of their unnatural and mischievous scheme, afford the surest
indication of their own consciousness that they have committed a
grievous error. In their attempts to make head against the symptoms
of reaction which are everywhere apparent in the public mind, they
exhibit no unity of purpose; they are not agreed even as to the
facts from which their arguments should be drawn. A few months ago,
we were told that the whole country was in a state of the greatest
prosperity. The existence of agricultural distress was denied; the
shipping interest was said to be in the most healthy and flourishing
condition; the manufacturers had so many orders that their ability
to execute was impeded; wages were rising--pauperism decreasing--in
short, no one could recall to memory times of more general
happiness and content. Such was the picture drawn by Ministerial
limners, no further back than the opening of the present session
of Parliament, and it is very much to be regretted that it should
so soon have vanished like a dissolving view. Down to the present
moment, we have been unable to discover the motive for so monstrous
a fiction. Nobody believed it: nobody could believe it, for it
ran counter to every man's knowledge of his own affairs, and his
opinion as to those of his neighbour. The agriculturists declared
it to be a falsehood in so far as they were concerned--so did the
ship-owners--so did the shopkeepers--so did the manufacturers, whose
circulars acknowledged depression for the present, and held out
little hope for the future. The Ministerial averment answered no
purpose, save to excite a general burst of disapprobation. Conceived
in fraud, it was abandoned with cowardice. A lower tone was assumed.
Distress was admitted--but only to a certain extent; and we may
remark that such admissions are peculiarly convenient and innocuous
to those who make them, inasmuch as the actual degree or prevalence
of the suffering must still remain matter of debate. Indeed, no
statistics, however ingenious or elaborated, can furnish data for
determining so delicate a point. But to account for the existence
of distress, even in a mitigated form, was no easy task for those
who were resolved, at all hazards, to exclude the operation of free
trade. Their prosperity balance-sheet stood awkwardly in the way.
Pluming themselves upon increased exports, and a larger foreign
trade than had been driven for some years, they were compelled to
assign some reason for the remarkable depression at home. The old
shift of railway calls would no longer suit their purpose. Sir
Robert Peel, regardless of a certain personal passage of his life
connected with the opening of the Trent Valley, was exceedingly fond
of turning out that scape-goat into the wilderness; but the time
had gone by; the calls were paid up or suspended; and it was no
longer possible for effrontery to maintain that the great mass of
the consumers of these kingdoms had been materially injured by their
imprudent dalliance with scrip. There was no tightness in the money
market; no external cause to interfere with the successful operation
of industry, capital, or enterprise. Yet still there was distress;
and, what was more remarkable, the complaint was universal. The
value of produce had fallen, effecting thereby a corresponding
decline in rents, and every kind of uncertain profit. Employment
grew scarcer every day, whilst the number of applicants increased.
The burden of taxation, however, still remained undiminished. The
creditor could still exact the stipulated amount of money from his
debtor, without deduction, although the labour of the debtor was
reduced in point of value by at least a third. Such were, and are,
the leading phenomena, to account for which the ingenuity of the
Free-traders has been exercised.
They have, we are bound to say, cut an exceedingly sorry figure
in explanation. They have got in their mouths a few cant phrases,
which, when assailed, they repeat over and over again, without the
slightest reference to their meaning. One of these, and perhaps the
most favourite, refers to the "transition state"--a peculiar phase
of suffering, which they maintain to be the necessary consequence of
every considerable change in the fiscal regulations of the empire.
This "transition state," in politics, would appear to correspond to
that which, in medicine, was favoured by Mr St John Long. In order
to become better, it is necessary to make the patient, in the first
instance, materially worse--to inflict artificial wounds and promote
suppuration, in the hope that these may afterwards be healed. It is
rather remarkable that none of our political doctors have as yet
ventured to specify the nature of the curatory process. They leave
us woefully in the dark as to the means which are to be adopted for
remedying the evil; and they obstinately refuse to predict what
kind of state is to follow upon this of transition. In truth, they
are utterly at sea. They cannot shut their eyes to the extent of
the mischief which they have wrought; they cannot find or invent an
extraneous excuse, which will avail them, in the opinion even of the
loosest thinker, to maintain the delusion that the present distress
and stagnation are attributable to any other cause than that of low
prices, occasioned by foreign competition; and they are attempting
to conceal their chagrin and disappointment at the disastrous issue
of their experiment under the cover of general terms and vague
ambiguous phrases--a rhetorical expedient which is not likely to
have much weight with those who have been made the victims of their
rashness or vacillation.
