SPEEDILY WILL BE PUBLISHED, BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH; AND T. CADELL, LONDON, 1. In One Volume Octavo, HISTORY OF THE PROGRESS AND SUPPRESSION OF THE REFORMATION IN ITALY AND SPAIN, DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. BY THOMAS M'CRIE, D.D. II. In 3 vols. post 8vo, ELIZABETH DE BRUCE. BY THE AUTHOR OF CLAN-ALBIN. O! good your Worship, tell it of all things; for I mightily delight in hearing of love stories. SANCHO PANZA. Effects of the Introduction of Foreign Grain upon the Condition of the SIR, The great majority of every nation is composed of those whose sole possession is their labour. Their benefit, therefore, should be the principal, if not the exclusive object of every alteration in the laws which regulate trade. Whenever labour receives an ample and steady reward, every class in the community must be in a thriving condition, and the real wealth of a nation ought to be looked for more in the amount of the conveniences and necessaries of life enjoyed by its labouring population, than in any other circumstance. An increase in the capital, the commerce, or manufactures of a country, is not beneficial, unless it tends to maintain a high value of labour, and to secure that value from great and sudden fluctuations. With respect to the present situation of Great Britain, it is asserted that a perfect freedom of trade is the only thing wanting to improve, and maintain in an improved condition, the labouring classes, and to enable the country to arrive at a degree of wealth and prosperity hitherto unknown. Although, for some years past, much has been spoken as well as written on the subVOL. XXI. ject of Free Trade, I am not aware that any one has yet accurately defined the meaning of the phrase. I confess I feel considerable difficulty in attempting to do so now. If we confine ourselves to the literal meaning of the words, they describe a state of things that never has existed, nor ever can exist, amongst civilized nations. To find a perfect example of Free Trade, it must be looked for amongst the savage tribes of Africa or America, or it may be found amongst the Laplanders lately discovered by Captain Parry. There, barter is free and unfettered, and may afford us a perfect model for imitation. Whatever designation the new system may claim, it certainly has no pretensions to be called a System of Free Trade. Its advocates may assert, that it has at least a right to be termed a System for extending a greater Freedom to Trade, by abolishing all prohibitions, and substituting protecting duties instead. Whether it has, or has not, this merit, depends entirely on the mode in which it is applied, as it must be admitted that a protecting duty, if sufficiently high, will have every effect that can possibly be derived from absolute prohibition. The New System is not, therefore, the application of a general rule, which is to affect equally all the different interests in the kingdom. Our whole system is to be new-modelled; and that each part of it shall partake, in an equal degree, in the benefits of the alteration, if benefits they prove, depends on the will of an individual, provided always, that he possesses power to regulate the effects of a total change in a system reared up and perfected by A the wisdom of ages. It may indeed be suspected, that this New System is, after all, nothing more than an old acquaintance appearing amongst us under a new name; and that Freedom of Trade may be found as powerful an agent in effecting a change of rank and property in this country in 1826, as Liberty and Equality proved to be in a neighbouring one in 1792. These observations cannot be deemed superfluous, at a time when modern politicians seem to have adopted as their creed the preamble of our turnpike acts, and when to alter and amend appears, in the estimation of the President of the Board of Trade, to be synonymous terms. What is called the principle of Free Trade, has already been applied to some of our manufactures, though, it may be asserted, that time enough has not elapsed to enable us to judge with what effect. The application of the principle to the agriculture of the country, has long been advocated by enlightened theorists and disinterested corn-dealers; and, as his Majesty's Ministers have expressed their determination to revise the existing Corn Laws early in this session of Parliament, my present object is to inquire, in what way, and to what extent, the labouring population of the country would be benefit ed by the introduction of foreign corn; feeling convinced, that a measure, which is to be beneficial to the labouring, cannot be injurious to any other, classes, and, that the interests of the landlord in particular, and the labouring classes, are indissoluble. With a view to this inquiry, I shall endeavour to prove the following proposition THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF BRITAIN REQUIRES A LESS QUANTITY OF LABOUR AND CAPITAL FOR ITS PRODUCTION THAN THAT OF ANY COUNTRY IN EUROPE. The statements of Mr Colquhoun on this subject appear to me unanswerable. In comparing the agricultural produce of France and England, he proves that the labour of one third of the population of England is sufficient, and is, in fact, all that is employed to produce the food of the reminder, while the labour of twothirds of the population of France is required to effect the same object. In comparing the relative quantity of labour necessary to produce a given quantity of corn in this country, and in Germany, the report of Mr Jacob leads to a result still more favourable to Great Britain. From his statement, it appears that the labour of