•c-:i;^^-v THE GIFT OF .}±J±^:£f!>^^^ h.-3.^..%-33. lU'Mt t> Digitized by Microsoft® V-TAAA/ ■• >«u, The Religion of Science Library Kumtier 12 Bi-Monthly Price, 250 Yearly, $1.50 MARCH. 1895 Entered at the Chicago Post Office as Second Class Mail Matter. l^li-^'i THE Free Trade Struggle in England ti.-. M. M. TRUMBULL Cornell University Library HF2043.T86 F8 1895 The free trade struagle in Enaland ■f- 3 1924 030 186 351 olin HI CHICAGO THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY Digitizedfy/Microsoft® This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in cooperation with Corneii University Libraries, 2007. You may use and print this copy in iimited quantity for your personai purposes, but may not distribute or provide access to it (or modified or partiai versions of it) for revenue-generating or other commerciai purposes. Digitized by Microsoft® The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030186351 D/g/Y/ze'O by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® THE FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND Digitized by Microsoft® WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR Wheelbarrow. Articles and Discussions on the La- bor Question, Including the Controversy with Mr. Lyman J Gage, on the Ethics of the Board of Trade, and also the Controversy with Mr. Hugh O. Pentecost and others on the Single Tax Question. Pages, 303. Cloth, $1.00; paper, 50 cents. The Free Trade Struggle in England. Second Edition. Pages, 296. Cloth, fine paper, 75 cents ; paper edition, 25 cents. Earl Grey on Reciprocity and Civil Service Re- form. With Comments by Gen. M. M. Trum- bull. Price, 10 cents. CHICAGO The Open Court Publishing Co. Digitized by Microsoft® THE ( fn ri i 1 , FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND M. M. TRUMBULL SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED CHICAGO, THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COAIPANY 1895 Digitized by Microsoft® copyright by The Open Court Publishing Co. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, i8Q2. Digitized by Microsoft® DEDICATION. RIGHT HON. JOHN BRIGHT, M.P., THE ELOQUENT FRIEND AND DEFENDER OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, THE ENLIGHTENED ADVOCATE OF PEACE AND FREE TRADE AMONG NATIONS, THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY HIS FRIEND AND DISCIPLE, M. M. TRUMBULL. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® U. « ;5ic. A'/"^ ^'"^ ^ix^ A.3 4, /^^^ Digitized by Microsoft® ^-t^>K; ftea^i^ 4'^t^ ^ n\nf^ ]H>rtn to intcu'national trade. In the time of Henry Clay it was known in thin country an the " Auiei'- icau HyHt(!in," and in our own day it ih called by the, ca|)tivatinf; title of " I'l'otection to Native; Industry." Mr. lIuskisHoi), one of the most enlightened memlKU's of the English ministry, rrnido some advanci^s toward Free Trade, as eai-ly as the year IH'^',',; and (;v(!n before that time, tho.mercliants of Jjondou liad jictitioned I'ar- liament ill helialf of comiiKU'cial frctedom. Tlu^ir argu- ment was remarkably forcible and clear. 'I'hey said: "That unfortunately, a practice, the very reverse of freedom from restraint, has been, and is, more or lroduction, to which our situation might be bet- ter suited; thus affording at least an equal, or probably a greater, and certainly a more beneficial employment to our own capital and labor." The petition ended with an earnest protest against " every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue ; against all duties merely protective ; and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection." In answer to the petition, Lord Liverpool, then Prime Minister, said that ' ' he agreed in every sentiment ex- pressed in the petition ; and that if he were forming a Commercial Code, such would be its fundamental prin- ciples." Perhaps the most insidious enemy to every reform is that valueless concession which agrees to the principle of it, and regrets that the present "is not the time;" as Mr. Eaton is reported to have said in Con- gress, when opposing Mr. Morrison's bill, " He hoped that the United States would be a Free Trade country — forty years from now." It is curious that Sir Robert Walpole, as Prime Minister of England, anticipated Huskisson by more than a hundred years. At the opening of Parliament in October, 1721, which, by the way, was before Adam Smith was born, he inspired the King to say that : "It is very obvious that nothing would more con- duce to the obtaining so public a good — the extension of our commerce — than to make the export of our own Digitized by Microsoft® 12 FKKK TKAUK 8T1!,II(UU,K IN KNiil.ANn. iiiannfixctiivos ami tlio iiti])ovl, of the coiniuitililios iisoti ill tlio iii!uiiirii,i'.tiii'(\ of tlioiii ii.s iM'iit'tiionl iind iw oiisy as may bo; by this moans tlio biilftiitH\ ol' t.raiii* inis>lit, bo jirosovvod in onv i'avor, our iKnnint'vw^ incroasod, and H'voator luimboi's of ouv poor oin|>b>yod. 1 iiiusl,, tlicrorovo, rooonimond to you, j^'onllouion ol" Uio lloiiso of Conunons, to oonsidtw bow far (bo dulios on llioso bvanobos may bo taluMi olT, and rt'))laood witbont any viobition of ])nblio faith, or biyius;'a,ny now buvt.lion upon my ]iooplo. And 1 pvomiso niysolf tlnUi by a duo oon- siiloration of this inatt.i\r t,lu\ (U'oduoo of thoso diitios, oonipavod witli tlio inlinito ailva.ntii,n'os tlmt will aooruo t.o tho kintjdom fvoin tlioiv boinjj; taki'n o(T, will b(^ found HO iiiooiisidorablo as to loavo littilii room for any olass of objections." Ill ])ursuan('o of this ])olioy nioni than ono bnndvod artiolos of Uritisli nianiifaoturo wiTo allow(Mi to bo ox- poi'tod froo of ', and by various forms of fraud. Tho )irinoiplo was that tho noo(>ssM.rios of lifo and liio rM,w matorials from which tected at the expense of manufactures in England, and manufactures protected at the expense of agriculture in America. We have statesmen in Congress who believe in longi- tudinal Free Trade and latitudinal Protection ; who think that Free Trade would be scientific and valuable between ns and the nations to the north and south of us, but mischievoiis and unwise between us and the nations east and west. But the laws of political economy cannot be bent to suit the differences of latitude and longitude. The freedom of trade that benefits England would benefit the United States. Commercial principles cannot vary between Liver- pool and New York, nor between Boston and Mon- treal. It is very curious that, while the citizens of London were petitioning their Parliament for commercial free- dom, the citizens of Boston were asking Congress for the same right. It gives a rude shock to the vanity of an American revenue reformer of the present day to find that his arguments were anticipated by his countrymen sixty-five years ago. In 1827, when our "infant in- dustries" were much mOre infantile than they are now, a committee of the citizens of Boston thus protested against' the injustice of a protective tariff. They de- clared it false to say that " dear goods made at home are better than cheap ones made abroad ; that capital and labor cannot be employed in this country without protective duties; that it is patriotic to tax the many for the benefit of the few; that it is just to aid by legis- Digitized by Microsoft® 14' FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. latioii manufactures that do not succeed without it ; that we ought to sell to other nations, but never, buy from them." They go on to say "these are, we have long since known, fundamental principles among the advocates of the American system. It is, however, ex- traordinary that these ancient and memorable maxims, sprung from the darkest ages of ignorance and barbar- ism, should take their last refuge here." It is not so very extraordinary after all. Every nation must pass through commercial barbarism to commercial civilization, from Protection to Free Trade. The desire to get rich ,at the expense of others is well nigh universal. It is easy to persuade most people that to "protect" . their own artisans from the competition of "foreign pauper labor" is an act of pa- triotism. This admitted, it is easily narrowed down to our own state, our own county, our own city, our own village, or even our own street. In the last cen- tury the farmers of Middlesex, the county in which London is situated, petitioned Parliament against im- proving the abominable roads of England. They frankly claimed that so long as the roads were bad they had a monopoly of the London markets for the sale of their vegetables, fruit and grain; that if the roads were imjjroved, the farmers of other counties would be able to bring their jiroduce to the London markets; which would be disastrous to the "industry" of Middlesex. This looks very foolish on the face of it, and yet in principle it is the doctrine of American Protectionists to-day. The attempt to encourage agriculture, manufactures, shipping, experimental enterprises, special trades, "in- fant" industries, and so on by protective laws, was per- Digitized by Microsoft® THE ANTI-COKN-LAW LEAGUE. 15 severed in by England at a wasteful expense for centu- ries, and it was abandoned only when it was found out that Protection was the paralysis of industry. To suppose that the United States was born wise in these matters, would be as unreasonable as to suppose that it was born old. It must have the same education in eco- nomics that England had. Its term of tuition will not be so long as that of England was, but the discipline and instruction must be the same. The Protective doctrine, too, has the same advantage here that it had in England. So long as it prevailed the nation grew in wealth, power and population. Not until Protection was abandoned did the people see that their progress had been made in spite of it, and that their prosperity would have been much greater, had their commerce been free. So it will be here. Under "Protection," and in spite of it, this country is growing in wealth and power. When Protection is abandoned the people will be astonished as they were in England, at the multiplication of their wealth and comforts under a Free Trade policy. With impudent audacity the Tory journals placed all the greatness and glory of England to the account of the Protective system, but not any of the jjoverty or the crime. In the light of subsequent history their claim reads like a jest, and yet many of them were se- rious in making it. The following portentous /)rqpter hoc ajjpeared in Fraser's Magazine: "In favor of the restrictive system it may be fairly urged, that with it, and therefore by means of it, the country i"ose to the pitch of prosperity and greatness at which we find it;" and BlackvjoocV s Magazine, in solemn rejjroof of the Free Traders, declared that the Protective system "was Digitized by Microsoft® 16 PEEE TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. the system under which England had become free and great and powerful." Indeed, as far back as 1825, when the ministei'S under the inspiration of Mr. Hus- kisson pro'posed to relax in a small degree the grip of the restrictive system, Blackwood's sounded the Tory tocsin, and rallied the cohorts of monopoly to the de- fense of privilege in the clamorous notes of mock pa- triotism which protectionists like to use. After de- ploring the moderate 'reduction of duties proposed by the ministry, and after boasting that never before was prosperity so abundant, SlackwoocTs said: "That man has not a drop of British blood in his bosom who can contemplate this without a throb of joy, and who can witness attempts to tamper with it, to make it a subjectof experiment, to cut, twist, disjoint and disor- ganize it, in order to saddle it with untested theories, without dislike, and ajjprehension." That artful ap- jteal to national feeling has been stolen from Mluck- loootVs by the American protectionists, who with equal vehemence declare that the man who would interfere with their extortion has not a drop of Aniericati blood in his bosom. To the very end of the struggle, and even after it, jBlackwoocl's maintained that Sinbad the sailor moved about more freely and comfortably than he other- wise could because he carried on his broad shoulders the old man of the sea. The "Protection" laws for England passed between the years 1340 and 1840 would make a more entertain- ing book than Mark Twain ever j)roduced, especially if it showed the contrary efforts made to effect the same jjurpose. Sometimes exports of raw materials were for- bidden in order that they might be abundant in . he Kin<»- dom, to the encouragement of the trades which used Digitized by Microsoft® THE ANTI-COEN-LAM' LEAGUE. 17 them, while the importation of the same raw materials was forbidden lest they might become abundant to the discouragement of the industries that produced them. In one reign, shoemakers were forbidden to exercise the trade of a tanner, ' 'in order to promote and improve the manufacture of leather." In a subsequent reign, shoemakers were encouraged to engage in the tanning business by act of Parliament "to promote the manu- facture of leather;" and again, for the very same object, shoemaker's were forbidden by law to exercise the tan- ner's trade. All sorts of contradictory laws were passed at va- rious periods to "protect" the wool manufacturer and the wool-grower at the same time. For instance in the reign of Elizabeth the export of sheep was prohibited in order that wool might be plentiful in England and scarce in France. Still the weavers clamored for more protection, so that in the reign of Charles II., an act was passed requiring that every dead body should be buried in a woolen shroud. This failed, be- cause the effect of the law was to deprive the living of woolen clothes, in order to dress the dead. Besides, the people would not die fast enough to suit the weavers, and therefore in the reign of George the First, another act was passed "for the encouragement of the woolen and silk trades." By the provisions of this law any person wearing a garment of calico was subjected to a fine of five pounds, and any person selling it was liable to a fine of twenty pounds. Still the wool-growers and weavers were not satisfied. . They demanded that the cotton trade should be suppressed for their protection, and to that end a law was passed imposing heavy pro- tective customs duties on all raw cotton imported into Digitized by Microsoft® 18 PKEE TKADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. England. All this was like sending fire engines to put out the Aurora Borealis, and had not the laws of so- cial existence bepn stronger than acts of Parliament this legislation would have strangled, in its infancy, the cot- ton industry, which is to-day one of the main supports of the British empire. A board of trade was erected by King James the First, in 1622. Hume informs us that one of the reasons assigned in the commission is, "To remedy the low price of wool, which begat com- plaints of the decay of the woolen manufactdry," — the patent falsehood that dear wool is a good thing for the men who make cloth, and the tailors who make coats, being as ignorantly asserted then, as it is impudently asserted now. In the year 1363, in the reign of Edward the Third, when the exportation of wool was strenuously forbidden, a law was passed which regulated the clothing of the peo23le and prescribed what ap23arel might or might not be worn by them according to their respective condi- tions and rank iu life. The pretense fgr this law was, that people were becoming extravagant in dress, and that luxury in this direction oughtto be restrained. This law was repealed in the following year, either because it could not be executed, or because it was an injury to trade. But a hundred years later it was re-enacted, be- cause it was discovered that the people indulged in excessive array "to the great displeasure of God, the impoverishing of England, and the enriching of strano-e realms." The "Protection" character of this law is easily seen in the reasons given for its enactment. The English were buying goods abroad ' because they could get them there cheaper and better than they could buv them at home. The Protectionists of that era like Digitized by Microsoft® THE ANTI- CORN-LAW LEAGUE. 19 their descendants in this, regarded all j)urchases made abroad as a waste of money, which went to the "en- riching of strange realms. " It never occurred to them that the articles they bought came to the ' ' enrichment " of their own country. In the blind economy of the time, men could not see that riches might consist of other things than money. The manufacture of certain commodities was re- stricted to certain places, to "protect" them from the competition of other places, and to encourage their in- dustry. In the reign of Henry the Eighth, an act was passed restricting the making of cloths to Worcester, and a few other favored towns; and in the same reign the trade in worsted yarn was limited to Norwich and the county of Norfolk ; and it was jjrovided, that no person should weave or manufacture it save the artifi- cers belonging to said city or county. In vain and tiresome gyrations, the Protectionists of old whirled round and round trying to give special aid to some callings without injuring others. In the reign of Edward the Siith the saddlers were pi-otected by a monopoly of the trade in leather, and their busi- ness flourished to such an extent that all who doubted the wisdom of the law were silent and ashamed. "See what Protection has done for the saddler trade," said the advocates of the law, and the Free Traders could not answer them. After awhile it was noticed that what was a good thing for the saddlers was a bad thing for the cobblers, and they presented a petition to Par- liament complaining that the monopoly had "wrought their utter impoverishment and undoing." So, there- fore, in the reign of Mary, the obnoxious law was re- pealed, in order to "protect" the cobblers from the extortions of the saddlers. Digitized by Microsoft® 20 FEEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. It was also learned by costly experience that the leather monopoly enjoyed by the saddlers had not only operated as an unjust tax on the cobblers and shoe- makers, and on everybody who wore shoes, but that leather had deteriorated iu quality as it had increased in price. In consequence of the petition of the cob- blers, the law was repealed, and in the act repealing it, Parliament acknowledged that it had learned a good lesson in political economy. After bewailing the con- dition of the cobblers, the act gives this additional reason for abolishing the monopoly of the saddlers, ' ' and forasmuch also as sithence (since) the making of said estatute all kind of leather is more slenderly and deceitfully wrought and made than ever before, never- theless as dear or dearer." This preamble will apply to every protected monopoly in the world. It is not necessary to multiply examples. The Eng- lish laws are full of vain and mischievous attempts to make rivers run up hill, to divert moral science from its principles, and make the beneficent streams of trade and manufactures flow the wrong way. They failed, as such attempts must ever fail. They gave to certain special classes an artificial prosperity, but this pros- perity was abstracted from the community at large. The belief in witchcraft was accompanied by the kin- dred su2)erstitiou that " Government " always kept on hand a large surplus of prosperity created by itself, which it could ladle out at pleasure to help destitute people, professions, and trades. It was not then known in England, as it is not yet known in America, that ''Government" can create nothing; and that if it pours a cupful of prosperity upon this trade or that one, it must dip it up from the common fund of prosperity Digitized by Microsoft® TIIIC ANTI-<;OI{N-l,AW LEAGUE, 21 created by the labor of all the rc.Ht of the pi'ople. There in positively no bounty, liclp, or omlownicnt having a money value, thiit govcrnnieiitc-un give to oik; without talking it from othcrH. When govoniimmt uhixJ to RoU monopolies this truth was inoro a])parent than it is now, because the money recciveil for the francliisu was a confcHsion that the buyer of it must get it back with profit out of the consumers whom he was allow(!(l to overeharge for the artieht on wliieh he hud the mo- nopoly. That gov(n-nmeMt gives the monopoly for n(jthing does not ehango the pi'inci)iie, but it malces it harder to detect. It really makes no diffenuiee to the eonsumer wiietlier the Pennsylvania mine owners and manufacturers pay the government for a ])rotectivc tariff or g(!t it for nothing. If there is any money valiu; in it for them, tliat value must come out of the j)e(jple whi^ are compelled to buy of them wiiatever they have to sell. Although the so-called Protective system prevailctd in England for centuries, it must he reraemlK^'ed that, it never had a peaceful reign. Its victims always jirolcKted against it, and it never altogether satislic^d even its beneficiaries and advocates. The hundreds of laws enacting, amending, and rejicaling its details j)rovethis. It is vei'y likely, also, that while the system was neces- sarily perveited to tlie unjust privilege and ])rofit of special classes, its authors originally designed it for the encouragement of home industry. Thoy did not look beneath the surface of the scheme. They saw at tint first glance that a ccirtiiin trad(! was beneliti^d when freed from foreign (competition, and they tliought that tlieroforo there must beconceaU^d within it an economic priucijih! tliat reipiired tlie legisiiiture to protect every Digitized by Microsoft® 22 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. business that suffered |rom foreign rivalry. Then be- gan the scramble of " interests " for special jjrotective enactments. The archives of the British Parliament will show that there is scarcely an interest in the coun- try that has not petitioned for a monojDoly of its own trade. The Protective system which roused the fierce opposition of the English manufacturers from 1836 to 1846 was really the work of their fathers. For centu- ries the manufacturers of woolens, cottdns, and other fabrics believed that Protection and monopoly were in- dispensable to their trade, and they resisted every at- tem2:)t at commercial reform. It was that historic lesson which caused the Edin- burgh Reviev) to say: " For centuries the government has labored to misdirect the industry of the people. It has taken upon itself the task of rendering them, or certain classes of them, rich. It has dictated to them what they shall produce and to whom they shall sell, and what they shall purchase, and to what markets they shall resort. It has considered the whole body of con- sumers as a prey to be sacrificed to any class or to any section of a class that chooses to ask for a monopoly. And, when one class has complained of the privileges granted to another, it has bribed it into acquiescence by allowing it to inflict a further injustice upon the public." As the land owners of England comprised an over- whelming majority in both houses of Parliament, it was natural that they should gradually direct the pro- tective legislation of the country so as to give them a monopoly of the home market in every article consti- tuting the food of the people. This they did ; and the vice of their system reached its climax in the Corn- Digitized by Microsoft® THE ANTI-COEN-XAAV LEAGUE. 23 Laws of 1815. When the battle of Waterloo had brought the war of the French revolution to an end, and it became necessary to adapt the commercial system of England to an era of peace, it was agreed that inas- much as the landlords had not the power to decree how many bushels of wheat should gi-ow on an acre of land, they would, in retaliation for this oversight of Providence, declare and establish by law how much a bushel the consumer should j^ay for whatever quantity the acre might happen to yield. It was conceded that the farmers could not pay the high rents demanded by the landlords unless the minimum price of wheat was fixed at eighty shillings a, quarter, and they established it at that figure. This was about two dollars and a half a bushel, American money; or, as wages was then, about three days' work of a mechanic for a bushel of wheat. The protective tariff was "so adjusted" as to insure that price. The law had been altered two or three times in the interval, but the principle of it re- mained from 1815 to 1846. • The law was fiercely and continously assailed, but the opposition to it was only a sentimental protest, hav- ing ncp practical value. The cry of hunger was un- heeded by the legislature. The law was discussed by the newspapei-s and the magazines, but only occasionally, and rather as a question of ethics and abstract political economy, not as a "live issue," dividing parties and hav- ing any immediate bearing on the welfare of the jjeople. After the passage of the Reform Bill in 1832, the cry grew louder, and the passionate verses of Ebenezer El- liott stirred the feelings of the people, and aroused a sentiment of indignation against the Corn-Law. Un- fortunately for Elliott, he was known as the ' ' Corn- Digitized by Microsoft® 24 FREE TRADE STErGGLE IX EXGLAXD. Law Ehymer," and the nickname, of which indeed he was proud, has led the world to believe that he was a rhymster, and nothing more. But Elliott was a true poet, and the poetic flame burned within him ardent and bright as the fire in his forge at Sheffield. Carlyle, in a review of his verses, declared that he was a real poet, and one who had something to say; a poet whose voice it would be well for the government to heed. Colonel Perronet Thompson, in his " Catechism of the Corn-Laws." also started an agitation that steadily in- creased in power. The scattering fire of an irregular skirmish line advancing against the Corn-Laws could be heard, from London to Liverjjool, and from there to Glasgow. Nevertheless, it was not until about the year 1836 that the Free Traders made any well-organ- ized effort against the insular and bigoted system of re- striction which had burdened the industries of England for hundreds of years. , Up to that time the liberal and scientific principles of Free Trade were regarded by "practical" statesmen as political abstractions, beautifully adapted to some undiscovered Utopia, which might be expected to appear about the time- of the mil- lennium. Up to that time the efforts of the Free Traders were feeble and scattered over an extensive field, fortified by the Protectionists so strongly in every direction that the reformers made but slight impression upon the works of the enemy. The wealth, profits and social force derived from hundreds of monopolies had combined and consolidated into a political power, controlling both branches of the legislature, the church, the aristocracy, and the crown. Not only that, but Pro- tection had shielded itself with a national sentiment borrowed from a popidar patriotism jealous of " foreio^n Digitized by Microsoft® THE ANTI-OOEN-LAAV LEAGUK. 25 competition." It apiieamUo be invinoiblo. In 1839 tbo isrtlati'd lovoes of Froo 'Pviulo became a coberent and (iisoiplinod organization under tbe name of tbe Anti-Corn-Law League. Tliey massed tbemsolves for a eoneenlrated attack upon tbe Corn-Laws, tbe key to tbe wbole Protective System. Tbe Corn-Laws were to Pro- tei'tion wbat tbe Malakoff was to Sebastopol. Wben tbat fell tbe eity fell. Tbe repeal of tbe Corn-Laws meant tbe doom of Protection and tbe triumpb of Free Trade. The efforts of tbe League were directed to tbe 8UCoe.ss of a speeifie measure — tbe repeal of the duties upon corn. Under the general term " corn " in Eng- bindisoomprebended flour, wheat, oats, and breadstuffs, of every kind. Digitized by Microsoft® (IHAI'TKW, II. 'I'lllC I'UO'I'KC'I'ION 'I'KIUMI'II. .IiihI, ill, 1,li<^ (liiwii of iiii(lHiiui]ii(!r, iK;}7, Uio King (lied, 1111(1 till'. Vic-Uifiiiii cm bcfAim. WitJl tlio old Kiiif; llicro wi'iit, out nil iijrc oi' ifiiionuKKs vice, niid political Hii|i('.rHtitioii. With tlio yoiiiij^ C^iumiii tlu^cd (^uiTici in a Ix^ttur, brijrlitor, and a wiH(vr dii.y. 'i'lu^rt^ wiiH vic^i cniiiiffli h^l't, indcMid, but it WiiH no lonffcr l•(^Hl)(■(•-tllbl(^ Tli(^ Parliament died witli tlic Kin^i, and a ik^w I'ai'lia- inciit W!iH elioH(iii. Tlu^ content vvaH b(^tw(H'n the WljigS on one side, iind tlu! Toi'Ic^h on the ol^lier. The iwHiieH were, like many of tlu! Ihhik^s iH^twetai the DemoeratM and the K((|)iiblieanH in our own country now rather of th(^ pawt, hiHtoi'ical, than of tln^ jireHcnt, real. Tho olIiecH, liowev(ii', wen^ at Htake, and the Whi)j;H won. They had a niajority in (iu! lu^w Parliament of about thirty in the IIouhc of (lommoiiH. TIuh in a irunnber- Mliip of Mix hundred and H('ty-ci|^ht, waH barely a work- inf^ majority; but liy kcu^piiiff eloH(t in Nhor(% and not veiituriiif,' out upon the widi^ occ^an of Kt^aU^HmaiiHliip, they could gc^t aloiiff with it coinrorta-bly well, and enjoy the power, the hoiioi'M, and tlu^ (^inoliiineiitH of ollicc. '.riie commercial poli(^y of tlu^ country waH not much of an Shhuc in tlic ehuaioii. The Toric^H vvcr(^ a,ll I'ro- tectioiiiwtH and ho were riiOMt of thc.WliigH. They dif- fcn^d only in deforce, not in princi])l(^ Tliirty-(!ight Fr(te TraderH obtaiiu^d w^atH in tln^ Jiew J'arliament, Digitized by Microsoft® THE PROTKCTION TRIUMPH. 27 They rangod thomaelves with the Whigs, as did the Irish Repealers, and the Liberals of every grade. What progressive elements existed in the politics of the time, woro supposed to be represented in the Whig party. The Toi'ies, if not reactionary, were at least conserva- tive. The trifling diiTereiice between "the two great par- ties" was amusingly shown. In 1839, the ministers came within six vt)tes of defeat on the bill, pro- viding a new constitution for Jamaica, and as this was too narrow a margin on which to ad- minister tlio government with dignity, they resigned. Sir Robert Teel, the leader of tlie Tory party, was sent for by the Queen to form a new admin- istration. He had been Prime Minister in 1835, and was the most competent statesman then in Par- liament. He agreed to form a government, but re- quired that ei'rtain Whig ladies of the CJueen's house- hold should be removed from office— in other words, they should go out witli the ministry that had brought them in. The Q\iei'n would not consent to this, whereupon Sir Robert gave up his task, and the Whigs resumed their places. Tiiose drawing-room politics were now about to be rudely shaken by the new power just born into the State: the Anti-Oorn-ljaw League. A- "live issue" was about to be presented to the people, some- thing of greater consequence than the politics of the ladies attached to the Queen's household. The ques- tion was whether or not the food and clothing of the people, and all the comforts of life, should be made scarce and dear by inqiorl duties on foreign grain, and meat, and wool, and other things, levied for the "pro- tection" of special classes; whether or not the shackles Digitized by Microsoft® 28 FRKIC TlfAUH WI'1MI(!(!I,H IN ION () Li\ N 11. whioh liml I'l'llorcd indiistrv I'lir ('ciilMrics nliould ho rc- iiu)\hm1 ihhI tlu' comiiu'rcc ol' Kiiii'luiid inndc IVih". It. is soiiiowliiit. (Miridiis lliiil. tlio lii'Ml' It'iidor in V>\v liiiiiu'iil <)(' (iuM'omiiu'rriid vcroviiiiitiou ciiiiu' not ii'din tlio iiu'i'cimtilc or iniiiiurju'liiriiif^' oImmsos, iicitlu'i- was lie u "iiiiui (if Mi« iK'oiiio." llo wiiM ol' llio t,ill(>d lU'isUx^- rncv, a hrotln'r ol' llic Karl id' C'larciidon. Tiu' lion. CharlcM rcllunn N'illicrs, nicndicr for ^Volv('rllaln|lton. n yomia; man of ;!,5 or so, was (Ini bead and I'l'onl' o\' thu Krco Traiiti |i!ir|.y. Iloiiad oniincnl i'a|inrit_y I'or Icad- ('rslii|i, a tluironnh luHiwIi'tluc ol' tluM|in\slion, an inlcnso conviction of tlio wisdom and tiu' justice of his cause, good tcni|)cr, and wdiai Lord Hcaconslicld, his nuist siir- castic enemy, I'rcely accorded him, a "terse elo(|nenee, and vivid |ier(n^|)lioii." Ho was almost- tlio Hvsti man ol" his lime in I'arlianuMil, who had vision hrij;iil. enonnii to see tliat tlu' I'endal system of c.oinmei'ce was orippliug tlu^ industries of Ui'ilnin, and he was tho only one wlio luid CaJth to iK^rune tluit tlio system (^ould he overthrown, lie was in the House of (•onimons six years hol'oro Vi>h- don a,|)|)eni'ed within its walls, and oin'lit yoai's hol'ore ,lohn I5ri;;hl, (ditaiiu'd a. seat there. Although in actual dchale ho was contented to I'aJl behind thosi< ^lowerl'id trihuiH'S, and although Cohdcn "fairly trani|ile(l him down,", as Cohden himself rather iiiouiMifully said, yet t.lu\ loadorshi|) of tlu^ |i)irty in i'a-rlinnient was iiovGl" taken from him. He is now, at tlu< a.y'e of ninety, still in active i)o1itic.al service in the Houses of Commons as inemher for \Vol\'erhani|ilon. Sonu' yeill-s a.fl(ir the tci-uHnation of the ii'i'ee 'Trade stl'iif^^le, /''n/Nrr'.s' /\/ni-La\\s has boon tlio one spooinl hobby of Iho Hon. 0. P. Vitliors - a hobby ho nnlo around "tl\o politioal arena with tho flourish whioh usually attends hobby horsouiauship, xiutil the wal men and horses of the Anti-Corn-Law League eame on the seeuo. Year after year he made his formal motion for a repeal of the corn laws, ajid deliv- oivd ahnost the same sj>eeeh at least the same argu- ments applied to new faets, with but little oftVet upon tl>e House. Sometimes he was counted out; sometimes the matter was disposed of by a single speeeh fron\ the tSovernment, or latterly fnnu an agTieultural member; but at alf times his subjeet was ivgartled as a disa- giveable one, and the House was always as thin as a deeeut tvspeet for the pniprieties would allow. Kveu after the league had begun to make a figure in the House the annual motion of Mi-. Villiers was still re- gawknl as an annual bore; and when at last the out-of- doors agitation had investeil the subjeet with a greater pv^litieal inteivst, other and .more powerful speakers eonunaudtHl the attention of the House, and Mr. Vil- liers was, eoinparatively spe.-iking, lost in the throng, although still alloweti to ivtain his original position as tho praetieal leader of the partv." - /•V(?,vtr\< }/:i(/i(::iii,. On the loth of December, ISoS, the iVlanchester Chamber of CiMumeree i-esolved to petition Parliament for a ivpeal of the t\>rn-Laws, and in January, lSr>S\ a (ueetingof deputies fnnu all parts of the Kiugdon\ was held in Manchester to consider the best means of ob- taining the repeal, tin the asseu\bling of Parliament in the same year, the delegatesi met at Westminster and oririini/.ed the Anti-Coni-Law League. ^Ir. \'illiers was unanimously chosen leader of the cause in the House of Commons. Heferring to this meeting, some yeai-s af- terwanl, a London paper, in a brief sketch of ^Ir. Vil- liers, said, ''It nivded no common counvge to undertake Digitized by Microsoft® 30 PKEE TRADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. the leadership. There were but few Free Traders in the House. The ministry and the expectants of office were alike opposed to Mr. Villiers. Whatever party there might be for some change in the Corn-Laws, there was in reality no party for the total and immediate repeal. Free Traders on principle — those who would admit no compromise were few, either in the house or out-of-doors. Public opinion and a Parliamentary party had both to be made." Several months before that memorable meeting, Mr. Villiers had begun the great Parliamentary struggle for Free Trade. On the 15th of March, 1838, he moved that the House go into, committee on the Corn-Laws. Like Mr. Benton with his expunging resolution, Mr. Villiers renewed this famous motion every year until the victory was won. He began by remarking, ' ' that it might be said that this was not a fit time to bring forward the subject, because the public mind was in a state of repose with respect to it. The purpose of the Corn-Laws was pi-otection to the landed interests. " He then showed that the House of Commons was composed of landlords, and he contended that the Corn-Laws were measures adopted by themselves in the selfish pursuit of their own profit and advantage at the expense of all the rest of the people. In ridicule of the claim that in order to " protect " the landlords, foreign grain must be excluded from the Kingdom until the domestic article had reached a cer- tain price, Mr. Villiers made this happy comparison, " Suppose a majority of hand-loom weavers in Parlia- ment. Might they not be expected on this principle to prohibit power looms, or, at all events, enact that un- til cloth produced by hand labor reached a certain price [digitized by Microsoft® THE PKOTECTION TRIUMPH. 31 that produced by power should bear a fluctuating duty? " He contended that the resources of the coun- try would be best developed " by employing the popu- lation in those pursuits for which the country afforded the greatest facilities." This really seems like an eco- nomit; axiom, and yet it was then denied in England as it is now denied in America. The contrary doctrine is maintained, and we are passionately told that industries not profitable must be made profitable by taxing all the others. Mr. Villiers charged that the hostile policy of other nations was provoked by the Protective Sys- tem of Great Britain. He said, " Our own prohibition system has driven Prussia and the United States to have recourse to a corresponding one, nor would they con- sent to take our manufactures unless we consented to receive their grain." The motion for the committee was refused by 300 to 95. To this majority the Tories furnished 226 and the Whigs 74. There were 263 members absent, and three-fourths of them might fairly be counted as against the motion. The League, once formed, soon showed that it was in earnest, and its activity disquieted the "two great parties." Its agents were in every town. It circulated pamphlets by the million. It assumed the task of in- structing the whole people in the elements of political economy. Its orators were everywhere. In every cor- ner of the Kingdom they challenged the Protectionists to public discussion, and threw them painfully on the defensive. In the manufacturing districts its meetings numbered thousands. Those masses of people did not have political influence in proportion to their numbers, for few of them had votes. Before the League was two years old it had become a great power outside the Digitized by Microsoft® 32 FREE TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. walls of Parliament, although, inside, it had no strength, except in the character and ability of its ad- vocates, and the irresistible logic of its argument. The work before it was appalling. Monopoly was so strongly entrenched in England as to seem invinci- ble. It was supreme in both houses of Parliament. The privileged orders and the " protected" classes were, of course, all defenders of it. The middle classes — the real John Bull — were very much imbued with the idea that British patriotism required them to support the pol- icy that made them " independent of foreign countries." Worse than all, the masses of the people, the working classes, were Protectionists, as will appear a little farther on. They were everlastingly haunted by a ghost called "overproduction;" they believed that scarcity was a good thing because it created a demand for labor, and they dreaded lest they be brought into competition with the ' ' pauper labor " of foreign countries. The Parliamentary session of 1839 opened inauspi- ciously for the Free Traders. They were weak enough at best; and, as bad luck would have it, they were lit- erally extinguished by the indiscretion of one of their own men, and this was the manner of it : The form of opening Parliament is by a speech from the throne. After that, an address to the Queen in answer to it is adopted by each house; and the speeches made in mov- ing and seconding the address are supposed to contain the program, or "platform" of the ministers, as well as a defense of their past policy. The mover and sec- onder of the address are selected by the Ministers at a Cabinet council, and to. be chosen for that duty is re- garded as a personal and political distinction. The honor of moving the address in the House of Commons is o-en- Digitized by Microsoft® THE PKOTECTION TRIUMPH. 