sorted, will not be sufficient of themselves, by raising up manufactures in our own country, to counteract the injurious effect of such restrictions upon us, that our government is bound, by a proper regard to its own interest, and the interest of its constituents, to apply the remedy. For, if while we continue to consume large quantities of the productions of the industry of England and France, these nations refuse to receive from us the only articles we can give them in return, what can we expect but exhaustion and poverty?

A knowledge of the nature of those corn laws which exert so deleterious an influence upon our country, is highly important; and it will be both profitable and amusing to trace them from their origin to the present period. Our limits will only allow us now to treat of those of France, of which perhaps we are least informed, reserving for a future occasion those of England.

The essay, the title of which is prefixed to this article, was written in consequence of the following question, proposed by the society of agriculture, commerce, sciences, and the arts, of the department of Marne, for public discussion, viz. " What are the best means of preventing, with the resources of France alone, a scarcity of corn, and too great variations in its price?"

Our readers perhaps will be struck with the want of accuracy in the statement of this question; and the ambiguity in which it is involved may embarrass them in determining the precise object of inquiry; but we are soon informed that the " means" are parliamentary interference, and that the "resources" are restrictions upon importation and exportation. We are induced to make these remarks, lest it might be supposed that physical circumstances entered into the merits of the subject, and the successful cultivation of the earth formed a prominent feature in the scheme. This latter, though undoubtedly highly essential, yet can only occupy a secondary position in the scale of means and resources of France, as Frenchmen consider the maxim true, which the Emperor Julian publicly recognised, that it is the duty of a sovereign to provide his subjects with food. We shall not now question either the soundness of this principle in theory, or insist upon its emptiness in practice; but we cannot forbear to remark, that if the parental solicitude of sovereigns in this respect were less conspicuous, their people would often be saved the necessity of applying to them for bread-the pain of being denied it or the mockery of their sufferings, in being fed with corn laws.

These observations are not intended for the author who prepared the essay, but as an apology for the learned society which proposed the question, whose patriotism and intelligence are the subjects of a panegyric. The author properly conceived the object of the institution, which was to inform their sovereign by what restrictions upon the corn trade he could best discharge the important

duty of furnishing his subjects with bread; and thus enters upon its discussion:

"Nous verrons d'abord, et le plus rapidement possible, ce que fût dans les divers temps la législation sur les grains. Mais, tout en abrégeant cet examen historique, je devrai insister sur les principales ordonnances qui devinrent, aux différentes époques de la monarchie, comme le type de toutes les dispositions successivement adoptées ou rénouvelées jusqu'au jour où parut celle de 1764; puis nous jeterons un coup-d'œil sur la marche suivie par l'administration, depuis le ministère de M. Turgot jusqu'à ces derniers temps: nous finirons par considérer la législation actuelle, et c'est à la suite de cet examen, et après avoir exposé les principes adoptés par la législation anglaise, que nous essaierons d'indiquer celles des mesures qui nous paraissent les plus susceptibles de prévenir en France les disettes avec les seules ressources du pays, tout en évitant (autant que possible) la trop grande variation dans les prix."

In the early period of the French history, the traffick in grain was a feudal right, claimed by the lord of the manor, and either exercised by him or farmed out to his favourites and dependants; a state of things highly prejudicial to the interest of the country, and the correction of which engaged the attention of the early monarchs of France. Hence we find Charlemagne in 806, Saint Louis in 1259, Jean in 130, Charles V., VI., and VII., passing ordinances to restrain the abuses and inconveniences of the feudal privileges, by limitations of the baronial prerogatives, until Francis I. reserved to himself the entire right of regulating foreign trade. By letters patent of this prince, issued the 20th June, 1539, the people were not only relieved from applying for passports to export grain to the other provinces, but thus prohibited from taking permits :

"Et si par contrainte d'autorité autrement, pour rédimer vexation, nosdits sujets prennent permission ou sauf-conduit; nous voulons que de cette faute ils en soyent moultés et punis d'amendes arbitraires par les juges, &c."

