“It was rather early, perhaps, to express any opinions of what would

be the general results of that great change; but there was reason to

believe that all the anticipations of its advocates would be

infinitely more than realised, and that all the fearful predictions of

its opponents would be falsified. _The interest most affected by these

changes had not been for some years in such a state of activity as it

presented at this moment._ In the Thames and Tyne, in the Wear and

Clyde, the business of the shipbuilder or shipowner exhibited a more

cheering aspect. _From all our dockyards the reports were equally

satisfactory_; and many of the gentlemen who had been most prominent

in foretelling ruin and destruction from the change, admitted the

advantages they were deriving from it.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely acquiesced in this statement:

“At the present moment no one could find fault with the change which

had taken place in the Navigation Laws, if he took the trouble to look

at the state of the great shipbuilding ports of this commercial

country. He might mention one port, which, above all others, should be

regarded as indicating the condition of the shipbuilding interest

throughout the seaports of England, namely, Sunderland; but he might

also mention Liverpool and the Scotch ports, where the shipbuilding in

the year 1849 went on with more rapidity than in any former period;

and not only was the quantity of shipping built at these places

greater than in any former year, but a better class of vessels was

built, vessels calculated and fitted for the long voyage.”

Mr Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade, was even stronger in

his averments:

“He confidently appealed to every member of that house who had

considered the subject, and, above all, to the representatives of the

great shipping ports of this country, whether it was true to say that

the industry of the dockyards had been paralysed by the measure of

last session. On the contrary—and this was a subject on which he

naturally felt the greatest interest, and which he had looked into

with the utmost care—he had never made an assertion in that house with

greater confidence, _and he challenged contradiction on the part of

any mercantile man or gentleman interested in shipping_, than when he

stated his belief that the industry of shipbuilding, that the

confidence of the mercantile public in shipowning, that the whole

business of the country connected with shipbuilding and shipowning,

were in a state most satisfactory and most encouraging to those who

did not believe that they were paralysing that important branch of

industry by the measures of last session. He believed the fact to be

that there were at least as many ships building at this moment as at

any period within the last twenty years in this country.”

In the face of such unqualified averments and challenges, on a point

necessarily statistical, and in opposition to the President of the Board

of Trade, who, from his official position, was the man of all others

most likely to be furnished with full and accurate information, it would

have been rash in any individual member to have hazarded a flat

contradiction. But a question of such vital importance as this is sure

to be thoroughly investigated; and we are indebted to that excellent

paper, the _Shipping and Mercantile Gazette_, for an elaborate and

complete refutation of the whole case so ostentatiously paraded by

Government. Our contemporary, we are sure, will not quarrel with us if

we transfer into our columns a good deal of the valuable information

obtained by so much industry and perseverance, for which the thanks of

the whole community are justly due.

“We are prepared,” says the editor of the _Shipping and Mercantile

Gazette_, in his leading article of the 31st January, “to prove that

the depression in our shipping—in building as well as in freights—has

not been so great for years as it is at the present time; in short,

that it is _depression_, and not improvement, which is UNIVERSAL, with

scarcely ‘the exception of a few ports.’

“With regard to shipbuilding, it is necessary to bear in mind that

shipbuilders cannot stop their business all at once; they have yards

on lease—materials on hand—and apprentices to maintain; therefore they

must be doing a little at almost any risk.

“With a view to obtain correct information upon the subject, we have

procured authenticated returns from accredited correspondents at all

the ports, which we shall proceed to lay before our readers; merely

premising that, as the foreign and colonial trade diminishes in

profit, it drives ships into the coasting trade, which, as it will be

seen, is suffering severely from the depreciating effects.”

The following are a few of the returns, inserted alphabetically:—

“ABERDEEN, _Feb. 2, 1850_.

“It is vain to try to conceal the very depressed state of the shipping

interest at this port at present, everything around us having a dreary

and most discouraging aspect. Our docks are full of vessels of every

class and size, and nothing for them to do. Freights offering (and

they are very few indeed) are not, by any means, at remunerative

rates: 30s. to 33s. per load timber from Quebec, or 67s. 6d. per ton

guano from Peru, will never pay the shipowner, while he pays the

present rate of wages, and gives the usual rations to his seamen. If

freights are to be kept down by foreign competition, the British

sailor must be brought down to the level of the foreigner; but such a

state of things, we hope, will still, by some means or other, be

averted.

“Notwithstanding the justly high character our shipbuilders here have

attained in the construction of their ships, and the great perfection

they have come to in the construction of vessels with the clipper-bow,

and which are now making such unparalleled rapid voyages, we believe

they have few, if any, orders on hand; and in the absence of such have

been building on speculation, and have at this moment a few vessels on

the stocks for sale, superb specimens of naval architecture, and no

immediate prospect of purchasers. One of our local papers was holding

out to us the other day that we need not fear foreign competition,

having vessels of such great sailing and carrying qualities. This

would be all very well, if guaranteed to this country alone; but it

will soon be found that foreigners will get improved vessels as well

as we, and, most probably, get our carpenters to go from this country

to build them.

“The number of seamen at this port is about 2330, of which at present

there are about 280 unemployed. Vessels laid up, 45—a greater number

than was ever known in any previous year.”

“BOSTON, _Jan. 26, 1850_.

“Our harbour-master here, who has been upwards of forty years master

of vessels out of this port, states that HE NEVER KNEW THE SHIPPING

INTEREST AT SO LOW AN EBB AS AT THE PRESENT TIME; and he firmly

believes the future prospects are very discouraging. The majority of

our vessels are _now_ worked by the masters at _thirds_, and many of

them have lost money during the past year—that is, have not made the

former wages of £5 per month; in fact, many of them have not made

mate’s wages—viz., £3, 5s. per month, who have not reduced their pay

more than 5s. per month, and ordinary seamen at the same rate.”

“CAERNARVON, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“Ours is nearly altogether a coasting trade, engaged principally in

the export of slates, which averages about 91,000 tons per annum.

During the year 1849 the export declined to 79,000 tons, and at

present there are no prospects of its revival. The shipping belonging

to the port is in a _most depressed_ condition; freights are very

difficult to be had; and when they are offered, the rate is ruinously

low—say 9s. per ton to London, 4s. and 5s. to Liverpool, and so on in

proportion. Masters of our coasters are remunerated out of the profits

of the vessels they command; and so small have been their earnings of

late, that some are giving up _the command_, and shipping as _able

seamen_, inasmuch as they earn better wages in the latter capacity!

Shipbuilding is almost at an end here; no one will invest capital in

coasting vessels now, so depressed are freights, and so clouded is the

future.”

“CORK, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“I subjoin a statement of freights, &c., at this port:—

Per load timber.

Freights, Quebec, 1847 40s.

„ „ 1848 32s.

„ „ 1849 30s.

per ton.

„ W. C. So. America 1848 £4 5 0

„ „ beginning of 1849 3 17 6

„ „ end of 1849 3 7 6

“The other freights are in the same proportion.

“The wages of shipmasters have been reduced _one-third_. A few years

back we generally had six or eight vessels on the stocks at this port,

AT PRESENT ONLY ONE, and that is an iron screw-steamer, building for the

Cork Steam-ship Company. The great majority of the vessels now belonging

to this port are colonial built.

“Shipmasters have been obliged to accept of reduced wages in order to

obtain employment to enable them to support their families. Several of

them who were fortunate in having a little money saved, have commenced

_tailoring_, rope-making, acting as coasting pilots, &c. &c.”

“DROGHEDA, _Feb. 1, 1850_.

“There are no ships building here, although we have a good dockyard;

nor are there any repairing, although we have an excellent patent

slip: there are four or five ships laying up, which the owners will

not repair. They would willingly sell, but no person can be got to

purchase: in fact, were it not for the purpose of giving employment to

the masters and crews, I do think that our vessels would be laid up,

for they are not earning one shilling for their owners. It is also my

firm belief that, in seven years, one half of our ships will drop

away, and what was once a nursery for our navy, will not be so, for in

a little time the coasting trade will almost cease to exist, as we

have to contend with railways, steamboats, and foreigners driven into

our trade by the late change in the law.

“As regards our sailors, they are to be seen every day walking about

our quays, anxious to procure employment, but, from the complete

annihilation of our trade, they are unable to procure any;

consequently they and their families are in a most wretched

condition.”

“LIVERPOOL, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“The shipping trade is exceedingly depressed here, and freights are

wholly unremunerative. A Manchester house has just chartered an

American ship from Calcutta, at £2, 15s. 6d.

“FREIGHTS ARE AT LEAST 15 PER CENT LOWER, ON THE AVERAGE, THAN THEY

WERE LAST YEAR.”

“MARYPORT, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“Cumberland has long been famed for its celebrity in shipbuilding, its

vessels being known to, and appreciated by, the merchants in every

region of the globe; but I am sorry to observe that, at the present

moment, owing to the unwise repeal of the Navigation Laws, THE SEVERAL

SHIPBUILDERS AT MARYPORT, WORKINGTON, AND WHITEHAVEN ARE WITHOUT ANY

CONTRACTS—a circumstance strangely at variance with the account which

lately appeared in some of the Free-trade journals at Manchester. It

was then stated that several eminent merchants of that locality were

desirous of building a large amount of tonnage in England; but, owing

to the several builders being so full of contracts, they were

necessarily obliged to go abroad to build their vessels. It would,

however, seem that these gentlemen had entirely forgotten the

geographical position of Cumberland, or else we must suppose that they

would have deemed it their interest to have made contracts there;

unless, indeed, they found, as I strongly suspect they did, that the

Continental builder could build cheaper.”

“PLYMOUTH, _Feb. 2, 1850_.

