"ported, industry is thereby excited and superfluity "produced."

CAROLINE.

Well, I abandon the exclusive use of English luxuries; but the very argument you have used against them makes me think that it must be advisable to rely on home produce for the necessaries of life. Were we dependent on foreign countries for a supply of corn, what would become of us if those countries, in time of war, prohibited its exportation?

MRS. B.

Your question will lead us into a discussion on the corn trade, which it is too late for us to enter upon to-day; we will, therefore, reserve it for our next meeting.

352

CONVERSATION XX.

Continuation of FOREIGN TRADE.

ON THE CORN TRADE.

CONSEQUENCES OF DEPENDING UPON A HOME SUPPLY OF CORN IN COUNTRIES OF GREAT CAPITAL AND POPULATION. IT PRODUCES HIGH PRICES IN ORDINARY SEASONS, AND GREAT FLUCTUATION OF PRICES IN TIMES OF SCARCITY AND OF ABUNDANCE. WHY THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN NEWLY-SETTLED COUNTRIES. PROPRIETY OF FREE TRADE IN GENERAL.DANGER OF INTRODUCING A NEW BRANCH OF INDUSTRY PREMATURELY. EXTRACT FROM MIRABEAU'S MONARCHIE PRUSSIENNE ON THE ADVANTAGES OF FREE COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE.

MRS. B.

WHEN we last parted, you expressed a wish that we should raise all our corn at home, in order to be completely independent of the casualties attending a foreign supply.

CAROLINE.

Yes; for were we at war with those countries which usually furnished us with corn, they would withhold the supply; or, should they experience a dearth, they would no longer have it in their power to send us

corn.

MRS. B.

We occasionally import corn from different parts of

"

America, from the shores of the Baltic, and those of the Mediterranean seas. Now, it is very improbable either that we should be in a state of warfare with those various countries at the same period of time, or that they should all be afflicted with a dearth of produce in the same season. There is much greater chance of a scarcity prevailing in any single country, than in every part of the world at once. Indeed, facts have fully demonstrated, that when the weather is unfavourable to the crops of one country, it is almost invariably found to be favourable to those of another. I believe no single instance can be produced of a simultaneous failure of the crops throughout the whole commercial world. In the year 1800, when England suffered so much distress from the deficiency of the harvest, the crops were very abundant in Spain; while the harvest of 1803, which was extremely plentiful in this country, was so deficient in Spain as to produce a famine. Now it is evident, that had a free corn trade existed between these countries, the distresses of both would have been alleviated.

CAROLINE.

Under such circumstances it would certainly be right to import corn; I object only to doing so habitually, and not depending in ordinary times on the produce of our own country.

MRS. B.

If we apply to corn countries only in seasons of distress we shall find it very difficult to obtain relief. Those countries, after supplying themselves, raise corn only for nations which they usually supply with that article; but they will have but little to spare

A A

for a new customer, who from an accidental dearth at home is compelled to seek for food abroad; and we could obtain it only by out-bidding other competitors. The supply, therefore, would be both scanty and at a price which the lower ranks of people could ill afford to pay; so that there would be great distress, if not -danger of a famine.

CAROLINE. 1

To prevent such a calamity we have only to raise so large a quantity of corn at home as will afford a plentiful supply in years of average produce; then in seasons of abundance we have the resource of exportation, and in bad seasons we might still have a sufficiency.

MRS. B.

It is impossible to raise at all times a sufficiency without having often a superfluity. This is particularly the case with corn, as it is the most variable of almost all kinds of agricultural produce. If, therefore, we wish to raise such a quantity as will always secure us against want, we must in common seasons have some to spare, and in abundant years a great· superfluity.

Now the more corn-land we cultivate the higher will the price of corn be in average seasons. You start, Caroline; but, paradoxical as this may appear, if you reflect upon the causes which occasion the regular high price of corn, independently of the variations of supply and demand, you will understand it.

The more corn is grown in a country the greater will be the quantity of inferior land brought into cultivation, in order to produce it; and the price of corn, you know must pay the cost of its production

on the worst soil on which it is raised*, otherwise it would cease to be produced. If, therefore, in order to ensure a home supply, we force an ungrateful soil, at a great expense of capital, to yield a scanty crop, we raise the price of all the corn of the country to that standard, and we thus enable the landed proprietors to increase their rents.

CAROLINE.

That is very true; and then by enhancing the price of the first necessaries of life we must raise the rate of wages.

MRS. B.

Yes; but observe that this rise of wages does not at all better the condition of the labouring classes; it merely enables them to live at the advanced price of the necessaries of life.

Nor is this all; when the home supply of corn proves superabundant, what is to become of it? The unnatural high price at which it usually sells in our market, owing to the forced encouragement given to agriculture, renders it unsaleable in foreign markets until the price is fallen so low as to be ruinous to farmers.

CAROLINE.

I cannot easily bring myself to look upon a super. fluity of the necessaries of life as a calamity;-if it is injurious to the farmer, what an advantage it is to the lower classes of people!

MRS. B.

The advantage is of a very temporary nature. The farmer who cultivates poor land in hopes of a remune

See Conversation on Rent.