Latterly, indeed, some portions of the public press have shown
symptoms of being more specific, and very glad should we be if
Ministers would follow that example. We are told that present
prices are merely exceptional, and that they must shortly improve.
The mere adoption of this argument shows that such writers dissent
from the doctrine that cheapness is an unqualified blessing--that
they still believe in their hearts that it is impossible altogether
to separate the interests of the producer and the consumer--and
that they are still alive to the fundamental political axiom,
that the wealth of a country depends mainly upon the value of its
produce. Were it otherwise, they would be supporters of the most
astounding paradox that was ever advanced. The price of the loaf
must rise correspondingly with that of the quarter of wheat: beef
and mutton are sold by the stone or by the pound, in proportion to
the market value of the living animal. If wheat were to rise to
56s., which is said to be the average cost of its production in
this country, bread would become so much dearer, and, in that case,
the working-man could be no better off than he was before the corn
laws were repealed. We have heard it said, and we firmly believe
it to be the case, that many of the public men, of both parties,
who voted with Sir Robert Peel, did so under the full conviction
that there could be no material decline--that they were misled by
the onesided, imperfect, and fallacious reports as to the state,
quality, and extent of the Continental harvests, which were laid
before Parliament--and that they never would have consented to such
a measure, had they foreseen the results which are now unhappily
before us. We gather this, not merely from rumour, but from the
tenor of the speeches delivered in the House of Commons in 1846. Sir
James Graham and Lord John Russell both treated as visionary the
notion of any material decline--Lord Palmerston went further; and
we think it useful to lay before our readers the following excerpt
from his speech, delivered on the occasion of the second reading
of the Corn Importation Bill. Referring to the surplus quantity of
Continental grain, he said--
"The surplus quantity now, or from time to time in existence,
is merely the superfluity of abundant seasons held for a
time in store to meet the alternate deficiency of bad years.
Till the bad years come, that corn is cheap, because it is a
supply exceeding the demand; but the moment we go into the
foreign market as buyers, to purchase up this surplus, _prices
abroad will rise_. Not only will the British demand, as a
new competition with foreign demand, naturally cause a rise
of prices, but our own merchants will compete against each
other, until, by a rise of prices abroad, the profit of their
importations shall have been brought down to the usual rate of
mercantile profit upon capital employed in other ways. There
is, therefore, very little probability that the importation of
the existing surplus quantity of corn in foreign markets will
materially lower prices in this country."
We have nothing to say to the arguments of the noble
Viscount--however singular these may appear to persons of ordinary
understanding--we merely refer to his conclusion, which we think
is plain enough, to the effect that free importations could not
materially lower prices. Nay, we could extract from the speeches of
Sir Robert Peel himself, passages which would go far to show that he
entertained the same opinion, notwithstanding the extreme wariness
which he exhibited when challenged by Lord George Bentinck to state
his views as to the probable effects of the change on the value of
agricultural produce. Well, then, if this be the case--if there was
actually a strong conviction in the minds of the leading men who
supported the repeal of the corn laws that the expressed fears of
the agricultural party were unfounded--are we not entitled now to
require that the question should be brought to a very narrow issue
indeed? So far as experience has gone, our calculations have proved
right--theirs entirely wrong. We maintained that, in consequence of
the removal of protective duties, the price of grain in this country
would decline to a point far below the cost of production; they
averred that nothing of the kind would happen. Nearly a year and
a half has elapsed since the new system came into full operation,
and the general averages of wheat throughout the country have
fallen, and have remained for many months below 40s. per quarter. In
spite of the accurate and veracious information of writers in the
_Economist_ and other Ministerial prints, who have been assuring
us, for a long period of time, that the whole available supplies of
grain have been pumped out of the Continent, importations continue
undiminished. In May 1850 we receive from abroad the equivalent
of a million quarters of grain; France pours in her flour, to the
panic even of our millers; and, instead of diminution, there are
unmistakeable symptoms of a greater deluge than before. Now, if the
Free-traders, in or out of Parliament, are honest in their views--as
many of them, we believe, undoubtedly are--they are bound to tell us
how far and how long they intend this experiment to last? Of course,
if it is no experiment at all, but an absolute rigorous finality,
there is no need of entering into discussion. If everything is to be
sacrificed for cheapness, let cheapness be the rule; only do not let
us behold the anomaly of the advocates of that system prophesying
a rise of prices as a general boon to the country. If otherwise,
surely some tangible period should be assigned for the endurance
of this _experimentum crucis_. We entirely coincide with Lord John
Russell in his dislike to vacillating legislation, and we have no
wish whatever to precipitate matters. We think it preferable, in
every way, that the eyes of the country should be opened to a sense
of its true condition by a process which, to be effectual, cannot
be otherwise than painful. But we are greatly apprehensive of the
consequences which may arise ere long, from the obstinate refusal
of Ministers to give the slightest indication of their intentions,
supposing that the present prices shall continue; or to indicate
what relief, if any, can be given to the industry of the nation.
