BOUNTY ON EXPORTS OF CORN 259 



instance, stood at under 53s. 4d. a quarter, a duty of 16s, a quarter 

 was imposed on foreign corn ; when the home price was between 

 53s. 4d. and 80s., the duty was reduced to 8s. ; when prices rose 

 above 80s., the ordinary poundage of 4d. a quarter only was charge- 

 able. On other foreign grains, at proportionate prices, similar 

 duties were levied. 



In the reign of William and Mary J an addition was made to the f 

 system. When the home price of wheat was at, or under, 48s. a 

 quarter, a bounty of 5s. a quarter was allowed on every quarter of 

 .home-grown wheat exported. Similar bounties were allowed on 

 the export of other grains at proportionate prices. In the Parlia- 

 mentary debates on this measure the interests both of consumers 

 and producers were avowedly considered. On the one side, the 

 Act was unquestionably framed for the benefit of producers, to ' 

 relieve them of accumulated stock, and so to enable them to bear 

 increased public burdens. On the other side, it was expected that 

 the stimulus of the bounty would promote production, bring a 

 larger area of land under the plough, increase the quantity of 

 home-grown grain, and so provide a more constant supply of corn 

 at steady prices and a lower average. For the first sixty-five years 

 of the eighteenth century results seemed to justify the argument. 

 But it is difficult to determine how far the low range of prices which 

 prevailed from 1715 to 1765 was due to prosperous seasons, or how 

 far it was the effect of the stimulus to employ improved methods 

 on an increased area of land. In years of scarcity, the direct effect 

 of the bounty was inconsiderable, because not only was that 

 encouragement withdrawn, but the liberty to export any home- 

 grown corn was also suspended. In years of abundance, the 

 bounty, by stimulating exportation, may have checked the natural 

 fall of prices. But it was urged that this advantage to producers 

 was a reasonable compensation for the loss they sustained in years 

 of scarcity from the frequent prohibitions of exports ; that prices 

 were steadied ; that no violent fall drove parts of the corn-area 

 out of cultivation ; that the home-supply, on which alone the 

 country could depend, was therefore more abundant than it other- 

 wise would have been ; that, as the bounty was paid without regard 

 to the quality of the exported grain, English consumers benefited 

 by the retention of the superior qualities for home consumption. 

 Possibly consumers may have found that these advantages counter- 

 1 1 W. and M. c. 12. 