“The shipping interest of this port is in a very depressed state, many

vessels being laid up; and, consequently, their crews are out of

employment, and our quays quite deserted by shipping. The vessels in

actual service are principally employed in the coal trade, and by the

owners only, at very reduced freights—at from 5s. to 5s. 6d. from

Wales, and from 6s. to 6s. 6d. from the north; others sailing out of

other ports at anything but remunerating freights. There are nine

shipwrights’ yards in this port, in one of which only one vessel is

building for a shipowner; and one sold from another. Two vessels have

been for sale for many months past. In each of the others, vessels,

varying from 100 to 300 tons, are being built on speculation, but

progress very slowly. From a want of that enterprising spirit evinced

in times past, there are not half the shipwrights kept in the yards

now, and a reduction has already taken place in the wages. Many

masters and sailors are also walking the quays unemployed; but we are

told, by those who use the old adage of the pinching shoe, that a man

may get as much for 10d. now as he could have got for double that sum

some time since. Where is the use of things being _so very cheap_,

when the poor man is deprived of the means of employment? Our exports

are very trifling: manganese at about 6s. to 10s. to Liverpool and

Scotland; lead and copper ores 3s. to 7s. per ton! Our

imports—principally timber from Quebec, hemp, tar, fruit, &c. The

former was 30s. to 32s. per load last year; what it will be this it is

impossible to tell, now the foreigner goes into the trade. Six of our

vessels (Quebec ships) are gone to Sierra Leone, thereby leaving the

trade open to the foreigner. The average wages are from 30s. to 40s.

for seamen in the coasting trade, 40s. foreign; £4 to £8 for masters,

£2, 10s. to £3 mates, at per month, which are much lower.”

“RUNCORN, _Feb. 1, 1850_.

“The number of vessels belonging to the port of Runcorn is about 70,

of the total burthen of about 6500 tons, most of them engaged in the

coasting trade. Freights to and from this port are very scarce, and

when any are offered they are at a miserably low rate. We should say

that freights are, at the least, 25 per cent less than they were in

the years 1845, 1846, and 1847. Nearly all the vessels belonging to

this port are sailed by the shares—that is, the master takes one half

the freight after all port charges are deducted from it, and he has to

pay out of his share seamen’s wages, and also to find victuals; the

owner has the remaining half, out of which he has to pay all expenses

for wear and tear. But the present rates of freight are so very low

that the masters cannot keep out of debt, let alone earn anything for

themselves, and the owner’s share is not sufficient to keep the vessel

in efficient working order. THE SHIPBUILDING TRADE HERE IS IN A MANNER

DESERTED: there are only two vessels on the stocks; one has been

partially finished for the last twelve months, and the other for the

last six months. There is not the slightest inducement for persons to

lay out their capital in shipping, there being no certainty of the

smallest return.”

“SUNDERLAND, _Feb. 1, 1850_.

“Various statements having lately been published relative to the state

of shipbuilding at this port, it is desirable that those interested in

knowing how far the statements alluded to are correct, should be made

acquainted with the real facts. It is true that at the close of last

year there were about 92 ships on the stocks at this port; since that

time several of them have been launched: many of them were larger than

the average of ships built here, and about two-thirds of them were

sold from the builders. Be it, however, understood that of the

two-thirds sold, say 60 out of 92, upwards of 30 were purchased by

outfitters, or ship-jobbers, who purchase the hulls of ships in order

to have the outfit; _they are therefore still in the market_. Many of

the shipbuilders, and also outfitters, had great stocks of timber and

other materials on hand twelve months ago, previous to the ships in

question being put on the stocks. It was then the opinion of the

shipbuilders that the project to repeal the Navigation Laws, and grant

foreign-built ships British registers, would not be carried, from the

general manifestation of feeling against that measure evinced by

practical men generally, who best understood the subject.

Shipbuilders’ stocks were therefore kept up, and in many instances

increased, and remunerating prices for ships were maintained. Since

the act was passed which repealed the Navigation Laws, prices have

been gradually on the decline. Within the last two years the average

price for a ship, A 1 eight years classed, was from £10, 10s. to £11

per ton; now the price for a ship of that character, is from £8, 10s.

to £9 per ton. The most respectable shipbuilders of this port freely

declare that their trade appears fast hastening to the destructive

state of agriculture; and that, if the present line of policy is

pursued, all who are engaged in their trade must be great sufferers.”

Letters to the same effect are given by the editor of _The Shipping

Gazette_, from correspondents at Aldborough, Bude, Dundalk, Kinsale,

Maldon, Padstow, Pwllheli, Strangford, Torquay, Westport, and

Woodbridge; so that from the ports all round the British Islands, the

cry of distress, caused by the crushing effect of free trade upon the

body of British industry, is arising. And this is what our Whig rulers

call unexampled prosperity!

From the leading Plymouth journal of 31st Jan. we extract the following

letter, which we would venture to recommend to the earnest attention of

Mr Labouchere. It contains some statements of a very different

complexion from those which appear to have passed through the hands of

the officials of the Board of Trade.

“_To the Editor of the West of England Conservative._

“SIR,—My attention having been called to a paragraph in your journal,

which states that the shipwrights in one of the principal firms in

Plymouth had struck for wages, I have to inform you that the firm is

mine.

For several years past I have paid my men 18s. per week on new work,

and 21s. per week on old work; and they never lost any time, but by

their own fault.

For some time past I have had complaints from many shipowners, that,

as their returns were greatly reduced by freights constantly lowering,

we, the shipbuilders, must reduce our charges, or they would be

compelled to take their ships to other ports. Added to this, a friend

of mine, Captain Shapcott, for whom I built a ship two years since,

and with which he was so much pleased that he wished me to give him a

price for another, of about 230 tons burthen. I accordingly did so;

she was to be a first-class vessel, and entitled to class A 1 twelve

years, at Lloyd’s. My proposals were sent to a merchant in London,

whom Captain Shapcott wished should be the principal owner. This

gentleman (Mr Brooking) replied, that as everything was coming down,

wages, and materials for shipbuilding, must come down also; and that,

unless I would engage to build for £10 per ton, and find a very large

number of articles more than I had for the former vessel, he would not

contract at all. He also said, that he had been in treaty for a ship

to be built for him in Prussia, which he found he could do for £3 per

ton cheaper than he could have one in England. I was obliged to

decline engaging to build on such terms, as would have occasioned me a

loss of some hundreds of pounds.

On Friday, the 18th January, on paying my men, I gave them a

memorandum, stating these particulars, and that I imagined they must

have been expecting, for some time, that wages would be reduced, not

only from what they must know themselves, but also from the great

reduction in the price of provisions and clothing. I, at the same

time, offered them 17s. per week on new work, and 19s. per week on old

work, telling them that, as their labour was their own property, if

they could do better, I should have no objection whatever. They all,

29 in number, refused to work; and, I believe, the greater part of

them have not been employed since, as I have seen them walking the

streets.

Not pretending to be a politician, I can only give my own opinion of

the acts of the Legislature; and, from the first, I believed that the

abrogation of the Navigation Laws must have the effect of depriving

thousands of Englishmen of employment.

Put this case to myself. I have employed more than 100 persons in

building and fitting ships; every other class, such as rope-makers,

sail-makers, block-makers, boat-builders, coopers, painters, glaziers,

chain and anchor makers, provision merchants, and others engaged in

putting a ship to sea, have all employ here. A merchant goes abroad

and builds (which he will do) at, it may be, a less price, and see the

consequence—the foreigner is employed, and our artisans must be idle;

it is the natural result. As to the bugbear of Free trade, it will

ruin England,—can I compete with a foreigner? He has his timber, his

labour, and materials for fitting out his ship infinitely cheaper than

I have; he is not oppressed by heavy Government and local taxation;

and when his ship comes to England, she has all the privileges of a

ship of the first class, which it is in my power to build; and

further, by the manner in which Lloyd’s class ships, she will fully

stand A 1 with mine.

I contend that it is the duty of Government so to legislate that their

artisans should have employment, and any act which deprives them of

it, must be detrimental to the nation. That is my firm belief. I must

apologise for occupying your columns, but, as you first mentioned the

circumstance of my workmen, I thought it right to state the reasons. I

am, sir, yours,

WM. MOORE, Shipbuilder.”

There is more than this. Messrs. Lindsay & Co. have published a table of

freights for the last four years, which exhibits an average decline

ranging from thirty-five to fifty per cent. The following are a few

notable instances:—

s. d. s. d.

Singapore, from 105 0 to 60 0

Calcutta, 117 6 77 6

Hong Kong, 105 0 55 0

(last quotation from there)

Bombay, 95 0 60 0

Ceylon, 95 0 70 0

Mauritius, 84 0 60 0

Callao, 95 0 63 0

Havannah, 85 0 47 6

Odessa, 95 0 42 6

Alexandria, 12 0 5 6

Cronstadt, 32 6 19 0

Quebec, 47 6 32 0

This decline of freights deeply concerns the agriculturist, since it

unsettles even those loose and incorrect calculations, which were

brought forward by the Free-traders for the purpose of proving that high

freights must necessarily act as a powerful check to the importation of

foreign corn, in the event of the abolition of the duties.

The challenge so confidently made has been accepted in another quarter.

