33 7.5 
 £>84*c 
 
 Xlr^vnmond. 
 
 n -if Ov jl 
 
 mer s 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 APR -3 jgg'j 
 
TO: 
 
 
 
 Library 
 
 Time Returned: 
 
 A 
 
 m ? 
 
 Date Returned: 
 
 Ot/yfii/ 
 
 Initrals of person 
 emptying box 
 
 From: AUTO-PAGE 
 
 Book Return 
 
 Book Return Routing 
 Slip 
 
 U of I Library 
 
CHEAP CORN BEST FOR FARMERS, 
 
 PROVED IN 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 JEORGE HOLME SUMNER, ESQ. M.P. 
 jFov tlje <&ountp of guvrep. 
 
 BY ONE OF HIS CONSTITUENTS 
 
 Ith lr ‘ I ^ *1 ii M* I m f 
 
 7 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 JAMES R1DGWAY, 169, PICCADILLY, 
 
 1826. 
 

 
 ■ 
 
 OKKKN, PRINTER, LK1CESTER.ST. LEICESTKR-SQ . 
 
His Majesty’s Ministers have made one or two 
 ineffectual attempts to obtain for the people of this 
 country the freedom of purchasing Corn wherever 
 they can procure it best and cheapest : but these 
 laudable endeavours have been defeated by those, 
 who imagine that, in that case, their present gains 
 will be materially diminished. 
 
 The opponents of cheap Corn are in error ; and 
 the mischief which they are doing to the country, 
 by thwarting the Government, is five times greater 
 than the advantage which they are reaping to them- 
 selves. 
 
 The subject is intricate, and difficult to be un- 
 derstood by men who are not much in the habit 
 of reading or of reflecting. The object of the fob. 
 lowing pages is to shew to the landed proprietors, 
 that, allowing the people to have cheap corn will 
 
IV 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 not be ru inbus to them ; and to prove to the far- 
 mers that their interests are not the same as those 
 of their landlords, but the same as those of the rest 
 of the people ; and thence to persuade all to repose 
 entire confidence in the measures which Lord 
 Liverpool and Mr. Huskisson have wisely recom- 
 mended to be adopted. 
 
 A perseverance in the present state of the Corn 
 Laws must lead, sooner or later, to a famine, alike 
 destructive to the rent of the landlord, the capital 
 of the tenant, and the lives of many people — an evil 
 which, while there is yet time, it is the duty of 
 every good citizen to exert his utmost efforts to 
 avert. 
 
 Feb. 13, 1826. 
 
A LETTER 
 
 <ro 
 
 GEORGE HOLME SUMNER, ESQ. M.P. 
 
 8fc. 8fc, 8fc. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 The price that corn bears, owing 
 to the present duty, is the heaviest burden under 
 which the country now labours. The persons 
 who alone derive advantage from dear corn, are 
 the owners, together with their families, of the 
 lands on which it is grown ; all other persons in 
 the united kingdoms, including farmers, would de- 
 rive advantage from cheap corn. The population 
 of the united kingdoms consists of 20,468,949. 
 The number of owners of lands which grow corn, 
 is about 72,804 ; allowing five individuals to com- 
 
 B 
 
pose each of their families, it follows that 364,020 
 persons wish for dear corn, and 20,104,929 per- 
 sons wish for cheap corn *. 
 
 If these assertions be true, it follows that they 
 who profit by dear corn are very few, while they 
 who would profit by cheap corn are very many : 
 that consequently the majority will not, and ought 
 not, to submit to be heavily taxed for the benefit 
 of a few ; and the object of this Letter is to shew 
 that the farmers are amongst the majority, who 
 are taxed for the benefit of the few ; because the 
 landlords have endeavoured to induce them to 
 believe that it is their interest, as well as that of 
 the landlords, to have corn dear ; and they pre- 
 tended to be sorry for the poor farmers , when in 
 fact their real sorrow was for the poor landlords. 
 
 * I have no means of ascertaining accurately the number of 
 persons who own land on which com is grown, but it is known 
 that the total number of owners of estates in Scotland is 7595. 
 Supposing that number to bear the same ratio to the population 
 of Scotland, that owners of estates in England and Ireland do 
 to the population of these countries respectively, the amount 
 will be as follows : — 
 
 The Population of Scotland, 2,135,300. Population of Eng- 
 land, 11,486,700. Population of Ireland, 6,846,949 — therefore 
 2,135,300:7595:: 1 1,486,700:40,856. and :: 6,846,949:24,353. 
 
 The population of the three kingdoms being 20,468,949, 
 makes the number of owners of land 72,804. Property in land 
 is more divided in England, and less in Ireland, than it is in 
 Scotland ; also many persons are proprietors of land which does 
 not produce corn : supposing these variations nearly to com- 
 pensate each other, the above numbers will probably be found 
 very nearly to approximate the truth. 
 
Whoever understands this question will not find 
 any thing new in these pages. I have, without 
 scruple, made use of the expressions of any wri ter, 
 who seemed to me to convey correct ideas clearly. 
 1 confess, also, that if this were a question merely 
 between the farmers and their landlords, they 
 might have settled it the best way they could, 
 without any interference from me ; but there is 
 another class, much more numerous than both 
 landlords and farmers put together, to which cheap 
 bread is every thing, the interest of which has 
 scarcely been glanced at by the disputants on this 
 question, and that is, the class of agricultural 
 labourers. It is impossible that the labourers can 
 understand the reasons why corn is dear or cheap ; 
 they feel, indeed, that sometimes when they are 
 receiving most money they are worse off (that is, 
 they have less to eat) than at other times, when 
 they are receiving less. In 1813, the money 
 amount of wages was higher than it was in 1792 ; 
 but owing to the fall in the value of money, a 
 succession of indifferent harvests, high w ar taxes, 
 &c. &c., the labourers were in a much worse 
 condition. During the last war, they were robbed 
 by the depreciation of the currency * ; now they 
 
 * To point out the way in which the price of corn may be 
 affected by alterations in the value of the currency, would tend to 
 divert the attention from the main topic discussed in this letter 5 
 and it is likewise quite needless to do so, because that point has 
 been treated with great humour and clearness for the last twenty 
 years in the Weakly Register, 
 
4 
 
 are injured principally by the monopoly of the 
 landlords, and both causes are equally beyond 
 their comprehension and controul. It is, there- 
 fore, a paramount duty, in those who do under- 
 stand the causes of these things, to endeavour to 
 obtain for the labourer the power to purchase his 
 food at the least possible price ; that is, to ensure 
 to him the greatest amount of comforts in exchange 
 for his labour. I shall endeavour to prove that, as 
 far as dear and cheap corn goes, the interest of the 
 farmer and of the labourer is precisely the same, 
 and opposed to that of the landlords. 
 
 If the question at issue were simply between 
 what is called the agricultural and the commercial 
 interests, that is, if the question were, whether we 
 should have rich landlords, and poor merchants and 
 manufacturers, or rich merchants and manufac- 
 turers, and poor landlords, I should say, decidedly, 
 that it was our interest to keep our landlords rich 
 at the expense of the others. We know from ex- 
 perience, as well as from indisputable authority, 
 that “ wherever a man’s treasure is, there will his 
 heart be also.” A landlord’s treasure must be in 
 England, and all his interests and affections must 
 be bound up in her prosperity, however mistaken 
 he may be in his views of what is conducive to 
 that prosperity, A merchant’s treasure is all over 
 the world, he therefore does not give to England 
 his undivided affections. “ The little I know,” 
 said Lord Chatham, in his speech during the debate 
 on the Falkland Islands, “ has not served to raise 
 
5 
 
 44 my opinion of what is vulgarly called the monied 
 44 interest ; I mean that bloodsucker, that muckworm, 
 
 “ which calls itself the friend of Government, that 
 44 pretends to serve this or that administration, and 
 44 may be purchased on the same terms by any ad- 
 “ ministration ; that advances money to Government, 
 