33 erally conferred upon some member connected witt the aristocracy or the "landed interest," and the privilege of seconding it is generally given to a member identified with what the Americans call the "business interests" of the country, somebody interested in merchandise or ' manufactures. In the present case the distinction of seconding the address was bestowed upon Mr. G. W. Wood, a Free Trader, and Chairman of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Of course, the mover and seconder of the address are expected to polish up the politics of the ministerial side, and make them look as bright and attractive as pos- sible. Mr. Wood, thinking it wa^ his duty to make a good showing on such an important occasion, declared that everything was flourishing and prosperous ; that trade, commerce, agriculture and manufactures were at the present moment in a most satisfactory condition, and he produced the statistics to prove it all. He said that the tranquillity of the country on the subject of the Corn- Laws was owing to a fortunate cheapness in the price of bread. Mr. Wood was flattered by generous cheering, but what confused and bewildered him was that it all came from the wrong side of the House. His encourage- ment came from Sir Robert Peel and the Tories, and not from his own party. His own friends were writhing in pain, because Mr. Wood, being a Free Trader, should have talked in a different way. The Tory leader could well quote the pious exclamation of Cromwell at the battle of Dunbar, "The Lord hath delivered them into our hands." Sir Robert Peel was quick to avail himself of the advantage given him by Mr. Wood. With affected gravity he congratulated everybody on the prosperous 3 Digitized by Microsoft® 34 PBBB TEADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. condition of everything, and showed from the statistics of Mr. Wood the value of the "Protective System." He said : " Coming, as this speech did, not only from the seconder of the address, but from the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, nothing could go further to confirm those who were favorable to the continuance of the present state of things in their opinions, and to awaken the doubts and suspicions of those who had been desirous of an alteration." Mr. Villiers tried to counteract the mischief done by Mr. Wood, but failed. He censured Sir Robert Peel for condescending to avail himself of the misera- ble and fallacious reasoning of Mr. Wood. He then tried to show where the fallacies lay, but he was em- barrassed by Mr. Wood's admissions, and, after stum- bling over that gentleman's "facts" until he was tired and sore, he sat down. He was in the situation of the senior counsel trying to correct the mistakes of his associate brother, whose awkward ingenuity has drawn from his own witness some testimony very dam- aging to his own side. Lord John Russell, the leader of the Whig party in the House of Commons, the minister who had selected Mr. Wood to second the address, probably enjoyed that gentleman's innocent blunders as much as anybody. At all events, he did nothing to help him out of his tangle. He contented himself with some vague generalities to the effect that' "the time had arrived" when things must be looked into, and when it should be considered whether the present system acted beneficially or not. With this feeble flicker the debate ended. The Free Traders had lost ground. Mr. Villiers was not disconcerted, and in a few Digitized by Microsoft® THE PEOTECTION TBIUMPH. 35 days he returned to the attack. His courage was proof steel, and his temper perfect. He knew that the "protection" argument was a contradiction and denial of the very mathematics of political economy. It de- lighted him to see his adversaries tripping one another up with contrary reasons why the Protective System ought to be maintained ; to make things cheap and to make them dear, plentiful and scarce, to' promote the acqui- sition of riches by transferring wealth out of one pocket into another, and to keep in perpetual motion that cir- cular benevolence which robs Peter to pay Paul, and Paul to pay Timothy, and Timothy to pay Peter, and thus round and round forever. A biograjAer said of Mr. Villiers that he was " a political economist, not only by study, but by a natural aptness, aimounting almost ta instinct." On the 19th of February, 1839, he re- newed the conflict by moving that certain persons be heard at the bar of the House in support of a petition complaining of the operation of the Corn-Laws. In supporting his motion Mr. Villiers said: "In comparing ourselves with America, we find her pos- sessed of great natural advantages ; proximity to the raw material, and cheapness of power." He showed that the Protective System had made England a dear country to live in, and that its operation was to help the rival manufacturers of Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Mr. Villiers could not then antici- pate that the Americans would with perverse delibera- tion set themselves to work to nullify their "great natural advantages ; " that they would with inverted statesmanship contrive and establish a policy for the very purpose of making the United States "a dear country to live in;" and that by the ingenious folly of Digitized by Microsoft® 36 FEBE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. a higli protective tariff they would shut their manu- factures out of the great markets of the world. Sir Robert Peel resisted the motion, but on this occasion he had the serious task of answering the strong arguments of a political economist and a statesman. The weak and imprudent concessions of Mr. Wood would not avail him now. He said that he could not admit that English' manufactures were in an alarming state, and that "our former customers were about to drive us from the markets." "The object of the gen- tlemen opposite," he said, "is to increase the price of grain in foreign countries in order to check the pro- gress of their manufactures. Not a very benevolent object, I must confess." He then said, "We use 52,- 000,000 quarters of grain yearly. Would it be wise that this country should be called upon to make the ex- periment how far in case of war and famine it might rely upon procuring the necessary amount of food from foreign countries?" It was the very irony of fate that seven years after this, when the Protective System had culminated in "famine," Sir Robert Peel himself, as Prime Minister, should be compelled to throw his country for salvation upon food "from foreign coun- tries." It is evidence how insignificant was the influence of the Free Traders in England at this time, that al- though they supported the Whig party, and the Whigs were in power, they could not obtain respectful con- sideration in the House of Commons. The motion of Mr. Villiers that the Manchester petitioners might be heard at the bar, was lost by 361 to 172, and Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston, the Whig leaders in the House, both voted in the majority, both destined to be Free Trade Prime Ministers of England. Digitized by Microsoft® THE fEOTfiCTIOlt TElUMPH. 37 The difficulties in the way only stimulated the in- dustry of the League, and within two years it had be- come a source of alarm to the Tories, and of perplexity to the Whigs. Many of the Whig members sympa- thized with it in a negative sort of way and to a limited extent. They were, however, timid and irresolute. The Whigs carried on the Government in a lazy, lan- guid manner, and were anxious to' be "let alone." They thought they could live forever on the Reform Bill triumph of 1832, but the Reform Bill was only a beginning, not an end. The fierce discussion of that m^easure had stimulated the mental faculties of the people, and had excited within them a craving thirst for knowledge, and an appetite for debate. The Penny 3fagazine was in active circulation, lectures were popular. Mechanics' Institutes were multiply- ing, and, in the expressive language of Lord Broug- ham, the schoolmas]ter was abroad in the land. The Whigs were afraid to risk their small majority by the introduction of any great measures of public policy; and by reason of that very timidity, their trifling ma- jority was gradually dwindling away. They asked permission to doze in comfort on the treasury benches, but the noise of the League disturbed their slumbers, and the Tories were watching and waiting their own opportunity which was close at hand. Suddenly it occurred to the Whigs that in this new active world of jjolitics, even governments must do something for a living. They saw the great moral power already in the hands of the League, and Lord John Russell thought that if he could borrow some of that, he might spiritualize the Whig party and save the administration. Accordingly, in the month of April, Digitized by Microsoft® 38 PEEK TEADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. 1841, he gave notice that on the 31st of May he would move that the House go into committee to take into considei-ation the duties on the importation of foreign grain. This announcement startled the Tories, for it showed that the doctrines of the League had permeated the administration itself. They closed their ranks, and assumed the offensive. Lord Sandon, member for Liv- erpool, asked Lord John -Russell what the Government intended to do with the Corn-Laws? He answered that they proposed to abolish the "sliding scale," and im- pose a moderate fixed duty of eight shillings a quarter (24 cents a bushel) upon wheat, and a proportionate duty upon other grain. The "sliding scale" was a contrivance by which the duties on foreign grain were fixed according to the prices of it in the domestic market. When the price of wheat in Mark Lane was high, the duties on imported wheat were low, and vice versa, the intention being to keep the price of grain ■ always at such a height as to furnish the British farmer a fair degree of "Protection" against the "pauper labor" of the United States, the creative sunshine of the American sky, and the fertility of the American soil. In that moderate proposition the Tories beheld a menace against the privileges which they had enjoyed for centuries. With the bravery of desperation they determined to come out of their intrenchments and at- tack. They would not wait until the 31st of May, but would precipitate the issue there and then. Sir Robert Peel, amid great excitement, declared that unless Lord John Russell consented to submit his motion at once he might be compelled to do so; for the House would not make itself the instrument of agitation. Mr. Labou- Digitized by Microsoft® THE PROTECTION TRIUMPH. 39 chere, a member of the Cabinet, anticipated General Hancock by a period of thirty-nine years. He tried to allay the excitement by declaring that "the revision of the tariff is not a party question." He was laughed at for the statement as General Hancock was in the next generation. So long as the agitation for the repeal of the Corn- Laws was confined to the Anti-Corn-Law League outside of Parliament, the public mind retained its usual tran- quillity; but when an attack upon the protective tariff was made by the Government itself, the affair became serious, and all classes of society became greatly agi- tated and some of them alarmed. Both parties went into training at once, for the approaching contest. The League redoubled its exertions. It organized new branches of the association, and sent lecturers and pamphlets into every part of the Kingdom. On the other hand, all the protected "interests" combined for mutual defense. Meetings were convened of parties connected with the Shipping and North American "in- terests," of the planters, merchants, and others inter- ested in the West India Colonies, of the representatives of East India property, of the societies for the abolition of' slavery, and all the threatened monopolies consoli- dated for "Protection." It was unlucky for the Government that it was on the defensive from the start; and shortly on the run. Like Louis Napoleon in 1870, it declared war, and in- stead of invading the enemy's territories, took up a defensive line of battle, was beaten, routed, and destroyed. The opposition in Parliament at once ad- vanced, and their first attack was made in the House of Lords. On the 3d of May, the Duke of Buckingham Digitized by Microsoft® ■10 i.-hi;k tijakio srurr,i)i.n in i;\«:i..\np. [irosoiitoil 120 potilioiis :\.<>-;\inst tlu> ri'iu-al of tlu' Oovn- liiuvs, niul lio iinproviHl tlu' oci'Msion 1» :»U;uk Ivovd i\lollioiivno for liis iin'onsistoiicy in I'oiisonCmj;- to nltt>r U\o Coni-linws al'lcr t.lio stroiiij liinuuMui' lu> li:i>l foi"- morly iisoil aj>;iinsl, ;iiiy such " ivvolulioiiMvy " projtvt. K(-\olnlioii;iry, bcsiilt^s l>oinj>' a lino ornlorii';il wonl, 18 full of iiiystorioMS |ioiMc'ii1, whorowith io "lrij>-l\t. tlio souls of roMvfiil MihorsMi'ios.'" Mini inoiiopoly in d;)u<;'or always usos it; as the ))rotoc1i''laii it, in Aiiiorica now. 'Plio l)idu> of Kiolunond had il laroi' pocuniary intovost, in dear bn^ad, and in his o])iniou any atl('in]it to niaki' flonr I'hoap was " rovolntiouavy." And liko our Anu'rican did;os, t,hi> bonolioiarios of tho I'roli'otion policy, tho Dnko of Htu'kingbam thoujj;h1. that a man with a clica)) diiincv inside of him nnist bo a "clu'ap man." It so hai)ponod that. Lord INlolbonrno was at, this time Prime Minister of hhij>'land, and ho prosontod an oxeeodiun'ly bisi; tarj>'el. for tho shafts of the Dnko of liuckinn'hani, because, only the year befori', he ha,d saiil contemptuously, that, tho repeal of the Corn-Laws was "the most, insane ]iroject. that, ever entered a nnin's head." i\ud he also said that "it would be as easy l,o repeal \ho nu)nari^hy." Lord Melbourne niadi> ft rathi>r lauu> apoloL>'y for his present, position, l)ut, maiulainod that, he had never eonuuitt.cd hin)S(>lf to tho opinion that. Iho (.'orii Laws wi're perfoct., and should never bo a.Mu^nded. This was true; but the stroui;- l;i,uo'ua<;'e used l)y the I'riuie IMiuistcrin sustaiuiui;' the C'orii-Laws war- ranted the Duke in licru-viui;- tluit. they wiu-o not |,i ),„ anuMuled by Lord i\lell)ourue''s administration. 'I'he Earl of K.ipon thou aski'd Lord Melhourui^ Digitized by Microsoft® THE PEOTECTIOlJ TElUMPH. 41 whether the proposed alteration of the Corn-Laws was to be on the principle of taxation for revenue, or for protection? He said, "The principle of 'Protection' rests on humane and consistent grounds, but by aban- doning this, and taking up the principle of taxing corn for revenue, you would do that which had never been attempted in any country of the world, and which would be the most impolitic, unjustifiable, and cruel act ever imposed upon a reluctant Parliament. " The "cruelty" of giving the people abundant food was maintained by the Protectionists until that "humane" system actually culminated in famine. When Lord Ripon said that it was "cruel" to tax corn for revenue, he meant public revenue. To tax it for private revenue was "humane," and Lord Ripon's doctrine is as vigorously maintained by the American Protectionists in 1892, as it was by Lord Ripon in 1841. The American formula is this: "A tariil for protection with incidental revenue." This is a reversal of the elementary principle of liberty, that the necessity of revenue for the public service is the ■ only excuse that Government has for taxing the people at all. Lord Melbourne, in ans~wering the Earl of Ripon, said that the alteration of the Corn-Laws would be unquestionably upon the principles of "Pro- tection. " The Earl of Winchelsea, a weak-minded old gentle- man, said " that it is a universal axiom that no country should be left dependent on others for the necessary ar- ticles of subsistence." He consoled the House with the assurance that "the people are too reflecting to be deceived with the promise of cheap bread. They know, '^ said the noble Earl, " that cheap bread means low wages." The report of the debate is authority for Digitized by Microsoft® 42 FKEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. the statement that this nonsense was received with "loud cheering." It would be incredible in this en- lightened day, did we not know that the same argument is greeted with "loud cheering" in the halls of the American Congress. The attack in the House of Commons was made on the 8th of May, when Mr. Baring, Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented his annual budget. The discus- sion of the budget resolved itself into a debate on the corn and sugar duties. There was a deficiency in the revenue, and Mr. Baring proposed to make it up by a reduction of the duties on sugar. . This may seem to the American economist a strange way of increasing the revenue, but the plan of Mr. Baring was undoubtedly sound. The duty on sugar was a "Protective" duty for the benefit of the planters of the British West In- dies. To the extent of that protection it discouraged importation, and, while the revenue suffered^ the j)eople received no benefit. They paid the tax, but it went into the jjockets of the planters, and not into the treas- ury. The following figures make the matter clearer than a long sermon could. In 1841, under a high tariff, the ration of sugar to each inhabitant of Great Britain was fifteen pounds; in 1891, under a low tariff, the ration was more than seventy pounds, or nearly five times as much. The low duties increased importation and revenue at the same time. Mr. Baring proposed to avail himself of this principle, and supply the deficiency of the reve- nue by reducing the duties on sugar. The Protection- ists all rallied to their colors to resist this encroachment on the "humane " system of taxing the food of the peo- ple for the benefit of the landlords and the sugar planters. The challenge to the Government came in the shape Digitized by Microsoft® THE PROTECTION TRIUMPH. 43 of the following motion offered by Lord Sandon, ' ' That, considering the sacrifices made by the country for the abolition of slavery, this House cannot consent to a re- duction of the sugar duties. " It is important to ob- serve that the opposition to cheap sugar was placed by the Protectionists on high moral and humanitarian ground, the discouragement of slave labor. The oppo- sition to cheap sugar in the United States is placed on the same ground. In 1881 an old slaveholder, sitting in the American Congress as a member from the State of Louisiana, made a hearrt-breaking appeal to the House not to reduce the tariff on sugar, because, if they did, it would encourage the wicked sugar of Cuba and Bra- zil, the product of the unpaid toil of the slave. The very same appeal was made in the British Parliament in 1841, by the old slaveholders there, who had made their wealth out of their West India plantations, and who had strenuously resisted the Act of Emancipation passed in 1832. That affectation of sympathy for free labor actually melted the hearts of some of the genuine abolitionists, and Mr. O'Connell, who was a partisan of the govern- ment and a Free Trader, gave notice of a motion to the effect " that any diminution of the duty on foreign sugar should be strictly limited to that which was the product of free labor." So ingeniously did the Tories manage to mix up philanthropy and protection, slavery and sugar, that sopie of the veteran abolitionists, unable to separate them, actually voted against the Government. Within a month from that time Mr. O'Connell, who was an extreme abolitionist, saw through the deception, and said: "The country is in distress, yet the Tories refuse cheap bread. They also refuse cheap sugar, hav- Digitized by Microsoft® 44 FREE TRADE STEUGOLE IX EXGt.VXD. ing now found out that they are eiiemios of slavery, though, like the citizen in Moliere, who had all his life unconsciously been speaking prose, they had never be- fore suspected themselves of such a tendency." Lord John Rnssell uncovered this impudent preten- sion and made fun of it. He said : > > If the House is resolved against taking slave-grown sugar, what do you say to the admission of other articles of slave-labor? Slave-grown coffee, for instance. Did the man who was horrified at drinking a cup of slave-grown coffee re- deem the potation and relieve his conscience by putting in a lump of free-labor sugar? " He was sarcastic and severe upon the Tories for having opposed emancipation, although they now pretended to be shocked at using slave-grown sugar. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel were the princi- pal speakers on the Tory side. Lord Stanley opposed the reduction of the sugar duties upon "Protection" grounds, and said that, if it was necessary to foster a manufacture in its infancy by protection, it was espe- cially necessary in the present case of the sugar trade. He also opposed it on anti-slavery grounds, and he de- nounced the scheme as ' ' the last effort of expiring desperation on the part of a falling Government." It should be stated here that Lord Stanley himself did vote for emancipation; but when he did so he was a Whig. The plan proposed by Mr. Baring fixed the duty on foreign sugar at 36 shillings, and on Colonial sugar at 24 shillings per hundred weight, and, although he explained that the proposed alteration would still leave a protection of 50 per cent on Colonial suoar the Tories were not satisfied. The planters were not will- ing to share with the Government in the proceeds of Digitized by Microsoft® THE PROTECTION TRIUMPH. 45 sugar taxation; tliey wanted it all. In presenting his plan, Mr. Baring asked the House to look at the present prospect of public affairs. There was the German League extending its influence and increasing its pro- tective duties; there was the American tariff. It would be in vain to press upon those nations a liberal line of policy if this country were to keep up prohibition un- der the name of protection. If there was any inten- tion to admit the produce of foreign countries, the House would see that they ought not to delay until they lost the markets of the world. Sir Robert Peel opposed the reduction of the sugar duties for the reasons given by Lord Stanley. He said: "If I had been in office I should have taken the same course that I did take; and if I should be in office, I never contemplate changing it." Then addressing Lord John Russell personally, he said: "I don't pro- pose to follow your example, to resist the proposition now under discussion this year, and come down the next with a motion for its adoption." He was deceived by his own self-confidence. There is a warning in the Bible: "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall," and the value of it was exemplified in the fate of Sir Robert Peel. The next year he was Prime Minister, and he did "come down to the House," and do the very thing that in taunting boast he told Lord John Russell he would not do. The debate lasted from the 7th to the Igth of May, and upward of eighty members addressed the House. When it ended the Tories had the best of it. Lord Sandon's resolution prevailed; and the Government was beaten by the unexpected majority of 317 to 281. The cheers of the Protectionists i-ang out peal after peal Digitized by Microsoft® 46 TEEE TEADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. like the laughter of a chime of bells; they reverberated through the great hall of William Rufus; they burst into Palace Yard and chased each other among the Gothic arches of the old Abbey across the way, where Pitt and Fox lay sleeping side by side. To the amazement of the country the ministers did not resign, but on the next evening Mr. Baring with exasperating hardihood, coolly announced that on Mon- day night he should move the annual Sugar Duties. Lord Darlington in a great rage, and amid loud cries of "order" demanded to know when Lord John Rus- sell intended to bring on the question of the Corn-Laws. His Lordship quietly answered: "On Friday, the 4th of June." Before that day sentence of dismissal was pronounced by the House of Commons against him and his Government, and he never got a chance to introduce his plans. Before he again became minis- ter the League had ovei-thrown the "sliding scale" and the "eight shillings tariff," too. Sir Robert Peel determined not to allow the minis- ters any time to recover from their defeat. At the earliest moment possible under the rules, he gave no- tice that on the ensuing Thursday (the 27th of May) he should piove the following resolution: "That Her Majesty's ministers do not sufficiently possess the con- fidence of the House of Commons, to enable thein to carry through the House, measures which they deem of essential importance to the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the Constitution." After four nights' debate his resolution was carried by a ma- jority of one vote; the numbers were 312 to 311. Prom this blow the Whig party never recovered. The min- Digitized by Microsoft® THE PROTECTION TEIUMl'H. 47 isters were stunned and bewildered by it, although they had provoked it by refusing to resign after their defeat on Lord Sandon's amendment. Their continuance in office was a challenge to Peel, daring him to propose a "want of confidence" resolution. It appeared to many persons almost impossible that within ten years of the Reform Bill the Tories should once more be in the ascendancy. Thinking that perhaps the country was on their side, although the House of Commons was against them, the ministers refused to resign, but dis- solved the Parliament. They appealed from the ver- dict of the House of Commons to the tribunal of the people at the polls, and there also the judgment was against them. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER III. A TORY MINISTEY. Ik the midst of scarcity and business depression the general election of 1841 was held. Although only a few Free Traders were elected, the inspiration of the whole contest came from the Anti-Corn-Law League. By the moral strength of its ideas it crowded nearly all of the other issues out of the way, and forced a discussion of the Free Trade question at every polling place in the King- dom, where there was any contest at all. The Whigs appeared before the country in a defensive and apolo- getic attitude. Having no beneficent measures of pub- lic policy to their credit in the late Parliament, they offered the country a large assortment of future states- manship at a heavy discount for another term of power. Unfortunately, the constituencies had not much confi- dence in their promises or in their ability to perform them. They had done enough to alarm every ' ' pro- tected " interest, and they had not done enough to win the Free Traders, nor even the moderate reformers, who, while opposed to Free Trade, desired a reduction and revision of the tarifE. There was a feeling abroad that the proposal of the ministers to reduce the duties on corn and sugar was a measure of expediency, with no strong convictions behind it; a mere infusion of political starch to stiffen a limp administration. The friends of the Government, however, used the proposal as a campaign battle-cry. They declared that Digitized by Microsoft® A TORY MINISTEY. 49 the defeat of the ministry on the "Want of Confidence" resolution was due to their advanced and liberal policy in attempting to remove some oppressive disabilities from trade; and that they had been borne down by a combination of class interests, united for the preserva- tion of a hundred monopolies. This claim, to a certain extent, was true, and it gave something of moral char- acter to their cause, but it availed nothing. The elec- tion resulted in a surprising victory for the Tories. They had a majority in the House of Commons of nearly a hundred over all opposing elements combined, and on a square issue with the Free Traders they could command a majority of more than three hundred and fifty votes. Among the astonishing results of this election was the defeat of Lord Morpeth and Lord Mil- ton for the West Riding of Yorkshire; and Lord Howick was overthrown in the contest for Northumberland. Westminster performed the supposed impossible feat of electing a Tory over Sir De Lacey Evans ; Mr. O'Connell was defeated for Dublin, and even Lord John Russell himself had a very narrow escape in his con- test for the City of London. In the late Parliament the City of London was represented by four Whigs ; to the new Parliament • it elected two Tories and two Whigs, and a Tory was at the head of the poll. Lord John Russell, notwithstanding his talents and his posi- tion in the Government, and with all the vast influence of the Bedford family to help him, came within eight of a defeat in a poll of over twelve thousand votes. The Protectionist victory was complete ; yet this was the Parliament that was destined within five years to overthrow the Protective System, and establish Free Trade in England as firmly as the British Islands are an- chored in the sea. 4 Digitized by Microsoft® 50 FREE TRADE STKUGGLE Ef ESGLAiT). In the new Parliament -was a new man, a cabco printer from the Xorth, a moral and mental force so great that he was afterward regarded by many Eng- lishmen as the most important personage that had been seen in the House of Commons since Oliver Cromwell had a seat there. His name was Eichard Cobden and he might very trathfnllv be called an Oliver CromweU, without a sword. This man had already become the electric principle of the Anti-Com- Law League. He was a leader without selfishness or any personal ambition for place or power; a guide easy to follow. He was a statesman by weight of knowledge and the power of molding it into poli- tics. He was an orator of such convincing powers that he converted more men to his views by simply talking to them than any other man of his time, or perhaps of any tune : not only Manchester operatives, but even farmers, who had been persuaded that Free Trade would ruin them. Lord Beaconsfield spoke of the "per- suasive"' oratory of Cobden, but "convincing" is the proper adjective. Cobden spoke straight at the intel- lect. Withont any special advantages of personal grace, although he had the grace of a natural and easv manner, and although careless of the arts of rhetoric, there was an earnest truthfulness about him that made a great impression. He was fluent enoucrh, without re- dundancy, and his language was of the best and easiest English. Hi- voice was pleasant and clear, though not loud. He had a great fund of industrial information, much of which he had picked up in the United States and on the continent of Europe. He always had the facts at hand to verify his assertions, no matter how extravagant they appeared to be. He grouped them to- Digitized by Microsoft® A TOEY MIinSTEY. 51 gether with great skill, and molded them into irresisti- ble arguments. He fastened responsibility upon his adversaries with scornful and indignant emphasis. In playful fancy, and in the art of making lessons easy by familiar illustrations drawn from every day life, he re- sembled Abraham Lincoln — or perhaps it would be more correct to say that Lincoln resembled him. He resem- bled him in the abundance of his humor and the quaint sharpness of his satire. Both of them had the art of condensing the rays of an argument to a focus and burning a moral into the consciences of men. Above all things, there was a candor and sincerity about Cob- den, as about Lincoln, that went far toward persuading men that he was right. A deep love of humanity per- vaded all he wrote and all he said. His life was pure, his character without reproach. With the factory dust upon him, he faced the patrician landlords on the Tory benches with a courage as high as that of the purest Nor- man of them all. He was as effective inside the House of Commons as out of it, and he converted Sir Robert Peel, the leader of the Protectionist party, to a belief not only in the expediency of Free Trade, but in the wisdom and the justice of it. In fact, it boded ill to the Tor- ies when they saw that their chief permitted his face to show how he was hurt by the shafts of Cobden, and it boded still further mischief to them when they no- ticed how he sat intently listening to every word that fell from his enemy. We know now that Peel at last came completely under the fascination of Cobden's in- tellect, and permitted that intellect to dominate his own. Before Cobden had been in parliament a year, his hypnotic influence over Sir Robert Peel had attracted Digitized by Microsoft® '52 FEEB TEADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. attention. Curious contemporaneous evidence of this may be found in the Illustrated London News for July 6, 1842. In a sketch of Cobden, after speaking dis- dainfully of him, and with an affectation -of contempt for his views, as we now speak of a crank, that paper said, "Mr. Cobden sits for the Borough of Stockport, and as a debater occupies a very creditable position in the House. He is a close reasoner, very seldom going beside the question, or losing sight of the main points of his own or his opponent's argument. He has suffi- cient power of declamation to impart energy to his man- ner, but he is never led away by it, or falls into that style which invariably meets with the greatest contempt from the House, that of the loud-tongued empty ranter. He is always well prepared to support his statements, and generally has with him a formidable array of docu- ments. It is a creditable tribute to his abilities that he generally commands the attention of the House ; and if he has failed to convince the Premier of the expediency of the policy laid down by the Anti-Gorn-Law League, it is not because the Right Hon^ Baronet has failed to listen to him.'''' The point and pith of all that are in the last words, which I have put in italics. These admit that Cobden, even thus early in his parliamentary career, "had compelled the attention of the Prime Minister; and this of itself was an achievement full of important con- sequences to England. The ministerial defeats in the counties were not un- expected, but the Tory gains in the towns and cities were a great surprise. They proved that the cry of "cheap bread" had been successfully met by the counter cry of "low wages." The benighted superstition that cheap bread and sugar and clothes made low wages, was Digitized by Microsoft® A TOEY MINISTRT. 53 entertained not only by the landed aristocracy and the opulent planter, who had a selfish object in proclaiming it, but by the hungry workingmen themselves, whose interests were all in the opposite direction. Worse than that, men claiming to be statesmen conceded the truth of it as an economic law, even when advocating a reduction of the import duties on grain. Many men who considered themselves rather liberal ' ' tariff ref oi*m- ers " could not free themselves entirely from the delu- sion until a radical experimental test compelled them to abandon it. It is a "theory" now in England resting on forty-six years of "practical" trial, that increased abundance increases wages, while scarcity lowers it. It is now proved that if the goods needed by the laborer are made scarce, he must work longer for the same pay.. If they be made more plentiful, he can supply his needs by less labor. Notwithstanding the adverse verdict of the people at the polls, the Whigs declined to surrender office until the meeting of the new Parliament. If they must go out, they would insist on being dismissed in a technic- ally constitutional way; and by a formal vote of the House of Commons they were dismissed accordingly. When Parliament met, the Tories offered in both Houses an amendment to the address in answer to the speech from the throne, and the debate upon it was very much like a repetition of that on the "want of confidence" resolution in May. Earl Spencer, in the House of Lords, moved the address in a good speech advocating a removal of the oppressive restrictions on the importation of corn. The address was seconded by tho Marquis of Clanricarde, who, while defending the government program, was weak enough to admit Digitized by Microsoft® 54 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. that "if corn became cheaper, wages would undoubt- edly fall, but," he said, "if the workman for a certain sum was able to obtain a larger supply of food and clothing than he could before, then his condition would undoubtedly be bettered." And Lord Bruce, who sec- onded the amendment to the address in the House of Commons, declared, "That for his own part he would consent to no plan of Free Trade, because it would throw vast numbers of his fellow-subjects out of employ." The above two specimens will show how far Whig and Tory statesmen in England had progressed in the study of political economy in the year 1841. They stood then, just where Democratic and Republican statesmen in America stand now, victims of the same sophistries and the same delusions. Of course there was a man in the House of Commons ready to lay the whole blame for everything on " machinery." Mr. Baillie thought that the distress of the people was all owing to the invention of machinery, and except for that, everybody would be prosperous and happy. In this debate the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, foreboded the ruin of agriculture. He "earnestly recommended their Lordships not to lend themselves to the destruction of our native cultivation. Its encouragement was of the utmost and deepest importance to all classes. He earnestly begged of them not to consent to any measure which would injure the cultivation of their own soil." While the Duke of Wellington was talking so feebly in the House of Lords, Mr. O'Connell was talking thus wisely in the House of Commons. He said, "The present law is doubly ini- quitous, as it raises prices and at the same time dimin- ishes the vent for manufactures. He was weary of Digitized by Microsoft® A TORY MINISTRY. 55 experiments on the poor. He heard of a man who complained that nothing could fatten his horse, although he had tried tohacco, and twenty other things. A friend asked him did you ever try oats? He wished the legislature would try the people with bread. He would only agree to Lord John Russell's plan as an in- stallment of justice, until he could get rid of Protection altogether." The Protective System of the United States performs the same double iniquity here that the English system did there fifty years ago. It raises prices, and at the same time diminishes the vent for manufactures. It was in the course of this debate that Mr. Cobden spoke for the first time ia Parliament. He exposed the sufferings of the people to the gaze of the Senate, and charged against' the Protective System the prostration of English industry. He lifted the question clear out of the realm of office-hunting intrigue, far above the wretched expedients of factionism and party. He placed it on the high plane of moral science, and gave notice to both Whigs and Tories that the question of the Corn-Laws must be met, and that a guilty responsi- bility should be laid on those who taxed the food of the people. He condensed the whole argument of the de- ' bate into a couple of sentences that fell upon Peel like the flash of light that smote Paul on the way to Damas- cus. One was this: Mr. Cobden contended that the protective duty upon foreign grain was an unequal tax upon the subsistence of honest, struggling working peo- ple, and that it pressed upon them in an infinitely heavier proportion than upon the rich, for, said he, "the family- of a man worth £20,000 a year, scarcely con- sumes^ more bread than the family of the laborer." Digitized by Microsoft® 56 FREE TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. The injustice of the tax had never before been shown so plainly in the House of Commons. The comparison, although stated in few words, revealed at a glance how impossible it was for the poor man to evade the tax, for he must have bread for his family, while the fam- ily of the rich man could easily escape the tax by living ' on daintier food. Peel was a man of very large pri- vate fortune, and such illustrations disturbed him, for his sensibilities were kindly, and his instincts just. The other sentence was the startling proposition that the man who is not allowed to spend his wages to the best advantage is not free. Mr. Cobden said, "If it is criminal to steal a man and make him work for nothing, it was equally criminal to steal from a free man the fair reward of his labor. " He disposed of the ' 'cheap bread and low wages" doctrine by showing that the increase of trade which must follow from a repeal of the Corn- Laws would increase the demand for labor, and with that increased demand would come an increase of wages. There were some who sneered at this unpleas- ant person, but it is certain that the country gentlemen would have spent a more agreeable Christmas if he had not spoken at all. When the debate ended, a division was had and there appeared to be, for the address 269, for the amendment 360, majority against the Government 91. Then the Whigs resigned. They had been constitu- tionally turned out as they had resolved to be. Sir Robert Peel came into power with an obedient and well- disciplined majority behind him, sufficient to carry every measure proposed by ministers. He formed a strong Cabinet, including among its members Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and the Duke of Welling- Digitized by Microsoft® A TORY MINISTET. 