At the great Wiltshire meeting held at Swindon on the 6th February, Mr

George Frederick Young spoke as follows:—

“Another point which has been taken as a kind of _cheval de

bataille_—a sort of hobby-horse which the Ministers were determined to

ride—I am somewhat familiarly acquainted with; I allude to the

shipping interest. As they have brought that interest so prominently

before parliament, I may, perhaps, be allowed to correct their

statements when they are at fault. What were we told about the

shipping interest in the House of Lords? I thought that they might

have managed to get up returns, to answer the purpose of the occasion,

of a somewhat specious character, extending over a large surface,

before they asked the house to come to a conclusion. But what did they

do? They said that the shipbuilding interest is in a most prosperous

state; and that it is prosperous, they deduced from the fact that

there were 90 ships building in the port of Sunderland on the 31st of

December last. It is the truth that that was the case at that time,

but it is not the whole truth; and the whole truth is, that though

there were 90 ships building in that great shipbuilding port, 24 of

them only were sold, whilst 66 were standing, 31 of them being ready

to launch, but could not get purchasers. I find also, that out of 251

ships which were building at the several shipbuilding ports at that

date, there were but 66 sold, making nearly 200 out of the 250 that

could not obtain purchasers, (hear, hear.) Is that fair? (cries of

‘no,’ and cheers.) Is that the way in which a great public question is

to be supported by the Ministers of the Crown? Yet these gentlemen

have not thought it to be beneath them to stoop to such paltry

prevarication for the purpose of misleading the parliament, (great

cheering.) But I will give you yet another instance, which is even

more pregnant still. In the course of the debate on the Address in the

House of Commons, Mr Labouchere made use of these words in reference

to the shipping interest:—‘This was a subject in which he naturally

felt the greatest interest, and which he had looked into with the

utmost care. He had never made an assertion in that house with greater

confidence, and he challenged contradiction’—most unusual on the part

of a Minister of the Crown—‘on the part of any mercantile man, or

gentleman interested in shipping, when he stated his belief that the

industry of shipbuilding—that the confidence of the mercantile public

in shipowning—that the whole business of the country connected with

shipbuilding and shipowning, was in a state the most satisfactory and

encouraging to those who did not believe that they were paralysing

that important branch of industry by the measures of last session.’ I

will not affect to conceal the part which I took upon reading these

words. I viewed the statement with indignation. I knew that it was not

a fact; and on Saturday morning, the instant I had seen it in the

paper, I drew up this declaration, which was advertised in all the

daily journals of London on Monday morning:—

“‘We the undersigned shipowners and others connected with the building

and equipment of ships in the port of London, having observed with

much surprise that in the debate on the Address in the House of

Commons on the 1st inst., the right hon. the President of the Board of

Trade confidently stated, and ‘challenged contradiction on the part of

any gentleman interested in shipping, that the whole business of the

country connected with shipbuilding and shipowning was in a state the

most satisfactory and encouraging,’ consider it a duty to declare our

conviction that the statement of the right honourable gentleman must

have proceeded from misinformation, and is entirely erroneous. We

declare that the shipping interest is, on the contrary, at this moment

in a state of great depression, no employment being obtained for

British ships offering any reasonable prospect of remuneration for the

capital embarked and the expenses to be incurred; that the accounts

from all the great shipping ports of the world announce a

superabundance of tonnage and extremely low rates of freight,

rendering the prospect for the present year most discouraging, and

that the various trades connected with shipping consequently and

necessarily participate in the general depression; and we make this

declaration without any party or political motive, and entirely

without reference to the causes that have produced the depression we

describe, in the desire alone that the legislature and the public

should be truly informed as to the real facts of this important

question, which appear to be misunderstood by her Majesty’s

Government.’

“I will tell you the result. That declaration was advertised to lie at

the London Tavern on Monday, Tuesday, and to-day; and upon the very

first day it received the signatures of several hundreds of the most

eminent men connected with this branch of our national industry, and

from among whom I will undertake to say I can pick out twelve names of

men who are owners of not less than 100,000 tons of British shipping

(cheers.) That the President of the Board of Trade should venture to

make such a statement, and challenge contradiction from any one, is, I

think, most extraordinary. Is it not calculated to produce this

effect—that statements made by the Ministers of the Crown, with

whatever confidence, will be received with a little doubt and

distrust, and that though they come even from so upright and

honourable a man as Mr Labouchere, it will be necessary to

substantiate them by something better than mere assertions of belief?”

We are sorry that Mr Labouchere should have committed himself so far.

His personal character is beyond suspicion; and we do nothing more than

express the universal feeling of his political opponents when we say,

that no one will prefer against him the charge of having made a wilful

misrepresentation of this nature. But it is the curse of men high in

office, that they are surrounded by subordinates, whose share of

honourable scruple is of the most convenient elasticity, and who

sometimes have a substantial interest in the verification of their

hazarded opinions. To this kind of influence Mr Labouchere is peculiarly

subjected. The returns on which he founded, with so rash a confidence,

had evidently passed through the hands of some veteran statist and

figure-monger, and been adapted to suit an immediate purpose, rather

than to conform to the actual truth. On no other hypothesis can we

account for so strange a perversion of fact; for we believe that, after

the evidence cited above, no man, whatever may be his political

opinions, will hold that the commerce of the nation is not materially

depressed, instead of being, as Ministers represented it, flourishing

beyond all precedent.

We next come to the manufacturing interest, which assuredly ought to be

in a most prosperous condition. In the course of the bygone year,

tranquillity was restored on the Continent, and the interrupted markets

were opened with every prospect of a fair demand. Notwithstanding the

fall of prices, it might have been supposed that agricultural depression

had hardly time to react upon the home market; and food was cheaper than

perhaps it has been in Britain within the memory of man. Yet, with all

these advantages, it is by no means certain that our manufactures are in

a sound condition. The official tables indeed exhibit a large increase

of exports, but these tables are quite useless as exponents of actual

value. No later than last session, Sir Robert Peel gave a decided

testimony on this point.

“Let me observe,” said he, “that nothing can be more unsafe than any

inference drawn from the returns which give the declared value of

manufactures imported. Owing to the manner in which the accounts of

imports and exports are prepared, arguments drawn from that source

must be exceedingly fallacious.”

The _Liverpool Standard_, applying itself to the statistics of the

cotton trade, has done good service in exposing the nature of the export

returns. According to the official statement, there would appear to be

an increase of nearly £4,210,000 in the exports of cotton manufactures

and yarn; but the _Standard_, going to the fountainhead, has shown that

the increase in the entire quantity of cotton _spun_ in Great Britain in

1849, was only a little over one-twelfth of the previous year’s

consumption. The conclusions of our contemporary are very forcible:—

“_We place no confidence whatever now in these customs reports. Since

the abolition of the half per cent duty on exports_, there is nothing

in the world to prevent goods being entered at any prices the shipper

pleases. A bale of cotton and other goods may be valued at £5 or £500,

without incurring a farthing of increased charges at our ports; and,

without imputing to any party the wish to do a moral wrong, and to

make out a favourable case in behalf of a particular policy, it is

enough to throw discredit upon returns, thus left unprotected against

error, to know that extensive malversation can be carried on.”

When we turn for information to the manufacturing districts, we find

some mills working on short time, and less employment generally diffused

than might be expected in an average year. We hear of nothing but the

most gloomy anticipations, contrasting very strangely, indeed, with the

triumphant language of Ministers. The depression is not confined to the

remoter towns; it exists in Manchester itself, as will be seen from the

following statement—the last which has reached us—from the great

manufacturing capital:—

(From the _Manchester Guardian_.)

“MANCHESTER, Tuesday, Feb. 12.—We have had a spiritless and rather

drooping market. The merchants have shown a growing indisposition for

business; looking upon prices as, for the most part, too high to

warrant further exports in the present state of supplies in foreign

markets. The letters received this morning from Germany give

quotations of prices which afford no encouragement for the immediate

resumption of operations. There has been some inquiry from the Greeks,

but with little result. As to the home dealers, seldom have they been

so little seen in the warehouses of the manufacturers. There is

evidently a diminished confidence among all classes of buyers as to

the maintenance of prices; and a determination to proceed cautiously,

buying only for the supply of the most pressing wants, is become

general. The business of the day has, consequently, fallen in amount

below that of any Tuesday for some time back. Under these

circumstances, those spinners and manufacturers whose contracts are

drawing to a close have shown a willingness to make some concession in

price rather than suffer an offer to pass by them. Water twist may be

quoted ⅛d. to ¼d. lower; and in mule yarn the buyer has some advantage

in price, except as to fine counts, from No. 60’s upwards. In printing

cloths, there is a giving way of about 1½d. per piece, and 3d. in

shirting. There is a difference in point of firmness, however, among

spinners and manufacturers, and a corresponding irregularity is

observable in the quotations. The spinners of water twist, and the

manufacturers of domestics, T’s, and some other stout cloths, are so

much discouraged by the little prospect there is of an improvement in

the unfavourable trade they have so long experienced, that many of

them are seriously intending to diminish their production. One or two

establishments in Manchester have either stopped altogether or

resorted to short time, and an attempt is being made to induce a

general adoption of the latter measure in these branches of

manufacture. At Rochdale two or three mills have taken one or other of

the above courses; and we have before us the names of seven firms at

Heywood who have limited the hours of work in their mills.

“STATE OF TRADE.—MANCHESTER, Thursday.—We have no improvement since

Tuesday. The demand, whether for cloth or yarn, is not equal to the

production, and prices, consequently, tend still in favour of the

buyer. Indeed, no considerable sales could be effected without

material concessions in price.”

Reading such an account as this, we feel perplexed as to the meaning

which the Ministry attach to their favourite term prosperity. We are

almost tempted to suppose that they consider want of employment the

greatest possible blessing which can befall the labouring man.

This account, it will be observed, is dated posterior to the opening of

Parliament. We may therefore be told that the depression had no

existence at the time when the royal speech was framed. Such was not the

case. The depression was felt much earlier, as appears by the following

extract taken from a favourite organ of the Free-traders. On 1st

December last, the _Economist_ thus spoke of the cotton trade—

“At the beginning of this year, great expectations were entertained of

our home demand. It was argued, and with good reason, that we never

yet had a year of general employment and low prices of provisions

combined, which was not also a year of very large domestic consumption

of manufactured fabrics. This year labour has been in very brisk

request, and food has never been so cheap and plentiful since 1836.

Yet our expectations from these facts have not been fully answered.

