(3.xvii.7) Now it is certain, as has been already abundantly proved, that no commodity,which can be made at home, will ever be imported from a foreign country, unless it can be obtained byimportation with a smaller quantity of labour, that is, cost, than it could be produced with athome. That it is desirable to have commodities produced with as small a cost of labour aspossible seems to be not only certain, but admitted. This is the object of all the improvementsthat are aimed at in production, by the division and distribution of labour, by refined methods ofculture applied to the land, by the invention of more potent and skilful machines. It seems,indeed, to be a selfevident proposition, that whatever the quantity, which a nation possesses ofthe means of production, the more productive they can possibly be rendered, so much the better;for this is neither more nor less than saying, that to have, all the objects we desire, and to havethem with little trouble, is good for mankind.
(3.xvii.8) Not only is it certain, that in a state of freedom no commodity, which can be madeat home, will ever be imported, unless it can be imported with a less quantity, or cost, of labourthan it could be produced with at home; but, whatever is the country from which it can beobtained with the smallest cost of labour, to that recourse will be had for obtaining it; andwhatever the commodity, by the exportation of which, it can be obtained with the smallestquantity of home labour, that is the commodity, which will be exported in exchange. Thisresults, so obviously, from the laws of trade, as not to require explanation. It is no more thansaying, that the merchants, if left to themselves, will always buy in the cheapest market, and sellin the dearest.
(3.xvii.9) It seems, therefore, to be fully established, that the business of production andexchange, if left to choose its own channels, is sure to choose those, which are mostadvantageous to the community. It is sure to choose those channels, in which the commodities,which the community desires to obtain, are obtained with the smallest cost. To obtain thecommodities, which man desires, and to obtain them with the smallest cost, is the whole of thegood which the business of production and exchange, considered simply as such, is calculated toyield. In whatever degree, therefore, the business of production and exchange is forced out of thechannels into which it would go of its own accord, to that degree the advantages arising fromproduction and exchange are sacrificed; or, at any rate, postponed to something else. If there isany case, in which they ought to be postponed to something else, that is a question of politics,and not of political economy.
(3.xvii.10) There is no subject, upon which the policy of the restrictive and prohibitivesystem has been maintained with greater obstinacy, and with a greater quantity of sophistry, than that ofthe trade in corn. There can, however, be no doubt, that corn never will be imported, unlesswhen it can be obtained from abroad with a smaller quantity of labour than it can be producedwith at home. All the good, therefore, which is obtained from the importation of any commodity,capable of being produced at home, is obtained from the importation of corn. Why should thatadvantage which, in the case of corn, owing to the diversities of soil and extent of population, isliable to be much greater than in the case of any other commodity, be denied to the community?
(3.xvii.11) The reasons, upon which the advocates for a restriction of the corn trade chieflysupport themselves, are two; neither is of any value.
(3.xvii.12) The first is, that unless the nation derive its corn from its own soil, it may, by theenmity of its neighbours, be deprived of its foreign supply, and reduced to the greatest distress.
This argument implies an ignorance both of history, and of principle: Of history, because, inpoint of fact, those countries which have depended the most upon foreign countries for theirsupply of corn, have enjoyed beyond all other countries, the advantage of a steady and invariablemarket for grain : Of principle, because it follows unavoidably, if what, in one country is afavourable, is in other countries an unfavourable season, that obtaining a great part of its supplyfrom various countries is the best security a nation can have against the extensive and distressingfluctuations which the variety of seasons is calculated to produce. Nor is the policy involved inthis argument better than the political economy. It sacrifices a real good, to escape the chance ofa chimerical evil : an evil so much the less to be apprehended, that the country, from whichanother derives its supply of corn, is scarcely less dependant upon that other country for a vent toits produce, than the purchasing country is for its supply. It will not be pretended, that a glut ofcorn, in any country, from the loss of a great market, with that declension of price, that ruin ofthe farmers, and that depression of rents, which are its unavoidable consequences, is animmaterial evil.
(3.xvii.13) The second reason, upon which the advocates of the corn monopoly supportthemselves, is, that, if the merchants and manufacturers enjoy in certain cases the monopoly ofthe home supply, the farmers and landlords are subject to injustice, when a similar monopoly isnot bostowed upon them. In the first place, it may be observed, that, if this argument is good forthe growers of corn, it is good for every other species of producers whatsoever; if, because a taxis imposed upon the importation of woollens, a tax ought to be imposed upon the importation ofcorn, a tax ought also to be imposed upon the importation of every thing, which the country canproduce; the country ought, in short, to have no foreign commerce, except in those articlesalone, which it has not the means of producing.
