SETTLEMENT OF THE CORN-QUESTION: CASE OF TIT HEOWNER S.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
Rie Vivienne. Fads. 22d September 1841.
SIR—You have earned for yourself a high character, that of combining de- cided opinions in politics with fairness and impartiality ; and though it may suit the journals of those who possess, or who want place, to carp at that rigid justice which scorns to become a partisan of any party but that of truth, be assured that you have friends—fitting audience and not few, who appreciate your motives and admire your conduct. Among these it is my pleasure to rank myself. And although personally interested in the maintenance of the Corn-laws, I have so far profited by your example, as to agree in your opinion that they are injurious to the welfare of the country, and should therefore be repealed. Your late able articles on that subject have been ten pcmtely written and well argued ; nor is it possible for me to refuse my assent to the reasoning you have used. But it is not without considerable disappointment, and I may say pain, that I have this day read the article in your paper of the 18th instant, entitled "Some of the Difficulties in the way of Corn-law Repeal." With your permission I will, very shortly, state to you why.
In speaking of compensation to those who will suffer from the proposed change of the law, you state various cases which you think would deserve the consideration of the Legislature. It is unnecessary for me to refer more at length to those cases : it is sufficient for me to say that I find my own case passed over in silence; and although the proposed change in the laws which regulate the admission of foreign corn would probably, without compensation, be pregnant with ruin to me, and of course many others, I have the mortifica- tion to find that in so fair and candid a paper as yours my claims are not even hinted at, much less favourably noticed.
My case, Sir, is this. After years of hard labour in a not very enviable pro- fession, I retired, when my health was unable any longer to support the fatigue of it, on a few thousand pounds which I had saved up by economy. In the year 1828, I invested a portion of my little capital in the Funds; and an oppor- tunity having accidentally offered itself, with the remaining and largest portion I purchased the lay-tithes of a parish in a Southern and corn-growing county.
I was induced to do this because, while the interest for my money was as good,
I deemed the security better than in most other investments. Now, Sir, mark what happened. In three or four years afterwards, the Ministers brought in a bill for the commutation of tithes. I had not, nor have I now, any thing to say against this measure. But I lost by means of it ; and I will explain to you bow. I had purchased with my savings a right tc the tenth of the produce of certain lands: the more the produce, the greater my income; the cheaper corn, the better for me. And, on a sudden, I am called on to exchange my right to a tenth of the produce for a variable income, depending no longer on the quantity of the produce, but on the dearness of a certain number of bushels of it. The cheaper corn, the worse for me. Such was the position in which the Legislature placed me ; assuring me at the same time, that the existing Corn- laws (for so said Lord Jou& RUSSELL, in order to reconcile us to the measure) would effectually prevent all permanent diminution in the price of corn. And having done this, what is the very next step taken ?—taken, observe by the very amen who totally altered the nature of my tithe-property—why, that the duty on corn should be reduced or taken off. The result, the inevitable result of which is and must be, an unknown reduction in the price of corn. This can hardly be disputed. I do not believe that corn, indeed, will come in from abroad in great quantity, at least not for any length of time. But the same result will indubitably be brought about by other means: its price will be greatly lowered by means of improvements in agriculture, in consequence of which an addi- tional quantity, double, or even treble, will be grown on the same soil. Rents will soon rise again. The farmer will be remunerated by the additional pro- duce; while we who bought a right to the tenth of the produce, and have seen it taken from us by force, must lose in proportion as others gain,—that is, as I said before, the more grown the worse for us. And while landlords, farmers, manufacturers, operatives, the whole nation in a word, are being enriched, we alone shall suffer, and that not by our own fault : far, having been first vio- lently dispossessed of our right, we are next to be punished for it. You say, Sir, in your paper, and you say well—" Every man knows that laws are liable at any time to be repealed or modified ; and this is taken into consi- deration by every prudent man in buying." I repeat, Sir, you say well. But what have you to say for that man who " prudently" purchased property of such a nature that the more it produced the greater would be its value; and finds it, by the legerdemain of legislation, converted into property of such a nature that the more it produces the less its value—only valuable when corn is scarce ; and next menaced with total destruction by another act, which neces- sarily makes corn abundant? What will you say for him who " prudently" invested his money so that " value should vary as produce," and then has it converted into" value varying inversely as produce," while at the same time produce (or, which is the slime thing, supply) is made infinite ? Sir, if I had to do with the editor of the — or the the — or the —, I should not be so superfluous as to trouble him with re- monstrance or reasoning. I pay you the highest compliment it is in my power to pay, when I say that I look to you either to prove to me that 1 am ruined with justice and equity, and without having any right to complain ; or else, if we tithe-owuers have a claim to compensation, to advocate that claim with all your power. And what is it we ask P—that the Corn-laws shall not be repealed ? God forbid !—rather total repeal without any duty at all. But we ask, that at the same time the Tithe Commutation Act shall be repealed, and that we may be placed again in the same situation in which we had placed ourselves, and from which we have been violently removed. We es& no other compensation than this, and we will be satisfied with no other.
I remain, Sir, your very obedient humble servant,
A LAY IMPROTRIATOR. [In point of right, a proprietor of tithes stands exactly in the same position as a proprietor of land—he is virtually part-owner of the soil. The time for settling the mode of compensation in such a case of injury as our correspond- ent's, will be when the claims of the landlords are under practical considera- tion as an arrangement of business.—En.]
Previous page
