The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-25 00:00:00

r rain,! is benefited by the tax. His rent is increased.
But the farmer, it is our opinion, will not be able
to recover from the public, in the price of his crops,
the additional obligations he will incur by the tax
enhancing the rent. Practically our view is borne
out by what has taken place under the present law,
which having been intended to secure a protection

to the farmer of 30s. Bd. when wheat sells for

565, Id., the average of the last eleven years has, in
fact, only secured him a protection of ss. sd. The
present law has cheated the farmer, and so will a
fixed duty.
The peculiar condition of the farmer seems to us
to be overlooked. He first of all contracts with his

landlord to pay him a certain sum at Lady-da..

perhaps, and Michaelmas. That is one certain
obligation, from which he cannot escape. Next
come all the rates, which are fixed and cannot be
avoided. Then he has to make great advances for
seed corn, for stock, for labour, having to look to
the growing crops for his remuneration. His
obligations and his advances are certain, the
remuneration is contingent and uncertain. Now,
this certainty on the one hand, and this con-
tingency on the other, must, on an average of years,
tell against the farmer, provided his obligations be
enhanced, as they will be, by any tax on food, whe-
ther fixed or fluctuating. Under the most favourable
circumstances, it may be doubted whether the con-

tingencies would not, in the long run, beat the far-
mer ; but, under the circumstance of his obligations
being enhanced, as we have mentioned, he
must lose.

It is plain that the consequence of the certain
obligations which the farmer contracts is to corn-
pel him, as soon as his crops are harvested and
thrashed, to sell. The majority of farmers have not
capital to carry them over two years ; they have

not capital sufficient to retain their own crops in
their own hands, pay their debts, and carry on the
cultivation of the land for another year. If they
had so much capital, it is clear that they
might, without any law, exact their own terms
for food, and enrich themselves, or starve
the people. On the contrary, the approach of
every harvest finds the bulk of the farmers a deeply
indebted race. They are indebted for rent, in-
debted for many shop-bills, indebted for rates and
taxes, and, to pay their debts, they must sell their
crops. Now, whatever enhances, like a tax on
food, the obligations of the farmer, makes the com-
pulsion that lays on him to sell the more stringent,
and places him more certainly at the mercy of the
capitalist.
If he had to deal directly with the consumer,
whose want of food is probably as urgent as his
want of money, it might not be so bad for him.
But the iarmer sells to the capitalist, who buys not
to eat, but to make a profit on selling again. He
is well aware of the necessities of the farmer and of
the consumer, and will only buy and sell when it is
advantageous to himself. On both sides he gains.
The grower must sell, the consumer must eat, and
the capitalist makes it his business to profit by the ne-
cessities of both. We donot object to his occupation,
we think it fair and legitimate ; it equalises prices
through the ) ear, and, like the fly-wheel of a steam-
er:gine, spreads an irregular jerking force equally and
smoothly over the whole machine. But the tax,
by enhawcing the ob]igations of the farmer, and
making it more difli cult for the consumer to get
food, increases the porrer of the capitalist over both,
and he is enabled to make better terms for him-
self, both with the person lie buys from and
the person he sells to. To the farmer, the advan-

tape given to the capi?talist is most injurious, be-
cause his obligations scannot be shaken off. The
law, pretending to ber efit him, adds to his debt,
and makes the debtor farmer the servant or slave of
the capitalist.

There is still anottier consideration. Population
adapts itself, and sot letimes by a most painful
process, as at present, to the supply of food. The
result of that adaptati4 in is, that, on an average of
years, the supply equa Is the demand. The people
get about enough to eat;„ according to their own ideas
and customs, and ther eis none to spare. But now
comes a scanty year. The price being higher in
England by the fixt td duty than in countries
where there is no such duty, corn will flow
in abundantly, and prevent our farmers
from getting a rise in price commensurate to the
shortness of the crop. If the price had not been
previously raised by thl.e duty, it is clear that the
competition betwixt 1.1. ,e English and the foreign
farmer would be equal,. and the prices would rise to
remunerate the former as well as the latter. The
tax in scanty years opa rates as a bounty for the fo-
reigner to enter our to arkets, and so prevents our
farmers from realizing t he price necessary with the
short ctorlo meet th c.ir obligations enhanced by

,he tax. They lose, t Iterefore, and will be unable
:0 recoverlfrom the pt.lic in:the price of the corn!
.he amount of the tax t hey have agreed to pay the

an dlords.

Again, let us supp, 3se an abundant season ar-

rives. The people be lug fed by an average crop,
arid our prices being b 'v the tax higher than prices
on the Continent, the : farmer can find no vent for
his abundance, but by .lowering the price. He is
at the mercy of the capita alist ; he must have money
to carry on cultivation ; he must clear his stack-yard
to make room for the next year's crop ; his pro-
duce wastes and deterio ates by being kept, and on
these accounts he is obl; iced to sell. If the price on
the Continent on an ave rage year were equal to prices
here, the surplus crop might be exported, but the
effect of the fixed duty will be, to keep our prices
higher than :on the C ontinent, and render it im-
possible for the farme r to find a market abroad.
Down, then, will g o prices, far more than
is commensurate to the surplus of the crop,
and the farmer will! not be able to re-
cover from the pa bile the tax he has
agreed to pay the lane rd. So well known is this
process, that it has f enerally been customary to
unite a bounty on expo ri .ation, when prices fell below
a certain point, with e fixed duty. There is now
no probability, bower qer, that a bounty will be con-
ceded, and, consequei itly, a fixed duty must be as
injurious to the farm( ras is the present fluctuating
scale, which has imp( )verished and degraded him.
We remain then ;fore firmly attached to the
TOTAL repeal of all . 'the taxes on food ; and if this
were not the end a.f a long article it might be
shown that an imnr see liate as well as a total repeal,
whatever evil it m .igl it inflict on spendthrifts who
have mortgaged their estates, would be most bene-
ficial to the arricultu rists.

The great Ref(); In Meeting which has just taken
place at Leeds, it g,n emphatic warning which Go-
vernment will do well to take heed to betimes. It
is no mere superfi Dial impulse that has prompted it ;
but a steady, he art,felt determination of purpose
on the part of tho se who know and feel that, how-
ever it may be w ith the represented Few, the Re-
form Bill has, as ye t, done little or nothing to ad-
vance the inhere st; o f the unrepresented Many. We
consider the L Beds Meeting, whose paramount im-
portance presti it ticklish crisis, when the des-
tinies
hig and or y may be said to depend on
1 t e
the resul:c of ono or t\ wo elections--we consider, we
say, this great Meeting as a formal, decided acknow-
ledgment that the Rel 6. m measure has proved little
better than a failure : tilt tt the majority whom it was
served ; that the grievan-
meant to serve, iet lies no:
the amount of constitutiok t has not redressed ; that
ces it professed to, redress'
'al liberty it was its