I maintain that the existing corn laws are bad, because they have given a monopoly of food to the landed interest over every other class and over every other interest in the kingdom.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Destroy or take away the employment and wages of those artisans - which the corn laws in a great measure do - and you will, ere long, render the land in Great Britain of as little value as it is in other countries.
There's a fine line between patriotism and corn.
Corn is a greedy crop, as farmers will tell you.
The advantage to Great Britain of a regular free trade in corn would, therefore, be more by raising the rest of the world to our standard and price, than by lowering the prices here to the standard of the Continent.
With an open trade in corn and a fixed duty we should have every man in the country fully fed and happy, instead of our present situation in which so much distress exists - distress of our own producing.
The corn law was intended to keep wheat at the price of 80s. the quarter; it is now under 40s. the quarter.
The act of eating is very political. You buy from the right people, you support the right network of farmers and suppliers who care about the land and what they put in the food.
I have always fought for farmers getting better prices.
Urban conservationists may feel entitled to be unconcerned about food production because they are not farmers. But they can't be let off so easily, for they are all farming by proxy.
We made more money feeding molasses, urea, and corn cobs to cattle than we ever did feeding dent corn.
No opposing quotes found.