Volume 67 / Part 9 — AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE, AND MANUFACTURES: OPENING OF THE SESSION.

It rarely happens that the proceedings which occur in parliament, immediately after its reassembling, are so intrinsically important as to sustain the interest invariably excited in the public mind by the approach of the legislative season. Such at least is the case whenever men can predict, almost with certainty, what topics will be alluded to and what avoided in the royal address; what policy Ministers are determined to pursue; and what amount of support they may confidently count on receiving from political friends and auxiliaries. From the opening of the session of 1850 little novelty was to be augured. The Free-traders, having had everything their own way, could not be expected to express any misgiving as to the working of a system which they had so deliberately adopted. The cry of distress from without, loud and general as it was, had not shaken the equanimity of the secret divan of Downing Street; nor perhaps was the complaint deemed as yet articulate enough to require more than a casual notice. The storm might be brewing, but it was not at its height, and there would be time enough to meet it hereafter. What her Majesty’s Ministers had to do was to make out a fair case of prosperity for the present, and to hold out a still brighter prospect for the future. They had plausible materials for doing so. Bullion was plentiful in the vaults of the Bank of England; the exports for the past year had increased largely in amount; the revenue was in no bad condition. Abroad, there was a lull in those hostilities which for the last two years have frightened Europe from its propriety; and, though the victory had not declared itself on the side of those whom the Whigs favoured with their approbation, still tranquillity was something. It gave an augmented market to our manufacturers, and removed those hindrances which threatened to become serious interruptions to commerce. With such materials at command, no one but a most sorry artificer could have failed in constructing a plausible prosperity address. The state of the home market was evidently a subject for future discussion.

Notwithstanding various rumours as to meditated organic changes, it was pretty evident that Ministers had no intention to undertake the conduct of a new Reform bill. Of all the men who ever attempted to ape the character of Peter the Hermit, Sir Joshua Walmsley is at once the dullest and the most self-sufficient. Any crusade, under the auspices of such a preacher, could not be otherwise than abortive: indeed, he failed signally in the first and easiest quality of an agitator—that of enlisting a considerable share of popular sympathy on his side. Nor was finance reform likely to be seriously taken up by the Whigs, inasmuch as one of the earliest effects of such a scheme would necessarily be the reduction of their official salaries. That is a point, however, which they cannot long hope to evade; and it will be forced upon them, sorely against their will, as the inevitable consequence of low prices. They must prepare themselves to submit to a reduction similar to that which has been practised upon the officials of the Great Western Railway, who are put upon a short allowance in consequence of “the reduced prices of the necessaries of life.” The rule admits of general application, and doubtless will be rigidly carried out in the highest as in the lowest places. At present we shall not discuss that matter: we merely refer to it as a sufficiently intelligible reason why financial reform formed no part of the programme of her Majesty’s Ministers. No man expected that it would do so.

Apart from such topics as these, there was little to be looked for in the speech: and accordingly, when it appeared, the speech was as meagre and unsuggestive as such documents usually are. Nor should we have thought it necessary to make it the subject of comment, save for one passage, which may be said to contain its kernel, in so far as the prospects of the home population are concerned:—

“Her Majesty has great satisfaction in congratulating you on the improved condition of commerce and manufactures. It is with regret that her Majesty has observed the complaints which, in many parts of the kingdom, have proceeded from the owners and occupiers of land. Her Majesty greatly laments that any portion of her subjects should be suffering distress; but it is a source of sincere gratification to her Majesty to witness the increased enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts of life which cheapness and plenty have bestowed upon the great body of her people.”

Here there is no distinct admission of agricultural distress. Such distress may or may not exist: all that is known on the subject is, that complaints are made. But, supposing these complaints to be well founded, the great body of the people is reaping the benefit of that cheapness which is the cause of the distress of others. That is the language of the speech.