57 ton, while in feubordinate positions of importance were such men as Mr. Sidney Herbert, Lord Lincoln, and Mr. Gladstone. In spite of all attemps to draw him out during the first session of the new parliament, Sir Robert Peel refused to disclose the policy of his Government. He demanded time in which to form his plans. This was bitterly condemned by the Whigs, who insisted that he should propose his measures at once. October came, ; and still his plans were wrapped in mystery. Subse- quent events convince us that he did not know them himself. Parliament adjourned until February, and he took the intervening months to consider what was best to do. His compact majority of ilinety-one rendered him quite independent of all minor factions within the party like those that had embarrassed the Whigs. Since the days of William Pitt, no Prime Minister had rested so absolutely secure in the support of such a well- organized and coherent party. Peel soon found that a statesman in power is a dif- ferent personage from a politician on the opposition benches. In the latter case he has a jaunty time of it. Without any responsibility or care, he can criticise the other side, and show his opponents what they ought to do, but a Prime Minister of England carries on his own shoulders the welfare of a people, and the burthen is heavy to a man ambitious of lasting fame, and who really wishes to do right. That Peel desired the wel- fare of his country is not to be denied, and when he began to reflect on the tremendous responsibility that had fallen upon him, he saw that the tariff and the Corn-Laws as they existed then, could not wisely or justly be maintained. He saw that some change must Digitized by Microsoft® 58 FEEB TEADE STRUGGLE iN ENGLAND. be made. Then he realized how weak and vain is the boasting of the strongest man. In the debate on the "want of confidence" resolution in May he had proudly- inquired, ' ' Who in this House has more steadily stood forward in defense of the existing Corn-Laws than I have done?" And during the late canvass, he had said to the electors of Tamworth, "Who pay the highest rates? Who pay the church rates? Who pay the poor rates? Who pay the tithes? I say perhaps not altogether, but chiefly the landed occupiers of this country. If corn " be the product of their land, and subject to these bur- dens, it surely would not be just to the land of this country which bears them all to admit it at a low rate of duty. I have come to the conclusion that the exist- ing system should not be altered, and that our aim ought to be to render ourselves independent of foreign supply;" the i-eady jargon which Protectionists have used in all countries, and in every age. His boastings and his promises could not endure the strain of his new responsibility. His conscience told him that he must either give up office or amend the law. He resolved to amend the law. During the recess the League was hard at work. The Free Trade agitation was extended to Ireland and Scotland. Newspapers were started, and vast numbers of pamphlets were distributed in every . direction. Heaps of information concerning every trade and occu- pation in the Kingdom were piled up for use in the next Parliament. Meanwhile, there was great anxiety throughout the country as to the intentions of the Gov- ernment. Cabinet meetings were held, but not a word of their debates leaked out. The two or three speeches made by Cobden at the short session had sunk Digitized by Microsoft® A TORY MINISTRY. 59 deep into the mind of Peel. The proof of it is clear. During the canvass in the summer he had proclaimed that " the existing system should not be altered," in the winter he had changed his mind. In that interval he had heard Cobden. A trifling incident which came to light a little while before the opening of Parliament alarmed the landlords, and convinced the country that the League was actually making discord in the Tory cabinet itself. It was this: The Toryest Tory in all England was the Duke of Buckingham, and he was in the Cabinet. With the blood of Henry Plantagenet in his veins, and the lord- ship of thousands of- broad acres in his possession, he was a feudal specimen of that haughty Norman aris- tocracy which for nearly eight hundred years had held the Saxon in a state of serfdom, and his lands by right of conquest. He stood in the House of Lords like a decayed old castle, with the ivy and the moss all over him. So long as he was in the cabinet, modern civiliza- tion must be shut out of its councils ; and no such vulgar theme as ' ' economics " be debated at its meet- ings. So long as he continued in the Cabinet monopoly might sleep in peace; the baronial system would stand firm, grim, and defiant as the Tower of London. One morning it was whispered at the Carlton Club that the Duke of Buckingham had resigned, and the whisper was correct. Then the people knew that some changes in the Corn-Laws had been determined on. Stimulated by the news the League worked harder than before. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER IV. THE TARIFF OF 1842. The year 1842 opened gloomily. There was much distress in the country, and a revenue deficit of twelve million dollars. When Parliament met in February, there was great anxiety to know what the Government intended to do. To the consternation of the monopolists. Sir Robert Peel announced that it was his intention to meet the deficit by the imposition of an income tax; and that although he should main- tain the "sliding scale," the duties on corn and provisions would be reduced. He also said that it was the intention of the Government to revise the tariff, so as to deprive it of its prohibitory features, and to lower the duties on about seven hundred and fifty articles. This from a Protectionist Tory ministry was a great advance, and it showed that numerically weak as were the Free Traders in the House of Commons, the ideas of the League had actually affected the policy of the Govern- ment. The natural result of half-way measures followed. The Government was assailed by both sides; by the Pro- tectionists for yielding anything, and by the Free Traders for not yielding more. Cobden was unsparing and fierce in his denunciations; immense meetings were held in the North, and in all the manufacturing coun- try, at which resolutions were passed savagely con- demning the ministry. At some of these meetings Digitized by Microsoft® THE TARIFF OF 1842. 61 Sir Robert Peel was burned in effigy, a barbarous in- sult which deeply wounded him, and of which he right- fully complained. Cobden and the leaders of the League were not responsible for those excesses any further than all popular leaders are responsible for the mad acts of their disciples when they rush past them and get out of their control. The Chartist agitation had jjroduced a great deal of seditious talk, and some riot- ing. Ireland was discontented and miserable. In Peel's own language it was the "chief difficulty" of his Government. Altogether there was immense re- sponsibility upon the ministers, and the business of the country required for its safe management the high- est qualities of statesmanship. The debate of 1842 is a great event in the political history of England. For the first time in Parliament the revenue and economic system of the country was subjected to the test of scientific analysis, by minds trained not only in the schools, but in trade, commerce, manufactures, agriculture, and in all the practical in- dustries by which men earn their own living. In this debate the men whose living was earned by others were at a humiliating disadvantage. Norman nobles, whose fathers had fought at Hastings, and Agincourt, and Cressy, were laughed at for their ignorance by smoky people from Lancashire and Derby. Heretofore, debates of this character were the mere competition of class interests seeking to obtain the advantage of one another in the "Protective" legislation of the country. Now, the whole theory and practice of class legislation were placed on trial, with the entire people of England as an interested audience. That the true principles of political economy had been proclaimed in Parliament Digitized by Microsoft® C2 FJBEK TKAWK hTEU'J'iLE IS JJ.V'JLAXD. hundredsof times before the debate of 1842, i« tru'^, but they were given and accepted as abstractions only; and as they were conceded to have no practical bear- ing, they fell like good seed ujwn stony ground- They failed to obtain the notice of the j>eople. It was wot HO now. The League had taken care to wake up the jicojjle, and compel them to listen to the debate. In February, 1842, Parliament was oj*ened by the Qije<;n in person. She was then in the pride and J>loom of young motherhood, looking radiant and joyful, for her married life was lia,ppy. Additional grandeur was given to the occasion by the attendance of the King of Prussia, w ho had come over t^j attend the christening of the infant Prince of ^Vale8. Immense crowds lirnid the route of the procession, and they generously cheered the Qu<;assed over her face as she heard mingled with the acclamations of the j>eo- ple the ominous cries of "Cheap Bread," "Free Trade," ' 'Xo Corn-Laws. " The first official knowled ge obtained by the people that any change in the Corn-Law* had be'jij resolved on by the Government, was given in the following paragraph in the speech from the throue: **I recommend also to your consideration the state of the laws which affect the importation of com." It was less than a year since Lord .John Kiissell had said those very wordj? to the House of Comraojj*; and for saying them the Whig ministry was overthrown in Parliament, and th e Wh i g parly defeated at th e polls. The ad vance made in those few months measured the power of the League. On the 9th of February, Sir Iio>>ert Peel roovf^ that the House go into Committee of the whole i/t f-on- sider the duties on corn. He introduced his programme Digitized by Microsoft® THE TARIFF OF 1842. 63 in a very iugenioas and comprehensive speech; a speech that showed he ■was complete master of the subject, and familiar Tfith all the details of England's commercial and industrial condition. He admitted the distress of the people, but he didn't believe that the Com-Laws were responsible for it. He found reasons for it in all the corners of the earth, from China to America, He was weak enough to attribute some of it to the displace- ment of hand-labor by steam power, to' over-investment of borrowed capital, and to alarms of war; to every- thing, in fact, but the Corn-Laws. Still, he proposed some amendment to those laws. He thought that the "sliding scale" could be so ^amended that the price of wheat would not vary much from somewhere between fifty-four and fifty-eight shillings a quarter (about a dollar and seventy-five cents a bushel), and he con- tended that the people should rely upon home produc- tion for their food and shouId,.be willing to pay an extra price for it, in order to be "independent of foreign countries." He said, "I certainly do consider that it is for the interest of all that we should pay occasionally a small additional sum upon our own domestic produce, in order that we might thereby establish a security, and insurance against those calamities that would ensue if we became altogether or in great part dependent upon foreign couuta-ies for our supply." In the course of his argument Sir Robert said : "A comparison is made between the dearness of food in Ensrland and its cheapness in other countries ; but that led to a fallacious conclusion. The true question is, not what is the price of bread? but what command the laboring classes have over bread ; and what command they have over the enjoyments of life ? " There Digitized by Microsoft® 64 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. was much truth in this, but it was presented in such a way as to evade the conditions of Cobden's axiom that high prices resulting from prosperity might be per- manent, because founded on public riches, whereas high prices resulting from scarcity must ever be precarious, because the resultant j^overty rendered customers powerless to buy, thus dragging prices down, some- times to the actual loss of the producers. A restricted market lowered wages by lessening the demand for goods, and low wages restricted the command of the workingman over bread. Sir Robert Peel saw this afterward, and acknowledged it; but he did not see it then, and some American economists do not see it yet. They still persist in raising prices by making scarcity, and they dread "a flood of cheap goods" as a calamity to be provided against by law. In the language of Mr. O'Connell, they persist by a restrictive policy in closing the "ventformanufactur.es;" gradually proverty steals over large numbers of the people, and at last there is a glut in the market, because customers are no longer able to buy. Up goes the cry of '"overproduction" and a "flood of cheap goods" is poured out of our own factories at the absolute loss of the men who have pro- duced them. So precarious is American business under this bad system that a horde of people have grown up who actually make their living by speculating on its uncertainties, and the "operations" of our domestic trade have largely degenerated into gambling. Another parallel between the argument of Sir Robert Peel then, and that of the American Protectionists now, is the boast that whatever comforts the people enjoy over those of other nations is due to the Protec- tive System. He said that the people of England each Digitized by Microsoft® THE TARIFF OF 1842. 65 consumed fifty pounds of meat annually, sugar seven- teen pounds per head,' wheat sixteen bushels each; and he easily showed that no other people on the Continent of Europe consumed so much of those articles. Hence the protective system increased the comforts of the people of England. It was difficult to answer this argument, because it was supported by tangible evidence, the meat and sugar and corn. As there was no Free Trade experience to contradict it, the refutation of it could be nothing better than a speculation and a hope. It was easy enough for the Free Traders to assert that under their system those comforts would be multiplied, but they had no proof of it, for their system had never been tried. They have the proof of it now. In 1 842 Sir Robert Peel boasted that under the beneficent operation of the protective system the English people were able to enjoy in one year the luxury of seventeen pounds of sugar each. In 1881, after thirty-five years' experiment of the Free Ti-ade policy, the consumption of sugar in England amounted to fifty-eight pounds each for every man, woman and child in the Kingdom. Before 1 890, the ration of sugar was over 70 pounds per head. Other comforts were multiplied in the same proportion. The bountiful resources of the United States, which are able to defy the ill treatment of the protective system, are called up as witnesses by the American Protection- ists in favor of that mischievous policy which is crip- pling them to the full extent of its power, as the same policy crippled for centuries the magnificent resources of Great Britain. A free trade policy would increase the comforts and prosperity of the people here as it did in England. Although he was then making concessions to the 5 Digitized by Microsoft® 66 FREE TRADE HTRUGfiI>E IN KNflI,ANJ>. contrary principle, Sir Robert Peel maintained as tbc American economists do now that the "protection" of one class of the people at the expense of another is to the benefit of both. lie said, "It is my firm belief that the total repeal of the Corn-Laws would aggravate . the manufacturing distress, the prosperity of the two classes, agriculturists and manufacturers being identi- cal." lie maintained that the artificial prosijcrity con- ferred upon the agriculturists by the protective duties which excluded foreign grain, although apparently at first taken from the manufacturers, came back to them again in the creation of a "home market " for their goods, which the farmers were thus enabled to huj. So the protective stimulus given to manufacturers per- formed a return miracle in creating a "home market" for grain. This doctrine is vigorously asserted in the United States to-day. A similar juggle is performed by Bulwer in one of his novels. A great landlord is making a speech to his tenantry, and boasting of the generous manner in which he spends the rents which he takes from them every quarter-day. He builds here and he improves there ; he gives them employment at this place, and their sons good wages over yonder ; he buys this of them, and that; he entertains great com- pany up at the hall, and scatters money about like a king. He concludes by saying, "So you see that what I take from you with one hand I bestow upon you again with the other." ThoHc dull farmers can not see the fallacy in this boasting; they can not see that all this liberal squandering comes out of their own hard labor, so they give the enterprising landlord three rouHing cheers and go home. In this fashion a thousand indus- tries in the United States engage in the "Protection" Digitized by Microsoft® THE TARIFF OF 1842. 67 pastime of merry-go-round, protecting everybody at everybody's expense, always getting back to the place whence they started, with much loss from friction and wasted power. Every man in the game thinks that he has made something off the rest, and all are cheated by the statesmen who pretend that nobody has lost any- thing, because each has given back to his neighbor with one hand that which he took from him with the other. No account is taken here of the unfortunates who are not allowed to have any part in the play, except the victim part, the unfortunate consumers who are not al- lowed- the legal privilege of picking any body's pocket. According to the etiquette of Parliament, the duty of answering the Prime Minister fell upon the leader of the opposition, and Lord John Russell rose to perform that duty. He had very little to say. A Protectionist himself, he did not know how much of the ministerial plan he might venture to criticise, and no doubt he felt himself that night entirely overmatched by Peel. He stammered a few sentences in condemnation of the "sliding scale," and sat down. But there was a man there who was not afraid even of the accomplished min- ister. That man was Cobden. He denounced the plan of the Government as quite insufficient and unsat- isfactory, because it did not reach down and remove the real causes of the people's poverty. ' That kind of argument, though severe, could be endured; but when the orator out of his abundant knowledge showed that the Prime Minister was in error as to his facts, and in that way toppled over the stately framework of his reasoning, the House of Commons recognized at once that the ' ' smoky country " had sent a man to Parliament, who was so thoroughly informed as to the agricultural. Digitized by Microsoft® (iK VllKK 'I'UADIO HTItlUUIIJO fN KNOLANK. tlid iriaiiiiradt-iiriiiu;, and t.lm coiium^niiiil ('-oiKlitiiiiii ol EiikI.'ukI, tliat mil. cvoii I'ccl, Uki jirciilcHi, (l Nny apply jjjniat priiicijilcH, l.iit I liiid Unit inijrliiy inUiroHtH lia,v(i f,M'own up nndi'r tliin pri'Hciit law, anrainHt your Mcherne of jrriprovenient Digitized by Microsoft® THE TARIFF OF 1842. 69 however conformable it may be to rigid principles." Even in this very debate, Mr. Labouchere, a member of the late Whig ministry, in moving a reduction of the duties on sugar, admitted "the injustice of withdraw- ing a protection under which great interests had grown ujj, but he would substitute protection for prohibition. " The injustice of doing justice is an apology for politi- cal wrong quite as popular in the United States in 1892, as it was in England in 1842. The. tax imposed upon the English people was either just or unjust; if unjust, there could be no wrong in removing it. During the debate Lord John Russell introduced a resolution condemning the "sliding scale." This he offered as an amendment to Pe6l's motion to go into committee. In support of the amendment Lord Palm- erston said, "Why should the agriculturists be secured against the contingencies of the seasons, when such in- surance is not attempted in any other trade?" And referring to the benefits of Free Trade, he said, "It is that man may be dependent upon man. It is that the exchange of commodities may be accompanied by the diffusion of knowledge^by the interchange of mutual benefits engendering mutual kind feelings — multiplying and confirming friendly relations. It is that commerce may freely go forth leading civilization with one hahd and peace with the other, to render mankind happier, wiser, and better. Sir, this is the dispensation of Providence, this is the decree of that power which cre- ated and disposed the universe. But in the face of it, with arrogant presumptuous folly the dealers in restrict- ive duties fly, fettering the inborn energies of man, and setting up their miserable legislation instead of the great standing laws of nature." This was the lofty Digitized by Microsoft® eloquence of .1 pol-tician o»tt of ofSot. For liiAr.y years Lord Fali-ier*-;.: had been a Cabiiit: M.-isur. ai-d had never onee attempted r. ' apply tiio o. And what is >t:".: more Temarfcable. he ^ss not ready to ivJi;>."t? tliost- lofty sen- t',ii-.o":s TO practice even at the very momer.t he wsis uttering them. H* "was a lenient and gientle —Tariff Reformer" radical in talk, bnt oor-sorva.t;ve in deed, a !"-t"c-Ioag accomplice in the furtive work of the Protect- ive System, and a Protex^tioiiist in theory and action sti.l. His liberal s!es -K-hich formed the Whig strat- egy of the time. It siso appears in the report of the deb;-,te in the Ahh.h i? yiVf-r for 1>42. that Lord Palmerston sisid that --for fonr centnries the yrv^prierorf of the soil had been legislating so as to raise the v^alue of their rroyer:ies * » ♦ * He had not read any ■«T;rt r on etiiios -srho jnstified a modification of ■snwng." I am of opinion that there is a mistake in the report. and that the wopis !sst quoted were said, not by Lord P.V,--ersto". bnt by Mr. Vili-ers. With the exception of b.is affected titions dread of - steatti power" which was unworthy of him, it was noticed t..;u Peel in i.is «ii?at sj»eei-h had been oaretiil not to iiisiilt the i-ateIIige:ioe of his hearers bv asserting tie ta'so sr.l f.iypr.r.t maxims which formed then, as now. il e stock in trade of the Prvnextionist party. He sooraeJ to use the oustomary cant that liisrh prices made high \v.\gos and therefore weiv^ a benefit to the workingmen. He knew that his siHHvh was i:oinv» down to jkosterity and he preferred that it si;or!!,i not Digitized by Microsoft® THE TAEIPF OF 1842. 71 be disfigured by such fallacies. As The Edinburgh Meview said at the time, he left the utterance of these absurdities to his subordinates. "With what inward pity he must have heard Sir Edward Knatohbull, a member of his own Cabinet, declare amidst uproarious ridicule, that "The duty on corn should be calculated in such a manner as to return to the landed interest full security for_ their property, and for the station in the country which they had hitherto held." No matter how biting the hunger of the industrious poor migHt be, the price of bread must be kept ■ so high that the idle, fox-hunting, horse-racing aristocracy might still riot in profligate extravagance, becoming to their "sta- tion in the country." The progress of this instructive debate proved how true it is that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." "Peert and chipper" young statesmen on the Tory side hurled right in the face of Cobden, Protec- tionist maxims that Peel would have been afraid to utter. One of the Prime Minister's young statesmen was the Marquis of Granby, a coming duke, who knew as much about political economy as the wooden effigy of his ancestor, the historic "Markis o' Granby," which swung from the sign post of the hospitable tavern at Dorking, once kept by Mr. Tony Weller. The Marquis told the House of Commons that "the ex- perience of all Europe shows that the certain conse- quence of making food cheap is to lower wages." Sir Francis Burdett, the father of Lady Burdett Coutts, a man who for forty years had been a radical reformer and a revolutionist, who had once been committed to the Tower by the House of Commons, and who had joined the Tories in his old age, declared that "to the Digitized by Microsoft® J2 FREE TKADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. laboring classes, the price of corn did not signify one straw." Lord Mahon and Mr. Stuart Wortley talked in the same strain, and even Mr. Gladstone fluently prattled about "the fallacy of cheap bread." No won- der that Mr. Cobden taunted the Tory members and laughed at their incapacity, declaring that no such ignorance could be found among any equal number of workingmen in the North of England. Notwithstand- ing all this, the winding up of the debate showed a very comfortable majority for the Tories of 123. The num- bers were: Forgoing into committee, 349; for Lord John Russell's amendment, 226. That patrician legislators should talk economic nonsense was natural enough, because they had been taught it by the " thunderers " of the press and by the great magazines. They were apt scholars, for it is easy to convince men on the side of their own' interests. Why should the Marquis of Granby be laughed at, and the Quarterly Review escape ridicule? That profound philosopher that ought to have known better, and prob- ably did know better, had lately said with axiomatic solemnity, that ' ' The new measure may fail to fulfill even as to the foreign supply, the promises of its pro- motors; but if it should really cheapen bread, cheap bread must inevitably produce low wages." Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER V. THE HORIZONTAL PLAIf. Sir Robert Peel soon found that this friendly differ- ence between the Tories and the Whigs, as to which kind of Tax-torment was the easier to bear, a fixed duty or a sliding scale, while it might be of grave import- ance as an office-holding question between rival bands of Protectionists, was of trifling consequence to the small but resolute fragment which had resolved that the torment should altogether cease. He found that he must now discuss the question with men of far greater debating power than the "Whig party possessed, and that he must discuss it as a principle; not an abstract principle either, but as a practical principle, bearing immediately and directly upon the welfare of all the men in England who lived by useful industry. Lord Beaconsfield, in his life of Lord George Bentinck, truthfully describes the formidable enemy that now confronted Peel; where he says, "Inferior in numbers, but superior in influence from their powers of .debate, and their external organization were the members of the confederation known as the Anti-Corn-Law League." Peel had barely time to congratulate himself on his victory over Lord John Russell, when on the 18th of February he was called to a more serious conflict. On that evening Mr. Yilliers moved his resolution that duties on grain should altogether cease. The House of Commons looked upon this as the Quixotic chivalry of Digitized by Microsoft® 74 PEEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. a man who could not see that the question had been settled the other night in the defeat of Lord John Rus- sell's amendment. But the question presented by Mr. Villiers was far broader than that presented by Lord John Russell, and it was not at all settled by Peel's recent victory over the Whigs. Like the slavery ques- tion in our own country, it was destined never to be settled until it was settled right. The resolution was debated for five nights, and much of the argument was a repetition of what had been- said before. The most effective speech was made by Cobden. He completely overthrew the " cheap bread and low wages " fallacy by an object lesson that every man could read, the actual price of bread and the state of wages then existing in the country. He contended that it was a complete delusion to suppo'se that the price of food regulated the price of wages. The last three years had fully demonstrated the folly of this principle. Bread had not been so high for twenty years, while wages had suffered a greater decline than in any three years before. He also contended that the price of labor was cheaper in England than on the continent because of its superior quality. The English workman produced three times as much for a dollar as the continental workman did for half a dollar; which is about the ratio of excess expected of the American workman to-day. With earnest emphasis he said, "Are you prepared to carry out even-handed justice to the peo- ple? If not, your law will not stand, nay, your House itself, if based upon injustice will not stand." It is not surprising that ordinary men should wavet on great questions like this, when the powerful mind of Macaulay was swayed by Cobden to the side of Free Digitized by Microsoft® THE HORTZONTAIi PLAN. 75 Trade, and by Peel to the side of Erotection. He saw on the side of justice a great principle that ought to be established, but a "great interest had grown up," and on the side of charity he saw injury to the protected classes, and this persuaded him that the principle ought not to be established — now. He said that he wished a total repeal of duties, but objected to immediate withdrawal of Protection. He would therefore decline to vote. Peel taunted him with timidity, and called upon him to vote on one side or the other, but he adhered to his resolution, and did not vote. It should be said for Macaulay that he was always a Free Trader; but as a m.ember of the late Whig ministry he was implicated in the "eight shillings a quarter" cpmi^romise, and he may have thought himself in honor bound to stand by Lord John Russell and the Whig platform. On the frivolous question as to the amount of duties, and how they should be levied, the Whigs and Tories voted against each other ; but when the principle of Pro- tection was at stake, they voted on the same side. Eighty-nine members followed Mr. Villiers into the lobby, and thi-ee hundred and uinety-1;wo followed Peel, a majority for the Government of 303 in a vote of 489 members, leaving 175 who did not vote at all; and most of those might as well be added to the Gov- ernment majority. In the month of May there was a long debate on the New TariflE. This debate is a curiosity now. With that speculative wonder which moves us as we roam through the great national museums of Europe and gaze on the mummies of old Egypt, we wander through the mazes of this debate and look upon the mummi- fied theories of "Protection." It is hard to realize Digitized by Microsoft® 76 FEBE TRADE STKUGGLB IN ENGLAND. that only one generation ago English statesmen actually believed that by making everything scarce and dear the general prosperity was increased. It would be even laughable if the mischievous delusion had not emigrated to America and, taken possession of our statesmen here, to the serious injury of the country. The old supersti- tion, now obsolete in England, still flourishes in the United States. As Mr. Thorold Rogers remarks in ' ' Six Centuries of Work and Wages," page 555: "In the United States the process is being exhibited on the most gigantic scale. The freest people in the world, where administrations and parliaments have been able to study and avoid the errors and crimes which older Governments have committed against labor, have sub- mitted to a tariff which clips the wages of the working man to the extent of 50 per cent, under the pretense of supplying him with a variety of employment .... The motive of the impost is, of course, to increase the profits of capital ; and this has hitherto been the result, to the impoverishment and dependence of labor — a con- sequence as certain though not so manifest." It is often said that our much vaunted American system of Protection is an emigrant from England, but that is a mild and gentle way to describe it. Literally it is a convict expelled from England by sentence of trans- portation for life. Sir Robert Peel introduced his New Tariff with many apologies to the Protectionists, and assurances that it would not hurt them very much. Like a mother giving medicine to her children, he told them it was good for them, and that if the taste was slightly un- pleasant at first, they would be all the better for it in the end. When the portly gentlemen of the "landed Digitized by Microsoft® THE 1-IOEIZONTAL PLAN, 77 interest " complained that fat catlle and lean were to be admitted at the same figures, instead of being taxed ac- cording to their weight, the bland Sir Robert told them it was all the better for them, because!, said he, Eng- lish graziers can import lean cattle at a low rate of duty, and fatten them for market ; and, as to fat cattle, they wouldn't be imported anyhow. They couldn't stand a sea voyage. "No fat ox," he said, "could standa trip across the Bay of Biscay," and, as for France, why, no cattle would come from there, because France herself was importing cattle. He showed that none would come from Belgium, Holland, Germany, or the Prussian League ; and then, with grim flattery, he told them that English beef was so much better than any other kind of beef that it would always bring a higher price in the market. With one side of his mouth he was tell- ing hungry people that he was about to cheapen beef by letting foreign cattle in, and with the other he was quieting the Protectionists with a lot of blarney, and the assurance that, although he was about to open the gates, the lean cattle wouldn't come in, and the fat cattle couldn't. Sir Robert Peel made his reductions of the tariff on the "horizontal" plan, the only scientific way in which they could be made at all. The exceptions were in the case of some raw materials of manufactures, and these he put on the free list. This plan was imitated by Mr. Morrison in the American Congress a few years ago, and was made the theme of much sardonic ridicule by the Protectionists throughout the country. In defense of the "horizontal" plan Sir Robert Peel said : "The Government has made its reduction on a great variety of articles, so as to give to almost every one of those Digitized by Microsoft® 78 FEEB TRA.de struggle in ENGLAND. classes whicli miglit suffer from some one or more of the reductions a compensation upon others." This reason was wise in the experiment, and vindicated by the result. When Mr. Morrison offered the same reasons for a like policy he was laughed at ; but they will yet be justified here as they have been justified in England. In removing the protective duty from raw materials, Sir Robert said that he did so to protect the mechanic and the , manufacturer. Referring to the protective duty on timber, he said that it had greatly discouraged the industry of cabinet-makers, and all workers in wood. He sjjoke the same way about the high protective duties on foreign ores. He reduced the duties on whale oils, he said, because they were cheaper in the United States than in England, and by reason of that cheapness the United States was successfully competing with England in foreign markets, " in all manufactures extensively consuming this article." He reminded the House of Mr. Deacon Hume's dictum that "this country having plenty of untaxed iron, and untaxed coal, wanted only plenty of untaxed wood to give employment to her in- dustries." The very echo of those words so applicable to our country, rung through the American Congress in 1890, only to be ridiculed and condemned. The cast- off rags of "Protection" which Sir _Robert Peel threw away in 1842, and 1846, are proudly worn by our states- men in Washington to-day. In the course of his re- marks Sir Robert referred to the tenacity with which men clung to their own special jjrivileges while gener- ally sacrificing those of their neighbors to the common good. In the new tariff the duty on herrings was re- duced fifty per cent, and he read a letter to the House which he had received from a man who was engaged in Digitized by Microsoft® 'run; iiuuizoniai, i'i.an. 7fl (,li(i liiiHincHH of ciii'inj^ li(M'riiif,'H. !!(! Hfiid, "1 iuii ii, Ki'(^(! 'I'mdri- ill t:vi:\-y ot.lici' [■(^H|)(ui(., hiil, vviUi rc.fjjiird 1,o lici-riiigH I caul-ion you iifriiiiiHt I.Ik^ ^^ciicciil ruin wliicli yon urc alioiil, l,o inflic.l, on \,\\im\ ('u^iu^fA in iinit liriuicii Ol' l,fil(l(^" Wluni Sir Uobdi't. Hat, down Mr. .Ioh(^|i1i ifiimc- com- griituliit,* iMien- lightoiuHl as to tlio prinoiplos of politioal onomy. and tlio true ingroilionts of wealth, as our -Vinorioan states- men are in 1S92. Yot all tln-ough tl\is«lebate IVol and Gladstone woro soothing and \Yhoodling a lot of parlia- montarv dnnoos with pj-ediotions that although they woro ivdnoing the import duties on several hundred artielos, vet. for all that, there was not mueh •'danger" that they would t«ke advantage of it; that in faet, there was no danger that the eountry would lw> •'■floodiMl with eheap goods." They knew that water stH>ks its level by a law of physios, but they did not know that human produets seek their level, too, by foroe of an eeonomic law equally inexorable. It was eertjun that eattle being abundant in the Mississippi Valley and soaree in England, they would emigrate from one eoun- try to the other unless prevented by natural orartifieial obstaeles; sutd now Mr. Gladstone rejoiees that more than 800,0t>0 head of liveoattle enter Great Britain ani\nally, a very largo number of them from the ^lississippi Valley; to say nothing of dead meat in even greater quantities. .Vfter a weary journey of sev- eral weeks, through the eommittoe of the whole, the >vow Tariff bill passed the House of Commons, and wont up to the Lords. "When the bill went up to the Lords it had to run the gauntlet of the same opposition it had met in the House of Commons. Lord Stanhope used an argtnnent whioh has a familiar sound lo \is heiv in Amoriea. The redut'tiou of duties, he said, would eauso givat distress among the industrial elasses who vvoiild be unfairly put in eonipetition with the >>foreigner," Free Trade he said, eould not be introdnoed into England on ac- Digitized by Microsoft® THE HORIZONTAL PLAN. 85 count of the habits and prejudices of the people, but this bill would go far to introduce that system. Then he uttered the solemn prediction that "the measure would tend to the utter destruction of the country." The Duke of Richmond opposed the bill because it brought the English producer into competition with the "pauper" labor of foreign countries. And Lord Mel- bourne said that the diflSculty and. distress now experi- enced were inseparable from, and belonging to a state of manufacturing prosperity, and were the consequence of the great amount of capital invested in manufactures in Great Britain. The man who said that had lately held the great office of Prime Minister of England, which proves how little statesmanship is necessary to govern a people. Sullenly and grudgingly the Lords allowed the bill to pass. The House of Lords, being composed almost exclu- sively of great land owners and monopolists, it is not surprising that the principles of Free Trade were looked upon in that House as very plebeian and low, as revolutionary in fact, and destructive of that hoary feu- dal system which the aristocracy of England has pro- jected, with much of its injustice, into the nineteenth century. The noble peers regarded pheasajits and peasants as alike made for their exclusive use and pleas- ure; and, being rather dull by reason of indolence and self-indulgence, they were easily thrown into panic whenever they thought their privileges were threatened. They regarded the Anti-Corn-Law League as a monstei more dangerous than the steam engine or the electric telegraph, or even an untaxed newspaper. On the 21st of July, 1842, a member of the House of Commons, having proposed that Parliament reassemble in October Digitized by Microsoft® 86 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN EXGLAND. to relieve the poor by releasing bonded grain, the Sec- retary of State for the Home Department answered with patrician disdain, "You know that we shall then be pheasant shooting." On the 19th of April, 1842, Lord Brougham moved the House of Peers that no tax should be levied upon corn, either for protection or for revenue. It is not surprising that this motion was lost by 89 to .6. The wonder is where the six came from. On the 8th of July, the state of the country being under discussion, Mr. Cobden censured Sir Robert Peel for affecting to believe that the prevailing distress was due to the introduction of machinery. He said ma- chinery does not throw people out of work if its per- fection and introduction to practical use are gradual. He called upon Sir Robert Peel not to treat the subject with quibbles about machinery, nor as a mere Manches- ter question, but to look at it in connection with the whole condition of the country — and it must be done this session. Sir Robert made his escape on this occasion with great ingenuity and skill. Mr. Cobden was member for Stockport ; and Sir Robert cited practical authorities from Stockport itself, showing by the evidence of one of the relieving officers of the Stockport Union that some of the distress prevailing there was to be dated from the introduction of improved machinery into the mills, whereby a large number of hands was rendered unnecessary. This, however, was only the statement and opinion of one of the relieving officers of the Stock- port Union, and it was not at all conclusive, yet it was legitimate evidence which Sir Robert Peel had a right to use as argument. Digitized by Microsoft® THE HOEIZONTAL PLAK. 87 The same class of topics being under debate in the House of Lords, Lord Brougham labored to disprove what he considered one of the grossest fallacies that had ever been asserted, that the increase of machinery was the cause of the distress. He said, also, that if the House did away with protective duties it would be im- possible for other countries to maintain them, and therein he made a serious mistake. The United States, Ger- many, Canada, Australia and other countries have not relaxed restrictive duties in accordance with Lord Brougham's prophecy. On the contrary, they have made them more onerous than ever. Not until they have all passed through the same costly experience that England underwent will they relax that unwise constric- tion "which is strangling their industries and destroying their markets, as it strangled the industries and de- stroyed the markets of Great Britain. In August, Parliament adjourned, and people had leisure time to foot up the accounts of the session, and strike a balance of party gains and losses. Therfe was a difference of opinion as to the amount of profit and loss, but all agreed that the gains must be placed to the credit of the Free Traders, and that the losses were all on the side of the Protectionists. The material gain to the Free Traders made by the reduction of duties in the new tariff was trifling compared to the moral victory they had won in compelling the ministry to concede the principle of Free Trade. It was noticed that in debate the ministers had been careful not to defend Protection on its merits. They apologized for it and pleaded for it. They said that great interests had grown up around it; that society had shaped itself to it, and that it could not be suddenly and violently overthrown without Digitized by Microsoft® 88 PEEE TKADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. carrying in its fall the ruin of the protected classes and shaking violently the business of the country, but they did not attempt to defend it as a correct principle of political economy. Armed with this concession the League renewed its assault upon monopoly, and during the recess it was busy educating the people and creating a public oj)in- ion that should be more potent in the next session than it had ever been before. Great meetings were held in all parts of the country, and Free Trade reso- lutions were adopted at all of them. On the 22d of November, at the Town hall, Manchester, a very large meeting was held, composed of merchants, spinners, manufacturers, machine-makers, and other capitalists, and employers, to consider the steps to be adopted in consequence of the ruinous effect produced on trade by the operation of the Corn-Laws, and the restrictive commercial policy. This meeting was called by the League, and it was resolved to raise 1250,000 for the work; 120,000 of it was put into the hat there and then. This was considered a great collection for one meeting, and yet before the work was ended $300,000 was contributed at one meeting in that very same town to the funds of the League. