Star.
London, England, 1831-06-15 00:00:00

TIMOTHY TROPIC.

THE CORN LAWS.

From a Pamphlet on the Necessary Operation of the Corn
Laws, Ia driving capital from the cultivation of the
soil, and diminishing the means of employing agricul-
tural labour. By ALEXANDZIL MUXDELL, Esq.

Adam Smith said of the corn law which was in force in
his time (13 Geo. 3, c. 43), that, though not the best in
itself, it was the best which the interests, prejudices, and
temper of the times would admit of ; " and he anticipated
that it might " in clue time prepare the way for a better.
By that law, when wheat was at or above 48e. the quarter,
it was importable upon payment of 6d. per quarter. When'
rye, Pease, and beans were at or above 365. the quarter, they
were importable upon payment of 3d. per quarter. When,
barley, bear, or blgg were at or above 245. the quarter, and
loats at or above 16s. the quarter, such grain was Importable
I upon payment of 2d. per quarter.
WILn wheat was nt or above 445. the quarter, rye, pease,
or beans at or above 28s. the quarter, barley, bear, or bigg
at or above 225. the quarter, and oats at or above 14s. the
quarter, such grain respectively was not exportable.
But when wheat was under 445. the quarter, it was not
only exportable, bat a bounty of ha a quarter was receiv.
able upon every quarter exported. When rye, pease, or
beans were under 281. the quarter, they were exportable,
and entitled to a bounty of 3s. per quarter; Barley under
225. was entitled upon exportation to a bounty of 2s. 6d.',
per quarter; and upon oats under 14s. a bounty of 2s. per
quarter was payable upon exportation.
This continued to be the law for fourteen years, at the
expiration of which the only alteration made was, that when
wheat:was under 48s. the quarter, it was not Importable un-
less upon payment of 244. 3d. per quarter, which amounted
to a prohibition. Proportional prohibitory duties were im-
posed upon the importation of other grain. (27 Geo. 3,
e. 13.)
During this period, the fall which continued to take place
in the value of motley made the operation of the law every
day less ; so that it had very little erect, either in prevent-
ing importation, or promoting exportation. Both took place
from natural causes. When the country required a supply
of any particular grain, or a different qualify of the same
grain, it imported it to the extent of that demand ; and when
it had a surplus of any particular grain, it exported that
surplus. During the whole of this period, exportation hay-
ing continued to gain upon importation, It follows that the
British agriculturist, with a free trine In corn, was always
enabled to export.
To meet the fall, however, however, wbfeli continued to
take place in the value of money, a new law was made in the
year 1791 (31 George 111. C. 30), which provided as fol-
ows :--

When wheat was at or above 64‘. It was importable, pay-
ing 6d. per quarter.
When under 545. but not under 50e. the duty payable
upon importation was 2s. Cd. per quarter.
When under 503. it was not importable, unless upon pay-
ment of 24r. 3d. per quarter.
When under 44‘. the bounty of ss. was allowed as before
upon exportation; and when above 48s. exportation was
prohibited.
The scale for other grain was raised in a similar pro-
portion.
The dire seasons of 1794, 1799, and 1800 followed, which
set all laws at defiance, constrained the legislature to grant
bounties for the importation of grain, and even induced the
government to become importers.
When the consequences of the scarcity of these seasons
bad subsided, it was again found necessary to meet the con-
tinuing fall in the value of money ; and a ncwlaw was made
(44 George 111. c. 109), which raised the scale of prices
thus :

When wheat was at or above 665. It was Importable upon
payment of 6d. per quarter.
When under 6Gs. but not under GU it was importable
by paying 2.. 61. per quarter.
IVhen under 635. it was not importable, unless upon pay-
ment of 245. 3d.

