the greatest amount of national wealth. But this has not been done; and, there fore, if any other great objects of public interest are involved in the question, those who urge the policy of a free corn trade, do so subject to the charge of inadvertence, and of neglecting to attend to matters of still greater moment, than the mere wealth of the state.

"But even if it should be correct, to argue the point as one in which wealth alone should be considered, will the effect of an immediate free importation produce in its operation an addition to our industry, our annual produce, and our total amount of ge neral wealth?

"It is clear its first effect will be that of ruin to our farmers; its next consequence will be that of taking away, to a great amount, from the de mand for agricultural industry; and its farther operation, to diminish agricultural capital. It will take something considerable away from the revenues of the labourers, the farmers, and the landlords, and thus produce a decrease of that portion of the national wealth, which depends on our general agricultural prosperity.

"In the meantime, while this course of loss and ruin is running, will the prosperity of our manufactures be advancing? Whatever may be said of the great importance of foreign demand, the demand for our own consumption is by far the greatest, and infinitely more to be relied upon, as the best support of them. But this demand being, for the most part, for the supply of those who are employ. ed in agriculture, it will in a great measure cease to exist, if the system of a free importation of corn is now adopted.

"Under, then, the peculiar circumstances of the artificial state of the

prices of corn and other commodities, which have been established in this country, and which have been wholly overlooked by those who say we ought now to establish a free trade, such a policy would not be attended with any increase of our wealth, but must be followed by a great diminution of both our agricultural and manufacturing industry and capital. It is, therefore, not a policy at this time applicable to the present circumstances of the country, or at all calculated to advance the public interest, though certainly, a policy which ought not to be lost sight of, whenever that period shall arrive, when the price of corn, in this country, shall be on a level with the price of it in the rest of Europe."

The proposed restrictions on the importation of corn are not intended to enhance prices, but to provide against the rapid decay of agriculture. They will not, therefore, throw capital, as some persons have supposed, out of its natural course, and thus violate all sound principles. They will, in fact, scarcely counterbalance the various regulations, as to other commodities of British manufacture, which have so long formed a branch of our national policy. The wisdom of such regulations is not the subject of enquiry at present; they have been long established, and there is no proposal to remove them.-The price besides of 80s. per quarter of British wheat, which has been proposed as the regulating price for importation, is not higher, making an allowance for the difference in the value of money and for the depreciation of our currency, than the actual price of wheat twenty years ago.

It has been well observed, that those who argue against this supposed attempt to take capital out of manufactures, that it may be employ

ed in agriculture, should recollect what the legislative system of this country has been in respect to manufacturing capital. Is the capital of the country now vested in its natural occupation? Has our system of legislation been so completely free from all meddling with and forcing of capital, that the whole amount of it is now divided in those just proportions, between manufactures and agriculture, as it would have been, if no legislative interference had ever existed? The contrary is the fact. The system of legislation has at all times been actively operative in taking capital from agriculture. The navigation act; the colonial monopoly; the multitude of laws for prohibiting the importation of foreign manufactures, and thus establishing a monopoly in favour of our own, at the expence and loss of the agricultural consumers; the law prohibiting the exportation of wool; the tythe system; the effect of the public loans on agricultural credit; have each and all of them contributed, in a great degree, to diminish agricultural capital. If, therefore, the proposed regulation did in reality give a bounty on the return of capital from manufactures to agriculture, it would be a measure in no ways at variance with sound politi. cal principles."

To those who contend that a free importation of corn will encourage the export of our manufactures, the following triumphant answer has been made.*"The advocates of a free importation of corn have said, the proposed plan of restriction is a mere project; that the true system for the country to act upon, is to import foreign corn in great abundance, and thus secure a proportionally abundant export of manufactures. But this project, as it is called, is the offspring of what has been the established practice of

the legislature for 144 years, and forms a part of a system, to which the term is not perhaps quite so applicable, as it is to the other system of abundant importation, which, it is proposed, for the first time, to substitute in its place. But is it correct to say, in order to have our manufactures very flourishing, we must have a great importation of corn? On the contrary, is it not plain, that, as to the immediate benefit to manufacturers, it is the same thing whether the demand for them is established by importation from Poland, or by buying corn in the British and Irish markets? If the corn that is wanted for our food is bought in an English market town, or in Ireland, it enables the farmer who sold it to buy a greater quantity of manufac tures than he could have done, if the same corn was bought in a foreign country. That this is true, is proved by the custom-house returns, which shew that Ireland has imported British manufactures in a quantity progressively increasing, in the proportion in which she has exported greater quantities of corn for the supply of the British market. The difference between the two systems is, that in the one instance we form and depend upon a foreign market for the sale of our manufactures, and in the other, we secure a home market, besides affording all the benefits of our own demand for corn, to our own farmers. The system of importing corn is, in fact, a system which places us at the mercy of foreigners, both for a market for our manufactures and for a supply of food; while the opposite system goes to establish a home market for our manufactures, and a home supply for those who are concerned in making them."

