CORN-LAWS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.

Sin—I have for some time distrusted the Whig movement in opposition to the Corn.laws, as one metely got up to divert the masses from the Extension of the Suffrage object which they have at present in view ; and in this I am now convinced, by the following editorial note to a correspondent, which .ippearell in the Morning Chronicle for October 4. " It is fighting against windmills. All the advocates of a free trade in corn, from Ricardo downwards, allow that there should be a duty on the importation of corn equivalent to the burdens ex- clusively born by agriculture." Now, as I am one of those who deny the truth of the above opinion, even although it is pretended to be supported by some great names, I have to request, on behalf of your Radical friends and all Corn-law haters, that you will lead the way at this time in fixing the public mind to this real point Of inquiry. The public do not yet understand this ques- tion. They are constantly annoyed by such assertions as that which has been made by the editor of the ['Wonting Chronicle; who professes to be a friend to the abolition of these most wicked and people-starving laws, until a doubt is created in the minds of many very intelligent men, whether they really are so Unjust atul so injurious as has been represented. That the Corn-laws must be repealed, no thinking man can doubt ; and my only wish is, that the public mind may become so enlightened as to resist all modifications until the Government is forced to declare that the proprietors of laud cannot be permitted any longer to endanger the peace of society and the wi•Iftre of the country by retaining a monopoly in the supply of food and other commodities the produce of the soil. That this time must come, it is iinpos• bible to doubt.

The question to be determined is, therefore, " Whether the proprietors of larel are entitled to any protecting duty on any description of agricultural pro- duce, on the ground that they have been made to pay a greater proportion of the taxes during the last sixty years than ought to have been imposed upon *hem?"

My answer to this question is, that a given quantity of land may be taken as an amuunt of property which will yield a clear annual money income to the proprietor, in proportion to its value, without any labour on his part ; that all taxes are monies which individuals are obliged to contribute for the service of the state ; and that, if these taxes are paid, they must deprive the individual who lives upon the income derived from a given ptoperty of a portion of that income. Now, if it can be shown that, during a series of years, the clear money income derived from land has not been lessened, but has been greatly in- creased, it is evident, that whatever taxes have been raised have not been taken from them, if at the same time it can be shown that the exchangeable value of money has not been lessened. Therefore, as the average rent of land has in- creased from three to fivefold during the last sixty years, and the price of nearly every article of manufacture has decreased at least one-half, it surely must be self-evident to every one that the landowners can have no pretext whatever to claim a protecting duty on the importation of corn, on the ground that the taxes have pressed too heavily upon them. This proposition, I presume, will require no laboured proof. It is notorious to every one who is at all conversant with lauded property, that the rent of land, during the last sixty years, as compared with the rent from 17-20 to 1780, is at least three tunes greater upon the average of the whole period. This is a proof of so much importance, that I trust you will invite the liberal landed prom ietors to favour the public with the returns of the rent-rulls of their estates for at least twenty-five years, that it may be established beyond dispute. It has been objected by some, that this is not a fair mode of reasoning, as the altet et! state of the land is kept out of view but they forget that the public have paid for the improved cultivation of the land, in the price which has been paid for its produce. In general, land is improved at the expense of the farmer, and he is repaid by the increase of produce. If the land has been improved at the ex- pense of the proprietor, then he derives both his own and the farnier's profit upon the advances which he had made. The improved cultivation of land has generally advanced most rapidly when the proprietor has done nothing beyond granting a lease for a given number of years, as a seem ity to the farmer that he w.ill not be deprived of his fair expectation of reward from the abundance of his future cops. That the price of nearly every article of manufacture has been greatly redueed during the last forty years, and pat ticularly dining the last twenty years, is so well-known that it is unnecessary to enter into ally particulars. The reduction may be estimated at one-half. It is therefore evident, that if the rent of land hail not increased, but had reinained stationary at what it was previous to 1790, even then the landed proprie- tors would not have been entitled to complain, in justice, that they were un- equally taxed, as the seine rental would have entitled them to obtain a greater quantity of manufactures, than they could have previously °lit:Lined. 11 the !ended proprietors live more extravagantly than they did formerly. 1 du not see that they have any right to call upon the public to sustain them in their extravagance.

Hiving now disposed of the unjust claim which has been put forward by the lords of the soil fur a Monopoly of the home market, oil the ground that they have taxed themselves for the last fifty years beyond what they ought to have done, I shall now attempt to show that they have really paid no taxes during the whole of that period ; and that the whole burden of taxes, and the enormous loans, have been born by the industry and advanced out of the produce a the labour of the country. 1. Land is fixed property ; so is a house. A sum of money in the Funds may be so invested as to possess a permanent character. Government in its legislative capacity has nothing to do with who is the proprietor of the land or of the house, or of the funded property. In taxing property, Government deals with the laud and the house; and in paying interest for money which had been borrowed, it continues to pay the same rate of interest from the first lay that the loan was contracted, until it is repaid. The fluctuations in the Funds are produced by the necessities of private individuals ; the changes which take Itlace in the occupancy of land and houses are produced from the same causes. Moth these changes, the Government, acting in its national capacity, has nuthing to do.

