the advocate for prohibitory restrictions on the importation of foreign wheat now pants, would still elude his grasp. Put the subject in any light you please, still this maxim in political economy will be found invariably correct; "commodities exchange only for commodities" and consequently if foreign produce be excluded from the British market, the demand for manufactured goods to be sent abroad must likewise cease.

The perfection to which machinery has been carried in England, enables our manufacturers to convert a quarter of wheat into a much larger quantity of manufactured goods, than the foreigner could produce by an equal expenditure of muscular exertion, directed by little skill, and aided by ill contrived and inefficient machinery. When the foreign grower of wheat brings his produce into England, he does it for the sake of taking advantage of the superior skill and experience of our workmen, and the superior perfection of our mechanical contrivances for the abridgment of human labor. He brings his wheat into a manufactory, in which it may be converted into the wrought state, in which he wants it for use, or for sale. Suppose a foreign corn grower has a surplus of 10,000 quarters of wheat which he cannot dispose of at home in its raw state, but which he could easily sell if converted into cotton goods. He embarks his wheat on board at the nearest port -lands it in England-comes into Lancashire-gives a portion of his cargo in exchange for the raw cotton which he wants; another portion he gives for the use of a cotton mill and its machinery— engages the requisite number of weavers and spinners, and employs them in the manufacture of cotton goods, till the whole of his wheat has been consumed and finally exhausted: the cotton goods thus manufactured he carries with him into his own country, or to any other market which may present a demand for them. Would it not be considered absurd and ridiculous to say, that this -foreigner, by bringing his wheat into England-by hiring a mill in Lancashire-by employing British workmen, in the fabrication of cotton goods, till his stock of provisions became exhausted-could by any possibility affect the exchangeable value of wheat of home growth? No more can the importation of foreign corn, as long as the manufactured goods, into which it is converted, are afterwards exported, be justly considered as affecting the price of wheat in the British market. For whether this wheat be brought into Lancashire, directly to be converted into cotton goods, under the personal superintendence of the owner, or it be brought thither in a circuitous manner, and pass through many hands, the effect produced, by its introduction, on the demand and supply of British produce, must, it is evident, be precisely the same. The occupation of a cotton mill by a foreigner, for the purpose of manufac

turing cotton goods, while his raw produce lasts, can do no possible injury to the British agriculturist. It would be the very acme of absurdity, to say that his corn came in contact with this foreign wheat, and was in consequence depreciated in value. If a large quantity of corn thus brought into Lancashire by one owner, cannot affect the exchangeable value of corn which is of home production, I am totally at a loss to comprehend how this effect can be brought about by the same aggregate quantity of foreign produce, belonging in smaller portions to many different owners.

Indeed, a certain number of the cotton manufactories in Lancashire, may very correctly be represented as, at this moment, actually belonging to a foreign corn grower, who sends thither his produce, to be converted into cotton goods. The foreign agriculturist having, above his own consumption, a surplus of 10,000 quarters of wheat, would it is to be presumed, reason in the following manner:-"I must either establish a manufactory, on my own land, where this surplus may be converted into the manufactured state in which it is wanted for use, or it must be sent to some other place where it may be thus manufactured. I want to convert my corn into cotton goods, but I am deficient in the natural and artificial advantages-in the coals, the necessary supply of water, and the machinery which England possesses for this purpose. I shall therefore find it a more economical plan, to send my raw produce to England, to be manufactured where I can have recourse to the aid of these means of abridging human labor, than to attempt fabricating cotton goods in a situation where I am destitute of these advantages. Of my 10,000 quarters of wheat, I am aware that 1000 quarters will be consumed by the men and animals employed in transporting the remainder into Lancashire, 2000 quarters will be required as rent for the advantages of situation and the use of machinery, an additional 1000 quarters must be paid as excise duties on the portion of it which the workmen will consume in the shape of beer, spirits, tea, soap, candles, &c. while employed in manufacturing cotton goods for me, and another 1000 quarters must be exhausted by the men and animals employed in carrying the cotton goods there fabricated into my own country. But although the expense of sending my corn into England will swallow up one half of my raw produce, still the natural and artificial advantages which are to be found alone in Lancashire, will enable me to convert the remaining 5000 quarters into a larger quantity of cotton goods than I could have fabricated in my own country, without these aids, from the whole 10,000 quarters."

The foreign grower of corn thus feels, that, although he be obliged to sacrifice one half of his raw produce, in having the

remainder of it converted into its manufactured state in Lancashire, still the quantity of wrought goods into which this remaining half can be converted in England, is greater than the quantity into which his whole surplus produce could be converted, in a country where the natural and artificial advantages which the British manufacturer can apply, to facilitate and abridge his operations, are unknown. It is extremely difficult to perceive in what manner the foreign corn thus brought into Lancashire, to be converted into cotton goods, can, in any way, come in contact with that which is of home growth, and prove injurious to the British agriculturist by depreciating the exchangeable value of his produce; for, if this corn had not been brought into England, the cotton mill, in which it is consumed, would not have existed, and the workmen engaged in converting it into cotton goods would not have been employed.