 44 and takes especial care of its own emoluments.” 
 In our own days, Mr. Canning, a statesman, se- 
 cond only to lord Chatham, says, 64 we well know 
 “ that at this moment there is scarcely a power in 
 “ Europe that is not collecting, from the capitalists 
 44 of Great Britain, the sinews of war ; there is 
 44 scarcely a single power that does not look for 
 44 resources to the Exchequer of our Exchange. 
 “We are all aware that our monied men lend in- 
 44 discriminately to all parties, and those w ho are 
 44 now 4 the captains’ captains, the true lords- of 
 44 Europe,’ are furnishing arms to those who are 
 “ contending against each other. Therefore let 
 44 me not be told that I may look for security in the 
 44 morality of our money lenders. No, no T let Fer- 
 44 di nand himself, to-morrow, show signs of strength r 
 44 and a determination to fit out an armament, and 
 “ the troops and fleets of Spain, raised by British 
 44 capital, will sail from your ports to strangle in- 
 “ fant liberty in South America. I defy you to 
 44 prevent it, and I defy you to shew any thing, in 
 46 the morality of late pecuniary transactions, to in- 
 44 sure you against such an event.” Mr. Russell 
 gives the same testimony in his Tour through Ger- 
 many, vol. 1. p. 52. 44 Frankfort,” he says, 44 in 
 
6 
 
 “ consequence of her commercial relations, is so 
 “ thoroughly under foreign influence, and so pol- 
 “ luted by a mixture of all foreign manners, that 
 “ her population can hardly be said to have a cha- 
 “ racter of their own. Even the multifarious con- 
 “ nexions with all ends of the earth, which have 
 “ made her citizens, in a manner, citizens of the 
 “ world, have unfitted them to be German citizens, 
 “ for they judge of the happiness of mankind by 
 “ the rate of exchange. Let no one hastily con- 
 “ demn the worthy citizens of Frankfort, for thus 
 “ forgetting, in the pursuits of the merchant and 
 “ money speculator, the interest of their country ; 
 “ or at least before pronouncing his doom on their 
 66 imagined selfishness, let him study the ports of 
 “ London, or Liverpool, or Bristol, and discover, if 
 “ he can, a purer foundation for English mercan- 
 tile patriotism.” It has been thus in all ages: 
 est autem maritimis urbibus etiam corruptela ac mu- 
 tatitio morum ; importantur non merces solum adven- 
 ticice sed etiam mores, ut nihil possit in patriis institu- 
 tis manere integrum . Jam qui incolunt eas urbes , 
 non Imrent in sids sedibus , sed volucri semper spe et 
 cogitatione rapiuntur a domo longius : atque etiam cum 
 manent corpore , animo tamen ex cur runt, et vagantur. 
 Nec vero ulla res magis labefactatam diu et Cartha- 
 ginem et Corinthum pervertit aliquando, quam hie 
 error ac dissipatio civium quod mercandi cupiditate et 
 navigandi , et agrorum et armorum cultum reliquerant . 
 Cic. de Repub. 1. 2. iv. During the last war in 
 Canada, the American and English armies were in 
 
7 
 
 sight of each other for a considerable time, and 
 neither could move for want of money. The Eng- 
 lish general applied to the English merchants for 
 some dollars, offering an enormous interest for the 
 loan on the part of Government. The merchants 
 demanded a still higher interest ; the aid-de-camp, 
 afraid to agree without fresh orders, rode back to 
 the general. While he was gone, the American 
 general offered to the English merchants the in- 
 terest they required, and he obtained the money. 
 The American army was the first in motion to at- 
 tack the English by means of the money obtained 
 from English merchants. During the former part 
 of the American war, it was very well known that 
 English money was lent to the Government of the 
 United States to carry on the war with this country. 
 
 The ignorance of land-owners, and their want of 
 liberal principles upon the subject of the corn laws, 
 is a favourite theme of declamation in every assem- 
 bly of 44 lean unwashed artificers,” from the Com- 
 mon Council of the city of London, down to the low- 
 est town parish vestry. One man, who assumes to 
 himself the character of being a great doctor in po- 
 litical economy, has had the infatuation to write, 
 44 let all the industrious classes combine against 
 4 4 their great enemy the landholder. The land- 
 44 holders conduce nothing to the prosperity of the coun- 
 44 try . Nay, one of the most distinguished of our 
 44 political economists, (Mr. Mill) alarmed at the in- 
 44 crease of the share of the produce of the soil which 
 44 falls to the owner, a share which grows with the 
 
8 
 
 “ numbers of the people, actually proposes that the 
 “ present rents should be fixed, and made a perpetual 
 “ rent-charge on the lands, for the benefit of the 
 “ owners of the soil, but that the state should be en- 
 “ titled to all future increase of rent, which should 
 “ be applied to the benefit of the community 
 When such absurdities are gravely set forth, it 
 cannot be a matter of surprise that the science of 
 political economy, still in its infancy, should excite 
 the alarms of the timid, and the ridicule of the wise. 
 All sciences must have their satellites of empirics; 
 and although the ignorant will draw from the latter ar- 
 guments for suppressing the diffusion of knowledge 
 altogether, the true remedy is only to be found in the 
 wider inculcation of better principles. That the land- 
 lords have advocated a monopoly of corn is but too 
 true; but before the “ Gentlemen in the Commer- 
 cial and Manufacturing Interest” presume to lecture 
 them, it would be well if they would point out one 
 instance, where they have given up a monopoly, in 
 which they were themselves interested, until it was 
 wrung from them. Have the Common Council of 
 the City of London ever manifested the slightest 
 disposition to abandon one point of their absurd 
 and noxious privileges? are the merchants, who 
 have the management of the Bank of England, wil- 
 ling to renounce their monopoly of unstamped 
 promissory notes, for the engagements of which 
 neither their persons nor their properties are an- 
 swerable? Did not all classes, connected with the 
 East India Company, cling with inveterate obsti- 
 
9 
 
 nacy to their monopoly of the whole trade with Asia, 
 in defiance of reason, justice, facts, and subsequent 
 experience? Does not the whole West Indian body 
 maintain the right of the planters to the monopoly of 
 sugar, and to be legalized traders in human blood ? 
 Did not every class of manufacturers assail the mi- 
 nisters this last year with petitions, that freedom of 
 trade might not be extended to the commodities 
 with which they were concerned ? If these facts 
 be so, (and they are matter of undeniable noto- 
 riety) it is not to be wondered at that the land- 
 lords feel indignant at the false pretences to libe- 
 rality advanced by the merchants and manufacturers 
 on the subject of the corn trade ; since it is per- 
 fectly obvious that, whether liberal or illiberal, just 
 or unjust, wise or unwise, beneficial or pernicious 
 to the country at large, it is their own personal ad- 
 vantage alone which instigates their complaints. A 
 loan-contractor, a stock-jobber, a merchant, or a 
 manufacturer, can transport himself any where, and 
 be as much at home in one country as in another. 
 Not so the landlord, and those employed in the cul- 
 tivation of the land. It is in these only, therefore, 
 that the permanent strength of the country resides ; 
 and it is to these only that the honour of the coun- 
 try can with safety be confided ; and consequently 
 of all the classes of the British community this is the 
 last whose interests ought to be lightly sacrificed 
 for the advantage of the rest. But it will clearly 
 appear, that the present system of the corn laws 
 does not benefit the land-owners nearly so much 
 
 c 
 
10 
 
 as it injures the others, and that the land-owners 
 greatly overrate the advantage they derive from a 
 monopoly of corn. 
 
 The quantity of corn grown and consumed in the 
 united kingdom is computed at forty million quar 
 ters*, one third part of which is supposed to be 
 wheat. In case, however, that this calculation be 
 too great, (and it is extremely difficult to calculate 
 such matters exactly) let us take the quantity of 
 wheat at ten million quarters only. Two shillings 
 a quarter upon this quantity of wheat amounts 
 to one million sterling: consequently the land- 
 owners derive the same benefit as they would from 
 the division among them of a tax amounting to 
 one million a-year. 
 