There is one qualification of these opinions, however, which seems to

have escaped the author, but which will of course be strenuously urged by his opponents. We can buy corn cheaper abroad than at home; the manufacturer will therefore be able to obtain, by a free importation, a greater quantity of corn for his goods, than he can expect under a system of restrictions. This inconvenience, however, will be but temporary; the encouragement of agriculture will ultimately produce an abundant supply and low prices; and the question iswhether, to avoid a temporary inconvenience, we are to sacrifice the security of our manufactures as well as the stability of our agriculture?

The warm opposition which has been made to the proposed restraints on the importation of corn, has arisen in some measure from a notion almost universally prevalent, that this country is unable to support itself independently of foreign aid. But that this notion is wholly erroneous, the researches of the committee of the House of Commons have fully proved;-for not only has it been shown that the exports of grain in 1811 and 1812 considerably exceeded the imports, but, by a careful enquiry into the state of Ireland, it has been proved, that the capacity of the sister kingdom is so great, as under a proper system and with due encouragement, to insure at all times a supply to answer the demands of the empire. The committee examined respectable and intelligent witnesses, who concurred in stating their deliberate opinion, that, under a proper system of corn laws, not only might the agriculture of Great Britain be prodigiously extended, but that of Ireland might, without a figure of speech, be yet created. These facts are of great importance to the right understanding of this question; and a knowledge of them ought to dispel the groundless alarm which seeks for relief in foreign and perhaps hostile

VOL. V. PART II.

countries, while an island, nearly and intimately connected with us, might afford, under proper management, not only a prospect but a certainty of complete independence.

It is the opinion of many well-informed men that, even without the bounty, but with a regulated importation, and a perfect freedom of exportation, a surplus will always be produced. It is their principle, that, when the whole demand of the home

market is secured for the British farmer, the supply will always be more than adequate to meet the demand, as in every other branch of commerce; and the surplus will of course be exported. In proof of this, it has been remarked, that, in the month of May last, (1814) the average price of wheat in the twelve maritime districts of England and Wales, was about 68s. per quarter, which no one will consider as immoderate; that this price was not the result of importations from abroad, but was produced entirely by the abundance of our domestic supply; and there is no reason to believe, therefore, that the proposed regulations would at all enhance the price. If the whole demand of the home market were in future years secured for the British farmer by positive regulation, as it lately was in practice by the circumstances of Europe, an increase in the production of corn would naturally ensue, and this increase, arising from the improvements which might be expected in agriculture, would proceed till the price of British wheat was at last brought to a level with the price. in other countries.

Those who imagine that the proposed regulations will keep up the price of wheat at 80s. a quarter, the minimum to be fixed for importation, commit a great error; and it is a fortunate circumstance that their mistake may easily be corrected by a reference to facts which are too well

2 A

established to admit of any dispute. The system of the Corn Laws is not new to this country, it is not matter of experiment. From the reign of Charles the Second down to the year 1765, that policy, the proposed revival of which in part, now excites so much alarm, was invariably pursued by Great Britain. The act of 22d Charles II. chap. 13, which imposed a duty on the importation of corn amounting almost to a prohibition, was the law of the land down to the year 1765. The price fixed by this act, for regulating importation, was one-third higher than the average price of wheat for the preceding twenty years. It was 53s.; making, toge ther with a duty of 8s. which was payable even after the price amounted to 538., the actual regulating price 61s. The price which would now be equivalent to 61s. is 105s.,—a sum greater than the average price of wheat for the last twenty years by one-third.-The law of Charles II. also established the entire freedom of exportation; and the act of King William gave a bounty of 5s. a quarter, when the price of wheat was lower than 48s.-These various expedients ought, according to the arguments which have recently been urged, to have raised the price of wheat to 61s., and to have prevented it from falling at any time below that sum; but what was the result in point of fact? The price of wheat fell considerably; the average price for sixtyeight years down to 1765, having, according to the tables of Eton prices, been 33s. 3d. the statute quarter.It is a memorable and important fact also, that from 1696 down to 1765, when the ancient laws were in effect repealed, there was on an average of