‘llenrti)O;es-Is. It was not allowed to be exported ; but
if at or under 40s. it was not only exportable, but the bounty
of frs. was allowed as before.
Tile Importation and Exportation Scale was raised In a
similar proportion for other grain.
The agriculturists, distressed and alarmed by the de-
pression which fell upon their productions, in 1810, in
common with those of every other branch of industry, I
were clamorous In their complaints to the Legislature,
which, in an evil boar, passed a law, 33 Geo. 111.1
c. 26, prohibiting the importation of wheat until it
reached per quarter ; and equally high prices were raised
against the impot Lydon of other grain. The bounty, which
had long been a dead letter, was repealed by an act passed
the year before f 34 Geo. 3, c. 09.)
The legislature might enact prohibitory prices against im-
portation, but it could not prevent the rise of the value of
money, or its influence upon prices. These still Jcelioed ;
and the agriculturists again complained to time legislature.—
Though a committee had been appointed in 1814 to enquire
into the causes of the distresced state of agriculture, another,
was appointed upon the petitions presented in 1821. This
committee stated in their Report, that " the ruinously low
prima of ag,ieukurid produce at this moment cannot be as-,
Mired to any deficiency in the protecting power of the law."
" Protection cannot be carried farther than monopoly."—
" This monopoly the British grower bus enjoyed for the pro-
duce of the two last harvests." Nevertheless, the legisla-
ture passed an act (3 Geo. 4, c. GO.) by which the importa-
hie price was raised thus
When the price of wheat was above 85s. per quarter, it
was importable paying a duty of Is.
hen under 83s. but not under 80s. it was importable
paying a duty of 51.
When at or above 70s. and under 80s. it was importable
paying a duty of 12a.
And the importable prices and duties of and upon other
grain were made proportionate to those of wheat.
Still, money continuing to rise in value, the agriculturists
found no relief, arpi tlkress prevailed among all classes of
the community. The legislature, in ignorance of its cause,
and overlooking tl:e rise of the value of motley, was the.
induced to try its hand upon another law (9 Geo. 4, c. 60),
which established a point for AO ascending and descending
stale, with duties as follows :

When the prices of Wheat is 628. per Imperial quarter,
and wider CCs. it Is importable, paying 11. es. Bd. of duty ;
and so for every shilling of price above 63.. the price is
made Is. less until it reaches 735. after which the duty is only
Is. per quarter.
This is upon the ascending scale.
Upon the descending scale,
When the price of Wheat is less than 625. but not under
61s. the duty i/4 11. 31. Bd. per quarter, and an additional
shilling is added to every shilling of price less than 61.5.
Proportionate prices and duties were assigned for other
grain.
The result of these laws will appear from the following
statement of the imports of corn in the last fifteen ytars,
contrasted with the imports in the preceding fifteen years,
divided into periods of five years each to
In the five years ending, Total.
1805 7,365,184
1810 6.933,975
1813 5,931,693

Total 20,230.852

Total.
In the five years ending,
13,866,9731820
1825 10,338,938
1830 22,151,525

Total 50,375,456
In forming a judgment upon these laws, should
also be had to the number of Enclosure Bribalassed in
either period. These are found to hare been as follows,
divided into periods of fire years :
Year... Number. Years. Number.
1303 454 1820 211
1810 432 1823 74
1815 560 1830 102

1466

During fifteen years of a virtually free trade in Corn, the
Dumber et' Enclosure Bills passed were 1486; but in the
last fifteen years, when the trade was restrained, the number
passed were only 387.
The additional quantity of land thereby beought into pro.
ductive cultivation In the first period should have diminished
the quantity of grain imported In the subsequent period.
But we find that the quantity of grain imported, which was
only 20,230,1132 qaarters of all sorts in the first fifteen
lears ending with 1813, increased to 56,378,436 in the
ast fifteen years ending with 1030; and the importation ID
• The quantities in the first fifteen years are taken from
tbe Appendix to the Agricultural Report of 18.21 ; that in
the last fifteen years are taken from an account ordered to be
delisted, 30.11‘f 31.tsch, 1031. (So. 330.)

