CORRESPONDENCE AND ANSWERS TO INQUIRIES.

London, September 13, 1843.

Sir,—I have read your preliminary number and prospectus, and the first number of your new periodical, the Economist, and it gives me pleasure to see the appearance of so able an advocate of free trade, the carrying out the principles of which is so necessary for the future welfare and prosperity of the country, and the relief of the distress which is more or less felt in all the different departments of industry.

I belong to the class who have their sole dependence in the land, and have no direct interest in trade or manufactures; and feel as strong a wish for the prosperity of agriculture as the Duke of Buckingham, or any other of the farmer's friends; but I consider the interests of all classes of the community so intimately connected, and so mutually dependent on one another, that no one can rise or prosper upon the ruins of the others. Like your Northumberland correspondent I am fully convinced of the impolicy and inefficiency of "restrictive corn laws," and of the benefit of "the free-trade system" for the relief of the agricultural, as well as of the manufacturing, the shipping, or any other interest in the country; and I should also be glad if I could in any way assist "in dispelling the errors respecting the corn trade that have done so much harm for the last twenty (eight) years."

The intention of the corn law of 1815 was to prevent the price of wheat from falling below 80s. per quarter; and it was the opinion of farmers who were examined on the subject, that less than 80s. or 90s. would not remunerate the grower, and that if the price fell under these rates, the wheat soils would be thrown out of cultivation. Prices, however, fell, and though they have fallen to one half, land has not been thrown out of cultivation. Various modifications have since been made in the scale of duties, but always with a view to arrest the falling prices in their downward course; but all these legislative attempts have been in vain; and so far as the farmer trusted to them, they have only misled him by holding out expectations that have not been realized.

But though the corn laws failed in keeping up the price of corn as high as their framers and supporters wished, they succeeded so far as to enhance the price of this first necessary of life, and make it perhaps 20 or 30 per cent. dearer than it otherwise would have been to all the consumers, even the poorest tradesman or labourer in the country.

If the difference which the agriculturists were enabled, by this monopoly, to obtain at the expense of the other classes, had all been pure gain, without any drawback, they must have been in a comparatively flourishing condition; but we find this is not the case, and what is the reason? Let us hear Sir Robert Peel's answer to the question. In his speech in parliament on Mr Villiers's motion, when replying to the accusations that had been made by Mr Blackstone and other members on his own side of the house, that he had deceived the agriculturists, as the Government measures, instead of affording them the protection that was promised, had brought down prices and rendered their situation worse than before, Sir Robert says, it was not the Government measures that had brought down prices and occasioned the agricultural distress, but that this arose from the condition of the manufacturing districts, and the general distress from bad trade and want of employment, which rendered the people unable to consume.

If this, then, is the true cause of the agricultural distress,—if the corn, sugar, and other monopolies are so injurious to the manufacturing and commercial classes, who are the agriculturists' best, and, indeed, their only customers, as to render them unable to consume, it is not to class legislation that we can look for relief. In order to relieve the agricultural distress there is no other way than to relieve the distress of those on whom they depend for a market for their productions.

Were the farmer (or rather the landed proprietor) to gain all that the consumer loses by the corn monopoly,—if it were only taking from one, and giving to another—without any national loss; though this of itself would be bad enough,—it is perhaps the smallest part of the loss which the manufacturer sustains; for the same law which hinders him from going to the best and cheapest market to purchase his food, at the same time necessarily excludes him from a market for the produce of his industry; and by diminishing the demand for his labour, lowers his wages or throws him out of employment.

But one abuse leads to another. Those who are interested in the corn monopoly, or think themselves so, cannot well oppose the sugar monopoly while they require the aid of the West India planters to enable them to obtain this advantage at their country's expense; and so it is with all the other monopolists, they naturally unite together, and it requires their mutual aid and all their combined power and influence to preserve a system which they know stands upon rather an insecure foundation, and if once broken in upon would soon fall to pieces; and thus it is that we are subjected to the sugar monopoly, and though it is manifestly our interest to buy this important necessary of life (as well as every other) in any quarter of the globe where we can find it best and cheapest, we are restricted to a small portion of the earth's surface, and have to pay a third part more than we might obtain the article for without any loss to the revenue. By this narrow-minded system of buying, we deprive ourselves of valuable markets for our manufactures, as you have shown is likely to be the case with the Brazils on the expiry of the commercial treaty with that country if the matter is left in the hands of Ministers, "and no effort made to avert so great an evil." The agriculturists have to pay directly for this monopoly in common with all the other classes in the addition to the price of the sugar they consume; but the manufacturers suffer the still greater disadvantage of having the market for the produce of their labour narrowed, and thus the agriculturist will also suffer indirectly by their customers being thereby still farther disabled to consume.

