Star.
London, England, 1828-04-29 00:00:00

CURRENCY.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, he wished to ascertain from
his Majesty's Ministers whether it was their intention to
allow small notes to circulate in England in future?
and also, whether the currency of Scotland and Ireland
wins to be altered ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
the questions were of great importance. His Majesty's
Government saw no reason to depart from the arrange-
meat which had been made respecting the circulation
of 11. notes in the year 1822 ; nor had they any inten-
tion of carrying that arrangement beyond the period
then prescribed. No change had as yet taken place
with regard to the circulation of Ireland and Scotland;
but it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to
introduce some measures for regulating the currency of
tliche countries. With respect to the affording of facili-
ties to Joint Stock Banking Companies, that was not
entirely in the hands of Government. It was a subject
of negociation between the Government and the Bank
of England.
Mr. CURTEIS said he had heard nothing lately of
the plan proposed last year of baying a joint standard
of gold and silver circulation.
The Petition was then laid on the table.

Mr. F. WILSON presented a Petition from the Deanery of
Pomfret against any concessions to the Cacholies, and a similar Pe-
tition from Leeds.

Mr. DUND AS presented two Petitions front parishes in York•
shire, praying for Catholic Emancipation.
Lord G. BENTINCK presented a Petition from Alexander
Hooker, against the importation of Fdreign Corn from the Isle of
Man.

Sir E. HARVEY presented a Petition from the owners and
occupiers of land in Chelmsford, Essex, against the importation of
Ftweign Cora.
Mr. WESTON said, he was ioStructed by his constituents to
support the prayer of the Petition which had been presented. The
Hon. Member then presented a Petition to the same effect from
Saffron Walden.

Mr. MARSHALL presented a Petitiod from Leeds, against
the Friendly Societies Bill, and a similar Petition from Whit-•
church, in Yorkshire: ; and a Petition from Northington, praying
for Catholic Emancipation.
• Lord MILTON presented Petitions against the Friendly So-
cieties' Bill, from Sheffield and Stockport. The Noble Lord pre-
armed a Petition from the Surgeons of Sheffield and Wakefield,
praying for facilities in procuring anatomical subjects; also two
I Petitions from the City of York, praying for religious liberty, and
a similar Petition•from the Roman Catholics of Leeds, and another
to the same effect from Stamford, and another to the same effect
from Oundle, iniNorthampton.

Mr. P. THOMSON presented a Petition from Dover, against
the Friendly Societies Bill.
Mr. CUILTEIS presented a similar one from Brighton.
Mr. BUCK presented a Petition from the Mayor and Corpora-
tion of Bideford, Devonshire, against any further conceuions to
Roman Catholics. .
Mr. H. GRATTAN presented four Petitions from Parishes in
the Counties of Cavan aud Kilkenny, praying for Catholic Eman-
cipation.
Colonel WOOD presented two Petitions from the Calvinistic
Methodists of Newcastle, against any further concessions to Roman
Catholics.

Mr. CAULFIELD presented two Petitions from the County
of Armagh, praying for Catholic Emancipation.
Mr. DICKENSON presented a-Petition front Yeovil, ptaying
for an Alteration In the Licensing System.
CORN LAW ACT.
On the Notion of Mr. Cstantats GRANT) the House went into a
Committee on du Cora Laves' Act.

Sir ALEXANDER GRANT, as Chairman of the Committee,
read the Best Itesohation—* That when. Barley was at 531. and
adder 345. the protecting duty should be 125."
Mr.E.WODEHOUSE said, he was anxious to bring
under the consideration of the Committee a Resolution,
of which he had given notice on a folmer occasion. - It
was his intention to. propose an alteration in the mode
of taking the averages, by including in the Returns
.several Scottish and Irish towns not at present hamed
in the measure. Another Amendment consequent upon
this was, that instead of the words, " the prices as set-
tled by law," it be insetted, " the prices as they are to
be'hereafter settled by law:' This, be conceived, would
again. open the whole question, and afford an oppor-
tunity for better arranging the question.
Mr. ti RANT thought, that the scale of protecting
duty, as it was sow proposed by Government for regu-
lating the protecting duties on Oats and Barley, ought
to be adhered-to, unless, indeed, it could be shown that
there existed soave strong end urgent reasons for their
change.
Colonel SIBTHORPE, in rising pursuant to his
nbtice, said, that be was ready to bow to the superior
khowledge of the Right Honourable Gentleman below
him upon this subject; but he would yield to no one in
as anxious desire to advance the agricultural interests
and general prosperity of the country. The Hon. Mem-
ber went on to observe, that light, or, as they were
called in Lincolnshire, "heath lands," were well suited
to the cultivation of barley, but were unfit for wheat ;,
these lands ooght to be.protected, or, eke they must go
set of cultivation. He found that, asking the last'
eight years, there hid beeS impaled MO this country
1083,739 quarters of barley, of which 57,300 (platters
still remained in bond. The Hon. Metilber, after some
'further calculations, conchicied by shoving, as en amend-
ment, " that when Barley should reach shoving,
and be un-
der 345. the duty should be 155."
Mr. FERGUSON said the amendment had his most
cordial support. It was now generally felt throughout
the country, that the scale of protection contemplated
l4st year for oats and barley was much too low.
Mr. F. AtEWIS expressed his sutisriie at the course