We think it is much to be regretted that, on an occasion like this, Ministers should have avoided the open and manly course. If they do not believe in the actual existence of such distress, but are of opinion that the great agitation which at present is spread over England, is either an unfounded panic or a factious clamour, it would have been well to have met the statements of their adversaries with a broad and unequivocal denial. If, on the contrary, they are convinced that distress actually does exist, and that it is likely to prove permanent, they have placed themselves in a strange and unprecedented position with regard to the class so complaining. For, in that view, the terms of the speech will hardly admit of any other interpretation, than that it is matter of congratulation to find, that one section of the British public is prospering upon the ruin of another. We do not, of course, believe that the Ministry intended to lay down any such principle; for, if once adopted and carried out, it must lead to the entire disorganisation of society. We think that their peculiar position affords us the true key to their language. On the one hand, they cannot deny that distress actually does exist: on the other, they cannot, in the face of the commercial principles which they have adopted, and the precarious nature of their majority, venture to suggest a remedy. Her Majesty is not even allowed to express sympathy, because sympathy implies suffering—and that admission Ministers are by no means, as yet, prepared to make.

Turning from the speech itself to the addresses, and the reported subsequent debates, we find this view of the matter sufficiently borne out. The Earl of Essex, the mover of the address in the House of Peers, expressed himself in the following terms:—

“Her Majesty had also expressed her deep sympathy with the distress stated to exist in many of our agricultural districts. No man could regret the existence of that distress more than he did; but, in expressing that regret, he must also state his conviction—a conviction which was shared by many wealthy merchants, and by many, he would not say a majority, of landlords—that that distress was not of a permanent, but of a temporary character.”

Lord Methuen, the seconder, took nearly the same view. The Earl of Carlisle said:—

“The degree of his alarm would be somewhat proportioned to the apprehended nature of the distress. If it were temporary, and produced by special and exceptional causes, not liable continually to prevail or constantly to recur, then it would be plain that agriculture was only subject to that variation which every other pursuit, every other profession and branch of industry, every source of emolument, seemed, by a law of the universe, to undergo—that change from which agriculture, in a marked degree, whether protected or unprotected, had never been exempt.”

And again:—

“What he contended was, that, with so very circumscribed limits for the experiment, and with such a marked interference of special and exceptional causes, during the progress of the experiment, it would be altogether preposterous to assume that the experiment had been tested, that it was exhausted, and that a change in the policy of the country ought to be considered, and forthwith entered upon. Neither could he think they were in a situation to pronounce what were the permanent fruits of the great experiment they had agreed to make. It would be impossible to say at what cost corn could be permanently grown in this country, or whether the same amount of foreign importations would always prevail. His own feeling was not one of despondency or despair on the subject. He had no right, on these points, to palm his own opinion on their lordships. All he contended was, that they were not in a condition to determine the questions he had indicated. He could not honestly stop there, however; he could not confine himself to these ambiguous and hypothetical limits: he was bound to tell their lordships that, even if he were convinced that the average price of corn could never ascend higher, still he was not prepared to reverse the policy they had entered upon.”

Finally, the Marquis of Lansdowne said:—

“Adverting to the subject of the amendment, regret must be felt when distress affected any large class of her Majesty’s subjects. When the noble lord (Stanley) went on to say he was convinced the distress, which to a certain degree affected the owners and occupiers of land, was shared by the agricultural community at large, including the labourers, he met the noble lord distinctly with the assertion that, throughout England, the condition of the labourers was generally better.”

Lord Lansdowne then went on to state facts regarding the importation of foreign corn; from which, we presume, he wished his hearers to infer that such importation was on the wane.

“With respect to the importation of foreign corn, it had diminished almost to nothing at present. In the last three months of last year, ending January 5th, the importation was reduced considerably below the importation of the corresponding period in the previous year. He had a return of the importation for the first four weeks of January. In the first four weeks of last year, the importation of all sorts was 1,118,653; for the last four weeks of this year, ending January 28th, only 336,895 quarters had been imported.”

