23
the duty were in consequence reduced from 10s. to 1s. the revenue would incontestably lose 9s. a quarter upon all the wheat either already in bond or subsequently purchased abroad and imported, but who would be the gainer? According to those whose opinions I have quoted, it would be the consumer. I venture to assert that the advantage derived from the reduction of the duty by the consumer would be so small as to be imperceptible, and that the gain would go to the corn holder upon the wheat already here—and to the foreigner upon that subsequently purchased. The price of 90s. is supposed to have arisen from a very deficient crop at home, but, under the notoriety of a million of quarters of foreign corn being warehoused here in bond; if the holder of bonded wheat paid 10s. duty, he would sell it at the market price of the day, and he would not take less than its market value, because he had only paid 1s. .duty: that market value has been assumed to be 90s.—90s. therefore he would get. But (it may be alleged) the introduction of this supply of a million of quarters will lower the price;—nay,—for the knowledge of its being here and of its impending sale, was one of the circumstances under which the price rose to 90*., and although competition amongst the sellers might somewhat reduce it, it would be in their power to obtain the full amount. Again, the foreigner, as soon as the duty was reduced here, would add to his price the amount of the reduction,
