APPENDICES. 155 



to bring about the state of things that existed 

 before the repeal of the Corn Laws. 



On these two points (which somewhat bear on 

 the question of tariff reform) we have something 

 to say. Taking the last one first, we would ask : 

 What are the facts? Although the Corn Laws 

 were repealed in 1846, a " registration " duty on 

 corn and flour was retained for 23 years longer, 

 and was only abolished in 1809. It was this 

 registration duty which the Government in 1902 

 re-imposed. Mr. Gladstone re-modelled the 

 duty in 1864, and then stated that it was retained 

 because it was inconvenient to part with it. Mr. 

 Sydney Buxton, a Eadical Member of Parlia- 

 ment, refers, in a book he has written, to this 

 duty as being a branch of revenue profitable in 

 itself, collected with very little trouble, expense, 

 or hindrance to trade, and " practically not affect- 

 ing the price of food." Moreover, let it be 

 remembered that the abolition of the registration 

 duty in 1869 did not reduce the price of bread. 

 Why, therefore, should its re-imposition raise the 

 price of bread to-day? Is^evertheless, it was 

 taken off by the Budget of 1903, much to the 

 annoyance of agriculturists and others of His 

 Majesty's subjects, and without any corresponding 

 advantage. 



We come now to the second point, and again 

 we ask: What are the facts? We went to some 

 trouble at the time to ascertain them, and they 

 constitute a complete exposure of the whole tribe 

 of Little Englanders who trade too much on the 



