To this, gentlemen of landed property may object, and no doubt will object, but let them consider how rapidly ruin is coming on.  At the rate matters now go, it would not be a surprising, but a natural effect, if most of the fields in Britain were converted into pasture, and our chief supply of corn obtained from abroad.  The rent of land would, indeed, be doubled, the wages of labour would rise more than in an equal proportion, and a very few years would complete the ruin of this country.  The landed proprietors surely would not, for any momentary gain, risk the ruin of themselves and of their country, for both may be the consequence of persisting in this system. {215} Or, if they will persist in it, will the government, which has other interests to consult and to protect, allow that single one to swallow up all the rest?

It is true, the freedom of trade will be invoked; but the freedom of

—–­ {214} Suppose that, of the waste lands, eleven millions of acres were cultivated, and that as much as possible (suppose five millions) were always in grain, those five millions would be able to supply the nation nearly in an ordinary year.  A law might also be made, compelling all landlords and farmers to have only three-fourths in grass; this could be no hardship.  There would then be always corn in plenty; monopoly would be prevented, because anxiety would be avoided; for a real deficiency to a small amount gives cause to great anxiety and grievous monopoly.  The waste lands, when disposed of, might have whatever condition attached to them was thought fit.

{215} We say persisting in this system, for when bread fell to be at a moderate price, last summer, (1804,) the outcry amongst the farmers was great and violent, and the legislature altered the law about exports; the consequence of this was, that the price of wheat rose regularly every week till it was doubled.  All this was the effect of opinion, for the price of corn rose too quickly to allow any to be sent out of the kingdom, by the new law. -=-

[end of page #281]

trade is a principle not to be adopted without limitation, but with due regard to times and circumstances; let it then never be invoked upon a general question, without examination.  Though this is the true way of arguing the question, let freedom of trade be taken in another way; let it be considered as a general principle, it will then be immutable, and cannot be changed. {216} The present corn-laws must on that principle be done away, and no bounty allowed for exportation or for importation, which indeed would be the best way; but, at all events, let us have one weight and one measure for both parties, and not invoke freedom of trade to protect the corn-dealers when prices are high, and enact laws to counteract the effects of plenty, which produces low prices.

On this subject, government must set itself above every consideration, but that of the welfare of the country:  it is too important to be trifled with, or to be bartered for any inferior consideration.