TOTAL AND IMMEDIATE REPEAL OF THE CORN-LAWS.
A CORRESPONDENCE between Mr. PATRICK CHALMERS and his Forfar constituents, which has appeared in some Scotch newspapers, suggests matter for remark, to which it seems desirable at pre- sent to invite public attention. Mr. CHALMERS declines to pledge himself to any specific vote on the Corn-law question ; and a portion of his constituents have resolved not to support at next election any candidate unless he pledge himself to vote for the " total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws." The letter of Mr. CHALMERS to the Chairman of the Forfar Anti-Corn-law Associa- tion has, we confess, rather disappointed us, who had been accus- tomed to attribute to the writer more clearness of view and deci- sion of character than that document indicates. Mr. CHALMERS, on being called upon to declare in favour of total and immediate repeal, says—" I will give no pledge whatever" : which may either mean that he thinks it immoral to tie up his hands by what BEN-. THAM calls "promissory vows," or that he does not find it conve- nient to express his views and intentions with precision. He adds—" I will not fetter myself in the exercise of my vote on the Corn-laws by any pledge which may risk the speedy attainment of a wholesome modification of these laws." It does not appear how Mr. CHALMERS, by voting in the first place for a total and imme- diate repeal of the Corn-laws when the question comes to be dis- cussed in the House of Commons, would preclude himself from acquiescing in any modified change which other Members might afterwards propose—taking what could be got in the mean time as an instalment. It is always a suspicious circumstance when men try to bolster up a questionable resolution by a palpably untenable argument ; and the tone in which Mr. CHALMERS affects to speak of " the unfortunate result of the contest at Walsall" adds to the very questionable character of his letter.
This correspondence naturally suggests some remarks upon the mutual understanding which ought to exist between candidates and constituents, and the qutestio verata of pledges ; regarding the value and efficacy of which these two parties are so apt to entertain dif- ferent opinions. There is another topic of inquiry suggested by it, however, which seems to have even a prior claim to investigation— the wisdom of the Anti-Corn-law agitators taking up the ground of " total and immediate repeal." In the reiteration of the brief formula there is necessarily at times an appearance of dogmatism— of the substitution of passionate will for reason ; and this may be the cause why Mr. CHALMERS and others demur to its adoption. We propose, therefore, to recapitulate in a condensed form the reasons upon which we understand the Anti-Corn-law League to have taken up the ground of total and immediate repeal, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it be the deliberate resolve of dis- passionate inquiry, or merely an expression of strong self-will. "TOTAL REPEAL." Two allegations may be advanced in de- fence of a tax upon corn,—that it is advantageous to protect home agricultural industry from foreign competition ; or that a tax of this kind is an advantageous means of raising a revenue for state purposes. As we are at present only inquiring into the comparative merits of total or partial repeal — only discussing a difference of opinion between those who think that trade cannot be left too free—there is no need for entering into the question of protection. As to the question of taxation, the "total repealers " argue thus. Taxation is the means of making every citizen con- tribute to the support of government—pay for the maintenance of government because it is useful to him. Men ought to contribute towards the support of government in proportion to the advantage they derive from it, and their means of payment. In proportion to the advantage they derive from it—All enjoy personal security through the interposition of government : all ought to pay for that. All who have property owe its safety to the watchfulness of government : all who have property to protect ought to pay for this protection, and to pay in proportion to the value of what is protected. Again, in proportion to their means of payment—A sum is large or small, to any man, on account not so much of its absolute amount as of the proportion it bears to what he pos- sesses ; 101. is a far larger sum for a man of 1001. a year to pay than 1001. is for a man of 10,0001. a year. As the amount of men's properties do and must continue to differ, a graduated scale pro- portioning their contributions to the state to their possessions is necessary in order to equalize the burden of taxation. This pro- position, that men ought to be taxed according to their means, whether we regard the pressure of the taxation upon them or the fairness of paying in proportion to the amount of service received, holds goods alike under a direct and an indirect system of taxation. With an indirect system of taxation such as ours; the problem for the tax-imposer is to select such objects of impost as are most likely to render the payment of each individual proportionate to his means. Now let us apply this test to a tax upon grain. The price of the corn which is the main ingredient of his food, con- stitutes the larger proportion of the expenditure of the labourer, who has no property but his own hands : it constitutes an infini- tesimally small proportion of the outlay of the wealthy proprietor. A tax upon grain violates the first principle of just taxation : it increases the burden in proportion as the means of payment dimi- nish; it makes those who have least to be protected pay highest for protection. Nor is this all. A " moderate fixed duty" on grain is meant as a protection to the home-grower, though that purpose is not avowed. Will the advocates of " a moderate fixed duty" impose their 5, 8, or 10 shillings upon home-grown as well as upon foreign-grown grain ? This country does not produce, one year with another, enough for the consumption of the inhabit- ants. The price of all the grain in the market is regulated by the price of that which costs most to bring it to market. An impost of 5s. a quarter on foreign grain is a differential duty, giving that 5s. on each quarter to the home-grower, over and above what his grain would otherwise be worth in the market. The quantity grown in Great Britain has been estimated, one year with another, at 60 millions of quarters. A duty of 5s. per quarter on imported grain would be 15 millions of pounds sterling annually taken out of the pockets of the grain-consumers and put into the pockets of the landowners, in addition to the revenue accruing to the state from that impost. These considerations seem enough to show that, the principle of free-trade in grain once admitted, there is no stopping short Of TOTAL REPEAL.