every five years a very considerable excess of exports. It thus appears that the laws of Charles the Second, and of King William, had the practical effect of raising our agriculture to a very high state of improvement; of increasing the exportation of corn; and at the same time of lowering the prices in a very considerable degree.*-In 1765 and each of the seven following years, temporary laws were made, prohibiting the exportation of corn, and allowing importation duty free; and in 1773, the act of 13 George III. chap. 43, was passed, which prohibited exportation, when the price of wheat should exceed 448. the quarter, and allowed importation when it should reach 48s.

The former system of Corn Laws was thus entirely overthrown.

What were the consequences of this great and radical change? The average price of wheat, for 68 years prior to 1765, of 33s. 3d., the quarter advanced to 44s. 7d. for 30 years, ending in 1795; to 68s. 5d. for 12 years, ending in 1804; and to 88s. 11d. for 10 years, ending in 1814. During this period also, England became an importing country; and for the 5 years ending in 1794, she imported upwards of one million of quarters. †-Let it be recollected that for 7 years succeeding 1764, exportation was altogether prohibited, while, by the act, 18th Geo. III., it was allowed only when wheat was under 44s. the quarter, and there will be no difficulty in accounting for the great change which took place in the corn trade.

The occurrences of the last 8 years have also been referred to as confirming these opinions. In 1806 and 1807, the Berlin and Milan decrees were issued by the French government; and,

in the latter year our own Orders in Council began to operate. From 1808 down to the beginning of 1814, the Berlin Decrees, the Orders in Council, and the influence of Buonaparte on the continent, imposed very severe restraints on the importation of foreign goods into this country. Al though the average price of wheat from 1807 to 1812 inclusive, was very high, and in the latter year amounted even to 125s. a quarter, foreign grain was not imported to meet the demand of the British market. The consequences of this state of things weregreat profit to the farmer,-an increased supply of corn, and an abundance which has established our independence of foreign aid, and ultimate ly produced the present low prices. The restrictions, therefore, which are now proposed, have in effect been rating for the last 5 years, and nothing is now demanded, excepting that the protection which circumstances have of late afforded to the British farmer, should not be immediately withdrawn, and the agriculture of the country exposed to ruin.

ope

Lord Lauderdale, in a pamphlet which he lately published upon this subject, has thrown additional light on the operation of the law of Charles II., and of the measures subsequently adopted. As some persons have doubted whether that law afforded an effective monopoly of the home market to the British grower, his lordship has shewn, that the average price of wheat per quarter in the British market for the twenty years ending 1686, was 21. 6s. 3d.; that the price at which it could be imported by law, was 53s. 4d., to which a duty of 8s. being added, the whole price at which foreign grain could be introduced to our markets, was 31. 1s. 4d. As this sum considerably exceeded the average price in the home market, the regulations, excepting in years of extreme,

scarcity, must have afforded a complete monopoly to the British farmer.— His lordship also proves, by comparing the value of the money of that day with the value of our present currency, that the price fixed by the law of Charles II., at which corn could be imported, would, including the duty, amount, in the money of our times, to 81. 4s. a quarter. With reference to the act of the 1st of William and Mary, which granted a bounty upon exportation, while the price of wheat was less than 48s. the quarter, he proves that when the bounty of 58. was added to this price, the amount must have been considerably above the ordinary selling price of that day; and justly infers, that the bounty must have proved a very effectual encouragement, excepting in years of extreme scarcity. He, shews also, by converting the money as before, according to the proportions established by Sir George Schuckburgh, that 48s. of the money of that period corresponded to 61. of our present money; and that a bounty was thus, by the 1st of William and Mary, allowed upon exported corn, till the price became very high.

By the subsequent regulations, particularly by the statute 13th George III., the British farmer was not secured in the monopoly of the home market. By the above statute importation was allowed on paying a small duty when the price of corn amounted to 48s. a quarter; but the actual price, on an average of five years, immediately before the passing of the act, equalled the regulating price and the duty combined; so that the act, in reality, bestowed an unlimited freedom of importation. Yet this was only the nominal price in the depreciated money of 1773; but when the real value of this sum of 48s in the money of the year 1675 is ascertained, it will be found not to have exceeded 11. 6s. 3d.ş