=Source.=—_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 78, col. 785, March 13.
Mr. Cobden, having presented a petition in favour of his Motion
for a Committee of Inquiry into the effects of the Corn Laws on
Agriculturists, addressed the House: Sir, the object of this Motion is
to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the present condition
of the agricultural interests; and at the same time to ascertain how
the laws regulating the importation of agricultural produce have
affected the agriculturists of this country. As regards the distress
among farmers, I presume we cannot go to a higher authority than those
hon. Gentlemen who profess to be the farmers’ friends and protectors.
I find it stated by those hon. Gentlemen who recently paid their
respects to the Prime Minister, that the agriculturists are in a state
of great embarrassment and distress. I find that one gentleman from
Norfolk (Mr. Hudson) stated that the farmers in the county are paying
their rents, but paying them out of capital, and not profits. I find
that Mr. Turner, of Upton, in Devonshire, stated that one-half of the
smaller farmers in that county are insolvent, and that the others are
rapidly falling into the same condition; that the farmers with larger
holdings are quitting their farms with a view of saving the rest of
their property; and that, unless some remedial measures are adopted
by this House, they will be utterly ruined. The accounts which I have
given you of those districts are such as I have had from many other
sources. I put it to county members, whether—taking the whole of the
south of England, from the confines of Nottinghamshire to the Land’s
End—whether, as a rule, the farmers are not now in a state of the
greatest embarrassment? ...
I am at a loss to understand what protection to agriculture means,
because I find such contradictory accounts given in this House by the
promoters of that system. For instance, nine months ago, when my right
hon. friend the member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) brought forward
his Motion for the Abolition of the Corn Laws, the right hon.
gentleman, then the President of the Board of Trade, in replying to
him, said that the present Corn Law had been most successful in its
operations. He took great credit to the Government for the steadiness
of price that was obtained under that law. Now recollect that the
right hon. gentleman was speaking when wheat was 56s. a quarter, and
that wheat is now 45s. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government says: “My legislation has had nothing to do with wheat being
at 45s. a quarter”; but how are we to get over the difficulty that the
responsible member of Government at the head of the Board of Trade,
only nine months ago, claimed merit for the Government to have kept
up the price of wheat at 56s.? These discrepancies themselves between
members of the Government and its supporters render it more and more
necessary that this question of protection should be inquired into. I
ask, what does it mean? The price of wheat is 45s. this day. I have
been speaking to the highest authority in England on this point—one
who is often quoted by this House—within the last week, and he tells
me that, with another favourable harvest, he thinks it very likely that
wheat will be 35s. a quarter. What does this legislation mean, or what
does it purport to be, if you are to have prices fluctuating from 56s.
down to 35s. a quarter, and probably lower? Can you prevent it by the
legislation of this House? ...
I show you after thirty years’ trial what is the depressed condition of
the agriculturists; I prove to you what is the impoverished state of
farmers, and also of the labourers, and you will not contest any one of
those propositions. I say it is enough, having had thirty years’ trial
of your specific with no better results than these, for me to ask you
to go into Committee to see if something better cannot be devised. I am
going to contend that free trade in grain would be more advantageous to
farmers—and with them I include labourers—than restriction; to oblige
the hon. member for Norfolk, I will take with them also the landlords;
and I contend that free trade in corn and grain of every kind would be
more beneficial to them than to any other class of the community. I
should have contended the same before the passing of the late tariff.
But now I am prepared to do so with tenfold more force. What has the
right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) done? He has passed a law to admit
fat cattle at a nominal duty. Some foreign fat cattle were selling in
Smithfield the other day at about £15 or £16 per head, paying only
about 7-½ per cent. duty; but he has not admitted the raw material
out of which these fat cattle are made. I say, give free trade in
that grain which goes to make the cattle. I contend that by this
protective system the farmers throughout the country are more injured
than any other class in the community. I would take, for instance,
the article of clover-seed. I believe clover-seed is to be excluded
from the schedule of free importation. Now I ask for whose benefit is
this exception made? I ask the hon. member for North Northamptonshire,
whether those whom he represents, the farmers of that district, are, in
a large majority of instances, sellers of clover-seed? I will undertake
to say they are not. How many counties in England are there which are
benefited by the protection of clover-seed? I will take the whole of
Scotland. If there be any Scotch members present, I ask them whether
they do not in their country import the clover-seed from England? They
do not grow it. I undertake to say there are not ten counties in the
United Kingdom which are interested in the exportation of clover-seed
out of their own borders. Neither have they any of this article in
Ireland. But yet we have clover-seed excluded from the farmers,
although they are not interested as a body in its protection at all.