A valuable addition to the above statistics would have been a note of the range of the thermometer during the periods referred to, especially at the Baltic ports. In conclusion, Lord Lansdowne, whilst maintaining the impossibility of any recurrence to the protective system, remarked:—

“He considered the experiment as finally made; but, if he were to see a quantity of acres thrown out of cultivation, and a number of labourers without employment, he would not hesitate to confess himself in the wrong, and he hoped others would not hesitate to do the same. He was not now, however, prepared to go back to their past policy, and to uphold what he believed to be a delusion, or to lay a foundation for that ill feeling and acrimony which had distinguished the discussion of the question out of doors.”

These extracts, from the debate in the House of Lords on the first night of the session, deserve to be recorded for the sake of fixture reference. Every one of the speakers on the Ministerial side proceeded on the assumption that agricultural distress, if it existed, was only temporary, and not permanent, in its character—and, such being the case, that there was no room, or, at all events, no occasion for a remedy.

Turning to the debate in the House of Commons, we find a bolder tone assumed. In their selection of the gentleman who had the honour of moving the address to her Majesty, Ministers gave a very strong indication of their deliberate views. Amongst those who annually renewed the motion for the repeal of the corn laws in the House of Commons, there was one who, with more candour or more discrimination than the rest, had the courage to acknowledge that the result of such a measure must be the “annihilation” of the small farmers. That gentleman, Mr Villiers, was selected as the fittest person to reciprocate to the royal message. We are far from reflecting upon the taste and feeling which suggested such a choice—indeed, we are not sure whether a better one could have been made; for, if the agriculturists are to understand that under no possible circumstances can our recent policy be changed, that assurance could hardly be conveyed more authoritatively than from the lips of the honourable member for Wolverhampton; and accordingly Mr Villiers does not mince the matter. He speaks out loud and bold, and tells the farmers that no amount of distress will make him withdraw one inch from his original position.

“He did not deny that distress existed among the occupiers of the land, and he deeply regretted it; but they were not precluded from retiring from that pursuit with which they were not satisfied. He thought it was some consolation to know that land now fetched as high a value in the market as it ever had brought in the history of this country; that there never was a farm vacant but there were numerous candidates for the tenancy; and that the agricultural labourers, instead of being worse off, were much better off than usual. If ‘the worst come to the worst,’ and the landed proprietor and the occupier should be obliged to proceed in the same business-like way in conducting their pursuits as persons in other businesses in this country, they would have this consolation, that there was no advantage possessed over them by other countries in the raising agricultural produce. The only thing that he (Mr Villiers) could discover, distinguishing the agriculturist here from those of other countries—and that was one which he had under his own control—was the price of land. It certainly was higher here than on the Continent. But in many respects his advantages were great; and the inferiority, where it existed, could be counteracted.”

Statements of this kind carry with them an antidote as well as a bane. We are not sorry to find the foremost champion of the League, and the mover of the address, thus openly setting at defiance physical fact, common sense, and the results of practical experience. He tells the British agriculturist that he is in every respect, except in the price of land, on an equality with the foreign producer. So, then, his climate is as constant, his soil is as rich, the labour he employs is as cheap, his direct burdens are as low, his luxuries are as moderately taxed! He is exposed to no restrictions; there is no malt-tax; he may have his bricks at prime cost; he may grow his own tobacco; he may distil his own spirits; he is not chargeable with income-tax, irrespective of his drawing one shilling of profit from his farm! So says Mr Villiers: and, if this be true, not one of us has a right to complain. But is it true? We shall not insult the intelligence of our readers by entering on a deliberate refutation.

Let us next hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—

“He admitted that in some respects, and in several parts of the country, the agricultural interest had suffered; but it was all a question of degree. He did not deny that the degree was considerable, but he did not think it existed to anything approaching the extent that had been represented; and he denied, therefore, that they ought to retrace the steps of their policy; for, though distress existed, he relied on the industry and the energy of the British farmer.”