The sellers of printing-cloths and medium shirtings report that their

home demand has, on the whole, been good; the sellers of domestics

report, on the contrary, a decidedly dull business, worse than that of

last year; but we believe that all agree that the anticipations with

which they began the year have by no means been realised. We suspect

the cause to be this:—The depreciation in railway property, the

effects of the Irish famine, and the commercial crash in 1847, have

impoverished all classes of the community to a much greater extent

than has been allowed for in the calculations of our tradesmen. We

question whether ‘the power of purchase,’ on the part of the British

community, is nearly equal to what it was in 1845.”

We here perfectly coincide in opinion with the _Economist_. The power of

purchase, on the part of the British community, is not nearly what it

was in 1845; and for that diminution of power, he may thank the

operation of the free-trade system. If the calculations of Mr Villiers

are correct—if agricultural produce has depreciated to the extent of

£91,000,000—there is no necessity whatever for recurring to Irish

famine, railway losses, or commercial embarrassment, for an explanation

of the unhealthy state of the home market. If we divide the population

of the British islands, between agriculture and manufactures, in

proportion to the ascertained number of those employed in either

pursuit, we shall find that rather more than 18,700,000 are dependent on

agriculture; whilst the number of those directly and indirectly drawing

their livelihood from manufactures is short of 8,100,000.[10] Any blow

levelled at the larger interest must perforce materially affect the

lesser; and our decided conviction is, that the manufacturers have yet

to learn, through adversity, a wholesome lesson. They have been taught

to look to the foreign, or exporting trade, as their chief source of

gain; and, in doing so, they have had to face a competition with other

countries, which, in the course of a few years, has lowered their

profits fully 50 per cent. They are still willing to go on, in the pure

reckless spirit of gambling, caring nothing what social mischief they

occasion, so long as they can deluge the markets of the world with their

bales of calico and cotton. For this end, by an unholy and unprincipled

combination, they have contrived to substitute foreign in place of

British agricultural labour, whilst, with unparalleled selfishness, they

reject all proposals for an equitable distribution of taxation.

The annual amount of the manufacturing productions of this country is

estimated at £178,000,000; and it is said that last year we have

exported £58,000,000. If this be the case, there remain goods to the

value of £120,000,000, to be consumed at home; and the amount of the

actual consumption mainly depends upon the consumers’ power of purchase.

Mr Villiers tells us that £91,000,000 have been _lost_ to the

agricultural classes—for depreciation is neither more nor less than

direct loss. It is an obvious fallacy to assume, as Mr Muntz does, that

this sum is merely to be considered as transferred from one pocket of

the community to another, as a note for five pounds might be. In the

latter case, the capital represented by the note is not destroyed; in

the former, the agricultural produce having been purchased and consumed

at two-thirds of its productive cost, there is clearly a direct loss to

the producing party. The annual amount of agricultural produce in this

country was estimated, according to former average prices, at

£250,000,000; and if this be accepted as true, or even an approximation

to the truth, the estimate of Mr Villiers will show a depreciation of

more than a third of the value. To that extent, therefore, the power of

purchase in the home market is lessened; for if £120,000,000 of

manufactures are made to be consumed at home, and the means of the

consumers are reduced by £91,000,000, how is it possible that trade can

remain in a prosperous condition?

If the dependence of the prosperity of manufactures on the amount of the

demand existing in the home market is admitted—and no man yet has

attempted to deny that intimate relationship between the agricultural

and the manufacturing classes—it will follow, as a clear deduction, that

to curtail the means of the consumer is tantamount to limiting the

demand. No body of men understood this more clearly than the leading

agitators of the League. They knew perfectly well, that agricultural

distress must react fearfully upon that numerous section of the

manufacturers, who look solely to the home market for the regular

consumption of their produce, and who supply the greater number of the

retail dealers and shopkeepers, whose means of livelihood depend on

their intervention between the makers of the fabric and the buyers.

Those leading agitators were independent of the home trade. Their

interest lay in pushing exports to the utmost, and in maintaining their

hold of the foreign and distant markets, in spite of a fierce

competition with France, Germany, and America. That competition had

latterly become so serious and formidable, that, in order to maintain

their ground, they found it necessary to devise some means whereby

operative labour, already brought down to the lowest point of monetary

wage, might be stimulated and sustained; and the only scheme available

to them was the breaking up of the corn laws, which, in this

highly-taxed country, with the accumulated burdens of more than a

century and a half pressing upon it, afforded a necessary protection to

the British agricultural labourer. For no one can deny that the

producers of corn are, like all others, subject to taxation; and all

taxation, whether direct or indirect, must be added to the price of the

fruits of labour. This was just what the corn laws effected. The

consumer paid for the taxation when he purchased the article; and in no

branch of industry or trade is another rule recognised. There is a

natural price, and an artificial price. The natural price of corn is

that for which it can be grown in this country, deducting labour and the

grower’s profit, but without any burdens of taxation at all. The

artificial price is that which is charged for the produce to the

consumer, when the taxation falling upon the land, for state purposes,

is added to the natural price. By the repeal of the corn laws, the

consumer escaped this taxation, and the whole burden was thrown on the

producer and the labourer, who, in consequence of superior natural

advantages possessed by the foreigner, can be undersold by him even at

the natural price, and who yet are called upon to bear the whole of the

artificial cost.

Such a scheme as this—one so manifestly unjust, not only to the

agriculturists, but to the manufacturers and the shopkeepers, whose

whole dependence was on the home consumers—would never have been carried

into execution, had its inevitable results been honestly laid before the

public. But there was no honesty in these men. They were fighting a

desperate game, without regard to the general interest of the country,

so that they could be the individual gainers; and they fought it, as

gamblers will do, unscrupulously, falsely, and dishonestly. They durst

not have hinted that the immediate effect of the repeal of the corn laws

would be a large and permanent depreciation of the value of agricultural

produce. Had they done so, the tradesmen and retail dealers whom they

chiefly aimed to dupe—because the electoral influence of that class is

immensely large—would at once have seen, that, by limiting the general

power of their customers to purchase, they were, in fact, depriving

themselves of so much of their former profit. Shopkeepers and tradesmen

do not live by the export trade: they maintain themselves and their

families by distributing the products of labour among the community; and

their gains, as well as those of the artisan, are measured by the amount

of custom which they receive. Any legislative change, therefore, which

could have the effect of diminishing that custom in a serious degree,

would necessarily be most detrimental to the interests of this class—a

proposition so clear, that no effort of political jesuitry could

disguise it. The corn-law repealers knew this, and accordingly they

rested their case on different grounds. They maintained that the

abolition of the duties on corn would not, and could not, have the

effect of curtailing the means or the revenue of the producer. They

professed that their sole object was to prevent extravagant fluctuations

in price; and they were quite as touching and lachrymose in the pictures

which they drew of the evils certain to arise from a range of low

prices, as in those descriptive of the opposite extreme. Let us again

refresh ourselves with a few sentences from the work of Mr James

Wilson—sentences which afford good ground for hope that, upon the next

agricultural division, we may find the member for Westbury using his

best endeavour to repair some of the mischief which recent legislation

has inflicted. The reader will bear in mind that Mr Wilson distinctly

enunciated 52s. 2d. to be the proper price for wheat, at which an

exactly sufficient amount of production would be kept up.

“It never can be advantageous for the community at large that they

should consume the produce of any one party below the cost of

production; for a period is not very far distant when the consequences

must react, and infallibly produce high prices and great scarcity; and

we will show that the evils of the reaction are far greater than any

advantage derived from the low prices.”—_Influences of the Corn Laws_,

p. 28.

Again:

“Our belief is, that the whole of these generally received opinions

are erroneous; that if we had had a free trade in corn since 1815, the

average price of the whole period, actually received by the British

grower, would have been higher than it has been; that little or no

more foreign grain would have been imported; and that if, for the next

twenty years, the whole protective system shall be abandoned, _the

average price of wheat will be higher than it has been for the last

seven years_, (52s. 2d.,) or than it would be in the future with a

continuance of the present system; but with this great difference,

that prices would be nearly uniform and unaltering from year to year;

that the disastrous fluctuations would be greatly avoided, which we

have shown in the first proposition to be so ruinous under the present

system.”—P. 56.

Perhaps we cannot better illustrate this part of our subject, than by

transcribing the second “proposition” laid down by the present Secretary

of the Board of Control. It is so unambiguous in its terms that we are

saved the necessity of a commentary. Mark, and perpend!

“PROPOSITION THE SECOND.—That the agricultural interest has derived no

benefit, but great injury, from the existing laws; and that the fears

and apprehensions of the ruinous consequences which would result to

this interest by the adoption of a free and liberal policy with

respect to the trade in corn, are without any foundation: THAT THE

VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY, INSTEAD OF BEING DEPRECIATED, ON THE AGGREGATE

WOULD BE RATHER ENHANCED, AND THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE OWNERS MOST

DECIDEDLY BENEFITED THEREBY.”

We presume that we need go no further in illustration of the line of

argument adopted by the exporting manufacturers and their adherents, for

the purpose of persuading the tradesmen and artisans that the repeal of

the corn laws could not in any way affect the consumers’ power of

purchase.

In dealing with the state of the manufacturing interest, we must never

lose sight of the fact, that enlarged exports furnish no proof whatever

of the prosperity of the home trade. We shall not go the length of

adopting a hypothesis, plausibly enough put forward, that increased

exports are a natural result of deficiency in the home demand; that

where any sudden stimulus is given to a market abroad, goods originally

intended for British consumption, but not taken out of stock, are

shipped on speculation, and thus augment the declared value of the

exports. We shall not make any averment of the kind, however probable it

may be—simply because it is not in our power, or that of any man in the

country, to prove such an allegation as the general rule. But so far as

we can gather, from the voice of the public press, there would appear to

be little room for exultation in the present prospects of manufactures.

