The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-02-28 00:00:00

CORN.

.....
Papers of average prices, and of importations
from Ireland and other countries, were ordered.
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS observed, that the
debates on this subject had been hitherto carried on
without heat; and hoped they would continue sa.—
The present was no new enquiry, but had been gone
into over and over again akdifferent periods. When
he was in the Committee upon the alteration of the
Assize, the question was discussed, and agreed to by
the Committee, and all persons interested in the bu-
siness. Six and three quarter bushels of wheat were
equal to a sack of flour, so that taking the price at

Sir JAMES SHAW was not aware of the princes
pies on which the Honourable Member proceeded;
but he thought facts always better than theories•; and
he should state facts to the llouse. For 10 years,
1004 to 1813 inclusive, the average of wheat in Lon.
don was 88s. Bd.; of flour 814. bid. ; and of the
quartern loaf Is. ?.;d. At this rate the inhabitants
of London, for so long a time, paid for bread. This.
fact he derived from the best information he could
procure respecting the Corn Trade. He also learned
from those acquainted with the subject,- that....iL the.
average price of England came to 80s. fine wheat in.
London, •ie be made into bread, would be' at 9's.
Such was his statement. This was a point of specu-
lation, but he gave it on the best informatiorr he
could procure. Many Members present were well
versed in the matter, and he should wish to hear their
opinions.
Mr. ROBINSON said, the tendenCy of this argu-
ment was to say, that under a new measure hy which
wheat would not rise above 80s. we were to find it
amount to 955. This was like an attempt to stultify-
the understandings of the House.
Mr. BARING maintained, that if the rate should
be under 80s. the measure was calculated to raise it
I above that price. Now, when the quertern loaf was
about a•sbilling, and the return of wheat under 70s.
the return was taken with the consideration of what
the present crop had produced. The Honourable
Baronet, he was sure, would not have risked his
I statement., if he were unable to make out tile• case.
It was the opinion of men of experience in the husi.
cress, •not mea of theory, that the price of 80,4.
would hare the effect ascribed to it. Ile wished to •
say nothing to inflame the public mind ; but he knew
of no way in which he could argue the question, if
hedid not say that he thought the measure was an
attempt to enhance the price of bread, and to pro-
cure a bounty for the growers of corn. Fairly ho
could not argue it, without looking on that as its re-
, eult.

Mr. BRAND observed, that those not particularly
conversant witk the subject, treated the question re.
specting the last crop, as if the mildewed wheat con.
tamped something noxious. The fact was, that the
flour was of very good quality; the evil lay
,in the
lesser quantity yielded. He had made purchases
from Worst samples ii► two or three
miles of Loudon, some as low as
ss. a bushel. hat wheat had not produced flour
enough, proportionate to the quantity, but the floor
was good, and the bread, without any improvements
Iwhatever, was found as good as any that could be
made, and might be sold at ninepence and a fraction,
after making all allowances. It most be found, on
due enquiry, that some gross deception and abuse
existed in the corn arrangements in the city of Lon-
don among inspectors, . speculators, mealmen, or
others. He contended against the notion of bread
rising to Is. 4d. by this measure. If the question
were fully investigated, it would appear, that with
wheat at 80s. bread would not be more than Is.—
The object was to preclude bread permanently from
exceeding Is. and to give protection and confidence
to our agriculture.
Alderman ATKINS observed, that the official re-
turn had made the average 61s. 6d. (as we understood
him) when the prime wheat was selling in London at
from 745. to 765. If so, was it unreasonable to sop-
pose such a difference to arise when the rate was Stk.?
There were great differences in the district averages.
In the first district, when it was 625. Id. it was
545. 4d. in the second, and in Wales 7bs. Sd. It
seemed then too much to say that it was not pos-
sible for importers and others to combine, or keep
up a high average for some time. The average
►n London scarcely differed 2s. for six weeks, while
in some districts, there was a difference of 21s. He
meant to move for several papers on this point. If a
fair average was taken, the price of bread might per-
haps be reduced.
Mr. MAKRYAT said, it was well ascertained,

that if the average price of wheat were at 635. the
quartern loaf would be at and if the price
were 80s. the same loaf would be at Is. 3d. Ito

hoped, therefore, the. House would suspend their
judgment till such time as they could .reconcile and
fix the averages with a view to the general benefit of
the public.
Mr. FIIARLAND LEWIS, in explanation, de-
nied the atatement just made by the Wit. Gentle-
man, and appealed to the Act of Parliament for the
correctness of what he said. I(e then rend a clause
in the Act, which enacted, that when the qarrtpril
i of wheat was at 795. Bd. the quartern loaf should be
fixed at Is. '
Sir JAM ES SHAW, in explanation, said it was in
the power of the Magistrates to fix the assize either
on the average of wheat or flour. It had, h-werer,
been.deenied by the Magistrates of the City of Lon-
' dun, the safest way to hx it on the average of ll.tur,
and that was the reason why the price,. tlitforPtl so
much in the statements of the two last speakers.
' Mr. ROSE said that the assize in London di tr,...4
from every other part of the country,, and the price
of bread was invariably higher there than in any ot`•or
part of the kingdom nearly 25 per clink There was
something inexplicable in this, but every trial to un-
t ravel the cause of it had proved vain and fruit-
less.
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS said the bakers In
the country bad a difference is their favour of 60Ib.