B O U 



rpe£lingtare,everyhog(}iead,byamoJci'atccalcLilation(avera2" 

 ing the good and bad fugarsj, lofes _i;6 lbs. which, at 15 s. per 

 ' ewt. th-' import duty, makes 7s. 6d. perhogfaead lofs to tlie 

 I planter, and a clear and certain gain to the revenue, however 

 the i'ligar may be diipofed of. Thus government is reim- 

 hurCcd for a conlldcrabk pare of what it appears to loie by 

 the bounty, and the interell which it gains, by a dcpofit of 

 the whole duties on importation makes uj) the remainder. 

 " The average annual import of raw fiigar is about ifSo,ooo 

 hoglhcads ot 12 cwt. nett ; now fuppofinij every ounce of 

 this was to be exported, and receive the drav.-back of 15 s. per 

 cwt. yet, from the difference of weight alone in the fame 

 fugar, occafioned by an unavoidable walle, government 

 would have received in duties,. from this hngle article, between 

 yo and 60,000 1. per annum more than it refunds in draw- 

 backs and bounties on the fame commodity-'' See Dra%v- 

 BACK, and Sugar. 



The bounty upon wrought filk exported, is alfo a draw- 

 back of the duties upon raw and thrown iilk imported. See 

 S 1 L i; . 



The bounty upon gun-powder exported is a drawback of 

 the duties upon brimllone and falt-petre imported. In the 

 language of the culloms, thofe allowances are called draw- 

 back*,, which are given upon goods exported in the fame form 

 in which they are imported. When that form has been fo 

 altered by manufatlure of any kind, as to come under a new 

 denomination, they are called bounties- Bounties are fome- 

 times called premiums, as drawbacks' an; fomsiimcs called 

 bounties. 



Having given a compendious abftradl of Dr. Smith's 

 reafoning againfl the fyftem of bounties, particularly as it is 

 appHcable to the exportation of corn, we fliall now advert 

 to the arguments alleged by the advocates of this fyftem in 

 its favour. Among thefe advocates we may reckon Dr. 

 fames Anderfon,in his letters entitled " Obftrvatioiis on t-he 

 means of exciting a fpirit of national indullry, &c." 4to, 

 j/77, and his "Calm Invcftigation of the circumftances that 

 have led to the prefent fcarcity of grain in Britain," 8vo. 

 1801 ; Mr. Dirom in " An Inquiry into the corn laws and 

 corn trade of Great Britain, &c." 410. 1796 ; Mr. Mackie, 

 in a " Supplement" to the laft-meutioned work ; and Mr. 

 Malthus, in his " EfTay on the principh; of population, &c." 

 4.10. 1803. Some of the earliell topics, from which argu- 

 ments were deduced in favour of the bounty, were its great 

 encouragement of Britifli fliipping, and the gold it brought 

 home for paying the balance of exported corn. But exclu- 

 fively of thtfe arguments, the advocates for the bounty urge, 

 that, by forcing a produdion of corn, greater than the annual 

 confumption of the home market, the bounty provides a re- 

 ferve againft years of deficient crop ; — that it fecures an ade- 

 ijuatc profit to the farmer ; — that it reduces the prices of 

 corn, which are ufuallv very fluAuating, to a greater uni- 

 formity and fteadinels ; — and that it makes this uniform price 

 rather lower than it othcrwlfe would be. Fro.Ti fuoh confi- 

 derations, Dr. Anderion, and others on the fame fide of the 

 difputed quelHon with himfelf, have inferred, that^ fetting 

 afide the innumerably beneficial effefts of a well regulated 

 and efficient bounty on the exportation, aided by a duty on 

 the importation of corn, with regard to the population, in- 

 dullry, manufaclure?. commerce, national wealth, pubhc 

 tranquillity, and augmentation of revenue, it is a meafure 

 f aught with multiplied advantages ; and " that it could not 

 be abandoned," fuch is the llrong language of Dr. Anderfon, 

 " without endangering the weltare ot the people, and the 

 very exiftence of this kingdom, as an independent nation." 