The agricultural depression is yet recent, and its reaction on

manufactures, though it began in 1849, will probably not be felt in its

real intensity until the present year is well advanced. In estimating

the prosperity of manufactures, what we must look to are the wages and

the condition of the labourer. The individual profits of the masters are

secondary to this consideration; and we shall now proceed to examine

whether cheap food has fulfilled its chief recommendation in bettering

the condition of the operatives.

In a single number of the _Birmingham Mercury_ for 2d February, now

lying before us, we find four separate letters upon this important

subject. The first is from the operatives’ committee of the glass-trade,

in which they state that “never was there more flint glass manufactured

than there is at the present time, and never did the operatives receive

less than they do at present for the quantity of work made.” The second

is from a person engaged in the pin-trades, also complaining of low

wages. The third is an indignant remonstrance from an operative against

recent prosperity-statements, in which he says, “the condition of the

workmen is such at the present time, that it is important to them to

have their condition truly represented, devoid of that colouring which,

while it would please some manufacturers, would to the workmen possess

no charm whatever. Where a writer’s heart is, there also will his

leaning be; and I feel convinced that no operative in this town could

fail to see which way these articles incline. Obtaining information from

masters about men, and publishing it like accounts from a house

proprietor about his houses, or from a farmer about his cows, does not

suit those workmen who think, and feel, and wish to be treated in a

manner due to their position as producers of articles ministering to the

comforts and conveniences of mankind at large.” The fourth proceeds from

the committee of the gun-trade, stating that “the year 1849 has perhaps

been unparalleled in the history of our trade; for the general

depression of our prices, and the suffering of the working men, with the

shortness of work, and the very low price at which that work has been

done, have reduced us to the most pitiable condition which working and

industrious men could be brought to.” Surely these letters are

inconsistent with the statement of Mr Villiers, that “when he looked to

the working classes, he was gratified to find that both manufacturing

and agricultural labourers were either receiving a higher rate of wages,

or were able to command a better supply of the comforts of life with

their former wages.” Within ten days after that speech was made, an

operative strike began at Nottingham. The following letter, addressed

to, but not published in, the _Times_, appeared lately in the _Morning

Herald_, and remains, so far as we know, uncontradicted:—

“_To the Editor of The Times._

“Sir,—I have read with great interest your able exposures of the

butchers and other tradesmen of the metropolis. Will you, with your

usual impartiality, give the following facts for free-traders a corner

in your journal:—The wages paid in the factory of Messrs Marshal, at

Shrewsbury, before and after free trade came into operation, are as

follows:—

1846. 1849.

Protection. Free Trade.

Mechanics, £1 5 0 £0 18 0

Overlookers, 1 0 0 0 14 0

Thread-polishers, 0 12 0 0 8 0

Boys, 0 8 0 0 6 0

Female reelers, 0 6 0 0 4 8

“Messrs Marshal are among the most extensive manufacturers in the

kingdom, and this may be taken as a fair specimen of what has been

generally done. I should be sorry to make one comment on these facts,

but leave it to the judgment of the public to decide whether the

operatives of this country, or the manufacturers who employ them, have

reaped the benefit of that cheap bread which they promised to the

labouring population; and whether what they gave with one hand in the

shape of bread, they do not more than take with the other by so large

a reduction of wages.—I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

JOHN PHILLIPS.

“Winsley, near Shrewsbury, Jan 22.”

As to the condition of the agricultural labourers, it would really

appear to be needless to enter upon that point. The cry of suffering and

distress is universal throughout the length and breadth of the land. How

can it be otherwise, when every cargo of foreign grain sent to our

shores is in effect so much untaxed foreign labour introduced to beat

down the wages of the working man? Mr Bonnar Maurice, at a late meeting

at Welshpool, thus described the present condition of the agricultural

labourers of England:—

“But there was another class—from their numbers a very important

class—and if they took (as they might fairly do) the well or ill doing

of that class as an indication of the prosperity or otherwise of the

country generally, it was indeed a _most_ important class—he meant the

labouring class. They were promised that free trade was to bring

within their reach comforts and luxuries which they had not even

dreamt of. How was it now with them? Take first the agricultural

labourer. A short time ago he was earning 9s. or 10s., or in some

counties 12s. a-week; his wife could earn 5s. or 6s., and his boy (if

he had one eleven or twelve years of age) about the same. Now numbers

are without employment at all; numbers can obtain only occasional

employment; and those who are in constant work must be satisfied with

7s. or 8s., and in some places with not more than 6s. a-week, and with

little or no aid from their wives and families. With other labourers

the case is no better—their employment is becoming more and more

scarce; the effects of an unfair competition are reducing the means of

giving employment; and those who are suffering from such effects are

accordingly lessening the number of their labourers, and reducing

their establishments. Thus, scarcity of employment, combined with

reduction of wages, is the blessing which free trade brings to the

labourer. And so it must be; for what is the real principle of free

trade but the unfair encouragement of the foreigner at the expense of

the British labourer, the taking away employment from the labourers of

our own country, and the giving that employment to the foreigner?”

In Scotland matters are no better. We have many instances of proprietors

compelled by the decline of rents to abandon the improvement of their

estates, and to relax that employment which was formerly given to

labour. This is a great calamity; since it must inevitably tend to swell

the poor-rate, already augmenting alarmingly. In the western districts

the labour of Irish emigrants, forced from their own country by the same

cause, and willing to work at the lowest possible rate of wage which

will suffice to sustain existence, is supplanting that of our Scottish

peasantry; and as the farmers are nearly driven to the wall by the

unprecedented decline in the value of both corn and cattle, they cannot

be blamed for putting into practice the noxious free-trade dogma, and

availing themselves of labour at the cheapest rate. If this state of

matters is to continue, the results may be terrible indeed. The

legislature is bound to look to it in time; and, for the general safety,

to take heed that the power of labour of the working man, which is his

sole capital, is not tampered with too far. We cannot refrain from

making another extract from the pages of Mr Wilson, who deprecates

agricultural depression upon the express ground of its pernicious effect

upon the condition and morals of the labourer. Any fall below 52s. 2d.

per quarter of wheat, Mr Wilson estimates as depression. The present

averages are under 40s., with no prospect of a rise:—

“It must be obvious that the tendencies experienced by the farmer must

immediately influence the labourers he employs. In his successful or

advancing years, a good demand exists for labour, and either attracts

or retains more to this pursuit than on an average it is capable of

maintaining; and thus we find, when the period of diminished

cultivation arrives, the strongest evidences of surplus labour, as of

surplus stock—distress to a painful degree becomes the lot of the

hard-working tiller of the ground, whose only desire is for ‘_leave to

toil_;’ but, like his master, he had already toiled too much, and too

unprofitably. Ignorant of the real causes of his distress, driven to

pinch and want, he becomes too readily the victim of vicious and

designing men, and has recourse to many acts of violence and

injustice, which, instead of mending his case, can only tend to make

it still worse.

“No one can have forgot the terror and dismay which, from this cause,

spread through our usually quiet and peaceful rural districts a few

years ago, when the agricultural interest was severely depressed; the

awful and mysterious midnight fires, which frequently lighted up a

whole district at the same moment, consuming the very means of

subsistence; anonymous letters followed up by all their threatenings;

secret societies to fan and inflame the worst passions; highway

robberies and personal attacks; outrages of every description; and all

perpetrated by men whose ignorance and misery (from causes over which

they had no control) were really much more apt to excite our pity than

our blame. But how insensibly all these evidences have vanished with a

return to prosperity, although it is impossible that they have not

left behind a population of a lower and more debased standard of

morals! They are now as quiet as ever, _but the return of distress to

their employers will not fail to reduce them once more to a similar

condition_.

“It should also be remarked, _that this distress cannot fail naturally

to increase the poor-rates_, and the charges of maintaining good

order, which must act as a distinct cause of reducing the rents and

income of farmer and landlord. In some instances these charges have

pressed so heavily at particular times, as to consume the whole rent,

and to render land of little or no value, which would otherwise have

let at a fair average rate.”

We also learn from Mr Wilson, that extreme cheapness is the reverse of a

benefit to the manufacturing operative, inasmuch as it induces habits of

luxury which are by no means suited to his welfare. It is not impossible

that this view may have led to that salutary reduction of wages, which

seems, at the present moment, to be taking place throughout the

manufacturing districts of England, and that the diminished supply of

money is intended to check that inordinate appetite for cheap loaves and

bacon, which is naturally enough engendered by the foreign untaxed

supplies pouring in to supersede the production of the home labourer,

and to drive him gradually to the workhouse. The member for Westbury

says:—

“With the manufacturing labouring classes similar effects occur at

opposite periods, when the necessaries of life are pressed to the

highest point: they are introduced, _in the years of ruinous

cheapness_, to habits of comparative luxury and consumption which

their labour cannot, on an average, command; and they, therefore, feel

much more the want occasioned by extreme high prices, when they cannot

command so much as their labour should produce to them. So the effect

is, that _in cheap years his labour commands too much agricultural

labour_, and he thus anticipates a part of what should be the

consumption of a future day; and in dear years his labour commands too

little agricultural labour, and he is obliged to receive

proportionably as much too little as before he received too much.”

We are decidedly of opinion that there is much sound sense in the above

extract. We never have known a year so characterised by _ruinous

cheapness_ of all kinds of provisions as that which has just gone by;

the present year holds out no prospect of improvement, but rather

indicates a farther decline; and therefore we are not without hope that

this important point may be worked out at greater length in the columns

of the _Economist_.

