viz., from 1693 to 1714, both years included, making twenty-two years, there were twelve seasons more or less unfavourable, or of deficient produce; and in another interval, from 1730 to 1751, making likewise twenty-two years, there was only one season, which, from historical record, or by inference from fluctuation of price, can be considered to have been decidedly unproductive.

'That seasons of nearly a similar description frequently prevailed during the same periods in France, and in some other parts of Europe.

"That the dearness of corn in the period of twenty-two years ending in 1714, and the comparative cheapness in the twenty-two years ending in 1751, in France, as well as in this country, while the value of money, in other respects, seems to have been falling, cannot be accounted for satisfactorily, except by the fact, of the occurrence of unfavourable seasons in such different proportions in the two periods.

"That in the twenty years from 1793 to 1812, both years included, there were no fewer than eleven years of greater or less deficiency of produce arising from the seasons, with a considerable proportion of long and severe winters.

That in the interval from 1813 to 1821, both years included, there was only one decidedly bad season-viz., 1816, and only one very severe winter-viz., 1813-1814, while there were three harvests of acknowledged great and general abundance-1813, 1815, and 1820.

That in the first ten years of the period under examination—viz., from 1793 to 1802, both included-the proportion of seasons of scarcity was as great on the continent of Europe as in this country; and that, therefore, although the expenses of conveyance were not more than 5s. per quarter on wheat higher than in peace, no adequate supply could be obtained by importation, except at a great advance in price.

'That in the nine years ending in 1821, the harvests on the continent of Europe were still more abundant than in this country; so that when, by the single bad season of 1816, our ports were opened, and partly by erroneous estimate of the produce of our own crops, and partly by miscalculation of the effects of the Corn Bill, they were kept open for the two following years, an importation of extraordinary magnitude took place; and that this great importation, added to three crops of full average, and one of superabundant produce, made a surplus or stock on hand at the commencement of the harvest of 1821, exceeding, as far as evidence can be procured, or conjecture made, the reserve at any harvest during the last thirty years.'-Tooke on High and Low Prices, pp. 322, 323.*

It

* Mr. Lowe fully corroborates Mr. Tooke's views on this subject: The public, (says he,) particularly the untravelled part of the public, are hardly aware of the similarity of temperature prevailing throughout what may be called the corn-country of Europe we mean Great Britain, Ireland, the north of France, the Netherlands, Denmark, the north-west of Germany, and, in some measure, Poland, and the north-east of Germany. All this tract is situated between the 45th and 55th degrees of latitude, and subject, in

a con

It thus appears, that, in nine instances out of ten, the character of the seasons is, throughout the greater part of Europe, very nearly uniform; and we take it to be the inevitable consequence that the habitual importation of foreign corn, instead of tending to render prices steady in the importing country, would inevitably increase the extremes of the scale on which prices now range and vary. And to prove this fact, we refer, with the fullest confidence that they will amply bear us out, to the records of the Lombard and Flemish towns, which at the time of their manufacturing prosperity were dependent principally upon foreign countries for subsistence. The fluctuations of prices in these towns were, at all times, infinitely greater than they ever were in corn-exporting countries; and in years of scarcity their prices never failed to reach an all but incredible maximum.

We are, therefore, fully persuaded, that the best system of cornlaws, as it may affect the general and permanent interests of the country, is that which amounts either to an actual or virtual exclusion of foreign produce, until that which is of home growth has reached an immoderate price. It will be urged, that if we habitually and permanently close our ports against foreign corn, except in times of scarcity, foreigners will contract their tillage, and will not grow more than will supply their own necessities; and that, therefore, when a year of scarcity actually should occur, this country could not look abroad for the means of supplying the home deficiency. We consider this argument as a mere fallacy. Let us suppose Poland, on the average, to produce twenty millions of quarters of wheat; fifteen millions for home consumption, and five millions for exportation to this country. It is manifest that the tillage of Poland would be limited-not, it is true to the growth of the fifteen millions required for its own population-but to the a considerable degree, to the prevalence of similar winds. Neither the superabundance of rain, which we experience in one summer, nor its deficiency in another, are by any means confined to Great Britain and Ireland; while, in winter, both the intensity and duration of frost are always greater on the continent. Exceptions certainly exist in particular tracts; but in support of our general argument, we have merely to recall to those of our readers who are of an age to recollect the early part of the war, or who have attended to registers of temperature, the more remarkable of the present age. Thus, in 1794, the spring was prematurely warm on the continent, as in England; there as with us, the summer of 1798 was dry, and that of 1799 wet: again, in 1811, the harvest was deficient throughout the north-west of Europe, generally from one and the same cause blight: while that of 1816 was still more generally deficient, from rain and want of warmth. In regard to a more remote period, we mean the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, generally, if the temperature has not been so accurately noted, we find, from the coincidence in prices, that it is highly probable that there prevailed a great similarity in the weather of the continent. Thus, in France, the latter years of the seventeenth century, the season of 1708 and 1709, as well as several of the seasons between 1764 and 1773, were as unpropitious, and attended with as great an advance of price as in England.'-Present State of England, 2nd edit. p. 152.

growth of this quantity, in conjunction with the five millions sent hither. If the corn grown in England should fall short of an average quantity, there would be nothing in the circumstance that Poland habitually supplied us with five millions of quarters to induce Poland to grow an additional quantity for an unforeseen contingency, and provide a supply for our deficiency. It is only when foreign countries have a surplus of corn above the amount of the average demand in their markets, both for home consumption and exportation to foreign countries, and we experience a deficiency in the home produce, that any real advantage can be reaped from a free trade in corn. Should this trade be rendered perfectly free and unfettered, foreigners would only provide for the usual and average demand; and would not keep a stock on hand to provide for any extra demand, contingent upon an event of uncertain and merely possible occurrence-a deficiency of produce in other countries.

