revolution; we allude to Naples: whether it remain under the dominion of Murat, or not, it must be bettered by his rule over it. Of all the ancient sovereigns of Europe, perhaps the king of the two Sicilies was the worst qualified to raise the Neapolitans to that rank which they were entitled to hold, from the richness of their country, and those qualities which nature had bestowed upon them, but which long had lain dormant, and overpowered by the imbecility and vices of their government. They re quired a sovereign who would infuse into them activity and energy; who would teach them their own capabilities. This, Murat, whatever be his crimes, has certainly done; and whether he retain possession of the throne of Naples or not, the Neapolitans must be benefited by having had him to reign over them. Of all the countries of Europe, Spain in all probability will be the least affected, either with good or evil, by the French revolution. Her virtual subjection to Bonaparte (and, if he had been content with a virtual dominion over her, she would have offered no resist ance,) was the consequence, not of the predilection of the inhabitants to French principles, but entirely of the imbecility and corruption of her government: and the event has fully proved, that her subsequent resistance, sprang not from any real love of independence and liberty, nor indicated any knowledge of their principles, or estimate of their worth and value, but principally, if not entirely, from national hatred to the French; from the influence of the priests on their superstitions, and from a blind and almost instinctive attachment to their own sovereign. It is a singular, but a lamentable fact, that a nation which fought during six years against the invaders of their country, associated with the soldiers of the freest nation on the face of the earth, and which for part of that period actually enjoyed the comparatively free constitution of their forefathers, should permit themselves to be thrown back into a still more grievous despotism than that under which they had previously groaned. But that this is too likely to be the fate of Spain, we shall have occasion to point out in a subsequent part of this volume. CHAP. CHAPTER X. Domestic History of England-Most important Questions discussed in Pari lament during the Session of 1813-14.-Proposed Alteration in the Corn Laws The Subject of the Corn Trade very difficult as well as important -has engaged the Attention of the Legislatures of all Countries-Sketch of the different Laws, regulating the Commerce in Corn, which have been frmed in this Country-Laws respecting Importation-respecting Exportation-Arguments and Opinions respecting the proposed Alteration in the Corn Laws-Concluding Remarks.` fairs and events of Great Britain, during the year 1814, now claim our notice; and according to our usual arrangement, we shall in the first place consider, those subjects which were discussed in parliament. Of these, the most deeply and vitally important, and at the same time that which excited the most general and anxious attention and interest was the state of the corn laws. We are fully sensible of the difficulty of the question on this point; of the great variety, comprehensiveness, and abstruseness of the principles and points which it involves; and also of the liability to which we, in common with all who attempt to discuss it, are exposed, of thinking and de ciding under the influence of prejudice. But nevertheless we shall endeavour to lay before our readers a concise and plain state of the question. The legislature of every country, and of Great Britain in nearly an equal degree with other countries, has been at all times very fond of interfering in the commerce of the subject; and this interference has been continued even after experience, and a more complete and enlightened knowledge of political eco nomy, had fully proved that it was chief than good. Those articles respecting which all legislatures av e interfered the most frequently are grain and money; the lat ter they were extremely anxious to keep within the kingdom, considering it to be not the source and means of wealth merely, but wealth itself; and their laws for this purpose have remained on the statute book and been called into action, even after it had been proved that money was not wealth, that it only commanded wealth, that it was only useful when exchanged for real wealth; and that therefore it was actually curbing the tendency of a nation towards prosperity, instead of accelerating and assisting it, to endeavour to prevent the free commerce of money; and after it was moreover proved, that all laws on this subject were ineffectual; and that if private interest, or the necessities, comforts, or luxuries of a nation, required that money shou'd be exported, new laws could prevent it. In some respects the laws regarding grain stood on a different foundation; and the legislature seemed to be acting on wiser principles, as well as aiming at what was more practicable, when it endeavoured deavoured to regulate the commerce of this commodity. In the first place, it seemed highly proper that the people of the country in which the grain was grown should be protected in the cheap and abundant purchase of it; and in the second place, the export of grain, it being a very bulky commodity could not possibly be carried on if the legislature chose to prevent it. Accordingly the legislature of all countries, from a very early period, have interfered in the commerce of grain; and it may be proper, before we inquire into the necessity, the justice, or the advantage of altering the corn laws of Great Britain as they now stand, to give a short historical abstract of the principal laws which have been passed on this subject. "Corn is to be considered both as food and merchandize." The providing it either by growing or importing; its preservation for use or sale; the preparation of it for food by grinding and baking; the fixing, or rather declaring, the price of bread, and what weight the same should be of, according to the price of corn, are particulars which have at all times, and in all places, been more or less the care of the legislature, and fallen under the direction of the civil magistrate. The parliaments of this kingdom, as appears by the statute book, have frequently had this matter under their consideration, and generally treated it, in the view we have mentioned above, both as food and merchandize. In almost every statute which attempts any regulation in this trade, we may visibly discern they have endeavoured to order it so, that, while they were guarding against any thing which might tend to di stress the poor, tillage should not be discouraged. The preceding observations, from the author of the tracts on the corn trade, very briefly and impartially state the two great objects which the legis lature in all their acts on this subject have had in view and in our retrospect of the different laws that have been passed to regulate the commerce of grain, as well as in our investigation into the neces sity or justice of a revision and alteration of those laws, it will be proper to recollect, that there are two objects which ought always carefully to be kept in view, viz. the encouragement of tillage, and the cheap and full and regular supply of the poor with bread., It appears from the provisions of ancient statutes, and