and which he finally brought to so happy a consummation. He commenced the building in 1509, and completed it about five years afterwards; though, it is said, not without great opposition from the narrow-minded few who build their empire on the ignorance of the many. This benevolent and pious prelate was the eldest son of Sir Henry Collet, knt. Mercer, who was twice Lord Mayor of London. A summary of Dr. Collet's character has thus been given: "He was a complete Christian philosopher, and capable of the most rigid selfdenial; a conqueror of himself-another Socrates: though inclined by nature to love luxury, somnolency, fond of wine and levity, avaricious and high-spirited, he yet mastered all those propensities, through a mental conviction of the pernicious consequences attending their indulgence, so effectually, that he was chaste, abstemious, an early riser, temperate, grave, generous, and meek, even to the bearing reproof from his own servant."

Whilst he was at Oxford, he became acquainted with the learned Frasmus; and the boldness with which they canvassed the abuses of the Catholic hierarchy, contributed much to the advancement of the Reformation; so much so, indeed, that the bishops and vicars of his own church would gladly have consigned the dean to the stake and martyrdom, if his enlightened and powerful friends, combined with the undeviating regularity of his own conduct, had not preserved him. He was buried in St. Paul's church, under a monument erected by himself in the south aisle of the choir.

The foundation of this school is thus described by Erasmus, in a letter written by him to Justin Jonas: "The wise and sagacious founder saw that the greatest hopes and happiness of the Commonwealth were in the training up children to good letters, and true religion, for which purpose he laid out an immense sum of money; and after he had finished all, he left the perpetual care and oversight of the estate, not to the clergy, not to the bishop, not to the

chapter, not to any great minister at court, but amongst the married laymen-to the Company of Mercers, men of probity and reputation; and when he was asked the reason of so committing the trust, he answered to this effect that there was no certainty in human affairs; but for his part, he found less corruption in such a body of citizens, than in any other order or degree of mankind.'

The dean left particular instructions for the government and regulation of the school, and directed that children of all nations and countries indifferently should be taught, and limited the number of scholars to one hundred and fifty-three, in allusion to the fish taken by St. Peter.*

The ancient school was destroyed in the great fire in 1666; it was rebuilt in 1670 by the active zeal of the Mercers' Company, under the particular direction of the warden of the school: the present edifice has been erected by the same highly respectable Company, whose zeal time has not abated, nor change dimi nished.

The present masters are, the Rev. Dr. Sleath, head master; the Rev. W. A. C. Durham, head master of the lower school; the Rev. J. P. Bean, second master of the upper school; the Rev. J. Cooper, second master of the lower school.

This is a free school, and confined to that mode of tuition alone which is strictly classical; and without any other charge than the payment of one shilling on the entrance of each boy, and the cost of their books. The admission of scholars is in the Mercers' Company; the surveyor or accomptant, one of the court of assistants, being the officer delegated by them to nominate, during his year of office. Scholars are admitted to the age of fifteen; but at present no boy is eligible to an exhibition, if he is admitted after the age of twelve; and it is probable that some further alteration will be made in the admission of boys, as to their eligibility to exhibitions, and an earlier period than twelve will most likely be fixed.

It is really astonishing that the true cause of such a mistake should not have been mentioned at some of the numberless meetings which have from time to time taken place, to consider the agricultural question. What can be more self-evident than that the tenants have the advantage of their landlords during a progressive RISE in prices? Whatever was the price by which the rent was regulated, the same lasted only for a few months; and the rent being fixed for 7 or 14 years, the tenant was benefitting by the rise, at a rate, and to an amount, of which he himself was frequently unconscious. If the tenant's rent was after the rate of 40 shillings the quarter for wheat in 1790, the average of the next seven years was perhaps 56 shillings: thus, then, he had the advantage of a rise, which is allowed to be equal to 24 shillings an acre, on the average of all kinds of land, which, to the occupier of 1,000 acres, was a yearly addition of 1,200/.!!! In 1797, however, his lease expires, and the landlord, with the assistance of the surveyor, screws up the rent to the rate of 64 instead of 56 shillings the quarter, as the price of wheat for the next seven years. Here, then, we have the tenant hardly dealt with, and perhaps a loser for the first year; but corn, and all kinds of farm-produce continue to rise, not only to the scale of 64 shillings the quarter for wheat, but 72 or 80 shillings: here, then, is the tenaut once more a day or two's march before his landlord, and so things go on until the tenant cannot go any farther, and then the landlord gets up with him.