The question of wages has led us into a slight digression. Our immediate

topic was the dependence of the manufacturers, or at least a large

section of them, upon the purchase power of the community; and we have

already shown, by the evidence of our opponents, that, in so far as the

agriculturists are concerned, their aggregate produce, which constitutes

their means, has been diminished by one-third. Now, it must be

remembered that _the cost of production_ falls to be deducted altogether

from the remaining two-thirds; and that, in the lost third was contained

the greater part of the surplusage or profit, which afforded the means

of commanding luxuries and superfluities. Of course any diminished power

of purchase must tell against the manufacturers, by keeping up their

stocks in hand, and lessening the necessity for production. But many of

them, failing the home trade, have the chance of a market, though it may

be a less profitable one, elsewhere. They can export on consignation if

not on order; and late accounts from San Francisco, where bales of

British goods are stated to be lying unwarehoused, and exposed to the

weather without finding purchasers, show that the export mania may be

carried beyond the verge of average recklessness. But the shopkeepers

and tradesmen have no such alternative resource. They depend solely upon

the consumers of Britain, and any material lowering of the value of home

produce reacts upon them in the shape of lessened demand for all

articles of luxury in which they deal, and upon the artisan in the form

of diminished employment. It may be useful to lay before our readers Mr

Spackman’s estimate of the total productions of this country, calculated

on the most authentic data _before_ the commencement of the depression.

ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

Annual value of agricultural productions, £250,000,000

Annual value of manufacturing productions, £177,184,292

From which deduct value of raw material, 50,000,000

———————————— 127,184,292

Annual value of product of mining interest, 36,121,000

Annual value of profits of shipping interest, 3,637,231

Annual income from Colonies, about 15,000,000

Annual income from foreign trade, 15,000,000

Annual income from fisheries, about 3,000,000

————————————

Total, £449,942,523

————————————

This constitutes the whole product of our national wealth. It is the

substance of Britain, and from one or other of the above sources does

every individual in the land derive his means of support. Out of these

all taxation is paid: from these, all professional men, tradesmen,

artisans, and dealers, derive their profit and their means. Hitherto, by

all wise legislators, the interests of the two leading classes of

producers have been considered indissolubly united. The agriculturist

supplied the manufacturer with food, and to a considerable extent with

raw material; and in return he took annually two-thirds of the

manufactured productions. Our exports were exchanged for luxuries, or

for articles which could not be produced at home, and the balance in our

favour constituted the yearly increment of our wealth. What free trade

proposes to do, and, indeed, has partially effected, is the dissolution

of the dependence of the two great classes on each other. The

manufacturer is invited to seek his food and raw material from the

cheapest foreign source; the agriculturist to do the same with respect

to foreign manufactures. But the two classes are not upon a par. The

agriculturist cannot export any considerable portion of his produce,

because he is greatly undersold by the cheap growers of the Continent

and America. We observe that, last year, the whole of the exports which

can be termed agricultural, were as follows:—

Butter, £210,604

Cheese, 24,912

Wool, sheep and lambs, 535,801

————————

£771,317

This, it will be seen, is an infinitesimally small portion of our whole

products. The manufacturer can export, though not to an extent

corresponding to his powers of production. Manufactures have been

cheapening year by year, in consequence of augmented foreign

competition, and that struggle is likely to go on for years as fiercely

as ever. To maintain the export trade in a competition which cannot end

otherwise than disastrously, we have been called upon to sacrifice

everything. This is the true secret of the lowered tariffs, of the

unnatural policy which we have pursued towards our colonies, of the

clamour for financial reform which has been so industriously raised.

Without speculating as to future operations, which probably will include

a direct attack upon the Monarchy and the National Debt, we shall simply

draw the attention of our readers to this fact, that, for the sake of

increasing the bulk of our exports by the annual value of three, four,

or ten millions, (which we have _not achieved_, our exports last year

being lower than those of 1845,) we have lowered the annual value of our

home productions by ninety-one millions! And the men who have done this

call themselves statesmen, and congratulate each other on the results of

their singular sagacity!

But, let the manufacturers do what they can, two-thirds of their

produce, in round numbers £120,000,000, must still be consumed at home.

The shopkeepers are the brokers of this amount of produce. And how is it

to be consumed, if the great agricultural interest is to be broken up?

No Free-trader alive can answer that question. We perfectly understand

the virulence of their organs, and their wrath and rage at the

unanswerable case which we have laid before the public in former papers;

but no rage or wrath will extricate the Free-traders from their dilemma.

They must now explain to the tradesmen and artisans the profitable

nature of their scheme. They may take credit, if they please, for

increased exportations to the amount of ten millions—let them debit

themselves _per contra_ with ninety-one millions of decrease in the

power of the home consumers to purchase, and then account to us for the

defalcation. We have a high authority behind whom we shall retire for

shelter, if again assailed. That redoubted political economist, Mr James

Wilson, must in common consistency put forth his ægis before us, and

defend, lion-like, his original proposition, “that _individuals_,

_communities_, or _countries_, can only be prosperous in proportion to

the prosperity of the whole.”

There are other considerations connected with the permanent depreciation

of landed property in Great Britain, which are personal to almost every

man belonging to the higher and middle classes of society. It has been

far too hastily assumed that this is a mere proprietor’s question, or at

least one in which the mercantile and professional classes have no

direct interest. We propose, towards the conclusion of this article, to

examine that matter minutely: in the mean time we shall direct our

attention to the official tables of the exports and imports for the last

year, which have been thought so favourable to free trade, as almost to

justify the celebration of a national jubilee.

In 1848, our exports were short of forty-nine millions; this year they

exceed fifty-eight. Such is their declared value; and though we must

still hold with Sir Robert Peel, that these tables cannot be entirely

relied on for accuracy, we shall consider them simply as they are given

us.

In order to estimate the real advantage which the country has derived

from the adoption of free trade, it is necessary to revert to the

condition in which we stood _before_ the Corn and Navigation Laws were

repealed. No one, who reflects upon the state of the Continent in 1848,

can be surprised that our exports have been augmented materially by the

restoration of tranquillity. That augmentation has nothing whatever to

do with free trade. The question which we must now consider is this—have

we been materially benefited, or benefited at all, or the reverse, by

the substitution of free trade instead of our former system? In order to

ascertain that, we must institute a comparison between our situation

anterior to free trade, and that which is now made the ground of

Ministerial triumph. We shall, therefore, compare the exports and

imports of the year 1845, the last protection year, with those of 1849.

The fairness of this comparison will not, we presume, be disputed. And

first, as to the exports:

From Mr Porter’s Tables, (page 358 of the new edition,) we learn that

the real or declared value of British and Irish produce and

manufactures, exported in 1845, was £60,111,081. The Government tables,

just published, give us the total declared value of the exports for 1849

at £58,848,042. There is, therefore, a deficit of £1,263,039 in 1849, as

compared with 1845. Mr M’Gregor, it will be remembered, told us that we

were to have _an increase of two millions a-week_: the Government tables

show us that we have a decrease of a million and a quarter a-year,

comparing the one year with the other! We understand that the whole of

the exports are included in the statement just issued. We can form no

other conclusion from the large increase of the items inserted, and the

small amount of some of them—for example, stockings—which are estimated

at £1494 in 1849, in comparison with £39 in 1848; indeed, the words

“total declared value,” admit of no other construction. So, then, our

exports in the aggregate have not increased, but, on the contrary, have

fallen off. We find the declared value of our principal textile exports

to be as follows:—

1845. 1849.

Cotton manufactures, £19,172,564 £18,834,601

—— yarn, 6,962,626 6,701,920

Linen manufactures, 3,062,006 3,073,903

—— yarn, 1,051,303 737,650

Woollen manufactures, 7,674,672 7,330,475

—— yarn, 1,067,056 1,089,867

——————————— ———————————

£38,990,227 £37,768,416

The imports, however, are more valuable for our consideration. No idea

of their comparative value can be formed from the tables; but the amount

is set forth in bulk and number, and we believe our readers will feel

astonished at the results. We shall first enumerate those articles which

have been brought in to displace British produce.

Animals living, viz.— 1845. 1849.

Oxen and bulls, 9,782 21,751

Cows, 6,502 17,921

Calves, 586 13,645

Sheep, 15,846 126,247

Lambs, 112 3,018

Swine and hogs, 1,598 2,653

—————————— ——————————

Total animals, 34,426 185,235

Bacon, cwt., 64 384,325

Beef, salted, not corned, 3,540 144,638

— fresh, or slightly salted, 651 5,279

Pork, salted, 1,461 347,352

— fresh, 133 924

Hams, 2,603 9,460

—————————— ——————————

Total of meats, cwt., 8,452 891,978

—————————— ——————————

Butter, cwt., 240,118 279,462

Cheese, 258,246 390,978

Eggs, number, 75,669,843 97,884,557

—————————— ——————————

Corn—

Wheat, qrs. 135,670 4,509,626

Barley, 299,314 1,554,860

Oats, 585,793 1,368,673

Rye, 23 256,308

Peas, 82,556 285,487

Beans, 197,919 483,430

Indian corn or maize, 42,295 2,249,571

Buckwheat, 1,105 308

Beer or bigg, 1,749

—————————— ——————————

Total grain, qrs., 1,344,675 10,710,012

—————————— ——————————

Wheat meal or flour, cwt., 630,255 3,937,219

Barley meal, 224

Oatmeal, 2,224 40,055

Rye meal, 24,031

Pea meal, 300

Bean meal, 2

Indian corn meal, 102,181

Buckwheat meal, 1,095

—————————— ——————————

Total flour and meal, cwts., 632,479 4,105,107

These are the free-trade importations which are ruining the British

agriculturist. This is the kind of competition which he is called upon

to face, with a heavier load of taxation pressing upon him than is known

in any other country in the world.

We shall probably be told, however, that this enormous supply of cheap

food has enabled the people to extend their consumption of articles of

luxury to a large extent. Let us see how that matter stands. We select

the common luxuries, which are next to necessaries, for

illustration,—and we also add another column, showing the quantities

entered for consumption in 1848. By this our readers will be enabled to

ascertain the increasing rate of demand for these articles.

1845. 1848. 1849.

