X.

1820.

part even of his rent. Besides this, there are the bridge- CHAP. rates, the county-rates, the church-rates, and many other blessings, heaped on that favoured class the agriculturists. They, of course, must not raise their voices against such a distribution of these imposts, nor for a moment be heard to contend for an equality of burdens with the other classes of the community.

70.

"It is said that it is an erroneous policy to purchase corn dear at home, when it can be bought at a much Continued. cheaper rate abroad; and the only effect of this, it is added, is to lead men to cultivate bad land at a very great expense. This may possibly be true in the abstract; but the question we have now to consider is not whether, at such an expense, you ought to bring bad land into cultivation, but whether, having encouraged the cultivation of that land, we should now allow it to run to waste? The circumstances in which the country has been placed have been such, that even the worst land has been eagerly cultivated and brought in at an immense expense. It has been drained, hedged, ditched, manured, and become part of the inheritance of the British people. The capital expended in these improvements has been irrecoverably sunk in the land: it has become part and parcel of the soil, and was the life and soul of the cultivators and a large part of our inhabitants. Is it expedient to allow this inheritance to waste away, this large capital to perish, and with it the means of livelihood to so large a part of our people?

71.

"Some time ago there were several vessels in the harbour of London laden with wheat, which, but for the Corn Laws, Concluded. might have been purchased for 37s. a quarter. On the principle on which the Corn Laws are opposed, this corn ought to have been purchased, because it was cheaper than any which we can grow; but then, if that principle were acted upon, what would be the consequence? The inevitable result would be, that, in the next season, seven or eight millions of acres would be thrown out of cultivation, and

VOL. II.

2 F

X.

1820.

CHAP. the persons engaged in it out of employment. Is there any man bold enough to look such a prospect in the face? What does the change amount to? To this, and nothing more, that we would inflict a certain calamity on the cultivator and landlord, in order to enable the consumer to eat his quartern loaf a penny cheaper. Can the destruction of so large a portion of the community be considered as a benefit because another gained by it? There is no phi1 Parl. Deb, losopher or political economist who has ever ventured to i. 686, May maintain such a doctrine. The average of imports of wheat for the last five years has been 477,138 quarters. This is formidable enough of itself, but what is it to what may be anticipated under a free trade in grain ?"1*

30, 1820;

Ann. Reg.

1820, 69,

70.

72.

On the other hand, it was maintained by Mr Ricardo, Answer by on the part of the Free-traders: "The agriculturists. Mr Ricardo. argue that they are entitled to a remunerating price for their produce, forgetting that what is remunerating must vary according to circumstances. If, by preventing importation, the farmer is induced to expend his capital on land not suited for the production of grain crops, you voluntarily, and by your own act, raise the price by which you are remunerated, and then you make that price a ground for again prohibiting importation. Open the ports, admit foreign grain, and you drive this land out of

* Mr Huskisson, who followed on the same side, made several most important observations, which subsequent events have rendered prophetic. He observed, "That he still retained the same views on this question which he had held in 1815, when the present Corn Law was passed. In the first place, he considered that during a long series of years, by circumstances over which the country had no control, an artificial protection had been afforded to agriculture, which had forced a great mass of capital to the raising of corn which would not otherwise have been applied to that object. If an open trade in corn had been then allowed, a great loss of the capital thus invested, and a great loss to the agricultural part of the community, would have been occasioned. It was considered that 80s. the quarter was the price which would remunerate the farmer, and he had voted for it accordingly. The second reason was, that, in its peculiar circumstances, it was of great importance to this country not to be dependent on foreign countries for a supply of food. It is an error to say there will be suffering on both sides, if the country which raised corn for us attempted to withhold the supply. So there would ; but would the contest be an equal one? To the foreign nation the result would be a diminution of revenue or a pressure on agriculture. To us the

X.

1820.

cultivation; a less remunerating price will then do for the CHAP. more productive soils. You might thus have fifty remunerating prices, according as your capital was employed on productive or unproductive soils. It becomes the legislature, however, not to look at the partial losses which would be endured by a few who could not cultivate their land profitably at a diminished price, but to the general interests of the nation. It is better to have a greater quantity of produce at a low price than a lesser at a large price, for the benefit to the producer is the same, and that to the consumer is much greater.