 Corn is a very bulky article ; the cost of its car- 
 riage from abroad would amount to from 7s. to 11s. 
 a quarter, ensuring thereby to the growers here, 
 that higher price than it bears there. If we were 
 to import corn, we should create a demand for it 
 abroad, and consequently raise its price there; and 
 it could not be imported and sold in this country at 
 a lower price than 52s. per quarter on an average*)*. 
 Wheat was sold at a late market in Uxbridge at 
 
 * Supplement to Encyclop. Brit. art. corn, 
 f From 1820 to 1824, the average price of wheat in New York 
 was 40s. per quarter j the freight would be from 12s. to 14s., 
 making the price in London from 52s. to 54s. per quarter. 
 
 From 1815 to 1824, the average price of wheat at Rotterdam 
 was 47s. 9d. : the average quality of wheat sold in Holland is 
 below the average quality of English wheat, by 3s. or 4s. j if to 
 
11 
 
 90s. per quarter ; this enormous difference, (between 
 52s. and 90s. which, if it run over the whole quantity 
 of wheat grown would amount to nineteen millions 
 sterling per annum,) is a tax levied upon the con- 
 sumers of corn, and divided amongst the landlords : 
 but even at the average price in the Gazette of 
 69s. 3d., the difference amounts to <£8, 625, 000, a 
 sum considerably exceeding that raised on any 
 other article, without taking into the account the 
 effect of the corn laws on other sorts of corn, as 
 well as on other species of agricultural produce. 
 
 If the landlords be entitled to have this sum 
 divided amongst them every year, let them have 
 it ; but do not let it be raised by a tax on corn — by 
 a tax on the first necessary of life- — by a tax on that 
 which makes four parts out of five of the whole 
 consumption of a labourer. If the income of a 
 landlord be ,^10,000 a year, he does not spend 
 one hundredth part of that sum in wheat ; whereas, 
 if the income of a labourer be 10s. a week, he 
 spends 8s. in flour alone. Let the sum which 
 
 this reduced price be added the cost of freight, the price in 
 London will be about 52s. per quarter. 
 
 From 1817 to 1824, the average price of wheat in the Black 
 Sea was 22s. 4d. ; the expenses of freight amount to about 
 22s. 6d., making its price in London somewhat below 45s : but 
 Odessa wheat is inferior to English wheat by about one sixth, 
 which (7s.) would bring the price to 52s. 
 
 The average price of wheat at Dantzic for the last 49 years, 
 has been 45s. 4d. (Solly’s evidence, and Whitmore’s pamphlet, 
 p. 62.) the expense of freight is about 7s. 6d., making the price 
 in London 52s. lOd. 
 
12 
 
 the landlords are entitled to, be raised by an in- 
 come tax ; by a tax on servants, horses, wine, or 
 any thing rather than corn. It is enough to goad 
 the people to insurrection to continue to levy it on 
 corn. 
 
 When corn rises, rents rise ; when corn falls, 
 rents fall. The price of corn therefore cannot af- 
 fect the farmer, as far as his rent is concerned, ex- 
 cepting during the currency of his lease. Whenever 
 any law is made to affect the price either of the 
 currency or of corn, a clause ought to be introduced 
 to protect a farmer from being called upon to pay 
 the value of more corn to his landlord in the shape 
 of rent, than he was bound to pay at the time the 
 lease was granted. The price of corn affects the 
 landlord. If com is dear, he gets more rent; if 
 corn is cheap he gets less rent. It is not surprising, 
 therefore, that he should cry out at the thought of 
 cheap corn ; but what business has he to cry out 
 for the poor farmer P If corn fall during the cur- 
 rency of a lease which he has granted, he need not 
 cry out for the tenant ; he has only to reduce the 
 rent in proportion to the fall in the price of corn, 
 and the poor farmer will be just as well off as ever. 
 He may cry out poor landlord, if he will, and to a 
 certain extent he will cry out justly; but to cry 
 out poor farmer, and at the same time not to lower 
 the rent, would be little better than hypocrisy. 
 
 A farmer may have a good or a bad bargain from 
 his landlord ; one farmer may have a good bargain 
 and his neighbour a bad bargain ; but in the ma- 
 
13 
 
 jority of instances the farmer pays the full value in 
 rent to the landlord. The farmer pays the land- 
 lord for the privilege of using the land ; but the 
 land is of no use to him for producing corn until 
 he has laid out his own money upon it ; until horses 
 have been at work upon it ; until manure has been 
 carried to it ; until labour has been employed upon 
 it; and until seed has been put into it. The less 
 money he has laid out upon the land, the cheaper he 
 has been able to feed his horses, the smaller the 
 price his manure has cost him, the lower the wages 
 he has paid the labourers, the less the price he has 
 paid for his seed, the better for the farmer; the 
 more, in short, all his expenses are diminished, the 
 better for him. If corn rise during the currency 
 of his lease, rent will rise in proportion at the end 
 of it ; and if corn fall, he will be a loser as far as 
 his rent is concerned, during the time his lease 
 lasts. If corn rises, rates rise, keep of horses rise, 
 labour rises, the blacksmith’s bill rises, the wheel- 
 wright’s bill rises, expenses of all sorts rise, and the 
 farmer’s profits fall. The only thing that is fixed, 
 is rent : whether corn rises or falls, whether ex- 
 penses rise or fall, he must pay the rent he has 
 agreed to pay, or go to jail. Hence it is of the ut- 
 most importance to the farmer that corn should 
 neither rise nor fall, but be fixed, that he may not 
 be living in doubt, but be sure that he never will 
 be called upon to give a larger quantity of corn, in 
 the shape of rent, than he contracted to give at the 
 time when he entered upon his lease. If corn 
 
14 
 
 falls, rates fall, keep of horses fall, labour falls, and 
 profits rise. It is, therefore, to profits that a 
 farmer ought to look, and not to rent. Dear corn 
 makes rent high, and profits low ; cheap corn makes 
 rent low, and profits high ; nothing is more certain 
 than this : but as the farmer has been led to sup- 
 pose that high profits are the consequence of having 
 corn dear, it is difficult for him at once to be per- 
 suaded of it. I shall go, therefore, rather more 
 into detail, in order to shew that in the long run 
 it is so ; and, as it is a point of the greatest import- 
 ance, he will do well to pav particular attention to 
 this part of my letter. 
 
 All commodities are produced by labour. The 
 landlord provides land, the farmer provides horses, 
 carts, ploughs, implements of all kinds, seed, mo- 
 ney to pay the labourers ; (these things constitute 
 his stock or capital) the labourers provide labour. 
 All that is produced is shared amongst them, and 
 the share that each has is an affair of bargaining, in 
 which each tries to get the largest part for himself. 
 Suppose 100 bushels of corn are produced amongst 
 them, the farmer gives 20 bushels to the landlord 
 for the use of his land ; (that is rent) he gives the la- 
 bourers 30 bushels for the use of their labour ; (that 
 is wages) he spends 30 bushels in his horses* food, 
 seed, repairs of implements, &c. and keeps the 
 other 20 bushels for himself ; (this is profits on his 
 stock or capital) the labourer gives his labour to 
 the farmer for the smallest amount of food upon 
 which he can keep himself comfortabty — the wages of 
 
15 
 
 labour in every country being* principally regulated 
 by the sort of food that the people live upon; 
 
 But both farmer and labourers want other things 
 besides corn ; they want clothes, fuel, beer, meat, 
 &c. and their corn will exchange for the same 
 quantities of clothes, fuel, beer, meat, &c. as have 
 been produced by the same quantities of labour 
 and capital that they have employed in producing 
 the corn. Thus, if it has cost as much labour and 
 capital to produce a coat as it has to produce four 
 bushels of corn, a coat will exchange for (or sell for 
 the value of) four bushels of corn. 
 