And other penalties were denounced against those who issued such permits. He also imposed a duty, equivalent to fifteen francs of present money per ton upon the exportation of grain. In 1559, Francis II. passed a decree, the object of which was to regulate the exportation of grain according to the produce of the harvest, and established an office at Paris to receive the reports from the different provinces in relation to this matter, and superintend the details of the edict. This regulation did not survive the year which gave it birth, and the subject slept until the scarcity of 1565 and 1566 revived it to the attention of Charles IX., who prohibited the exportation of grain without permission. The governors of provinces were also enjoined to inform the King of the state of the harvest; and the free exportation to the necessitous provinces was fully recognized. In 1577, Henry III. permitted the exportation in cases of abundance, and renewed the injunc

tion of his predecessor against embarrassing the free trade among the provinces. During the early period of the reign of Henry IV., the scarcity incident to the revolutionary spirit of the times attracted the attention of the government, and caused regulations and prohibitions which were dispensed with in 1601, in consequence of the return of plenty. Louis XIII. in 1631 prohibited, under pain of death, the exportation of grain, but maintained the interior traffick; and this too in the face of abundant crops with which this period was blessed. Louis XIV., at the commencement of his reign, not only permitted the exportation of grain, but also remitted, in a state of peace, the duties to which his fiscal difficulties obliged him to resort in time of war. In the years 1692, 1693 and 1694, the deficiency in the harvest, however, was so extensive, as to create the most serious alarm; and to make the matter worse, the government enacted several severe, arbitrary and impolitic laws upon the subject, among which we find the following:

"Le 12 Septembre, 1693, un arrêt du conseil du roi enjoignait aux marchands, laboureurs, fermiers, autres particuliers, et aux communautés, de vendre leurs blés avant le 1er décembre même année, en ne s'en réservant pas au-delà de ce qui était nécessaire pour leurs provisions pendant six mois, et cela sous peine de confiscation desdits blés au profit des pauvres."

And impressed with the misery of the people of Paris, directly before their eyes, and totally regardless of the claims and necessities of other portions of the kingdom

"Un arrêt du 15 Septembre, 1693, prescrivit dans les graves circonstances où l'on était placé, de faire 'ransporter pour la subsistance du peuple de la ville de Paris, les grains qui se trouveraient achetés dans tous les lieux du royaume, pour la dite ville."

On the 13th of October, in the same year, another decree was issued, requiring the farmers to sow the land, in default of which any other person was permitted to do so, insuring to such person the benefit of the harvest without compensation to the occupant. It does not appear, however, that these commands at all diminished the calamity, if we are to credit what follows, for we are told that the bakers did not dare to appear without military escorts; that the monarch caused ovens to be constructed in his own palace, and distributed bread and money from five different places in Paris; and that commissaries extraordinary were appointed to hasten the arrival of grain for the use of the city. The terrors of this period seem long to have impressed the king, and so late as the 22d of December, 1698, an edict was issued, denouncing pain of death against those who should export grain from the kingdom. Commissaries were again despatched in every direction, and, in some instances, it was discovered that grain, harvested in 1693, still remained in the bands of the farmers.

The measure of folly and absurdity which characterized the proceedings of this reign in relation to this subject, would not have been complete but for the act of the 31st of August, 1699, which provided, that

"Il est défendu à toutes personnes, de qualque qualité qu'elles soient, de faire à l'avenir trafic et marchandise de blés pour les acheter, vendre et révendre dans l'intérieur du royaume, qu'après en avoir demandé et obtenu la permission des officiers des justices ordinaires; qu'après avoir prété serment devant eux, avoir fait enregistrés les actes avec leurs noms et démeures aux greffes des mêmes justices, sous peine de confiscation des grains à eux appartenant, 500 livres d'amende, et d'être déclarés incapables de faire le trafic des grains."

