higher than in others, such a premium might obviously after a time
have some tendency to create a temporary abundance of corn and a
consequent fall in its price. But restrictions upon importation
cannot have the slightest tendency of this kind. Their whole effect
is to stint the supply of the general market, and to raise, not to
lower, the price of corn.

Nor is it in their nature permanently to secure what is of more
consequence, steadiness of prices. During the period indeed, in
which the country is obliged regularly to import some foreign grain,
a high duty upon it is effectual in steadily keeping up the price of
home corn, and giving a very decided stimulus to agriculture. But as
soon as the average supply becomes equal to the average consumption,
this steadiness ceases. A plentiful year will occasion a sudden
fall; and from the average price of the home produce being so much
higher than in the other markets of Europe, such a fall can be but
little relieved by exportation. It must be allowed, that a free
trade in corn would in all ordinary cases not only secure a cheaper,
but a more steady, supply of grain.

To counterbalance these striking advantages of a free trade in corn,
what are the evils which are apprehended from it?

It is alleged, first, that security is of still more importance than
wealth, and that a great country likely to excite the jealousy of
others, if it become dependent for the support of any
considerable portion of people upon foreign corn, exposes itself to
the risk of having its most essential supplies suddenly fail at the
time of its greatest need. That such a risk is not very great will
be readily allowed. It would be as much against the interest of