 Now suppose that in process of time, and no matter 
 from what intermediate causes, the farmer goes to 
 the landlord, and asks for some more land; and 
 suppose that the landlord has got no more land so 
 good as to produce 100 bushels of corn, but he has 
 got some good enough to produce 80 bushels, and 
 the farmer gives him for this land only half the rent 
 he gives him for the other, namely, 10 bushels ; he 
 still has to employ the same quantity of manure, 
 carts, labour, &c. to the amount of 30 bushels : and 
 as the labourers cannot maintain themselves for less 
 than 30 bushels, the farmer has only 10 bushels 
 left for himself as profits. This instance will suffice 
 to shew one mode, by which it comes to pass that 
 the poorer the land is, which is worked, the less 
 profits the farmer can make. 
 
 The business of a corn-grower is, like all other 
 business, only carried on because it yields a profit- 
 able return to the capital employed, and therefore 
 
16 
 
 the profits of a farmer are a criterion of the profits 
 of all employments of capital. Men finding so 
 little profit is to be made, (that is, so little corn 
 to be had for their own share) by cultivating poor 
 lands, take to employing their capital, or stock, in 
 producing other things, such as coats ; more coats 
 being made, the makers must give more of their 
 coats to the corn-growers in exchange for corn, so 
 that they will give two coats for four bushels of corn ; 
 thus they get no more corn for themselves by produc- 
 ing coats, and exchanging them for corn, than they 
 did by producing corn itself directly from the soil. 
 In this way the profits of producers of all commodi- 
 ties are kept upon a level, no man getting a greater 
 share of corn and coats than the other, whether he 
 produce directly one or other commodity, allowance 
 being made for those employments which are less 
 healthy and agreeable than others. 
 
 Again, let us suppose that it requires the capital 
 of a farmer for a whole year, joined to the labour 
 of a labourer, to produce 100 bushels of corn on 
 certain lands in England : if he could, with the 
 same capital and labour, produce as much of some 
 other commodity (such as meat, butter, &c.) as 
 would exchange for 200 bushels of corn, it would 
 be the interest of the farmer and labourer not to 
 employ their capital and labour in producing corn, 
 but in producing that other commodity. It is there- 
 fore quite clear, that if there are laws which force 
 men, or tempt men to employ their labour and 
 capital in producing corn from poor soils, such 
 
17 
 
 laws force, or tempt them to waste their capital, 
 or employ it disadvantageous^ to the country, 
 though not to themselves, the country making up 
 the loss which they would otherwise sustain. The 
 farmer, in the first case, when he cultivates only 
 the best lands, receives twenty out of every hun- 
 dred bushels for himself. In the second case, 
 when he cultivates land of one-fifth less fertility, 
 although he pays only half as much rent, he makes 
 only half as much profits : he is therefore not em- 
 ploying his capital for so great a gain, as if he 
 were cultivating only the best lands ; but as it has 
 been shewn in the last paragraph, that the profits 
 of all capitalists must be equal, it follows that all 
 the capitalists in England are not gaining so much 
 profit on their capital as they would if only the 
 best lands in England were cultivated r for as a 
 fall in the rate of profits, owing to the diminish- 
 ing productiveness of the soils which he cultivates, 
 is true of one man, so is it true of numbers of 
 men, or nations. Hence arises the evil of shut- 
 ting out foreign corn, as thereby profits on capital 
 are so much lowered, that capital is sent out of 
 the country to a very prejudicial extent. 
 
 Let us take another case to illustrate this same 
 point : suppose the trade in corn to be free, and 
 the price of wheat to be 52s. per quarter; and 
 suppose a farmer to take a farm which produces 
 on an average 100 quarters of corn, which would 
 sell for <£260. Now he will have to divide this 
 produce into four parts: one part must be paid to 
 
 D 
 
18 
 
 the landlord for rent ; another to the labourers for 
 wages of labour ; with the third part he will have 
 to pay tithes, rates, bills of tradesmen, to buy seed, 
 and oats for the horses, and to replace any of his 
 stock which is worn out ; the fourth part which 
 remains will go to himself, and will constitute his 
 profits. Let it be supposed to be divided in the 
 
 following manner : — 
 
 Quarters. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Rent 
 
 . . . 20 
 
 £52 
 
 Wages 
 
 . . 30 
 
 78 
 
 Lesser Expenses. . 
 
 . . . 30 
 
 78 
 
 Profit 
 
 . . . 20 
 
 52 
 
 
 100 
 
 260 
 
 Hence it is clear, that of the whole produce, the 
 only part which comes to the farmer is that which 
 is called profit ; the rest goes to the landlord, or 
 the labourers, or the poor, or the carpenter, wheel- 
 wright, blacksmith, See. : it is clear also, that the 
 less he has to pay to the landlord and the labourers, 
 &c. the more he has left for himself. This is the 
 profit he makes on his stock, or capital, that is, on 
 all the money which he requires to work his farm, 
 to pay the wages of his labourers, as well as to 
 purchase seed, horses, carts, ploughs, implements 
 of all kinds, and to pay for their annual repair. 
 Suppose that the capital he requires for these pur- 
 poses amounts to £650. In that case the £52 on 
 the value of twenty quarters, which he gets as 
 profits, will be eight per cent, on his capital. 
 
/ 
 
 19 
 
 Let us now see who will be the gainer, if corn 
 rises in price one-fourth, or from 52s. to 65s. In 
 this case he will get <£325 instead of <£260 for his 
 produce ; but then his expenses will rise in pro- 
 portion. His landlord will require of him more 
 rent, and will still take a fifth of the produce, or 
 the value of twenty quarters. The labourers also 
 must have higher wages ; for they could not pos- 
 sibly subsist unless they received as before, the 
 value of thirty quarters, and if corn rises, their 
 wages must rise in proportion. In like manner 
 tithes and poor-rates must rise — oats for the horses, 
 and seed for the ensuing crop will be dearer, and 
 the different tradesmen will charge higher for 
 their work. Thus the produce of the farm will 
 then be divided in the following proportions:— 
 
 
 Quarters. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Rent 
 
 ... 20 
 
 £65 0 
 
 Wages 
 
 . . . 30 
 
 .... 97 10 
 
 Lesser Expenses. 
 
 . . . 30 
 
 .... 97 10 
 
 Profit 
 
 . . . 20 
 
 65 0 
 
 ✓ 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 £325 
 
 Here it appears, at first sight, as if the farmer 
 would gain by the change, since his profits would 
 rise from <£52 to <£65 ; but this is delusive, for 
 he could not farm at all with only the same capital 
 that he did before , and he would require a larger 
 capital in proportion. As oats and seed rose in 
 price, and as the wages of his labourers increased. 
 
20 
 
 he would require more money to pay them, so 
 that he could no longer cultivate his farm with 
 a capital of only <£650 as heretofore, but would 
 require a capital larger by one-fourth, or £812 10s. 
 Thus his profit would still be only eight per cent, 
 on his capital, and he would be no gainer by the 
 change. In like manner the labourer would not 
 gain by the rise in his wages, since he would have 
 to pay more for bread, &c. in proportion. The 
 only gainer would be the landlord, whose rent 
 would increase from £52 to £ 65 , without any pro- 
 portionate increase in his expenses. 
 
 If the matter rested here, the rise in corn would 
 do neither good nor harm to the farmer : he would 
 still make eight per cent, on his capital. I leave out of 
 the question the precious plight a farmer is in, who 
 is obliged, in the middle, perhaps, of a long lease, 
 to get one-fourth more capital in order to carry it 
 on ; and where is he to get it ? is he to borrow it of 
 some attorney or banker in the neighbourhood, 
 and make over his sheep, corn-stacks, hay-ricks, 
 and all his other stock as security ? But passing by 
 all this, we shall soon see that the farmer is no 
 gainer, but a considerable loser, even if he has more 
 money of his own ready to be employed. 
 
