Slaney on Rural Expenditure. 53 



which the labouring classes are accustomed, which could not 

 fall in the same proportion as wheat and wages; and over 

 them, therefore, he would possess a more limited command 

 than he did before. 



Before we revert from this apparent digression (though it 

 is in reality a statement essentially connected with this part 

 of our paper), we may further be allowed to point out in what 

 manner the opponents of the Corn Laws beat out the brains 

 of their own arguments, by dashing them one against the 

 other. " Allow the free importation of coi'n," they cry out, 

 " otherwise you cannot compete with foreigners in the market 

 for manufactured goods." What does this imply ? Certainly, 

 that if the free importation of corn were allowed, its price 

 would fall, consequently wages would fall, and your manu- 

 facturers would be able to sell their goods at a lower price ! 

 What else does it imply ? Undoubtedly this, that the low 

 rate of wages on the Continent is owing to the low price of 

 corn there. 



Now, let us turn to the other grand argument of the oppo- 

 nents of the Corn Laws. The price of corn, by these laws, they 

 contend, being artificially kept much higher than it would be 

 if free importation were permitted, it follows that the labourer 

 is able to purchase less corn than he would if foreign corn 

 were admitted. But what does this imply ? Certainly, that 

 the wages of the labourer would remain the same after free 

 importation were permitted, and consequent low prices took 

 place. And what further does this imply? That wages do not 

 depend on the price of corn. 



Allow the first argument to be good : cheap corn makes 

 low wages; low wages enable the manufacturer to sell his 

 goods cheaper ; consequently the free importation of foreign 

 corn would secure a market for our manufactures : but if 

 this were the result — if wages fell proportionably to the fall 

 in the price of corn — how could the condition of our labour- 

 ing population be benefited by a repeal of the Corn Laws ? 



Again ; allow the second argument to be good : free im- 

 portation would benefit the labouring population by giving 

 them corn at a cheaper rate : but wheat at 40s. the quarter is 

 not cheaper to a labourer at 85. a week, than wheat at 60s. 

 to a labourer at 12s. a week. The labourer, therefore, before 

 he can be benefited by cheap corn, must not have his wages 

 dependent on the price of corn : but if the labourer is 

 really benefited by having the same wages when wheat is at 

 405. as he had when it was at 60s., how can the manufacturer 



e 3 



