245

NOTE VII.

CLOSE RELATION BETWEEN THE FOREIGN CORN TRADE OF ENGLAND AND THE FOREIGN TRADE OF CHINA.

Object of the English in a free corn trade-very cheap corn not raised except by slaves-why sodirect trade between English manufacturers and the producers of cheap corn, must be very limited-indirect trade for procuring cheap corn, by means of direct trade with the Chinese empire.

THE foreign corn trade of England and the foreign trade of the Chinese empire appear, at first sight, to be subjects not closely related; but a very brief enquiry will show the most intimate connection between them.

A free trade in corn would be of but little service to the English, if there were not plenty of people in the world ready to buy English manu factured goods with cheap corn. To every trade there must be two parties: he who sells must buy, and he who buys must sell. The English can produce very cheap cotton and woollen goods, and very cheap hardware; but of what service would it be to them to produce more of these

cheap things, without a market in which they could be exchanged for cheap corn? It is very important, therefore, with reference to the foreign corn trade of England, to see who in the world are the producers of the cheapest corn.

Very cheap corn is not produced any where, in large quantities, except by the labour of slaves, black or white, called slaves or serfs. This is a fact so well known, that as a fact one need not dwell on it; but why is it that serfs in Poland and slaves in America produce cheaper corn than freemen anywhere?

More than one English economist would perhaps say, that the peculiar cheapness of slavegrown corn is owing to the cheapness of slavelabour; the wages of such labour consisting only of a bare subsistence for the labourer. But in what country, except North America and some new colonies, do the wages of free labour employed in agriculture, much exceed a bare subsistence for the labourer? Perhaps, speaking generally, it might be shown, that slaves have more to subsist on than free labourers employed in agriculture, as undoubtedly farm-horses in England, being a valuable property, are better fed than English peasants. But, it might be said, the subsistence of slaves, though more in quantity, is less in cost, by reason of the cheapness of the produce of their labour on which they live. To say this, however, would be to put the

effect for the cause. ing the prime cost of slaves, a very important point, their stupidity, the cost of curing them when ill, and of maintaining them during sickness, their carelessness, and the great cost of keeping them in order, with the loss occasioned by the total escape of some of them and the cost of getting back some who escape; taking all these points into consideration, it will be seen that the labour of slaves is dearer than that of freemen, though the produce of their labour be cheaper. If labour were the only element of production, this contradiction could not occur; the labour being dear, the produce could not be cheap. But land also is an element of production. Wherever very cheap corn is produced, land is very cheap; and though in such cases the corn be raised by slaves, its cheapness seems attributable to the cheapness, not of the labour which raises it, but of the land on which it is raised. Still it will be asked, if this were the case, why should not very cheap corn be raised by free labourers on cheap land. Because, I answer, where land is very cheap and all men are free, where every one who so pleases can easily obtain a piece of land for himself, not only is labour very dear, as respects the labourers' share of the produce, but the difficulty is to obtain combined labour at any price. As the two greyhounds running together catch more hares than

In the next place, consider

four running separately, so the labour of slaves, though dear compared with that of free labourers in most countries, is, being combined, much more productive, in proportion to the number of hands employed, than the divided labour of freemen wherever land is very cheap. This explains why slavery and great cheapness of land have generally existed together; showing besides, that the cheapness of corn raised by slaves is owing, not to the cheapness of slave-labour, but to the cheapness of land; that same cheapness of land being also the cause of slavery. I have dwelt fully on this point in a note on the origin, progress and prospects, of slavery in America.

Now the master of slaves and serfs would not be apt to produce cheap corn for the English market, if they had no prospect of being paid for it except with English manufactured goods. A Polish or Russian noble, or a slave owner in Virginia, if he were to exchange the produce of his land directly with a Manchester manufacturer for the produce of steam engines, would hardly know what to do with his purchase. The English will be able to obtain a great deal of very cheap corn, only by an indirect trade; selling their manufactured goods where such things are in great request, for things which are in great request with the producers of cheap corn; just as the Genoese buy corn and meat in Piedmont with salt-fish and hard money, which they first

obtain by means of trade with North and South America. By what indirect, and perhaps very complicated traffic, cheap corn would come to England in consequence of cheap manufactured goods going from England, the English government need not enquire: that is a point which may safely be left to the traders, and any meddling with it by the government could not but be hurtful. But, whether there be in the world a sufficient demand for manufactured goods to enable the English to obtain cheap corn by some indirect trade, is a question of the greatest moment to the whole people. Further, if there be any foreign restriction on the foreign demand for English manufactured goods, restrictions, which it is in the power of the English government to remove, interference for that purpose is a proper office, à bounden duty of government. The nation who, but for the existence of certain restrictions on trade, would probably buy the greatest amount of English manufactured goods, are the Chinese; and it so happens that the Chinese possess a good deal of that commodity, which, being in great request every where, would be readily exchanged for cheap corn, namely, silver. Thus between the question examined in the following note and that of the English foreign corn trade, there is a close and very important relation.*

See, further, Note on the Art of Colonization.