1825,] 
what other persons paid. His argument 
was clear and conclusive. He said, If 
you tax the farmer higher than you tax 
others, the difference must be laid upon 
his produce: you put a duty on his corn, 
and it is but fair that you should put a 
like duty on the corn brought into the 
market by the merchant, in competition 
with his. This is justice. If the price 
of the farmer’s corn was increased by a 
tax, and the merchant’s corn remained 
untaxed, it is clear the merchant could 
undersell the farmer, by the amount of 
the tax, and would thus have an advan- 
tage to the injury of the farmer. Mr, 
Ricardo said, “A duty of 10s. per quar- 
ter, on importation, to which I wish to 
approach, is, I am sure, rather too high, 
as a countervailing duty for the peculiar 
taxes which are imposed on the corn- 
grower, over and above those which 
are imposed on the other classes of pro- 
ducers in the country.” 
“But what are the taxes to which the 
farmer is subjected, beyond what other 
producers are subjected? It has been 
said, that he is compelled to pay to the 
poor and to the county-rates dispropor- 
tionately; but this is a fallacy. In none 
of these does he pay disproportionate- 
ly. People who keep houses in towns 
are equally assessed to the county- 
rates, so are gentlemen who follow 
no business. Then, as to poor-rates; 
paying poor-rates has always been a 
great grievance with farmers and land- 
owners, and so has paying wages.— 
Wages and poor-rates have been eternal 
subjects of complaint with the “ agricul- 
turalists,” yet, after all, they have never 
paid in wages and poor-rates together, 
so much as other producers have paid 
in wages only. At Winchester, the 
magistrates fixed the wages of a farmer’s 
labourer at 4s. a-week. From the Com- 
mittee of the House of Commons’ Re- 
ort on Labourers’ Wages, in 1824, we 
earn, that a labourer’s wages were about 
6s. a-week in many places, and that, if 
he were married, he had an allowance, 
from the parish, of 1s. 6d. a-week for 
his wife and each of his children. This 
is surely little enough to pay as wages. 
Other producers pay much higher wages, 
in many cases three, four and five times 
as much, and yet we never hear of them 
‘complaining to parliament on this-sub- 
ject; neither ought the agriculturalists 
to complain, who, including poor-rates, 
pay altogether less wages than any other 
class of producers in, the kingdom. 
“ There is, however, one tax to which 
the agriculturalists are subjected, which 
On Two Clauses in the Marriage Service. 3 
is not charged on others, namely, tithes: 
It has been supposed that tithes were, in 
reality, paid by the landlord, and it has 
been absurdly concluded, that if tithes 
were abolished, the landlords alone 
would be benefited, since they would 
charge them in the rent. But this is a 
gross error, now pretty generally ex- 
ploded. That tithes are a tax, and are 
paid by the consumer, may be proved in 
a few words. If a farmer grows 100 
quarters of corn, it is clear that his 100 
quarters must produce as much money 
as will remunerate him, and give him a 
certain profit. Suppose the 100 quar- 
ters cost him £300, and the profits of 
trade to be 10 per cent., he will sell his 
100 quarters for £330. Now, if the 
parson come and take from him 10 
quarters, he will have but 90 quarters, 
and those 90 quarters must and will sell 
for £330, that being the sum which 
gives him 10 per cent. profit, for which, 
and for which alone, he cultivates the 
earth, and without which he could not 
continue to carry on his business. Thus 
the price is raised to the consumer, just 
as it would be if Government took 10 
per cent. in taxes on the corn. If, then, 
the tithe be taken at 10 per cent., the 
per cent. is the amount which, in justice 
to the farmer, should be laid on corn 
imported from foreign countries, and 
60s. the quarter might, under such cir- 
cumstances, be taken as an outside ave- 
rage price. The per cent. on 60s. is 6s., 
and this is the utmost amount of tax 
which should be fixed as the permanent 
tax on imported corn. 
“This short explanation of what is 
called the Corn Question, will, I trust, 
have some effect in producing that sup- 
port which the agitators of the question 
in the House of Commons ought to re- 
ceive from the whole people — every 
one in that whole having an immediate 
interest therein. F. P.” 
—=<>—— 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
On Two Crausss in the MarriacE- 
SERVICE. 
N your last number is a letter from 
a an individual who takes some offence 
at the two following clauses of the Mar 
Tiage-vow, namely, “ With my body I 
thee worship ””—“ with all my worldly 
goods I thee endow.” 
I would not appear an obstinate de- 
fender of every received usage, right or 
wrong: however, in the present case, 
with regard to the word “ worship,” 
which, as here used, your correspondent 
is pleased to call a “canonical double 
Bers entendre,” 