particularly from the preamble of statute 15 Henry VI. cap. 2, that it was not lawful to carry corn out of the kingdom without the license of the king. By this statute, permission was first given to export several sorts of corn out of the realm, whenever the price of each sort was at or below the prices therein mentioned; and in Madox's History of the Exchequer, there is an account of several fines imposed for exporting corn without license, in very early times. In the year 1548, the 5th of Edward VI. the price at which corn was allowed to be exported was fixed at 6s. 8d. of the money of that period; equi valent to at least 40s. of the money of the present time. Between the year 1548 and the year 1627, the 3d of Charles I., there were eight several acts passed, altering the exportation price; so that by the last act in 1627, it was raised to 32s. of the money of that period. There is no evidence that during the civil war the legislature inter fered fered in the commerce of grain; or, at least, altered the existing laws on this subject. But, on the Restoration, in 1660, the exporta tion price was immediately set at 40s. per quarter, and three years afterwards it was raised to 48. By this law it was enacted, that when wheat did not exceed that price, every person might buy, lay up, and keep the same, and sell it again, under such regulations as the act laid down. This was a virtual repeal of the acts 5 and 6 of Edward VI. and 5 of Elizabeth, at least so far as they regarded licensing, till wheat was at 48s. In the year 1670, an act was passed allowing wheat to be exported, even after it exceeded 48s., on paying, a certain duty. This was a great deviation from the former laws on this subject; but in 1688 a still greater deviation took place; for in that year an act was passed, repealing all duty, and giving a bounty of 5s. per quarter on exportation, till the home price should rise above 48s. per quarter. This act of king William seems to have arisen out of an act passed in the 22 Charles II. for the improve ment of tillage. From the Revolution till the year 1766 the corn laws appear to have been framed for the purpose of encouraging the exportation of grain. It will now be proper to consider the laws previous to this latter period, which regulated the importation of that commodity. From several very ancient statutes, which it is unnecessary to particularize, it seems that it was generally lawful to import foreign corn into this kingdom; but by the statute 3 Edward IV. several sorts of foreign corn were, for the first time, prohibited to be imported, till the price of each in the home market exceeded the respective prices mentioned in the statute. This statute continued in force till the 21st of James I. when it was repealed, and the importation of foreign corn was again generally permitted: but corn so imported was always subject to a duty, that varied according to the law in each period. We have thus ascertained the respective periods at which a bounty on exportation was given, and a duty on importation levied : the former took place at the time of the Revolution, in 1688; the latter, in the reign of James I. The act formed in the 22d of Charles II. for the encouragement of tillage has been already noticed: by this act, the importation of foreign corn first began to be regu lated in the manner that subsists at present; that is, by imposing high duties when the price of each sort of corn did not exceed certain prices, and low duties when it exceeded the said prices. By this sta tute, when wheat was at 53s. 4d. per quarter, it might be imported on paying a duty of 6s.; when above that price, but not exceeding 80s., a duty of 8s. Till the first year of James II. no rule had been enacted for ascertaining the prices according to which the high or low duties on corn imported were to take place; but as it was then found by experience, that great quantities of corn had been imported, without paying the proper duties, rules were laid down by the 1st of James II. for ascertain ing the average price of the English corn market. Since that period, the mode of ascertaining the prices has been frequently altered: but as this is a branch of our sub ject ject of comparatively little moment, we shall not particularize the alterations. Between the Revolution and the year 1766, when an essential alteration took place in the corn laws, exportation was for a short time prohibited four several times; viz. in the years 1699, 1709, 1741, and 1757; and by the 30th of George II. the duties on the importation of corn were suspended till the 24th of August 1757, and importation was allowed, duty free, in ships of foreign nations, in amity with Great Britain. But, with these exceptions, the corn trade was regulated from the Revolution till the year 1766 on the principle of granting bounties on exportation, and fixing duties on importation. In the month of September 1766, a sudden apprehension of a scarcity gave rise to an embargo on all the ships loaded with grain. That this apprehension was unfounded, was sufficiently proved by the fact, that after all, during the year 1766, less grain was imported than exported. In the following year, however, the feeling of alarm seems to have extended itself to parliament; for laws were made prohibiting the exportation of grain, and allowing the importation free of all duty: these were renewed in the year 1768; and the legislature now annually passed laws to enact the same regulations during each of the five subsequent years, in the last of, which the prohibition to export, and the privilege of importing, grain duty free was continued till the 1st of February 1774. Before that time arrived, however, a new permanent system of corn laws was established; for by the 13th of George III. wheat was allowed to be imported, on paying the low duty of 6d. whenever the price in the home market was 48s. per quarter, and a bounty of 5s. per quarter was granted on exportation, whenever the price of wheat in the home market was under 445. per quarter. This act continued in force till the 31st of George III. 1791, when the importation price as well as the duty on importation were raised; the former being fixed at 50s instead of 48s. per quarter; and the latter at 2s. 6d. instead of 6d. By the same act, the exportation price of wheat and the bounty on exportation were continued the same as they had been fixed by the act of 1773. In the year 1804 the corn laws were again revised: by this act, the importation price of wheat was raised to 63s. per quarter; but the duty payable on importation, when wheat was at that price, was continued at 2s. Ed. By the same law, the exportation price of wheat was raised to 48s. a quarter, while the bounty payable on wheat exported at that price was continued at 5s. per quarter. During the session of 1812-13, a committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the corn laws, which had continued unaltered since the year 1801. This committee consisted principally of Irish members; and the evidence they examined, as well as the report which they drew up, related principally to the agricultural state and interests of lieland, and was besides very meagre and unsatisfactory. The appointment of this committee, however, excited very great alarm throughout the kingdom; and as it was naturally supposed that the corn laws would again come before parliament, |