 Upon the four preceding propofitions it has been obferved 

 by an anonymous writer, feemiugly well acquainted with the 



B O U 



fubj((fl (Edinburgh Review, N"^ IX.), that the promifed 

 lleadinefs in the price of corn inuft be derived from that lur- 

 plus of produce which is to be refcivcd in years of a bad 

 crop ; this furplus of the average produce above the annual 

 confumption, mull be the refull of an enhrged encouragement 

 of tillage; and this cnciiuragement, operating by an aug- 

 mentation of the profits of the farmer, mull ultimately co.i- 

 hll in an incrcafe of the price of his commodity. The argu- 

 ment, therefore, lo far as it depends upon the firtl three of 

 the above alleged advantages, refolvcs itfclf into this tingle 

 propofuiou, vi/.. that the bounty gives the farmer a real ad- 

 vance upon the price of his corn. When it is dated, as a 

 fourth cwiifidev.it:on, that it has likewife the cffeil of lowering 

 the price of corn to the confumers, it is the money price only 

 that can here be confilleiitly uiiderflood ; a diminution of 

 which is without doubt compatible with an advance of the real 

 price. Confcquenlly, in an invclligation of the effects pro- 

 duced by a bounty upon the commerce and growth of core, 

 the piccife fubject of inquiry is the eflecl of that bounty upo:, 

 the real price, and upon the money price of corn. Dr, 

 Smith, accordingly, who has decidedly pronounced u very 

 different opinion from that above Hated, maintains it, bv 

 propofitions direclly the reverfc, already detailed, of which 

 the following is a fiimmary : — that it can have no eff'cC\ in 

 equalizing prices, becaufe llr^re is uo furplus to be rcftrvcj 

 in years of fcarcity ; — that there can be no fuch furplus, be- 

 caule the bounty gives no additional encouragement to agri- 

 culture ; — that it can give no fuch encouragement, becaufe it 

 occafions no advance of the real price of corn ; — and, lalUy, 

 that its effeft is to raife,- not to lower, the aveiage money 

 price of that commodity. The anonymous writer above 

 cited, after having illullrated, in a very clear and falif- 

 fadlory manner, the eifeft of a bounty, firik on the pro- 

 dutucu, and then upon the exportation of bread-corn, in 

 conformity to the principles and reafoning of Dr. Smith, 

 fupplics feme dcftfts, and correfts fome errors that cl- 

 caped the notice of this very ingenious and accurate author, 

 in his genera! argument upon the bounty. By fcparating 

 the extenfion of the foreign market, from the enhancement 

 of price to the farmer, aud treating them as quite diiiiiicl. 

 Dr. Smith fecms to have overlooked the ncceffary connec- 

 tion that fubfifts between them. In both cafes, he appears to 

 have too halHly affumed, that a bounty on exportation 

 would immediately occaiion a rife of the money-price in the 

 home-market ; and this affumption betrays itlelf explicitly, 

 when he fpeaks of it as " a very moderate fnppofition, that 

 a bounty of 5s. per quarter upon exportation, may raifc 

 the price 45. in the home market." From this affumption, 

 he deduces a feparate anfwer to the alleged enhaiicemtnt 

 of prict ; but his remarks on this head, which, as far as 

 they extend, are unexceptionable, are not fuflieient to war- 

 rant his inference, that the bounty can have no efieft in 

 raifing the real price of com-; becaufe he has overlooked 

 that inlerrdl which elapfes between the enhancement of the 

 money-price of corn, and its communication to the money, 

 price of labour and other commodities. In his feparate 

 anfwer to the alleged cxtcnfion of foreign demand, lie 

 does not exprefsly deny the faft, but afiirms, that, in every 

 particular year, this is at the expence of the home market ; 

 and endeavours to fliew, that the bounty alfu reftrains the 

 gradual extenfion of the home market, by its enhancement 

 of the price. But in affirming, th;it llie ^usntity exported 

 in every particular year, were it not for the bovinly, would- 

 remain in the home market, he evidently takes it for 

 granted, that this quantiiy, though there had been no 

 bounty, v/ould ftill have been grown ; now, this is the 

 very quellion, upon which he undertakes to prove his par- 

 ticular 