alien by Hon. Members upon this subject. He main.'
tained that the prOposed everigt protection was the
natural one, and was ,fdnaded upon- the prop ittions
which had.been maintained for years. If they were to
give barley an undoe protection! they would pro taato
discourage the growth of wheat...which was the natural
food of man. I.esides, they could not give an undue
protection to barley without lessening its quantity; and
the experience of 1826, when barley was scarce, was
sufficient to show them what afeartul decrease such a
circumstance was likely again to produce on our excise
revenue.

Mr. FERGUSON asked why they should raise the
protecting price of wheat from that of last year, and
not that of barley also? The lands capable of growing
wheat were favoured, while the lighter lands, fit only
tor growing barley and oati, Were neglected, and likely
to be thrown out of cultivation. It was last year ad•
mitred by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, that the
protection extended to barley and oats was not sufficient.'
Mr. ROBINSON objected to the alterations proposed
by the Hon. Member fur Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorpe),
and contended that they would have the effect of raising
4s. on 18s. He should oppose the Amendment, and
also any alteration in the mode of taking the averages.
He thought the landed interest too much protected
already.

Colonel SIBTHORPE said, that the protecting duty,
as it stood, was 12s. 4d. and that proposed by him was
15s. milting a difference of 2s. Bd.
Mr. CRIPPS confessed he was' one of those who
wished that no alteration should be made in the pro-
posed scale of duties. It would, he thought, be better
to let the Bill go as it stood ; but if any alteration were
to be made in the scale of duties, he thought it would
be better that it should be made in favour of oats rather
than,barley. The country was but little indebted to
barleY, while much advantage had been derived from
the growth of oats. He objected to the terms of the
Acts with respect to Barley, and he did so upon the
opinion of men in business, who had told him that the
Act was so obscurely worded that it would be impos-
sible for the most honest maltster to pursue it. He hAd
no objection to the descending scale, which was framed
with judgment; and no objection that he knew had
beets made to it by the manufacturing interest. He
thought that the agricultural interest was sufficiently
protected by the duty at 58s. and 595., as about that
point was the pinching place. Up to that point he
thought the Resolutions wisely framed.
Mr. C. GRANT did not think sthat the mere circum-
stance of an alteration having been made in the scale
ut wheat afforded a sufficient reason for a similar altera

tion in the price of barley. Each case ought to rest on
its own merits. The scale of wheat had been altered,
because the duty imposed by the last Warehousing Act
had failed to exclude wheat, when its admission was
injurious to the agricultural interest. When that Act
was passed, barley was so much in request in this coun.
try, that there were not enough for the distillerie,, and
the average price for some time bad been 4.05. Under
these circumstances, 200,000 quarters of barley had been
taken out under the Act, and the wants of the country
had been relieved; but that introduction of barley did
tint put-it in a situation corresponding to that of wheat.
.The Committee on whose Report the House had acted
had stated, that the supply of barley was inadeqnate ;
and in consequence of that the scale of barley had been
raised last year. When the Resolutions were first brought
in, wheat was at 60s. with a duty of 20s. At that time
the price of barley was 30s. with a duty of 10s. but
subsequently it was 325. with a duty of 12s. Applying
The same rule of proportion now, would give a duty of
12s. on 30. while in fact the duty on 30s. was 15s. It
was therefore impossible to say that the protection of
barley was not now sufficient, since it actually exceeded
the amount of the duty imposed at the time when the
Hon. Member supposed the proportion between wheat
and barley was truly preserved. He had a paper in his
h4nd which stated the amount of the importation of
barley, from the year 1800 to 1816, both inclusive.—
During all that time, the price of barley was so very
high, that the average price was found to be 41s. 7d.
345,000 quarters were found to have been imported into
this country during these sixteen years; and at the end
of that period the growth of foreign barley having
received the most violent stimulus that had ever been
given to it, the importation in 1817 anymnted to
133,000 quarters at 475. 11d. in 1818,690,000 quarters
at 525. 2d. and in 1819, 372,000 quarters at 41s. sd.
From these prices it might be seen, that even when the
largest importation took place, the agricultural interest
could not have been much affected. In 1827 the average
price was 20s. 3d. now it was 335. and at that price,
with a duty of 12s. it was impossible that the agricul-
tural interest could be injured.
Mr. EDMUND WODEHOUSE thought the Right
Honourable Gentleman's reference to the sixteen years,
between 1800 and 1816 was unfortunate, since the
small amount of the importations was the consequence
of the war that then excluded us from the ports of &I-
mre; and yet the Right Honourable Gentleman had
chosen that period as the one from which he took his
averages. He wished the Right Honourable Gentle-
man had made the subject a little clearer, by stating
the value of barley in Scotland and Ireland during
that time.

