which would have largely increased the revenue, and at the same time
have admitted of large decrease of taxation, had been restricted by
unwise commercial legislation, having its origin in distant times and in
a different state of society. The interests of the landowners and
agriculturists were so closely connected with the predominance of the
Tory party, and they had played so large a part in the conduct of
England of late years, that the agriculturists had succeeded in making
good the advantages of their class to the detriment of all others. They
claimed nothing less than the exclusive right of supplying the whole
nation with food, and by their clamour and influence in the House of
Commons had succeeded in procuring corn laws which went far to secure
them that monopoly. But meanwhile, within the last fifty years, the
manufacturing interest, principally through the introduction of
machinery, had relatively enormously increased. In the twenty years
between 1811 and 1831, while the agricultural population increased but
2½ per cent., the manufacturing population had increased 31½ per cent.
The time was rapidly approaching when the growing and increasing
manufacturing and commercial element would of necessity claim its due
position in opposition to the landed aristocracy. But at present the
manufacturers themselves, ignorant of the true principles of political
economy, were constantly seeking the benefit of their own class as
distinguished from that of the general public, and restrictive, or, as
they were called, protective, laws were extended over nearly every
branch of industry.
[Sidenote: Changes effected by Robinson and Huskisson.]
Robinson, an exceedingly well-meaning man, had succeeded Vansittart as
Chancellor of the Exchequer. But his plans and resources extended but
little beyond those of his predecessor. He accepted and kept in
operation some of his most unwise financial measures, and, without any
change of general view, continued, what was no doubt a good thing in its
way, to remit occasionally various small taxes. But he had beside him
Huskisson as President of the Board of Trade, who acted in a very
different spirit. Like his friend Canning, who gave him his full
support, he was a self-made man, and belonging to none of the prominent
ruling classes, was able to look at matters in a broader and more
national light. And though, like his friend, he was constantly spoken
of as an adventurer, and in consequence had to undergo much opposition,
he was able by the reasonableness of his views, and by the success which
attended their execution, to launch England upon a new course of
commercial policy, as Canning had been able to do with regard to foreign
affairs. As yet free trade as a whole was not to be thought of, but
Huskisson took every advantage of the demands of various classes of
industrialists to introduce small reforms. In his first year of office,
though he indicated the tendency of his policy, he was not able to
affect much except with regard to the navigation laws. The three great
industries of England were wool, silk, and cotton. Of these cotton alone
had been left unrestricted, and there alone had a very remarkable
increase been seen. In the wool trade considerable depression having
been felt, numerous petitions from manufacturers were presented begging
for the free importation of foreign wool, but at the same time asking
that the export of British wool should be forbidden; in other words,
claiming to buy the raw material of their manufacture at a price
artificially lowered. Government replied that the import tax was a
valuable source of revenue, but that it should be willingly foregone if
free export was allowed also. As the manufacturers declined this, the
movement for the present dropped. In the same way an attempt was made to
free the Spitalfields silk manufacture from restrictions, such as the
settlement of their wages by the magistrates. It was plain that as long
as wages were not allowed to change with the varying requirements of the
trade, the manufacturers were under disadvantages as compared with their
rivals elsewhere. But 11,000 of the journeymen petitioned against this
change, and although the Bill passed the Lower House by small
majorities, it was so altered by amendments in the Upper House that
Huskisson thought fit to drop it.
[Sidenote: Change of the Navigation Act. June 1823.]