 It is not only the wages of the farmer's labourers 
 which rise in consequence of the dearness of corn, 
 the wages of manufacturing labourers must rise in 
 proportion. When corn rises one-fourth in price, 
 their wages must also sooner or later rise one-fourth, 
 or they could not possibly subsist. Now where is the 
 
21 
 
 manufacturer to obtain the money wherewith to pay 
 them ? Whatever effect the corn laws may have in 
 raising the price of corn, they cannot have the same 
 effect on coats, hats, or cotton goods. The rise in 
 the price of corn may repay the farmer for the addi- 
 tional wages he has to pay his labourers, but not 
 so with the manufacturer. His commodities are 
 not raised by any similar restriction, and he must 
 therefore take these additional wages out of his pro- 
 fits. Formerly he made eight per cent, on his capital, 
 like the farmer ; but the rise in wages will reduce 
 his profits considerably, say to four per cent. This 
 is a reduction to which he very unwillingly sub- 
 mits, and he seeks anxiously for some means of 
 avoiding it. He sees his neighbour the farmer still 
 making eight per cent, and he resolves to leave trade 
 and take to farming. He considers that even if he 
 makes five percent, only by farming, he will be better 
 off than he is at present in trade; and he determines 
 on outbidding the farmer, by offering the landlord 
 more rent for his farm. He calculates that if the 
 produce be divided as follows, he will obtain a profit 
 of five per cent, on his capital of <£812 10s. 
 
 
 Quarters. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Relit 
 
 -••274 
 
 £89 76 
 
 Waees 
 
 . . . 30 
 
 97 10 0 
 
 Lesser Expenses. 
 
 ... 30 
 
 97 10 0 
 
 Profit 
 
 ...121 
 
 40 12 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 £325 
 
 The farmer, of course, can only retain his farm by 
 
22 
 
 offering the same terms, and is obliged to reduce 
 his profits to 121 quarters, or five per cent, on his 
 capital. 
 
 Now let us consider who is the gainer by the 
 rise in corn, the farmer or the landlord. The rent 
 of the landlord has increased from £52 to <£89. 7s. 6d. 
 but the profit of the farmer has fallen from eight to 
 five per cent., namely, from<£52 to <£40. 12s. 6d. For- 
 merly the share of the landlord was 20 quarters, or 
 one-fifth of the produce ; but he now gets 271 quar- 
 ters, or more than one-fourth ; while at the same 
 time the share of the farmer has fallen from 20 
 quarters to 121. It is evident, therefore, that the 
 profits of the farmer fall with the general profits of 
 capital, and that whatever he loses in this way the 
 landlord gains. 
 
 If wages rise 10 per cent, in any manufacture, the 
 manufacturer will try to increase the price of his 
 goods upon the consumer ; but as he only produces 
 in order to exchange with other producers, and as 
 all other producers are in the same state, a rise in 
 wages has lowered his profits, and those of all other 
 capitalists, without enabling them to make a corres- 
 ponding rise in the prices of their goods. If wages 
 rise in one manufacture, they speedily do so in all 
 others ; and thus a rise in the price of corn of 10 per 
 cent, is no advantage to the farmer, because he must 
 give 10 per cent, more for his hats, leather, rent, 
 cattle, &c. &c. 
 
 It is not meant that these effects are produced in 
 a day, in a month, or in a year, but that sooner or 
 
23 
 
 later they infallibly take place. For a time, the 
 wages of the labourer may not rise in proportion to 
 the dearness of corn ; but in the end they must be 
 sufficient to afford him his usual subsistence, and 
 enable him to bring up his family. In like man- 
 ner, during the currency of a lease, the rent of the 
 landlord will remain stationary, and the profits of 
 the farmer may not be depressed ; but as soon as 
 his lease expires, he will be obliged either to give 
 his landlord a higher rent, or to resign his farm to 
 some other capitalist, who will outbid him. In the 
 long run, the case must turn out as has been stated. 
 The system of the corn laws can in the end do no- 
 thing but enrich the landlords, and impoverish the 
 farmers. 
 
 A farmer is as much a capitalist as a shopkeeper, 
 or a manufacturer, and the profits of farming capi- 
 tal must in the end be lowered by any cause which 
 lowers the profits of other capital. It is the interest 
 of all capitalists to have the necessaries of life, and 
 consequently corn, among the rest, cheap; because 
 their labourers will then be contented with lower 
 wages. A farmers gain cannot be permanently 
 greater than those of other capitalists. Even dur- 
 ing the currency of a lease, a rise in the price of 
 corn is not always an advantage to him ; for if there 
 be a general rise in the price of all other commo- 
 dities, also at the same time, he must give a corres- 
 ponding increased price for is coats, hats, horses, 
 sheep, cattle, & c. ; and unless during the currency 
 of a lease he has no interest whatever in high 
 
24 
 
 prices, because competition will effectually prevent 
 him from deriving more than a very temporary ad- 
 vantage from them — he has, however, in common 
 with all other capitalists, a very strong interest in 
 high profits; and it is not possible that profits 
 should be high, for a long period together, when 
 the necessaries of life are dear. A high price of 
 corn, therefore, not only is not beneficial to the 
 farmer as such, but it is positively injurious to him. 
 He is injur ed in two ways ; fi r st., ns a rnnsi 
 corn in common with the rest of the community, 
 by having to consume a dear, instead of a cheap, 
 commodity; and secondly, he is injured in a still 
 greater degree, as an owner of capital, by being- 
 compelled to give high wages to all the labourers he 
 employs. A farmer of Indiana in America, where 
 wheat does not fetch a third of what it does here, 
 will derive as much profit from a capital of <£1000 
 as an English farmer will derive from a capital of 
 <£4000. 44 When a nation,” says Mr. Cobbett, 
 
 V. 55. p. 488, 44 is in a state of real prosperity, mo- 
 44 ney is at a high interest, and labour in proportion 
 44 to the price of provisions is paid in high wages. 
 44 This is shown in the case of the United States of 
 44 America, where in some of the states the legal 
 44 interest of money is so high as seven per cent. 
 44 The cause of this is, that the profit on agriculture, 
 44 on trade, on manufactures, is so great, that mo- 
 44 ney will yield more when employed in them, than 
 44 when lent at any rate under seven per cent. A 
 44 man who has a thousand pounds in money, and 
 
25 
 
 “ who is offered a mortgage on land at six per 
 “ cent, in America, says no, I can make much more 
 “ interest of it, if I employ it in agriculture and 
 “ commerce.” 
 
 Each class of producers can see very clearly that 
 it is to the interest of the rest that all productions 
 should be cheap, except that which they them- 
 selves are engaged in producing. A friend of 
 mine told me that he was desired by a deputation 
 from some manufacturers in iron, belonging to a 
 town which he represented in Parliament, to ac- 
 company them to the minister, which he accord- 
 ingly did. The head man of the deputation began 
 a long panegyric upon the enlightened policy of 
 the government, which had led to so great a free- 
 dom, and consequent extension, of trade, by the re- 
 moval of restrictions and duties ; but he begged to 
 observe, that there were some peculiarities in the 
 iron trade, which made it desirable for the benefit 
 of the country (not mentioning a word about the 
 benefit of dealers in his branch of the iron trade) 
 that the restrictions on it should not be taken off. 
 The minister replied that, the gentlemen whom 
 he then saw before him were about the 70th de- 
 putation which he had received ; that they had one 
 and all began with a warm approval of removing 
 restrictions from every trade but their own ; and 
 that they ali alleged some peculiarities in their 
 own case, which made it desirable that their own 
 monopoly should continue ; and all professed to de- 
 sire this, not so much on their own account, as for 
 
 E 
 
26 
 
 the benefit of the country ; that, consequently, if mi- 
 nisters had been swayed by every deputation that 
 had come to them, there would not have been one 
 single restriction removed, of which removal, how- 
 ever, they could all see the advantage in every case 
 except their own. 
 
 Precisely in this manner, a corn-grower can see 
 that it is a great advantage to the public that cloth 
 should be cheap, that leather should be cheap, that 
 coals should be cheap, that wood should be cheap, 
 that iron should be cheap, that, in short, every thing 
 should be cheap except that which he is instru- 
 mental in producing. But if a farmer will re- 
 flect a little, and count a little, he will soon see 
 that in the long run, however much dear corn may 
 benefit his landlord, it must be cheap corn, and 
 cheap every thing else that must benefit him. I 
 will not lengthen this letter by shewing the various 
 ways in which the manufacturers and merchants 
 will be benefitted by cheap corn, because I wish 
 to confine myself entirely to the consideration of 
 the interest of the farmers and labourers, and to 
 prove that it is as great an advantage to them to 
 have cheap corn, as it is to any other class of the 
 community. 
 
