17
the same amount of wholesome and nutritious food? Could he expend as much in clothing? Had his wages advanced in any thing like a corresponding proportion? If they had, why was the home trade so bad? Why were the poor-rates so much heavier in the latter year?[1] Why had the consumption of exciseable articles so greatly fallen off?[2] And why had the duties on malt, tea, and sugar, been so singularly diminished?[3] If they had not, what becomes of the assertion that the high price of wheat is no injury to the farm labourer?
II. But the wages of the labourer are not only not raised in proportion to the price of corn;—it admits of certain demonstration, that in the long run they are actually lowered by the operation of the corn-laws. That these laws have the effect of curtailing both the foreign and the home demand, for the products of manufacturing industry, we shall take for granted, because it has been so repeatedly proved, and is now so generally acknowledged, that all reasoning upon the subject here would be superfluous. In proportion as they have this effect, they limit the extension of manufactures, and the employment of the people therein. They limit the demand for labour, and consequently lessen its remuneration.
The number of individuals occupied in the cultivation of the soil has not increased, and will not increase, with the extension of that cultivation. On the contrary, it has diminished, and we have no doubt will continue to diminish, unless some such change should take place in our system of agriculture as shall approach to garden cultivation. In the ten years ending with 1830, we know that tillage had been much extended, and that large additional quantities of land had been brought under the plough. The number of enclosure bills passed during that period was 205; yet, during that period, the number of families engaged in agriculture had decreased from 978,500 to 961,000; while 470,000 families had been
- ↑ In spite of the increased economy brought about by the progressive introduction of the amended law, the total amount expended for the relief of the poor had risen from £3,800.000 in 1836, to £4,310,000 in 1839. And the increase had taken place in every county in England, except Lincoln, Shropshire, and Southampton.
- ↑ The excise duties collected in 1836 were £16,587,992; and in 1839 they had fallen off to £15,488,000, instead of having risen to £17,088,000, which they would have done had they kept pace with the population.
- ↑
DUTIES ON 1836. 1839. Would have been in 1839 had it kept pace with the Population.