But these and all other monopolies and restrictions in trade not only lessen the demand for our manufactures abroad, but they diminish the consumption at home, to an extent greater perhaps than we are aware of; for there can be no doubt that the more the consumer has to pay for his bread, sugar, and other articles of food, the less he will have to spare for cottons, woollens, and other manufactured commodities. The demand for his labour is thus lessened both at home and abroad. The weaver of cloth may be unable to obtain a coat even of his own manufacture, however necessary it may be for his health and comfort; he must have food, in the first place, being more indispensibly necessary to his existence,—no doubt he may have to content himself with a less quantity than he could have wished, and have to substitute oatmeal and potatoes, or some other inferior food for wheaten bread and butchers meat; still, it is less in his power to curtail the consumption of agricultural produce than of manufactures, so that the manufacturing classes suffer from the general distress which renders the people unable to consume in a greater degree than the agriculturist.

R.T.F.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ECONOMIST.

Darlaston, September 8, 1843.

Sir,—Twelve months ago the editor of the Morning Chronicle allowed a letter of mine, referring to the distress then prevailing in this town, to appear in that journal; in it I stated that for our annual wake only twenty-four cows had been killed, when but a few years previously ninety-four had been slaughtered on a similar occasion. Perhaps you will permit me to state in your columns that this year the festival, in this particular, has afforded as melancholy and unquestionable proof of distress as the last, while it bore other evidence, which though trivial in itself, is not unworthy of notice. Last year two theatrical shows visited us, displaying their "Red Barn" tragedies, and illuminated ghosts, at threepence per head, at which they did well; as also did a tremendous giantess, a monstrously fat boy, and several other "wonderful works of nature:" this year only one show of any description attended, and that, with kings and queens, and clowns, as well dressed and efficient, and ghosts, as white and awe-inspiring as ever paraded before an audience, has reaped but an indifferent harvest at the "low charge of one penny each;" while the swing boats and wood horses, patronized with such glee by the miniature men and women attending and enjoying wakes and fairs, only worked half time. The physical-force majority in the House, and their aiders and abettors, were they to see this, would perhaps laugh at the petty details, but their doing so would not in the least detract from their truth, or render questionable for a moment the deductions I make from them,—that poverty is so wide spread and bitter that the poor are compelled to make a stern sacrifice of innocent amusements; that the parent cannot exercise the holiest affections of his nature, by adding to the pleasures of his lisping little ones; that the landowners' corn law, by its paralyzing influence, is rapidly withering the great mass of the industry of the country into idle, dispiriting pauperism.

From inquiries I have made I learn that through the country generally the wakes, and fairs, and races, have presented similar features to those I have described above, so far as money goes. And in face of the distress, of which these things bear glaring witness, the Prime Minister says "that the distress has been produced by over-production." Can Sir Robert be serious when he talks of "over-production?" If he be, and will condescend to honour me with a visit during his stay at Drayton Manor, which is only a short drive of sixteen miles from here, I will show him that the opinion is fallacious. He shall dispense with his carriage for a short time, and I will walk him through all the streets of Darlaston, Wednesbury, Willenhall, Bilstow, &c., and, forsaking the thoroughfares frequented by the gay and well-to-do, he shall visit the back streets—in which carriage passengers never deign to go—of Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Walsall, and what he will witness in the course of the short ramble will "change the spirit of his dream." In Darlaston, as a sample of what he would see, there are hundreds of men and women whose clothes, made of the coarsest materials, are patched, and threadbare, and valueless; hundreds of houses without anything in them deserving the name of furniture; hundreds of beds without clothing, and hundreds of children whose excuses for clothes are barely sufficient, with every contrivance decent poverty can suggest, to cover the body as civilized society demands. In the towns I have enumerated, in fact, if the least reliance may be placed in newspaper reports, in every town and village in the country the same want prevails to a much greater extent than can be conceived by such as Sir Robert, "who fare sumptuously every day,"—aye, even to a much greater extent than is generally supposed by the above-want dwellers in large towns whom business may frequently bring in contact with those who toil. With the millions, then, who in this country must be next to naked, without furniture in their houses, without clothes to cover their straw beds, is it not the nonsense of nonsense to talk of "over-production." Enable these men to satisfy the wants of themselves and families, enable them to make their homes comfortable, and that alone would find employment for a goodly number, while those so employed would also be enabled to purchase the articles others are engaged in manufacturing. To produce so desirable a result, nothing is wanted but FREE TRADE repeal the corn and provision laws, and the shadow of "over production" could not exist: in three months there is not a man in the kingdom who would not have full work. And when we had supplied the physical wants of our population (a greater task than it appears at the first view), we should have introduced from every corner of the world the luxuries which refine civilization; the artisan building himself a house would then make it more comfortable and healthy, with wood floors, carpets, better furniture, &c.; and the master manufacturer erecting a house would have marble stairs and floor in his entrance hall, doors, &c. of mahogany, furniture, of rarer woods, and ornaments of marble, paintings, plate glass, &c.; and when all these things were procured, "over-production" would be still as far behind us as during their acquisition, as we would then work but three days a week instead of six, as with so much labour we should be able to procure the necessaries and luxuries of life.

