A revision of the corn laws, it is understood, is immediately tocome under the consideration of the legislature. That the decisionon such a subject, should be founded on a correct and enlightenedview of the whole question, will be allowed to be of the utmostimportance, both with regard to the stability of the measures to beadopted, and the effects to be expected from them.
For an attempt to contribute to the stock of information necessaryto form such a decision, no apology can be necessary. It may seemindeed probable, that but little further light can be thrown on asubject, which, owing to the system adopted in this country, hasbeen so frequently the topic of discussion; but, after the bestconsideration which I have been able to give it, I own, it appearsto me, that some important considerations have been neglected onboth sides of the question, and that the effects of the corn laws,and of a rise or fall in the price of corn, on the agriculture andgeneral wealth of the state, have not yet been fully laid before thepublic.
If this be true, I cannot help attributing it in some degree to thevery peculiar argument brought forward by Dr Smith, in hisdiscussion of the bounty upon the exportation of corn. Those who areconversant with the Wealth of nations, will be aware, that its greatauthor has, on this occasion, left entirely in the background thebroad, grand, and almost unanswerable arguments, which the generalprinciples of political economy furnish in abundance against allsystems of bounties and restrictions, and has only brought forwards,in a prominent manner, one which, it is intended, should apply tocorn alone. It is not surprising that so high an authority shouldhave had the effect of attracting the attention of the advocates ofeach side of the question, in an especial manner, to this particularargument. Those who have maintained the same cause with Dr Smith,have treated it nearly in the same way; and, though they may havealluded to the other more general and legitimate arguments againstbounties and restrictions, have almost universally seemed to placetheir chief reliance on the appropriate and particular argumentrelating to the nature of corn.
On the other hand, those who have taken the opposite side of thequestion, if they have imagined that they had combated thisparticular argument with success, have been too apt to consider thepoint as determined, without much reference to the more weighty andimportant arguments, which remained behind.
Among the latter description of persons I must rank myself. I havealways thought, and still think, that this peculiar argument of DrSmith, is fundamentally erroneous, and that it cannot be maintainedwithout violating the great principles of supply and demand, andcontradicting the general spirit and scope of the reasonings, whichpervade the Wealth of nations.
But I am most ready to confess, that, on a former occasion, when Iconsidered the corn laws, my attention was too much engrossed bythis one peculiar view of the subject, to give the other arguments,which belong to it, their due w