i166

LI¥E OF UOBDER,

Tans?

1628. duty were not equal as in the previous bill, but went
Tm leaps. Thus, when wheat was at sixty-nine shillings, th
duty was sixteen and eightpence ; and when the home pri
rose to seventy three, then the duty fell to the nominal raft
of a shilling. This was the Corn Law which Cobden and 2
friends rose up to overthrow.

So far back as 1815, when that important measure 2
been passed restraining the introduction of wheat for hot
consumption unless the average price had reached eight’
shillings for the quarter, the mischief of such legislation ad
been understood and described in Parliament. In the How"
of Lords the dissentients from the measure, only ten p
number, had signed a protest, drawn up, as it has alwef’
been believed, by that iydependent and hard-headed stato”
man, Lord Grenville. The grounds of dissent were thes’
That all new restraints on commerce are bad in principle’
that such restraints are especially bad when they affect the
food of the people; that the results would not. conduce ¥
plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price ; that such a meas®
levied a tax on the consumer, in order to give a bounty ¥
the grower of corn. This was a just and unanswersbl®
series of objections. Within six years (1821) a parliaments!)
committee was appointed to inquire into agricultural de
pression.
If we turn to the effect of our regulations upon foreig?
countries, there too they brought nothing but calamity’
When grain rose to a starvation price in England, ¥°
entered the foreign markets; the influx of our gold d*
turbed their exchanges, embarrassed their merchants, and
engendered all the mischief of speculation and gambling
As it was put by some speaker of the day, the questio”
was—‘ Are you to receive food from a foreign count
4 9 Gag, IV. ro #0,