In dealing with the Navigation Act he was more successful. This law,
passed in Cromwell's time, and completed in the 12th of Charles II.,
allowed the produce of Asia, Africa, and America to be brought to
England in English ships only, and European goods only in English ships
or in ships of the country producing the goods. The close of the
American War had given the first blow to this system. American shipping,
now become the shipping of a foreign country, was subject to the
restrictions of the Act. The Americans retaliated, and the ships of both
countries had to perform one half of the voyage empty; the consumers
therefore paid double freight. This absurdity continued till the Treaty
of Ghent in 1814, when the Governments agreed to drop their
restrictions. The course which had been successful with America was
subsequently adopted by the mercantile states of Europe. Portugal, the
Netherlands, and Prussia, all raised the dues on British vessels, and
Huskisson, on the 6th of June 1823, took the opportunity of introducing
the Bill known by the name of the Reciprocity of Duties Bill, by which
the ships of British and foreign powers were put upon an equal footing,
the right being retained to keep up restrictive duties upon the ships of
nations who rejected the reciprocal equality of trade thus offered. The
outcry against this change was very great, especially among the
shipowners, whose business was trammelled by the heavy duty on Baltic
timber. Huskisson expressed a hope that this duty might shortly be
remitted, and meanwhile offered to return to shipbuilders all the duties
paid on their materials. The offer was declined, and the grumbling
continued, nevertheless the increase of British ships was enormous; in
the last nineteen years of the restrictive duties the tonnage had
increased ten per cent.; in twenty-one years after their abolition it
increased forty-five per cent.
[Sidenote: Improvement in the silk trade. March 1824.]
The first failure of his plans did not dishearten Huskisson, and the
prosperity of the year 1824 enabled him to carry Bills for the relief
both of the wool and silk trades. The silk trade had been principally
established in England by the persecuted Protestants in 1685, and to
support it laws had been passed excluding from England foreign silks,
which had previously been admitted free. Early in the eighteenth century
the spinning of silk in the Italian method had been introduced by two
brothers of the name of Lombe; to protect them heavy duties were laid
upon foreign-spun silk. The material for the manufacture of silk goods
was thus raised in price, and the manufacture had languished for many
years, especially after the introduction of cotton. The production of
spun silk in India, whence it was very plentifully supplied, had lately
improved this state of things; it was believed that at this time 400,000
people were employed in the manufacture of silk goods. But there was a
distinct preference for silks of French manufacture, and the smuggling
of such goods into England was a serious damage both to the trade and to
the revenue. The silk manufacturers, especially those about London, had
immediately, upon Huskisson's accession to office, petitioned for the
removal of duties on spun silk, but at the same time, with true class
feeling, were eager to exclude foreign manufactured silks. In the same
way the silk spinners were eager for the removal of duties upon raw
silk, but bitterly opposed to the introduction of spun silk, while the
journeymen believed that ruin stared them in the face if foreign
manufactured silks were introduced. Between these varying interests
Huskisson had to steer his course. The duty on raw silk was immediately
reduced to threepence from five and sevenpence halfpenny the pound. The
clamour was too great to allow of a similar reduction in the duties on
spun silk, which were lowered about half, from fourteen and eightpence
to seven and sixpence; and similarly, though Mr. Huskisson wished for an
immediate change, the admission of foreign manufactured silks was
postponed for two years, when they were to be admitted at an _ad
valorem_ duty of thirty per cent. The outcry against the change was
great; the workmen thanked the House for the temporary postponement of
the day of their destruction; the manufacturers expressed a hope that
they should get out of the trade before the fatal day arrived. But the
event thoroughly proved the wisdom of Huskisson's plans, and the truth
of his prophecy that competition only was wanted to enable English
manufacturers to rival the French; ten years after the passing of the
Bill England exported to France £60,000 worth of manufactured silk.
[Sidenote: Improvement in the wool trade.]
The duties on wool, which came next into consideration, were of newer
creation. In 1803 it had been subjected to a tax of a halfpenny a pound,
raised by Mr. Vansittart in 1819 to sixpence. The same variety of
interests was here at work as in the silk trade. The agriculturists and
wool-growers wished for the retention of duties to secure a monopoly of
the supply of wool, the manufacturers, to whom foreign wool for certain
purposes is an absolute necessity, wished for free importation, but for
the retention of an export duty to keep the price of English wool low.