Coffee, lb., 34,318,095 37,107,279 34,431,074

Tea, 44,183,135 48,735,696 50,024,688

Tobacco and snuff, 26,323,944 27,305,134 27,685,687

Wine, gallons, 6,986,846 6,369,785 6,487,689

It will be observed, that of these articles there is no great additional

consumption. We have excepted sugar from the above list, on account of

the alteration of the duties since 1845. There was, however, less

entered for home consumption in 1849 than in 1848, by 240,067 cwt.

There appears to be nothing else in these tables which calls for special

remark. They establish the fact that, under the operation of free trade,

we have not yet been able to export as large an amount of manufactures

as left this country in the last year of protection; a fact very

suggestive, when we regard the enormous increase of the imports. The

foreigner is supplanting our agricultural industry, without taking in

return an augmented quantity of the produce of our manufacturers.

We cannot, therefore, see that these returns afford us any ground for

congratulation. We can draw no good augury for the future from the

figures which appear on the import side of the account: on the contrary,

they appear to us ominous of calamity and disaster.

The large amount of bullion contained in the vaults of the Bank of

England has been triumphantly referred to by the Free-traders as a

proof, almost conclusive in itself, that the country is flourishing

under the system of unrestricted importations; and the Protectionists

have been taunted with the failure of their prediction, that a large

import of foreign grain would drain the gold from Britain. These

assumptions rest upon a most superficial view of the causes which have

combined to restore bullion to the Bank during the last two years; and

they argue a total forgetfulness of the calamitous monetary panic of

1847, occasioned by the demand for gold to meet the large importations

of foreign grain consequent upon the famine. The ruinous effects of the

adverse state of the foreign exchanges upon our commercial and

manufacturing classes, in 1847 and 1848, are matters of history; and the

unprecedented advice given by the Government to the Bank, to charge

_eight per cent_ on its advances, as well as the virtual abrogation of

the Bank Act of 1844, are incidents in our mercantile annals too

startling to be soon forgotten. It is not difficult, if we keep these

things steadily in view, and also take into account the disturbed state

of Europe for the last two years, to understand the reason why the

returns of bullion have been so great.

The principal sources of the steady accumulation of gold during the last

two years, in the face of continued large imports of grain and

provisions, may be enumerated as follows:—

1st, The sale of foreign investments by parties in this country, and the

stringent enforcement of all moneys due to them abroad.

2d, Forced sales and consignments of British goods at prices ruinously

low to the producers.

3d, A considerable reduction in the stock of raw material.

4th, A diminution in the quantity of gold coin required to carry on the

internal trade and domestic expenditure of the country. This diminution

has been caused by the fall of prices, whereby the same quantity of

commodities is represented by less money—by the sudden limitation of the

employment of labour—and by the reduced means of the people for ordinary

expenditure.

5th, Remittances from foreign countries, caused by the revolutionary

movements in most of the Continental states.

6th, The return of the absentees from abroad, whose expenditure has been

estimated as high as £20,000,000. Allowing this to be a great

exaggeration, and estimating it even at a third of the amount, the

result becomes most important.

7th, By other minor causes, amongst which we may particularise the

return of sovereigns to this country from Belgium, in consequence of the

alteration in the law which regulates the currency there.

When we look to the operation of these causes, some of them being, from

their nature, mere temporary expedients, and others arising from

political movements over which we had no control, the existence of a

large _balance_ of bullion in the coffers of the Bank of England ceases

to be an index of the legitimate operations of trade. It is, in fact,

nothing more than a balance. Without accurate data as to the quantities

of the gold which have been sent into and again exported from this

country during the last two years—data which our opponents have no wish

whatever to see produced—it would be fallacious to assume that our

increased imports of commodities have been met by our extended exports.

Indeed, the Government accounts distinctly demonstrate that such is not

the case. They prove that our imports are augmenting at a ratio to which

the exports bear no manner of proportion; and no man, who will take the

pains of considering dispassionately the foregoing tables, can doubt

this. How, then, is the balance paid? Not certainly in goods; and if not

in goods, in what other shape than money?

The maintenance of the stock of bullion in the Bank depends solely upon

the continuance or the recurrence of such unusual accidents as we have

enumerated above. We have been large sellers of foreign funds and

investments; and we have received from other countries, for the sake of

security, important remittances of the precious metals. But until we can

restore the balance of trade by raising our exports to the level of the

imports, or by restricting the latter, which we are bound to do in every

case where large branches of native industry can be affected, we cannot

hope permanently to retain the treasure, except at a frightful

sacrifice. Further sales and further deposits may combine to keep it

here, even for a considerable period; but so soon as confidence is

restored abroad, we must look for a steady drain. If our imports shall

constantly exceed our exports, which is the tendency of our recent

legislation, we shall be forced to correct the balance of trade by

drawing upon the accumulations of our more prudent ancestors, who acted

on different principles; and so long as the foreign investments of their

wealth last us, we may be enabled to continue our spendthrift course,

consuming more than we produce. But this must evidently have an end;

and, long before that period, the annual diminution of our national

means would be felt by all classes of society, and the war between the

great bulk of the community and the money power would commence in

terrible earnest.

There are, we know, many people who, in spite of all the testimony which

has been adduced, and the solemn declaration of the farmers that they

cannot carry on cultivation at present prices, refuse to believe that

the agricultural interest is virtually doomed to extinction. They say

that the farmers are habitual grumblers, and they insinuate that this

may be a false alarm. Now, as to grumbling, we suspect it would be

impossible to find any body of men, who are exposed to constant

fluctuations in the value of their produce, exempt from such a

propensity; and we have heard, ere now, something worse than grumbling

proceed from the throats of the manufacturers. But we ask those

gentlemen whether, supposing America were to carry her avowed purpose

into execution, and to stimulate her own population by converting the

raw material of cotton into fabrics, instead of sending it four thousand

miles across the Atlantic to be spun in Manchester,—and supposing that,

in consequence, American calicoes could be offered in the British market

at a price lower than the cost of the production of a similar article

would be to Mr Cobden or Mr Bright—they imagine that the machinery of

Manchester, Rochdale, and Staley Bridge, would still continue in motion?

Does not common sense—does not all experience tell us, that a losing

trade must be abandoned? And in order to show that agriculture is a

losing trade, we need have recourse neither to farmers’ statistics nor

to pamphlets, however valuable. We prove it out of the mouths of our

adversaries. Here they are:—

SIR ROBERT PEEL, in February 1842, estimated the proper remunerative

price of wheat in this country, “allowing for natural oscillations,” as

between 54s. and 58s.—on the average, 56s.; and stated, that he, “for

one, would never wish to see it vary beyond these two specified values.”

Mr JAMES WILSON, M.P. for Westbury, writing in 1839, stated it as his

opinion, that the proper price of wheat was 52s. 2d.; and that, whatever

average annual price the farmer received in any year less than that

standard price, he made “so much distinct loss.”

Sir CHARLES WOOD, Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in January 1850,

that he did not think “the agriculturist would be ruined with wheat at

44s. a quarter.”

THE AVERAGE PRICE OF WHEAT AT THE HADDINGTON MARKET, ON 8TH FEBRUARY,

WAS 34S. 1D.

We know, moreover, that sales of good wheat have been made in Scotland,

since that time, at even lower prices.

But is this state of things to continue? We say it must. It is a simple

labour and taxation question. You expect the British labourer, who, in

every commodity he consumes, pays taxes to Government, to compete with

foreign serfs, who pay no taxes at all. You expect the British farmers

and landowners to work a worse soil, in a more variable climate, to as

much advantage as the foreign grower; and, moreover, to discharge a

great portion of the public burdens of the state, to pay their full

share of the interest arising from the expenses of every war in which

Britain has been engaged since the Revolution of 1688; to support the

national church, and to pay an undue proportion for the maintenance of

the poor. The cost of cultivating 100 acres of British soil, in

Hertfordshire, is estimated at £545—£1 per acre being allowed for rent.

The cost of cultivating the same area, in Denmark or the northern states

of Germany, is £324, 3s. 4d.—being £220, 16s. 8d., or 40 per cent,

cheaper than in England. In this way, if we assume 50s. as the

productive cost of British wheat, on an expenditure of £545, for the

average here assumed, it will be seen that the expenditure of £324, 3s.

4d. gives 29s. 8d. as the productive cost of German wheat; that the

difference in the price of barley between the countries will be as 30s.

to 18s.; and of oats, as 20s. to 12s.[11]

This comparison is favourable to our opponents, because, in estimating

the cost of British cultivation, a remarkably low rent is assumed;

whilst, on the other hand, the wages of labour and other charges are

greatly higher in Denmark and North Germany than in Russia, Poland,

Wallachia, or Moldavia, from which countries we draw large supplies of

grain. What hope is there of a rise of prices? Corn has been brought to

its present low ebb by the importation, last year, of enormous supplies

from the deficient Continental harvest of 1848. This year we are about

to receive the discharge of a cornucopia filled to the very brim, in

consequence of an unusually luxuriant crop. We have had experience of a

bad year, and we are about to have experience of a good year, heralded

by the following significant fact:—“_Bell’s Weekly Messenger_ states, on

unquestionable authority, that, a few days ago, one of the principal

City houses chartered several vessels at a freight of 6s. per qr., to

load wheat at Odessa at 24s. per qr., free on board.” How long is this

to go on? Is it proposed, by this precious Ministry of ours, that

nothing is to be done until the whole capital of the tenant-farmers is

squandered, and the soil has gone out of cultivation? Or are we to

understand that nothing whatever will be done, should prices fall lower

than now, or even remain at their present level? If the land goes out of

cultivation, a large proportion of the whole annual production of Great

Britain, giving at present employment to many thousands, must be

directly sacrificed; the manufacturers would, in that event, be

compelled to close their establishments for the want of a home market;

and we should have no revenue left to pay the expenses of the cheapest

kind of provisional government, far less the interest of the national

debt. Are the Ministry really aware of what they are doing? According to

their own admissions—according to the calculations of their

supporters—according to the estimates of the leading Free-traders, the

tenant-farmers are at this moment cultivating the soil at a prodigious

annual loss. No possible reduction of rent can suffice to cure the evil,

even if a reduction of rent, which would throw hundreds of thousands out

of employment, were no evil in itself. And yet, in this state of

matters, the Whigs have thought proper to issue a prosperity address,

almost without qualification, in the name of their gracious Sovereign!