 Nobody can deny that it is better to have all com- 
 modities cheap than dear; and the sure way to 
 have them the cheapest, is to let the public buy 
 them wherever they please. The corn laws are 
 intended to make corn dear. The question, then, 
 between the people and the landlords is, whether 
 
it is better that the landlords should submit to a 
 reduction of their rents, or that the whole people 
 of Great Britatn should pay a high price for their 
 corn ; whether, in short, the landlords can make 
 out a case for taxing the community to put money 
 into their pockets. Now the landlords, instead of 
 shewing us that it is better for us to have rich 
 landlords than cheap corn, which is what they 
 ought to prove, talk to us about 44 the interests of 
 agriculture.” This artifice of identifying them- 
 selves with an abstract term, is not without ex- 
 ample. When the popish priests attemped to es- 
 tablish their supremacy over the civil power, they 
 said it was for “ the interest of religion.” That it 
 was for the interest of the priests is very evident ; 
 but how it was for the interest of religion, it is not 
 so easy to explain. In like manner, the West In- 
 dians repel any interference with the horrid cruelties 
 they daily practice in the islands, under the cant 
 term of “ the interest of the colonies.” It might 
 be admitted, that dear corn is beneficial to land- 
 lords ; but in what sense it can he beneficial to 
 “ agriculture,” unless landlords he 44 agriculture,” 
 it is not easy to see. The artifice, however, is not 
 without its use: “ protect agriculture,” like 64 pro- 
 tect the colonies,” sounds better than 44 give me 
 your purse;” and many a man is duped into doing 
 that for the protection of agriculture and colonies, 
 which he w ould hesitate to do for the mere purpose 
 of enriching landlords, and would refuse to do for 
 
28 
 
 the sole object of enabling sugar planters to mur- 
 der their slaves with impunity*. 
 
 It is by this term, “ protection to agriculture,” 
 that the farmers have been deceived. Mr. Western, 
 the member for Essex, and the ablest of the writers 
 on the side of the landlords, unites the tenantry 
 with the landlords as equally falling a sacrifice to 
 cheap corn. Another member in the House of 
 Commons, reckoned that 40,000 farmers had been 
 ruined at the time of what was called “ the agri- 
 cultural distress :” but this agricultural distress was 
 principally produced by tricks which were played 
 with the currency ; and if the landlords had reduced 
 their rents in proportion as the price of corn fell, 
 instead of talking about 46 protection to agricul- 
 ture,” not one farmer would have been ruined. 
 
 * In the last House of Commons Papers, we find a planter or- 
 dering a woman, who was seven months gone with child, to be 
 flogged ; she was so, and was shortly afterwards delivered of a 
 child which was born with a broken arm, oue eye knocked out, and 
 the head beaten in ; proving most unequivocally, as well as from 
 the evidence of the driver, that it was murdered in utero y by the 
 inhuman miscreant, her master, to whom, however, nothing was 
 done ! ! — and this is the result of all that the Government has hi- 
 therto effected to mitigate the horrors of slavery ! In fact, the 
 cruelties, murders, and tortures, which have at length roused the 
 indignation of every man not dead to all the commonest feelings 
 of humanity, are indisputably proved in the abovementioned 
 papers, to be daily practised in all the West Indian Islands, al- 
 though the planters have, by falsehood unparalleled, succeeded 
 in making some weak people, who are too idle to examine the 
 subject for themselves, believe the reverse. 
 
29 
 
 Dear com may be beneficial to landlords, although 
 certainly not to so great an extent as they fancy ; 
 but so far is it from being beneficial to the farmers, 
 that there is no class to which it is more, and few 
 to which it is equally, injurious. Not only is 
 the interest of the farmers not the same with that 
 of the landlords, but no two interests are more 
 directly opposite to each other. 
 
 If, however, the effect arising from dear corn 
 were merely like robbing Peter to pay Paul ; if 
 it were only taking a certain sum of money out 
 of the pocket of the consumer, to put it into the 
 pocket of the landlord, bad as this would be, it 
 would not be so bad as it really is. But for every 
 pound that finds its way into the pockets of the 
 landlords, the public are robbed of several — the 
 loss to the community is much greater than the 
 gain to the landlords. 
 
 This will be easily understood, by reflecting 
 that rent must arise from the value of the produce 
 of the land : but rent is only a part of that pro- 
 duce ; another part goes to wages ; another to 
 various smaller expenses ; and another to the far- 
 mer as his profit. Yet all these parts must rise 
 in price as well as the part which the landlords 
 put into their pockets; while it is obvious, that 
 neither landlord nor any body else can gain by the 
 price of that which goes into the ground as seed, 
 into the horses and labourers stomachs for food, 
 &c, &c. ; and a horse does not work one whit bet- 
 ter upon oats at a guinea a bushel, than he does 
 
30 
 
 upon oats at a shilling. The landlords themselves, 
 and their friends, Messrs. Ellman, Wakefield, 
 Iveson, Driver, Webb, Lake, Glutton, and others, 
 state in their evidence* before the House of Lords, 
 in 1814, and Mr. Western, in his “ Address/’ p.37, 
 assume it as a settled point, that the proportion or 
 produce, which the landlords receive as rent, is 
 one-fifth part : so that, if dear corn operates as a 
 tax upon the public of ten millions sterling a-year, 
 only two millions sterling are divided amongst the 
 landlords, and eight millions sterling are wasted in 
 pure loss, without any body being a gainer. It fol- 
 lows, also, (even upon their own view of the nature 
 of rent) that the effect of opening the corn trade 
 would be to lower rents only one-fifth of their pre- 
 sent amount, since the way in which the landlords 
 could be affected by cheap corn, would be so far 
 only as they are affected by dear corn ; and if they 
 now receive but one-fifth part of the produce, it 
 can be only as much as that fifth part, amounting 
 to two millions sterling, is lowered in price, that they 
 will suffer, while the public will receive the benefit 
 of the fall upon the whole amount, or twelve millions 
 sterling. 
 
 I am the ow ner of a tract of land, which pro- 
 bably contains a larger portion of poor land, as 
 compared with the good, than most other land- 
 owners in this county ; yet I am confident, that 
 
 * Mr. Lake, one-sixth; Driver, one- third to one-fifth ; Clutton, 
 one-fifth to one-sixth ; Webb, one-fourth, and so on — varying, 
 of course, according to the different qualities of land. 
 
31 
 
 not an acre would be rendered useless by the 
 opening- of the ports for the introduction of foreign 
 corn: and it has been repeatedly shewn, that every 
 acre of land which it was possible to cultivate with 
 profit last year, (when wheat was at 55s. 6d., rye 
 31s., barley 33s., oats 22s.) might continue to be 
 so cultivated, were every restriction and prohibition 
 abolished, and the public allowed to purchase their 
 corn in the cheapest markets. But such a reduc- 
 tion of price, as would not be sufficient to cause 
 even the very poorest lands now under corn to be 
 laid down to pasture, would so increase the com- 
 fort of the labourer, and give such an immense 
 stimulus to industry in general, that the progress 
 of the country in wealth would be accelerated in 
 a degree that can hardly be conceived. 
 
 The more the landlords contend that corn would 
 be cheap if the ports were open, the more they 
 prove what a nuisance the present corn laws are. 
 If the corn trade were free, the price of corn would 
 be steady; even a scarcity would not affect the 
 price; for it is almost impossible that there should 
 be a scarcity over all the world at the same time, 
 in America, in the Baltic, and in the Mediter- 
 ranean ; and every farmer knows, and every land- 
 lord ought by this time to have learned, that stea- 
 diness of price is of the first consequence to all 
 who are employed in the cultivation of land — that 
 fluctuation produces speculation, and speculation 
 produces ruin. 
 