Again, take the article of beans. There are lands in Essex where they
can grow them alternate years with wheat. I find that beans come from
that district to Mark Lane; and I believe also that in some parts of
Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire they do the same; but how is it with
the poor lands of Surrey or the poor downland of Wiltshire? Take the
whole of the counties. How many of them are there which are exporters
of beans, or send them to market? You are taxing the whole of the
farmers who do not sell their beans, for the pretended benefit of a
few counties or districts of counties where they do. Mark you, where
they can grow beans on the better and stronger soils, it is not in one
case out of ten that they grow them for the market. They may grow them
for their own use; but where they do not cultivate beans, send them to
market, and turn them into money, those farmers can have no interest
whatever in keeping up the money price of that which they never sell.
Take the article of oats. How many farmers are there who ever have oats
down on the credit side of their books, as an item upon which they
rely for the payment of their rents? The farmers may, and generally
do, grow oats for feeding their own horses; but it is an exception to
the rule—and a rare exception, too—where the farmer depends upon the
sale of his oats to meet his expenses. Take the article of hops. You
have a protection upon them for the benefit of the growers in Kent,
Sussex, and Surrey; but yet the cultivators of hops are taxed for the
protection of others in articles which they do not themselves produce.
Take the article of cheese. Not one farmer in ten in the country makes
his own cheese, and yet they and their servants are large consumers
of it. But what are the counties which have the protection in this
article? Cheshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, part of Derbyshire,
and Leicestershire. Here are some four or five dairy counties having
an interest in the protection of cheese; but recollect that those
counties are peculiarly hardly taxed in beans and oats, because in
those counties where they are chiefly dairy farms, they are most in
want of artificial food for their cattle. There are the whole of the
hilly districts; and I hope my friend the member for Nottingham (Mr.
Gisborne) is here, because he has a special grievance in this matter;
he lives in Derbyshire, and very commendably employs himself in rearing
good cattle upon the hills; but he is taxed for your protection for
his beans, peas, oats, Indian corn, and everything which he wants for
feeding them. He told me, only the other day, that he should like
nothing better than to give up the little remnant of protection on
cattle, if you would only let him buy a thousand quarters of black oats
for the consumption of his stock.... Take the whole of the hilly
districts, and the down country of Wiltshire; the whole of that
expanse of downs in the south of England; take the Cheviots, where the
flockmasters reside; the Grampians in Scotland; and take the whole of
Wales; they are not benefited in the slightest degree by the protection
on these articles; but, on the contrary, you are taxing the very things
they want. They require provender as abundantly and cheaply as they can
get it. Allowing a free importation of food for cattle is the only way
in which those counties can improve the breed of their lean stocks, and
the only manner in which they can ever bring their land up to anything
like a proper state of fertility. I will go further and say that farms
with thin soil, which you will find in Hertfordshire and Surrey,
farmers with large capital, arable farmers, I say those men are deeply
interested in having a free importation of food for their cattle,
because they have thin, poor land. The land does not of itself contain
the means of increased fertility; and the only way is the bringing in
of an additional quantity of food from elsewhere, that they can bring
their farms up to a proper state of cultivation. I have been favoured
with an estimate made by a very clever experienced farmer in Wiltshire.
That gentleman estimates that upon every 400 acres of land he could
increase his profits to the amount of £280, paying the same rent as at
present, provided there was a free importation of foreign grain of all
kinds. He would buy 500 quarters of oats at 15s., or the same amount
in beans or peas at 14s. or 15s. a sack, to be fed on the land or in
the yard; by which he would grow additional 160 quarters of wheat, and
230 quarters of barley, and gain an increased profit of £300 upon his
sheep and cattle. His plan embraces the employment of an additional
capital of £1,000; and he would pay £150 a year more for labour. I had
an opportunity, the other day, of speaking to a very intelligent farmer
in Hertfordshire. He told me that last year he paid £230 enhanced price
on his beans and other provender which he bought for his cattle—£230
enhanced price in consequence of that restriction upon the trade in
foreign grain, amounting to 14s. a quarter on all the wheat he sold
off his farm.... I think I could give you from every county the names
of some of the first-rate farmers who are as ardent free-traders as
I am.... They say, “Let us have our Indian corn, Egyptian beans, and
Polish oats, as freely as we have our linseed cake, and we can bear
competition with any corn-growers in the world.”