During such progressive advance, the tenant has, and always must have, the advantage of the high prices; but the moment he gets to the summit, the prospect changes; high prices are no longer to benefit the tenant. The landlord has overtaken him; the future rent must, and inevitably will, be such as the competition amongst the takers will produce at the time's prices, and the rent, whether wheat be at 40 shillings, 80 shillings, or 120 shillings the quarter, will be such as scarcely to give the farmer a decent living, for such is the natural conse

quence of competition. Of what difference, then, is it to him which of the three be the price? if there be a difference, the lowest price is the best, as being the most likely to give him the chance of a rise in the market, and as requiring the lesser quantity of capital, thereby enabling him to occupy a greater portion of land-to embark in some other business as well as farming-to place out part of the capital at interest, which, with high prices, he must necessarily employ on his farm without increasing his comforts; or, if any part of his capital were borrowed, to pay it off. If, then, the high prices be rather injurious than beneficial to the tenants, they should have joined those who petitioned against the Corn Laws, rather than have been the dupes of their landlords. The consumers are the persons to whom the farmer must look for a market, and not to the landlords, who, in general, grow enough for their own consumption, or emigrate to other climes to avoid those high prices themselves have created, to spend in rival countries those high rents, the result of artificial prices; whereby the country is not only the victim of a double drain of cash half yearly, but the whole (being so spent abroad) is a loss of so much to the nation----a loss which some have computed at 50,000l. per day, or 18,250,000l. yearly!!! The bad effects of impoverishing the country by high prices are numberless, and the magnitude of the evil beyond the power of man to describe. When corn is dear, the consumers view the farmer (unjustly) with an evil eye. The poor-rates are naturally large, when the price of the common necessaries of life are beyond the means which the poor have of procuring them. The pressure of the increased expense of house-keeping, makes it difficult for the middling classes (who are, after all, the greatest tax-payers) to pay their taxes, and reduces many a respectable family to

Bad bread is one of the effects of corn-law monopoly, and the consequent high prices: warehoused wheat and stale four cannot make good bread.

beggary and ruin. The more the people pay for food, the less they have to purchase raiment, furniture, or for any other purpose.

The manufacturer, although last, is not the least sufferer from the artificial high prices; artificial, because the only natural price is such which free ports would produce. The manufacturer who has 500 persons in his employ, must give them, on the average at the least two-pence per day more than the foreign manufacturer, solely on the ground of their food being dearer; that is, 1,000 pence, or 4 guineas per day, 24 guineas per week, or, at the least, 1,300l yearly. How is it possible that the English manufacturer can, with this burthen upon him, compete with the foreigner? Surely, such policy must be bad, and in the end injure the landed proprietor; for as the people become more enlightened, they will emigrate from a nonopoly so cruel, so unjust, so impolitic, and dishonest; consumption will be reduced below the supply, and then the prices, even of other countries, will not be obtained. The best permanent protection to agriculture is the unrestricted trade and commerce of the country, the persons employed in which, furnish the market for the produce of the land. Much has been said about protecting trade, and not protecting agriculture; such a thing is utterly impossible. To support trade and commerce, is to keep the consumers in the kingdom, and to furnish them with the means to pay for what they do consume; this the ancestors of our landed gentry clearly saw, and wisely prohibited the exportation of our wool, until it were manufactured, well knowing, that if they lost the penny in the price of the wool, they would get the pound by the consumption of the manufacturers of it; but our present country gentlemen are penny wise. The great difference between the Corn Laws and the protection to trade is, that the latter, instead of

* Some say the difference in wages is sixpence per day, or nearly 4,000%. a. year, on a manufacturer who employs 300 persons.

being at the expense of the agriculturist, is absolutely for his benefit, and at the expense of foreigners, whilst the former is at the cost of those very persons who provide a market for food, which consequently must tend to de populate the country, and thus operate ultimately to the injury of those it was meant to protect.

And what is the plea for such protection the taxes, they say-the increased burthen of taxation.