Then come general opinions, almost amounting to assertions, that the present low price of corn cannot be permanent; and these opinions are fortified by a comparison of the importations in January 1849 with those in January 1850, no notice being taken of any difference between the seasons! Sir Charles Wood next put forth an authority, to which we crave attention:—

“The Mark-Lane Express stated that the price of corn in the Baltic was so high that it would not pay to send it to this country; and the only country from which corn was at present sent to us was France, which, in ordinary years, was not an exporting country. There was good reason to suppose, therefore, that the permanent price of wheat in this country would not range so low as at the present time. Prices were not at present remunerative to the importer, and importation had received a most signal check. The farmer need not, therefore, apprehend that ruin from the operation of free trade which he at present anticipated from prices under 40s. a quarter. What the future price of corn in this country would be, it would be wrong in him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to attempt to state, after the mistakes that the most practical and wisest men had fallen into with regard to the importation of corn. But it was worth observing, that at present no importation could take place from those countries from which importation had been most feared, and that the greatest quantities of corn recently received had come from those countries from which no one had anticipated any importation whatever. An honourable member had expressed an opinion that 44s. a quarter was the average price that might be expected to prevail for wheat. Now, he could not agree with those who held the opinion that the agriculturist would be ruined by such a price.”

Here there are two distinct propositions, with regard to which we have a word to say. 1st, Sir Charles Wood, on the authority of the Mark-Lane Express, an authority which he afterwards admits will not be disputed, says that the importations are checked, and will be checked, on account of the high price of corn in the Baltic, and, therefore, that the price of wheat in this country will rise. 2d, He thinks that the home agriculturist can carry on production with wheat at 44s. per quarter.

Well, then, let us see what has since been told us on the authority of the Mark-Lane Express, so lately as 11th February:—

“The value of wheat having receded, without a check, from week to week since the commencement of the year, has fallen to a point at which growers are very unwilling to sell; and within the last eight days the deliveries have fallen off more or less, which circumstance, and the probability of short supplies during the time farmers shall be engaged preparing the land for the reception of the spring crops, appear to have led to the belief that quotations will not for the present undergo any farther reduction. That a temporary rally may take place is not improbable; but we are by no means sanguine on the subject, and regard any improvement of moment as wholly out of the question. Whatever may be said to the contrary, we maintain that prices of wheat are at present higher on the continent of Europe than is warranted by the result of the last harvest. With average crops, such as those secured in 1849 in most of the large grain-growing countries of Europe, a very considerable surplus must have been produced for export; and as there appears to be no chance of France, Holland, or Belgium requiring supplies from the Baltic, and as our markets hold out little encouragement for calculating on higher prices, the value of the article must, we think, inevitably come down in Russia, Poland, and Germany. Any argument founded on what has occurred in bygone times is no longer applicable, the alteration in our corn laws placing the matter in an entirely new position. For the past to be serviceable in affording materials to form a judgment of the probable future, it is necessary to have a parallel instance; and all calculations founded on what prices have been in years when a different order of things existed, are more likely to mislead than instruct. It is not probable that prices will fall to so low a point as they have done on former occasions, when England has required comparatively small supplies, the removal of our import duties and the repeal of the Navigation Laws being greatly in favour of the foreign grower; but, on the other hand, it may be easily foreseen that with wheat at 35s. per quarter in many of our home markets, British merchants will not purchase abroad on such terms as have been hitherto asked for spring delivery. Speculation may for a time support prices at Dantzic, Rostock, &c., but the value must ultimately be regulated by prices here; and we feel perfectly satisfied that supplies on a much larger scale than we are likely to want will reach us from the Baltic, Black Sea, &c., later in the year.”