No political experiments can be more hazardous than those which endanger the continuance or check the progress of that system of husbandry which constitutes the very foundation and main stay of our national prosperity. Any legislative measure which, in its consequences, might throw land out of cultivation, or cause less capital to be laid out, less industry to be exerted, on that which is now in a state of tillage, would unavoidably affect our manufacturing and commercial prosperity. The occupier of land, relaxing his exertions, would have less surplus produce to dispose of-less to expend in the employment of artisans and mechanics. The opinion, avowed by some of our cotemporaries, that the loss sustained by the occupier of land would prove a gain to the other classes of consumers, or that manufactures can thrive while agriculture decays, is one of the most unaccountable delusions that ever succeeded in imposing upon any considerable portion of the inhabitants of this country. By the decay of agriculture we do not, of course, mean merely a fall in the money-price of agricultural produce, but a diminution in the quantity derived from the land. An alteration in the value of the precious metals may produce a variation in the price of corn, as well as of other commodities, without affecting in the smallest degree the real prosperity of a nation; but if any circumstances should cause less corn to be grown, less beef and mutton to be fed within the limits of any country, the wealth of that country must be diminished, and its prosperity sustain a check; it will possess less food for the support of its inhabitants, who must in consequence look for their sustenance to foreign countries, or emigrate from their native land.

We

6

We are gravely assured by an author of considerable talents, who has written a volume upon the subject, that

' prohibitory duties on the importation of foreign corn would almost annihilate our manufactures and commerce; while a free trade in this important article would afford them all the encouragement of which they are susceptible.'-Torrens on the Corn Trade, p. 379.

Now it is known and admitted that the average quantity of corn imported into this country while the ports were open, never exceeded 600,000 quarters; and it has been computed that the annual consumption of grain in this country amounts to about 40,000,000 quarters. In the teeth of these data, Colonel Torrens contends, that, the exclusion of the 600,000 quarters of foreign corn, constituting about one-eightieth part of our annual consumption, will almost annihilate our manufactures and commerce; or, in other words, he maintains, that because we refuse to permit the foreign owners of 600,000 quarters of corn to bring their produce into this country, to be consumed in fabricating wrought commodities for their use, the owners of 39,500,000 quarters of corn grown in this country will cease to expend it in producing the various manufactured articles of which they stand in need.-Can Colonel Torrens seriously believe that the exclusion of foreign corn, bearing a proportion of ONE to SEVENTY-NINE, when compared with the quantity produced in this country, would almost annihilate our manufactures and commerce?"

Alterations in the internal economy of nations, involving extensive and complicated interests, are always attended with difficulty, and generally with danger: however beneficial they may in the end prove to the community at large, they can scarcely fail to inflict an injury, probably irreparable, upon the individuals more immediately affected by them. Such experiments should, therefore, be made with the greatest caution, and require a paramount and overwhelming necessity to justify them. Latterly, however, a species of spurious philosophy has gained ground among the members of a particular school of political economy, which justifies the promotion of the advantage of one class of the community at the expense of another; which justifies the crushing of an individual, or a body of individuals, provided some plausible theory can be advanced to show, that from his ruin an advantage will result to the rest of the community. They admit, for instance, that a free trade in corn would, at least for a time, prove injurious to the owners and occupiers of land in this country; that it would in all cases cause a considerable loss, and in many instances occasion an absolute sacrifice of the capital vested in the soil by the cultivator. But, on the principles by which they profess to be guided, they

contend

contend that such a measure is justifiable, because it will produce an advantage to the rest of the community. Granting, for a moment, that the view which they take of the subject should turn out to be correct; that the loss, which they are prepared to inflict upon the agriculturists, should prove a gain to the other classes of society, we beg to ask them, is it just, is it moral, to deprive one man of his property, in order to confer it upon another? Shall it be said of any English statesmen as Cato said of some of his contemporaries-Liberalitas hoc demum appellatur aliena bona largiri?

We are not aware that the trading or manufacturing capitalist can put forward any equitable plea for the advantage which he claims to reap, at the expense of the agriculturist. The manufacturer and the agriculturist laid out their respective capitals-the one in cotton mills and machinery, the other in corn fields and cows-upon the faith of our present laws, and in the confidence that the system regulating the importation of foreign corn should be (in the main, at least) upheld: upon what principle, therefore, does the manufacturer turn round upon the agriculturist to demand the abandonment of a system, which he contends will increase the profits of his own capital exactly in the proportion in which, by his own acknowledgment, it will diminish the returns accruing upon that of the farmer? A principle so unjust, so selfish, so rapacious will never, we feel confident, obtain the sanction of the legislature A body of senators, imbued with correct moral feelings, and anxious to do justice to all, will never consent to become the instruments of plundering one class of their constituents in order to enrich another. Within the last ten years, the classes connected with agriculture have sustained losses which, if stated, would appear incredible to those who are not intimately acquainted with the details of this subject. We have had pretty extensive opportunities of personal observation;-and we venture to express our unqualified conviction that, within the period above specified, onefourth of the occupiers of land in this country have been completely ruined, whilst the remainder have lost a moiety of their property.

A serious and continued depression in the value of his produce is much more ruinous to the farmer than a stagnation of trade can possibly prove to the manufacturer. However great may be the fall in the price of agricultural produce, it must be disposed of by the owner-the commodity which he holds is of a nature much too perishable to be long kept; and, although compelled to sell his crop at a ruinously low price, he must still continue to produce, at least until the manure, which he has at a great expense laid upon his land, has become exhausted. Were he to discharge his workmen, he must feed them in idleness-he must main