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTEE VI. HARD TIMES. The Protective System had reduced the working classes of England to a pitiful state of poverty, and many of them to a condition of debasement so squalid that men born within the last fifty years, not having seen it, can hardly believe it possible. In utter des- peration the Chartists broke into rioting and tumult at Manchester, Preston, Blackburn, and nearly all the manufacturing towns. Great loss of life and property resulted from these riots. The police force was not strong enough to subdue the rioters, and they were finally suppressed by the military power. The condi- tion of England excited great anxiety and alarm. The influence of the League was thrown in favor of moral force agitation alone, but the Chartists contended that no reform was possible except through the agency of a violent revolution. The counsel of the . League proved itself to be the wiser in the end. It was about this time that John Bright began to be recognized as a power in the State. Although not yet in Parliament, his influence outside of it was almost as great as Cobden's inside. A massive Englishman was John Bright; a stalwart man, strong of body and brain, one of the few great orators of modern England. His eloquence was pure, sparkling, strong. His invective burned like fire, and he was the most combative Quaker that ever spoke in Parliament. He was more fluent Digitized by Microsoft® 90 FEBE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ESTGLAN^D. and stately than Cobden, though no man could be more convincing. His voice was melodious, his magnetism great, and thousands of men crowded and jostled one another to get near him. They saw in him one of the great apostles of plenty and international peace, a man whose politics were prompted and controlled by a moral guide that kept him always in the road that leads to jus- tice and to liberty. He subdued the mad passions of the hungry multitude, and he created within the people a moral wisdom and a patient energy that gained the vic- tory at last. Second to Cobden, and to Cobden alone, was John Bright in the great work of lifting the incubus of the protective tariff from the industries of Great Bri- tain. He rendered great service between the close of the session of 1841 and the opening of the session of 1843. Considering the place he occupies in the poli- tical history of England how puerile appears the ponderous humor of JSlackwood' s Magazine, seeking to diminish him and §nuff him out by referring to him as "a man by the name of Bright." During the fall and winter of 1842, notwithstanding the evidence of the riots, and the figures of the Poor .Law Guardians, there were newspapers, magazines, and even statesmen, who insisted that the reports of public distress had been exaggerated by the emissaries of the League; this for the sake of political capital, and to create a popular alarm that should operate on the Gov- ernment, and by a sort of moral duress compel the min- isters to make some concessions to a mischievous policy. Blaclcwood\s declared in mockery of the people's hunger, that "For any i-eal mischief which they can work, the present Corn-Laws are as quiescent as the laws of gravitation;" and the effort to relieve the peo- Digitized by Microsoft® HARD TIMES. 91 pie by the importation of grain was described as " the wicked Corn-Law Agitation." In one article by- Christopher North himself, and to which he attached his name, the Free Traders were described as "the mischievous vermin of the Anti-Corn-Law League." Cobden, Bright, Villiers, and the other leaders of the movement he stigmatized as "ignorant and vulgar bab- blers," and he denounced "the systematic and mer- cenary wickedness of their intentions." Equally venomous, although not so influential, nor of such high literary and political rank as Slackwood^s, was Fraser's Magazine, and with brazen effrontery it also insisted that the public distress was purely imagin- ary and that it iexisted only in the mendacious crqakings of the League. It said, ' ' The Anti-Corn-Law League, as dishonest a combination as ever existed, purposely close their eyes to the truth, in order to be able the more confidently to propagate an atrocious falsehood. They continue daily and hourly repeating that the peo- ple are woefully distressed, and Ihat the sole cause for this distress is to be found in the Corn-Laws. They are perpetually reminded that the Corn-Laws have existed in their present shape for fourteen years, and that the country has been in a state of great prosperity even so late as 1 836, but it is useless ' to adduce facts to -such men. They resolutely refuse to look at them, but keep up their cuckoo cry ' The Corn-Laws are starving the people.' " In spite of all efforts to conceal the sufferings of the people and to underrate the extent of them, the as- pect of public affairs at the opening of the year 1843 was of a dark and threatening character. The public mind was feverish with anxiety and alarm. The revenue Digitized by Microsoft® 92 ' FREE TRADE BTEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. figures appeai-ed as witnesses, and they could neither be impeached nor browbeaten out of court. They showed a serious falling off in the receipts from those articles, the use of which gives evidence of prosperity. Parlia- ment met on the 2d of February, 1843, and then the ministers themselves were compelled to give official recognition to the public distress in the speech from the throne. It contained these words: " Her Majesty regrets the diminished receipts from some of the ordinary' sources of revenue. "Her Majesty fears that it must be in part attrib- uted to the reduced consumption of many articles, caused by that depression of the manufacturing industry of the country, which has so long prevailed, and which Her Majesty has so deeply lamented." ' This was not the seditious talk of the League; it was the official testimony of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, but it offered nothing in mitigation of the pub- lic distress, except the sympathy and sorrow of the Queen. The Earl of Powis who was appointed by Sir Rob- ert Peel to move in the House of Lords the address in answer to the speech from the throne, stepped very tenderly over that part of it which referred to tlie pub- lic distress. He said his piece very much like a school- boy skipping the hard words in a reading lesson. He lightly remarked, "We cannot conceal from ourselves the conviction that great masses of the population of this country in the course of the last year have been unable to avail themselves to the same extent as form- erly, of those enjoyments which they usually possess." He did not like to use so unpleasant a word as "starva- tion" in such lordly company, neither did the Earl of Digitized by Microsoft® IIAED TIMES. 93 Eglinton .who seconded the address. He trusted that the worst was ovev. He had that hopeful philosophy which believes that things will all come out right, and that most likely something will turn up. He hoped that "by the revival of trade and commerce the suffer- ings of the people would be alleviated." There was a dull inconsistency in this hope, because the Earl of Eglinton and his party were at that very moment bent on preserving a protective tariff for the very purpose of restricting "trade" and preventing "commerce." In the House of Commons the mover and seconder of the address talked very much as their colleagues did in the House of Lords. The criticisms of the opposition were feeble and rather apologetic, as if the Whigs felt them- selves to some extent guilty of the surrounding misery. Lord John Russell, however, made an irresistible point against Peel when he twitted him with having reduced his supporters to this difficulty, ' ' that they were obliged to vindicate the tariff on principles of Free Trade, and the Corn-Laws on principles of Protection." A clamorous Yorkshireman, Mr^ Ferrand, member for Knaresborough, declared that there would be no protection for the poor unless machinery was taxed sufficiently to restrain its use and activity within such bounds as would prevent its competition with hand- labor. This comical statesmanship excited the laughter of all parties, and yet it was in logical harmony with the Protective System. Importation produced abund- ance, which it was the intent and purpose of protective taxation to restrain. Machinery created abundance, and why should not that also be restricted by the device of taxation? Besides, had not Sir Robert Peel himself, in his debate with Cobden in July, ascribed the distress Digitized by Microsoft® 94 FEEB TBADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. of the country, in part, to the competition of machin- ery with hand-labor? And had he . nOt proved it, too, by the official statements of the guardians of the poor in Mr. Cobden's own borough of Stockport? Why, then, should the statesmanship of Mr. Ferrand be laughed at, and that of Sir Robert Peel admired? On the 18th of February, 1843, Lord Howick nioved that the House resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the distress of the country; and thereupon arose a very instructive debate. Lord Howick maintained that the protective tariff had crip- pled the agricultural, mining, manufacturing, and ship- ping interests of the country; and he argued that the , Corn-Laws ought to be repealed. He said that the dis- tress was largely caused by laws which went directly to the restriction of importation. This restriction was not an incident arising from taxation for revenue pur- poses, but it was inteiationally created in order to check importation from foreign countries. He insisted that increased importation would stimulate and encourage domestic industry instead of aiding to depress it. This assertion was rather a speculation in England at the time Lord Howick made it, but experience has proved the truth of it as firmly as any proposition in Euclid is established by dempnstration. "If you tell me," said Lord Howick, "that my argument is only a theory, what is yours? Your whole system of restriction is built on a theory which cannot be defended now, a theory which took its rise in the notion that gold and silver constituted wealth — that all that a nation gained by trade went to increase the amount of its gold and silver, and that to increase its exports and to decrease its imports, in order to leave a favorable balance of trade, was a wise policy." • Digitized by Microsoft® HARD TIMES. 95 We can hardly conceive that the present great leader of the Liberal party, was that night the Tory champion, whose duty it became to answer Lord Howick. Mr. Gladstone admitted the distress of the country, although he thought Lord Howick had exaggerated it. He conceded much of the argument of his adversary, but resisted the motion on the ground of expediency. It was not the time to repeal the Corn-Law. The measures of last session had not had a fair trial. They ought to see what other nations would do to reciprocate a reduction of duties. England could not be expected to open her ports while she had hostile foreign tariffs to contend against, and so on. Never bnce did he con- tend that the Protective System was good, either in morals or as a scheme of social science. His plea was an excuse for Protection, not a justification of it, except, perhaps, where he sought to make a distinction between protection to agriculture, and protection to other in- terests. No commercial law, he said, could be per- manent, but that of ^ jjrotection to agriculture was so, and he was not prepared to abandon it so long as protection was given to any other interest. He further said that Lord Howick might have spared himself the trouble of advancing abstract principles when the real question was one of time and degree. He wound up with the usual flippant formula that the motion was fraught with disaster to every interest in the country. It is still the religious belief of every Protectionist that if you assail his monopoly you threaten disaster to every interest in the. country. Fifty years afterward we hear the echo of Mr. Gladstone's speech ringing through the halls of Con- gress. "This is not the time: give the McKinley bill Digitized by Microsoft® 96 FEBE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. a fair trial." And the patentair brake "Reciprocity" whicli Mr. Gladstone used in 1842 to stop the train laden with food and freedom, is now in active opera- tion at Washington. "Let us wait and see wha^ other nations are going to do to reciprocate a reduction of duties." Not by way of reproach, but purely for instruction, I place on record here what Mr. Gladstone thought of the Free Trade system after it had been in operation for nearly thirty years. Speaking to the electors of Mid Lothian in the month of November, 1885, he said: "I do not deny that there is distress, but it is greatly less than it was before the Free Trade reforma- tion. When that reform began trade increased to a degree unexampled in the history of the world. Pe- riods of distress' have been due to special causes which have been beyond human agency to deal with. Such times of hardship have become almost, if not absolutely unknown, owing to' the blessed effects of Free Trade. The country has made a great step forward and will not go back." Then pointing to the mountains in the dis- tance, he said: "You might as well try to uproot the Pentlands from their base and fling them into the sea." This contrast is not presented here to show Mr. Glad- stone inconsistent, but the reverse. A man is really inconsistent when he clings, to error after he has found it out. Mr. Gladstone was converted to the Free Trade faith by argument in 1846. He merely testified in. 1885 that he was confirmed by the experimental practice of the system for nearly thirty years in Eng- land. The Protectionist principle, that the end of all true political economy is to promote scarcity, found out- Digitized by Microsoft® HAED TIMES. 97 spoken champions in this debate. Mr. Ferrand con- tended that the distress of the country was all owing to machinery, and that, i£ machinery could be done away with, the conveniences of life would become scarcer, and this would create a demand for labor, the people would all get employment at good wages, and prospei-ity would come. He therefore moved the fol- lowing amendment to the motion of Lord Ilowick, "and also to inquire into the effects of machinery upon the moral and physical condition of the working classes." He advocated returning "to the i^rinciples of our forefathers," as opposed to Free Trade, which , new-fangled heresy was destroying the interests of the working-classes. Mr. Ferrand was not alone in his opinions, for Mr. Liddell thought that Lord Howick's plan of opening up new markets would do no good, be- cause such was "the tremendous power of machinery in England that they would soon be overstocked as well as the old." Mr. Ward apologized for machinery on the curious ground that it was necessary in order for the English to compete with the cheaper labor and more fertile soil of other countries.. He thought that the Americans had made a mistake in their high pro- tective tariff of 1842, but contended that the English had provoked it by fixing such a high duty on Ameri- can grain. The most bewildering doctrine that this remarkable debate produced came from Mr. Muntz, member for the important town of Birmingham, who contended that the present condition of things was un- natural, and that "we must either repeal the Corn- Lajps or lower the price of silver." No wonder the common people had such crude notions about political economy, when the statesmen of the country showed 7 Digitized by Microsoft® 98 FKEE TRADE STKUG6LB IN ENGLAND. such prejudice and such a lack of information as they did in this debate. Mr. Disraeli took part in the debate. He was then an ambitious young man, conscious that he had some talent which ought to bring reward in the political market, where talent was in demand. He was literally a parliamentary adventurer "seeking his fortime." He had started in politics a violent Radical, but soon dis- .cov^red that the Radicals were burdened with an ' 'over- production" of talent, while it was rather scarce in the Tory market, where it brought a much higher price than the Radicals were able to pay. He therefore joined the Tory party which, to say the least of it, was always generous in the appreciation of talent. He had made some crochet novels which had given him a foot- ing in the literary guild, and he was flattered when people pointed him out at Lady Blessington's, and said, "That's young Disraeli, the man who wrote Viv- ian Grey;" but he shrewdly saw that this perfume was fleeting and unsubstantial, and that if he was ever to win advancement and make some gold and velvet he must do so in the House of Commons. He failed at first, not because there was not merit in what he said, but because it was all covered over, like his waistcoat, with cheap jewelry and tinsel. That sort of thing may do very well for some places, but the Plouse of Com- mons "won't have it, you know," and he was chaffed and ridiculed. He diligently sought Peel's patronage by rather obsequious flattery and tenders of loyal ser- vice, but Peel, to the day of his death, could never see anything in him, and contemptuously refused to em- ploy him. He regarded him as an Asiatic exotic that could never be developed into an English states- Digitized by Microsoft® HAKD TIMES. 99 man. This was bad for Peel, because Disraeli after- ward took revenge in a shower of poisoned arrows that gave pain to that minister in the hour of his fall. Be- sides, Peel's judgment of him was erroneous; because, although to the last there was much of the gaudy and theatrical about Disraeli, there were beneath all that frip- pery the solid qualities of statemahship; nor was it of the Asiatic kind; but of that practical, fighting, acquir- ing, conquering. Rule Britannia sort, peculiarly Eng- lish. Peel never dreamed that this young politician, whose services he would not have at any price, was destined to be an Earl, a Knight of the Garter, and Prime Minister of England. Mr. Disraeli opposed the motion on "reciprocity" grounds. He contended that much of the distress was to be attributed to the fact that treaties of commerce had not been carried out with France, Brazil and other countries, which countries were consequently closed against the manufactures of England. He improved the occasion to offer himself unconditionally to the Tory aristocracy. He had the daring to declare that "he thought the present Corn-Law not injurious to commerce, while it maintained as it ought to do the preponderating influence of the lan&ed interest." He then went off into rhetorical hysterics about the "Doge of Venice, who when looking out on the Lagunes, cov- ered with the ships engaged in the trade of the Levant, said that, 'notwithstanding all he saw, Venice, without its terra _^rTOci!, would be like an eagle with one wing.' So should he say of England, and he should not there- fore consent to destroy the preponderating influence of the landed proprietary of the country. " All that east- ern embroidery went for nothing. The "landed pro- Digitized by Microsoft® 100 FBEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. prietary" knew little and cared less about the Doge of Venice and his Lagunes, but Mr. Disraeli's bid ' for employment was taken into consideration, and in due time it was accepted; but not by Peel. Mr. Villiers made an argument so strong in common sense and so sarcastic in its application that it created much nervousness and irritation on the Tory benches. He said that Mr.. Gladstone had vindicated the restrictive principle of the Corn-Laws, because it had always been the rule in legislation to treat corn in a peculiar way. "Of course, that has been the rule," said Mr. Villiers, " and why? Because the legislation of the country has always been under the control of the landed aristoc- racy." Legislators who had great interests of their own to serve would always be found passing laws ta protect and advance those interests. Mr. Villiers said: "There have been twenty-five Corn-Laws since 1765. Yes, and in five hundred years there have been forty." He then threw ridicule upon the whole Protective System by a couple of illustrations drawn from the records of Par- liament. Less than a century ago, he said, a petition was presented by one county against another ; the for- mer had always grown beans, and wished to retain the monopoly. It warited "Protection" against the com- petition of the neighbor county, which had lately set itself uj) as a rival in the bean-raising industry. The other illustration was the petition of the county of Mid- dlesex against the making of good roads, because thereby the farmers of that county would lose the mo- nopoly of the London Market. Mr. Villiers contended that the argument to preclude one county from compet- ing with another was precisely the same as the aro-u- ment to preclude one country from competition with Digitized by Microsoft® ilABD TIMES. 101 another, and that the principle and the result were alike ' in both cases. The answer to this was the statement of Lord Sandon that the ancient policy must be continued in order to protect the "home market," as if that were not the very criminal then on trial ; as if the experi- ment of centuries had not shown that the restrictive system had crippled and weakened, not only the foreign market, but the home market also. Mr. Cobden, with his usual earnestness, went straight and fearless right to the merits of the question, as af- fecting, not only the manufacturers, but all the people in the land. "My chief objection to the motion," he said, "is that it does not include agricultural as well as manufacturing distress." This point, however, should have been made, not against Lord Howick's motion, but against that paragraph in the royal speech on which the motion was founded. In the speech from the throne the ministers had been careful to say nothing about agricultural distress. To have done so would have been to condemn the Corn-Laws. They were maintained as a special "Protection" to the agricul- tural classes, and an admission that they had failed would h^ve embarrassed the ministers in. the sub- sequent debates. Cobden would not allow them to evade the question in that W9,y, and, to the serious an- noyance of the "landed proprietary," he dragged the agricultural laborer into the debate. He showed the wretchedness of his condition, and contended that even the tenant farmers themselves were suffering loss and privation by reason of the Corn-Laws. All this was very irritating to the "landed .proprietary," because they knew that it was true ; but it was endurable, and even pleasant, in comparison with what followed. Digitized by Microsoft® 102 FEBE TRADE STETTfiGLE: IN" ENGLAND. Mr. Cobden in a few fierce thrusts that could not be parried, gave a mortal wound to the false pretense of the landlord classes that they constituted the "landed in- terest" of the country. He showed that on the con- trary they were its blight and plague. For centuries the landlords had inasqueraded as "agriculturists," the • "landed interest," the great "stock-breeders," the "model farmers," and the like, when, in fact, with a few exceptions, they were simply a tax upon the landed industry of the country. ' The delusion was kept up at cattle shows and fairs, where Dukes and Earls in farmer looking broad-brimmed hats and top boots would walk about chewing straw,- and discussing sheep and turnips with the yeomanry. As a rule the English landlord had no higher claims than a cut-worm to be called an agriculturist. Cobden tore away the mask and revealed the hypocrisy of the claim. He declared that the land- lord had no right to class himself with the farmers of the land. He might live all his days in Paris or in London. "The landlord," said Cobden,. "is no more an agriculturist than a ship-owner is a sailor." Then turning to Peel, he said, "You have reduced the tariff on 700 articles, but you have omitted the two .that can give material relief to the people, corn and sugar." The conclusion of this speech, though vigorous, proved very unfortunate. Mr. Cobden declared that he held the Prime Minister "individually responsible" for the distress of the country, and this exj^ression, which he had used several times lately in the north, he repeated with strong emphasis. Sir Robert Peel rose in a state of nervous, excitement, quite unusual with him, and resented this personal attack. His private secretary, Mr. Drummond, had been assassinated a few Digitized by Microsoft® HARD TIMES. 103 days before, in mistake for him, and the tragedy had shocked him greatly. It had also alarmed his family, and perhaps it had alarmed Peel himself, although an English statesman is not likely to be driven from his course by threats or personal fears. He referred to several attacks of this kind which the honorable mem- ber had lately made upon him elsewhere. He accused Mr. Cobden, of pointing him out for assassination, and the sympathy of the House was with Peel. In vain Mr. Cobden tried to explain that a wrong interpre- tation had been put upon his words, and that he only alluded to the right honorable baronet in his official capacity as the head of the Government. The House refused to hear him. Peel has been accused and with some reason, of playing a melodramatic part on that occasion; and while his admirers deny it, there is little doubt that in his worried and nervous condition he seized rather eagerly upon Cobden's words, and used them to create a diversion from the main question, and also as a ground for sympathy. This incident was an unhappy one, for it placed those impoi'tant men in the attitude of personal ene- mies for three years, a position which caused Cobden to be iinjust to Peel on more than one occasion. In contrast it must be said that the treatment of Cobden by Peel was magnanimous. The suspicion of a motive so abhorrent to his gentle nature wounded Cobden so keenly that it seemed almost impossible to forgive the man, who, even in the excitement of a great debate could impute it to him. Three years afterward Peel publicly acknowledged in his place in Parliament that in this personal conflict he himself was 'in the wrong; as he undoubtedly was; although the phrase "individually Digitized by Microsoft® 104 FREE TKADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. responsible" was language of which he might rightfully complain. It was the opinion of many persons that al- though the Free Traders had the best of the argument, this advantage was thrown away by Cobden's indiscreet attack upon the Prime Minister. It is not likely that it affected any votes either one way or the other. The division showed a majority for the' Minister of 115. The numbers were, f-or Lord Howick's motion, 191; against the motion, 306. Digitized by Microsoft® CIIAPTEK VII. AMERICAN WHEAT AND THE DRAIN OF GOLD. It had long been the claim of the "landed propri- etary" that the Protective System was only a just com- pensation in return for the "peculiar burdens" thrown upon land by the poor rates, the highway rates, the church rates, and many other taxes that fell exclusively upon the land. A great many people \new that this claim was largely fictitious, but as the ' 'great parties" were both interested in advancing it, there was no se- rious contradiction of it so long as the ' 'burning issues of the hour" consisted chiefly in a fight for the offices between the "Whigs and the Tories. But a new ele- ment was now in Parliament caring for neither Whigs nor Tories, and it proposed to test this claim. On the 14th of March Mr. Ward, member for Sheffield, moved for a special committee to inquire "whether th^re are any peculiar burdens specially affecting the landed in- terest of this country, or any peculiar exemption en- joyed by that interest." Should the committee be granted Mr. Ward agreed to show, not only that the claim was" unfounded, but also that the power of the landlords had been systematically emj)loyed to relieve themselves from taxation, and that a combination ex- isted among them dangerous to the other interests of the country. Instead of granting the committee, or answering Mr. Ward, the Protectionists attacked the Anti-Corn- Digitized by Microsoft® 106 FEEE TRADE STRUGGLE IS EXGLASTD. Law League; and Mr. Bankes moved as an amendment to Mr. Ward's motion, "that the attention of the House should be directed to certain associations dan- gerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution. " Mr. Cochrane in seconding the amendment thought that the House was indebted to Mr. Bankes for directing its attention to the danger- ous and treasonable proceedings of the League. He charged the League with sending emissaries and spies into the country to disturb the peace and comfort of the peasantry; which is curiously like the accusations that used to be charged in this country against the Abolitionists. Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion, and insisted that the '-'peculiar burdens" on the land were great. He j)romised that at some future time returns of these burdens should be laid before Parliament. As the nervous system of the "landed proprietary" was Just then in a fevered condition, resulting from anxiety as to Peel's intentions, a soothing influence was felt when the Prime Minister declared that if he were convinced that it was for the interest of the country at large that the Corn-Laws should be altered, he would not for one moment hesitate to alter them ; but he was not so con- vinced. There was great cheering when he said that, as the continuance of doubt as to the intentions of the Government must have a tendency to unsettle "business, he felt bound to say that it was his intention to main- tain the present law. Whenever the owners of an unjust privilege conferred by law, behold their title challenged, they immediately appeal to the timidity of commerce for protection, and more clamorous than a Chinese gong, they declare that Digitized by Microsoft® ASTEKICAX WHEAT AXD ¥hE DEAIX OP GOLD. 107 business is in danger. So the proprietors of that scheme of larceny called the Protective System whenever it is assailed, either in detail or in mass, horizontally or per- pendicularly, try to fright the markets by declaring that all assaults upon their exclusive privileges "have a tendency to unsettle business." As it was with Peel and Gladstone fifty years ago, so it is with Blaine and McKinleynow. The "tendency to unsettle business" plea, no longer available in England, having been im- ported free of duty into the United States, performs the office of a scarecrow here. When the cheering caused by Peel's announce- ment had subsided, Mr. Blackstone congratulated the House and the country on the declaration just made by the Prime Minister. It would give universal satisfaction, and put an end to the hopes that existed in some quar- ters of being able to tamper with the law. He trusted, also, that the threat of importing American grain at a nominal duty through Canada would not again be heard of. The promise of an angry nation to fire shot and shell into the ports of its rival may fairly be described' as a "threat," but only the perverted and inverted logic of a Protectionist could make a "threat" out of the promise of one great nation to fire sacks of grain among the hungry people of another. "I was ruined," said the little cobbler in the Fleet prison, to Sam Weller, "by having money left me." So, in the jargon of monopoly, Englaijd was " threatened " with ruin by the cheap grain of America, and to-day Amer- ica is threatened with ruin by a "flood of cheap goods from England." Our statesmen tell us that we need an armor-plated navy, and guns that can shoot like earthquakes, for England, our enemy, has a great artil- Digitized by Microsoft® 108 FREE TKADE STRUGGLE IN" ENGLAND. lery loaded to the muzzle, ready to tire iuto us blankets, and clothes, and rails, and wire, and a hundred other bombshells of equal mischief. Another foe -wants to fire sugar at us, and another leather, and another -w-ool. Let us cover the seas with war ships and defy their "threats." Let us make the great opean a lake of burning fluid if necessary to " protect" our people from the missiles of enlightenment and peace. Mr. Ward's motion was defeated without an effort by a majority of ninety-nine. In May, 1843, Mr. Villiers brought forward his annual motion to go into committee of the whole ' ' to consider the import duties on foreign grain, with a view to their immediate and total abolition." The debate on this motion was, . if possible, more remarkable in its display of statesmanlike ignorance than the other, but, unlike the other, it was not all on the side of the Pro- tectionists. Even Mr. Villiers himself showed a forget- fulness of his geogt-aphy when he said, "The use of wheaten bread is denied to ten millions of people in the British islands, while a plague had arisen in Louisi- ana because the produce was left to rot upon the ground, for want of a market." He evidently had a confused idea of where Louisiana was, or what was the nature of her products. A plague produced by wheat rotting on the ground was a new phenomenon in Louisiana. Per- haps Mr. Tilliers referred to the -\ast territory formerly known as Louisiana, and if he spoke prophetically he was not so very far wrong. Probably his remark was merely an exaggerated word painting of the folly of one people "protecting" themselves from sharing in the superabundant -vyealth of another. He worried the House with some uncomfortable facts. He asserted Digitized by Microsoft® ambri(;an wheat and the drain of gold. 109 that ten millions of the British people could not afford to indulge in the luxury of whcaten bread ; that a large portion of the Irish lived on potatoes, and that the in- habitants of Scotland lived on oatmeal. He also showed that in England great numbers of the working classes were limited to a supply not exceeding fourteen ounces a day, and many had not half that quantity. Once more it became the duty of Mr. Gladstone to answer the Free Traders, and he contented himself with leaving them unanswered. In fact, there was but one way to answer Mr. Villiers, and that was by con- tradicting him, and showing that his statements were erroneous. This Mr. Gladstone did not dare to do, for he knew that the figures were correct. He did not deny either the facts or the conclusions. He admitted the distress of the people, but contended that they were better off than they were two hundred years ago, which was an unsubstantial sort of comfort, and hardly satis- factory. He niet the motion by an emphatic negative, and declared that the Government would not consent Vo any further modification of the Protective System. He said that last year the House had rejected the motion by 393 to 90, but if the motion was unreasonable twelve months ago it was doubly so now. He then condescended to use the false pretense that is so glibly maintained in the United States to-day, namely, that a Tariff for the Protection of certain trades is in the nature of a "con- tract" between the Government and the protected inter- ests. This doctrine would peri^etuate extortion by con- verting a law for raising revenue to support the Gov- ernment into a contract with certain parties that it should remain upon the statute books for the purpose of raising revenue for them. He maintained that the tariff Digitized by Microsoft® 110 FEEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. of last year was a "contract " with the protected classes that could not be violated. History repeats itself, and we are told in America, in the year 1892, that the clumsy juggle known as the TarifE of 1890 is a con- tract with private interests that shall not be further disturbed. ' ' What the country needs, " exclaimed Peel and Gladstone, " is rest from tariff agitation." "What the country needs," remark the millocrats and tariff statesmen of America, "is rest from tariff agitation." Mr. Gladstone was not yet free from the ancient superstition about the ' 'drain of ' gold" and its debili- tating effect upon any country that suffers from it. He still believed as the Blaines and the McKinleys yet be- lieve that wealth consists in gold and silver, but not in corn and cotton and wool. He thought that a gold sovereign was riches that ought not to be allowed to go out of the country, and that a sack of corn or a hide of leather was poverty that ought not to be allowed to , come in. He still thought that it was the duty of Government to make the stream of commerce and trade run up hill and not down, and that it should waste its energies forever in watching the ' 'balance of trade" and guarding against the exportation of silver and gold. Wiser it was to drain the lives of the people by hunger than to drain gold from the country by purchasing flour in New York. With the air of a minister announcing the loss of a battle, Mr. Gladstone sorrowfully informed the House of Commons that already since the beginning of the year, three million pounds had been sent to Amer- ica in payment for the products of that country, and there was a gloomy prospect of still further disaster impending over the nation because "wheat was so cheap in the Mississippi valley, that if a protective tax Digitized by Microsoft® AMEEICAN WHEAT AND THE DRAIN OF GOLD. Ill upon its importation should be abolished vast quantities of it would be poured upon England." Even a heart of pig-iron might be softened into compassionate putty at the prospect of such calamitous abundance. As the measures of last year had not yet had a "fair trial," Mr. Gladstone concluded that the Government would be unworthy of the confidence of the country should it agree to the motion of Mr. Villiers. Mr. Roebuck supported the motion, but scolded the League. He ridiculed Gladstone's alarm about the "drain of gold," which he called an idle and groundless fear. He also said that in 1815, the landlords consulted their own interests by keeping up high prices and high rents by means of a law prohibiting the importation of foreign corn. This was' the reason for establishing the monojjoly, and it was hypocrisy to deny it. Lord Howick also supported the motion, although he de- clared himself in favor of a small fixed duty as a com- promise between conflicting parties. At the same time he was emphatic in declaring his belief that "Protec- tion" of every kind was a robbery of the community. Lord Howick was a Whig. His father, Earl Grey, was the Prime Minister who had carried the Reform Bill in 1832. As a Whig, and a Ministerial colleague. Lord Howick was implicated with Lord John Russell in the plan of a "fixed duty," and therefore had to pay a small tribute of devotion to it, and, besides, compromise was a Whig trait, courteous and quiet. Although" Lord Howick believed that Protection of every -kind was robbery, he was willing to compromise on the basis of petit larceny, and therefore he was in favor of a "small fixed duty" on grain. Certainly petit larceny is preferable to grand larceny, but why compromise with larceny at all? Digitized by Microsoft® 112 FEBE TEADE STSUGGLB IN ENGLAND. With a frank, blundering honesty that amused everybody, Sir Edward KnatchbuU described some of ' the "peculiar burdens" laid upon the land. Among these he placed the duty of "making provisions for younger children," and so long as that duty remained, of course "Free Trade was quite impracticable." The elder children of the landed aristocracy being