The law of 1463, which prohibited importation so long as the price of wheat was under 6s. 8d., that of rye under 4s., and that of barley under 3s. the quarter, appears not to have been repealed, but it must have remained inoperative, from the prices seldom or probably never de scending below these rates. The im portation of corn. therefore, we may reckon ti have been practically free at this time.
In 1592-3 the price at which exportation was permitted was raised to 20s. per quar ter, and the customs duty was fixed at 2s. .35 Eliz. c. 7). In the importation price was raised to 26s. 8d. per quarter (1 Jac. I. c. 25); and in 1623 to 32s. (21 Jac. I. c. 28). By the 21 Jac. I. c. 28, unless wheat was under 32s. per quarter, and other grain in pro portion, buying corn and selling it again was not permitted. The king could restrain the liberty of exportation by proclamation. In another statute relative to the corn-trade was passed (3 Car. I. c. 5), which, however, made no alteration in the previous statute of James I. In 1660 a new scale of duties was introduced. When the price of wheat per quarter was under 44s. the import duty was 2s. ; and when the price was above 44s., the duty fell to 4d, Exportation was permitted at a duty of Is. per quarter whenever the price of wheat did not exceed 468. per quarter (12 Car. II. c. 4) : the export duty was Is. per quarter.
In 1663 the corn-trade again became the subject of legislation, and an act was passed (15 Car. 11. c. 7). The preamble of this act commenced by asserting that " the surest and effectualest means of promoting and advancing any trade, occupation, or mystery, being by ren dering it profitable to the users thereof," .ud that, large quantities of land being waste, which might be profitably cul tivated if sufficient encouragement were given for the cost and labour on the tame, it should be enacted, with a view of encouraging the application of capital and labour to waste lands, that, after September, 1663, when wheat did not exceed 488. per quarter at the places and havens of shipment, the import duty should be 5s., and when the price was above 48s. the duty was to be 4d. By the same act when wheat did not exceed 48s. per quarter, it might be exported, and when it was also at this price " then it shall be lawful for all and every person (not forestalling nor selling the same in the open market within three months after the buying thereof) to buy in open market, and to keep in. his or their
granaries or houses, and to sell again, such corn and grain," any statute to the contrary notwithstanding. This latter part of the statute abolished in effect the provisions of 5 & 6 Edward VI. c. 14, respecting the buying and selling of corn and grain.
In 1670, b' another act (22 Car. II. c. 13), exportation was permitted, although the price of wheat should exceed the price fixed by the act of 1663 (48s.); but a customs' duty of Is. per quarter was in this case to be charged. Wheat imported from foreign countries was at the same time loaded with duties so heavy as efectu ally to exclude it, the duty being Its. when the price in this country was at or under 538. 4d. per quarter, and 8s. when above that price and under 80s., at which latter price importation became free. The ob ject of this act was to relieve the agricul tural interests from the depression under :which they were labouring from the low prices of produce which had existed for twenty years, more particularly from 1646 to 1665. Between 1617 and 1621 wheat fell from 43s. 3d. the quarter to 27s., in consequence of which farmers were unable to pay their rents. The low price was occasioned by abundant harvests ; "for remedy whereof the Council have written letters into every shire, and some say to every markft-town, to provide a granary or storehouse, with a stock to buy corn, and keep it for a dear year." (Contem porary writers quoted by Mr. Tooke in his Hist. of !'rites.') The cheapness of wheat was attended with the good effect of raising the standard of diet amongst the poorer classes, who are described as " traversing the markets to find out the finest wheats, for none else would now serve their use, though before they were glad of the coarser rye-bread." (Ibid.) The act of 1670 does not appear to have answered its object. Roger Coke, writing in 1671, says—" The ends de signed by the acts against the importation of Irish cattle, of raising the rents of the lands of England, are so far from being attained, that the contrary bath ensued (Ibid); and Coke speaks of a great di minution of cultivation.