Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/59

Rh comfort. Much outcry came from the landowners at the cheapness of provisions, as if heaven-sent plenty was a curse. The Saturday's basket of the operative was well filled, but the landlord's rents were not well paid. What cared the latter about the well-filled baskets, when their coffers wanted the supply which hitherto had been wrung out from the people by war prices? The loyalists of 1793 were not more horror-struck at the murder of Marie Antoinette than the soilowners of 1829 were at the fall of wheat to 40s. a quarter. They had expected that their law of 1815 would keep up the price to. 80s.; for a profuse issue of paper money, accompanying scanty harvests, had long kept up prices. In 1816, 1817, and 1818, deficient harvests occurred—that of the former being calculated as below the average to a greater extent than in any year since the period at the close of the previous century, and prices rose in consequence so as to exceed the rate at which foreign corn might be admitted, and 2,600,000 qrs. of wheat were imported in 1817 and 1818. The harvest of 1820 was supposed to be one-fourth beyond the average; that of 1821 was large, but of inferior quality; and that of 1822 was again beyond the average, and was unusually early. In the week ending the 24th of December, 1822, the average prices were:—Wheat, 38s. 8d.; barley, 29s. 4d.; oats, 18s. 9d.; rye, 23s. 6d.; beans, 28s. l0d.; peas, 28s. 4d.; being 41s. 4d., 10s. 8d., 8s. 3d., 29s. 6d., 24s. 2d., 23s. 8d., lower than the scale which had been fixed upon, ostensibly for the protection of the farmer, but really for the protection of the landowner. The farmers did indeed now suffer for, during peace, and with a currency much enhanced in value, they were called upon to pay the rents which they had paid when they had war prices and a greatly depreciated currency. Many were the proposals made to relieve this "agricultural distress," and Parliament resolved to alleviate the "pressure upon the distressed landowners," and that £1,000,000 should be