X. CHAP. tary reform, ten years before the empire was shaken to the centre by the superstructure being raised. Even at this 1820. early period, however, the opening made awakened very serious alarms in many able persons, who afterwards became leaders of the Whig party.* Happy would it have been for the nation if it had been regarded by the opposite parties as a question of social amelioration, not political power, and the use that was practicable had been made of the progressive and just reforms which might Deb. v. 604, have been founded on the disfranchisement of the boroughs convicted of corruption, instead of the wholesale destruction of the majority of their number.1 1 Ann. Reg. 1820, 46, 47; Parl. 624,696, 974. 64. trade ideas merchants, The doctrine of FREE TRADE, afterwards so largely Rise of free- acted upon by the British Legislature, first began at this among the time to engross the thoughts not only of persons engaged in commerce and manufactures, but of the heads of the Government. On 8th May, Mr Baring presented a petition declaration on this subject from the merchants of London; and on the ject. 16th, Mr Kirkman Finlay, a Glasgow merchant, equally and Lord Lans downe's on the sub remarkable for the extent of his transactions and the liberality of his views, brought forward a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow, which set forth, in strong terms, the evils arising from the restricted state of the trade with China and the East Indies, and the * In October 1819, after the Grampound Disfranchisement Bill had first been introduced into Parliament, Mr Ward, afterwards Lord Dudley, wrote to the Bishop of Llandaff: "All I am afraid of is, that by having the theoretical defects of the present House of Commons perpetually dinned into their ears, the well-intentioned and well-affected part of the community should at last begin to suppose that some reform is necessary. Now, I can hardly conceive any reform that would not bring us within the whirlpool of democracy, towards which we should be attracted by an irresistible force, and in an hourly accelerated ratio. But I flatter myself there is wisdom enough in the country to preserve us long from so great an innovation." In April 1820 he again wrote: "When I see the progress that reform is making, not only among the vulgar, but persons, like yourself, of understanding and education, clear of interested motives and party fanaticism, my spirits fail me. I wish I could persuade myself that the first day of reform will not be the first of the English revolution." In February 1821 he writes: "Mackintosh would keep the nomination boroughs; for my part, I am content with the constitution as it stands."— Lord DUDLEY's Letters, 226, 247, 277. X. 1820. advantages over British subjects which the Americans CHAP. enjoyed in that respect; and urged the repeal of the Usury Laws, and the reduction or removal of the duties on the importation of several foreign commodities. These views were so favourably received in both Houses of Parliament, that Lord Lansdowne was encouraged, a few days after, to bring forward a motion for the appointment of a committee to take into consideration the means of extending our foreign commerce. He dwelt, in an especial manner, on the inconveniences to which the trade of the country was now exposed by the numerous duties which restricted it in every direction, and argued that, "whatever brought the foreign merchant to this country, and made it a general mart for the merchandise of the world, was beneficial to our trade, and enriched the industrious population of our ports. Such freedom of transit would allow an assortment of cargoes for foreign markets, and thus extend our trade in general. The import duties on Baltic timber should be removed, for they cost us annually £500,000 more for our ships and houses than if we bought it from the north of Europe. The duties on French wines also should be lowered, to augment the trade with that country, and the trade with India entirely thrown open. As a proof of the superior value of the free trade to the East to that of the East India Company, it is sufficient to observe, that the former has 61,000 tons of shipping and 4720 seamen, while the latter employs only 20,000 tons and 2550; and our trade to America, which, at the period of the inde- Ann. Reg. pendence of that country, was only £3,000,000, has 85; Parl. now swelled to the enormous amount of £30,000,000 466. a-year." 1 1 1820, 83, Deb. i. 456, pool's me Lord Liverpool made a very remarkable speech in 65. reply; memorable as being the first enunciation, on the Lord Liverpart of Government, of the principles of free trade, which, morable half a century before, had been promulgated by Quesnay reply. in France, and Adam Smith in Great Britain. "It speech in X. 1820. CHAP. must be admitted," he observed, " that there has been a great falling off in our foreign trade in the last year; for our exports have declined no less than £7,200,000 in the year 1819, compared with the average of the three preceding years. It is of importance to examine in what branches of our trade so great and alarming a diminution has occurred. It is not in any great degree in our intercourse with the Continent; with it the decline has been only £600,000. The great decrease has been in our trade with the East Indies, and the United States of America with the latter alone there was a falling off in the last, compared with the three preceding years, of no less than £3,500,000. The general doctrines of freedom of trade, viewed in the abstract, are undoubtedly well founded; but the noble marquess (Lansdowne) who introduced the subject is too experienced a statesman not to qualify them in their application to this country. It is impossible for us, or any country in the world, except, perhaps, the United States of America, to act unreservedly upon that principle. 