the last five years is even greater than the importation in
the whole of the fifteen years which preceded 1815.
From the year 1773 to the year 1814, our total imports
of grain were 30,430,189 quarters, and our exports
6,801,440 quarters, the Agricultural Committee of 1821
observe, " The necessary consequence of the trade in Corn
having been virtually open with the Continent, and the Im-
portation allowed at prices merely nominal during the pe.
riod of forty years, has been, that the general price at the
shipping ports on the Continent has not, upon an average,
been materially lower than the price in England, except to
the amount of the charges to be Incurred in bringing the
foreign Corn to the markets in this country."
The fact explains how it happened that, until 1815, Great
Britain was enabled to export her surplus Corn, and to ex.
I port grain of one quality, and to import it in another; coa-
-1 sequently. why her agriculture continued to improve in that
period. It also unfolds the reason why she ceased to do so
soon after the passing of the prohibitory law of that year,
and why her agriculture has languished ever since ; namely,
that no branch of domestic industry can be in a wholesome
state, where, by the operation of law, its surplus viaduct
cannot be exported.
With a virtually free trade in corn, previous to 1815, It
may be supposed that, as we even then had a deficiency of
produce, we could not have a surplus of grain to export.
But though there was a deficiency upon the whole produce,
yet there was frequently a surplus of particular sorts of
grain. 31oreover, the sante grain is different in quality; and
It may, and often does, suit the dealer tosutport one quality
lof the same grain and to import another. It is for his in-
terest to be at liberty to do so; it is also for the benefit of
the grower, to whom he is thereby enabled to pay a better
and a more steady price, through the larger market that is at
all times open to him.
But the present Curn lAw not only limits the operations
of the dealer and grower by limiting their market, but it af.
fects the operations of both still more. by the hazard and
uncertainty to which it exposes the capital of each. By put.
ling the capital employed in the growth and the trade of corn
in a hazardous and uncertain state, it lessens the capital em-
ployed in the one trade, and drives capital away from the
other.

AB the witnesses examined upon this point before the
Lords' Committee upon the Poor Laws, in the last session of
Parliament, and before the Committee of the House of Com-
mons upon the Poor Laws in 1820, agree that the farmers
throughout England are impoverished; consequently they
have not benefited by the operation of .he Corn Laws—that
they are not able to keep stock upon their farm ; whence it
follows that their land is not properly manured, conse-
quently cannot be productive—that if they were possessed of
more capital, they could employ more labourers, and conse-
quently their land could be better cultivated.
The object of the Corn Laws passed in and since 1815,
which was to increase the growth of corn at home,and to ren.
der us independent of foreign countries for a supply of
grain, has thus completely failed; we are becoming every
year more dependent upon foreign countries for such supply.
m By our Corn Laws, we not only drive capital from the cul-
tivation of our own soil, but also endanger our manufacturing
superiority, by driving capital from the cultivation of the
soil in countries from whence we derive a supply of Corn,
and diverting it to manufacture; whereas, if we allowed the
great demand of our manufacturing population for food to
bring up the price of Corn in countries from whence we can
derive a supply to a price commensurate with the price here,
we should thus make the numbers of our manufacturing po-
pulation, which increase the demand for food, the means of
preserving our manufacturing superiority, by inducing those
countries to continue to apply their capital in the raising of
corn to supply that demand.
It is the great and iucreasing demand of our population
for food, and not the cost of producing it, that is the cause
of the high price of corn in this country, above the price
in countries whence we can derive a supply, when our de-
mand is prevented from reaching such countries ; anti it is
not less certain, that if the intercourse were free, the price
there would always be the same with the price here, except-
ing the expense and risk of transport. Every farmer knows
that high prices never compensate for diminished production.
But if the effect of our Corn Laws enacted in and since the
year 1815 be permanently and progressively to diminish
I production—which is occasionally the consequence of a bad
season—such Corn Laws have the same effect during a course,
of years, in this respect, which a bad season has in a single
year.
It is at all events indisputable that our importation of
Corn continues to increase. The advocates of a restrictive
Corn Law are thus thrown into this dilemma; either the
increasing deficiency of home growth arises from the absolute
inability of our agriculturists to keep pace with the increasing
demand of our population for food ; or it arises from the
operation of the Corn Laws.
Our manufacturing population are fully employed, thought
at low wages. It is impossible not to contrast the lowness
of their wages with the high price of Cotn, and equally im.
possible not to wonder how it happens that such high price
does not produce extended and improved cultivation ; or
that with high prices of Corn, rents should continue to conic
down. The solution of this enigma is, that, by the opera-
tion of our Corn Laws, capital is endangered which is ap-
plied to the cultivation of land. But without capital the
cultivation of land cannot be extended or improved. The
consequence is diminution of produce, and as produce di-
minishes rents fall off; because rent is the surplus produce
which remains after defraying the cost of production, in.
eluding in that cost indemnity, as well as return for capital
employed.
If the free system which existed for forty years :previous
to 1815 had been suffered to continue, it is not too much to
affirm that importation would have continued to decrease and
our home growth to increase, at least in the proportion in
which the one had decreasedand the other had increased in the
fifteen years which preceded 1815. As the importation de.
creased progressively and continuously in amount through-
out the whole of the first period. it is even reasonable to
suppose that the importation would have continued progres-
sively to decrease in amount throughout the last fifteen years
as it had done in the preceding fifteen year, the more (s-
-pecially as so many Enclosure:Bills were•.passed in the pre-
ceding fifteen years ' • and, by necessary consequence, that
I the home growth of Corn would have continued to increase
and to furnish employment in the same proportion.
The question then is, how is freedom from restraint to be
brought about In respect to corn, having regard to existing
interests ?