With perfect justice Mr. Huskisson determined to relieve both classes.
Foreign wool was admitted, according to its excellence, at a penny or a
halfpenny a pound; English wool might be exported at a similar rate.
Again the effect justified his view. The fear of a large exportation of
English wool proved so completely groundless that by 1826 only 100,000
pounds weight had been exported, while 40,000,000 pounds of foreign wool
had been introduced. The low price of wool of which the growers had
complained had been caused by the increase of the article in England and
the general slackness of the trade; the large introduction of foreign
wool had enabled the British producers to sell all their stock at
remunerative prices to be worked up with it.
[Sidenote: Reintroduction of the question of slavery.]
[Sidenote: Effect of Canning's circular in Jamaica.]
[Sidenote: Persecution of Mr. Smith.]
As befitted the dawning liberality of the English legislation, the
question of the slave trade now again came prominently forward. It was
indeed the late changes in commercial legislation which again brought it
into notice. Since the opening of the Indian trade in April 1814 a
complete alteration had taken place in the character of our commerce
with that country. Originally restricted to Indian produce paid for in
bullion, it had lately become much extended; India received from England
woollen goods to the value of a million and a half, and strangely enough
even cotton goods, originally an Indian production, to the value of
upwards of a million. But as the duties on East India sugar were higher
than those charged on West India sugar, India was practically unable to
pay for the goods thus imported with its sugar. It was urged in
Parliament, that as the power of India to receive English goods was
limited only by what it could give in exchange, one great source of
purchasing power was thus denied it, and that an equality of duties
should be established. Of course the West India interests were violent
in opposition, but while objecting to the change at present, Huskisson
allowed that the production of slave labour was more costly than that of
free labour, and that slavery was not only a crime but a commercial
mistake. This confession called the abolitionists again into activity.
They had already succeeded in getting the trade condemned by most
civilized nations, and the slave who touched English ground was free;
but the institution continued in all its severity in our own colonies.
Sir Fowell Buxton, who now became the prominent supporter of abolition,
brought in a resolution (May 15, 1823) declaring that slavery should be
gradually abolished throughout the British colonies. Gradual abolition
presents great difficulties. It is not logical, as slavery is either
right or wrong; it is difficult to carry out, because slaves still left
unenfranchized, while others are freed, are naturally discontented.
Canning therefore distinctly objected to the motion; he declared that no
half measures were possible, and that as for immediate abolition the
Constitution of England was against it. At the same time he proposed
resolutions declaring the expediency of improving the condition of the
slaves preparatory to freedom. This was followed up in a circular issued
on the 24th of May 1823, ordering the cessation of the use of the whip
in the field and of the flogging of women. The circular excited great
anger among the planters, the House of Assembly in Jamaica began to talk
of independence and of addressing the King to remove Lord Bathurst, the
Colonial Secretary. In Barbadoes the mean whites, that is, those who
possessed no slaves and who were the outcasts of society, rose in riot,
and razed to the ground the chapel of a missionary who had spoken of
them as an ignorant and depraved class. In Demerara the purport of the
circular and the way in which it was spoken of by the planters came to
the ears of the negroes, and caused a rising (Aug. 18), which was only
kept from becoming a dangerous insurrection by the influence of an
Independent missionary of the name of Smith. In two days the riot was
quelled, with considerable bloodshed and nearly fifty executions of
negroes. But the importance of the affair lies chiefly in the conduct of
the whites and the Government of the island towards Mr. Smith. There had
already been some efforts made to injure the influence of the dissenting
missionaries, who had been most active in instructing the negroes, and
although a clergyman of the Episcopalian Church who was in Demerara gave
full testimony of Mr. Smith's excellence, he was apprehended, kept in a
disgraceful prison for two months, and then died of his hardships (Feb.