 A country, which freely admits the corn of all 
 
nations into its markets, can be scarcely ever ex- 
 posed to either of the opposite evils of excessive 
 dearth, or ruinous depression of price. If there 
 be a bad harvest in one country, there is a good 
 one in another; and the surplus produce of the 
 latter supplies the deficiency of the former: thus 
 saving the one country from the evils of famine, 
 and relieving the agriculturalists of the other from 
 the ruin attendant on an extraordinary abundance, 
 and fall of prices. But a nation which shuts out 
 foreign corn, denies itself the power of supplying 
 its wants from the resources of foreign countries, 
 and becomes dependant upon the goodness or bad- 
 ness of the harvest in its own country, which in 
 different seasons may vary so much as to cause the 
 ruin of thousands. 
 
 The present system is productive of double mis- 
 chief. By preventing importation, it aggravates all 
 the evils of scarcity when the hom e crops are~ de- 
 ficient; whilst by raising prices, and thereby forc- 
 ing the cultivation of poor soils, it prevents expor- 
 tation in a year of unusual plenty, and teaches the 
 farmers to look on the bounty of God as a curse 
 instead of a blessing. So long as the present sys- 
 tem lasts, we shall have the same changes, from 
 ruinously low to oppressively high prices, which 
 we have experienced since 1815. At one time 
 we shall be stunned with the complaints of the 
 landlords ; and when these have subsided, we shall 
 be assailed with the louder and more dangerous 
 cries of a starving populace. The sustenance of 
 
33 
 
 the people is the last thing that a wise govern- 
 ment will suffer to be tampered with ; for a man 
 who will fight neither for his country, nor for his 
 liberty, will nevertheless be as ferocious as a tiger 
 for his belly. 
 
 When most other commodities get dear, people 
 can either go without them, or wait till they fall 
 again ; but this is not the case with corn. If corn 
 really becomes scarce, the amount of misery pro- 
 duced baffles all description. Wages do not rise 
 immediately in proportion, and the whole weight 
 of the evil is thrown therefore upon those who are 
 least able to bear it. The poorest class of labourers 
 is deprived of the food which is absolutely essen- 
 tial to well being, and the class above them is com- 
 pelled to sacrifice almost all other comforts, in 
 order to obtain the usual quantity of bread. 
 
 The landlords say, that the restrictions on the 
 importation of corn are necessary for them, first, 
 because they pay taxes from which the rest of the 
 community are exempt ; and secondly, because, as 
 all manufacturers have protection for the articles 
 in which they deal, the landlords ought to have 
 the same benefit also for their corn. But the land- 
 lords do not pay all the taxes ; and if they take so 
 much from the rest of the community for their 
 corn, the public have less money with which to 
 pay their share of the taxes: for after a man has 
 paid 90s. to the landlords for the same quantity of 
 corn which he might obtain elsewhere for 52s., 
 he is clearly so much the less able to pay taxes on 
 
 F 
 
34 
 
 malt, soap, tobacco, sugar, wine, tea, &c. The 
 argument of the landlords is the same as if they 
 were to say, that the consumers of corn are in a 
 fitter state to pay their share of the fifty-five million 
 of taxes to the government, after they had under- 
 gone an evacuation of ten million to the land- 
 lords, than they would be if the ten million paid 
 for dear corn remained in their pockets. With 
 regard to their second reason, no manufacturer at 
 this moment derives the smallest advantage from 
 any protecting duty ; and if he does, let the land- 
 lords exert themselves to have it removed, rather 
 than make it a stalking horse to cover their own 
 monopoly of corn. 
 
 The landlords 44 seem to imagine, that when corn 
 44 is brought from abroad, it takes according to its 
 “ amount just so much money away from being laid 
 “ out in home corn. Error, when once adopted, is 
 44 very persevering ; but is it then possible that 
 44 the great body of English farmers can really be- 
 44 lieve this ? Do they not know that it is an exchange 
 44 that is goingon of foreign corn for manufactures P 
 44 Now these are made out of the produce of the land 
 44 ofEngland, Ireland, and Scotland, in great part ; 
 u and observe, if the goods were not exported in ex- 
 44 change for the corn, they would not be made; and 
 44 of course, the amount of them would never be laid 
 44 out in their corn” Weekly Register, Dec. 15. 1821 . 
 
 At the same moment that the ports are thrown 
 open for the free ’introduction of corn, then or 
 never something may be done towards diminish- 
 
ifigi the burden of the poor Jaws ; but as long as 
 tlie landlords contend for their right to prevent tlie 
 people purchasing corn where they please, they 
 have no pretext for complaint that they are com- 
 pelled to disgorge a small portion of their unjust 
 gains in favor of the labourers, whom they are de- 
 frauding of the produce of their labour, by prevent- 
 ing their exchanging that labour for the largest pos- 
 sible amount of bread. 
 
 Instead of making the burdens, which they have 
 to bear, the pretext for their monopoly of corn, the 
 landlords would do more wisely to give up their mo- 
 nopoly, and at the same time compel the ministers 
 to abolish all other monopolies also. They ought 
 farther to insist upon a large reduction of taxation. 
 Taxation is as a blight from heaven on the produce 
 of industry ; no struggles of the labourers, no in- 
 creased ingenuity, no augmented exertion of any 
 kind, can counterbalance the blasting effect of low 
 profits produced by taxation, or by the cultivation 
 of poor soils. Let the landlords insist upon being 
 no longer compelled to pay 36 per cent, for their 
 sugar, 56 per cent, for their coffee and cocoa ; <£8 
 per ton for their mahogany ; 10 shillings per gallon 
 for their rum, and nearly the same for the indigo 
 which dyes their wool, in order to give monopolies 
 of these articles to slave owners. Let them insist 
 on the reduction of that large proportion of our 
 standing army, kept up, neither for the protection of 
 the state, nor for the splendour of the crown, but to 
 shield the persons of the slave drivers in the colo- 
 
36 
 
 nies from the tardy, though just, retribution of their 
 outraged fellow-creatures. Let them insist upon 
 no longer paying twice as much for their tea as 
 they need pay, in order to keep up the monopoly 
 of the East India Company. The monopoly of 
 the slave owners alone costs all consumers of 
 sugar, coffee, rum, mahogany, &c. and all wearers 
 of cloth coats, many millions a-year*. Let the 
 landlord resolve to put an end to these monopo- 
 lies, and they will soon find that that, coupled 
 with the reduction of poor rates, price of labour, 
 and all expenses, together with increased demand 
 for the produce of pasture land, and the certainty 
 of not going without rent altogether in seasons of 
 depression, would fully compensate them for the di- 
 minished value of the arable land. 
 
 I again repeat, that until the ports are open, no 
 farmer, who knows his own interest, will bind him- 
 self by a lease ; if he does, he ought to take it at a 
 corn rent, that is, with a lease fluctuating With the 
 price of corn ; if he does not do this, he puts his 
 fortune, and the independence of himself and chil- 
 dren, at the mercy of his landlord, or of the Bank Di’ 
 
 * Partly by means of this tnonopoly, the West Indian planters, 
 residing in London, were enabled, in July last, to lay a tax on 
 their produce, no doubt to be spent, as the money voted by the 
 local legislatures has been, in paying editors of newspapers, and 
 in buying seats in the House of Commons, for members who will 
 palliate their barefaced oppression of slaves and free people of 
 colour — a class far superior in morals and intellect to the white 
 residents in the islands. 
 
37 
 
 rectors, or of the Government. By a corn rent only 
 can he be safe ; and a law ought certainly to be passed 
 to prevent his being called upon, at any time, for a 
 higher rent than is proportionate to the price that 
 corn bore at the time when he entered upon his lease. 
 
