310 THE QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. 



• 



Great Britain, it is true, there is some respectable support of a 

 proposal to pay bounties on staple agricultural exports, but the 

 object sought to be attained there is not economic but military. 

 Great Britain being an island, not producing sufficient food 

 for its population, the fear is expressed that in case of war 

 involving danger to the control of the sea, its inhabitants 

 might be reduced to great distress for lack of the staples of 

 life, and it is therefore held by some that it would be econom- 

 ical for the country, by bounties, to stimulate the production 

 of those substantial food products which are absolutely essen- 

 tial, even at the expense of increasing its importations of such 

 products as vegetables and fruits, which in case of emergency 

 could better be spared. This is antagonized by others who 

 claim that it would be cheaper for the nation to build 

 immense storehouses, and keep on hand supplies of grain pur- 

 chased at competitive prices, sufficient to last through one of 

 our modern short wars. If the bounty plan were adopted for 

 Great Britain, it would seem to be necessarily a bounty on 

 production rather than upon exports, as the country does not 

 wish to encourage exports, and indeed would not be likely to 

 export. In tlie seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the 

 population of England was less,* export bounties were paid 

 on grain, and did have the effect of greatly stimulating 

 production. In Great Britain, however, the proposition, so far 

 as considered at all, is considered solely as a measure of 

 national defense. 



A sufficient objection to the export bounty as proposed in 



*From 1689 to 1815— a period of 126 years— England paid an export 

 bounty of 5 shillings a quarter (8 bushels) at all times when tlu; home price 

 of wheat did not rise above a certain amount, which at first was 48 shillings 

 a quarter, and after 1773, 44 shillings. In 1815 the bounty on exports was 

 repealed, and imports of wheat prohibited whenever the home price did not 

 exceed 80 shillings a quarter, reduced in 1822 to 70 shillings. In 1829 the 

 prohibition was removed, and an import duty of 23s. 8d. levied when wheat was 

 below 64 .shillings a quarter, with a smaller duty as prices should rise, the 

 system being abolished in 1846. I have not verified these figures, considering 

 the Mark Lane Express, in which I find them, a sufficient authority. This 

 artificial regulation of the prices of bread at times caused great distress. JFor 

 the most of this time England was able to produce all her own food. 



