APRIL 131 



heads to the inevitable, and, while hoping for a turn of Fortune's 

 wheel, make the best of things as we find them and be thankful. 



Yet, with becoming humility, I would venture to ask a question* 

 of those who understand these matters. 



A., an English farmer, grows a quarter of barley which pays 

 rent to the landlord (part of which the landlord hands over to the 

 Government in the form of taxes), rates to the parish, tithe to the 

 parson, and land-tax to the State. This quarter of barley he offers 

 for sale on Bungay market. B., an Argentine or other foreign 

 farmer, grows a quarter of barley and also offers it for sale on 

 Bungay market, to compete against that offered by A. This 

 quarter of barley has paid no rent to a British landlord, no rates 

 to a British parish, no tithe to a British parson, no tax to the 

 British Government. Also, in practice, it has the benefit of 

 preferential rates on British railways, and is carted to the market 

 over roads towards the cost of which it has not subscribed, as A.'s 

 quarter is called upon to do. 



In what sense, then, is the trade which takes place in these 

 two competing quarters of barley Free Trade ? That it is free as 

 air in the case of the Argentine quarter I understand. I should 

 go further, and call it bounty-fed ; but surely in the case of the 

 English quarter it is most unfree, and indeed much fettered by the 

 burden of rent, rates, tithe, and taxes, which have been exacted 

 upon it for the local and imperial benefit. To make the trade equal, 

 just, and free in fact as well as in name, before it appears on 

 Bungay market, ought not the Argentine quarter to contribute to our 

 local and imperial exchequers an exact equivalent of the amount 

 paid by the British quarter ? Why should the Englishman bear all 

 these burdens and the foreigner who seeks the advantage of our 

 markets be rid of them? In the case of whisky I understand 

 the principle to be that imported spirits should pay an approximately 

 equal tax to that exacted upon those manufactured in this country. 

 Why, then, should not this rule if it is the rule be applied to 

 other things besides whisky ; the barley from which it is distilled, 

 for instance ? 