Nowhere can be discerned any symptom which might justify us in believing that prices are likely, for any length of time, to take an upward tendency. The importations of last year principally consisted of the yield of an inferior Continental crop—that of 1848. The large crop of 1849 is preparing for us; and how is it possible to suppose that this will be kept back unless an augmented price is given for it? Even the frozen state of the Baltic ports has had no effect in raising prices at home. On the contrary, they are still declining. The average of wheat in the Haddington market of 8th February, was 34s. 1d. The Berks correspondent of Bell’s Weekly Messenger writes thus on the 4th:—“The corn markets are gradually getting lower, and, taking all the sorts of grain together, they are now lower than they have been since the memorable year 1822; and there is, we are sure, less money in circulation in the country than there has been for many years. The occupiers of the soil seem to be the first class doomed to be ruined; but it must be recollected that the farmers will not be the only class.”

But it is of little use for us at present to discuss a point which the experience of a few months must necessarily solve. Sir Charles Wood’s statement, if intended to influence the division, has already served its purpose. Inasmuch, therefore, as the prospects of importation are concerned, we need not speculate farther.

But when Sir Charles assumes a price of 44s. as remunerative for the grower of wheat, he takes his position on other ground. We shall not reiterate our own opinions on this subject, or those of any writer who may be supposed to be favourable to protection. The evidence of adversaries may be more valuable; and the first whom we shall cite is Sir Robert Peel. In 1842, the late Premier indicated his opinion that the remunerative price ranged from 54s. to 58s., and he never wished to see it lower than the former sum. Sir Charles Wood, however, courageously fixes his estimate 10s. beneath that of Sir Robert Peel; and we doubt not that, if the fall should still continue, we shall find him averring hereafter that 34s. per quarter is a price amply remunerative to the British grower.

Our next witness is a gentleman whose testimony must be valuable in the eyes of political economists. We quote from a work originally published in 1839, entitled, Influences of the Corn Laws, by James Wilson, Esq. now M.P. for Westbury, and Secretary of the Board of Control. It is a treatise on which we set so much store, that we propose, in an early number of Maga, to subject it to a deliberate review, for the purpose of pointing out the singularly felicitous realisation of the leading prophecies therein contained, and the intimate knowledge displayed by the writer of the subject with which he was dealing. At present we shall confine ourselves strictly to one point.

“This may therefore be called the rate which is fixed by our own internal competition and resources; 52s. 2d. per quarter may be called the prime cost of wheat to the consumer, and that sum, reduced by the charges enumerated, may be called the remunerating price to the landed interest to the exact extent to which they have been remunerated.”—p. 53.

Again:—

“As we shall afterwards show, we take 52s. 2d. to be the proper price for wheat, at which an exactly sufficient amount of production would be kept up, it having been the average price for the last seven years; we therefore take it as the standard price at which wheat can be sold to the consumer. It must be clear that whatever average annual price the farmer receives in any year above that price, he obtains so much profit beyond the average rate; and that whatever average annual price he receives in any year less than that standard price, he makes so much distinct loss; and therefore the difference between the profit derived from the higher prices and the loss from the lower prices must show the balance in favour or against the home grower.”—p. 41.

Mr Wilson’s argument we leave for the present untouched; we merely found upon his statement that 52s. 2d. is the proper standard price for British wheat, and that any lower rate of price must entail a loss on the grower. So far, therefore, his views are utterly irreconcilable with those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lord John Russell, who addressed the House last, on the Ministerial side, was not very distinct in his admission as to the existence of distress. If there was any, he seemed to think it was caused by corn speculation, and he rang the changes on the old topic of periods of transition and depression. The division was in entire accordance with the debate, for it resulted in the rejection of the amendment on the address, proposed in the following terms, “But humbly to represent to her Majesty that, in many parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland, the various classes of her Majesty’s subjects connected with the cultivation of the soil are labouring under severe distress, mainly attributable, in our opinion, to recent legislative enactments, the operation of which is aggravated by the severe pressure of local taxation.”