We shall now entreat the attention of our readers to a point in which

almost every man of ordinary means in this country is vitally

interested. For a great many years the benefits to be derived from LIFE

INSURANCE, as the best means of providing portions for families, have

been acknowledged and largely sought. All classes have participated in

these Assurances; and we believe that, in Scotland, it would be

difficult to find any considerable number of professional persons, or

tradesmen, who do not contribute to the funds of some of the numerous

societies. We are not exactly aware what may be the method practised in

England, but in Scotland by far the greater portion of the accumulated

funds of these societies, amounting to many millions sterling, is lent

on the security of the land. The value of the land, as every one knows,

must in the aggregate depend on its productive power; and, if present

prices are to rule, (and why they should not do so, under present

legislation, no mortal man can tell us,) great tracts of the land of

this country must go out of cultivation, and consequently be depreciated

in value. In that case, how will the creditor fare? There is already a

disposition shown, in some quarters, to make the creditor participate in

the reduced income of the landed debtor. So hints Lord Drumlanrig, and

he is not quite singular in his opinion. This is just repudiation; for

could the idea be carried into effect, it would be necessary to apply

the same rule to the principal as to the interest, and to provide that

the lender of £100 under protection, should not be entitled to claim

from his debtor more than £67 under the benign, just, and wholesome

operation of free trade. Were this view to be adopted, and the

adjustment made on the supposition that rents were only lowered by a

third, the family of the man who has insured his life for £100, and

regularly paid the premium, would lose rather more than £33. But a

reduction of the whole rental of Great Britain and Ireland, to the

extent of one-third, would amount to little more than £19,500,000,—a sum

utterly insufficient to meet the depreciation, if we adopt the figures

of Mr Villiers, or even if we make the largest allowance for

exaggeration. The merest tyro in political science knows that land

incapable of cultivation is comparatively worthless in price: we have a

practical instance of that at present before us in Ireland, where

estates have been actually abandoned by their owners. Now, if land at

present under tillage should go out of cultivation, on account of the

sale of the produce being inadequate to its cost—a catastrophe to which

our northern districts are fast approaching—it must become, to all

intents and purposes, waste; and the creditor who has lent money on its

security will find that, instead of grain-bearing acres, he can take

possession of nothing save a wilderness of heather and furze.

Every man, therefore, whose life is insured, has a direct interest in

the maintenance of the agricultural prosperity of the country. If _that_

is not maintained, the provision which he has prudently made for his

family is placed in extreme jeopardy, and free-trade legislation may

utterly neutralise his thrift. Nor let him quarrel with the security,

for there is none better. If the land goes down, the tenure of the

existence of the Funds is worse than precarious. If the imports of

foreign corn and provisions shall augment materially during the next two

years, and if “the great experiment,” as it has been called, shall be

persevered in so long, the fortunes and apparent destiny of this great

country must be materially and radically altered. In any case, there

must be a change, and a change of an important description. The

unprincipled Currency Act of 1819 has yet to undergo a revision. In

spite of _dilettante_ arrangements, and financial hocus-pocus,

sedulously invented to blind the eyes of the community to the rottenness

and peculation of our present monetary system, that matter must be

thoroughly probed and examined by the aid of a clearer light than the

lamp of the Jew Ricardo. But, for the present, it would be unwise to

complicate the immediate question. Our stand is taken upon the broad

basis of justice to native industry. We care not in what form or shape

that industry is developed—whether it be applied to agriculture, trade,

or manufactures—so long as it is industry seeking but its own, and

disclaiming the selfish and sordid end of making an individual profit at

the expense, and from the ruin, of other classes of the community.

Sometimes, in calmly considering the course of our legislation for the

last few years, this reflection irresistibly obtrudes itself—whether men

have altogether lost the old feeling of patriotism and devotion, which,

more than anything else, placed Britain in her proud position in the

scale of the European nations? Certainly, when we read the speeches and

harangues of the Free-traders, there is no trace of any such sentiment.

They are cosmopolitans, not Britons: and, discarding the landmarks of

the Almighty, they seem to hope that the laws of nature will be

abrogated, and the doom of Babel reversed, by their own miserable

efforts. Their sympathy is of a curious kind. They estimate foreign

nations upon a scale founded on the consumption of calico; their notions

of liberty undergo a material change, whenever raw cotton or cheap sugar

become elements of the calculation of profit. They must have slavery

abolished in the West Indian colonies: and yet, having ruined the

planters, they are ready to take sugar on the cheapest terms which they

dare offer from foreign slave-growing states, and to furnish them with

clothing and machinery. Their capital, Manchester, and their principal

seats of manufacture, depend for their existence on the continuance of

Negro slavery in America, and not a man of these cosmopolitans dare

raise his voice to denounce it. Why should he? He can gain popularity

cheaper, by retailing gross falsehoods against unreciprocating European

states, in every instance where Red Republicanism has reared its head,

and been, most fortunately, suppressed. The British labourer has none of

his sympathy—he cares not for him in his capacity of a fellow-subject.

If the labourer is an agriculturist, our generous philanthropist would

rather see him and his family condemned to the union-workhouse, than

throw any obstacle in the way of increased serfage in Russia or in

Poland. If the labourer is a manufacturer, the cosmopolitan spurns the

laws enacted by the gentlemen of England for the protection of the women

and children; and, availing himself of a verbal error, claims his right

to work human beings, by relays, like cattle in his mill! And these are

the men who now regulate the movements, and almost dictate the words, of

our British statesmen! In the pages of British history, we meet with

instances of degradation which we fain would see cancelled. We know that

Charles II. was an acquiescent pensioner of the crown of France, and was

content to remain so, at the hazard of the national honour. But we shall

search history in vain for so mean a pandering as that which we have

seen by Ministers to the interests of an upstart oligarchy—founded on

the most perishable basis—scarcely disguising their hostility to the

religion and the constitution of the land—trampling on the rights of the

poor—denying the claims of Native Industry—and doing their utmost to

make these great and glorious kingdoms the habitation of only two

classes—one of them being the master-manufacturers, and the other, the

operatives, whom they may tread at pleasure under their heel.

_Printed by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh._

-----

Footnote 1:

_A Letter to the Queen on a Late Court-Martial._ By SAMUEL WARREN,

F.R.S. Barrister-at-Law. “I was constrained to appeal unto Cæsar.”

Footnote 2:

“Captain Douglas delivered his defence, before the court-martial which

cashiered him, on his thirtieth birth-day.”

Footnote 3:

In justice to Captain Douglas, we must here state, that he clearly

proved before the court-martial, that he withheld his statement for

two days before the Court of Inquiry, still under the impression that

it might be used to damage him in the proceedings before the civil

court. That he was justified in doing so is shown by an order from the

Horse Guards, 3d July 1809, expressly acknowledging the “right” of any

party, before a court of inquiry, “of declining to answer any

question, or to make any statement, which might, in his opinion, have

proved prejudicial to him in the course of any ulterior inquiry into

his conduct.” On the 28th November last also, we may remark that Sir

Charles Napier, in an order to the Indian Army, says, in reference to

a Court of Inquiry—“If any person happens to be accused of misconduct,

he is called on for his statement of the matter in hand, like any

other person: he may either appear or refuse to appear, as he pleases,

unless ordered by superior authority; and _either answer_ any

questions put to him, or _refuse_ to answer.”

If, in the face of these two orders, an officer is to be arraigned

before a court-martial for conduct “unbecoming the character of an

officer and a gentleman, in having omitted and neglected to make a

statement before a Court of Inquiry” which he thought would injure

himself, we must say they are a _snare and a delusion for the unwary_,

and ought to be expunged forthwith from the Order-books of the army.

Footnote 4:

The only article of war, beside this, which could be supposed, for a

moment, to embrace the case, is the 108th, which says, that—“All

crimes not capital, and all disorders and neglects which officers and

soldiers may be guilty of, _to the prejudice of good order and

military discipline_, though not specified in the foregoing cases, or

in our Articles of War, shall be taken cognisance of by

courts-martial, according to the nature and the degree of the

offence.” But it is evident that this article applies to matters of a

military nature. If the merely moral delinquency of which Captain

Douglas is charged might be described as affecting “good order and

military discipline,” there is no act of a man’s life that might not

be designated in the same manner.

Footnote 5:

“In the old articles of war the language used was scandalous and

infamous conduct, _such as is_ unbecoming the character of an ‘officer

and a gentleman.’”

Footnote 6:

Capri.

Footnote 7:

_The Pillars of Hercules; or, a Narrative of Travels in Spain and

Morocco in 1848._ By DAVID URQUHART, Esq. M.P. 2 vols. 8vo. London:

1850.

_Le Véloce; ou Tanger, Alger, et Tunis._ Par ALEXANDRE DUMAS. Vols. I.

and II. Paris: 1849.

Footnote 8:

Alison.

Footnote 9:

Spackman’s _Tables_, p. 185.

Footnote 10:

SPACKMAN’S _Occupations of the People_. _Vide_ Synoptical Table.

Footnote 11:

We are indebted for these calculations to a pamphlet entitled

_Observations on the Elements of Taxation, and the Productive Cost of

Corn_, by S. SANDARS, which we strongly recommend to the notice of our

readers, as one of the most able treatises on the subject which has

yet appeared.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.

● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last

chapter.

● Erratum item was corrected.

● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.