=Source.=—_Memoirs by Sir Robert Peel_, vol. ii., p. 98.
(London: 1858.)
I will briefly refer to the position of the Corn Law question at the
close of the Session of 1845, unaffected as it then was by failure, or
apprehension of failure, in any particular article of food.
The progress of discussion had made a material change in the opinions
of many persons with regard to the policy of protection to domestic
agriculture, and the extent to which this policy should be carried.
I had adopted at an early period of my public life, without, I fear,
much serious reflection, the opinions generally prevalent at that time
among men of all parties, as to the justice and necessity of protection
to agriculture.
They were the opinions of Sir Henry Parnell and Mr. Ricardo, of Lord
John Russell and Lord Melbourne, as well as of the Duke of Wellington,
Mr. Canning, and Mr. Huskisson. I had, however, been a willing party,
both in 1828 and 1842, to the reductions which took place in the amount
of protection fixed by the Corn Law of 1815, a law which was based on
the assumption that wheat could not profitably be grown at a price
lower than eighty shillings a quarter.
One of the first acts of the Government over which I presided (the
Government of August, 1841) was to propose a material change in the
Corn Law of 1828.... That proposal was ultimately adopted, after
considerable discussion in Cabinet, and a Bill was brought into the
House of Commons at an early period of the Session of 1842, which
finally passed into a law, providing for a material diminution in the
amount of the import duties on the several kinds of foreign grain. The
prohibition which then existed on the import of foreign cattle and meat
was removed in the same Session, and their import permitted on moderate
rates of duty. These changes, although they gave little satisfaction to
the most eager opponents of the Corn Law, and were indeed denounced by
some as perfectly nugatory, were not effected without great murmuring
and some open opposition to the Government on the part of many of its
supporters.
The Duke of Buckingham resigned his seat in the Cabinet rather than be
a party to them, nor was it an easy matter to procure the unanimous
adoption of the measures I proposed by the remaining members of the
Government.
During the discussions in Parliament on the Corn Law of 1842 I was
more than once pressed to give a guarantee (so far as a Minister could
give it) that the amount of protection established by that law should
be permanently adhered to; but, although I did not then contemplate
the necessity for further change, I uniformly refused to fetter the
discretion of the Government by any such assurances as those that were
required from me. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this memoir
that I should refer in detail to the events that took place between the
passing of the Corn Bill in 1842 and the close of the Session in 1845.
During that interval the opinions I had previously entertained on the
subject of protection to agriculture had undergone a great change.
The main causes of that change are stated in a public letter which I
addressed to my constituents shortly before the General Election of
1847, from which the following is an extract. The latter part of this
extract refers to a question in some respects distinct—namely, the
difficulty there would be in subsequently maintaining inviolate the
Corn Law of 1842 in the event of its suspension in 1845 on account of
apprehended scarcity. I will give, however, the extract entire, as the
reasoning applies with nearly equal force to the principle of continued
protection as well as to the policy of its revival after having been
once in abeyance. The letter is dated July, 1847.
_To the Electors of Tamworth._
My confidence in the validity of the reasons on which I had myself
heretofore relied for the maintenance of restrictions on the import
of corn had been materially weakened. It had been weakened by the
conflict of arguments on the principle of a restrictive policy; by many
concurring proofs that the wages of labour do not vary with the price
of corn; by the contrast presented in two successive periods of dearth
and abundance, in the health, morals, and tranquillity and general
prosperity of the whole community; by serious doubts whether, in the
present condition of this country, cheapness and plenty are not ensured
for the future in a higher degree by the free intercourse in corn, than
by restrictions on its importation for the purpose of giving protection
to domestic agriculture.
It had been weakened also by the following considerations, which were
in a great degree new elements in forming a judgment on this vital
matter.
The general repeal of prohibitory duties, and the recent application
of the principles of free trade to almost all articles of import from
abroad, made the Corn Laws the object of more searching scrutiny and
more invidious comment, and narrowed the ground on which their defence
could be maintained.
Among the articles of foreign import prohibited up to the year 1842,
and then admitted at low rates of duty, were some important articles
of agricultural produce, salted and fresh meat, oxen, sheep, cows,
etc. You probably recollect the panic which this admission caused—the
forced sale of stock, the prophecies that it would be impossible to
compete with the foreign grazier, and that meat would be reduced to
threepence a pound. Five years have passed since this great change in
the law took place, and your own experience will enable you to judge
whether the panic was well founded, and whether the prophecies have
been fulfilled.