Mr. GRAHAM PIGOTT was of opinion, that un-
less some restrictions were put on the bonding system,
the agriculturists must suffer. He thought a ship bring-
ing foreign wheat into this country ought to be made
to pay the duty of twenty shillings on her entering
port, or that at least she should register at that duty ;
for unless she did so, they would do no good for the
agriculturist. •
Mr. LEYCESTER wished the House to guide them-
selves by the ratio of last year. That ratio was a de-
parture froM pre-existing systems, and as it was adopted
after mature deliberation and full discussion, it ought
to be taken as perfectly true and correct. It was said
that in Mr. C.mning's Bill the .scale of oats had been
raised, while that of wheat had remained the same.—
That was no objection. The ratio there was taken be-
tween wheat and bailey on one side, and oats on the
other, and great mischief would result to the agricul-
turists if it was departed front. Farmers had always a
hankering after wheat crops, and if they were encou-
raged in that prejudice, they would not employ that
succession of crops which was greatly for the benefit of
the country. He should object' to any thing that had
a tendency to make our population change their wheat
food for oats or any other substitute.
Mr.' BANKES said, theacale of last year had been
raised with regard to barley and wheat, not to favour

the growth of those grains more than the rest, but be
cause the old scale was erranieous.

Mr. PEEL -sand, that as the . proposal no* before
the Cornmitt,eehed been adopted efter.diiture delibera-
tion, it was impossible for him to consent to change it
in the manner required by the Honourable Member.
l-lis reeiont der resisting the alteration-were these: In
the cite of wheat, the price of last year had been found.
insulteient ; foc,.,ueder the then scale, the importation'
had •been sucliobskit had been Inland necessary to.altei
the price and rata of 'duty. Virby had not had the same

tobarle:

:e w;.th resi

irthe imj

lips of,
sinaiiqoateraibili tlitltie linad. beete Siebliar
'demand for it. Bar, even as the _scale now .attiad.As,
was highakjar barlfro)isT4e-resriiiirr iii-ortrAinsr;
than had ever been before known' in the Corn Lttws of
this country, with the exception of last year. BUt they
.had better not bind6theistrstlves merely .byAvita.t was
done last, ye4r, but take etnalculation fclerfty years
past, and find-the relation whiclrbarley. bore tir Wheat
and oats. Taking the calcniation'of the la'stfiftY.yeari,
and assuming as the ground of that -calcatsticin, that
wheat was at 100 s. the proportion which barley bore ter'.
that sum was 535. and that of oats 355. Assuiniak that
to be the true scale, if the account was taken in the im-
perial measure, barley must be calculated at 245. Bd.ro
be in proportion to wheat at 625. In order to maintain
these relative proportions, when barley was it a price of
32s..the duty ought to be 13s. Bd. but the duty really '
proposed was rather above that amount, being, in fact,
135..10d. on a price of 325. • The criterion he had thus
adopted seemed to him the best that could be resorted
to, and by that criterion it appeared that the protection
to barley had rather exceeded than fallen short of what

was necessary.
Mr. E. WODEHOUSE thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman's calculation as to the relation between bar-
ley and oats, made on the average of the last 50 years,
was riot to be depended on, as that period included a
war of 20 years, which must have most materially af-
fected the averages, as barley could not have been freely
imported during that time.
Mr. PEEL observed, that the same cit cumstances
which prevented the importation of barley and oats
must have prevented that of wheat.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when a division took
place. For the original Resolution 104
For the Amendment 47
Majority - - —57
On our return to the Gallery we found Sir A. Gamer proposing
the Resolution, that when Oats were iss. and under 265. a quarter,
that the duty should be 9s. 3d.

Mr. FERGUSON did not consider that duty as af-
fording adequate protection. One half the land in
Scotland could not grow wheat ; and though the Right
Hoa. Secretary (Mr. Peel) considered the duty too
high, there was not a farmer in Scotland who consi-
dered it enough. Taking Oats at 265, and the pelsle
of Inverness (represented by the Right Hon. the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade) were the only persons who
thought that a far price,rhe duty should be 103.6 d. Such
in increase was only in proportion with that which had
taken place as to wheat, and he would, therefore, pro-
pose that sum be substituted in place of 9s. 3d. as now
proposed. It was quite fallacious to take the averages
for the last fifty years; it should be more properly
taken for the last six years, and they would find, in
that case, that he was not asking for too high a protec- •
tion for Oats.