" IMMEDIATE REPEAL." By this, the Anti-Corn-law agitators do not mean that a free-trade in grain, to be beneficial, must be established in 1841, and in no other year. They know that were the Corn-laws repealed tomorrow, some time must elapse before the grain that could find a market in this country could be pre- pared. They are not legislators, who have the power of decreeing what shall be done, but private individuals, saying what they think ought to be done : and they go upon the principle of stating the full amount of their demand ; which, however, does not preclude their acceptance of any instalment. " Immediate repeal" has this meaning—Granted that total repeal is advisable, we think that the more rapidly the change is carried into effect, the less will there be of individual temporary inconvenience. It being admitted by the advocates of free-trade, (and let it always be kept in mind, that in these remarks we are addressing ourselves merely to a dif- ference of opinion which may exist among those who are agreed on the general principle of free-trade,) that the abolition of the Corn-laws must have a tendency to increase both wages and profits, it is clear that every delay in effecting the change is bad for the classes who derive their income from these two sources. The only class with regard to whom a question can exist as to the effect of immediate repeal is the class of landowners. Let us inquire, on the assumption that a total repeal is recommendable, whether a gradual or an immediate repeal would be most conducive to the interests of this class. It is said that landowners live upon rent ; that the re- peal of the Corn-laws will diminish rent ; that therefore the repeal of the Corn-laws will impoverish the landowners ; and that an im- mediate repeal wouldleave no time to this class to prepare to meet the alterations in their circumstances. There is a fallacy lurking in the use of the word rent in this seemingly close chain of argu- ment. What political economists now call rent, exclusively, is the surplus annual produce of more fertile lands over that of less fer- tile lands. The difference in the fertility of soil enables a capitalist (a farmer) to give this surplus to the landowner for the temporary use of his soil, and yet derive the same profits from tilling it as the cultivators of less favoured soils. The amount of rent, in the re- stricted sense of the word, is fixed by the amount of produce that can be raised upon the least fertile lands in cultivation. If foreign- grown grain, after paving the expenses of freight, &c. can be brought, under the system of free-trade, into the British market at a lower remunerating price than the grain grown upon the least fertile soils cultivated within this country, those least fertile soils must be thrown out of cultivation, and rent (in the sense in which we are using the word) must fall. But this rent, derived from fer- tile cultivated soils, is only one ingredient of the income of our landlords, although the whole is, in the inaccurate language of common conversation, called rent. In a country like Great Britain, where the whole of the soil is appropriated, no one can use it in any way without the permission of the landlord ; and that per- mission is only granted in return for a pecuniary consideration. If a man wants to build a house, he must pay the landowner for leave to build. If a man wishes to dig up minerals, he must pay the landlord for leave to dig. If a man wishes to have a flower-garden or a fruit-garden for his profit or recre- ation, he must pay a groimd-rent. Even the privilege of ex- clusive shooting and hunting over certain lands, is now obtained by paying rent. Now, in proportion as capitalists and labourers thrive and grow rich, there will be more houses built, more mine- rals employed in manufactures, more ground required for railroads and canals, a greater number of people indulging in gardens and the sports of the field ; in short, increased demand for the use of the pro- perty of the landowners, increased means of paying for it, and increased prices given for it. A portion of the increased wealth of the country, proceeding from the extended field of production and ex- tended market for its produce created by throwing open the trade in grain, must find its way into the pockets of the landowners, and that a large portion. The diminution in the rents of arable land will be modified by the necessary expenses on importation of fo- reign grain, and far more than compensated from the sources of emolument which will open to the landowners under the increased wealth of the country. The diminution of rents upon arable land cannot take place immediately : some time must elapse before foreign countries can produce grain for the new market : but the new elasticity given to the productive industry of the country will date from the moment that trade is declared free. It is for the interest of the landowners that the transition from a restricted to a free trade in grain should be immediate ; that the impulse to in- creased productive energy of the nation should be given in its full force at the very moment that they are exposed to any competition in the grain-market' These, as we are given to understand, are the grounds upon which the Anti-Corn-law League rest their recommendation that the repeal of the Corn-laws should be both total and immediate. After a dispassionate review, we can see no flaw in the chain of reasoning—no ground why they should modify their demand. And, entertaining these views, we cannot see how the members of the League, as honest men, could do otherwise than recommend to all electors to exert themselves to return to Parliament such Members only as agree with them in opinion, or could refrain from exerting themselves in their own constituencies to promote the return or such Members. This being the case, they are quite right in in- * This view of the question was first clearly developed by the author of .England and America—the only writer since ADAM SMITH who has possessed the power of making political economy at once scientific and popular.
sisting upon precise and explicit declarations of opinion on this sub- ject from all Parliamentary candidates: the bargain between elec- tors and elected is a business bargain—nothing should be left to be " understood " in it, any more than in sealing to a bond. No man is capable of being a legislator who has not maturely studied such questions ; and no man is fit to be trusted who refuses to give a frank statement of his opinions. In stating, however, thiq unquali- fied approbation of the position taken up by the League, we must be allowed to suggest that its members ought to embrace every oc- casion of stating the process of reasoning by which they support their laconic confession of faith.
Previous page
