THE CORN LAWS AND THE PRICE OF BREAD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13081, 22 January 1906, Page 7

THE CORN LAWS AND THE PRICE OF BREAD.

Sir,—A great deal has lately been said and written in England against preferential tariffs, on the ground that a, duty of 2i per quarter would raise the price of the poor man's loaf. If tins is so, will someone explain to me how it was that the repeal of the corn laws had practically no effect on the prico of wheat in the London market for more than 26 years after that event. The corn laws were repealed in 1£46. For the five, previous years the averago price of wheat on the 'London Corn Exchange was 54s 9d per quarter. In 1846 it was 54s 8d per quarter. In 1853 it was 53s 3d per quarter. In 1660 it was 53s 3d per quarter. In 1866 it was 50s lid per quarter. In 1872 it was 57s per quarter. Thus, it will be seen that during the first 14 years (he reduction was only Is 5d per quarter. During the next six years it was 2s 4d per quarter. These, small reductions might, easily arise from other canst than the repeal of the duty. During the last six years (1866-72) of the period the price averaged 57s per quarter, or 2* 3d per quarter more (not less, hut more) than it was for the five years before the corn laws were repealed. This clearly shows that more potent causes than the Customs duty operated on the prices. At first sight these facts seem incredible, but a little reflection will show that they are not so. The fact is the English consumer never paid the duty: the foreign producer did that. The American and Russian farmers must sell their surplus stock, and if they cannot get the price they want, they must take what they can get. For now 60 years Richard Cobden has had the credit of giving the English people cheap food. As a matter of fact he had little, probably nothing whatever, to do with it. The credit is due to James Watt and George Stephenson. It was not till after the close of the American Civil War, and the enormous development of railway construction which then took place there,"which enabled their farmers to bring their produce to the seaboard for shipment, that food in England was really cheapened. Thus, the credit really belongs to these great inventors, and not to the politicians. So it is at the present time, the price of food depends greatly more on transit facilities and railway and shipping tariffs than it doss on Customs tariffs. The almost universal credit that for so many years has been given to Richard Cobden and John Bright for reducing the price of food at Home, and for expanding the trade and commerce of Great Britain, may be taken as a proof of the carelessness with which the greatest questions are studied, not only by the masses, but bv many great men. For several years past I have held the opinion that in the not distant future the names of Cobden and Bright will be chiefly remembered as the men who dealt the heaviest blow at British prestige. No one can doubt their sincerity, but thev mav have been mistaken. I believe that if the old Customs duties and the old navigation laws had been retained the present position of Britain would have been so powerful that all the rest of the world combined could not have dealt with her, either in commerce or war. Whether or no this would have been a good state of things for the world, or even for Great Britain, is another question, but what Cobden and Bright worked for was British trade supremacy. Samuel Vatiz. Auckland. January 17,