Mr. C. GRANT saw no necessity for making any
allusion to the county he had the honour to represent—
he much respected his constituents, but in legislating on
this subject,.he was bound to take it up as a general
questirn, and to view it on a brdader basis. The rate
of duty for oars was already more than sufficiently high :
and the perusal of Mr. Jacob's report most dissipate
any fears which existed on the subject. Looking at the
prices at Amsterdam and caller shipping porter there
could not be the slightest temptation to grow any great
quantity of oats with a view to a profitable sale in this
market.

After a few words from Mr. FIMGCMON and Mr. E. WCDEHOVSZ,
grangers. were ordered to withdraw, when a division took place—
For the original Motion • . . 101
For the Amendment ' . • • • 59
Majority . . . . --4

Mr. WESTERN complained of an alteration in the
scale with respect to the propottion of the duty in the
resolution respecting peas and beans. In all former Acts
the proportion had been two-thirds, and it was now con•
siderably lower. He threw himself, upon the candour
of the Right Hon. Gentleman for the reason why that
proportion which had governed all former law; should
now be departed from ? The hoe culture; used in the
growing of these articles, gave great employment to the
agricultural labourer, and he thought the present a most
inauspicious moment for decreasing the demand for that
surplus of labour of which they heard so many com-
plaints on all hands. He asked for no additional pro=
tection, but he asked for a reason why less protection
was to be given now than•in any former instance. .He
wished the ratio to be taken at 41s. instead of 375. and
be hoped his proposition would receive the favourable
consideration of the Committee.
Mr. C. GRANT quite agreed with the Honourable •
Gentleman in the importance which he annextd to *the-.
culture of these articles; but he thought a special case
must be made out before the proposition could be ad- ,
mined, and it would be, therefore, better to postpone
the resolution.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL contended for the necessity

of protecting the growth of this species of corn,: as sup-
plying employment at a period of the year when it was
difficult to be found. It was necessary to ascertain the
price of beans and peas in the foreign markets and Alteit
fix such a duty as would protect the British gtowev.-!'•
Mr. WESTERN said, he had heard no reason why a
lower ratio of protection should be given to these
ties than to others.
Mr. WARD said, that he had always considered the
prices of foreign corn to be fictitious, inasmuch as they'
depended entirely upon what was passing in this
country. In legislating upon such a foundation, there-
fore, they were mistaking the cause for the effect. He
thought the present measere a great improvement, and
that Government did not deserve to have it met by..
obstruction in any of its stages.
After a few words from Mr. Secretary Pm, Sir E. Ks.trcor-
. _

Null., Mr. WMIULN, and Mr. C. GILANT, the Committee divided
upon Mr. WEST/Wei proposition for substituting 41s. for 57a. • •
Ayes . . . . . 99
Woes • • • • • 43
Majority • • • • —56
The Amendment making the price 41.. when the duty is to corn.

•
mence, instead of 375. was therefore carried.
Upon the other Resolutions being read,
Mr. BENETT complained of the unfair method of
taking the average, and recommended the ports of
Scotland and Ireland to be included.
. . Mr. Secretary PEEL contended that the effect of such
a proposition being carried would be to add to the pro.,
tection already afforded by this Bill. The difference
produced by taking in the price of corn in ports where
the demand %Vas very trifling, must be very great ; and
if the Hun. Member sought for any further protection,
he would p►efer his proposing it at once in the shape
of an addition of 7s. or Bs. to the present price, rather
than by this method of altering the extent of averages.
A long conversation then ensued on this subject, but the Resolu-
tion upon the Averages was finally agreed to; and the whole of the
Resolutions being then adopted, the House resumed, and the lit pert
was ordered to be brought up to.monwW.
On the motion of Colonel DAVIES, the Cities and Borough.
Polls Bill went through a Committee.

- The House also went into Committee on the Stamp Duties all.
Several amendMents having been added by Mr. DA WSON, the
House resumed.—Report this day.
• The other (Itches of the Ay were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at HAL/. PASS 'wawa O'CLOCK.

~~ LI
IRIi

r

i

,'

t s I

..i" .
‘,.
I
, ..
.
~..
;
.H,
.i:. ; i
i
: ~ ,
4
~:.1;
t'l
1
14
e
I, .11
( '
; ' c I
1., i
I:i.'
11;111
.11
• 'l'
11
I -