alınost the entire population of Poland, and the North of Germany, is required to produce the food of the community. He states, that the wages of labour in Prussia are about 2s. 6d. per week, or Is. 6d. less per week than the colliers at Birmingham, and elsewhere, will, in these times of unexampled distress, agree to accept of per day; and farther, that throughout Poland, the cultivators are also proprietors of the soil, which they cultivate by means of a peasantry, till lately bound to the soil, and who are still slaves in point of fact. That their wages consist in such a portion of the coarsest produce of the soil, as will enable them to live and propagate their species, while the remainder is the property of their landlord, which, as no market can be found for it amongst a slaving peasantry at home, he is, of course, willing to dispose of to foreign nations, at the best price he can obtain. He states farther, that, in Prussia, small proprietors, or yeomen, if they do not often want the necessaries of life, have seldom anything beyond them. That the most industrious may be able to keep a cow, but that meat of any kind they rarely taste. This is the state, which, according to the theory of Mr Ricardo, a country far advanced in wealth and population must have nearly approached, from the necessity of cultivating poorer soils, whose produce must always diminish, when compared with the labour employed on them. Thus, as Poland appears to be the country in Europe, where the produce bears the smallest proportion to the labour employed in producing it, the cultivation of poor soils must be carried to the greatest extent. I do not, however, mean to assert, that the small comparative produce of the north of Germany, and Poland, is solely to be attributed to the poverty of their soil, though, if that soil were of double its present fertility, there can be no doubt that the produce would be much increased, and the situation of the community consequently much improved. The statements both of Mr Colquhoun and Mr Jacob lead, therefore, equally to the same conclusions, that the agricultural produce of Britain requires a less quantity of labour and capital for its production, than that of any country in Europe. So far, how ever, are the advocates for a Free Trade in Corn from admitting the truth of this proposition, that its converse is taken for granted; and on the fact, that a greater quantity of labour is required to produce corn in England than elsewhere, they rest the foundation of the strongest of their arguments. Their mode of reasoning is this:-The money price of corn is higher in England than in other countries; in such a proportion, therefore, the real price is higher in the same proportion; and the real price being higher, can alone be caused by the cultivation of poorer soils, by the necessity of expending a greater quantity of labour and capital in producing an equal quantity of corn here than elsewhere. But before deciding that the sole cause of the higher price of corn in Britain was the cultivation of poorer soils, would it not have been well to have endeavoured to ascertain whether such was the case in point of fact; to have proved, from the opinions of persons capable of judging of the quality of land, that the average of the soils under the plough in Britain, were of an inferior description to the average of the soils in tillage in those countries where corn is cheapest, and to have proved that more labour is required to produce the food of the people here than there; to have proved that taxation, direct and indirect, had no influence on the money price of corn; and farther, that the quantity of produce given in exchange for labour, on the increase or diminution of the real wages of labour, had had also no influence on that price. After having established all these facts by incontrovertible evidence, the theory of Mr Ricardo, that the price of corn rises as the fertility of the soil in which it is grown diminishes, might have been, with some show of reason, applied to the existing state of this country. Such an appeal to facts, would certainly have had more weight than the circular mode of argument adopted, that corn is high, because poor lands are cultivated, and that poor lands are cultivated, because corn is high. In a heavily taxed country, such as England, where, from the fertility of the soil, and superior skill in agriculture, the labour of a smaller proportion of the population is required to produce food for the community, than in the surrounding countries, the conclusion seems inevitable, that the difference of the money price of corn must be attributed mainly, if not solely, to the difference of taxation; and that the excess of price is in some degree a measure of the difference. This conclusion, I am persuaded, is a much nearer approach to truth than the favourite one of the present day, that the cause of the high price of corn in this country, is the excessive cultivation of poor lands, and the consequent necessity of employing additional labour upon them-a conclusion not only unsupported, but totally at variance with all the facts that have been collected on the subject, both by Mr Colquhoun and Mr Jacob. From all that has been said and written respecting the undefined and undefinable extent of poor land in England, that must be thrown out of cultivation, in order to furnish bread for the labouring classes, it would naturally be supposed, that the countries who were to furnish this inexhaustible supply of cheap corn were extremely rich, and that they had as yet only cultivated the finest portions of their fertile soil, from which, with little labour, their wants were amply supplied. what is, in point of fact, the case?