Star.
London, England, 1827-03-02 00:00:00

1
does appear to me as if it had been &sired to contrive'
how the most opipositeviews could be combined by an,
Act of the Legiilature. That Act provided that there
should be an absolute prohibition under the price of
eighty shillings,ond that after the price had turned
' that point there should be unlimited importation.—
What was the consequence? Not that these two ex-
treme principles working together produced a mean
course ; but that each in its turn prevailed, an.] from:
the year 1815 downwards, everything happened Web
ought to deter men from resorting to either of these'
principles; but certainly from any attemit to unite
them in action. What was the operation of the law in
1815? I say nothing of the prices in that year, because
it occasioned an absolute prohibition up to the price of
eighty shilling.. The harvest in 1816 was one of the
most unfortunate this country ever saw. It was known
to he so as early as August, 1816. On the 15th Aug.
1816, the averages prepared in the markets to govern
importation, which averages produced exclusion on the'
one side, and unlimited importation on the other, were
declared. In August the price was above the import
price, but not sufficiently long to raise the general ave.
rage. The ports were therefore closed for the three
starving months of September, October, and November.
They were not open again until the 15th of November,
and they had not been open above three weeks in con-
sequence of wheat being above the importation price,
when all the northern ports were shut by the natural
recurrence of the season. The ports being once opened
remained open till the November following; they then
closed and opened again in Feb. 1818. They closed at,
that time—in Nov.lBl7—upon a fraction of five-pence;
the average reached 795. 7d. The harvest of 1817
having proved nearly as bad as that of 1816, there was
then nearly as great suffering as in the preceding year.
The ports opened again in February, and continued
open for some time. The hat vest of 1818 proved abun-
dant not only in this, but in all the neighbouring coun-
tries of Europe; and it was as much the interest of this
country that our ports should be closed then, as it had
been that they should have before been opened. But
when the average was next taken it was found to be a
fraction of 2J. above eighty, and the ports in con.
sequence continued open, spreading a deluge over that
year,when it was not required, and depressing the price
as low as 38s. This then is the consequence of
setting two opposite principles in action together. It
was owing wi this that each class of the population suf-
fered in its turn, and that each class in its turn appealed
to this House for relief. Any Gentleman who will
turn to our proceedings in the Session of 1817, will see
the multitude of Petitions ws'ch were heaped upon the
table by the agriculturists, and which were continued
through the years 1819,1820, and 1821. In the midst
of this distress what was the fluctuation of prices caused
by the state of the law? Why, Sir, the price of wheat
at one time was one hundred and twelve shillings, and
at another thirty-eight shillings, being a fluctuation
of seventy-four shillings. That fluctuation was derived
from the state of the law, which endeavoured to set
these two opposite principles in action. The House
listened to the complaints of the agricultural interest
in 1822, and the Corn Bill of 1815 was revised. Of
that revised law, I am not going too far when I say,
that it never came into operation. It is true that
that law called duty to its aid. It gave up the
principle of unlimited prohibition; and admitted fo-
reign corn upon the payment of a certain duty.
—But, Sir, to that law was added a clause, which,
in effect, prevented the body of the Act from ever
coming into operation. This clause provided that the
law itself should never come into operation until the
price of wheat arrived at eighty shillings; and the
consequence of this law has been that we have lived,
and do live now as much under a system of prohibition,
as-if the law of 1822 had never been passed. The other
provisions of the law were in fact a dead letter, and
were never got at at all. Why then, if absolute prohi-
bition or unlimited importation will not afford protec-
tion—and if, as in the law of 1822, it is admitted that
duty is a fit mode of protecting oar home agriculture,
I will borrow from that law the principles which it
never could bring into action, and apply them by means
which will net fail of accomplishing that object. And
first as to the mode of doing so. Can a fixed duty ever
be effectual to that purpose? Take, if you will, Mr.
Ricardo's, or either of the other plans, the one a twelve,
and the other a five shilling duty—let them be fixed
and invariable, and see how they will operate.—
Corn in one year is at one hundred and twelve
shillings per quarter, and to any corn imported into
this country you add a duty of twelve shillings. The
average price in the same year falls to thirty-eight
shillings, and if you give to that only the same protec-
tion of twelve shillings, how small a relief do you af-
ford to the agriculturists of this country ! Is it not
quite clear, then, that a duty which is fixed is not cal-
culated to remedy these evils of fluctuation ? but instead
of tending to compens rte and equalise, will rather ag-
gravate and augment them. I have said that lam in
no degree disposed to find fault with the price assumed
in 1815, that of eighty shillings, as the maximum of
protection in reference to the circumstances of that
period. lam equally ready to say, that I find no fault
with the price assumed in 1822, that.of seventy shillings.
Sir, the prices of wheat for twelve years preceding the
year 181.5 averaged eighty five shillings and fourpence,
but the average for the immediately preceding six
years was ninety-eight shillings and sixpence.—
The price assumed in 1815, as I have said, was eighty
shillings. No doubt it may be considered that much
was deducted on account of the inflammation of the
war, and of its corresponding expenditure. The
price was fairly chosen. I throw no blame upon
the measure. The prices of corn in the years fol-
lowing 1815 up to 1820, averaged seventy-live shil-
lings and eleven pence. In the year 1822, a new
price as to be taken, and certainly when I tike into
consideration the depression which had been exyerienced,
I am not inclined to question the propriety of the price
which was then adopted. The average for the 12 years
from 1815 was sixty-five shillings and tenpence; and the
average lot the last years was fifty-five shillings and
sixpence. Now, in addition to the expeudituie, the
alteration which had been effected in the currency ought
to be taken into consideration. Althcugh that mea-
sure was adopted in 1819, it cannot be said to have
come into full operation until 1822, and therefore the
price of seventy shillings was not then objectionable,
though the average was sixty-five shillings. From that
period up to the present time the average price was
fifty-five shillings and sixpence, and the exact average
for the last year was fifty-three shillings. 1 therefore
consider, beating in mind the average price for the last
twelve years is sixty-five shillings, and for the last six
of those twclre years is fifty-nine shillings; that although
seventy shillings oas a 'air price in 1822, no man will
be found—indeed, 1 have teen able to find none, anti