To put some stop to the progressive loss of agricultural capital,
which is now taking place, and which it will be by no means easy to
recover, it might be advisable to pass a temporary act of
restriction, whatever may be the intention of the legislature in
future. But, certainly it is much to be wished that as soon as
possible, consistently with due deliberation, the permanent policy
intended to be adopted with regard to the trade in corn should be
finally settled. Already, in the course of little more than a
century, three distinct changes in this policy have taken place. The
act of William, which gave the bounty, combined with the prohibitory
act of Charles II was founded obviously and strikingly upon the
principle of encouraging exportation and discouraging importation;
the spirit of the regulations adopted in 1773, and acted upon some
time before, was nearly the reverse, and encouraged importation and
discouraged exportation. Subsequently, as if alarmed at the
dependence of the country upon foreign corn, and the fluctuations of
price which it had occasioned, the legislature in a feeble act of
1791, and rather a more effective one in 1804, returned again to the
policy of restrictions. And if the act of 1804 be left now
unaltered, it may be fairly said that a fourth change has taken
place; as it is quite certain that, to proceed consistently upon a
restrictive system, fresh regulations become absolutely necessary to
keep pace with the progressive fall in the value of currency.

Such changes in the spirit of our legislative enactments are much to
be deprecated; and with a view to a greater degree of steadiness in
future, it is quite necessary that we should be so fully prepared
for the consequences which belong to each system, as not to have our
determinations shaken by them, when they occur.