of 60s.
Noble Lords may have seen calculations on the subject
made out by a well known cambist, Dr. Kelly. From
these it appeared. that the average cost of wheat at Dantzic,
was 215.; that it might be imported into England at the
additional expence of 12s. 6d. making together 335. 6d.
Then let the duty of 20s. be added, and Dantzic wheat,
the best on the Continent, would be sold in the English
market at 535. 6d. a quarter. Was that the way to give
the British grower a remunerating price of 60s. ? But
wheat would be brought from Leghorn also, at 30s. free
of all expense ; add the duty of 20s. to that, and the sel-
ling price of it in our market would be 50s. Would that
be remuneration ? He would not trouble their Lordships
with further details on this subject. He had before him
returns of the average prices ofwheat in the last four years;
they would serve to throw some light on the proposed ar-
rangeinent of reducing the duty by two shillings, for every one
shilling, the price should ascend in the scale. That was a
point well deservingtbeir Lordships' attention; it was,ia effect,
a kind of premium on fraud. The average price of wheat in
the year 1823, was 51s. ; it was only seven times above 60s.
so that the remunerating price, as it had been called, was
in that year only 51s. and 9d. In the year after (1824),
the average was above 525., and the price was thirteen
times above 625. ; so that the owners of bonded wheat
would have had thirteen opportunities of releasing it. In
the year 1825, the market price was six times above 625.
In the year 1826, the remunerating price was 50s. 11d.,
and it was eight times above 60s. These, then, were the
evils that would result from the establishment of the pro-
posed remunerating price, and the plan of reducing two
shillings of the duty for every one shilling that the price
may rise. He trusted that if the Bill should go into a
Committee, the reduction of the two shillings would be
changed into a reduction of one shilling, and that the rising
and the falling scale would be equalized. Another princi-
ple on which he opposed the Bill was, that of admitting
wheat at all times ; for very excellent Dantzic wheat could
be sold at a lower price than our best Essex wheat. Such
a system would lay the British farmer at the mercy of the
speculator, and produce the same injury to our agriculture,
that the importation of foreign wool had brought on the
ruined interests of the British wool-grower. As to the
cultivation of foreign grain, he was not one of those who
apprehended an immense importation from Odessa—on the
contrary, he did not see the slightest chance of such an
abundant supply from that place at present; but the way
that Odessa would act on the British market would be
this :—lt appeared, from the Report of the Commissioners
of 1822, that Holland had formerly been the great entrepot
of the corn brought from the ports of the Mediterranean,
and the Baltic—when the Baltic was shut up half the year
by the weather; but it appeared now, that a little Turkish
village, on the shores of the Black Sea, had grown up into
a flourishing export town—its inhabitants having increased
to 30,000 ; and that it annually exported 900,000 quartets
of wheat to the Western parts of Europe—Holland among
the rest. Now, suppose Holland supplied from Odessa,
what could the importers of the Baltic grain do with it.-=
They were exel2ded from Holland ; but if England opened
her ports, the Mac produce would find another vent, and
overflow inte the English markets. But it had been de-
nied that the Continent possessed the power of producing
such a quantity of grain as would affect the British
market. That position was disproved by the facts, that in
consequence of the publication of the Orders in Council, for
opening the ports, one hundred and fifty thousand quarters
of grain were imported into Great Britain, in the last six
weeks ; and in the last week of the month, forty thou-
sand quarters. Nothing could be more certain, than
that we knew nothing whatever of the power of produc-
tion of foreign countries ; and this importation of oats
I •
might be -wandered as a fortunate event, if it sufficed to
establish that fact. With reference to the warehousing
system, which had been so strongly defended by the Noble
Lord on the opposite bench (Lord Goderich) be (Lord
Malmesbury) without denying its value in the view which
the Noble Lord took of it, entertained a very different opi
nion of its ultimate effect. No doubt it was of advantage to
the country, so far as the corn, so admitted, first intended to
fill our warehouses, or employ our ships, and then was used
for the purpose of re-exportation ; but what was the quan-
tity of corn actually re-exported from this country? The
House would find that it was almost nothing. The whole
re-exportation of the last year's amounted only to
seventy thousand quarters ; and was it worth while to
risk all the dangers to our home agriculturists - attend-
ant upon the warehousing measure, for such an advan-
tage as this ? These were his objections to the details of the
Bill ' • but it behoved the House to look cautiously at it
with reference to the great general principle which it in-
volved,—the security of the landed and agricultural interests
of the country. The depreciation of landed property in
England had already proceeded to an undue and dangerous
extent. There happened to be lying upon the table of
the House, a document, from which some curious infor-
mation upon that head might be extracted; and as
its evidence was of a nature that could be questioned, he
would state a few facts from it for the consideration of
Noble Lords. This paper, to which he referred, was an
account of the average prices of wheat for the last seven-
teen years. And he had divided that period into three
terms ;—the five years immediately previous to the close of
the war ; the first six years of the peace ; and the ensuing
six years, which came up to the present time. Then the
House would find that the average price of wheat in the
five years previous to the close of the war, had been 995.
In the six years following, it fell to 765. : this was a fall
of 23 per cent., which might, perhaps, be fair, look-
ing to the change in the currency, the altered price of core.
modifies generally, &c. ; but there, he thought, the decline
ought to have stopped. But in the last six years the fall had
gene still further, for the average of that period was hardly
565. and it seemed to be imagined that even that price was
too high. Looking, then, to the two extremes, the 995.
and the 565. he found that in 17 years the value of landed
poperty had become depreciated more than 40 per cent., and
he thought that the House ought to pause before it risked
the chance "of carrying that depreciation any further. Their
table was loaded with petitions against the proposed
measure, Irwin a class of subjects, who, though willing to
make every reasonable sacrifice for the general good of the
country, were also bound to defend their own interests
against further injury. There was' another clasi
which their Lordships were called on to protect, he meant
the parochial clergy, whose incomes would be materially
influenced by the effect (as to price) of the present Bill.—
It was their duty, then, to look most closely at the provi-
sions of the Bill, and prevent every arrangement of injurious
tendency. There was another respectable body of persons
whose interests were involved in this measure—he meant
the Clergy of Scotland, whose incomes he understoed to be
appraised in proportion to the market price of grain. If
their Lordships would conclude, that the Bill would injure
the interests of those numerous bodies, he was sure they
would never allow it to pass into a law. Their Lordships
were bound, as Legislators, to consider the number of peti-
tions lying on their table against the measure; the im-
.ortance of the interests concerned; and to protect the
properties of those numerous classes who looked up to their
Lordships, as the hereditary guardians of their welfare.
To their Lordships' decision they had that night appealed
for protection. He trusted that appeal would not have
been made in vain. The Noble Lerd concluded by moving
as an amendment, that. the Bill be committed that day three
months.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY thought that there were
errors on the sides of the opposers and advocates of the
present system, but was disposed to support the Bill now
before their Lordships. The find point to which he
should • call their'ettention, was, the assumption, that it
was' a greittliardiltip to ford the poorer orders to eat dear
bread, and that their condition would be improved, in the
same proportion as the price of corn was reduced. If the
price of food was permanently reduced, assuming that the
supply and demand of labour continued the same, wages
would be lowered in proportion. Thus the manufacturer
would not gain, while the agriculturist must have his con.
dition decidedly deteriorated, by the vast importation of fo-
reign grain. The second principle adopted by persons who
advocated the new system—a principle which he consider-
ed erroneous, because pushed into an extreme---was, that
farmers and landlords were as deeply interested in having
the price of corn low, as the rest of the community. lie