The price of wheat in England, throughout the month of January 1828, did not exceed 51s. 8d. per quarter, when it was 23s. 4d. at Dantzic. The highest price in the month in which the act passed was only 51s. 8d. per quarter, when it was 25s. 4d. at Dantzic; but it rose in the last week of the month of October in that year to 76s. in England, when it ranged at Dantzic from 51s. 7d. to 71s. 6d. ; while, in the preceding week of the same month, when wheat had reached 75s. 10d. in England, it ranged from 54s. 7d. to 74s. 5d. at Dantzic.* In the first

week of January 1829, the price of wheat in England was 72s. 10d., when it ranged from 50s. 7d. to 70s. 7d. at Dantzic; and, in the last week of September of that year, it fell to 58s. 4d. in England, and to between 30s. 9d. and 48s. 8d. at Dantzic.t

Since the passing of our law of 1828, our fluctuations appear to have reached other places besides Dantzic, which were not previously affected by them. Thus, in January 1828, when wheat was 40s. 3d. at Leghorn, it was 69s. 8d. at Marseilles, 53s. 1d. at Alicant, and 63s. at Lisbon +. In January 1829, wheat was at from 55s. 5d. to 63s. at Leghorn; from 60s. 1d. to 67s. 6d. at Marseilles; from 37s. 8d. to 42s. 1d.

*Consul's Return, 1829. Ibid., 1830. Ibid., 1829.

at Cadiz; and from 56s. 2d. to 83s. 5d. at Lisbon.*

Similar consequences have attended the Corn Law of France, which is worse than our own in this respect, that France has divided her kingdom into four parts, and no one part is allowed to trade with another in the article of corn, until the price shall have reached in each a certain amount. Thus, in July 1829, when the price of wheat was from 48s. 8d. to 65s. 8d. per English quarter at Caen; it was from 52s. 6d. to 56s. 4d. at Brest; from 46s. 11d. to 53s. at Nantes; from 47s. 4d. to 50s. 5d. at Charente; and from 44s. 9d. to 51s. 6d. at Bordeaux.t

There ever must be fluctuations occasioned by the seasons in the price of corn; but, to the fluctuations produced by the seasons, we have added, as France has done, the fluctuations produced by restraining Corn Laws; and it appears that our present law, aided no doubt by that of France, has increased the frequency and extent of fluctuations at other places as well as at home.

This consequence produces a consideration of great importance with reference to our manufactures. Our Corn Laws being found to produce in other countries effects similar to those produced at home, the growth of corn is rendered

* Consul's Return, 1830.

+ Ibid., 1830.

hazardous in corn growing countries from whence we can obtain a supply; and thus industry there, as here, may be expected to desert the cultivation of the soil, and apply itself to manufactures, which are thus made there, as here, to bring a more sure, and always do bring a more speedy, return; whereas, if we allowed the great demand of our manufacturing population for food, to bring up the price in countries from whence we can derive a supply, to a price commensurate to the price here, we should thus make the number of our manufacturing population, which increase the demand for food, the means of preserving our manufacturing superiority, by inducing those countries to continue to apply themselves to the raising of corn, in order to supply that demand.

CHAP. VII.

INJUSTICE AS WELL AS IMPOLICY OF THE CORN LAWS.

Ir the object of these laws was to promote the home growth of corn, they have not merely failed, they have produced the reverse of their purpose.

But could the object be attained, without benefiting the growers at the expense of the consumers of corn?

And who are the consumers? Are they not the growers of corn themselves, as well as the rest of the community?

And how few are the owners and occupiers of land, compared to the labourers? And is not the high price of food the heaviest burden which can fall upon the labourers?

But it has been said that it is necessary to keep up high prices, in order to enable the tax-payers to pay high taxes.

But can high prices be kept up? and what is the consequence of a high price in corn, when the price of every thing else is falling? Does not the high price of corn then become the heaviest of all taxes? and can the tax-payers be the better enabled to pay taxes, by having a larger share of taxes to pay? Are there any taxes paid by the growers of corn, which are not paid by the rest of the community? and are not any means which keep up the price of corn, by reason of taxes, an attempt to relieve from taxes the growers of corn to the extent of the price so raised, and to increase the burdens of the rest of the community in the same proportion?

Are not such means, in principle, the same with an immunity from taxes enjoyed by a favoured class, which was a main ingredient in the first revolution in France, and has reduced Spain and Portugal, from having been two of the

finest, to two of the most beggarly, kingdoms in Europe?

The country has not yet arrived at the state in which England was in the latter part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, through the operation of laws which then, as now, prevented the exportation of corn; but we had indications of similar consequences in the agricultural districts, which prevailed two years ago. And can we believe, that, if we do not remove the cause, such disturbances will not break forth again with redoubled violence?

But have we not poaching attended with outrage; and do not these practices proceed from the want of employment, occasioned by the operation of the Corn Laws?

We have not yet the distress and poverty, in our country districts, that are found in Spain and Portugal. But if we maintain a principle which has destroyed industry in these countries, can we believe that it will not produce similar consequences here? Does any one imagine that even the freedom of our institutions will save us from this consequence? And, if industry shall continue thus to be fettered in the first and greatest of all its branches, are we sure that even those free institutions will protect us from the horrors of a Revolution, which has distorted and distracted France?