And all nations would be compelled to minister to our real and created wants, for England is the only nation in the world incapable of internally supplying its inhabitants with food, and therefore, under Free Trade, has the command of the markets of the whole world. Then the English merchant going to, say America, to dispose of manufactures need not fear the merchant of France, Belgium, Germany, &c., he may meet there with similar goods; for the American asking each what he requires for the articles offered, is told by the former, "I will take your surplus corn in exchange, we want every year from six to ten millions of quarters;" and this latter answers, "We have more corn at home of our own growth than we can consume, I must have cash;" the American, preferring barter, will turn on his heel and trade with the Englishman; the unsuccessful applicant takes back his goods, or visits the market no more, and confines his future operations to the home supply of his own country, which in a short time, from competition and want of a foreign outlet, fail to realise a remunerating profit; trade is gradually relinquished; the people turn again to the more extensive cultivation of the land, and England obtains another customer. This is no "castle building," if there be the least affinity between the results of great things and small ones. If a grocer want a coat he will have it from the tailor who will take sugar and tea in payment, in preference to patronising one who requires pounds shillings and pence, and the owners of land in all countries will take right good care that they derive some sort of revenue from their possessions. I say, I think my premises are no "castle buildings;" neither do I think I am indulging in aerial erections when I predict that, under Free Trade, England, with her capital, and energy, and enterprise, would shortly become the world's granary, profitably supplying from her accumulated stores the deficiencies resulting from bad harvests, or other casualties of her continental neighbours.

Your obedient Servant, G.W.G.

We are much obliged to J. Livesay, of Preston, for his suggestion, which, however, if he compare the Economist with other weekly papers he will perceive to be unnecessary. We presume we are indebted to Mr Livesay for copies forwarded of his excellent little paper the Struggle.

R.B., Bristol.—From the great press of room last week we were obliged to omit everything that did not appear of very pressing haste. In the Preliminary Number we have used no statistics but such as we have derived from official sources, and we shall always be glad to give the authority on which any statistical statement is made. The statement of the quantity of sugar exported from Java and Madeira, page 10 of the Preliminary Number, will be found in Part VIII, 1838, page 408, of the Tables of Population, Revenue, Commerce, &c., presented by the Board of Trade to both Houses of Parliament, from 1826 to 1837;—and the quantities, from 1837 to 1841, are derived from the Dutch official accounts.

H.H., S—— court, London.—The returns showing the quantity of flax imported up to the 5th of August, viz., 774,659 cwts., are official, but do not distinguish the ports from which it was shipped. The latest year for which such distinction has been made to this time is for the year 1841; for which, or any preceding year back to 1832, we shall be glad to furnish the particulars: for example, in 1840 the imports of flax and tow were—from

Cwts.

Russia 870,401

Denmark 1,094

Prussia 135,590

Germany 8,105

Holland 113,108

Belgium 80,748

France 43,295

Gibraltar 19

Italy and the Italian Islands 746

The Morea 3

Turkey 107

Egypt 12

United States 1

Guernsey, &c. 11

————

Total - 1,253,240

C.D.F.——, near Rochdale.—The question connected with the New Customs Amendment Bill has engaged our best attention, but its investigation has raised two or three very nice points of international law, on which we are now taking the best opinion which can be obtained, and before our next number we shall be able to give a reply as satisfactory as can possibly be obtained from any quarter on this important but very nice question. We have now before us the whole of the particulars of the treaties in question, but we wish to make our reply valuable by giving the best legal construction on some disputable points. This, however, is only another of those daily evidences which we have of the absurdity and inconvenience of a great commercial country like this attempting to regulate its laws and transactions by treaties, which, however convenient they may be when made, may, by the ordinary course of events, be rapidly changed.