The complete failure of these prophecies had naturally had its effect
on public opinion with regard to the probable consequences of a free
intercourse in other articles of agricultural produce.
There was another circumstance still more calculated to diminish
apprehensions as to the risk of opening the corn market of this country
to foreign competition. There has appeared of late years a tendency
to increase in the consumption of articles of subsistence much more
rapid than the increase in the population. It is difficult, if not
impossible, on account of the absence of statistical information, to
measure accurately that increase in the case of articles of first
necessity, such as corn and meat; but it may be inferred from the
relative consumption at different periods of articles in respect to
which the comparison can be instituted.
The following is an account of some of the principal articles entered
for home consumption in the years 1841 and 1846 respectively:
┌─────────────────────────┬────────────────────┬────────────────────┐
│ Articles. │ 1841. │ 1846. │
├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤
│ Cocoa │ 1,930,764 lbs. │ 2,962,327 lbs. │
│ Coffee │ 28,420,980 lbs. │ 36,781,391 lbs. │
│ Currants │ 190,071 cwts. │ 359,315 cwts. │
│ Rice │ 245,887 cwts. │ 466,961 cwts. │
│ Pepper │ 2,750,790 lbs. │ 3,297,431 lbs. │
│ Sugar │ 4,065,971 cwts. │ 5,231,845 cwts. │
│ Molasses │ 402,422 cwts. │ 582,665 cwts. │
│ Tea │ 36,681,877 lbs. │ 46,728,208 lbs. │
│ Tobacco and Snuff │ 22,308,385 lbs. │ 27,001,908 lbs. │
│ Brandy │ 1,165,137 gallons │ 1,515,954 gallons │
│ Geneva │ 15,404 gallons │ 40,211 gallons │
│ British Spirits │ 20,642,333 gallons │ 23,122,581 gallons │
│ Malt, charged with duty │ 36,164,448 bushels │ 41,979,000 bushels │
└─────────────────────────┴────────────────────┴────────────────────┘
Surely it is impossible to refer to this comparative table without
being forcibly struck by the rapid increase in the consumption of
the articles which it embraces. Can there be a doubt that if the
consumption of articles of a secondary necessity has been thus
advancing, the consumption of articles of first necessity—of meat
and of bread, for instance—has been making at least an equally rapid
progress?
During the greater part of the period included in the return, from the
middle of 1842 to the end of 1846, the free trade measures have been
in operation. They have been in operation, therefore—concurrently,
at least—with these evidences of the increasing ease and comfort
of the people. Other causes have no doubt contributed to that ease
and comfort; but even if the whole effect be assigned to those other
causes—to railway enterprise or anything else—it does not affect
my present argument. If there be from any cause a tendency to the
consumption of articles of the first necessity much more rapid
than the increase of population, the responsibility of undertaking
to regulate the supply of food by legislative restraints, and the
difficulty of maintaining these restraints in the event of any sudden
check to prosperity or increased price of subsistence, will be greatly
augmented; while, on the other hand, the danger to be apprehended from
foreign competition is materially lessened.
It was from the combined influence of these various
considerations—from diminished confidence in the necessity or
advantage of protection; from the increasing difficulty of resisting
the application to articles of food of those principles which had
been gradually applied to so many other articles; from the result of
the experiment made with regard to cattle and meat in 1842; from the
evidences of rapidly increasing consumption; from the aggravation of
every other difficulty in the maintenance of the Corn Laws by the
fact of their suspension on the first real pressure—it was from the
combined influence of such considerations that I came to the conclusion
that the attempt to maintain those laws inviolate after their
suspension would be impolitic, that the struggle for their maintenance
would assume a new character, and that no advantage to be gained by
success could counterbalance the consequences of failure, or even the
evils attending protracted conflict.
Between the maintenance of the Corn Laws inviolate and a measure
involving their ultimate repeal, I saw no middle course satisfactory
or advantageous to any interest; I saw still less of satisfaction
or advantage in indecision and irrational delay. I could not admit
the incompetency of the present Parliament to deal with this as with
every other question of public concern. There appeared to me, upon the
whole, much less of public evil in the resolution finally to adjust the
question of the Corn Laws than in any other that could be then adopted;
and that being my deliberate conviction, I felt it to be my duty to
incur the painful sacrifices which the acting upon that conviction must
inevitably entail.