SIR HENRY PARNELL'S RESOLUTIONS ON THE

STATE OF THE CORN LAWS.

May 5, 1814.

In a Committee of the whole House, Sir Henry Parnell moved a series of Resolutions on the State of the Corn Laws. His first resolution, viz. “That the exportation of corn, grain, meal, malt, and flour, from any part of the United Kingdom, should be permitted at all times, without the payment of any duty, and without receiving any bounty whatever," was put and carried. On the second resolution, containing the new Schedule of duties, being read,

Mr. HUSKISSON said, he would not trespass on the House longer than was necessary to explain the amendment which he was about to offer. The two great objects which the House had in view by the proposed measures were; first, to render the country independent of foreign supply; and, secondly, to keep the price of corn as steady as possible.

Under the system which had been pursued since the year 1773, England had been gradually becoming more and more dependent on foreign countries for a supply of grain, and the prices had, in consequence, been kept in a state of continual fluctuation. He had selected this period, because the year 1773 was, in fact, the commencement of a great change in the practical operation, though not in the avowed policy, of our corn laws. From that date the aggregate balance of our imports of grain, taken upon a series of years, began to exceed the balance of our exports. But, upon looking from that year to the period of the revolution in 1688 (a space of eighty-five years), our exports, taken for any number of years, on the contrary, exceeded our imports, and during that period the fluctuation of price had never exceeded one-third.

Instead of which, during the last half century, large importations had taken place, and the fluctuations had

exceeded more than three to one, instead of one to three. He would ask the House, what must be the state of that law which had produced such great evils-if they had been produced by law, of which there could be no doubt; and whether some remedy was not absolutely necessary? It was impossible to raise the price of labour, in proportion to the fluctuating price of grain; and as the agricultural labourers constituted the largest class, and were those whose earnings approached nearest to the amount of that which was necessary to mere existence, any temporary rise in the price of grain was more severely felt by them than by any others; and this evil exhibited itself in augmented poor rates, and in various other forms.

The fluctuation of price was an evil equally to be guarded against with a high price. It was true, the total prohibition of the importation of foreign corn would raise the price; but if he should prove that the proposition which he meant to submit to the House, though it might raise the price in a trifling degree, would yet tend to keep it at a steady rate, and not so high as the average of those fluctuations which had taken place of late years, it would not be said that he was one who attended to the landed interest alone. Indeed, it was unjust to suppose that there was any exclusive interest in that House.

Notwithstanding the importance that was attached to the importations of grain, it was an ascertained fact, that in no one year had more than about one-tenth or one-twelfth of the whole consumption been drawn from foreign countries. If no foreign corn had been imported, the nation would have saved sixty millions sterling. It might be said, that without this importation sixty millions' worth of our manufactures would have remained unsold; but then it is not recollected what those sixty millions would have effected, if they had been expended in the improvement of our agri

culture; or what increased means of purchasing our manufactures they would have given to the agriculturists. If, on being laid out at home, they had produced these natural effects, then the country would have added to her means of independence, and have created a market, of which no external relations could have deprived her.

When the law, permitting the importation of corn, was first passed, there was a great deal of unfounded clamour raised against it; but what had been the effect of that law? Ireland had supplied to England corn, for which she had received several millions that had gone to improve her agriculture, which, but for that law, would have gone to Holland or some other country. The exportations from Ireland were now three millions annually, with the probability of a great increase. Circumstances, over which we had no control, had tended to improve the agriculture of England. Continental exclusion had advanced the cultivation of our own lands; and the high prices occasioned by such exclusion, had rendered us independent of foreign aid. Now, when we had paid the price of our independence, and produced a supply equal to our consumption, would it not be wise to prevent any great revolution, which would destroy the domestic culture of the country, and render it more dependent than it had ever been?

He would not stop to inquire whether it was sound policy to suffer any great country to be dependent on another, for an essential article of subsistence; but it must be obvious, that such an advantage would be readily seized on by any power, and used to the annoyance of the nation that exposed itself to such an evil. If the law was left in its present state, it would not be long before agriculture would go back. The low price of corn, indeed, had caused many labourers to be thrown out of employ; as the farmer was not capable of continuing his improvements. A double

evil was felt by the farmer from the decrease in the price of corn. The labourer was thrown out of employ, and became chargeable to the parish; and thus, while the farmer had his means diminished, he was called on for additional outlays in the charge of the poor rates. The argument of lowering the rents might be resorted to, but this could not be effected in all cases. It was certainly desirable that they should not go on increasing; but the House would see that, in reducing the price of land and corn, the country would sustain a loss of capital.

He was in favour of the propositions of the honourable baronet; but he thought they proceeded rather too much upon the principle of giving the monopoly of the English market to the English corn-grower. The amendment he should propose would leave importation open at all times, and retain the present price of 63s., as that at which the prohibitory duty of 24s. 3d. should operate; and, as the price of corn rose one shilling, so the duty should fall: for example, when corn was at 64s. the duty should be 23s. 3d., and so on; so that at 86s, there would be no duty at all.

He had only one more word to offer. It related to the colonies. It was proposed to lay a smaller duty on corn imported from the colonies, than on that imported from foreign countries; but the difference, he would contend, was not sufficiently great; and therefore, he would propose to make the duty on corn imported from the colonies, half the amount of that imposed on foreign corn. This would tend to promote the growth of it in our own settle

ments.

The amendment moved by Mr. Huskisson was agreed to.

May 16.

Mr. Huskisson having moved the order of the day, for taking the Resolutions into further consideration, Lord Archibald Hamilton— after contending, that they would have the effect of raising the price of bread, and objecting to the abandonment, with respect to Corn alone, of all those great regulations which writers on political economy universally allowed to bear upon all other articles of commercemoved the postponement of the debate till this day three months.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, he conceived, that the appeal which had been made by the noble lord to the general and abstract principles of political economy had totally failed; seeing that the whole of our commercial and economical system was a system of artificial expedients. If our other regulations with regard to the price of commodities stood upon the basis of the principles of FREE TRADE, then there could be no possible objection to leaving our agricultural productions to find their own level. But, so long as our commerce and manufactures were encouraged and forced by protections, by bounties, and by restraints on importation from abroad, he saw no reason why the laws relating to the growth of corn should alone form an exception to this general system in almost all other respects. The examples of Holland, Hamburgh, and Venice, which had been alluded to by the noble lord, appeared to him to be, by no means, cases in point. The two latter were little more than trading towns; and Holland did not contain a sixth part of the arable land which there was in this country. Holland might always derive a supply of corn, either from this country, if she were at war with the Continent, or from the Continent if she were at war with this country; but we might be so situated, as to be entirely shut out from any foreign supply.

Now, he thought this an evil greater than some people imagined. The proportion of corn hitherto imported,