THE LOGIC OF FACTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13285, 18 September 1906, Page 3

THE LOGIC OF FACTS.

Sir,— professor Segar, or some other advocate of the thing, that has so •.long' been miscalled Tree trade,' explain how it happened that, the repeal .of i the British'corn; laws had! little or no effect whatever on" the price of wheat in that country. These corn laws were abolished in 1846. Vox tbo.previous live years the prioo of wheat in England had averaged 54s 9d per quarter, and in that year it stood at 54s Bd. The average for the next seven years was 53? 3d, and for the next .seven years it was still 53s 3d. Thus we see that for 14 years; after the repeal of the com laws the average reduction on tho price of wheat was only Is 5d per. quarter. How much per loaf would this mean? From 1860 to 1866 the prioe averaged 50s lid, and from then to 1872 it averaged 575. So w® see that 26 years after the repeal of the com laws the price of - wheat .was 2s 3d per quarter dearer than it was when tho com laws vvoro in full force. 'T

It seems to me that "the logio of facta" is very much against the professor's argument. At any rate, it is quite evident that the removal of an import duty of £1 Is 8d per quarter had no appreciable effect on the price of wheat in the Old Country, nor would a now tax of Is or more per quarter have any effect on it now It is not correct to say that the corn laws were repealed in 1846. . In that, year the tax on wheat was reduced from £1 5s 8d to 4s per quarter, and in 1849 to Is per quarter only. It seems incredible that so large a -reduction' should have had so little effect, but the fact remains. As a matter of fact, the British public never paid this corn tax. It was paid by the foreign producers. The wheat thoy sent, to England was only .their surplus produce, that 'they- could •neither consume nor sell 'in their own ' countries, and which they wore forced to sell at. the best price they could obtain elsewhere, and so it would be again. If Canadian, Australian, and Indian wheat could *be landed in England at Is .. per quarter .less U than American, the American would just i have to take the Is a'quarter less,' and bo content® 'V. ' As regards the. general Question of -free" trade or protection, I long ago arrived at the conclusion that of all the Englishmen that ever lived, no one did' so much to destroy British trade supremacy as did Richard Cobden. Could he have foreseen how utterly the whole world outside -of England would reject his theory, he certainly would not have inflicted such an evil on his country. (,'obden is a singular instance of how honour is sometimes lavished on a man who never earned it. The honour of introducing cheap food into England is not duo to hira; it is due to Watt and Stephenson, for it was not till after their work began to tell that the price of food in England'began to fall. The locomotive, the railroad, and river steam-; boat enabled farmers in the far interior to send their produce to the sea coast for shipment, and thus it was that the price of food was cheapened, and not by any legal enact- 1 mont or work of Cobden and Bright. • \ Samuel Vail?