1821^ Report of the Select Committee on the State of Agriculture. 55 
If the weight of the public burdens 
of a country be considered in reference 
to its population only, then (with the 
exception of Holland, perhaps) England 
is the most taxed portion of Europe: 
but if it be measured by the aggregate 
of national capital, or income arising 
from capital, divided by the total 
number of people among whom that 
capital or income is distributed, it may 
then be doubted whether, upon such 
an average, the proportion of tax to 
the income or capital of each indivi¬ 
dual, be not less in England than in 
several states of the Continent, or even 
in Ireland; but whilst they are desirous 
of correcting the mistaken opinion, that 
the depression under which our agricul¬ 
ture now labours is either exclusively or 
principally to be attributed to taxation, 
they cannot disguise from themselves, 
that the weight of the public burdens 
of the country, their nominal amount 
remaining the same, must be more se¬ 
verely felt, in proportion as the money 
Incomes derived from trading, farming, 
and manufacturing capital and indus¬ 
try are diminished. No exertion, 
therefore, should be omitted, to endea¬ 
vour to reduce those burdens, as nearly 
as circumstances will permit, in the 
degree in which such incomes may 
have been reduced; for, in considering 
this subject, it is important to have in 
mind, that the general amount and 
real pressure of taxation have been 
positively increased, in the proportion 
of the improved value of our currency. 
Your Committee cannot conclude the 
observations which they have found it 
their duty to submit to the House, 
without observing, that most of the 
petitions referred to them, complain of 
the inadequate and injurious operation 
of the present Corn Law, and pray ge¬ 
nerally for protection, not for grain 
only, but for all the productions of our 
agriculture, equal to the protection 
given to the manufactures of this 
country. 
Within this principle, the petitioners 
appear to be friendly to an open trade; 
but, in the application of it, as ex¬ 
pounded in some of the petitions, and 
illustrated in the examinations of some 
of the witnesses, your Committee can¬ 
not but apprehend that the duties which 
they contemplate, would be altogether 
prohibitory. 
It cannot be necessary to enter into 
any statements, to shew, that, practi¬ 
cally, this would be the result, in all 
but seasons of scarcity, of a fixed duty 
of 40s. a quarter upon wheat. When 
the trade in corn with the Continent 
was open, subject to the scale of duties 
imposed by the Acts of 1773,1791, and 
1804, and in force till 1815, there never 
was an importation of foreign corn to 
any amount during the short intervals 
when the high duties were demand- 
able; and yet those duties at no part 
of the time exceeded 24s. 3d. per quar¬ 
ter. To this fact they will only add, 
that what is proposed, in addition to 
the amount of the duty, namely, that 
it should be permanent, 44 whatever may 
be the price,” is a proposition which 
your Committee are confident the Le¬ 
gislature could never entertain, nor 
any considerable portion of the com¬ 
munity ever countenance. 
The suggestions with respect to du¬ 
ties equally prohibitory on every other 
article the production of the soil of 
this country, all come under the same 
principle, and are open to the same ob¬ 
jection. The principle would, in fact, 
go far to annihilate commercial inter¬ 
course altogether; and is, moreover, 
founded, as it appears to your Com¬ 
mittee, upon a mistaken statement, as 
well as an erroneous view of what is 
deemed protection to our manufac¬ 
tures. 
But the main grounds upon which 
your Committee are disposed to think 
that the House will look with some 
mistrust to the soundness of this prin¬ 
ciple, is — first, that it may be well 
doubted, whether (with the exception 
of silk) any of our considerable manu¬ 
factures derive benefit from this as¬ 
sumed protection in the markets of this 
country. Secondly, that there exists 
this most essential difference between 
the effect of protection given to the 
manufacturer (even if he did not enjoy 
from natural causes a preference in the 
home market), and the attempt at a 
similar protection and monopoly to the 
produce of the soil—that in all em¬ 
ployment of capital, either in trade or 
manufactures, profits are limited by 
competition. 
Auother wish expressed is for the 
repeal of that clause in the last Act, 
which allows the warehousing in the 
United Kingdom of foreign corn Avhen 
it cannot be taken out for home con¬ 
sumption. 
The grounds upon which this altera¬ 
tion of the law is suggested, for the 
relief of the British grower, are two¬ 
fold. First, That the foreign corn ab¬ 
sorbs the capitals of the dealers which 
would 
