positive effect of lowering even the money-price of grain, while that of every thing else, during the same term, had so greatly advanced. The dear times of the late French wars one cannot reasonably appeal to, in any of these comparisons, otherwise they would most powerfully corroborate these facts; the whole period being (with a short exception) one of unlimited importation, and often, indeed, of direct bounties upon it. But in the course of the long period adverted to above, the government of the country, yielding at length, for a time, to a different policy, considerably relaxed in its protection of internal industry: the consequences shall be expressed in the forcible and perspicuous language of a minister of his Majesty's present government: "During upwards of one hundred years," says Mr. Huskisson, "up to the year 1765, the import of foreign corn was restrained by very high duties. What was the state of the country during these one hundred years? That, in ordinary seasons, our own growth supplied a stock of corn fully ample for our consumption;-that, in abundant seasons, we had some to spare, which we exported; that, in bad seasons, we felt no want, and were under no apprehension;—that the price of corn seldom varied more than a few shillings per quarter;

that we had no years of inordinate gain to the farmer, or of starvation to the consumer;-that prices, instead of rising from year to year, were gradually diminishing;-so that, at the end of this long period of a century, during which we never imported foreign corn, they were actually one-fifth lower than at the beginning of it. Would to GOD that we had conti

nued this salutary system! But in 1765, it was unfortunately abandoned. What has been the result? Precisely the reverse of the former system. Instead of a steady supply, afforded at steady and moderate prices, we have witnessed frequent and alarming scarcities." But I must refer the reader, for a full description of the consequences of this unhappy departure from the true policy of the country, to the whole of his admirable letter, and shall conclude in his language: "we must go back to the principles of our forefathers; and, by reverting as much as possible to their system, we shall secure to ourselves and our posterity all the benefits which they derived from it1."

To the reader, who may not be acquainted with the precise consequences of this "unfortunate abandonment," it may not be superfluous to state, that, without selecting particular years, but taking, at once, the prices ten years before and ten years after this event; the change in the policy of the country, by depressing the security and the hopes, and consequently the efforts of the British agriculturist, raised the price of wheat nearly one half', and that not by a gradual, but by a marked and instantaneous advance, which

'Rt. Hon. W. Huskisson's Letter on the Corn Laws, pp. 10, 11. * 1755-1764, 5s. 3d. per bushel: 1765-1774, 7s. 2d. per bushel. On a question of such immense moment as the foregoing, it would be a species of infatuation not to add to the experience of our own, that of other nations, which, on a matter of universal concernment, must, one way or the other, be equally conclusive. This, in all the instances I have been hitherto able to appeal to, fully confirms, and, indeed, dictates the preceding argument. One example only shall, on this occasion, be adduced, and that of a country of all others seemingly the best calculated to put the prin ciple, for which I am contending, to the severest test, being one which had partly subsisted upon importation for ages, and had been subject to distressing fluctuations in crops, to an extent little

continued increasing till the better system was at length restored.

(11.) Another standing argument in favour of a constant admission of foreign grain is, that its effect would be the equalization of prices; and indeed the present legislative policy seems to be founded expressly upon that principle: and supposing it should accomplish that purpose, it would be difficult to justify the proposition on such a ground; difficult, I think, to defend it from being as flagrant an act of

known elsewhere; and which, Mr. Malthus says, is " one of the most barren and worst-supplied countries of Europe*. I mean Sweden. But a different system has now been established. "Since 1820," we are officially informed, "the duties upon foreign grain have been so high as to be equivalent to a prohibition, and no importation could take place."-The effect may be thus described "Formerly, Sweden was, in the best of years, obliged to import from 100,000 to 200,000 quarters annually, whereas latterly-she could have exported. The excess has been converted into spirits, to the great injury of the inhabitantst." The effects of the alteration in the system will, however, be best seen in the following official statement of prices six years before, and (including the year in which it took place) as many years afterwards. They were as follow:

Will the advocates for a contrary policy give us as striking an instance in favour of their argument, or indeed any single practical illustration of it?

I said I would refer to one instance only; but I am tempted to add another; one nearer home, and more obvious to our noticeFrance we are again informed that "the importation of foreign grain, for the consumption of France, has been virtually prohibited since the year 1819; exportation, however, being allowed:" and

*Sixth Edition, vol. ii. p. 498.

+ Return to all Accounts, Parliamentary Paper, 44. p. 3.

unfairness as ever was meditated.

The fluctuation in

the prices of grain (I mean the usual and ordinary variations) is a natural result of the difference in the crops, and answers a valuable and necessary end, in inducing us to husband our resources when they happen to become deficient. But this proposal goes to deprive the cultivator of the only remuneration which he can expect, when he has a partial failure in any of his produce; and this "equalization" is, therefore, in many cases, only another term for ruin, as it regards him it is a proposition to throw the entire distress upon those alone, who, in ordinary times, are the least able to bear it, instead of lightening the pressure by sharing it, in some sort, amongst the entire community; still protecting, however, the poor from absolute want, by means of our national charity, to

that "such is the actual state of the law." Take we then from the official document, which accompanies this information, the prices of wheat throughout France, for the seven subsequent years, with the last of which the statement closes, and the seven preceding ones, and the following are the results, reduced to British money and measure:

*Parl. Papers, No. 157; Grain, Foreign Countries, p. 13.

which none will deny that the farmer contributes his full share. In a word, this notable expedient proposes to render every season, as far as it can accomplish its purpose, alike disastrous to the cultivator. A superabundant crop, of course, lowers his remuneration; and he says, as of old, inopem me copia fecit; and a failing one is to bring him no additional price: and this is the policy that is proposed to be adopted in regard to agriculture!

But I deny the assumption; still appealing to experience. Again commencing with 1601; from thence to 1670, the year in which, as previously observed, effectual protection was afforded to agriculture, the fluctuations in price were far greater and more frequent than those which occurred afterwards; excepting we carry our comparison from 1765 and through the period of the revolutionary wars of France; when, as already observed, importation was almost unlimited, and the fluctuations were consequently very great. But, on this part of the dispute, at all events, decisive proofs are at hand. We are surrounded by countries in which the import of grain has been, practically speaking, altogether free and unrestrained. In which of these have the fluctuations been less than those in England during the periods in which her agriculture has been strictly protected? On the contrary, even in the exporting countries, they have been much more severe, including the descriptions of grain principally consumed by the inhabitants, and little exported'. In Antwerp I find the variations

1 See Returns relative to Foreign Corn, Paper 44; Dantzig, No. 2.