66

73.

By cheapening food the people will be enabled at once to purchase a larger quantity of it, and an additional Continued. supply of other conveniences or luxuries. The high price of provisions diminishes at once the profits of the capitalist and the comforts of the workmen he employs. What constitutes the greater part of the price of manufactured articles? The wages of labour. Diminish those wages, by lessening the cost of the subsistence which must always form its principal ingredient, and you either augment the profits of capital, or extend the market for its produce by lessening its cost. Either of these would be a great benefit to our manufacturing population. The agriculturists say that they are able to supply the whole inha

result would probably be revolution and the subversion of the state. Let it be recollected that America, during the late war, despite its dependence on agriculture, and its sensitiveness to the voice of the people, actually submitted to an embargo with a view to incommode us by cutting off our supply of grain. A great power, like that of Napoleon, might compel a weak neutral to close its harbours, and thus starve us into submission, without suffering any inconvenience itself. The third ground on which he had consented to the modification of the principle of free trade, was the situation of Ireland, which had previously received encouragement from our demand, to withdraw which would have been most injurious to that country. To give a superior cultivation to the fertile land of that most fertile country, and to turn British capital into it, would ultimately tend, in a most material degree, to increase the resources and revenue of the empire. Since the passing of the Corn Laws the imports from Ireland had increased every year."-Parl. Debates, new series, i. 678, 679. One of the most curious things in history is the clear and lucid way in which the result of measures under discussion is often foretold, the entire insensibility which is at the time shown to the prediction, and its ultimate complete accomplishment.

X.

1820.

CHAP. bitants of the country with food, and they demand heavy duties to enable them to feel secure in their efforts to do So. But the answer to all their demands is plain. You can grow these articles, it is true; but we can purchase them cheaper than you can grow them. Is it expedient to force cultivation on your inferior soils at a loss to yourselves? All principle is against it. They might as well urge in France, that, as they can grow sugar from beet-root at a cost greater than it can be raised in the West Indies, therefore you should load West Indian sugar in that country with prohibitory duties.

74.

Again it is said, as shipowners and various classes of Concluded. manufacturers are protected, the agriculturists should be the same. In truth, however, these protections are of no use whatever, either to the country or the branches of industry which are protected. Take any branch of trade you please; let it be in the most flourishing state, and enjoying the best possible prospects; surround it with prohibitory duties, and you will soon see it languish and decline. The reason is, that the stimulus to human industry, the spur to human exertions arising from necessity, has been taken away. Even if the trade protected were thereby benefited, it could only be at the expense of the rest of the community; and all that is said on the other side about the injustice of benefiting one class at the expense of another, here turns against themselves. Countervailing duties, if adopted in one country, will soon be followed in others, and thence will arise a war of tariffs, which will cripple, and at last destroy, all commerce whatever. The interests of the agriculturists and of the other classes of the community might, indeed, be identified, provided we were restrained from all intercourse with other nations; but this is impossible in a country such as ours, which carries on an extensive commercial intercourse with foreign. countries. The price of grain may be altered either by alterations in the currency, which will raise it along with i. 671, 674. all other articles, or by legislative restrictions, which will alter it alone. The first alteration may not be injurious,

1 Parl. Deb.

X.

because it affects all alike. The latter necessarily must CHAP. be so, because it lowers at once both the profits of stock and the wages of labour."

1820.

75.

facts since

on this sub

Such was the commencement of this great debate, which for the next quarter of a century almost constantly Additional convulsed the nation, and certainly never was pleaded discovered on both sides with greater force or by more consummate ject. masters. One important consideration, however, was omitted on both sides, from statistical researches having not as then brought it to light, though it now stands forth in the brightest colours. This is the infinitely superior value of our home or colonial trade to that of the graingrowing countries from whom we import food, and the extreme impolicy, even with a view to the interest in the end of the manufacturers themselves, of discouraging the former to encourage the latter. So great is this disproportion, that it would pass for incredible, if not established by the unerring evidence of statistical facts. Our manu

Excluding the native population of India, which is 109,000,000, and supposing they consume £5,000,000 worth of the £7,000,000 of exports to British India, the exports to British native colonial population, which is about 6,000,000, will be £14,000,000, or £2, 5s. a-head, against 1s. a-head for all the rest of the world.