provided for by the la-w of primogeniture, their younger children should be taken care of by that furtive system of tax- ation known as "Protection to home industry." It' never occurred to Sir Edward KnatchbuU that it was the duty of land-owners to support their own younger chil- dren as other people had to do; nor did he conceive it possible that society in England could ever degenerate so low as to require those younger children to earn , their own living. The mediaeval sentiment that a gen- tleman must not work, nor engage in trade, nor in manu- facturing, still prevailed in Britain. He might belong to the "professions," but not to the trades. A million- aire tradesman was not eligible to membership in any club in London, while his brother, a penniless lawyer, would be welcome at them all. Sir Edward KnatchbuU was not an ignorant old fox-hunter, like many of his order. He ranked as a statesman, and was in fact a cabinet minister at this time. Lord John Russell made great sport of Sir Edwatd Knatchbull's admission of the Tory object of tariff taxation. At the same time he declared himself a Protectionist, and in favor of a fixed duty. He must therefore oppose the motion. Although the claim of Sir Edward KnatchbuU appears very stupid now, it was consistent with English custom and with English law. The feudal theory that the children of the nobility must not work for a living at Digitized by Microsoft® AMERICAN WHEAT AND THE DRAIN OF GOLD. IIB any useful thing, had become a hereditary dogma among the Knatchbulls and their order. The right of land- owners and their children to live on other people had been the law so long that it had ripened into a "con- tract" between the Government afi.d the Aristocracy; in which contract, the protective system was merely one of the stipulations. The debate in Congress on the Morrison bill of 1884 is nearly a transcript of the debate in the House of Commons on Mr. Villiers' motion offered in IS-IS, prov- ing that principles vary not with latitude, and that the selfish instincts are the same in every land. Commerce demanded freedom for the same reasons in both debates, and monopoly defended itself on the same arguments. Those who have read the debate of 1884 will see the par- allel. In the House of Commons Mr. Ewart exposed the fallacy that high prices made high wages. He main- tained that, by extended commerce, consumption was increased, and this expanded business and wages too. Other members took the opposite ground, and main- tained that the English farmer and mechanic and laborer were entitled to a protection at least equal to the dif- ference in the rate of wages between England and the nations of the continent. Mr. Scrope admitted that all indirect taxes on consumption gave incidental pro- tection, but that, considering the greatness of the pub- lic debt and the enormous expenses of the Government, we could not repeal those taxes, and, therefore. Free Trade was impracticable. He thought, however, that the tariflE should gradually be adapted to the principle of "revenue only." Col. "Wood asserted that the Corn- Laws were mutually beneficial to manufacturer and agri- culturist, and he claimed that the protectionists were 8 Digitized by Microsoft® 114 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. actuated by no other motives than the good of the whole community. Sir Howard Douglass considered a repeal of the Corn-Laws fatal to the best interests of the Em- pire, commercial, manufacturing and agricultural. Com- pelling the people t5 buy of one another by the scheme of protective taxation was the highest wisdom, because it gave us the "home market." With clap-trap osten- tation worthy of our Congress he exclaimed, '" England is the best customer of England," and he said- that by giving direct protection to one industry you indirectly give protection to some other. Sir Howard Douglass traveled in a circle, like the lost man on a i^rairie, a mode of progression very popular just now with Protection- ists in the American Congress, and in every other Con- gress, too, for that matter. He was well-answered by Mr. Muntz, who supported the motion for the very reason that the Corn-laws and the tarifE had been so arranged that they protected some classes and not others. He declared that labor was not protected at all. If there was to be any protection, he said, the poor should have the benefit of it; but he contended that the leaning of Protection was always in favor of the rich. He seemed to labor under a dreamy delusion that the protective system might be arranged, "according to the principles of Christianity," in favor of the poor and against the rich, a miracle, it is needless to say, that never has been and never will be achieved. Mr. Muntz declared that the protected classes received so many millions more for what they sold than they would get if the people were allowed to buy in a free market, and he admitted the claim of Mr. Gladstone that this pre- vented a " drain of gold ;" he admitted that this money was not lost to the country, but remained in it. " But," Digitized by Microsoft® AMEEICAjS wheat and the DEAIIT or GOLD. 115 said Mr. Muntz, " I'll tell you where the money does go, although it stays in the country. It goes out of the pockets of industry into the pockets of idleness." He thought, however, like some of our American states- men, that it was useless to reform the Tariff until the " currency" was properly arranged. Mr. Milner Gibson contended, in opposition to Sir Howard Douglass, that it was certain the protective system injured commerce and manufactures, while it was not at all certain that it benefited agriculture. Mr. Gibson afterward became one of the leaders of the Free Trade revolution, and his words in this debate had peculiar weight, because he did not .belong to the "Manchester class." He was not in trade, but was himself a country gentleman and a land-owner. In this Rebate the childish policy of "Retaliation" appeared in the House of Cominons, pleading for a stay of execution on behalf of the protective system ; and the long-eared wisdom of biting off your nose to spite your face was maintained by some undeveloped states- men who knew no better, and by some intelligent states- men, like Mr. Gladstone, who did know better. It was contended that if foreign countries would not open their ports to British manufactures, England should close her ports against their wheat and bacon. That the English people were suffering for want of food made no difference. They should • maintain "Reciprocity," even at the price of starvation. Fifty years afterward the American Congress, "cribbed, cabined and con- fined" by the narrow genius of the protective system, gravely adopted the principle of "Retaliation" as the economic law of the United States, thereby reducing the Great Republic to the moral dimensions of the insular Kingdom of Lilliput. Digitized by Microsoft® 116 FEEB TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. The " Reciprocity " theory did good service to the ministers in this debate. Whether or not they believed in it themselves is doubtful; perhaps some of them did. It is quite evident that a large majority of the House of Commons had not yet learned that it is wise to buy in the cheapest market, even if you cannot sell in the dearest, and so they kept ringing the changes on "Reciprocity." Mr. Christopher maintained that to adopt Free Trade without any guarantee of ' ' Reci- procity " from foreign countries would be useless to the manufacturers, and ruinous to the agriculturists. One ardent member, Mr. Thornley, had become so zealously interested in the "Reciprocity" plan, that he just stepped over to America to consult the President of the United States about it. It is a mortifying fact that the President filled him full of deceptive prom- ises, -and then sent. him home again. Mr. Thornley told the House that if the English would adopt Free Trade, the Americans would immediately do the same; that Mr. Tyler told him so. Mr. Tyler also told him that the only obstacle to an extended commerce between the two countries was the English Corn-Law. All that was necessary to establish ' ' Reciprocity" was for the English to begin. Mr. Cobden said, "The law inflicts scarcity upon the people or it does nothing; and the condition of the agricultural laborer is the severest condemnation of the law." He turned Sir Edward KnatchbuU's unlucky argument against him, and all the landlord class. He said, "If the object of the law is to make provision for the younger sons of the aristocracy, and effect mar- riage settlements for their daughters, what benefit does the farmer derive from that? " He said that the only Digitized by Microsoft® AMERICAN WHEAT AND THE DRAIN OF GOLD. 117 way to raise the price of corn was by making it scarce, and that this was the object of the law. He declared that no party had the right to make the food of the people scarce. To ordinary minds these propositions appear to be self-evident, and yet there was a great party in England that denied them and maintained that the food of the people ought to be made scarce in order to protect the farmer against the cheaper labor, the richer soil, and the finer climate of other lands. Un- happily, this party controlled the House of Commons, as the division showed, for the Free Traders were beaten by the crushing majority of 381 to 125. In the month of June the subject came up again in a discussion as to the relative merits of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Lord John Russell moved to go into committee, to take into consideration the laws relating to the importation of foreign grain. As he was at that time a Protectionist himself, and diilered with Peel only in preferring a "fixed duty" to the "sliding scale," his motion had no practical value' whatever, ex- cept to keep debate alive, and on that ground Mr. Vil- liers declared that he should support it. It gave an op- portunity for a repetition of the old arguments against the Corn-Laws, and Mr. Gladstone answered them again as before. That the Whig doctrine of Protection differed little from the Tory doctrine was curiously shown by the speech of Lord John Russell. He exhib- ited the same dread of abundance that Mr. Gladstone had shown a few weeks before. Under the working of the sliding scale, he said, that just prior to the harvest, when the farmer was in anticipation of a good price for his produce, ' 'the deluge of foreign corn was poured in," and he found himself disappointed. "The blame Digitized by Microsoft® 118 FKEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. of these inundations of corn was attributable to reck- less speculators, but speculators, be trusted, tbere would always be; and if tbey were sometimes reckless it was the law that made them so." Let not the American reformers be discouraged at the inverted political econ- omy of their own statesmen. Let them reflect that Lord John Russell when he talked in that benighted way was a mature statesman fifty-one years old, the leader of a grekt party, and a future Prime Minister of England. Yet he had an economic use for speculators in grain; he spoke of a "deluge of corn" as if it were'some new flood ' threatening England as a punishment for sin; and he arraigned the guilty delinquent upon whose shoulders rested the "blame" of inundating the country with food. Truthfully did Mr. Gladstone in replying to him, say, "There appears to be little differenjoe between the noble Lord and myself as to the Protection to be extended to existing interests." Certainly; he was right; there was no difference except the difference be- tween Tweedledum and Tweedledee. This debate served the useful purpose of drawing from the Government the positive avowal that no change in the Corn-Laws would be permitted. Mr. Gladstone declared that the measures of last year were a virtual contract between the Government and the agricultural interest, and that it would be dishonorable to disturb it. This loving debate between the Whigs and Tories as to whether a fixed duty or a sliding scale was most effective in protecting the aristocracy, was rudely broken into by blunt old Hume, who declared that all "Protection" was spoliation and injustice, and ought to be abolished. Sir Robert Peel insisted that the measure of last year was a "compromise" between Digitized by Microsoft® AMEEICATf WHEAT AND THE DRAIN OF GOLD. 119 all the interests concerned, and which was assented to by the agriculturists on the faith of its being adhered to, therefore it was his determination to maintain the law of last session. Notwithstanding this "determin- ation," there was a fidgety unrest among the "inter- ests" for fear that the ministers would be again driven from their policy by the Anti-Corn-Law League. The motion was defeated by a majority of ninety-nine. Lord John Russell's -motion had the support of Mr. Villiers and the Free Traders, although the motion of Mr. Villiers did not have the support of Lord John Russell and the Whigs, for the political party reason that the Whigs were "Tariff Reformers" only, and they were anxious to convince the country that they were innocent of the Free Trade heresy. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER Till. Tti -.> far vre have ehieflv spoken of the Free Trade sTruiTsrlo :-.5 it v*^s touglit iu Parliaiueut up to the Sttia- mer of IS-U^. Oatskie, the vv^iitist \v3> sharper still. and far more vigorous. The work of the rvtormers was harder too. A -whole j»eople had to be sroHs*\i, instructed, convinced. .Vv. irresistible public opinion must be created without which all efforts in Parliament would be in vain. The upj^^-^r class^?- of the English people were prottvtioiusts from tval ituervst, the lower olassos from snpivtectionists. All their prejiulices were in favor of Tvstriotitig vx>mpetition, Tho Englishman was exolusive. j«rtly by nature, and partly Woasise of gvv*- grapliical oo;ulit-o!i<. His island Ivixig cut off by the sea frv>m the c\»ntinent of Eurv>|H,\ he became a st^a-girt sort of ivrso'.iago himself, lie was boastful and pa- triotically vain. He ;;r,dirvai;n\l foreigners, never ad- mitting that any change of latitude or longitude could make a foreigner of him. The cxtnjvagaivoe of the comic ojH^ra was genuine jK>etry to the Britou. He seriously Wlieved that really it was "greativ to his credit " that he was an Englishman; and he thought it liighly meritorious that ■■ in spiio of all temptations to Digitized by Microsoft® OVERPRODUCTION. 121 belong to other nations, lie remained an Englishman." His combative temperament urged him sometimes be- yond the bounds of international politeness to bid a fighting "defiance to the world." He christened his warships "Bulldog," "Vixen," "Spitfire," "Destruc- tion," "Devastation," "Terrible," "Vengeance," "Conqueror," and similar pet names. His great chest would pant like a blacksmith's bellows as he sung in the ears of all mankind his impolite refrain, "Bri- tannia rules the waves." He thought that the people of other nations had very little to eat; that the French- man lived on frogs, the Italian on macaroni, and the German on an inferior quality of cabbage. He was a natural protectionist. To appeal on behalf of the pro- tective policy to this baseless pride was the ignominious device of the Tories, and they scared the working-men away from the League by a ghost made out of a hollow pumpkin, which they called "Foreign pauper labor." I quote from Slwakwood? s Magazine: " The freedom of which the advocates of ' Free Trade ' are most fond, is that which enables the moneyed caj)italist to encour- age the highest competition between the poor workmen. Competition between manufacturer and manufacturer at home will not content him; he has discovered that there are a number of poor wretches on the continent who have been inured to labor for a little black bread and a little water daily. He pants, therefore, to run those poor wretches against the English beef-fed and beer-drinking weaver, confident that he shall soon be able to reduce the price of manufacturing labor in England to the price of labor irr France." That "beef -fed and beer-drinking weaver" was a myth, as any man will testify who remembers the Eng- Digitized by Microsoft® 122 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. lish weaver as he actually was before the Free Trade era, gaunt, sullen, anxious, and literally without hope in the world. And yet so strong was the English pride within him that although he was famishing for bread he was flattered and soothed by demagogues when they described him to his face as a fat, rosy, "beef -fed and beer-drinking" citizen. He knew the compliment was false, and yet he flaunted it above him like a flag, and swaggered about under it as if it were actually true. The lower classes of the English people were much like the lower classes of some other people, insanely jealous of those whom they regarded as lower yet than themselves. In America it may be the negro, or the Chinaman; in England it was the frog-eating French- man, the frugal Dutchman — who was too mean to squander all his wages — or the barbarian Russian who lived on tallow, and whose clothes cost him nothing, the skin of an ox furnishing a complete outfit for a year. Any demagogue could easily arouse the enthusiasm of the working classes b,y denouncing Free Traders as an unpatriotic set who were seeking to subject the noble British workman to a ruinous competition with the "black bread and a little water" peasants of the con- tinent. It was a part of the stock business of T.ory statesmen at every hustings in the Kingdom to glorify the wisdom of that policy which was to make England "independent of foreigners," especially in the matter of meat and flour. Even enlightened statesmen like Peel and Gladstone did not disdain to use this nar- row argument in the House of Commons itself. In addition to their insular prejudices the English working classes believed in the blessings of scarcity and the miseries of abundance. They lived constantly Digitized by Microsoft® OVERPRODUCTION. 123 in fear of an impossible dragon called "overproduction." They regarded machinery as their chief enemy because it saved labor, and filled shops and warehouses with goods. It was the grimy coal-fed monster, breathing smoke and flame whose offspring was "overproduction." They opposed railroads because of their labor-saving tendency, and many of them could tell the exact num- ber of men thrown "out of work," between London and Bristol, by the Great Western Railway alone. There were so many stage coachmen and guards, so many wagoners whose busy teams moved the merchandise of the country, so many inns where the stages stopped for dinner, and to change horses, involving the employ- ment of so many hostlers, cooks, waiters, and other people. Then look at the blacksmiths, whose busi- ness it was to shoe the stage horses, and the wagon horses; look at the harness-makers, whose business it was to make the harness for them. Think of the ruin of the inn-keepers themselves, to say nothing of the loss to the fanners and stock-raisers, who would no longer have a market for coach horses, or wagon horses, or for the oats to feed them. It was useless to point out the army of men that the railroads would throw "into work," the comforts and conveniences they would multiply to all the people. These advantages were too abstract and re- mote. The injuries were direct, near, and palpable. In the political economy of the English artisan, all destruction of property was a blessing, because, to replace the property gave employment to workingmen. The burning down of a block of buildings was a providen- tial gift, because the houses had to be rebuilt, thereby giving employment to bricklayers and carpenters. About this time a remarkable hailstorm visited London. Digitized by Microsoft® 124 KUIOK rHADK STUUOOI.K IN 1CN(11,ANI>. Kvi'ry hx|)()H(m1 piuu^ of gliiMK wiis ln'oktni by (ho hail- KloiioH. TliiH \v;i.M vcn'iii'dod as n uuM-dirul (liH|(oiiHiitioii, boriiuHc it iiiiuU' a Hoiircity of glass in Ijoiidoii. It was uioroly a huiii in wimplo ndditioii to show tlio value of tbo Htoi'in. It was cvidont (luit tlio ubisM-niakcM'S and tlio ghi/icrs woidd in.iko a good thing out of it, and tlio money thoy oavnod would bo H|)ont lor tbo comforts and iiooosKurioH of li^c^ Tbo tailor and tbo shoemaker would got soino ol" it, and tbo bntobov, tbo bakor, and tho (iandlostii'k-iniikor. It was nsoU^ss to ox])lain that this money was drawn from otiior oniiiloynionts of in- dustry, and tbat, to tln^ I'ldl value of tbo glass destroyed it was a total loss to tlm oonnnunity. This, too, was abstract; it was like ooniplox l'rM.|iosod by tlioso priinitivo econo- mists. Tbo woodon pavcMiiont was a dangerous innova- tion, Ix^caiiso, if it sbould b(i gonorally ust^d in a groat city like Jjondon, it was oasy to soo that tbo woar and tear of borso-sboes ami wngon-wluH'ls would bo greatly IossoiumI, ainl blao.ksiiiitbs would bo thrown "outoC work." A stvo(^t swo(^|)ing rn;iobin(% invontod about this time, bad to bo ](r()to(^t(^d by tbo ])olic(s as a mob of soavongors were dotorniiiKHl to provc^nt its use. It was olaimod that (iio niacliinc^ (M)idd do the work of twenty men. Tbo soavongors, of ooiirso, made thoir living by dirt; tlm more dirt, tho nioi-(^ work foe thorn, Ilorc^ was a machines that oausc^d a,n " ovorprodiiotion " of cleanliness, and, true to thoir jirotoctionist ideas, they proooodcul to destroy it. Tluirc^ is nothing surprising in all this. An igno- rant pooi)lo only n^iison from first ap|i(!aranc.(^H to the Digitized by Microsoft® OVKKI'UOUUCTION. 125 immediate and vi-siblo result. To the unthinking work- ingmen of England, the first effect of a labor-siiviug machine was to throw somebody "out of work" ; the first effoet of the hailstorm was to throw somebody •>into work" ; therefoi-e they looked upon the maeliiue as an enemy, upon the storm as a friend. In like man- ner, the first ett'eet of a eargo of merchandise imported from a foreign eountry was to make abundance ap- parently and to lessen the demand for labor in that class of goods, although creating a greater demand for labor in the production of other things to pay for them ; therefore they were in favor of promoting scarcity by a high [irotective tariff that should compel those foreign goods to stay across the sea. It was not to be expected that the workingmen would voluntarily explore the depths of political science, and thus obtain a knowledge of the true prin- ciples of social and political economy. As reasonably might they have been expected to saw wood f<>r pleas- ure. Their minds became tired when not aided by visible object lessons, and tlm men who coidd appeal to their mutual experiences had a great advantage over the abstract reasoner, no nuitter how well-built his logical structure was. Often, in the coffee-houses, the dub-rooms and other places where workingmen usW to meet and discuss the pi"oblems of the English political and social system, the Protectionist champion, confused and overwhelmed by the reasoning of his Free Tr.-vde antagonist, would extricate himself by an ingenious re- course to the "overproduction" hobgoblin. "What caused the distress," he would shout, "in the hard winter of 1835?" "Overproduction." "What shut down the Birmingham forges in ISoGV" "Overpro- Digitized by Microsoft® 126 FEEE TKADE STKUGGLE IN' ENfiLANlJ. duction." "What stopped the wheels in Lancashire and Yorkshire in 1837?" "Oveq>rodnction." "What sent the shoemakers of Northampton on the tramp in 1838?" "Overproduction;" and so on, to the end of the chapter. It was certain that among the audience were some of the fancied victims of overproduction, and all the rest were sympathizers. It was of no use to explain to them that what they called "overproduc- tion " was nothing but the blessing of plenty, which, if not hindered by protective legislation, would soon diffuse itself throughout all the land, sharing its I»ene- fits among all the j»eople, acting and re-acting upon every member of the community. Nor could they see that overproduction was a misleading name for under-consumption resulting from poverty and the inability to l>uy. To comprehend all this required a mental effort, and that was labor. They were not ready to think, just then, and the discomfited Free Trader would take his seat, leaving the victory to his adversary. The workingmen of England had liir erally to be educated in sounder principles, to be taught like children, from the alphabet of politics upward until they were forced to throw aside their prejudices to make room for the knowledge that was crowding itself upon them, " If you l»ring the truth home to a man," said Cobden, "he must embrace it." To bring the truth home to the people of England I>ecame the < duty of the League. Let u - see how well the work was done. "Whatj- 'over' in our production?" inqriire<^l the Wesf(mi/ii:iter litr/leir. "Do t?iey mean that we have jjroduced more than 'other nations want, or more than they are able to pay for? They could not mean this Digitized by Microsoft® OVEEPBODUCTION. 127 for it would be a jaalpable falsehood, or do they mean they must if they mean anything — more than our legis- lators, will allow us to exchange with those who do want it? Dqes this charge mean that even our own countrymen are all filled and comfortably clothed? Or does it mean that we have produced not more than our people want but more than they are able to buy? Does it not mean that our aristocracy have so impoverished the laboring classes by injustice and oppression that they have no longer the means of purchasing sufficient supplies for the necessaries of life? And they then turn round upon the manufacturers and rej)roach them with having produced the necessaries of life in too great abundance. The fact is simply this, that almost any amount of production may be made excessive by laws which forbid the purchase of the articles pro- duced; and that almost any amount may be made insuf- ficient, by the restraint of that perfect liberty of com- merce which permits to every nation its full capacity of interchange." The working people of England were divided into two classes, the city operatives and the rural popula- tion. They differed from each other in dress, in dia- lect, in manners, and in personal appearance. The city workman was quick of movement and of great mental activity, the farm laborer was heavy, dull, and slow. He aspired to nothing higher than eating, drinking, " and rest. Although the Corn-Laws were made for the "Protection" of agricultural industry, the tiller of the soil was overworked and underpaid. His life was passed in abject poverty. He had no more hope than the team he drove. He was still in fact — though not in law a serf; and he went with the land. Whoever Digitized by Microsoft® KHight that. K-;;:--. him. In l>4-:^ the tiawlw « th«f W^t Kili-ig «rf Yorksiirv. itt«<^tiii^ a rirscio with a dro.v*' ^>f hoc* in fivmt of httn, k«<»ked :or th* bia^ss collar aWnt >,:< nev^k. txjvc-tiii: to t«iii «j>*>«i it th* ok! fsHiiliar U^i:'.! vr^>od." The 1 r.t*# collar »-as not th«fr?, b»t the swine- heivi was 5* Htoeh a '- tltiall" as was his ai'ctcstor in the d,»y < vvf W iLtiwl <>t" Ivaahoie. l.ts* than sixty ur.lcs fiowi London, and within hearing «sf the vx^Ilegv hells oC CarubriJgv, the ri.';*.i:asli^vl eiown thiashevl ftis niaster's grslu with a ttaiL as ais torvtatfc«?rs iii«l in the dayx (jjf Alfied the Great. He k»ew kv> moxe tl»a they, and his dialect ^ss very mnch llki;- thoirs. CWt the politics of EiicIa'-lI he kiuw abont as iRitcb. ,>s he did of the jv^lltlcs of Japan. Althouga great in n«TOb«srs Ae agrioiiltarsl labours (.vutrlbrvtovi UtMsdly notb.itivr to that puUic opinion which is s»,> important an element in the Government of £usrland. Wh«tt the Free Trade uiisslousrlts went aiuoug^t them they were mohhed and pelted ottt of the vULig^s by the "yeomanry" and the agvnts of the lanllop.ls. They wtrv treated nstymnch a* Abolition lev>ttrvrs wv>uld be tr^eated by the C^UKdiiMt pLuiters in the days before the war. It was dltutrv'-tt with the w-rkl-js; peofdc in the towus. They were rvstlcss, a-v,o-,:Io-.;s, and dlsvxni- tt'nt*\t. They, iiiiwirlt^l much toi:\'tfet'r, and thev dis- ousstxl political and s>,vlal pn_^bU--.:i^ Thev formed clubs, benefit societies, and trsvles u:',l.<-,is. Thev at- tended political nuvtiugs and deb.atiui: elnbs: thev read a grvat deal, anvl they conld famish moie stir.ui o-ators to the hnndred men than cv«i we can turtiish in America. There was always a sjieakcr on hand, aini Digitized by Microsoft® OVERPRODUCTION. 129 an audience. It is a prevalent opinion that the " stump orator" is peculiarly an American production, but this is a mistake. He abounds in England, and there his talk flows on for ever. It is not confined as in America to the -election season; it flourishes afall seasons. It is perennial in England, and always fresh and bloom- ing. One reason for this is that the drinking places in England are also places of resort. They are not "saloons" as in America, merely drinking places, and nothing more. They are what their name expresses, "public houses." They have rooms apart from the bar, and in those rooms men sit down and drink their beer. There they smoke their pipes and talk. Besides the "tap-room" and the "parlor," which are promis- cuous and belong to everybody, there are rooms up-stairs for society meetings, clubs, and exclusive gatherings. Here business, debate, and conviviality mingle together. The orator fires away while the audience drink their beer and smoke. If the English public houses have rendered any compensation for the mischief they have made, it must be in furnishing those rooms for associa- tion, and for the discussion of public questions. They have been the nurseries of the stump orators of Eng- land. For the reason above given it was necessarily in the towns that the principal work of the League was done. At first the League met with opposition even in the towns; and its meetings were often interrupted by hos- tile mobs, and sometimes broken up. The Chartists insisted that a radical reform of the Government itself should be attempted before economic changes. When universal s.uffrage and a free ballot were obtained, then would be time enough to repeal the Corn-Laws; . and 9 Digitized by Microsoft® 130 ¥BBE TEADE STEUGGLB IN ENGLAND. they demanded that the League should unite with them. Besides, the jealousy of foreign competition was not easily removed; "foreign pauper labor" was still a phrase to conjure with; and there was a prev- alent suspicion that the object of the League was to lower the wages of the workingmen. In 1843 The Quarterly Review made the accusation in these words: "The first great object of the League was and is the lowering of wages." This view of it had prevailed from the vpry first organization of the League, and of- ten in the Free Trade meetings the Chartists were able to defeat the Free Trade resolutions and carry resolu- tions of their own. In 1839 there was a great Anti- Corn-Law meeting at Eochdale, at which Mr. Bright offered a Free Trade resolution, and supported it with one of his most convincing speeches; but Mr. James Taylor, a Chartist, proposed an amendment to the ef- fect that before agitating for a repeal of the Corn-Laws the people should obtain possession of their political rights. The amendment was adopted. In Smith's Life of John Bright, the biographer in relating this incident, remarks: "The amendment was carried, the Chartists 'at that moment having the ear- of the work- ing classes in the chief towns of Lancashire and York- shire." In the position they took on that question the Chartists were not wise. The result has demonstrated that a hungry people, while politically they may be more dangerous, are morally not half so strong as the same people when well fed. The improved condition of the workingmen of England under a Free Trade policy has strengthened their moral influence so greatly that now the Charter is almost won. Henry Vincent one of the founders of the Chartist party and its great- Digitized by Microsoft® OVKKPEODUCTION. 131 est orator, on the occasion of his last visit to America, said to the writer of this book, "We shall 'soon iiaVe the suffrage in England,, where any man who is fit to use it can reach forth his hand and take it." One paragraph as to the Chartists for the informa- tion of the American reader. ' The Chartists were a democratic, and to some extent, a revolutionary body, seeking a radical change in the political constitution of England. Their demands were embodied in a docu- ment called the Charter containing the following 'six points, 1. Universal Suffrage; 2. Vote by Ballot; 3. Annual Parliaments; 4. Equal Electoral Districts; 5. No Pro])orty Qualification for Members of Parliament, and 6. Payment of Members. Of these it will be seen that only the first and second are important principles, the others relating merely to matters of detail and ex- pediency. The second and fifth have been obtained, and the suffrage has been so greatly extended by progressive laws that now the English ballot is where Mr. Vincent said it would be, within the reach of nearly eveiy man with enterprise enough to lift his hand and take it. In the years of the Free Trade struggle the Chartists in- cluded within their ranks two-thirds of all the working- men of England and Scotland, outside the farm laborers. They had no strength in Ireland because Mr. O'Connell, who was then the paramount leader of the Irish people, kept them from joining the party. Although he was one pf the original committee of ten that framed the Charter, he had become alarmed at the revolutionary character of the Chartists, and had abandoned them. It will readily be seen that the opposition of so large a body as the Chartist party was a serious obstacle in the way of the League. It may be acknowledged here Digitized by Microsoft® 132 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. also, that' some of the leaders of the Chartist party were jealous of the leaders of the League. The Annual Regis- ter for 1839, speaking of the Qhartists and their opposi- tion to the repeal of the Corn-Laws, says, "in their opin- ' ion any relaxation of the duties upon the importatioji of corn would, by lowering the rate of wages turn to the profit of the employer alone." Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER IX. WAGES. The " low wages " delusion was kept alive by all the Tory journals, and by all the opponents of revenue reform. Here is a specimen argument taken from The Quarterly Review for December, 1842: "But even if Mr. Cobden could persuade us that his zeal was not strongly imbued with political ambition, can he deny: — though he seems inclined to conceal it — that he and his associates were first prompted and are still stimulated in their warfare against the Corn-Laws by a more igno- ble interest — mere mercantile gain — the profit of the mills? This it is that supplies the source and feeds the current of this agitation. This is the secret head of this muddy and inundating Nile. The leaders of the League, not satisfied with the great and sometimes enormous fortunes that have been realized under the present system of food and wages, are endeavoring by the undue influences of confederation, intimidation, and deception — to reduce wages still lower — to the great injury of the working classes, the ruin of the agricul- tural interest, and to no immediate profit but their own." Then, in order to make its criticism of the League still more impressive, it condensed the whole argument into a mathematical formula, thus: "The pretense that those mill-owners are endeavoring to lower the price of bread for the sake of the workmen is so absurd that we reallv know not how to expose it Digitized by Microsoft® 134 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. more forcibly than by four words, cheap bread=low wages.'''' The Review ended a very bitter article against the League by insinuating that it was a disloyal and illegal confederacy. It said, "We pronounce the ex- istence of such associations disgraceful to our national character, and wholly incompatible "either with the internal peace and commercial prosperity of the country — or in the highest meaning of the words, the saeett OE THE STATE." That article in the Quarterly was written by the Right Hon. John Wilson Croker, a face-to-the-rear placeman, who had been in office from a boy, a relic of that old King George Toryism in Church and State which relentlessly ' ' put down " reforms of every kind, especially reforms which promised more comfort and higher, dignity to the people. In the politics of his youth and the meridian of his manhood, every ad- vance toward freedom was a menace to the State, and now in his old age he showed the spirit of persecution without thfe power to persecute, by theatrically warning the Government that the League ought to be put down for the " safety of the State." Fraser's Magazine saw nothing " petty or mean " in raising the value of land by increasing the price of bread, and said: " In truth there is nothing of petty expediency or mean contri- vance in the principle on which our Corn-Laws rest. Nothing can be broader, more solid, or more perma- nent than the principle that it is the first and para- mount, duty to protect the agriculturist of the country from the comj)etition of those who in Poland or Prussia, can by paying lower rents and lower wages greatly un- dersell our farmers. We neither wish to reduce the landed property of England to one-half its present Digitized by Microsoft® "WAGES. 135 value, nor our laborers to one-half their present wages. We deny that low prices are necessarily a benefit to the country." , While some of the Protection journals confined their opposition to angry denunciations of the League, others did that and more. They tried not only to arouse the prejudices and inflame the passions, but to convince the reason also. Of this class was Black- wood's Magazine, perhaps the ablest advocate and de- fender of the Corn-Laws in all Great Britain. To be sure there was much sophistry in its argument, and no doubt it said a great deal that it did not believe; but after all it was argument, most of it plausible, and most of it very hard to answer, because at that time ex- perience had not shown the mistakes in it. In Novem- ber, 1838, JBlackwood'' s reasoned thus: "Is it then really certain that an unrestricted importation of for- eign grain would in the long run lower the money price of provisions to the Britishlaborers? .... It might at first .... We have little doubt that the result in the end would be that the price of subsistence would be raised to the British consumer. The first effect would be to cheapen. That would throw the land out of cul- tivation. Home production would be small, and then of course the price of the foreign product would be in- creased." The above argument is worth study, because al- though falsified by actual experiment in England, it is just as good as new in America. It was as confidently proclaimed in Congress in 1892 as it was by Blackwood'' s in 1838. All that the American reader has to do with these quotations is to change the woi-d "grain" into "iron," "wool," "crockery" or whatever it is, and the Digitized by Microsoft® 136 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. Tory arguments of fifty years ago are immediately reprO' duced in the "Protection" reasoning of 1892 in the United States. Any person can recognize them in- stantly who reads the debates in Congress, or the edi' torials in our Pi-otectionist newspapers. The writer of the article from which the above quotation is taken, in- geniously hand-cuffs wages and rent' together, and pre- tends that they must rise and fall together, thus falsely pretending that the workingman is beneficially inter- ested in dear land and high rent, when the very oppo- site of the doctrine is true. He then says, "There would be no increase of supply, but we should get from foreign countries instead of raising it in England. That's all. " The echo of this exjjloded argument is re- peatedly heard in the United States, although the sound of it hfis long been dead in England. Instead of saying fields will be thrown out of cultivation we say furnaces will be "blown out," mills will be "stopped," and then the "foreigner" having destroyed our home production will raise his prices, so that l^y lowering the tariff we make only temporary cheapness, to be followed in the end by higher prices, which we pay to the "foreigner" instead of to our csf n people. The most subtle analysis could not convince the English of the fallacy of this argument. They would not be convinced except by practical demonstration; they laugh at it now. Mere speculative guesses were propounded by the Protectionists as though they were axioms that could not be disputed, For instance Blackwood'' &, in that same article, "The fundamental error of the opponents of the Corn-Laws on this point is that they suppose two things that can never co-exist, viz. , permanently reduced prices, and a permanently overflowing supply." This dog- Digitized by Microsoft® WAG12S. l3t hiatic mode of expression silenced many disputants by the sheer impudence of it. Forty-six years' experience has proven that permanent cheapness, and permanent supply can and do co-exist. That prices vary is true, for they are affected by a hundred accidents, but the cheapness of bread and meat in England has been per- manent ever since the repeal of the Corn-Laws, and the supply has been abundant and permanent. Besides, the ability 'to buy is all important ingredient of cheapness, and to increase this ability was one of the avowed ob- jects of the Free Traders. Mr. Cobden repeatedly said that the mere nominal price of an article was a second- ary consideration if the consumers of it were prosperous and had plenty of money to pay for it. It is undis- puted that the ration of food Enjoyed by the working- man of England is twice as large as it was fifty years ago. How does he get it? He buys it. What with? His wages. And this is a demonstration that the aboli- tion of the protective system was followed by higher wages, because the increased consumption shows in- creased ability to buy. Following the same train of reasoning the writer in Blackwood'' s goes on to say, "The impetus given to for- eign agriculture would immediately and considerably lower the price of foreign grain, while the same causes would in the same proportions lower that of British. The foreign grower would beat down the British and get a monopoly of the British market into his hands. " Let the reader substitute "American" for "British" in the above extract, and "manufactures" for "agricul- ture," and he will at once recognize a prominent figure in the tariff debate of 1892. The discarded English rags are patched and renovated, and soaped and brushed Digitized by Microsoft® 138 FREE TEADE STETTGGLB IN ENGLAND. until they look like new, and our statesmen wear t^ieni with benighted vanity and pride. Having thrown all the land of England out of cultivation, and thus terri- fied the farmers, the writer proceeds to scare the work- ingmen in towns by the spectre of "low wages." He says: "Could the manufacturing operatives or any clg-ss of laborers keep their money wages up to their present level if a permanent reduction in the price of the neces- saries of life had taken place? Nothing is clearer than that they could not. The money rate of wages wholly independent of the price of provisions from year to year is entirely regulated by it, other things being equal from ten years to ten years. If by the free im- portation of foreign grain the money price of it is re- duced one-half, the ultimate result will be that wages will fall one-half also. " It was not known in England at that time, although some people suspected it, that the actual reverse of this was the true doctrine of wages, and that in proportion to the cheapness of food, clothing, rent, furniture and essential comforts was the independence of the labor- ing man; and in proportion to that independence was his command over the hours of labor and the rate of wages. It was prophesied that in a condition of physical com- fort he could work less hours, and thus diminish competition in the labor market, and increase the rate of wages. In England a man might as well dispute the laws of Kepler now as this law, that in proportion to the dearness of home necessaries to the laborer, so is the hardness of his labor, and the length of his working day. The infallible authority among Protectionists is Adam Smith, whenever they find a paragraph written Digitized by Microsoft® WAGES. 