As to the permanent nature of the fall under the operation of
the present law, we entertain not the slightest doubt. There is
no one symptom visible of its abatement; on the contrary, the
experience of each succeeding month tends to fortify our previous
impressions. The decline in the value of cattle is as great as in
that of cereal produce. We have already, in a former paper, had
occasion to state the extent of that fall down to the commencement
of the present year: the accounts received of the state of the
Dumbarton market, held in the beginning of June, are still more
disastrous than before. Throughout a large portion of the Scottish
Highlands--we do not know, indeed, whether we are entitled to make
any exception--black cattle, the staple of the country, will not
pay the expense of rearing. The enormous importation of provisions
from America is annihilating this branch of produce, with what
compensating benefit to the nation at large, it would be difficult
for an economist to explain.
This is a state of matters which cannot continue long without
manifest danger even to the tranquillity of the country. It is quite
plain that, at present rates, agriculture cannot be carried on as
heretofore in Great Britain. The farmer has been the first sufferer;
the turn of the landowner is approaching. Let us illustrate this
shortly. There must be, on an average of ordinary years, a certain
price at which wheat can be grown remuneratively in this country.
Sir Robert Peel, no mean authority on the subject, has indicated his
opinion that such price may be stated at or about 56s. per quarter.
Mr James Wilson, rating it somewhat lower, fixes it at 52s. 2d. Let
us suppose, that wheat for the future shall average over England
39s. per quarter, and that the produce of the acre is twenty-four
bushels, the loss on each acre of wheat hereafter raised will be,
according to Sir Robert Peel, £2, 11s.--according to Mr Wilson, £1,
19s. 6d. What deduction of rent can meet such a depreciation as
this? Excluding Middlesex, which is clearly exceptional, the highest
rented county of England, Leicester, is estimated at £1, 14s. 10d.
per acre; Warwickshire, at £1, 11s. 6d.; and Lincolnshire at £1, 8s.
Haddington and Fife, the highest rented counties of Scotland, are
estimated at £1, 5s. 6d. per acre. This of course includes much land
of an inferior description; but we believe that, for the best arable
land, an average rent of 40s. per acre may be assumed. In that case,
supposing the whole rent to be given up, the farmer would still be a
loser by cultivation, if Sir Robert Peel is correct in his figures.
Without presuming to offer an opinion as to the accuracy of
either of the calculations submitted by these two Free-trading
authorities, we think it is plain that the more favourable of them,
taken in connection with present prices, is appalling enough to
the agriculturist, whether he be landlord or tenant. We shall see,
probably in a month or two, whether it is likely that even these
prices can be maintained. We are clearly of opinion that the price
of corn in this country must fall to the level of the cheapest
market from which we can derive any considerable supplies; and in
that case it is quite as likely that we may see wheat quoted at 32s.
or 33s., as at 39s. or 40s. But the matter for our consideration is,
that, ever since the repeal of the corn laws, the market price of
grain has been greatly below the cost of its production; and that
there are no symptoms of any amendment, but obviously the reverse.
The inevitable result of the continuance of such a state of
matters is too clear to admit of argument. The land must go out
of cultivation. The process may be slow, but it will be sure. It
may, doubtless, be retarded by remissions of rent not sufficient
to cover the farmer's losses, but great enough to induce him to
renew his efforts for another year with the like miserable result;
until at length the tiller of the soil is made bankrupt, and the
landowner occupies his place. We can hardly trust ourselves to
depict the effect of such a social revolution. All the misery which
has been already felt--and that is far greater than our rulers will
permit themselves to believe--would be as nothing compared with the
calamitous consummation of Free Trade.
