on the ground that it not only diminished the English customs, but also weakened the dependence of the Colony on the mother country. This was the argument advanced at a later time in the case of tobacco, and it would under similar circumstances have been brought forward in the ease of wheat.
All the disadvantages involved in the destruction of the forest, the early exhaustion of the fertility of the soil, the inability to produce in great abundance, the fewness of implements and draught animals, the heavy expense of transportation and the lowness of prices, which would have prevented the adoption of wheat as the staple crop in the earliest years of colonial history, operated with equal force in the case of maize. In addition to these drawbacks, this grain had a still more serious obstacle to overcome before it could find an introduction into the markets of either England or Holland. Unlike wheat, it was, previous to the discovery of America, unknown to the people of Europe, and although not inferior in quality to the rye and barley used as food by the European peasantry, was rejected by the prejudices of this conservative class. The only foreign commendation maize appears to have received in the time of the London Company was in 1618 from the East India Corporation, which described it as being more excellently adapted for consumption by seamen than beef, because more wholesome. This testimony was probably not altogether impartial, as this company was anxious to promote the success of the Virginian enterprise.[1] Indian corn has never acquired extensive popularity abroad, although with the cheapened transportation of our own times, it has been put within reach of the most indigent European laborers at the same price at which they are able to purchase the grains upon
- ↑ Minute Book East India Company, p. 306.