— I appeal to those who have travelled over the north of Germany, whether the aspect of the country is not, generally speaking, a sandy desert; and whether anything can be more striking than the immense extent of poor land under the plough; and I refer to the Report of Mr Jacob for ample confirmation of what I have stated. He affirms, that the average return of all sorts of grain in the Prussian dominions, is about four for one. Now The average produce of Britain is at least eight for one. If, therefore, it is proved, that the quality of the land in the north of Germany, and Poland, from whence, it is admitted, we are to look for the principal supply of foreign corn, is naturally much less fertile than the soil of this country, that its average return is not one half what it is here, while the labour employed in its production is more than double,-if, I say, these facts are proved, as I maintain they are, by the statements of Mr Colquhoun, and the Report of Mr Jacob, can it be for a moment asserted, that the cause of the higher price of corn here, is to be attributed in the smallest degree to the cultivation of poor soils? And is it not evident, that the consequence of a Free Trade in Corn must be, to enable the produce of poorer soils on the Continent, to undersell and drive out of cultivation richer lands in England? It is somewhat singular to observe the complacency with which such an event is contemplated by modern theorists, of which the following passage affords a striking instance: "It has appeared in a former chapter, that when, in consequence of natural sterility, a given quantity of capital employed upon the soil, cannot raise so abundant a supply of corn as by preparing wrought goods it could purchase from the foreign grower, the happiest consequences are produced by leaving importation free. Now, the same holds good with what may be called the artificial sterility induced by taxation. When, in consequence of various imposts pressing unequally upon the land, the expenses of growing corn are so much increased, that a given quantity of capital, vested in cultivation, will not raise so abundant a produce as the saine capital, if directed to some branch of industry less heavily burdened, could purchase from abroad, it is itself evident, that in such a branch of industry it receives its most beneficial occupation, and conduces most powerfully to increase wealth, and promote prosperity. It is also self-evident, that if, by taxing our land, we increase the expense of producing corn at home beyond the expense of producing it in other countries, our prices will be higher than theirs, and we shall be an importing rather than an exporting country. But it has already been fully shown, that a country, the circumstances of which are adverse to the exportation of produce, can escape fluctuating supply, and unsteady price, only by granting perfect freedom in the import trade in corn.' If we increase, by means of taxation, the cost of growing corn at home, we must, if the trade is free, import it from abroad. But does it not appear, that if the cause of the higher price at home is taxation, the amount of that taxation which can be levied, must be diminished in proportion to the quantity of foreign corn imported, unless a duty equal to that amount is levied upon it? and as the imposition of that duty would be equivalent to removing the cause of importation, that is to say, if the cause of importation is the difference of taxation, a duty equal to the amount of that difference must remove the cause-none could consequently be imported. As to the artificial sterility here spoken of, is it anything else than an increase in the money price of corn, from the effects of direct and indirect taxation? Having, I trust, succeeded in establishing the truth of the proposition, that less labour and capital is required to produce an equal quantity of corn in this than in any other country in Europe, I wish now to direct the public attention to the fact, that the agricultural produce of any country cannot be sold for any length of time, either much above or below its natural price, that is, the price necessary for the production of the whole quantity required. As this is one of the few propositions in Political Economy on which all the most celebrated writers on the subject are agreed, it is needless for me to enter upon it. Al though, however, the agricultural produce of a country can never be sold for any length of time either much above or below the price necessary for its production, yet circumstances may cause a very great difference in the amount of that price in different countries. According to the theory of Mr Ricardo, the price of agricultural produce must rise when a country is forced to answer the demand for it by cultivating poorer soils, which require a greater quantity of labour to produce a given quantity of corn. Thus, when the labour of twenty men is required to produce in one country what in another country is accomplished by the labour of ten, the price of agricultural produce in the former country will be greater than in the latter, by value of the labour of ten men. Or, if the circumstances of the two countries are similar, the price of corn should be double the price in the former of what it is in the latter; but if, in the latter country, owing to the habits of the people, the demand and supply of labour, or other circumstances. the ten men should obtain the same quantity of food and necessaries in exchange for their labour in the one country that the twenty do in the other, it appears to me that the • Torrence on the Corn Trade. |