139 by him which seems to lean toward their side. Pleased as a miner who has found a big nugget, this writer in Blackwood'' s B&idi, "Mr. Smith has long ago stated that the most profitable trade in every State is that which is carried on between the, town and the country, and that the home market for our manufact- ures is worth all foreign markets put together." This doctrine has many qualifications. Often a country ex- cels in manufactures which the native people do not use, or use to a limited extent, and then tTie rule fails. The people in a cold climate may excel greatly in the manufacture of an article which is used only in a hot climate, or like the watchmakers of Switzerland, they may excel in the manufacture of a luxury far in excess of the needs or means of their own people, and there also the rule fails. Again, the very condition of the doctrine is the prosperity of the home customer, and when that fails, the rule ceases. Under the strain of this test the doctrine broke down altogether in 1843. In that year the price of grain went so low as to greatly embarrass the farming community, and the reason was that their town customers had become too poor to buy bread enough to eat. Two years after this, in June, 1840, Blackwood'' s again referred to the Corn-Laws, and condemned the effort to abolish them. With a supercilious air of patronage to the workingmen, it affected to regard the most tremendous question that had appeared in English politics since the revolution of 1688, as a merely senti- mental difference between the Whigs and the Tories, or as the clamor of a set of demagogues to serve their per- sonal ambition. It pretended that the mighty matter of a people's food was a trifling affair in which the Digitized by Microsoft® 140 T^EKK TRADE STEUGGLB IN ENGLAND. workingmen and their families had little or no con- cern. It said: "With regard to the working classes we humbly conceive that their interest in this matter is of the slenderest possible description. The addi- tional cheapness of food which is promised them, would probably never be realized, and at any rate seems a boon of the most msignificant magnitude. If accompanied with a corresponding or more than a cor- responding decrease of wages, which it infallibly woujd be, its advantage would entirely be destroyed. But the cry of cheap bread has long ceased to operate as a charm. The workingmen are too well informed to be- lieve now that cheap bread is necessarily a boon to them .... Corn, we are told, is the standard of wages. If so, it is impossible that wages should not fall in amount in at least the same proportion as bread .... Cheap bread and cheap sugar mean, we believe, nothing less than lower wages, less prosperity, and in- creased competition of manual labor." The artful manner in which the folly and ignorance of the workingmen are complimented as wisdom and information, is worthy of all praise; especially as it came from a journal which defended the disfran- chisement of workingmen on the ground that they were too ignorant to vote. It would do credit to a first-class demagogue here. So also there was a credit- able display of cunning in the smooth encouragement given to the mischievous error about the law of wages which was misleading the workingmen of England at that time. They believed that wages was a cer- tain allowance given by employers at their own will, and that they established it on the quantity of food, clothing, and other comforts absolutely Digitized by Microsoft® WAGES. 141 necessary to enable the artizan to live and work; much as the Southern planter established the rations for his slaves. They believed that the employers were constantly watching to see how little the workingmen could subsist on, and that whenever they found they could do without something formerly enjoyed, wages would be lowered, because no longer necessary to buy that comfort, whatever it was.' To this mistake was largely due the improvidence of the workingmen. They thought that economy was a vice and a meanness that a workingman ought not to be guilty of, because it threatened the wages of his brother craftsmen. The theory was that when the masters found that the men could live on less, they would reduce their wages to the new standard of subsistence. The temperance movement in England was resisted by the workingmen on that principle. The brewers and publicans em- ployed good talkers among the workingmen to pro- claim that doctrine on the stump. They declared that the temperance movement was a- scheme of the masters to lower wages, that for centuries the absolute neces- sity of beer to strengthen the workingman had been considered in establishing the rate of wages, and that if it should be demonstrated that he could do with- out beer, that element in his wages would be taken away. -With loud scorn they would inquire, " Wot's a man without his beer? " and the answer would be a round of applause. For years a teetotaler was re- garded as a spiritless fellow willing to put wages in jeopardy. Those ignorant people were the men that Blackwood'' s was wheedling and flattering as "too well informed " to believe that cheap bread was a desirable thing. A touch of sadness falls upon us at the bare Digitized by Microsoft® 142 PKKK TKAPK STKr<5«LK IS KSGIASP. suspicion that the eiaftT article above quoted was per- haps -nrritten by the gsvat Kit North himself. Bnt the " low wages " delusion was not confined to the workingmen ; manv of the statesmea of the coumtrj- entertained it, as the debates in Parliament will show. Sir Robert Peel himself, in his memoirs, confesses that for a long time he wiis misled by it, as he was by other assumptions of the protection pleaders. He says: --I had adoptevi. at the early period of my public life, without, I fear, much serious reflec- tion, the opinion generally }>erYading at that time among men of all parties as to the justice and neivssity of protection to domestic sgriculture; they were the opinions of Sir H. Pamell, Mr. Ricaido, Lonl John Russell and Lord ^Itllvume, as well as the Pjike of Wellington, Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson,'' Neither was it proclaimed by the Protectionists alone: many of the Free Trade party conceded the principle that cheap food lowered w.-jges, but not so much, they said, as to conuterbalanoe the advantages of the cheap- ness. As far back as l>3-t ne ^dmbvrgh Jirrirv. a Free Trade advocate, in an article on the poems of EWueroT Elliott, just then published, which poems wen? chiefly devoted to a passionate condemnation of the Corn-Laws, said: -Mr. Ebenexer Elliott admits that, as a class, the peasant i< at present much worse off than the mechanic. The peasant would be worse off still, were a rei>eal of the Coru-Law>. by lessening a demand for his labor, to lower his waires or throw him out of employment. To whatever other objections the Corn-Laws may l>e exjH>se\'.. our temporarv facili- ties for the production of mar.ufaotnros have been so vast that it mav be doubted whether our manitfaotnrin»:' Digitized by Microsoft® WAIVES. 143 popiilation has hithm-to lost anything in real wages; or in employment from the addition made by the Corn- Laws to the prioe of bread." Afterward, The EJinhurgh BevUtc changed its opinion, and admitted that wages rose as prices fell ; and in eloquent criticism, which is as valuable in Amer- ica to-day as it was in England then, denounced "That barbarous commercial code which every day tends more and more to diminish our enjoyments, to misdi- rect our industry, to i"ender our trade hazardous, as well as unproductive, and. to divide society into hostile sec- tions. ... In time we shall feel the wickedness of exposing millions to privation in order to supply affluence to thousands, and, in time, the small class that governs us will discover that the permanence of its rule depends on its escaping the charge of selfish legis- lation." There was but one way to reach the minds of workingmen saturated with hereditary prejudices, jealous of all foreign rivaliy, suspicious of the "mastei-s" and densely ignorant of the laws of work and wages, of markets and of prices. That way was taken by the League. It was hard work to teach the abstract prin- ciples of political economy, or to show the ultimate ad- vantages of Free Trade. The surest way to reach the multitude was by the concrete argument of a big loaf of bread for a small sum of money. A big loaf was an object lesson they could easily understand, and when throughly learned it made even abstract lessons easy. It was easily shown that the laws for the -protection of native industry " actually excluded from England shiploads of cheap flour and meal and meat that wanted to come in ; that thereby scarcity was created by force Digitized by Microsoft® 144 TKBE TKADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. of law, and the obvious and intended effect of the scarcity was to increase the price of bread. ,In the Free Trade processions big loaves of bread, called Free Trade loaves, and small ones, called Protection loaves, ■were carried on jioles and exhibited at the meetings. It was thought even by the Free Traders that the dis- crepancy in the size of the loaves was a little exagger- ated, but this was considered pardonable at the time. The result of the Free Trade policy has proved, how- ever, that, considering the improved power of buying bread now possessed by the workingman, the discrep- ancy was not exaggerated at all. The big loaf argu- ment at last took fast hold of the workingmen in the towns, and, although they still clung to their sentimental politics,' and demanded radical measures of parlia- mentary reform, a majority of them became disciples aiM adherents of the League. There was clap-trap in this mode of argument, no doubt of it, but it was mathematical clap-trap, for the Free Traders proved by arithmetic how much the tariff increased the price of a barrel of flour; then it was easy to show by the rule of three what the size of a sixpenny loaf would be if the tax were taken from the flour of which it was made. The counter argument of "low wages" was weakened when Cobden showed that in the experience of the men he was talking to, wages did not rise with the rise in the price of bread. The Protectionists tried to explain this by saying that the law did not adjust itself to sud- den changes like those from year to year, but that "from ten years to ten years" it did. This was not convincing, and the argument lost ground. The Free Traders acted wisely in the very begin- oiing of the struggle by refusing to entangle them- Digitized by Microsoft® WAGES. 145 selves by any alliance with either of the ' ' two great parties" inside Parliament, or with the third great party, the unrepresented Chartists outside. They kept in view the one great object, the repeal of the Corn-Laws, and directed all of their energies to 'that. Between 1839 and 1844, the League had distributed nine mil- lion tracts among the people, and had furnished a Free Trade library to nearly every voter in the kingdom. This was Cobden's way of "bringing the truth home to a man." It cost a great deal of money, but the League had plenty. Cobden, Bright, and many orators of lesser note were continually engaged in addressing public meetings, and every part of England was can- vassed; not the manufacturing towns alone, but also the rural districts. In 1842, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright held meetings in many parts of Scotland, and they had little trouble in convincing the people of that country that the protective system was injurious to every busi- ness and to every industry there. Mr. Bright confessed that the people of Scotland understood political econ- omy much better than the people of England, and because of their superior intelligence and information a large proportion of them were Free Traders. The business depression and the poverty of the people, were, of course, potent arguments in the speeches of the leaders of the League. During the winter of 1842-43 the League and its literature were everywhere, and men who could not read were com- pelled to listen. Great meetings were held, and all the people in the towns were excited to a discussion of the great question. The Annual Register for 1843, re- ferring to the agitation, said: "Amidst the general stagnation and distress that prevailed, the Anti-Corn- 10- Digitized by Microsoft® 146 FBEE TRADE STRUGGLE IX EXGI-AXD. Law League forced themselves upon the public ear, and they failed not to avail themselves freely of the themes of depression and distress as irresistible argu- ments against the continuance of that system of pro- tection Tvhich they defied the Government with all its parliamentary majority to maintain.'' The excitement of the previous "year, instead of being quieted by the amended tariff of 1S42, and the modification of the sliding scale, had been increased, if possible, by those measures. The League took advantage of every vacan- cy that occurred in the House of Commons to arouse the public interest by putting up Free Trade candidates, and although they were generally beaten at the polls, because the majority of the citizens were disfranchised, they made it uncomfortably plain that popular opinion was in their favor although the voting majorities were generaHy against them. In the spring of 1843, a vacancy having occurred for Durham, Mr. Bright offered himself as a candidate, and although the show of hands was largely in his favor, he was defeated by Lord Dungannon, the protectionist candidate, by a ma- jority of 102 in a poll of 912 votes. In July, Lord Dungannon having . been unseated for "bribery, Mr. Bright offered himself again, and this time he was elected over Mr. Purvis, the protectionist candidate, by 4SS against 410. This, although a small matter in itself, was ominous of future disaster to the pro- tectionist cause. The landlords became alarmed and began to distrust the Tory Government itself, for some of the ministers had made use of reasons and dropped expressions in debate and elsewhere, which although purely abstract, and having no relation to any practical and immediate measures, were, after all, unorthodox. Digitized by Microsoft® WAGES. 147 The consequence was that they took up a weak defen- sive position, and gave the Free Traders all the advant- age of a very enthusiastic attack. By the autumn of 1843, the Free Trade agitation had reached immense proportions, and the Protectionists had almost ceased to contend against it in argument. Timid people now pretended to feel alarmed at its dimen- sions. They believed in the principle, but thought the League was carrying things too far. It was shaking society too much. The League was coarsely assailed by The Times and the Reviews, and some of the Tory papers called upon the Government to suppress it as a seditious and treasonable conspiracy. Lord Brougham, in the House of Lords, and Mr. Roebuck, in the House of Commons, both Free Traders, assailed the League with vehement anger. Its answer to all this denunciation was redoubled activity. Meetings were held in the agricultural districts right among the farm- ers, and Free Trade resolutions carried. At Bedford, Mr. Cobden maintained a six hours' debate with the farmers of that county, and at the end of it a Free Trade resolution was carried by more than two to one. This was the most disheartening fact of all. The Tory papers bitterly denounced their own men, because they had not the courage to meet Cobden and Bright in argument, and when they did meet them, confessed themselves defeated by Free Trade fallacies that might easily be answered. London was roused at last. The great halls were found quite insufficient for the Free Trade meetings. They would not hold a quarter of the multitudes that flocked to hear the Free Trade orators, so Drury Lane Theatre was engaged for the purpose. Petitions to Digitized by Microsoft® 148 FBBK TUADM HTUUriGLH IN lONdhANJ). Parliament asking for Free Trade were dinplayed at the street corners^ and signed by thousands of people. To emphasize the struggle a vacancy in rarliament for the city of London occurred in the fall of 1843. After a severe contest, Mr. i'attison, the Free Trade candidate, was elected over the Tory candidate, Mr. Baring, a nephew of Lord Ashhurton, and a man of great wealth and personill popularity. This was an omen of further disaster to the jtrotectionists, and although the pliysieal force of their majority in the House of Commons still remained intact, its moral vigor was visibly crumbling under the pressure of the League. Early in the contest the opponents of the Corn- Laws discovered that a mere struggle to obtain for the manufacturing "interest" an advantage over the agri- cultural "interest" in the protective legislation of the country would have no moral strength whatever. 'J^hey saw that in a competition to readjust the tariff on a basis more favorable for themselves, and loss favorable for landlords, their own arguments would be turned against them. The manufacturers soon dis(!ove red that their demand upon the agriciuiturists to surrender the privilege of extorting taxes from the {leophi must be accompanied by an offer to surr(!nd(!r their own fiower to do th? same thing. Altliougli some consented to this plan with I'el uctance, arjd maintained that the manufacturing iriter(!st should he " prot(!c,ted " in order to "diversify industry," and create a "honn! market" for the farmers, it was agr(!(!d that the only juHt and scientific reform was to equalize the privileges of all classes by a horizontal sweep-away of the whole pro- tective system, and that all duties on imports must be assessed and collected on the basis of "a tariff for rev- enue only." Digitized by Microsoft® WAGES. , 149 In accordance with that principle, the manufactur- ers of Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Derby, Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Glasgow, at their convention held on the 5th of July, 1839, declared "that this meeting, while it demands as an act of jus- tice the total and immediate repeal of all laws impos- ing duties upon, and restricting the importation of corn and other articles of subsistence, is prepared to resign all claims to protection on home manufactures, and to carry out to their fullest extent, both as affects agricult- ure and manufactures, the true and peaceful principles of Free Trade, by removing all existing obstacles to the unriBstricted interchange of industry and capital among nations." Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER X. EECIPEOCITY. The year 1844 opened brightly for Sir Robert Peel and his Government. There bad been a fair harvest, food was more abundant, trade and manufactures were reviving, the revenue receipts exceeded the estimates, and there was a hopeful feeling throughout the country. The improved appearance of public affairs, it was thought by many, had weakened the League. This may be doubted, but it had surely strengthened the ministry and enabled Sir Robert Peel to speak in an emphatic tone when he proclaimed the intention of the Government to maintain the "settlement" of 1842, and that no further alterations in the Corn-Laws would be made. The strength of the Government may have held men back from joining, the League or actively assisting it, because of the belief that the work was hopeless ; but, although the Free Trade agitation in Parliament may have been less vigorous than in the preceding year, the strength of it outside had not abated. On the 21st of February an immense Free Trade meeting was held at Covent Garden Theatre, at which Mr. O'Connell made the principal speech. The theatre was packed in every part, and thousands of peo- ple were crowded outside, unable to gain admission. Other meetings in different parts of the countrv were equally crowded and enthusiastic. Still, for all that, the ministers were not afraid to meet Parliament. Digitized by Microsoft® EECIPKOCITT. 151 They knew that their majority in the House of Com- mons was yet solid and invincible ; the Chancellor of the Exchequer could show a good budget, and they be- lieved that the conservative sentiment outside was quite strong enough to take care of the League. On the 1st day of February, 1844, the Queen opened Par- liament in person, and the speech from the throne con- tained this paragraph : "I congratulate you on the im- proved condition of several branches of the trade and manufactures of the country. I trust that the increased demand for labor has relieved, in a corresponding de- gree, many classes of my faithful subjects from suffer- ings and privations, which, at former periods, I have had occasion to deplore." As Sir Robert Peel walked down to the House of Commons to meet Parliament at the opening of the ses- sion of 1844, it was noticed that his eye was clear and bright, his step elastic, his bearing proud. The wearied look which he wore at the previous session was gone. His private letters written at this time show a revival of courage and a readiness, almost an eagerness, for debate. He was not afraid of the Free Traders now. He was forti- fied with a weapon of defense against them, which, curiously enough, they themselves had furnished him. The country was comparatively prosperous, as he had proclaimed in the speech from the throne. Less than two years had gone since he had yielded a slight experi- mental modification of the tariff, and the success of it had been greater than even the "theorists" had prophe- sied. The reduction of import duties had been followed by an increased revenue from imports. The modifica- tion of the Corn-Laws, slight as it was, and a good har- vest, had made bread cheaper, and to the utter con- Digitized by Microsoft® 152 FKEE TEADK STKIfGGLE IN ENGLAND. founding of the Protectionists, cheaper bread had been accompanied by higher wages. A small abatement of the protective System had been followed by increased manufacturing activity, capital had come forth from its hiding places, and was invested in farming, in trade, and in manufactures; labor was in demand, and the Prime Minister might properly have said, ' 'If last year I was individually responsible for the distress of the country, I am personally entitled this year to credit for its prosperity." The term prosperity here must be understood in a comparative sense only. There was poverty yet in the land, and hunger more than enough, but compared with the previous year the improvement was very great. Strangely enough, the success of the slight advance made by Peel toward Free Trade in the tariif of 1842, instead of stimulating him to proceed farther in the same direction made him hesitate, and finally halt, when to halt was to retreat. Help us to let well enough alone, was now the appeal of the minister to the House of Commons and the country. All the assaults of Cobden were parried by Peel with the Free Trade weapon he had borrowed from the League in 1842. By means of this, he said, I have improved the condition of the country; let us be content. The country recognized that the "better times" were due to the labors of the League, but was not gen- erous enough to say so. The action of the high-toned liberal papers was shuffling, compromising, and insin- cere. One of them, of great respectability- and im- mense circulation, speaking joyfully of the Queen's speech and its congratulations to the country, said "We express no opinion upon the effect of the speech Digitized by Microsoft® RECIPROCITY. 153 upon the present Corn-Law agitation— the League does not want more vigorous opponents or more vigorous support than are engaged for or against it at the pres- ent crisis." As if every cause does not want all the support it can get. Its excuse for not supporting the League was that the League was strong enough al- ready, and for not opposing it, that the enemies of the League were strong enough too. The truth, however, was that the liberal press was Protectionist in feeling, and afraid of change. The very paper from which the above extract is taken, in its first article for New Year's, 1844, in a rather passionate appeal to the Government concerning public affairs, and calling for all sorts of legislation in other directions, spoke thus timidly on the main question of the day, "Preserve the balance of power by sacrificing neither the commeroialist nor the agriculturist to the cry of party;" which was easily translated to mean this, "As to the tariff and Corn- Laws, do nothing." As water seeks its level, so does bread, if not hin- dered by artificial obstacles. No sooner did Sir Rob- ert Peel lift the legislative barriers a couple of inches, than provisions from the United States and Canada began to flow through the opening into England,- as appears by this interesting item which I quote from the Illustrated London JVews of January 20,' 1844. ' 'Some fresh importations of American and Colonial pro- visions advertised for sale on Thursday have excited con- siderable interest in the city. Samples were on view during the previous day at the ofiice of the brokers, and were inspected by several members of Parliament and gentlemen from the Board of Trade, Victualling depart- ment of the Navy etc, etc. In the American beef, pork, Digitized by Microsoft® 154 FEES TEADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. and cheese, there is an obvious improvement both in the selection of qualities, and the care manifested in curing. Not only are they well adapted for ship's stores, but they are well calculated to afford a whole- some and nutritious aliment to numbers of our working classes, who have seldom the felicity of tasting animal food of any description." Like the Chairman of the Board of Guardians pronouncing on the quality of pau- per soup, did the Illustrated London News in its lordly, way patronize American beef and pork and cheese as rather vulgar invaders that might be toler- ated for sailors and serf s, but . not to be put in com- parison for a moment with the beef and pork and " cheese of England. Yet those provisions from the fer- tile and vigorous Western world were literally contribu- tions from a son to his venerable mother, and without them Old England could not have lived in physical and moral health these fifty years gone by. And what a contradiction to the theoretical "beef -fed, and beer- drinking weaver," was the confession that "numbers of our working classes have seldom the felicity of tast- ing animal food of any description." In that last sen- tence the Illustrated London News unwittingly con- demned the Corn-Laws. Without stopping to consider any further who should have the credit of it, one thing is certain, the improved condition of the country gave the ministers a fii-mer grip on the Government, and when Mr. Hume and Lord John Russell, on the first day of the session, both complained that no reference to the Corn-Laws was made in the Queen's speech. Sir Robert Peel, feel- ing the full strength of his position, gave positive no- tice that no alteration would be made in the Corn-Laws. Digitized by Microsoft® EECIPEOCITY. 155 Old Hume, however, nothing daunted, moved as an amendment to the address in answer to the royal speech, "that the provision laws should be considered and dealt with." He was overwhelmed by a majority of no less than 186 votes, the exact figures being: For the amendment 49, against it 235. Here again the Whigs and Tories voted "solid" for Protection. As this book is written for American readers, and, as many of them are not acquainted with the somewhat intricate constitution of the English Parliament, a few words may not be out of place to explain why so many Lords have seats in the House of Commons. Briefly, then, all peers of the realm are lords, but all lords are not peers of the realm. All sons of Dukes and Marquises are "Lords" by courtesy, and the eldest sons of Dukes, Marquises and Earls are allowed by courtesy to bear the second titles of their fathers. Thus, the Marquis of Lome bears the second title of his father, the Duke of Argyle, but he is only a commoner for all that, and in his commission as Governor-General of Canada he is described as John Campbell, Esquire, commonly called the Marquis of Lome. Lord Randolph Churchill is only an esquire, although, being the youngest son of a Duke, he bears the title of Lord by courtesy. Therefore the,Lords so frequently men- tioned in the proceedings of the House of Commons are generally the younger sons of Dukes and Marquises or the eldest sons of Earls. Irish peers, also, not being peers of England, or of Great Britain, are eligible to seats in the House of Commons. Thus Lord Palmers- ston sat in that House until the day of his death, for he never was a peer of England, but of Ireland only. Some readers may be puzzled to understand how it happens Digitized by Microsoft® 156 FBEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. that, ill the beginning of this history, Lord Stanley- takes part in the debates in the House of Commons, and toward the latter, part of it appears in the House of Lords. The explanation is this : Lord Stanley was the eldest son of an Earl, and sat in the House of Commons, bearing, by courtesy, the second title of his father. During Peel's administration it was felt that the Tories needed a little more debating power in the House of Lords, and Lord Stanley was created a peer in his own right. It will thus be understood that where ' ' Lords " are mentioned in the proceedings of the House of Commons, they are Lords by courtesy only, or peers of Ireland. The first assault upon the tariff in the session of 1844 was an innocent question put by Mr. Pattison, the recently elected member for the city of London. Mr. Pattison inquired whether or not the sugar duties would be altered this session. Sir Robert Peel replied, "That is a question which I should have expected would have been asked by the youngest member of this house^for certainly nothing but the circumstance of a member being the youngest among us could justify such a question." As Mr. Pattison was a very great personage indeed, an elderly gentleman, member for the city of London, Govai'nor of the Bank of England, and a member of Parliament years ago, the House en- joyed Peel's banter very much, for Mr. Pattison, having just been elected to fill a vacancy, was in fact the youngest member of the House. As Peel was a very serious man, who seldom "chaffed" anybody, the incident served to show that he was in high spirits be- cause of the better appearance of public affairs, and the success of the measures he had adopted and passed Digitized by Microsoft® RECIPROCITY. 157 in 1842. But the sugar question was up again in a few days in such a shape that it oould not be jested out of court, but must be seriously discussed on its merits. It luay be a matter of surprise that, as there was no sugar grown in England, the English Parliament should so persistently exclude foreign sugar from England by a high protective tariff ; but the explanation is that the great sugar plantations of Jamaica and the other British "West Indies were mostly owned by Englishmen, and the high ttiriff was defended on the ground that it was our duty " to pi"oteet the industry of our own colonies." To accomplish this patriotic object, and to insure dear sugar to the English people, all foreign sugar was ex- cluded from British ports by a protecti\'e tariff amount- ing to 300 per cent ad va/o?\iit. On the 6th of March j\lr. Labouchere brought up the sugar question in a discussion of the commercial relations existing between Great Britain and Brazil. Mr. Labouchere had been a member of the Whig min- istry; he was well provided with facts, and he made an argument that greatly embarrassed the Government. The debate is worth study, because of 'the striking par- allel it shows between the commerce of England and Brazil in 1844 and that of the United States and Brazil in 1892. Mr. Labouchere showed the folly of the doc- trine that exports make nations rich and imports make them poor. The higliest duty levied on English goods bv the customs laws of Brazil was 15 per cent «f? crt- /()(•(«/, while the useful products of Brazil were excluded from English ports by a protective tariff amounting to prohibition. The result of this nonsense was that an Entrlish xessel having carried a cargo of English •voods to Brazil, and then exchanged them there for Digitized by Microsoft® 158 FREE TBADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. sugar, could not bring that sugar to England, but must take it to some tbird country and sell it there, return- ing home in ballast. The wisdom of sending ships out laden and bringing them back empty was as vehemently defended in the British Parliament in 1844 as it was in the American Parliament in 1892. Now, all the ports of Britain offer welcome to the wealth of Brazil. Her trade with Brazil is very great, while ours has become so contemptible that when our ambassador started for that country he was compelled to go to England in order to engage a passage to Rio Janeiro. Mr. Gladstone finding himself quite unable to answer Mr. Labouchere with any statesmanlike or economic reasons, fell back to philanthropic and humanitarian ground. He declared that the effect of lowering the duty on Brazilian sugar would be to en- courage the continuation of slavery in Brazil, and whatever the commercial advantage might be, they must not overlook the considerations of humanity. This was cant, so transparent that it imposed not on anybody, and Mr. Gladstone's embarrassed manner showed that it had not imposed on him. He easily defeated Mr. Labouchere by a majority of seventy-three. Early in the session Mr. Cobden gave notice of a motion for a special conamittee to inquire into the effects of import duties in their bearing upon tenant farmers and farm laborers. This was carrying the war into Africa; it was part of the aggressive policy of the League. The majority in Parliament had been con- tending that those duties were imposed for the "protec- 'tion" of fhose very classes whose condition Mr. Cobden proposed to inquire into. They dared jiot grant the motion, for they well knew that Cobden would bring a Digitized by Microsoft® EECIPEOCITY. 159 hatful of facts to demonstrate that every year the tenant farmer was sinking deeper into debt, and that the farm laborer was tottering on the very verge of starvation. ' 'I only seek for inquiry, " said Mr. Cobden, "and I want both sides to be heard." "Nothing would suit me better than for Lord Spencer and Lord D.ucie to be examined on the one side, and the Duke of Rich- mond and the Duke of Buckingham on the other." He then went on to show that every prediction about corn had formerly been uttered about wool, "but," he inquired, "is there any lack of mutton? Are all the sheep-dogs dead, and all the shepherds in the poor- house? So far from, it that when wool was at the highest price the largest quantity had been imported; when at the lowest price the smallest quantity." This apparent paradox he explained by showing that ability to buy is an important agent in fixing prices. He con- densed his explanation into the following sentence, "A high price from prosperity may be permanent, a high price from scarcity must always be precarious." This was new learning to the House of Commons, and many of the members were startled by the doctrine. Peel himself became very thoughtful under the lesson, and acknowledged afterward that the argument was new to him, and that it made a great impression upon him. Gladstone, too, looked very serious, for he was to answer Cobden. Then the orator turned upon the landlords with one of those fact-and-figure accusations that always made them tremble. He went right into the sanctuary of their order and smote the idol rent. "I can prove," he said, "that out of fifty -two shillings a quarter paid for wheat in the Lothians, twenty-six shillings goes to the landlord; and so it is likewise Digitized by Microsoft® 160 PEEB TRADE STKUGGLE IN ENGLAND. throughout England, half of what is eaten goes to the landlord." He concluded by pouring scornful satire upon the "home market" superstition. "You starve the agriculturists," he said, "jand then offer them to us as a valuable class of hom.e customers. " This speech is a conspicuous milestone on the Free Trade road. It had a great effect, and many protection- ists were unsettled by it. The Times, then strong Tory and Protectionist, a scornful critic and hater of Cpb- den, confessed its power, and said that Mr. Cobden had stated his case ' ' with great temper and modera- tion." It then lectured its own party with some asper- ity, and regretted that the Conservatives by their own neglect should have allowed the question of the condition of the agricultural class to fall into Mr. Cob- den's hands at all. Mr. Gladstone, in reply, declared that it was a " very able speech," and he complimented- Mr. Cobden on the deep impression it had evidently made upon the House. At the same time he ques- tioned the correctness of Mr. Cobden's calculations, and also the inferences he drew from them. He op- posed the motion on the ground that a select committee could do no practical good, while the mere appointing of it might have a paralyzing effect upon trade and revenue. It would alarm the agriculturists who would regard the success of the motion as indicating another attack upon their interests, and a change in the existing law. Mr. Gladstone spoke in the embarrassed manner of an advocate, who has a strong suspicion that the other side is right, and that he himself is wrong. He "questioned " and "doubted," but was afraid to go to the jury lest his doubts might be removed. "I will prove what I say," declared Cobden, "if you will Digitized by Microsoft® EECIPEOCITY. 