12
to sacrifice the interests of the agriculturists to the unstable interests of the manufacturers, foreign Governments most certainly will not allow their manufacturers to be ruined. They are not so stultified as to give us reason to expect this from their policy,—are we so stultified that we should expect it from their friendship? There can be no reason to doubt that they would gladly avail themselves of our necessities to fill their own Exchequers, both by keeping a tax on manufactures as at present, and raising or depressing an export tax on their corn, just as it suited their immediate circumstances. During the scarcity which prevailed in this country in the years 1800 and 1801, a duty of ten shillings a quarter was laid on the export of corn from the Prussian dominions; and we see the same course followed by the Neapolitan and other Governments of the present day. It is therefore evident that were the Corn Laws repealed to-morrow, a loss of 25 per cent. would probably fall on the British agriculturist; but it is equally evident that our home consumer would not be benefited by this extent, but solely the foreign Government and foreign grower, who would possess entirely the power of regulating the price. Exactly a similar case happened on repealing the duty on rape seed, amounting to L.200,000.—In the course of six or seven years, the English grower of rape seed was driven wholly out of the market, and the price of the article got up to what it was before the duty was taken off—the whole L. 200,000 going to the foreign growers.
Mr. M'Queen states, "Admitting that foreign grain was admitted free, and that the agriculturist was no longer to have any protection for his capital and for his industry, the reduction of rental could not be less than 25 per cent. This rental is L.81,000,000; this would make L.20,000,000 loss to the landholder, and of capital, at 30 years' purchase, L.615,000,000—equal to the whole national debt,
