The Express.
London, England, 1852-03-13 00:00:00

Though Mr. Dissent spoke yesterday for anl
hour and • half on the hustings at Buckingham, ho
displayed his usual cleverness in saying as little as
possible to the purpose. Ile was most guarded and
ministerial. He referred to his old topic of the re-
sejmensent of the burdens that press upon the land-
lords ; quoted a passage from Mr. M.Cut.toeit,
shoat "a cuuoterrailing duty ;" thought tho agri-
culturists entitled to redress—liked the notion of a
Axed duty—but was not then going to pledge the
exiMenceof a government orapolicy on each 'immure.
With all his vagueness, however, and in spite of his
unwillingness to draw the veil from what the DERRY
ministry have in store for us, we may plainly see
that the new Cdexer.l.Loa has his mind made up to
tax our food—if he can get opportunity of doing it.
He is for protection, though- be did not think fit
yesterday to state fully and fairly the whole of his
mind on the subject.
If—as is now the general impression—Lord DERBY
and Mr. IHSRAELI should come down to the Homes
of Parliament with a proposal to impose a fixed duty
of Ss. upon corn, what will it cost the country to
adopt their plan? Englishmen like to have a
question of this sort very thoroughly examined. In
this country political changes are not adopted hastily
or without inquiry ; and least of all those Muses
which involve a pecuniary sacrifice. In money value,
then, what will a 3s. duty coat the people ?
The consumption of wheat in England at the pre-
sent time may be taken at 23 millions of quarters
annually. Of this quantity, 20,000,000 quarters are
home-grown wheat, whilst 5,000,000 are foreign pro-
duce. Now, a duty of ss. a quarter upon 3,000,000
quarters of wheat would amount to 1,230,000/. a
year, a very nice little sum for the nation to pay for
the privilege of eating bread, and a very pretty little
item for the Exchequer to receive, if it ever did re-
ceive it. But the fact is, the Exchequer never would
receive that sum, though the people would have to
pay more than twice as much. This we will pro.
Ned to show, if the public will give a brief attention.
The express object of a food-tax is to raise
the price of grain for the advantage of the home
producer. That, we presume, is admitted by pro-
tectionists. If such an object is repudiated, then
the entire argument for protection is conceded. It
lis the distress of the home producer that is the
very foundation of the cry for protection, and the
argument is that that distress can only be alleviated
by such a tax on foreign corn as shall raise the price
of home-grown produce.
Now, it is right to admit that it does not follow,
because there is a 3s. duty upon foreign corn, that
the rise of the price of the home-grown produce will
be fully equal to the amount of the duty. But in
order to beef any benefit to the farmer at all, the rise
of price must not fall very far short of that amount.
A protectionist will not tell us at the present time
that he would be content with an increase of ls. or
of 2s. upon the price of wheat. He will say that he
ought to have ss. a quarter more than ho gets, and
that he may reasonably hope and expect, under a
fixed duty, to receive at the least 4s. Well, now,
we presume his friends are not going to delude him.
If they propose a Si.e duty, they will propose it as an
act of justice to the farmer, and in the hope, belief, and
expectation that lie will get 4s. a quarter more than
he received at market yesterday. At present the
farmer produces 20,000,000 of quarters of wind
a year. Ile will say that one of the
advantages ho expects from protection will
be that more home produce will be grown and
consumed, and that less foreign corn will be imported
and consumed. Suppose he is able to raise his =noel
produce from 20,000,000 quarters to 21,000,000 quer-
tors, and suppose he receives upon these 21,000,000
quarters not the full advance of the 3a duty, but au ad-
vance in price equal to (say) 45. per quarter, which
is the least he thinks he ought to have. What
will be the additional amount that, opts this enti•
mate, the people will have to pay for dude bread?
An increased price of 4s. per quarter opus beass-growu
produce wash' amount to no less ass dila POUR
MILLIONS TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS a year,
not use farthing of which would yu to the Exchequer.
But there would still be an importation of foreign
corn, and a revenue to be obtained therefrom. At
present we import 3,000,000 quarters of wheat. The
protectionist tells us that he wants to keep out a con-
siderable portion of this supply, and we have already
estimated the increased home produce at 1,000,000
quarters, which is, of course, to take the place of the
same quantity at present imported from abroad. This
reduces the foreign importation to 4,000,000 quarters;
but there is a large further deduction to bo made, be-
cause the increase of price must of necessity re-
duce the consumption, and, as the farmer here must
sell what he produces, that reduction must
be in the consumption of foreign corn. Say, that
the reduction of consumption which would follow an
increased price of 4s. per quarter upon corn would
amount only to 2,000,000 quarters, and deduct these
2,000,000 from the 4,000,000 quitters of foreign corn
to be imported : 2,000,000 quarters will remain. Now,
a duty of tis. upon 2,000,000 quarters of foreign corn
will amount to 500,0001. a year. Instead, therefore, of
the Exchequer getting a million and a quarter, it
would receive only half a million annually ; which
half million added to the 4,200,0001. to be paid to
the home producer, will raise the direct price of
bread to be paid by the consumer to 4,700,0001.
But this is by no means the entire addition to the
price of bread which a ss. duty would entail.
An increase of the price of the raw material must
necessitate an increased outlay of capital by all who
arc engaged in fitting that•raw material for general
consumption. The importer will have to invest an
additional amount of money in his purchases : so
will the corndealer and miller; and the baker in his
turn having to deal with* higher priced article, mast be
indemnified for the amount of his additional bast
"tent in it. Take the profits of these poetise at Win
sent. Ten per cent. upon an additional Al* d
4,700,0001. would amount to 470,0001., Cr tea*
id. per quarter, which amount might, if a kap
advance in price were sustained, amount, with As
charges, to Is. or upwards a
.quarter, a tax upon a
tax, and that tax upon the principal necessity of lids,
And remember, we are speaking only of the tax on
wheat, and not upon any other kinds of grain.
What the English people have to consider,
thee, is whether they are prepared to pay
11T1 MILLIONS ANNUALLY as a tax upon theft
keel. Consider what Ave millions is. It is more
than the total expenditure for the relief of
the peer in England and Wales in 1831. The poor's
rates MI heavily on us; a bread tax would fall
still nem balmily. It is as much, within 300,0001.,
N tits whsle 2/1101111t of revenue derived frogs the
popety and he tax, which falls heavily on sun
of bat which to many least able to bear it, would
be as nothing to the burden of a tax on food. It is
twin as math as we expend annually on the dove-
reign sad alt her court, on all the pensioners and
c asses ef the state, on all our courts of far
and magistrates, on all our dipl
ahnsd,jar salaries and allowances, annuities end
pinions, and miscellaneous charges on the Candi-
dated Fund. Put these all together, and they sammunt
to little more than two millions and a half, whilst a
tax of Cis. per quarter upon food would amount to
five millions. Upon our navy we spend about
5,800,0001. a year, upon all the ordnance for our
army 2,200,0001., for civil services the estimate of
Iti3l was only 4,000,0001. We are all indignant at
the expense in which the Kaffir war involves the
nation. Why, the estimate for that war last year
was not ono tithe of the estimate for protection next.
We appropriated 300,000 t. to pay for thu Kaffir war
in 1831—we are about to be asked to pay five millions
to pay high rents in 1853.
For this is what it comes to. Protection does not
mean relief to the tenant farmer, or high wages to
his labourer—nothing of the sort. It means high

rents for the landlord, the support of an oligarch*,
the domination of a church, the depression of in-
dustry, and the taxation of a people. It will be fuel