The Nineteenth Century , No 182, Apr 1892 [‎21v] (47/244)

532
THE NINETEENTH
April
refute the evidence I submitted in support of that opinion. I took
the prices of corn at Mark Lane for two years, and showed that ark
increase of 6s. per quarter did not raise the cost of bread ; in fact, it
was only when the increase reached 10s. that a halfpenny was added to
the four-pound loaf. I have not seen any refutation of the clear
and concise statements of Lord Dun raven on this question in this.
Keviewfor March, 1891. He said :—
The duty on wlieat in France in 1882 was only 2-8d. per cwt.; in 1885 it was
raised to 15d. per cwt., or 536 per cent. According to some economists, the price
of wlieat should have gone up in like proportion, and the masses have had to pay
dearer for their bread. But what are the facts ? The price of wheat actually fell
from an average of 1008s. per cwt. in 1883, the year following the low duty, to-
9-295. in 1886, the year following the increased duty, or 8 per cent. Instead of
the poor man in France having to pay dearer for his bread, he paid less in 1886
than in 1883, as the following table shows
Bread
1883
1884
1885
1886
d.
d.
d.
d.
First quality
1*57
1-49
1*39
1-39
Second quality .
1*35
1*26
1-17
1-22
Third quality
1*17
1-13
1-04
1-09
In Germany, too, I find the same results follow from increased duties. Wheat
went down from 10 - 30s. per cwt. in 1882, when the duty was 6d. per cwt., to
9'39s. per cwt. in 1889, or 9 per cent., when the duty was 6d. per cwt., or 500 per
cent, higher, while bread remained at about the same price. Internal development
appears in both these cases to have more than compensated for any restriction of
foreign imports, and it is only fair to remember that the resources of the British
Empire in respect of food supply are immeasurably greater than those of France
or Germany.
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, I am aware, said a short time ago in the
House of Commons : ' Supposing a duty is imposed upon these articles
coming from foreign countries here, what would be the natural effect ?
The price would be raised by something more than the duty. If the
price was not raised, what good would it be to the colonies ?' I do
not despair of convincing the President of the Board of Trade that
the price would not be increased, and that the result would be an
immense advantage to both Great Britain and her colonies. I
respectfully submit that the price of corn is controlled not by the cost
of production, of freight or insurance, or of the duty, but by the-
question of demand and supply. I have already given the testimony
of a gentleman well acquainted with both Canada and the United
States, Sir Lyon Playfair, that in a few years the United States will
have no corn for export, and that Canada will be able to supply all
that now comes from that country. Mr. Staveley Hill, M.P., who
has an intimate personal knowledge of the great Canadian North-
West, said at a conference of the Midland Union of Conservative
Associations last July:—