That such an amendment was called for on the part of those who are opposed to the free-trade policy, we think will be generally admitted. It was but right and reasonable that the case of the agriculturist should be brought under the notice of parliament at the very earliest opportunity; not with the view of forcing on an immediate reversal of the national policy, but to obtain, if possible, a distinct acknowledgment of the position in which the most important section of the community is placed. That acknowledgment has not been given. It would almost seem as if the Free-traders, in the intoxication of their headlong career, already considered the great agricultural interest as completely prostrated as the colonies, with regard to which no notice whatever was vouchsafed in the royal speech. Mr Cobden is perfectly furious that the point should be again mooted. He considered protection as defunct, and the ghost of it laid in the Dead Sea; and now, when it starts up before him, a living, thriving, and withal a formidable reality, he has recourse to language unmeet for the mouth of any respectable conjuror. Lord John Russell can do little more than utter a feeble and wholly inapplicable descant upon the advantages of the station of an English gentleman—forgetting all the while that such a station implies the performance of certain duties, of which not the meanest are the advocacy of the rights of the British labourer, and the maintenance of the British constitution. The amendment, as every one anticipated, was rejected; but, notwithstanding, it has served its purpose. It has elicited opinions, a commentary on which will be valuable before the present session is over; it has shown the agricultural interest how little they have to expect from the present Parliament; it has laid the foundation for distinct propositions regarding the equalising and proper adjustment of taxation, which no doubt will be brought forward seriatim, and submitted to the consideration of the Commons. If these are rejected, as they probably will be, and if every measure of relief is met by a direct or a virtual negative, it will then be time for the defenders of British interests to lay their complaint at the foot of the throne, and to ask for a dissolution of the present Parliament, in order that the constituencies of Great Britain may have an opportunity of recording their votes for or against the continuance of the present policy.

We shall, of course, be told that the point has been already settled. What is settled? Have not our fiscal regulations been altered year after year; and was there not a settlement disturbed by the repeal of the Corn Laws, at least as deliberate as that which is now assumed to be inviolable? How long is it since “the experiment,” to which we were entreated to give a fair trial, lost its experimental character, and became a law, fenced against repeal as closely as a statute of Darius? Is there a single free-trade prophet who can hold up his head and say that his vaticinations have been fulfilled? Mr M’Gregor prophesied that the nation would become richer, at the ratio of two millions a-week. Mr Economist Wilson prophesied augmented prices to the agriculturist, adding this ingenuous commentary,—“that there is no better evidence of a prosperous community or country, than the existence of a high average price of provisions, when the condition of the labourer, as is the case in this country, is relatively better than in other countries; and that, on the contrary, there is no stronger evidence of a miserable and impoverished country, than the existence of low prices of provisions, where the condition of the labourer is comparatively and infinitely worse than in other countries where prices are higher.” Mr Cobden prophesied thus in 1843 and 1844, not once but many times,—“The landlords will (with free trade) have better rents.” “Give us a free trade, and land will be as valuable as it is now.” “I believe that land would be more valuable in this country if you had at once an entire abolition of the Corn Laws.” We could cite similar testimony, uttered by a host of prophets as numerous as those of Baal, but we think the above instances may suffice; and it is on the faith of such vaticinations that we are peremptorily desired to consider the late ruinous measures as fixed and unalterable! The railway and the free-trade delusion reached their highest point in one and the self-same year. We have seen the quacks, impostors, and swindlers of the one system, scouted by the unanimous voice of public reprobation already; the leading partisans of the other cannot long hope to escape the infliction of a similar doom.

It has been said, in various quarters, that we have taken too gloomy a view of the future agricultural prospects of Great Britain. It may be so; but, at all events, we are borne out, and even exceeded, by Mr Villiers. If any man has doubts as to the depression of the agricultural interest, let him peruse carefully the following statement of the mover of the address:—