6, 1824). Before he died he had been sentenced to death, as having been
aware of the intended rising. The sentence of the court-martial was
quashed in England, but before the news arrived he was dead. The
treatment of Smith in his imprisonment, and of his widow, who was not
even allowed to be present at his funeral, was marked by great cruelty,
and his death was followed by a meeting of slave-owners, who petitioned
that all missionaries should be expelled from the colony, and prohibited
from coming there for the future. In fact, they declared that any
attempt to improve the moral or intellectual condition of the slaves was
undesirable and a crime against the planters. The shock given by this
violent action to the public feeling in England virtually secured the
predominance of abolitionist views.
[Sidenote: Misery caused by wild speculation. 1825.]
The years 1823 and 1824 were thus marked by a distinct advance in
liberality on the part of the English Government. But the beneficent
action of Huskisson's legislation was postponed during the following
year by a period of unexampled distress. During the past year there had
been much hope of increased prosperity. The opening of new markets in
South America had excited the hope of speedy profits, and introduced a
spirit of rash speculation which has more than once disastrously
affected British commerce. The consequence was the very rapid formation
of a vast number of joint-stock companies, with their attendant symptoms
of unprincipled stock-jobbing and dishonesty on the part of financial
agents and promoters of companies. It is impossible not to be reminded
of the similar excitement in the time of the South Sea Bubble,--again
acts of fabulous folly were performed; it is said that in their
eagerness to get a sale for British goods both warming-pans and skates
were exported in considerable numbers to the Tropics; while a company of
Scotch milk-maids was formed and transferred to Buenos Ayres, where,
after conquering the preliminary difficulty of milking wild cattle, it
was found that the inhabitants would not eat butter, and preferred the
oil of their own country. Though many schemes to be carried on in
foreign parts did not even take the trouble to secure charters, 286
private Bills were passed in the session of 1825. The speculation was
assisted by a great apparent profusion of money, and by the careless
action of both the Bank of England and the private provincial banks. In
spite of signs that gold and silver were leaving the country, the Bank
of England continued to increase its issue of notes, and the provincial
banks followed its example; there was far too much paper money in the
country; between June 1824 and October 1825 ten millions of coin and
bullion were exported. At the same time the Bank of England lowered its
rate of interest. Money was thus exceedingly easily obtained, and prices
rose suddenly and very rapidly. The readiness of all the banks to
discount bills even at long dates enabled speculators to buy up and hold
back goods, thus still further raising the prices. There was naturally
soon an end of this fictitious state of things. As the goods which had
been bought up were brought into the market their prices necessarily
fell; foreign speculations could not produce very rapid returns; the
insecure bills, or those which had been discounted at very long dates,
could not be realized, consequently the banks found it difficult to meet
the demands upon them; the Bank of England then took alarm, raised the
rate at which it discounted bills, and contracted the issue of bank
notes. In all ways therefore money began to get exceedingly scarce;
firms and companies began to break, credit was shaken, a run on the
banks was the consequence. At length even the London houses were
affected, and on the 5th of December the great banking-house of Pole &
Company, on which as many as forty-four country banks depended, broke.
In six weeks between sixty to seventy banks had stopped payment, of
which six or seven were London houses.
[Sidenote: Success of the healing measures of the Government.]
