CHAPTER XI.

"OF CORN LAWS:-BOUNTIES ON EXPORTATION."

ALTHOUGH Mr. Malthus has written very extensively on these subjects, we, nevertheless, take leave, on the present occasion, as we have frequently done before, to recommend Mr. Ricardo's chapters thereon, in preference to those of the professor. The greater part of an article, in the Edinburgh Review, No. 72, may, also, be advantageously studied.

With respect to bounties on exportation, we would propose, what we have already suggested, that a bounty on production (which would better answer every ostensible purpose, both of policy and justice, than one on exportation) should be paid to the actual cultivators, and raised, by a tax on rent, to the full amount of the bounty; it being but just, that those, for whose sole benefit a bounty is at all imposed, should contribute to its amount. We are more particularly friendly to such a tax, because, were it imposed, we should be certain,

that, at least, a part of every landholder's rent would be employed, beneficially, both for himself and the country.

Mr. Malthus asserts, in a note, page 445, that "a rise in the price of labour in China would certainly increase the returns which it receives for its teas." We deny the correctness of this assertion, by maintaining, that it would not have any such effect. A rise in the price of labour would raise the price of the imports into, as well as of the exports out of, any country in which it took place, and that exactly in the same proportion. The imports into China are chiefly composed of raw cotton, woollen manufactures, and metals, such as tin, lead, &c. A rise in the price of labour would as certainly raise the cost of producing those commodities in China as it would raise that of tea; consequently, their relative prices would bear the same ratio to each other after, as before the rise took place. If China received gold and silver only, in payment for her teas, the ultimate result would not be altered thereby, since these metals, when used as currency, either uncoined or coined, are merely the co-representatives of other commodities.

We find nothing bearing on the main subject of the Essay, or, in any respect, new or interesting in the chapter before us; therefore, we pass

on.

CHAPTER XII.

"OF CORN LAWS: RESTRICTIONS ON IMPOR

TATION."

"RESTRICTIONS on importation" of corn and food!!! What person, of common sense, could ever imagine, that the Government of any great commercial and manufacturing country would listen, for a moment, to the suggestion, that its manufacturing and commercial population should be prohibited from purchasing food wherever they could get it cheapest !—And could any such person further believe it possible, that a class of men, already in possession of the whole national revenue, would have the monstrous audacity to demand of the Government, that no individual should be suffered to exist in the country, if he could not acquire the means of paying double, or treble, the price for their corn and animals, at which he could purchase them elsewhere!!—It is not for us, however, to argue the possible occurrence of such things; they have actually taken

place, and the fact of their having done so, speaks volumes on the ignorance or wickedness of those who legislate, and on the slavery and depravity of those for whom they legislate.

4

In this chapter, Mr. Malthus enters into a long discussion concerning the effects of the corn laws, and the restrictions on the importation of food, apparently unconscious that the mere existence of such laws turns his whole work into sheer folly and impertinence. His defence, or even non-reprobation of laws, imposing restrictions on the importation of food, converts his proposal, for abolishing the poor laws, into a libel on himself and his religion. As almost all the principal doctrines, which the author pretends to deduce from the consideration of those subjects, are completely confuted by Ricardo, and the able writer of the article in the Edinburgh Review, already mentioned, we think it unnecessary further to enlarge. We remark, that, as heretofore, the Reverend Gentleman" has remembered to forget to specify any of the irremediable evils occasioned by the

A defence of the system has been attempted on the ground of policy; which is, in substance, as follows:-The poor labourers ought to be half-starved, rather than be allowed to get corn from a foreign nation, in exchange for the produce of their labour, in order that the idle privileged classes may make war on any such foreign nation, whenever they please, without its being unpopular, &c. &c.

We are informed,

principle of population. "that there is no hope of abolishing taxation;" and that "a perfect freedom of trade, therefore, is a vision which can never be realized." We are, however, not disposed to give up our hopes so readily, but, rather, to comfort ourselves with the thought, that our posterity will be able to effect the restitution of the land rent to its natural legitimate purpose,that of bearing the public charges,-when all taxation will become unnecessary, and a surplus revenue be applied to the improvement of the country in every desirable and possible way. The Edinburgh Review observes, with great truth, that "all, besides a perfect freedom of trade, is quackery and delusion." It would be very painful to believe, that neither ourselves, nor our children, have any hopes of breaking, or getting from under the yoke of the villainous couple. But we have hopes, and those well grounded too. The tithe and rent receiv

* We would submit to the agricultural interest, whether the granting of a 10 per cent. tax on fixed property, for the purpose of paying off the national debt, would not, by reducing the present amount of taxation of labour two-thirds, reduce, in proportion, the present cost of production of every kind. This would enable them to continue the cultivation of very much poor soil, which must necessarily be abandoned under the present amount of taxation, or continue to be cultivated, at the expense of themselves and all the other classes of the community, for the exclusive benefit of the landholders.