, 1881-10-15

NhNAA INV ANhAhS w. I""A "'
as a rough average product, an addition
of SIS. a quarter to the farmers profit
which is regulated now by the price OF
the American imported article. would
make a pound an acre difference, that is
the whole average rent. Then the land
lord could live as before and look down
Oh everybody in comfort, and the farmer
would be at rest about rent, and agents
would not be bewildered. and everybody
would be happy, except those wretched
consumers, who would, say the landlords.
"obtain higher wages" or, if they did not
ought to pay something, rather than
allow 'tthe Oldest and most necessary of
industries to be given up. That is the
kind Of talk going on every y here, till the
candidates are venturing TO formulate it
into a cry for . Fair trade and a tiye-Shil.
ling duty" and until the farmers, who
thought protection dead and buried. are
half wild with r~eviving hope. If only they
can get a corn ~duty-and they see, or
seem to see, a chance Of it-that dreadful
American competition will not matter.
We hardly wonder at the farmers eX-
element. for we know how hardly they
are pressed, how ruinouS the losses Of the
past four years have been, how %diSappoint.
ed they are With today's harvest and how
SLOW IltA are 10 liSlSU Oh lic peTiIdHell
reductions of rent which can alone give
them quick relief. But they should mot
let that excitement blind them to all the
facts around them, and especially to the
patent absurdity of the "Fairtrade'
argument, as applied to their special busi-
ness. The candidates who raise that cry
are leading them into a quagmire. What
ever the merits Of Fair. trade"-that is,
CT tariffs raised or depressed as other
nations raise or dcpress thcirs-it cannot
help to c0ercc Americans. Granting, for
n moment, all that the advocates of Il war
Of tariffs aIlcge, admitting that q nation
may he taught reason by the loss of a mar.
ket, corn still remains The 0uethi3@ which
cannot be used az a weapon in The fight.
II the IS. duty were imposed to morrow.
every EHgIisiIman would, IS consumer,
be SO much poorer; and every trades
man-tradcTS in alcohol more especially Sc
would feel his customers poverty and lack
OF money to spend and every wOrkhouSG
would cost more, and every riot would
become more grave; but no American
would suffer any loss OF custom, Food is
an absolute necessary, and every pound
OF corn that we do not GROW we must
impor.. We import no more than we want
now, and whether corn costs sos. a quarter
or 5JS. a quarter, we must import just as
much, or 60 hungry to bed. We could
do without cotton, or c%laret, or tea, or
tobacco, or French ribbons, or German
TOYS, but we could not do without corn.
We must have it, and have it in the usual
Quantities and the argument, therefore
from : Reciprocity, " or s Fair Trade. -
or " the necessity Of fighting tariffs with
tariffs" is either falSehood or undiluted
nonsense. No such eXpedient is physical.
" possible, unless every household III
ENGLAND is content to eat less bread than
it needs, in order not to buy American
corn duty-free. In this one case at least,
the whole cost of a duty must fall on the
buyer, the seller suffering nothing. That
is not, we are quite aware, a complete
answer TO the Protecti0niSt cry /; but it
is a complete answer to that cry in its
new form, and as far as regards corn.
The duty is of no use in the fight, and
if imposed, must be imposed for other
purposes altogether. OF course, there
may be such purposes. 1.-THE English peo-
pie like to place q heavy tax upon an arti-
Gle ofprime necessity, a tax falling upon the
poor as heavily as the rich and, indeed,
more heavily, because the rich eat other
things than br8ad-in order that farmers
NAV he relieved fiom the necessity of bar
gaining, and landlords may receive their
old rents, and the aristocratic system of
England may remain not only u~nimpaired,
but unchanged, then it will be useful to
put a duty on corn but then that object
must be acknowledged, and not disguised
under another. The duty will not help
the Government to reduce american ia