We may perhaps make this principle a little more clear, if it be necessary, by illustrating its working on a small scale and within narrow limits.  In a particular street in London, let us say, a law is passed declaring that no one must buy a loaf of bread out of that street, or even round the corner, until the price of bread has risen so high in the street itself as to secure to its two or three bakers a certain enormous scale of profit on their loaves.  When the price of bread has been forced up so high as to pass this scale of profit, then it would be permissible for those who stood in need of bread to go round the corner and buy their loaves of the baker in the next street; but the moment that their continuing to do this caused the price of the baker’s bread in their own street to fall below the prescribed limit, they must instantly take to buying bread within their own bounds and of their own bakers again.  This is a fair illustration of the principle on which the corn laws were moulded.  The Corn Law of 1815 was passed in order to enable the landowners and farmers to recover from the depression caused by the long era of foreign war.  It was “rushed through” Parliament, if we may use an American expression; petitions of the most urgent nature poured in against it from all the commercial and manufacturing classes, and in vain.  Popular disturbances broke out in many places.  The poor everywhere saw the bread of their family threatened, saw the food of their children almost taken out of their mouths, and they naturally broke into wild extremes of anger.  In London there were serious riots, and the houses of some of the most prominent supporters of the bill were attacked.  The incendiary went to work in many parts of the country.  At that time it was still the way in England, as it is now in Russia and other countries, for popular indignation to express itself in the frequent incendiary fire.  At one place near London a riot lasted for two days and nights; the soldiers had to be called out to put it down, and five men were hanged for taking part in it.

After the passing of the Corn Law of 1815, and when it had worked for some time, there were sliding-scale acts introduced, which established a varying system of duty, so that when the price of home-grown grain rose above a certain figure, the duty on imported wheat was to sink in proportion.  The principle of all these measures was the same.  How, it may be asked, could any sane legislator adopt such measures?  As well might it be asked, How can any civilized nation still, as some still do, believe in such a principle?  The truth is that the principle is one which has a strong fascination for most persons, the charm of which it is difficult for any class in its turn wholly to shake off.  The idea is that if our typical baker be paid more than the market price for a loaf, he will be able in turn to pay more to the butcher than the fair price for his beef; the butcher thus benefited