The misery attendant on these disasters was so great that the Government
thought it necessary to interfere. The bank and the mint set hard to
work to supply notes and coin; 150,000 sovereigns a day were turned out,
but even thus, the story is told that the credit of the Bank was only
saved by the accidental discovery of a forgotten chest with 700,000
one-pound notes. By the end of the year the worst of the panic was over,
but during 1826 bankruptcies continued with fearful rapidity. In the
opinion of the Government some part of the late misfortune was to be
attributed to bad legislation, and might be altered, but the greater
part arose from a spirit of over-speculation, over which no legislative
enactments could have any power. The healing measures proposed were the
prohibition of the issue of one and two pound notes; for it began to be
generally acknowledged that unrestricted paper currency could not exist
with coin, that in times of prosperity the paper would be preferred,
gold and silver would seek other markets, and in times of necessity
would be unprocurable. Many of the banks had paid for the privilege of
issuing notes, but the Government risked the infringement on their
rights, acknowledging it, and confessing that an Act of indemnity would
be necessary. Secondly, they induced the Bank directors to give up one
of their privileges, by which private banking-houses were restricted to
six partners. Beyond a radius of sixty-five miles from London, the
number of partners was henceforward unlimited, and much greater security
was thus obtained. At the same time, for the instant relief of commerce,
the ministers, unwilling to issue Exchequer bills, because they thought
that commerce had better on the whole be left to right itself, succeeded
in persuading the Bank to advance £3,000,000 to merchants upon the
security of their goods. The effect of these measures was a restoration
of credit and the gradual subsidence of the alarm.
[Sidenote: Riots and machine breaking. April 1826.]
[Sidenote: Temporary change in the corn laws. May 26, 1826.]
But the misfortunes of the preceding years had of necessity been
attended by extreme suffering among the poorer classes, and although
they had on the whole borne their privations remarkably well, it was
impossible, considering the excited temper of the times, to avoid riots.
These were as usual directed principally against machinery, which was
still ignorantly regarded by the artisans as the chief cause of their
misery. The riots were very widely spread, every power-loom in Blackburn
was smashed, the operatives in Manchester held stormy meetings, and in
Carlisle, Staffordshire, and Norfolk uproars took place. To the miseries
caused by depression of trade were added those of an unfavourable
season; the summer of 1826 was marked by a very severe drought. On all
grounds, therefore, the ministers thought it their duty to introduce
some measures which should tend to the lowering of the price of corn; it
was ordered that corn in bond in the warehouses, waiting till prices
should rise to the level which allowed importation, should be released
at once and sent into the market, and that Government should be
authorized to import, within a space of two months, 500,000 quarters
more. Bills to this effect were passed through the House, having been
earnestly pressed forward because the Parliament was on the point of
dissolution, and had the ministers been obliged to open the ports
without leave, their conduct would have been unconstitutional and would
have required an Act of indemnity. But, after all, their efforts were
unavailing; prices rose, so that on the 1st of September the legal price
was reached; but as it was only when the average price was above a
certain point that corn was admitted, and a month must elapse before
that average could be taken, it was thought desirable to forestall the
time and open them at once. The new Parliament assembled in November,
and remained a short time in session for the purpose of giving the
required indemnity.
[Sidenote: Canning's vigorous policy in Portugal. Dec. 1826.]
The attention of Parliament was called to one other important topic,
which may be regarded as the finishing stroke to Canning's foreign
policy. It will be remembered that he had always declared that any
attack on Portugal would be regarded as a sufficient cause for the
entrance of England into the war. The French troops still occupied
Spain, and in the civil war which was continued in that country the
royalists had been joined by several regiments of the Portuguese army.
In spite of urgent demands and repeated promises that these deserting
troops should be disbanded, they were allowed, if not encouraged, by the
Spanish royalists to make inroads into constitutional Portugal. The
Princess Regent applied to England for assistance; Canning at once acted
vigorously according to his principles. At first the information given
was not accurate, but on Friday the 8th of December precise information
arrived, and Canning could triumphantly assert in the House--"On
Saturday his Majesty's confidential servants came to a decision, on
Sunday that decision received the sanction of his Majesty, on Monday it
was submitted to both Houses of Parliament, and this day (Tuesday) on
which I have the honour of addressing you the troops are on their march
for embarkation." It was plain to all men that the honour of England was
safe in such hands, and proof was afforded to all Europe that England
had distinctly broken from her old connections; and that her sympathies
were on the side of political freedom and national independence.
[Sidenote: Division in the ministry.]
[Sidenote: Illness of Lord Liverpool. Feb. 1827.]