Those who advocate abolition of the Corn Laws, point unceasingly to the difference in price between the principal continental markets, such as Hamburgh, Danzig, Berlin, and this country. I might, in the same way, point to the wages in Britain as being at least four times the wages of these countries; but neither would be a fair mode of arriving at the true state of the case. Divide the quarter of wheat, at the average price of each country, by the wages of each country, that will give the real wages of each. Fortunately, Mr Jacob's report on the Corn Trade affords the most satisfactory means for instituting a comparison both as to the price of grain and the rate of real wages _in Britain and in those countries_. From his report it appears that the average price of the quarter of wheat for five years, ending with 1824, was 27s. in Prussia. The average price of Britain was, for the same period, 55s. The wages of Prussia are stated to be 2s. 6d. per week, and of Britain, 10s. per week. The real wages, therefore, the quantity of wheat the labourers could purchase, was double in Britain what it was in Prussia. In a national point of view, labour is the true standard of value; if it is admitted that labour in Britain exchanges for a greater quantity of grain than it does in Prussia, it follows that grain is cheaper in Britain. I shall now advert to what may almost be termed a fourth cause for the higher average price of grain in Britain--the cultivation of poor land. This the abolitionists maintain to be the necessary and natural consequence of monopoly. It would be an arduous task to enumerate all the pamphlets that have been written to prove the immense extent of poor lands at present cultivated in Britain, that must be thrown out of cultivation, in order to supply the labouring population with cheaper bread. It must be borne in mind that Britain, for the last thirty-eight years, has been on a starving system, as proved by the higher average price of grain during that period. The abolitionists being, however, a little startled at the fact, that a people in a state of starvation, as compared with Prussia or Poland, should have increased in population, in wealth, and in the ability to bear taxation, call to their aid the theory of the cultivation of poor lands. They say the people have not been absolutely starved, but their food has been raised on poor land by an immense and unnecessary expenditure of labour, and their infallible remedy is to throw these poor lands, amounting to a half, a third, or a fourth of the soils of Britain, according to the theory of the different writers, out of cultivation. Import, they say, the cheap grain, the produce of the fertile soils of Prussia and Poland, which being cheaper must be the produce of much less labour. Though volumes have been written to prove the evil effects of cultivating the poor soils of Britain, no one has yet, that I am aware of, devoted a single sentence to prove the fact.