And, in the same spirit of infatuation, prohibited all associations or partnerships in the purchase or sale of grain. If nature has established any principle to control or meliorate the inequalities of the harvest, it is by early exciting the attention of the community, and particularly the dealers, to the subject, who, by anticipating the evil, enhance the value of the commodity; thereby producing the double effect of limiting consumption, and inviting the attention of foreign merchants, who furnish a supply in the time of need. These dealers then become, in fact, the caterers for the people; they are the bees that roam abroad in quest of honey, and place it at the people's doors. What then can be more injudicious than to restrain their freedom and control their operations. In times of scarcity, perfect protection to both buyers and sellers, and free and unfettered liberty of action, are the greatest securities against famine; and all laws, which in such exigencies are intended to limit or counteract this principle, prohibit the only remedy for the evil. We fear that governments, particularly municipal, are yet to learn the truth of this salutary principle; for while we see public bodies year after year complacently listening to the speeches against forestallers and regraters, and greedily devouring the eloquence of those zealous, but short-sighted politicians, who denounce against such the vengeance of an insulted and injured people; while we see such bodies, year after year, passing acts and ordinances in obedience to this senseless clamour, and felicitating themselves upon their happy effects, we think we discover in them the same infatuation which dictated these edicts of Louis XIV.

The year 1709 was marked by a very serious failure of the crops, which produced something like a famine, but it does not appear that the government resorted to any other measures than to maintain the free circulation of grain throughout the kingdom, and to encourage the sowing of grain by remitting taxes and protecting the farmer. The reign of Louis XV. was generally characterized by abundance; a scarcity, however, was experienced in the year 1740, the evils of which were aggravated by an

obstinate adherence to the unwise regulations of the preceding reign. In the year 1736, an act was passed, requiring particular societies and eleemosynary institutions, such as abbeys, monasteries, colleges, &c. to keep on hand three years' supply of provisions, and directing that a public grainery should be constructed to contain ten thousand muids of grain. The impositions, also, exacted under the names of droits, péages, pontonnages, travers, coutumes, &c. were remitted, but in six months after, partially renewed by a forced construction of an ambiguous clause in the dispensing act.

The nation now possessed a number of enlightened statesmen, whose learning, good sense, and respectability, could not fail strongly to impress the court, licentious as it was, with the truth and justice of their views. These economists, for so they were called, at the head of whom was M. Turgot, warmly espoused the freedom of the corn trade, and put forth the following principle, which justly merits the title of an axiom in political economy:

"Laissez faire-le commerce et l'intérêt personnel sont là qui veillent à votre conservation; si les blés deviennent rares en France, c'est en France aussi qu'on les apportera."

This principle, so self evident, M. Chaillou denounces as replete with danger; and considers it amply refuted by the following weak observation.

"Mais quand y parviendront-ils avec des communications intérieures encore si imparfaites? dites-moi, est-il bien certain que les bateaux ou les voitures transportant des blés arriveront dans les provinces réculées assez à temps pour prévenir les effets d'une cherté désastreuse ?"

The writings of these distinguished individuals had a powerful effect upon the ministry, and drew from them in 1764 an edict, by which the free circulation of grain among the different provinces was fully secured, the importation from abroad permitted, and all restrictions removed, except as to its exportation, which was only allowed when the price declined below twelve francs ten sous the quintal. So frail and irresolute, however, is man, that the best resolutions, formed in moments of prosperity and ease, cannot be relied upon in times of difficulty and pressure. The years 1769 and 1770 brought with them a deficient harvest; and the court, yielding to the clamours of the people, (which, for the honour of princes and their ministers, we are willing to believe could not be resisted,) on the 11th January, 1771, restored the most odious restrictions of 1699. The economists still continued their efforts to inculcate the principles of sound policy and liberality; without effect, however, it would seem, until the accession of Louis XVI. in 1774-the first act of whose reign was to call to