“He (Mr Villiers) had made a calculation of the saving effected by the people of this country, in consequence of the present reduced price of food. He found that the average price of wheat in 1847 was 69s. 5d.; on the 29th of December 1849, it was 39s. 4d.; the average price of barley in 1847 was 43s., and, in 1849, 25s.; of oats, in 1847, 28s., and in 1849, 15s.; and there had been a corresponding reduction in beans and peas. The usual calculation was, that our population of 30,000,000 consumed one quarter of corn to each person annually; but, taking a low estimate of consumption, and calculating that the population annually consumed 20,000,000 quarters of each of these descriptions of grain, he found that the saving effected by the difference of prices between 1847 and 1849, amounted to £61,000,000. He had also estimated, on the same moderate scale, the saving effected by the difference in the prices of meat, butter, cheese, potatoes, and other articles, in 1847 and 1849, and he found that it amounted to £30,000,000 more; so that there had been a total saving in the expenditure of the people upon food of £91,000,000 between 1847 and 1849. This was the result of free trade in the very first year of its operation. And when so large an amount was saved for expenditure on other articles than food, he thought it was no matter of astonishment that the general condition of the people had improved, and that the country was in a flourishing condition.”

We shall not investigate the accuracy of this calculation, nor shall we discuss the soundness of the conclusions. It is enough for us that Mr Villiers holds it to be matter of congratulation that, in one year, “the very first year of the operation of free trade,” agricultural produce has been depreciated to the amount of £91,000,000. This is worth a little consideration. Messrs Cobden, Bright, & Co., have taken much pains of late to impress upon the farmers that the present struggle is “a mere landlord’s question;” that the tenantry have nothing earthly to do with it; and that their sole object ought to be a speedy lowering of the rents. Our statistics, published in the Magazine, although certified by a large body of the leading agriculturists in nearly every district of Scotland, have been designated as “cooked,” by Cockneys who never saw a blade of wheat grow except on a Sunday excursion to Thames Ditton, and by pseudo-political economists, who, when detected in deliberate falsification, have not even the grace to tender a lame apology. The gravity of an insult depends upon the respectability of those who utter it. Foul language from the mouth of a cabman does not excite any rancorous feeling in the bosom of the man who is favoured with the abuse of Jehu; and, therefore, our correspondents, in number more than thirty—gentlemen of the highest respectability and character in Scotland—need not be disturbed by any imputations emanating from the quarters which we are reluctantly compelled to notice. But, since our opponents affect to disbelieve the accuracy of our views and calculations, let them deal with those of Mr Villiers. He puts down the amount of saving in food at £91,000,000, for a single year. The net rental of Great Britain and Ireland is £58,753,615:^[9] and it therefore follows, that supposing no rent whatever to have been paid, the tenantry must have suffered loss or diminution of profits to the extent of £22,246,385! These are the free-trade calculations—not ours. We do not wonder that the Times did not lose a day in casting discredit upon a statement which, though cheered on the Ministerial side of the house, was, in reality, a more damnatory exposition of free trade than the most ingenious Protectionist could have devised. For our part, we shall not venture to say whether Mr Villiers was right or wrong. A calculation, of this extended nature, might tax the powers of the ablest actuary; but, if it be correct, surely we stand acquitted of all exaggeration; and, what is of far greater importance, no one can henceforth venture to assert that this is a mere “landlord’s question;” since, if all rent were abandoned, the loss to the tenantry, in a single year, would be twenty-two and a quarter millions!

But let us pass in the meantime from the agricultural case, and see what real ground exists for the self-gratulations of ministers on the general prosperous state of the country at the opening of the present session. We quote the paragraph from the royal speech:—“Her Majesty has great satisfaction in congratulating you on the improved condition of commerce and manufactures.” We shall consider the two interests separately.

First, as to commerce, and its main branch, the shipping and shipbuilding interest. The repeal of the Navigation Laws having been effected in the course of last year, it might be premature to form a decided judgment on the working of the new system. Most certainly we have not done so; and we think it would have been only decent had her Majesty’s Ministers exercised a similar discretion. But in order to make out a case of prosperity, the commerce of the country could not be overlooked; and facts, (when they are facts,) however slight, are too valuable to be dispensed with on such an occasion as this. Accordingly, we are told that the shipping interest never was in a state of greater activity and prosperity than now. Mr Villiers opened thus:—

“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.