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 site system. Some suppose that we have risen in consequence 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. CHAP. X. 1820. 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 Parl. Deb. otherwise from the beginning, and each country had corrected by attended only to those branches of manufacture in which pool. it has natural advantages; but, as matters stand, we can 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. This subject of agricultural distress was anxiously Appoint pressed on both Houses of Parliament during this session; committee and the petitions relating to the subject were so numerinto agious, and stated facts of such importance and startling ment of a to inquire cultural distress. 1 Ann. Reg. 1820, 76. 69. Opinion of Mr 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 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 on this sub- much poor land has been brought into cultivation, which ject. 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 part even of his rent. X. 1820. 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 2 F VOL. II. 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. Mr Ricardo. On the other hand, it was maintained by Mr Ricardo, Answer by on the part of the Free-traders: "The agriculturists 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 |