augmentation of her harvests. Let us combine all the means which that monarchy hath put in use, for an age past, to establish its power, and we shall find that it is to this in particular that she is indebted for her elevation,"[1] In later times this reasoning has generally been considered to be as mistaken as it is paradoxical, and the effects which it attributes to the bounty system have been traced to quite other causes; but it is at least certain that, howsoever caused, a reduction rather than a rise of the price of corn did follow this artificial encouragement given to its exportation. Grain was in general, according to Charles Smith, from fifteen to twenty per cent, cheaper during the seventy years that followed the enactment of the law of 1689 than it had been for forty years before that time.[2] For some years after the Restoration the average price of wheat exceeded 50s. the quarter; nor was it under 41s. at the date of the Revolution: for the ten years ending with 1695 it appears to have been about 39s. 6d.; for the ten ending 1705, about 43s.; for the ten ending 1715, about 44s.; for the twenty ending 1735, about 35s.; for the ten ending 1745, about 32s.; and for the ten ending 1755, about 33s.
According to an account given by Davenant, the official value of our entire exports for the year 1699 was 6,788,166l. ; of which sum the woollen manufacture alone furnished not less than 2,932,292l., or considerably nearer one-half than one-third.[3] Elsewhere the same writer estimates our total exports to France in that year at 103,961l.; in 1700 at 287,049l.; and in 1701 at 213,004l.: the values of the imports from that country being 76,272l. for 1699; 94,641l. for 1700; and 123,940l. for 1701.[4] The only articles he particularizes are, among the exports, woollen goods and lead; among the imports,