66. "If we look to the general principles of trade and comContinued. merce, we must, at the same time, look to our law concerning agriculture. We shall there see an absolute prohibition of the importation of great part of foreign agricultural produce, and heavy duties on the remainder. Under the operation of these laws, we cannot admit free trade to foreign countries. We will not take their cattle, nor their corn, except under heavy duties; how can we expect them to take our manufactures? With what propriety may not those countries say to us, If you talk big of the advantages of free commerce, if you value so highly the principles of your Adam Smith, show your sincerity and your justice by the establishment of a reciprocal intercourse. Admit our agricultural produce, and we will admit your manufactures.' Your lordships know it would be impossible to accede to such a proposition. We have risen to our present greatness under the oppo X. 1820. site system. Some suppose that we have risen in conse- CHAP. quence of that system; others, of whom I am one, believe we have risen in spite of that system. Whichever of these hypotheses be true, certain it is we have risen under a very different system from that of free and unrestricted trade. It is utterly impossible, with our debt and taxation, even if they were but half their existing amount, that we can suddenly adopt the principles of free trade. To do so would be to unhinge the whole property in the country; to make a change in the value of every man's possessions, and in none more so than those of agriculture, the very basis of our opulence and power. 67. "I was one of those who, in 1815, advocated the Corn Bill. In common with all the supporters of that measure, Concluded. I believed it expedient to give an additional protection. to the agriculturist. I thought that, after the conclusion. of a twenty years' war, and the unlimited extent to which speculation in agriculture had been carried, and the comparatively low price at which corn could be raised in several countries of the Continent, great distress would ensue to all persons engaged in the cultivation of the land. I thought the Corn Bill should be passed then, or not at all. Having been passed, it should now be steadily adhered to; for nothing aggravates the difficulties of all persons engaged in cultivation so much as alterations in the laws regarding importation. While, therefore, I advocate going into a committee, with a view to removing many of the restrictions and prohibitions affecting our foreign and colonial trade, I must at the same time state that, as a general measure, absolute freedom of trade cannot be established. In agricultural productions, and several branches of our manufactures, protection must be adhered to.1 It might have been better had it been otherwise from the beginning, and each country had attended only to those branches of manufacture in which pool. it has natural advantages; but, as matters stand, we can 1 Parl. Deb. corrected by i. 566,590 Lord Liver X. CHAP. not, save under large exceptions, attempt to retrace our steps. I do not believe the change in the currency has had any connection with the general distress which has since unhappily prevailed." 1820. 68. Appoint ment of a to inquire into agri cultural distress. This subject of agricultural distress was anxiously pressed on both Houses of Parliament during this session; committee and the petitions relating to the subject were so numerous, and stated facts of such importance and startling magnitude, that although Government opposed the appointment of a committee to inquire into the subject, it was carried by a majority of 150 to 101. It met, accordingly, collected a great deal of valuable evidence and information, and, as will appear in the sequel, published a most important report. But what is chiefly of moment in this stage of the inquiry is the opinions delivered by three very remarkable men, well qualified to judge of the subject, and on the justice of whose views subsequent experience has thrown an imperishable light. These were Mr Brougham, Mr Huskisson, and Mr Ricardo; and the quotations, brief as they shall be, from their speeches, present the kernel, as it were, of that great debate with the issue of which the future fate of the empire was indissolubly wound up.1 1 Ann. Reg. 1820, 76. 69. Opinion of Mr on this sub ject. It was observed by Mr Brougham: "Agriculture is in an especial manner entitled to protection, both because Brougham many public burdens press unequally upon it, and because much poor land has been brought into cultivation, which could not be thrown back to its former state without immense misery to individuals, as well as injury to the public. A manufacturer erects a huge building in a parish, in which the production of two articles is carried oncotton and paupers; and although this manufactory may yield to the proprietor £30,000 a-year, yet he is only rated for poor-rates at £500 a-year, the value of his buildings; while his poor neighbour, who rents land to that amount, is rated at the same, though his income, so far from being equal to the manufacturer's, is not a fourth |