161 grant the committee." "I don't tbink you can," said Gladstone, "and I will not grant the committee." The aim and effect of CobdenV argument was to show that whiles all the people were taxed for the bene- fit of agriculture, the men who did the Blowing, and the sowing, and the reaping, and the mowing, got none of the jirocecds, and that the luxurious landlords got it all. In "theory" the tax was a protection to industry, in practice it was a premium upon idleness. The precursor of our inverted American statesmen who advocate a tariff for protection with incidental revenue appeared in the person of a dull nobleman, Lord Pollington, who was of opinion that a tariff should not be im|io8ed for the purpose of raising i-evenue, but to insure our " independence of foreigners," and to give protection to our own producers. Mr. P. Scott maintained the principle of getting rich by taxing one another for the benefit of one another. He opposed the motion, and warned the manufacturers that they would sink themselves in sinking the agriculturists. In other words, if the manufacturers should cease to pay taxes to agriculturists, the^ latter would have no money with which to buy manufactured goods. Col. Wood thought he had made a good point against the Free Traders by mentioning the ease of .a bootmaker who was for a free trade in corn, but objected to a free trade in boots. The argument, however, counted against his own party, for it showed that the boot- maker was a protectionist, and that a selfish desire to promote our own interests at the expense of other peo- ple is the essential principle of the whole protective system. The bootmaker was willing that the law should make artificial high prices for the things he had Jl Digitized by Microsoft® 162 FKEB TKADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. to sell, but not for those that he must buy. He was a genuine j^rotectionist. Many other members partici- pated in the debate, and the Tories criticised the League -with great severity. Mr.- Newdigate charged the League with exciting the recent disturbances in the north, and its methods of agitation were bitterly con- demned. The League, however, refused to stand on the defensive, and Mr. Bright, replying to the accusa- tion that the League was exciting the people, admitted the fact, and promised that they would continue to do so. No evil, he said, had ever found redress until agi- tation had compelled it. Mr. Gladstone commanded the Protectionist forces, and he defeated Cobden by the triumphant majority of ninety-one — the Tory lucky number; for it was the exact majority that brought Peel into power in 1841. On the 19th of March the Free Trade question came up again i'n another shape. An attack was made by Mr. Rieardo on the ' ' reciprocity " excuse for the re- strictive system. This excuse had been offered by the Government many times of late. They said, "shall we open our ports to nations who close theirs against us?" "Can we safely reduce the tariff on French boots so long as France maintains a tariff against English stockings?" " Can we admit "American corn so long as the United States excludes English crock- ery?" This kind of argument had great weight, for it appealed to national prejudice, and suggested the tariff hostility of other nations. On this reasoning was built the doctrine that commerce between nations miist depend on treaty. The principle 6f it was that what- ever we imported was an injury to our own people, consequently the importation njust be forbidden, unless Digitized by Microsoft® EECIPEOCITY. 163 the nation whence it came would consent to inflict a counter-injury on itself by importing something of ours in return. Mr. Ricardo made an assault upon the whole "reciprocity" theory as a useless and antiquated mistake. He moved an address to the Crown praying ' ' that the principle of reciprocity might not be insisted on in our conimercial negotiations, nor in the regulation of our customs duties." He showed the inutility of all the recent commercial diplomacy of England, and he contended that nations could much easier obtain desira- ble commercial objects by judicious legislation regard- ing their own imports rather than by intricate negotia- tions with other nations as to exports. He begged Sir Robert Peel not to continue a protective system in- jurious to the people, ip the expectation that other nations might pay them for relaxing it. Mr. Ewart seconded the motion, and said that it was idle to wait until foreign governments should offer to purchase a raitigation of the English restrictive system, and that the time had come when the Government must adopt the principle recommended in the motion of Mr. Ricardo. Once more Mr. Gladstone was chosen to answer the Free Traders. He opposed the motion, and declared that the principle of it was far too broad and sweeping. He maintained that there was an economic and philo- sophical distinction between duties for revenue and duties for protection, and that so long as that distinction re- mained foreign commerce must largely depend on treaty concessions regarding imports. The essence of Mr. Gladstone's argument was that so long as it is wise to exclude the products of a foreign nation by a tariff levied for the protection of our own people against the compe- Digitized by Microsoft® 164 FEEB TRADE STEtJGGLE IN^ ENGLAND. tition of those products, it must be- unwise to admit them unless- that nation will pay for their adm^ission by a corresponding concession in regard to our productions; and that those mutual concessions must be made and guaranteed by treaty. Under those circumstances, he said, that it was not wise to fetter the Government by an abstract declaration. Lord Howick answered Mr. Gladstone. He was the son of Earl Grey, the Prime Minister who carried the Reform Bill of 1832. Judging by the debates in Parliament, Lord Howick appears to have had a mental grasp of economic principles quite unusual in an English nobleman. He regarded the proposition as a practical, and not an abstract one. He said, ' ' the word 'abstract' in the government sense of it, seems to mean some- thing that is right in itself, but inconvenient to certain interests too strong to be offended by ministers. They have not yet shaken off the old mercantile theory, that the only valuable trade of a country consisted in her exports, whereas, in truth, her imports formed the most advantageous part of her commerce." Turning to Mr. Gladstone, Lord Howick said, "You ought to consider at once, and without reference to foreign countries, the means of reducing your import duties; and if foreign countries neglect to follow your example, their own commercial loss will be their punishment." So little was the principle contended for understood at that time, and so small was the interest in it, that the House was counted' out in the middle of the. debate, forty members not being present. The doctrine of Reciprocity is a political makeshift, ready for service on either side. It is a " Jack in the middle" tilting impartially the see-saw plank with Pro- Digitized by Microsoft® EECIPEOCITY. , 165 tection on one end and Free Trade on th.e other. It is plausible as a tin peddler, and patriotic as the spread eagle. In America it is used by Mr. Blaine as a con- cession to Free Trade; and in England by Lord Salis- bury as a sop to Protection. Thackeray makes fun of it in the Book of Snobs, where he describes the use made of it by Mr. Jawkins at the "No Surrender" Club: "As I came into the coffee room at the 'No Surrender' old Jawkins was holding out to a lot of men, who were yawning as usual. There he stood waving the Stand- ard and swaggering before the fire. 'What,' says he, 'did I tell Peel last year? If you touch the Corn-Laws, you touch the Sugar Question; if you touch the sugar, "you touch the tea. I am no monopolist. I am a lib- eral man, but I cannot forget that I stand on the brink of a precipice; and if we are to have Free Trade, give me Reciprocity. ' " But old Mr. Jawkins never became Secretary of State. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER XI. AT THE ZENITH. The moral power of tte League in Parliament was shown in the June debate on the annual motion of Mr. Villiers for a total repeal of the Corn-Laws, and the physical power of the administration was shown in the vote upon the motion. It was as follows: " That it is in evidence before this House that a large propor- tion of her Majesty's subjects are insufficiently provided with the first necessaries of life; that nevertheless a' Corn-Law is in force which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its abundance; that any such re- striction is indefensible in principle, injurious in opera- tion, and ought to be abolished." To that motion Mr. Ferrand offered this amendment: "That it is in evidence before this House that a large proportion of her Majesty's subjects are insufficiently provided with the first necessaries of life; that although a Corn-Law is in force which protects the supply of food produced by British capital and native industry, and thereby increases its abundance, whilst it lessens com- petition in the markets of labor ; nevertheless, ma- chinery has for many years lessened among the working classes the means of purchasing the same, and that such Corn-Law, having for its object the protection of Brit- ish capital, and the encouragement of native labor, ought not to be abolished." This amendment is now looked upon in England as a Digitized by Microsoft® AT THE ZENITH. 167 curiosity, and people gaze upon it as they do upon the plesiosaurus or some other skeleton from the antedilu- vian world. We exhume it merely to show what fantas- tic doctrines British statesmen and members of Parlia- ment believed in forty-seven years ago; and the amazing fact remains, that every bit of this crazy amendment, except the childish complaint against machinery, is orthodox Protection doctrine in the United States to- day. The obvious u.ntruth that the exclusion of wheat, nails, or cloth from a country increases the abundance within that country of wheat, nails, and cloth, is as vig- orously asserted by the protectionist party in America now as it was by Mr. Perrand in the English Parlia- ment forty-seven years ago. How familiar, too, is that hollow ding dong "Protection of British capital, and encouragement of native labor." There is also a large number of the American Protectionist party among the workingmen who believe in the whole amendment, and who regard the machinery dragon with superstitious dread as Mj-. Perrand regarded it in England. This debate was notable for several reasons. During its progress the Whigs, in the picturesque lan- guage of American politics, " climbed on to the fence," and they stayed there for a year, Lord John Russell declaring as he led the way, that he could not vote to remove all protection, and he was not in favor of the existing law. Mr. Miles, a radical Tory, called upon the country gentlemen to listen to no compromise, but to maintain the law as it stood. This debate revealed a more important fact, which was, that the politics of the country was no longer a contest for oflBce. between the Whigs on the one side and the Tories on the other, but was a life and death struggle between the protec- Digitized by Microsoft® 168 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. tionist majority inside Parliament, and the League out- side. It was significant that many of the Tories, in- stead of directing their arguments to the question before the House, spent their time in criticising the Leagjae and denouncing its methods. Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone were the chief speakers on the Protection side. Mr. Gladstone claimed a longer trial for the existing law. He contended that the experience of its operation had fully vindicated the statesmanship of the Government, and had realized all their expectations. He condemned the agitation of the League as productive of the most mischievous conse- quences, and declared that if Parliament continued to argue the question it would unsettle business, and be injurious to every interest in the country, and especially to the public credit. Amid great cheering from the Tory side, he claimed stability for the decisions of Parliament, and trusted that the House would not dis- turb the settlement that had been arrived at after a fair examination and adjustment of conflicting interests, and which adjustment -had been put into law by the com- promise measures of 1842. In parrot-like imitation, our American statesmen at Washington, defending the McKinley bill of 1892, repeat Mr. Gladstone's plea for the Peel bill of 1842. "Ceaseto agitate the Tariff question" they implore, ' ' until the Mc- Kinley bill has had a larger trial; wait for a few years and see how it will work. ' Tread softly, and speak low,' or you will unsettle business, and injure the public credit. This is the best adjustment we could make of conflict- ing interests. Stare decisis, and preserve the compro- mise, leaving the stolen goods in our possession, while you wait." Digitized by Microsoft® AT THE ZENITH. 169 Lord Howick was in favor of the motion. Re- ferring to the unpleasant fact that the men who profited by the'Corn-Laws were members of both houses of the legislature, he said, "The root of good government is sapped away when it is once discovered that those in whom political power is centered are perverting it to their own pu:;poses. When the conviction seizes the people'that the Corn-Laws exist only for the few, I warn you that the days of the law are numbered. The discontent of the people is the result of class legislation; that is what they say, and I think they are right." Captain Layard made a strong speech in favor of the resolution. In the course of it he gave an amusing ill ^stration of the protective system. He said that when he was in China he had been shocked at the bar- barous custom of contracting the feet of the children. Expressing to some Chinese gentlemen of his acquaint- ance his surprise at the continuance of it, they apolo- gized for it by explaining that there were certain old women who made their living by binding and contract- ing those children's feet, and that the welfare of the oJ.d women required the maintenance of the practice. Mr. Milner Gibson defended the League. That there might be no misunderstanding of its objects he declared that it sought Free Trade not only in corn but in everything. He quoted from Paley that restraint of trade is an evil per se, and that the burthen of the argument in each particular case is on him by whom the restraint is defended. Those who interfered with the freedom of exchange were bound to show the advantages of their theories. In answer to the ' 'home market" argument Mr. Gibson, asked this question, "Do English purchasers give more for Manchester Digitized by Microsoft® 170 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. cotton goods than the American purchaser gives? If not, what is the advantage of the home market to the Manchester man?" It may be a little humiliating to the English aristoc- racy, but the fact ought to be mentioned that the stupidest men that figured in Parliament were lords.. In a debate where Peel, Gladstone, Cobden, Bright, Villiers, Gibson, and men of that character took part, it was extremely comical to see a lord jump up as Lord Rendlesham did, and maintain that high rents were an element of national prosperity, and ' that the fall of prices which would reduce rents would lower profits and wages. The rate of wages was regulated by' the price of corn. To reduce wages he said was the .object of the motion, alid the purpose of the League. Of course it is equally humiliating to Americans that the same argument is repeated in the Senate and in the House of Representatives at Washington, but there is the differ- ence between the cases that whereas Lord Rendlesham " ' i" not know any better, our American statesmen do. ivir. Cobden having indorsed the broad platform just laid down by Mr. Gibson, reminded the House that it was not the League that was on trial, but the law. He said, " You cannot put down the League by calling names, nor by such childish displays as have been seen to-night. It was said that the agriculturists could not meet taxation without protection, but if the manufact- urers were therefore to pay the taxes of the landlords who were to pay the taxes of the manufacturers, and how were you to requite those classes whp are neither landlords nor farmers nor manufacturers ?" "I am for Free Trade in everything," said Mr. Cobden, " and if the protection on corn is destroyed, the protection on Digitized by Microsoft® AT THE ZENITH. 171 everything else will break down with it." Then pointing straight at the seats where sat the ministers, he said, "The Treasury bench has evaded the question ; Lord Stanley has never met it, and I now challenge him to satisfy the Lancashire manufacturers of the justice of Protection." As Lord Stanley's father owned a large part of Lancashire, and derived enormous revenues from his possessions there, this challenge was one of those ad hominem thrusts in which Cobden was more skillful than any other man in Parliament. Lord Stanley did not reply. Sir Robert Peel then rose to answer Cobden. He accepted the broad issue presented by Miluer Gibson, and agreed that the repeal of the protective duties upon corn meant the withdrawal of protection from manu- factures, and from shipping too. This he said would be productive of disaster to the country, and of almost certain ruin to Ireland. He made some amusement, and was loudly cheered when he pointed to the empty bench on the front opposition side where Lord John Russell and the Whig leaders usually sat. He criti- cised Lord John Russell's course in declining to vote,' and taunted the Whigs with dodging the question. Sir Robert adopted a rather, exultant manner toward the L'eague, and said that their mitigated tone indicated that they felt that they had outstripped the feelings of the people, and could no longer stand upon the ground they had so imprudently attempted to occupy. He de- ^ clared himself in favor of Protection, not for the sake of the landlords, but 'from a conviction of the evils which the removal of prohibition would inflict upon the general interests of the country, domestic and col- onial. He contended that the present law had worked Digitized by Microsoft® 172 FEBE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. well, and should have a further trial. Amid uproarious cheering from the "country gentlemen," he declared, that it was the intention of the Government to adhere to the present law. There was a fatal weakness in his argument, and he gave away his party and his case to- gether when he said that he would not contest the prin- ciples of Mr. Villiers in the abstract, "for they might in the abstract be correct, and justified by philosophical considerations." The Tories did not worry themselves over the moral condemnation of "Protection" contained in those ad- missions. All they cared about was the promise of the Prime Minister that monopoly should not be disturbed. They were so exultant that when Mr. Bright rose to address the House they listened to him with much im- patience, and finally coughed him down. Mr. Villiers in closing the debate made a remarkable prediction. After referring to the fact that nobody had dared to controvert his arguments, he told the "country gentle- men," who cheered the Prime Minister so vigorously, that Sir Robert Peel had made a similar speech to -them in 1839, and had afterward thrown them over- board: The same thing would happen again. This prophecy was literally fulfilled within two years. The motion was lost by 328 against 124, a stolid majority of 204, enough to dishearten even Cobden, whose high spirits had never failed him since the organization of the League. When the vote was taken at the close of the great debate of 1844, the dawn of the summer day was just peeping through the windows of the House of Com- mons. It was greeted by the boisterous cheers of the protectionist majority, stimulated not only by victory, Digitized by Microsoft® AT THE ZENITH. 173 but by wine. Those cheers smote Cobden like a blow. Five years of incessant labor night and day had told heavily upon him, and mind and body needed rest together. There was another man there, however, who was smitten harder than Cob- den, upon whose conscience this noisy cheering struck with a mocking sound. This was the great minister who had led the exultant majority to victory. He, and he alone, heard in those cheers the knell of the noisy monopoly that was making them. He knew that the flushed men he commended that night were utterly besotted and selfish; that the wants of the people were nothing to them, so long as they could en-joy the unjust profits of "Protection." He knew that if they had constituted the "landed interest" in Canaan at the time of the dearth, they would have demanded a high protective tariff against the "pauper" corn of Egypt, and the rich alluvium of the Nile. In the argument he made, for them he knew that he was wrong. The disputant who concedes that the position of his adver- sary is "correct in the abstract and justified by philo- sophical considerations," knows that he hirnself is in a false position; and if he is a conscientious man it will not take him long to reach the platform where his ad- versary stands. While Cobden sat gazing at the dense majority of 204, and believing it to be solid, Peel knew that it yas hollow; while Cobden was fearful that the League had failed. Peel knew that it had succeeded; that it was fast becoming irresistible; that ere long it would conquer all opposition, and that not even the British monarchy could safely stand in its way. We all know now, what nobody knew then, that the only arguments that made Digitized by Microsoft® 174 FEEB TEADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. any impression upon Peel in that debate were not those of his own party, but only those contained in the speeches of Cobden, Villiers, Bright, and Gibson. In this hour of its triumph the Tory chieftain knew that the end of "Protection" was at hand. Mr. Morley, in his "Life of Cobden," describes the struggle made by the Free Traders that night as a "very hollow performance." The correctness of that opinion may be doubted. It is based on the serious physical defeat inflicted that night upon the Free Traders, and the air of superiority and conquest as- sumed by the Protectionists. These airs were largely affectation and assumption, for they knew that the moral triumph of the debate was not on their side. The sneer of Mr. Gladstone that " the League is a thing of no practical moment now, its parade and ceremonial are the most important parts of it," was merely a bit of sar- castic tinsel ornamenting a " very hollow " defense of the protective system. He certainly was toq wise to believe it. The fact that Mr. Gladstone and the Tories wandered from the question to attack the League is proof that they were overmatched in argument, and surely a ' ' hollow performance " would not make the Prime Min- ister concede that his opponents had on their side all the philosophy of the question. Milner Gibson was very strong that night. He planted himself on the solid rock of the Creator's grand design, and man's adaptation to it. He declared that to helij one another, to be friends with one another, and to trade with one another, is the very law of human civilization ; and he demanded that those who imposed restraints upon trade should give good reasons why. How did the Tories answer him ? Why, they said Digitized by Microsoft® AT THE ZENITH. 175 they had enjoyed protection so long that it had become "vested," an inheritance in fee simple, absolute. In other words, they contended that a wrong that had ex- isted for a long time became, at last, a right. But Mr. Gibson showed that no length of time xjould sanctify a wrong, and that the privilege of the landlords had never been a quiet possession and undisturbed enjoy- ment ; that it had always been protested against, and could never rij)en into a good title. How did Peel answer him ? By advancing the pop- ular American mistake that "Protection" is a system in which all parties are interested ; that it had become woven into the political organization of the country, and that it gave to all industries an equal and mutual assistance ; that the agriculturists were interested in " protection " to manufacturers ; that the manufacturv ers were interested in " protection " to agriculture, and that both of them were interested in "protection" to shipping and commerce, and that all must stand or fall together, and that although the motion was only aimed at corn, yet, if protection should be withdrawn .from that, it must be withdrawn from everything else, which would be' disastrous to the country. But Mr. Cobden. showed in that very debate that there cannot be any such thing as universal protection, because, if every., interest in the community is protected equally, then nobody is protected at all. . Protection being a tax levied for the benefit of certain trades and occupations, somebody has to pay it, or the object of it fails. To form ourselves into a circle, and each man take a tax from the pocket of his neighbor on the right and drop it into the pocket of his neighbor on the left, does no good because, when the starting place is reached again, no-, body has made anything at all. Digitized by Microsoft® 176 FKBE TEADE STEU'GGLE IN EN&LAND. Shortly after this debate Parliament 'adjourned, and did not meet again until February, 1845. The temper- ament of the Free Traders was not of a character to remain despondent long, and, besides, there was no occasion for discouragement. The confession of the Prime Minister that Free Trade principles were right in the abstract had a great effect outside the walls of Parliament. Many men thought that if that were true they might possibly be wise in the actual also. During the recess there were great accessions to the League. To some people who looked only on the surface of affairs, it seemed as if there was a lull in the Corn-Law agitation, and that the better times had deprived the League of its strength. But the League might well claim, and did claim, that the improved condition of the country was due to the modification of the protect- ive system in the tariff of 1842, and that if the coun- try should discard "Protection" altogether, the good times would be better still. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER XII. A SURPLUS REVENUE. One element of the Tory glorification in the session of 1844 was the good looking budget which the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer was able to show; and there was-an immense crowd in the House of Commons on the 29th of April to hear his financial statement. The credit of the country, too, had been improving under Sir Robert Peel's administration. In April, 1844, the Government three-per-cents sold at par, for the first time since the year 1749, and the revenues for the year showed a surplus instead of a deficiency. There was an air of excnsable exultation about Mr. Goulburn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he laid his an- nual balance-sheet upon the table of the House of Commons, for the scrutiny of Parliament and the country. He had a surplus in the treasury of about fifteen million dollars, and the manner in which he proposed to deal with it is well worthy the examination of American statesmen, whenever they have also to solve the problem of a surplus revenue. Although Mr. Goulburn was a high Tory and a protectionist, it never occurred to him that the wise thing would be to waste the surplus revenue in order to preserve the system of tarifE taxation; that the duty of the party in power was to rob the exchequer, and invent schemes of bounty and loot, in order to absorb the surplus, and thus remove the reason for an Digitized by Microsoft® 178 FEEB TRADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. amendment of the tarifE. Strangely enough, the last thing that occurs to the mind of an American states- man under those circumstances, was the first thing that occurred to the English minister; and surplus revenue being only surplus taxation in visible form he accompanied his budget with a plan to reduce tariff taxation to the amount of the surplus. He also put his reductions where they would do the most good, chiefly on the necessaries of life, and the raw materials of manufactures. He proposed to reduce the tariff on coffee four cents per pound, and he made an experi- mental advance toward a "free breakfast table" by re- ducing the duty oh sugar. He put vinegar on the free list. There were fools who sneered at this, and laughed at " cheap pickles," but Mr. Goulburn was not think- ing of pickles at all. Vinegar was largely used in manufactures, especially in calico printing, and that's what he was thinking of. He made a reduction of seven shillings per cwt. on currants. To some persons this may seem like relieving the tax on luxuries; but those who know that plum-pudding is not a luxury to an Englishman, but one of the necessaries of life, will see in a moment the value of this reduction. In the manufacture of a genuine dyspeptic, indigestible plum- pudding, currants are only secondary in importance to plums themselves. The most important article, however, which Mr. Goulburn proposed to strike out of the tariff was wool. The duty on this he would abolish altogether. The plan of encouraging' " sheep husbandry" by a high tariff on wool had failed, while it had put the masses of the people on half rations of clothing, and had taken away from them the comfort of carpets altogether. Digitized by Microsoft® A SUEPLUS EBVENTTB. 179 There were plenty of sentimental patriots who still maintained the principle of protecting the high-toned and expensive sheep of Old England from the competition of the " pauper " sheep of the United States and Brazil; but their theories had almost passed out of the practical statesmanship of the country. The spasmodical high prices made by the tariff on wool could not be perma- nent, because they reacted on the demand by a rule as rigid as the Rule of Three, that customers decrease as prices rise. They merely made woolen clothes a luxury for the rich, and drove the mid- dle classes and the working classes to the wearing of rags, cotton, and shoddy. The attempt to make high prices on wool by law, and keep them up, had proved as futile as would an act of Parliament prescribing how many pounds of wool a ram should wear in his overcoat. The chief defect of Mr. Goul- burn's plan was that in reducing the duties on sugar he had preserved the protective discrimination in favor of the sugar of the British colonies. He gave the old excuse for this, and said that his object was to prevent sugar, ' ' the produce of countries tainted with slavery, from being imported into Great Britain and Ireland." Lord John Russell ridiculed this pretension, and said, " Surely it is very new to erect a pulpit in the custom house, and convert all the tide waiters and appraisers into abolition preachers." It seems a little foolish now, but there were many good men in England, and wise men, too, men like Dr. Lushington and Mr. O'Connell, w]jo long believed that the commercial code of Britain might be made to do missionary work among the heathen; and that it might be "so adjusted" as to reward good nations and punish bad ones. Lord Digitized by Microsoft® 180 FEEB TEADB STRUGGLE. IN ENGLAND. John Russell pointed out the inconsistency of Mr: Goulburn, who was discouraging slavery in Brazil by an abolition discrimination against her sugar, and en- couraging it by a pro-slavery reduction in favor of her coffee. He bantered Sir Robert Peel a little about his tariff of 1842, wherein he had applied the principle of "buying in the cheapest market" to onion seed, spices and herrings, and he hoped that the time was not far dis- tant when he would apply it to the essential food of the people. These criticisms were not very serious. They fell harmless on a public ledger that showed a favorable balance, and ,the ' ' noble Lord " himself admitted in conclusion that nothing was proposed by Mr. Goulburn which was likely to be very dangerous to the financial interests of the country. There was no moral strength in Lord John Russell's criticisni, for he himself was a protectionist to the extent of demanding a tariff tax amounting to eight shillings a quarter on the "essential food " of the people. Between him and Peel it was merely a quarrel about exjsedients. Lord John Russell claiming that his protection scheme was better than Peel's. The year 1845 opened favorably for the Government and the people. Affairs both foreign and domestic looked bright and promising; and the tone of the press generally was cheerful and encouraging. A non- partisan paper of great influence, in reviewing the past year, said, " As a nation, we have been prosperous; peace and plenty have blessed the land, and beneath their happy influence commerce has flourished. Nearly every branch of industry has been employed ; the revenue has increased; and the abundance of capital seeking for investment created a competition that Digitized by Microsoft® A SXIRPLUS REVENUE. ' 181 enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dictate terms to the public creditor." The Annual Register, speaking at the end of the year, described the beginning of it thus, "The commencement of the year 1845 may be described as presenting on the whole a more than usually prosperous state of affairs. The harvest had been a productive one, trade was brisk, the manufactur- ing classes well employed. The revenue gave symptoms of continual advance. The question of the Corn-Laws formed the greatest exception to unanimity, the con- tinued exertions of the Anti-Corn-Law League still occasioning disquiet to the agricultural interest." Again th6 Government was confronted with the knotty problem of a " surplus revenue" ; and again the Ministers must determine what to do with it. The problem was not an easy one to solve, on account of the rivalry of " interests," each clamoring to be favored in the anticipated reduction of taxation. As Sir Robert Peel had obtained from Parliament in 1842 the concession of an income tax to supply the temporary deficiency of the revenue for that year; and as it had been granted for three years only, the people who paid it naturally insisted that as the three years was about to expire, and there was a surplus in the treasury, the income tax should cease; but Sir Robert Peel had already made up his mind that it was a just tax, and that he would continue it three years longer. Strangely enough, although he was still the leader of the Protec- tionist party, he retained the income tax for Free Trade reasons. He had noticed that the protective import duties were a far greater tax upon the people and their industries than the amount that went into the treasury, and he had observed that the income tax relieved this Digitized by Microsoft® 182 T'EBE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. burden in proportion to the amount it yielded; therefore what he had obtained in 1842 as a mere expedient, he determined in 1845 to keep on principle. Although nobody knew anything about it, an early suspicion was abroad that the income tax would not be repealed ; and as it was known from the quarterly returns of the treasury, that there was a surplus, the ' ' interests " imrhediately began to agitate, each for a re- mission of the tax that pressed upon itself. The Prime Minister was overwhelmed with letters of counsel, advising him what duties ought to be lowered, and what ought to be abolished. The agricultural "interests" insisted on the repeal of the malt tax, which pressed heavily upon them. The glass-makers declared that the window tax ought to be abolishfed, because it was an unjust burden upon tljeir industry. The glaziers went with them thus far, and a little farther; they required not only the repeal of the window tax, but also the removal of the protective tariff on glass ; and right there, at the forks of the road, the glaziers and the glass-makers parted company. The grocery " interest" wanted a reduction of the duties on tea and coffee and sugar, for they had poticed that the slight reduction of duty on those articles made by the tariff of 1842 had greatly increased their business. Naturally enough, every "interest" wanted its own special bur- dens removed ; and the Government found that it was more embarrassing to deal with a surplus than to supply a deficiency. Mr. James W. Grimes, a Protectionist Whig, was United States Senator from Iowa during the war; and in 1861, when it became necessary to adapt our fiscal system to the exigencies of the hour, and when the Digitized by Microsoft® A STIEPLUS EBVElSrUE. 183 Confederate flag on Munson's Hill could be seen from the -windows of the Capitol, he noticed that the pro- tected "interests," greedy and selfish, raided Washing- ton, demanding that they, and not the nation, be con- sidered in the preparation of the new tariff; they cared nothing whether it produced any revenue for the country or not, so that it produced revenue for them. Their eager avarice was an object lesson from which Mr. Grimes learned that the protective system was utterly unpatri- otic, and he thought that as it was morally wrong, it could not be politically right. Subsequent study and observation confirmed his doubts, and he became the advocate and defender of a radical Free Trade policy. No doubt a similar experience had great influence in the conversion of Sir Robert Peel, for he saw in the swinish competition of the "interests" in 1845, what he must have seen in preparing the tariff of 1842, that a pro- tective system, is in the nature of it unpatriotic, because the beneficiaries of it openly declare themselves jealous of the country, and insist that any revenue derived by the Government from the tariff is unjustly taken from the protected interests, and that they ought to have it all. Our own American protected classes now say with as much effrontery as Blackwood'' s Magazine said long ago, "Duties for revenue never formed any part of the restrictive system, and they were never considered by any one as anything but necessary evils." Lord Beaconsfield, in his biography of Lord George Bentinck, expresses the opinion that the improved con- dition of the country in 1845 had rendered the League powerless to disturb the administration, and that Sir Robert Peel might have defied it if the bad harvest had not come; and that his government could have stood Digitized by Microsoft® 184 FEEE TEADB STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. against even "the persuasive ingenuity of Cobden." But this is a superficial view of the matter, and is the opinion of the most spiteful Protectionist then in Parlia- ment, every one of whose predictions was falsified by the event. The agitation may not have been so bois- terous on the surface, but it was deeper down. The crowded meetings at Covent Garden Theatre showed that the League was still formidable; and a Ladies' Bazaar held there in the spring of 1845, netted over a hundred thousand dollars to the funds of the League. But the most convincing proof of all was furnished by Sir Robert Peel himself, as soon as Parliament, con- vened. When the Queen opened Parliament in Febru- ary, 1845, she said: " Increased activity pervades almost every branch of manufacture. Trade and commerce have been extended at home and abroad I congratulate you on the success of the measures, which, three years since, were adopted by Parliament for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in the pub- lic revenue The act which passed at that time for imposing a tax ujaon income will shortly expire. It will be for you in your wisdom to determine whether it may not be expedient to continue its opera- tion for a further period." Those remarks indicated that the revenue reform policy was to be persevered in, and they gave positive notice to the country that the income tax was not to be repealed. Scarcely had the usual address in answer to the royal speech been moved and seconded in the House of Lords, when up rose the Duke of Richmond, and began to plead like a mendicant for the "agricultural classes." These were the very " classes " that had been "protected" by the onerous taxation of other "classes" Digitized by Microsoft® A SURPLUS EEVENUB. 185 for many years; and now tliey came to Parliament ask- ing for charity. This duke who was passing the hat around for himself and some other dukes, and pretend- ing to be an "agriculturist" in distress, owned more than 250,000 acres of land in England and Scotland. He had a palace in the loveliest and most fertile part of England, and it took ten miles of wall to inclose the park, around his mansion. To keep up the style and extravagance of a prince, he impoverished his tenants, and then asked Parliament to relieve them at the cost of other people. To maintain high rents, and a high tarifE, he would subject his fellow-citizens by sentence of the legislature to hunger and privation. He would m.aintain the Corn-Laws at any cost, although as Mr. Justin McCarthy says in his History of our own Times, "The Corn-Laws, as all the world now admits, were a cruel burden on the poor and the working classes of England." In the debate on the Address in answer to the Royal speech, some of the "landed gentry" talked in the House of Commons, in the tone adopted by the Duke of Richmond in the House of Lords, and they were severely stung by Lord John Russell, who, in criticis- ing the royal speech because it said nothing about the Corn-Laws, declared that ' ' Protection was the bane of agriculture, rather than its support." This caused Mr. Miles to ask him, "Why, if he thought so, he had pro- posed a protective duty of eight shillings a quarter upon corn? Had he found it convenient to alter his views, and ally himself with the League? From the tenor of his remarks, it looked as if the noble Lord had been suddenly converted to the principles of that organiza- tion." This was a fair hit, for his Lordship was not yet ready to join the League. Digitized by Microsoft® 186 FEBE TRADE STEUGGLB IN ENGLAND. It is not certain that Lord John Russell was con- templating any Free Trade movement, but it is highly probable that Peel suspected him, and determined to anticipate him; for in the debate on the Address, he announced, that contrary to the usual precedents, he -would not wait until April or May to make his financial statement, but would present it to the House early in the following week. This, of course, .com- pelled Lord John Russell to postpone his contemplated movement, whatever it might be. Sir Robert Peel was a little exultant in his manner, especially toward Lord John Russell, to whom he personally addressed the last part of his speech. ' ' The House will then have an opportunity," he said, " of determining whether under us the condition of the country has deteriorated, or whether we continue to possess that confidence, without which we could not usefully conduct its affairs, and without which— the noble lord will pardon me for saying — no government ought to remain in office. " Mr. Villiers, however, was determined not to allow the Gov- ernment to monopolize all the congratulations, and he reminded Sir Robert Peel that the prosperity of the country was owing, not to the Protective System, but to a relaxation of its tyranny in the Tariff of 1^42. Among Peel's political enemies was one for whom he had great admiration and respect, the stubborn and high-minded Scotchman, Joseph Hume; and because of that feeling the criticisms of Hume made a deep impression upon Peel. He listened with earnest attention when Hume said, "You congratulate U6 on the financial prosperity of the country, but you do not promise to mitigate the taxation that presses on the poor, the protective tariff on articles of prime necessity Digitized by Microsoft® A SURPLUS REVENUE. 