Yet it is towards that point that we are rapidly tending. Some
of the fierce and more plain-spoken Radical journals are so far
from contradicting our views, that they openly rejoice in the
havoc which has been already made, and in the wider ruin which is
impending. They say plainly, looking to the funds, that they see
no method of escaping from the domination of the moneyed interest,
except through the prostration of the landlords. Their meaning
is quite distinct and undisguised. They want to get rid of the
national debt, by reducing the value of produce so low, that the
usual amount of taxation cannot possibly be levied; and their
scheme, however nefarious, is by no means devoid of plausibility.
There can be no doubt that the Currency Act of 1819 has operated
most injuriously upon the industry of the nation, by enhancing the
value of the claims of the creditor; and that these claims, along
with the necessary expenses of government, must be paid, _ante
omnia_, from the industrial produce of the year. The cheapening
process, therefore, is one directly antagonistic to the maintenance
of taxation. The anomaly in legislation of forcibly reducing the
value of produce, and yet maintaining stringently an artificial
standard of taxation, has been reserved for our times; yet, strange
to say, though its effects are visible and confessed, few persons
have courage or patience enough to grapple with the difficulty.
Free Trade and a Fettered Currency are things that cannot possibly
co-exist for any length of time; and our sole surprise is, that any
statesman could be shortsighted enough to attempt to reconcile them.
Taken singly, either of them is a great evil to a country situated
like ours--taken together, they become absolutely intolerable. But
we have no wish, at the present time, to depart from the point
before us. We are merely taking the evidence of adversaries, to
show that our views as to the position and prospects of the great
productive classes of Britain are so far from exaggerated that they
are acknowledged by the most strenuous advocates of Free Trade. The
fundholder, nevertheless, may derive a useful lesson from these
financial hints, which indicate an ulterior purpose.
Such is the state of the agricultural interest throughout the
three Kingdoms at this moment, and such are the prospects before
us. The evidence, albeit not taken before a committee of either
House of Parliament, is too unanimous to admit of a doubt; county
after county, district after district, parish after parish
throughout England, have testified to their melancholy condition.
The _Times_ may talk of mendicity, and the _Economist_ may trump
up figures to show that the farmers ought to be making a profit
even at present prices; but neither irony nor fiction can avail to
discredit or pervert facts so well authenticated as these. Of these
facts parliament is fully cognisant--not only from the individual
knowledge of members as to what is passing abroad--not only from the
sentiments expressed at many hundred meetings, independent of the
great demonstrations lately made at London and Liverpool--but from
the petitions which have been presented to both Houses, praying for
a reversal of that policy which has proved so detrimental to the
interests of a large section of her Majesty's subjects. Yet still
Parliament is silent, and the first Minister of the Crown refuses to
sanction that appeal to the country, which the exigency of the case
would seem to require, and which has been resorted to on occasions
far less peremptory and pressing than this.
Let us not be misunderstood. Our wish simply is to record the fact
of such silence and refusal,--not to be rash in censure. We cannot,
and do not forget the peculiar circumstances connected with the
last general election--the political tergiversation which preceded
it, the hopes and expectations which were then entertained by
many, as to the working of the new system,--or the disorganisation
of parties. Even the most strenuous opponents of the Free-Trade
measures, since these had passed into a law, however iniquitously
carried, were desirous that the experiment should have a fair trial,
and that it should not be impeded in its progress, so long as, by
the most liberal construction, it could be held to justify the
anticipations of its authors. Many names of great weight, influence,
and authority were found among the roll of those who consented to
the new measures; and it was most natural that, throughout the
country, a number of persons should be found willing to surrender
their own judgment upon a matter yet untried, which had received
so creditable a sanction. Therefore it was that the majority of
members returned to the present House of Commons were Free-traders,
bound to the system by the double ties of previous conviction and of
pledge; and though recent elections, as well as the alarming posture
of affairs, have contributed materially to alter the position of
the two great parties in the House, it would be unreasonable as yet
to look for a change, in a body so constituted, at least to that
extent which a reversal of the adopted policy must imply.