72 
The Indian Wheat Trade. 
the increased return which is a stiuiuhis to larpier production. Exchange 
has fallen 20 per cent., which means a gain of 20 per cent, to the exporter; 
but prices in England have fallen at least 30 per cent, all round, and this 
means a loss of more than i^O per cent, to the exporter, allowing for the slight 
fall in prices in Calcutta and Bombay. The exporter, therefore, has not 
gained directly by the fall in exchange ; he has simply been saved from a 
certain proportion of loss." 
Precisely SO ; the fall in exchange, with economies above referred 
to, has suflBced to keep the price of wheat from falling in India, 
comparing the average for the last three years with that for a 
corresponding earlier period. Mr. O'Conor himself says, in 
summarising the report just refen-ed to, that " the low rate of 
exchange has counterbalanced to the extent of about two-thirds 
(roughly) the disadvantage of low prices in the consuming 
markets." That is far more than I claim for it. How, then, 
can it be said that a saving which has kept trade from declining 
has not stimulated it ? The fall in freights by itself has not 
been sufficient to keep prices from falling in India ; yet no one 
for a moment thinks of denying that the fall in freights has 
stimulated export. 
Then is the Indian wheat-grower benefited by the fall in the 
gold value of the rupee ? That is by no means certain. He is 
able to put rival growers in other countries at a disadvantage ; 
but he gets only about the same price for his wheat as he 
obtained when the rupee was at about what is convention- 
ally considered its par value of 2s., and any changes which 
would send it up to par again would almost certainly send the 
price of wheat up in Europe proportionately, so that he would 
still get the number of rupees he now receives for a quarter of 
wheat. By the unequal competition which existing circum- 
stances enable him to carry on he ruins wheat-growers elsewhere, 
without, apparently, doing himself any good. Indeed, there are 
authorities in India who contend that it is not to the advantage 
of the ryot to grow wheat for export at all. Mr. A. K. Connell, 
who read a suggestive paper on " Indian Hallways and Indian 
Wheat " before the Statistical Society a short time ago, appears 
to be of this opinion. He contends that the peasantry grow 
their grain-crops ])rimari]y for subsistence, and only to a small 
extent for sale ; that it is only the small surjilus over, after supplj-- 
ing the wants of themselves, their labourers, and their cattle, 
which is affected b}" market prices ; and that the largest part, if 
not the whole, of that surplus goes to the money-lender. He even 
appears to suppose that wheat-growing does not pay the ryot, 
but that the poor man is forced by the money-lender to grow 
the cro]) as the best means of obtaining ready money to satisfy 
his creditor's demands. The cultivator's assessment is raised on 
accoimt of the alleged increase in the value of his holding, owing 