The answer is as follows :
The same principle should be applied to corn which has
been or should be applied to every other product of industry.
Upon the exportation of every article the tax paid upon it
should be drawn back. Wherever there was a surplus at
home, or a greater demand for any article abroad than tbere
was at home, such article would be exported it there were no
tax upon it; and it should not be prev,nted from being ex-
ported by the imposition of a tax. When imported. there
should, in like manaer, be paid upon the article so allowLd a
drawback, a sum of duty equal to the stint drawn back upon
exportation, which would in this way regulate importauon.
It has bean sten that the consequence of the restrained
system, which has prevailed since Idl3, has been to ditni.
nigh the home growth of Corn to nearly "our millions and a
half of quarters per annum, upon the average of the last fire
years and that the diminution of growth is increasing every
year. The growing increase of demand abroad, arising
from this decreasing supply at home, must hare the effect of
raising the prices in foreign countries which are reached by
that demand. But in a season of scarcity, in proportion as
the deficiency is increased by the severity of the season, the
price is raised so much more, and to an extent much beyond
the operation of a steady and not excessive ad ttaforees duty ;
not to mention the fuereased and desultory rise in price to
which Corn is exposed under the present system. With an
ad valorem duty operating equally at all times, the consumer
in seasons of scarcity will share with the grower
of Corn
the consequences of a bad harvest. He would share them if
there were no Corn Law at all ; and no Corn Law should
alter, or attempt to alter, the natural course of things.
The object of these suggestions is to prepare the way for
a gradual return to a natural state of things. A drawback
upon exportation commensurate with a ditty upon importa-
tion, will have the effect of putting the growth of corn as
nearly as may be in the situation in which it would be if
there had been no interference with it; while s duty upon
importation will keep up the artificial price, until that shall
be gradually brought down by the increased growth of corn
at home, arising from the encuragement given to capital to
return to the cultivator of the toil. This increase in the
home growth will appear from the decrease of the importa-
tion and as importation diminishes, the duty and the draw.
back should be lowered. There will still be fluctuations ;
but these will only be fluctuations occasioned by the seasons,
which human means IMMIX prevent, and it is wickedness in
' human means to aggravate. The interference of mortals
with the ways of Providence, though powerless for good, is
powerful for evil, but it saver falls to feel its presumption in
its.,pun ishmen t.
If the operation of the learn Lows pored IA and since
ISIS ke to drive capital iron the cultivation of the soil, to
ditnieish the means of emgsV2 agriculture/ labour, to rea-
der us more sod mete de t *upon forsigr. countries for

a supply of grain, and to endanger our manufacturing sup:.
riority, then the alteration of these laws not only become a
duty, but the neglect of it will become a crime. Not merely
the prosperity, but the tranquillity, of the country depends
upon the performance of this duty.