But although it be not, by any means, easy to discern the advantages which would accrue to the agriculturist, from prohibiting the foreign corn grower from bringing his raw produce into England to be manufactured, it is not difficult to point out many benefits of which he would be deprived by such an ill-judged exclusion. The first loss would be the loss of the rent, which is now received, for the mill and machinery which the foreigner hires; but the second loss would be still much more important-it would be the loss of that portion of the foreigner's corn which is now received by Government as duties on the exciseable articles consumed by the weavers and spinners, employed by the foreigner in converting his wheat into cotton goods. And this loss of revenue would fall upon the English agriculturist, who would ultimately be called upon to make it good. Nothing need be said of the benefits which the workmen derive from being thus employed-they are much too evident to render it necessary to point them out. These are the direct advantages which we derive from allowing the foreigner to bring his corn into England, for the purpose of exchanging it for cotton goods; or what is precisely the same thing, getting it converted into cotton goods; and, if I had time and space, many indirect advantages might be easily pointed out as resulting likewise from this permission.

The economists who reprobate the importation of foreign corn describe, in glowing language, the natural advantages which this happy island can boast of; they point out the fertility of its soil, and the skill, the capital, and the industry, which is employed in cultivating and improving it. Having these premises granted them, they proceed, as is their uniform practice, to jump at a conclusion; because the island is fertile in soil, fortunate in climate, and amply supplied with water; because its cultivators are skilful, industrious, and possessed of capital, therefore, argue they, England possesses a capacity of production equal to the full de

mand of all its inhabitants. This assertion, repeatedly and confidently advanced, imposes on the many. If, however, this declaration be subjected to the test of fair and candid scrutiny, it will turn out to be nothing better than unmeaning declamation. As a general proposition, it is true of every tract of country, over the surface of the globe, that it possesses a capacity of production equal to the demand of its inhabitants; this is no less true of the thinly peopled and uncultivated steppes of Moldavia, than it is of the populous and well tilled corn fields of Kent: in both these districts, if cut off from the rest of the world, the population and production of the soil would soon adjust themselves one to the other. The assertion, therefore, that England possesses a capacity of production equal to the demands of all its inhabitants, is a mere truism which will equally apply to any other country however poor or thinly peopled.

The

To illustrate the truth of this remark let it be assumed, that Kent and Lancashire are two independent counties, carrying on with each other a commercial exchange of corn for cotton. agriculturists of Lancashire, acting upon the recommendation of those who maintain, that it possesses a capacity of production equal to the wants of all its inhabitants, would say to the Kentish corn growers, "Our own county possesses a capacity of production equal to the demand, not only of the laborers employed in agriculture, but also of the manufacturers employed in our cotton mills; we must therefore prohibit you from importing your wheat into our county." If this scheme of the Lancashire agriculturist were carried into full effect, the unavoidable result would be, not an increase of the agricultural produce of Lancashire, or in the value of its present produce, but a reduction in the amount of its population. A great portion of the weavers and spinners now employed in the cotton manufactories of Lancashire, are employed because there is a demand for cotton in the county of Kent, where none is now manufactured. But if the corn growers of Kent were prohibited from exchanging their agricultural produce for the manufactured goods of Lancashire, they would be compelled to establish manufactories in their own county, and the demand for cotton goods to be exported from Lancashire, to supply the inhabitants of Kent, would cease. The county of Kent, having now no more hands than are already wanted for the purposes of agriculture, and being forced to establish manufactories, in which the wrought goods which it wants may be fabricated, would offer employment to the manufacturers deprived of work in Lancashire by the cessation of the demand for cotton to be carried into Kent. In other words; that part of the population of Lancashire, which is now employed in manufacturing the portion of cotton goods required for the inhabitants of Kent, would be

deprived of this employment, by the restriction laid on the importation of foreign wheat, and would emigrate into Kent, or into some other district where they would be permitted to convert this wheat into the manufactured goods wanted by the corn growers in Kent.

In this case, the capacity of production ascribed to Lancashire would not be called into greater activity than before this prohibition against the introduction of foreign wheat. If the wheat of Kent did not come in competition with the wheat of Lancashire, it should at the same time be remembered, that the reduction in the number of the manufacturing population would, in an equal degree, reduce the demand for wheat in Lancashire. The restriction on the importation of wheat from Kent would therefore make no alteration in the proportion existing between the demand and the supply; nor would this exclusion of foreign wheat give the Lancashire corn grower a larger return, either of cotton, or of any other commodity, than he now receives for his agricultural produce. The same reasoning will hold good when applied to France and England. There can be no question that agricultural produce, of home growth, would be at all times amply sufficient to meet all the demands of the inhabitants of this island, as long as their manufacturing speculations are confined to the fabrication of goods required solely for home consumption-as long as this natural demand is not increased by exportation. But as long as manu-, factured articles continue to be exported, something must be received for them from abroad by way of exchange; whether it be wheat itself, or wheat converted into some manufactured commodity, the effect which this exchange will produce on the relative proportion of the demand and supply, and consequently on the money price of agricultural produce, in the English market, will be nearly, if not precisely, the same. As long, therefore, as a very large proportion of the population of this island are absolutely, and it may be said exclusively, occupied in fabricating goods to be exported to foreign countries, English agricultural produce never can be sufficient to supply the wants of all its inhabitants. It would be quite as correct to assert that Lancashire can raise a sufficiency of agricultural produce to feed all the manufacturers employed in its cotton mills, without deriving any portion of this supply from the other English counties into which it now exports its manufactured goods.

If, then, we exclude from our market the produce of the continent, either in a raw or manufactured state, the result must, in the end, be that the foreign demand for our manufactures, will be gradually contracted and finally cease. The cessation of this demand must throw