 It has now been clearly shown — 
 
 1. That the land owners’ monopoly of corn is the 
 heaviest tax which the people have to pay. 
 
 2. That the land owners, and their families, are 
 the only persons who gain by this tax. 
 
 3. That all other classes, including farmers, are in- 
 jured by this tax. 
 
 4. That of all taxes, it is the one which presses 
 hardest upon the labourers. 
 
 5. That the gain to the landlord from this tax is 
 not so great as the loss to the people. 
 
 From all which considerations alone, (without 
 reckoning the way in which this tax strikes at the 
 root of the growing prosperity of the country, and 
 impedes its advance in wealth, by which advance 
 only the enormous burden of its debt can become 
 tolerable) it follows, that the immediate abolition of 
 the monopoly of corn which the landlords now en- 
 joy under the present corn laws, is a measure of 
 bare justice and absolute necessity. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, and 
 
 One of your Constituents. 
 
 October 10th, 1825. 
 
! Ur . .. • ’ f V Ot. X ' ; M !< ) I . 
 
 • ; • * ul ‘ - ; : ; ; : ■ > ■ ! ■ . ; • • j ji" ’ ) J H! iff; • 
 
 * 5 * ’ ' • * ' ’ '■ ■' ’ J - - ; * i (;i 
 
 » • • ' ■ ' < •• ■ • • ' I ■ ) Ui 
 
 iii 
 
 — (I >j{f: 'fliti' '■.■■■ : I 77 \ ? j| 
 
 /i " J 
 
 • ■. ! ■ ■ - ■ ; U ; ;l ! . ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 . : - /< i i i . ' • i ! r ' ; { >•-, , • / ’ : • 3* * i 
 
 ; .v. -.-iilt.) » • ; :..t!T X- 
 
 • ' > ; • ; ' > » i \ i 
 
 \ i .-t- 
 
 • 'Hi: - 1 GljH ’I 
 
 • li-. • > :■ !)}«;.“ .. 
 
 •v:<r • ; : < > •" ; « vy\' 1 j. ;i< h 
 
 
 L {,j ; ^noh: h yyhf YU i; 
 
 ■ .uvti 
 
 ' 
 
 . • v • .. • ' 
 
 .*>• is « : " ••• :■ i M . m . . : ; : > i ; i 7 . ; 
 
 r-‘ r UfJ in 
 
 'J i'i 
 
 
 '■:> 0(i ~ ' .V; '.r'n 
 
 itf» ♦’ i if 7(| 
 
 rr/H : . • iffbb -,b 1 :• . . . , .... 
 
 • s,-.'i •. . ; 
 
 • V;; • . b . ;t • An 
 
 ■ J. 
 
 >. . s . •» n 
 
 ■ ' , » •: ' 
 i[ 'n i /. t . * ; i 
 
 Hi 
 
 
WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHING and LATELY PUBLISHED, BY 
 
 J. RIDGWAY. 
 
 A LETTER to JAMES JOHN FARQUHARSON, 
 
 Esq., on the subject of the late MEETING at Blandford, Dorset, 
 on the Corn Laws. Price Is. 
 
 SUBSTANCE of a SPEECH delivered in the 
 HOUSE of COMMONS on the 28th of April, 1825. By Wol- 
 ryche Whitmore, Esq., respecting- the Corn Laws, Is. 
 
 The CORN QUESTION. In a Letter addrssed to 
 the Right Hon. W. Huskisson. By one of the Proscribed Class. 
 Is. 6d. 
 
 FIRST and SECOND REPORTS from the COM- 
 MITTEES of the HOUSE of LORDS, appointed to inquire into 
 the State of the Growth, Commerce, and Consumption of Grain, 
 and all Laws relating thereto ; to whom were referred the several 
 Petitions presented to the House in the Session of 1813 and 1814, 
 respecting the Corn Laws. Second edition. 10s. Gd. boards. 
 
 REPORT from the SELECT COMMITTEE of the 
 HOUSE of COMMONS on Petitions relating to the Corn Laws 
 of this Kingdom ; together with the Evidence, and an Appendix 
 of Accounts. Second edition. 10s. Gd. boards. 
 
 A LETTER to the CHAIRMAN of the COMMIT- 
 TEE of the HOUSE of COMMONS on the GAME LAWS. 
 By the Hon. and Ret. William Herbert. Is. 
 
 BEAUTIES of the GAME LAWS, exhibited in a 
 Short View of their Enactments as to the Right of Property in 
 Game, the Qualification for Sporting, and the Penalties on Un- 
 qualified Persons : with Remarks on several proposed Remedies. 
 Is. 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS on the GAME LAWS; shew- 
 ing the Advantages of declaring Game Property, and the possi- 
 bility of doing so, notwithstanding the objection raised by reason 
 of Inability to identify it; and also to shew the unfounded nature 
 of our fears respecting a Legalization of the Sale, as it might af- 
 fect the Quantity of Game. Second Edition. 3s. 
 
 A PRACTICAL TREATISE on BREEDING, 
 REARING, and FATTENING POULTRY, &c. after Plans 
 pursued with advantage and profit in France. Second Edition. 
 Price 5s. 
 
Works publishing by J. Ridgway. 
 
 HORTUS GRAMINEUS WOBURNENSIS; or 
 
 An Account of the Results of various Experiments on the Pro- 
 duce and Fattening Properties of different Grasses, and other 
 Plants used as the Food of the more valuable domestic Animals ; 
 instituted by John Duke of Bedford. With Practical Observa- 
 tions on their natural habits and the soils best adapted to their 
 growth, pointing out the kinds most profitable for permanent 
 pasture, irrigated meadows, dry or upland pasture, and the al- 
 ternate husbandry: accompanied by the discriminating cha- 
 racters of the species and varieties, and the best method of se- 
 curing their seed : illustrated with numerous specimens of the 
 grasses, seeds and plants, on which experiments have been made j 
 in sixty plates. By G. Sinclair, F.L.S. and F.H.S. Gardener to 
 the Duke of Bedford, &c. &c. Third Edition. Price 21. 2 jr., 
 coloured, under the Author’s Inspection ; or 1/. 10s., plain. 
 Dedicated by permission to T. W. Coke, Esq. M.P. 
 
 “ Within the short limits to which we are necessarily confined, it 
 would be impossible to convey any adequate idea of the mass of in- 
 formation contained in this volume ; information, too, be it remem- 
 bered, not more novel than important, nor more difficult to be ascer- 
 tained, than beneficial to the community at large, when received. If 
 we would very briefly characterize the work, we would say, that it 
 exhibits a complete analysis of an English parterre ; presenting in 
 succession every variety of grasses, from those which enter into the 
 rich pastures of the vale of Aylesbury, to those which constitute the 
 stunted and withered race on the barren hills of Westmorland and 
 Cumberland. We have not, in a word, seen any production which 
 at all approximates to the present in the importance of its details. 
 In its production, the munificent liberality of one of the first of our 
 noblemen, has been combined with the patience, perseverance, and 
 sagacity of one of the most distinguished botanists of the day. 
 Rarely have wealth and science laboured more successfully. The 
 result on the present occasion is worthy of such an union. The 
 Hortus Gramineus Woburnensis does honour to our country. The 
 simplicity and clearness with which this varied information is com- 
 municated, are highly pleasing, and have invested with a singular 
 charm details which would almost appear to defy such an ornament.” 
 — Monthly Critical Gazette y Jan. 1825. 
 
 AN ESSAY on the WEEDS of AGRICUL- 
 TURE ; with their Common and Botanical Names, their re- 
 spective Characters and evil Qualities, whether as infesting Sam- 
 ples of Corn or encumbering the Soil. Also Practical Remarks on 
 their Destruction, by Fallowing, or otherwise. The Posthumous 
 Work of Benjamin Holdich, Esq. late Editor of the Farmer’s 
 Journal. Edited by G. Sinclair, F.L.S. &c. &c. Author of the 
 Hortus Gramineus Woburnensis. 3s. Cd. Second Edition, with 
 an Index. 
 
 PRACTICAL REMARKS on the IMPOVE- 
 MENTof GRASSLAND, by means of Irrigation, Winter Flood- 
 ing, and Drainage. In a Letter to the Owners and Occupyers 
 of Land in the County of Essex. By C. C. Western, Esq. M.P. 
 Price Is. 6d.