2. Now if it ie true that average rent of an estate A, front 1720to 1780, was 1000/. per annum, liter all the direct taxes were paid, and that the rent of the same estate A beg .o gradually to increase in value, so that when, in 11C438. the average of the lab: sixty years was taken, it was found to be double or treble what it was in the presioue period, it would surely be very absurd to assert, that whatever taxes had been imposed, had had the effect of reducing the income derived from that property. It would, on the contrary, shiny that some change had taken place, so as not only to exempt the proprietor from giving up a portion of his property, which Is the efface of all taxation, but act only to inereaae it in value ;.and therefore it would be the interest of the proprietors of land to continue that remarkable tate of things, which, in the fuee of tile most opmessive taxatioa, always had the effect of increasing the value of their property.

3. In the case of the house property. if the rent remained the same from 17e0 to 183S that it had done from 1;20 to 1780, then the proprietor might justly complain of the effact of taxation, in the same amount of money not being able to command the same qumtity of commodities, in consequence of their price being advanced by the imposition of duties: but if the rent of the house went on increasing beyond the rate of the taxes upon comrnoilitice, it is clear that the proprietor of property so situated would be exempt from tax- ation—as he hid not been called upon to give up any portion of hie income. It may, however, be taken as pretty near the truth, that household propel ty did not much advance in value during the late war, except in a few large towns and in other places which constitute the exception : therefore the proprietor. were stahiected to all the effects of excessive taxation in the same degree as the public at large.

4. Every funibolder who had advanced his money to Government previeee to 1S00, bad great reeson to complain ; as, in coneequeoce of the deprecietion of the currency produced by the Bulk Restriction Act, he was defrauded of a por- tion of his fixed income, varying from 21 to 25 per cent,, for the long period et. twenty.one years, or until l21, whim gold again became the eirculetiug medium. It is therefore evident that the fun:Builder was not only called upoa to stelonit to pay a tax of about 8 per cent. upon the average of twenty-one years but he had also to pay his proportion of all the other taxes which eere levied upon the commodities which he constuned, and upon the station in if which he filled.

5. It may now be asked, who thus pmid the taxes, and who advanced the many millions of loans ? The reply is simply, that the taxes were paid by those who were called upon to give up either a portion of their property or of their incomes to meet the necessities of the state. 'We have seen that there is no Tea sun to believe that the income of the proprietors of land bad been lessened during: the war ; therefore it is evident flea they peid none of the taxes, yr their incomes would have been reduced. Neither did the landowners genera:ly contribute any portion of the loans. .1t this time the land is in a better cen. tlition than it ever was. Tlie loans were raised from the savings of the industry of the country, and are the measure of so much industry that has been wasted for ever.

6. It therefore follows, that the land of this country has been nearly a e•

emitted from all taxetion during at least the last fifty years. It may he Ti ic that many taxes have been imposed upon the land ; but it 1139 so happened, that the value of its produce has gone on increasing so rapidly, that after all these deductions have been made, a large surplus is left, at least three times in value to

what it was previous to these taxes being imposed.

7. The landed proprietors have not only succeeded in shifting the entire bur- den of taxation from their own shoulders upon the industry of the people, lint

they have done more ; they, in addition, by means of a skilful legislation, lir ve compelled every individual who live in the kingdom to pay a tax for their ex• elusive benefit, in addition to all the taxes which are paid for the support of government, just as certainly as the East India Company was for many years permitted to tax every individual who bolght their tea, and as every individaal who consumes Boger is taxed for the benefit of the state.

It has been long a matter of great surprise to me, that any Governmeat could so wholly abandon the interests of the People as to tolerate so great air oppression for so many years. The Govet ument appears to forget, that if they allowed the landed proprietors to take less of the produce of the labour of the people, that they would be able to take it themselves, without the condition oi the people being affected by it. If the Corn.laws were wholly abolished, it is probable that the prosperity of the country would advance so rapidly as soon to enable them to take into consideration the best way of reducing the Natioad Debt.

When jostice is recognized in legislation, the Corn-laws will not only be alio-

fished, but a large portion of the taxes will be raised from a direct charge up-it the land, in accordance with the spirit of ilea eonstitution which the land- owners have long considered as the wonler and the envy of all nations. A ,el not till then will the landowners contribute their juat proportion of the ba: • dens which they have heaped upon the nation. I atn, Sir, your very obedient servant, A TRADESMAN.

• Sir BERRY PAHNET.T, estimates the amount or this taxation at al out 12,50001' ; but others estimate it at warty twice t hat ttinuunt. Iii :Manion to this sertuai mite tot of direcr taxation, there is an immense itriury irtheted besi.tes iu the itepr,i ottal Iii e value ,if labour, consul by the restrietious on commerce.