But

why are the agriculturists to expect to be protected against taxation any more than any other class? To the land-tax, tithes, and poor-rates the lands were subject when purchased, and when wheat was 2s. 6d. or 3s. per bushel; against those charges, therefore, they were protected, as they would be against a mortgage charge in the amount of their purchase price, without saying any thing about the natural increase of quantity and price which has taken place in the last century, arising from various causes, the greatest of which, is the increase of that trading and manufacturing population which the modern landlords are now foolishly striving to diminish by means of corn-law monopoly as for the other taxes, they are chiefly borne by the non-agriculturists, who, for that reason, are much more entitled to a protection against high prices, as the payment of high taxes and dear food is a double burthen on them; but, admitting that the taxes are equally borne, what then is the effect of the Corn Laws? To indemnify the agriculturist against his share of the taxes simply? No. He not only gets rid of his taxes, but he throws them on his supporters (the nonagriculturists), in addition to their own share of the public burthens. And is it simply the amount of the

If a return of the poor-rates were ordered and made, distinguishing that portion which is charged in large towns, manufacturing districts, villages, &c. (where the greatest number of the poor are to be found), upon houses, lands, for finding trading and pleasure horses, canals, woods, &c., from that portion which is charged upon farms, it would be found that this charge is not so heavy on agriculture as has been represented.

taxes of the agriculturists which is thus thrown on the non-agriculturists? Certainly not. The landlords only, and not the tenants, are the persons benefitted by the monopoly. The lands of the United Kingdom are estimated at seventy millions of acres; allowing each proprietor to have five thousand acres, this would give fourteen thousand landlords, which, with their families, may be about one out of one hundred of the population. If all persons paid equally as a poll-tax, the landlords and their families would only pay a one-hundredth part of the taxes; but, suppose they paid a tenth part, including tithe, land-tax, and rates, against which they were protected at the time of purchase, in the same manner as against a mortgage, or rent charge, being subject thereto at the time of such purchase ;-suppose, however, a tenth part be charged on them, the amount is about five millions. Now, let us see what the consumers, who are not to be indemnified from taxation, let us see what they are paying to indemnify the landlords from taxation. Wheat now (March,* 1824), is full two shillings per bushel dearer than if the trade were free, and all other things are sure to be in proportion to the price of wheat. It is allowed that on the average of the kingdom, land will bear twenty bushels of wheat to the acre, which, at two shillings advance, is two pounds per acre. Barley and oats are more in quantity to the acre; so that, although two shillings rise in the bushel of wheat will not produce full two shillings per bushel rise in barley or oats, yet the acreable increase in price would be about the same, i. e. two pounds per acre; so also is the turnip-crop, seeds, hay, &c. &c., increased in value in about the same proportion. However, take only three acres out of five, at two pounds each, that is, six pounds, add the other two acres

* Our readers will please to bear in mind, that the correspondent to whom we are indebted for these remarks, wrote this in the month of March last. -EDIT.

at nothing, and divide six pounds by five acres; this gives a moderate average of one pound four shillings per acre, which, on seventy millions of acres, is only EIGHTY-FOUR MILLIONS YEARLY, full nine-tenths of which go from the non-agriculturists to the landlords.

Thus is the price of food artificially raised eighty-four millions, to indemnify against five millions of taxes! which, by the way, the agriculturists ought to pay, as well as the nonagriculturists ought to pay their taxes. If it be necessary to import agricultural produce, the expense of producing it in the English market is more than a protection. Why should not the English eat their bread as cheap, at least, as foreigners? But this they cannot do, as the lands are indemnified from taxation by the expences of importation; it is therefore unnecessary to oppress them further by corn-laws. Let it then be asked, can corn be conveyed from the market in any foreign country to the sea-port for exportation, there be shipped and put into an English port, then be taken into the market, with the expense of warehousing, merchants' profits, &c.; can all this be done for less than sixpence per bushel? That must rise the price of the home produce sixpence per bushel, the same as a duty to that amount would do, which, by the foregoing calculation, would amount to twenty-one millions. Is not this a sufficient protection against five millions of taxes? Perhaps we may be told that the landlords, and their tenants, and their labourers too, must be indemnified-that they are all privileged persons: will they say so? If they venture it, I say all of them together do not pay twenty-one millions, nor are the tenants, or any persons other than the landlords, benefitted by the high prices; but, on the contrary, injured. The Corn Laws operate to the injury of the FARMER

The adoption of a duty instead of the averages, would only be trifling with the subject: the market must be free, or the commerce of the country will be lost.