ess of free-trade
principles. The hopes of the one party, and the fears of the other, were
heightened by the quarrel with America concerning the Oregon territory.
It was thought by all that the abolition of the corn-law would for
ever destroy all chance of war between England and the United States,
inasmuch as the latter country would see that its interest was concerned
in cultivating that great blessing of life--peace. Coming events thus
cast their broad and ample shadows before.

From the thirteenth century, downwards, there are numerous instances on
record of the interference of the legislature with the course of trade
in every department. A few centuries ago, indeed, it was usual to fix
the prices of many articles of consumption; and that of corn was more
interfered with than any other. One circumstance which led to this
interference was scarcity; and another, the want of adequate means of
internal communication, which often rendered it more profitable to the
corn-factor to ship the surplus produce of our maritime districts to a
neighbouring country, than to send it to other counties in England. As a
remedy for these evils, exportation was prohibited. But such a measure,
inasmuch as exportation would not take place except when a better
price could be got abroad than at home, was a palpable injustice to the
grower. On the other hand, when the general supply was supposed to be
more than sufficient, importation was prohibited; but as wheat could
never be imported except when it was cheaper in foreign countries than
in our own, an injustice was done to the consumer. These restrictions
failed to effect their object, and a third party was then fixed upon
as the object of further legislation; from alternately restricting
the export and import of corn, stringent restrictions were laid on the
buying and selling of corn within the country itself. The buying of corn
in one place, to sell in another, was even looked upon as an unnecessary
and improper interference on the part of the dealers. Both the farmers
and the people looked upon them as interlopers: men who had no right to
deal in corn, and who, to enhance their own gains, increased the price
without any profit to the former, and the manifest detriment of the
latter. The complaints against them were so general that the legislature
interfered. Protection to the growers of corn pervaded the legislature
down to the period of 1815; but so badly were the arrangements for this