187 essential to the support and employment of the working classes. . Combine your policy of economy and retrench- ment with those principles of Free Trade which some honorable members , think will prove ruinous to the country, but which are absolutely necessary for its wel- fare and the development of its resources." The Government was somewhat weakened at the beginning of 1845, by the loss of Mr. Gladstone, who had withdrawn from the cabinet because of a difference with Sir Robert Peel on the proposition to make a grant of money to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, in Ireland. The difference was not so much a matter of present opinion as of an old opinion, which unfortu- nately was recorded against Mr. Gladstone in a book. In fact he had modified his opinion and was now will- ing to support the grant, but not as a minister of the crown. Here was more evidence that a politician should never write a book until his public life is closed. Mr. Gladstone had written a book in former days against granting money to Maynooth; and that book drove him from office. He could not retain office and support principles which he had condemned in his book, because that course might suggest mercenary rnotives, and the sacrifice of principle for place. He therefore chose to resign. Some people thought that he did not approve the contemplated reduction of the sugar duties, and that he was glad to leave the cabinet on the Maynooth question, rather than on a question of commercial policy. There is not much ground for this opinion, for the ■ probability is that Mr. Gladstone was already a Free , Trader. Two days after the opening of Parliament there was a very excited and. somewhat angry discussion caused Digitized by Microsoft® 188 FBEB TRADE STETJGGLB IN ENGLAND. by Mr. Cobden, wbo censured the Royal speech for not alluding to the Corn-Laws. It was a sort of rough and tumble affair between the extreme Protectionists and the extreme Free Traders, the others looking on. Mr. Bright made an emphatic speech, which Mr. Stafford O'Brien described as "bullying" the House. Mr. O'Brien was an English landlord wjth an Irish name; and with much animation he defied Mr. Bright. He told him that he could not " set the tenants of England against their landlords by any such interpretation as he had used that night. " Mr. O'Brien believed in the Feudal . system, and he thought that the relation of master and serf still prevailed between the landlord and the tenant. He regarded Mr. Bright as an incendiary striv- ing to excite the serfs of England to rebel against their owners. Sir Robert Peel sat placidand serene through- out the whole affair, and when it ended he quietly re- marked that the performance was all in vain, and that he would not be provoked at present into a discussion of the Corn-Laws. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER XIII. NEAKING THE END. The financial statement of Sir Robert Peel was anxiously awaited by Parliament and the country. The Free Traders anticipated it with hope, the Pro- tectionists with fear. The latter were- distrustful of their leader, because, in spite of the declarations made by the Government last summer, emphasized by the triumphant majority of 204 against the motion of Mr. Villiers, they could see that the success of the experiment made in 1842 was working on the mind of Peel, and swaying him in the direction of com- mercial freedom. They saw that his ambition was aroused, and they feared that in the desire to link his name forever to some splendid policy, beneficent and wise, he might be tempted to experiment still fur- ther in Free Trade economics. They had reason to fear, as we shall see. The Protectionists mustered strong on Friday night, the 14th of February, to encourage their great leader as he unfolded his financial plans. To their amazement and dismay he opened a Free Trade budget. To be sure he had not touched the Corn-Laws, but it was feared that he had passed sentence on them, and had only respited them for the time. Although great ex- pectations had been formed of what was ^ coming, neither party was prepared for the bold and comprehen- sive measure introduced by Peel. He began by mak- Digitized by Microsoft® 190 FKEB TEADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. ing a large reduction in the sugar duties, sufficient, he said, to reduce the price of it to the consumer three cents a pound. He next proposed, to strike the pro- tective duty from four hundred and thirty articles then on the tariff list; and this he had the coolness to tell his protectionist followers, ' 'must be a great advantage to commerce." The suicidal duties on most of the raw materials of manufacturers were swept away, an example of financial wisdom well worthy the study of American statesmen. Among the raw materials made free, were silk, hemp, flax, yarns, (except woolen) fur- niture goods, manures, oils, minerals, (except copper ores), dye stuffs, and drugs. The people who made barrel-staves had been protected in that industry against the "pauper" barrel^staves of the United States. Sir Robert Peel said that the coopers had memorialized him to remove the duty on barrel-staves. He proposed to give them a chance now; and had struck from the tariff the duty on staves. The duty on cotton, he said, fell heavily on coarse fabrics, and of course upon the poor; he proposed to abolish it altogether. He also struck off the excise duty on glass. This was not all. Every rag of the protective ex- port duties was discarded, even the venerable export duties on coal, which had stood firm for centuries, and which even John Stuart Mill thought might wisely be retained. In the ignorant ages of Protective philos- ophy, men thought it would be dangerous to British manufactures if England should permit her coal to be bought by the Germans or the French, for they might use it in manufacturing articles to compete in their own markets, and in other markets with Great Britain. And now a protectionist ministry proposed to abolish Digitized by Microsoft® NEAEING THE END. 191 this time-honored incubus. Sir Robert Peel plunged fearlessly into the deep sea of economics, and declared that in his opinion the repealed taxes, by the stimulus they would give to commerce, would so far increase the general prosperity of the country as to counterbal ance the continuance of the income tax. "All classes of the country," he said, "whether agricultural, manu- facturing, or commercial, and parties not engaged in any particular industry would be either directly or in- directly benefited by the plans he» now proposed." There was great cheering when Sir Robert Peel sat down, but it came not from his own party, but from the Free Trade .crowd who occupied the benches oppo- site. The country gentlemen, the "squires," who cheered themselves into apoplexy last June, now sat silent and enraged; and there were signs of mutiny. The cheering done by the Free Traders was not so much on account of the reduction of duties proposed by the new tariff, or because its l6gical termination must necessarily be the complete overthrow of the whole protective system. Sir Robert Peel was a. states- man of profound sagacity, and very great experience. It was impossible for him not to see that if the protec- tive tariff had wrongfully increased the price of sugar three cents a pound, it could not rightfully increase the price of bread. From this dilemma there was no escape for him, as he must have known. So, the men who made barrel-staves were Free Traders in behalf of lumber in its rude state, but they were Protectionists against lumber when it was in the form of barrel-staves. in like manner the coopers were Free Traders as to barrel-staves, but Protectionists when barrel-staves were in the form of barrels. Now, the ethics and the poli- Digitized by Microsoft® 192 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. tics that made the Prime Minister relieve the coopers from the extortions of the barrel-stave makers, must apply, and did apply to every other tariff extortion of every other trade and calling in the kingdom; and to this conclusion Sir Robert Peel was intellectually driven at last. On Monday, the day appointed for their discussion, the Government proposals were subjected to a running fire of criticism from several members, many of whom, however, acknowledged that they could not vote against them. The chief debater on the opposition side was Lord John Russell. He objected to the income tax, because it led to vexation and fraud, and declared that nothing but a great emergency could justify its imposition. He then declared himself opposed to all protective duties of every kind. "It is the business of the Government," he said, " to make laws for repressing crime, preserving order, and defending the state, but not for meddling with the right of the citizen to dispose of his labor and the pro- diicts of his industry in the best market." He was in favor of a short income tax, and a total abandonment of all monopoly. Sir Robert Peel remarked that it would be ungra- cious in him to say much in reply to those who were about to support him in the most eloquent of all ways, namely, by their votes. Lord John Russell surprised him by denouncing the income tax, and then saying he would vote for it. Perhaps the noble Lord felt that he might be on the ministerial benches himself a couple of years from now, and that then £5,000,000 derived from the income tax would be a grateful sum to deal with. Little did Sir Robert Peel suppose that Digitized by Microsoft® NBARING THE END. 193 this banter contained a prophecy that was literally fulfilled. In a couple of years Lord John Russell actually was on the ministerial benches, and then he did find that the income tax was a very useful thing to have. The strength of Sir Robert Peel's command over both parties in the House is proved by this, that although nearly everybody condemned the income tax, only thirty members had the nerve to vote against it. The Prime Minister's demand that it be imposed for another term of three years was granted by a majority of 228 against 30. Although a great reduction in the sugar duties was made by the new tariff, the discrimination in favor of the British West Indies was still preserved. The false reason given for this was the discouragement of slavery, the true reason was the " Protection " of the men who owned the plantations in the colonies. Lord John Russell and Mr. Milner Gibson each offered amend- ments to Peel's plan, in which they declared for an equalization of the duty on foreign and colonial sugar. They were easily defeated although they had the best of the debate. Lord John Russell and Mr. Labouchere exposed the inconsistency of the anti-slavery pretext, because the Government was very careful not to apply it to coffee, and cotton, and other things. Mr. Glad- stone answered them, and although he was now out of office he defended the Government plan with his usual eloquence. He reminded the House of the great sac- rifices it had made to obtain the extinction of slavery, and pointed out the inconsistency of placing cruisers on the coast of Africa to prevent the exportation of negroes to Cuba and Brazil, and at the same time giving by our fiscal policy such encouragement to the 13 Digitized by Microsoft® 194 FEBE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. planters of those countries to produce a greater quan- tity of sugar as would induce them to obtain slaves at all hazards. Mr. Macaulay replied to Gladstone, and . said he would not have two standards of right and wrong, nor strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. " This," he said, " is what you are doing." He then showed that Sir Robert Peel at the very moment in which he debarred the country from the importation of Brazilian sugar, because it was slave grown, took off all the duty on American cotton which was slave grown also. Sir Robert Peel defended the apparent incon- sistency of the Qovernment, and the opposition was overcome by a majority of ninety -four against Lord John Russell's amendment. The exact period when Peel was first converted from the Protection faith will always be a matter of historical dispute, but there is evidence that he became dangerously sceptical as early as 1841, and perhaps be- fore that. It is certain that in 1842 he had rejected - Protection as a principle, and had retained it as an expedient only. On that subject T'^j'aser's Magazine, & strong Protection journal, said: We hope, and indeed believe for the sake of his ' consistency, that Sir Robert Peel imagined long before 1845 that the system of Protection had reached its extreme limits, and that the time was come for return- ing again to that order of things, which is at once the best in the abstract, and would be in practice the best also were all civilized nations to fall in with it. It is no excuse for folly and injustice that other nations practice both. A truth in political science, as •in moral science, remains true in every separate nation, whether all other civilized nations " fall in with it" or not. The nations that do not " fall in with it" are not. yet civilized. Digitized by Microsoft® NBARING THE END. . 195 The memoirs of the Right Hon. John Wilson Croker, published not long ago, prove that Peel had a large assortment of Free Trade reasons in store as far back as 1842. Croker had been the intimate friend and political colleague and associate of Peel from his early manhood until the year 1846, when their frfendship was dissolved, because when Peel abandoned Protection, Croker abandoned him. Croker supported the policy of Peel until that minister laid his hand upon that sacred monopoly of the aristocracy, the Corn-Lawfe, and then he notified Peel that their personal friendship was at an end. In 1842, Peel wrote thus to Croker: The best thing we have done without exception is the reduction of the duty on timber. All species of shipbuilding, all parties concerned in fisheries, all pub- lic works, piers, harbors, and coffer-dams ; all public building's, and all repairs to farm houses will be bene- fited by the free access to Baltic timber. Hume of the customs said, and gaid justly, we have the command of coal and iron: give us the command of timber and we have every natural advantage. We cannot enter into deep sea-fishing in competition with other countries, from the dearness of timber, and the consequent fragil- ity of our boats The argument in respect to timber is, I assure you, conclusive. There is no one article that tends so much to confer a social improve- ment and to cheapness of production, as low prices of timber. The policy of bringing cheajj timber from the Baltic, was not only " best in the abstract," but the value of it was not in the least affected by the failure of other nations to " fall in with it." With all that experience before them, we have men in this country who pass for statesmen, who tell us that it would be mischievous for us to adopt the policy of chcnp lumber, until all other civilized nations are willing to "fall in with it." Digitized by Microsoft® 196 . FEES TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. On the 10th of March, Mr. Cobden brought on his motion for a select committee to inquire into the causes of agricultural distress. He contended that the Corn- Laws were an injury instead of a benefit to the farmers and farm laborers, and this he would be prepared to show if they would grant him the committee. On the part of the Government Mr. Sidney Herbert, a young patrician of great fortune and family, was chosen to ' reply to Cobden. He was of the lineage of Sir Philip Sidney, and brother of the Earl of Pembroke. He was a high Tory, and was credited with more talent than usually belonged to men of his rank and fortune. He held office in Peel's Government as Secretary of the Admiralty. There was nothing remarkable about his speech except that it contained an honest and unlucky expression which greatly offended his party. After stat- ing positively that Mr. Cobden's m.otion would be met on the part of the Government by a decided negative, he remarked that the agriculturists were a body of men with very susceptible nerves, easily excited to alarm. By granting the committee a notion would go abroad that the Government had an intention to alter the Corn- Laws. It was somewhat distasteful to him as a mem- ber of the agricultural body to be always coming to Par- liament " whining for Protection.''^ That last phrase was probably uttered by Mr. Her- bert in a peevish moment, when his tongue was not well enough guarded. It gave great offense, and some alarm. Nothing that had fallen from Cobden had such a sting in it,- for this was the language of contempt. The imperious demand of the landed aristocracy for protection to agriculture, was described in a patrician sneer as "whining"; and this, too, in a speech answer- Digitized by Microsoft® NEARING THE END. 197 ing Cobden. It suggested more than it said; it indi- cated that the Tory Government itself had become tired of dry-nursing all the wheezy " interests" that claimed legislative charity. Had the insult come from any of the Free Trade party it might have been endured; but from' one of themselves, a wealthy landlord, an aristo- crat, and a Tory, it was a humiliation hard to bear, especially as Mr. Herbert had lately, at a public meet- ing, declared himself a firm adherent of the protective system, and had fiercely assailed the League. The phrase "whining for Protection," immediately passed into the colloquial slang of politics. Mr. Cobden's motion was defeated by a majority of 92. The Tory mutiny broke out in the early days of March, but so strong was Peel, first, in the success of his ministerial policy; secondly, in the weakness and division of the Whigs; and thirdly, in the fears of his own party that if they lost him somebody worse would take his place, that the insurrection was easily sup- pressed. The revolt appeared in the shape of a motion by Mr." Miles to the effect "that in the application of surplus revenue toward relieving the burdens of the country, by reduction of taxation, due regard should be had to the necessity of affording relief to the agri- cultural interest." In his remarks upon that resolu- tion Mr. Miles distinctly told his chief that if the Tories had known what was coming they would have driven him from ofiice in 1842, by defeating the tariff measures proposed by the minister then. The loud cheering from the Protectionists which greeted this ex post facto threat, showed Peel that although by the duress of the situation they were compelled to give him their votes, their sympathies were with the muti- Digitized by Microsoft® 198 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IK ENGLAND. neers, and not with the commanding officer. The resolution was seconded by the Earl of March, son and heir of the Duke of Eichmond, and present possessor of that title. In supporting it, Mr. Disraeli made a showy and theatrical display. His speech was hailed with uproarious cheering by the Tories, and it really de- served the applause. There were many smart things in it, although they all smelt of the lamp, _and bore evidence of careful study and joreparation. The per- sonal allusions to Peel were steeped in vitriol. That statesman had always underrated Mr. Disraeli, and still underrated him. He maintained his air of superiority all through, but the poisoned sarcasms wounded him like a shower of needles. In this philippic occurs the sentence that afterward became famous, and a Tory rallying cry, the sentence in which Mr. Disraeli de- nounced the administration as "an organized hypoc- risy." Sir Robert Peel kept his temper, and in reply contrasted Mr. Disraeli's former flatteries with his pres- ent vituperation. With an air of disdain he said that he held his panegyrics and his attacks in the same estimation. The rebellion was crushed by a majority of 213 to 78. In this passionate and spiteful debate the Govern- ment still proclaimed its adherence to the protective- system. Sir James Graham, Secretary of State, while opposing the resolution of Mr. Miles, declared that the principle of protection should be and ought to be preserved in the economic legislation of the country; and Lord John Russell followed him with an emphatic declaration on the other side. He advised the pro- tected classes to rely henceforth upon their energy, their industry, and their capital, as the true sources Digitized by Microsoft® NBAEING THE END. 199 3f prosperity and not upon the broken reed of "legislative protection." Sir Eobert Peel made a srery careful speech. He thought exti-eme protection w^rong, and defended moderate protection as "neces- sary, not on principles of commercial policy, but as 3ssential to a state of things where great interests had grown up, and whose injury would be that of the com- munity at large. " The student of American politics may wisely study this apology of Sir Robert Peel. He will hear it often in the " impending conflict " iii the United States be- tween Protection and Free Trade. Sir Robert Peel himself stigmatized his own reasoning as unsound on "principles of commercial policy," but "great inter- ests had grown up" under the stimulus of "Protec- tion"; and if the artificial prop which supported them should be removed, they would fall to the ground; and the people who were living on protective taxes would receive injury. That the withdrawal of* protection would be an injury to the protected classes was true, but that it would be an injury to the community at large was false. The community at large being taxed for the benefit of a class. Sir Robert Peel pretended that the removal of the tax would be an injury, not only to those who received it, but to those who paid it. This contradiction is flippantly proclaimed by the American protectionists now. The claim thus impudently made by Sir Robert Peel would make injustice perpetual, for there never can come a time when the abatement of a wrong will QOt injure the man who profits by it. The claim is a lesson and a warning to us. It shows that no matter under what circumstances of pretended urgency ' ' Pro- Digitized by Microsoft® 200 FBEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. tection " may be conceded, the protected class is never ready to surrender it. The rack-renting Morrill tariff of 1861, which Mr. Morrill himself declared at that time could only be defended as a " war measure " by the urgency of our situation, is now, twenty-seven years after the war, impudent and rapacious. Mr. Morrill will" riot permit a hair of its head to be injured. He was willing a few years ago to take it out of politics, and refer it to a "commission" of its friends with in- structions to report in the language of Sir Robert Peel, that its preservation has become "essential to a state of things where great interests have grown up, whose ' injury would be that of the community at large." That commission, composed entirely of Protectionists, reported that the tariff ought to be reduced about twenty per cent, but that report made it more insolent and rapacious than before. It is an organized app;etite that grows with what it feeds on. It is not yet satis- fied; not even with the McKinley bill, although privi- leged by that measure to levy tribute and toll upon every bit of wages in the land. Late in May Lord John Russell's plan was given to the country. It consisted of nine resolutions which the Whig leader presented to Parliament in a speech which was easily and successfully answered by Peel. These resolutions were intended to constitute a new platform for the Whigs. Had they been proclaimed before the opening of Parliament, they would have been regarded as very far advanced, and they might have embarrassed both the Tories and the League ; but, coming after Peel's budget, they were of no more in- terest than nine old newspapers. Like some other polit- ical parties that might be mentioned^ the Whigs came Digitized by Microsoft® NKARINGTHE END. • 201 limping along behind their enemies. Of the nine reso- lutions this history is only concerned with two. The second resolution was, "That those laws which impose duties usually called protective tend to impair the eifi- ciency of labor, to restrict the free interchange of com- modities, and so impose upon the people unnecessary taxation." It had taken the League six long years to pound those principles into Lord John Russell. He had adopted them at last, and it must be acknowledged that in making his confession to the House of Commons he had managed to condense a vast amount of eco- nomic truth into a very few sentences. The wonderful fact remains that he was not yet ready to apply those principles to corn. The third resolution was, "That the present Corn-Law tends to check improvements in agriculture, produces uncertainty in all farming specu- lations', and holds out to the owners and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to secure." And yet he was not ready to vote for a repeal of that law.' He merely wanted to change the " sliding scale " for a fixed duty. He confessed, however, that after all the discussion which had taken place, he could not reasonably and fairly propose the eight shillings fixed duty which he had offered in 1841. He thought that a duty of four, five, or six shillings a quarter would be about right. The League had made him a Free Trader as to everything but corn, and as to that, it had crowded him back from eight shillings a quarter to six, or five, or even four. Lord John Russell had the Whigs and Free Traders with him on the division, but was easily beaten by a majority of seventy-eight. Digitized by Microsoft® 202 • FEEB TRADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. In June came on the annual motion of Mr. Villiers for a total repeal of the Corn-Laws. It was in the form of three resolutions : 1. That the Corn-Law restricts the supply of food, and prevents the free exchange of th.e products of labor. 2. That it is, therefore, prejudicial to the welfare of the country, especially to that of the working classes, and has proved delusive to those for whose benefit the law was designed. 3. That it is expedient that all restrictions on the importation of corn should be now abolished. The debate on the resolutions revealed the new po- sition taken by Lord John Russell. He gave his un- qualified support to the first resolution and the second, but was not ready to vote for the third. The Whig leaders were still beguiled by a fantastic will-o'-the wisp,, seducing them into the slough of compromise. They cherished the delusion that in the break-up of parties which was coming many fragments might be cemented to the Whigs by a concession to Protection of a moderate duty upon grain, and by a concession to Free Trade of a tariff for revenue only as to all other things. But the time for compromise had passed, and principles now stood arrayed against each other in "irrepressible conflict." Lord John Russell echoed Villiers and Cob- den. He charged that the legislators maintained the existing law, because it added to their own incomes ; and he declared that they had failed in their attempts to prove that it was beneficial to the rest of the com- munity. The deoate-also disclosed the change that liad come over Sir James Graham inthree months. He no longer contended for protection as a principle, but merely for Digitized by Microsoft® NBAEING THE END. 203 cautious and prudent legislation in dealing with it. He seemed to plead that the doomed culprit might have a long time to prepare for death. He admitted that hy prudent measures they might bring the Corn-Laws nearer to the sound principles of commerce; but he hoped that no sudden step would be taken. He very much feared a "shock" to the agricultural interest, because it would convulse all other branches of industry. He feared that the free importation of corn would per- manently reduce the price of wheat to about thirty-five shillings a quarter, thereby throwing land out of culti- vation, and inflicting great injury on parts of Eng- land, and on the whole of Ireland. This injury, he thought, would not be compensated by the benefits re- sulting from Free Trade. Still, if it appeared that free importation was the only way in which to supply suflScient food to an increasing population, he would not oppose it any longer. Unfortunately, Sir James Graham was in the situation of Mr. Gladstone; he -too had written a book, and its doctrines were continually tripping him up. The principles laid down by him in his work on " Corn and Currency " were very inconvenient to him now, and his opponents made the most of his embar- rassment. He never flinched, however,' but took his punishment in a very manly way. Wherever he dif- fered from his book he courageously acknowledged that his opinions had undergone a change. Mr. Bright an- swered Sir James Graham. He accused him of dealing in fallacies, and referred to the Free Trade Bazaar at Covent Garden Theatre as evidence that the Free Trade agitation outside Parliament was vigorous and increas. ing. The "fallacies " of Sir James Graham were the log- Digitized by Microsoft® 204 FEEE TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. ical result of a jDopular mistake that the ultimate object of agriculture is the cultivation of land; but this is merely a way to achieve its final purpose, the production of something to eat. Food is the ultimate object, and the land which cannot produce it as abundantly as other land, throws itself out of cultivation by the law inexorable that the fittest shall survive. It ought to go out of cultivation because it is unable to yield a sufiicient return for the work done in farming it. Sir James Gl;raham himself was lord of "The Netherby clan." He owned a very large estate on the Scottish border, but it was poor land, and he had no right to claim that because his land was poor, the people of England should not have the benefit of the rich land of Illinois. He saw this afterward and yielded his own monopoly to the Free Trade principle, not because he was compelled to do so, but because he saw that it was right. Several speech es were made by the partisans on either side. Lord Ebrington, a Whig nobleman of some im- portance, declared that he should vote for the resolu- tions. He had formerly opposed them because he hoped that a fixed duty would have formed a compromise be- tween the two great interests of the country. He now despaired of any such compromise, and would give his hearty support to the resolutions. , Mr. Cobdeu made a vigorous attack upon the existing system. He declared that the condition of the laboring classes was a disgrace to the country, and he maintained that it was an act of injustice to tax the food of the people. This question, he said, had never been fairly met with argument in the House of Commons, and he ventured to predict that it never would be fairly met. Digitized by Microsoft® NEARING THE END. 205 Tlie most remarkable .thing about this debate was the towering air of superiority with which Sir Eobert Peel lectured the pack behind him. With lordly patron- age he told them that although he was about to lead them to victory once more, their arguments were unsound. He distinctly stated that although he must vote against the motion of Mr. Villiers, he could not agree in all the arguments adduced against it. He formally repu- diated and laid aside the mistake of the protectionists, that dear commodities make high wages, and although some of his own followers had proclaimed the doctrine in that very debate, he told them it was not true. . The protectionists bore this lecture with such patience ag they could, but when their leader told them that he op- posed the motion, not because it was not right, but be- ■ cause he desired to make " a gradual approach to sound principles with a cautious attention to the interests which had grown up under a different system," they could scarce conceal their anger. They very well un- derstood that he meant by ' ' sound principles " the doc- trines of Free Trade. To be told, not only that their arguments were bad, but also that their principles were not sound, was more than they could bear. The divis- ion was taken mechanically, and the speaker announced that the "Noes" had it by 254 to 122, a little more than two to one. This was the last victory for the Protec- tionists in England. Parliament adjourned in August. When it met again in January, the Tory party had been disintegrated and brciken to pieces by the League; the Protectionists were 'disorganized and routed so com- pletely that they were never afterward known as a party in the politics of Great Britain. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER XIV. AT LAST, FAMINE. And now the time was close at hand when that boasted Protective System which was to make Britain "independent of foreign countries" for its food supply, was to be subjected to a test it could not stand. In the summer of 1845 Mr. Cobden had ridiculed that precarious commercial system which was at the' mercy of a shower of rain. "Three weeks rainy weather," he said, "will prove the danger of leaving the industrial scheme of such a country as England to stand or fall on the cast of a die." He had scarcely ceased to speak when the rainy weather came, and it lasted through , the harvest time. The wheat crop was short, and its quality was pOor. It was not so short, however, as to create any alarm, or affect the politics of the country. No uneasiness was felt until the middle of August, when it was rumored that the potato crop had been smitten with a strange disease, and that the potatoes in the south of England were rotting in the ground. While this occasioned some anxiety to the Government, and was the cause of some correspondence between Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham, it was not until the middle of September that the Ministers became alarmed; for although the reports were contradictory, as in all such oases, yet enough was known to satisfy Sir Robert Peel that the rot was extensive and even general throughout England; and there was a horrid Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 207 whisper creeping about that the crop had also been smitten in Ireland. This' was more alarming still, for the potato constituted the principal food of the Irish peasantry. In a letter written by Sir James Graham to Sir Robert Peel, from Netherby, in the north, and dated September 19th, 1845, he says, " I hope there may be some exaggeration in this report of the failure of the potato crop in Ireland; but there is no doubt that to some extent the disease has made its appearance in that country. We had again a great deal of rain yesterday; and the weather is broken and no longer favorable. " In October the reports grew worse, and men all over England were denouncing that governmental sys- tem which had made the Irish people dependent on a wretched root for food. So far frorfl. being "indepen- dent of foreign countries," the people of the British Islands saw themselves in the autumn of 1845 almost at the mercy of other nations for their coming winter's bread. Sir Robert Peel vibrated between hope and despair. In his own memoirs he says, ' 'Even so late as the 6th of October the accounts from Ireland were not decidedly unfavorable, and on that day Sir James Graham, writing from Netherby, observes, 'the ac- counts of the potato crop in Ireland are more favorable than I had ventured to expect. The recent terrible rains will still do no harm. I am afraid that the price of food generally will be' very high.' " Soon after the 6th of October the reports from Ireland be- came very unsatisfactory. On the 13th of October, Sir Robert Peel addressed a letter to Sir James Graham, in which he said, "The accounts of the potato crop in Ireland are becoming very alarming." The letter con- Digitized by Microsoft® 208 FEBK TRADE STKUGGLB IN ENGLAND. eludes with the following important paragraph, "I have no confidence in such remedies as the prohibition of exports, or the stoppage of the distilleries. The re- moval of impediments to imports is the only effectual remedy." This proves that Sir Robert Peel had made up his mind as early as the 13th of October. But he was the leader of a stubborn and stupid party, nearly all of it opposed to him; and he was at the head of a cabinet, every member of which was a protectionist, from education, from prejudice, and from self-interest. He seems to have had but one sympathizing friend in his own cabinet; but one man with whom he could hold confidential counsel amid the awful responsi- bilities and dangers which were rapidly closing around himi That was Sir James Grraham, Secretary of State for the Home Department. Between Sir James Gra- ham and his chief there appears to have been a kindred feeling of responsibility, and a mutual willingness to do whatever ought to be done, regardless of conse- quences merely personal to themselves. In the middle of October Sir Robert Peel sent a commission of scientific men to Ireland with instruc- tions to investigate and report upon the potato disease, . so that he might act upon correct information. This must have been rather to influence and satisfy his colleagues than for his own information. He was already satisfied, and had determined what to do. On the 15th of October he wrote to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as follows, "The accounts from Ireland of the potato crop, confirmed as they are by your high author- ity, are very alarming. We must consider whether it is possible by legislation, or by the exercise of jjrerog- ative, to apply a remedy to the great evil with which Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 209 we are threatened. The application of such remedy involves considerations of the utmost magnitude. The remedy is the removal of all impediments to the import of all kinds of human food — that is, the total and ab- solute repeal for ever of all duties on all articles of subsistence." • On the 27th of October, in a letter to Sir James Gr?iham, Sir Kobert Peel said, "The Anti- Corn-Law pressure is about to commence, and it will be the most formidable movement of modern times. Everything depends upon the skill, promptitude, and decision with which it is met. " Sir Robert Peel was right. The League had now become almost irresistiljle. A large portion of the press which had long held aloof from it gave in their adhesion, not only to its'doctrines, but also to its plans. It held great meetings and made many converts. It caused petitions to be circulated throughout the country demanding the immediate repeal of the Corn-Laws. These were signed by thousands. Mr. O'Connell, who had long been a member of the League, sent fearful accounts from Ireland, and demanded a cessation of party conflict in the presence of the calamity that was impending over the country. He called upon the Government to open the ports to the admission of foreign grain. Sir Robert Peel felt the fearful weight of his responsibility, and there were frequent meetings of the cabinet, but the people knew nothing of its discussions except that they were not harmonious. The first cabinet council to consider the subject was held on the 31st of October. It met again the next day, and then Sir Robert Peel laid before it a memorandum of the situation, and of the remedies that he thought ought to be adopted. After explaining U Digitized by Microsoft® 210 FESE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. why the cabinet had been called together, and laying before it all the information he had received con- cerning the condition of the country, he proposed First, that the ports should be opened to the ad- mission of foreign grain by an order in council, trusting that Parliament would pasS' an act of indemnity excusing the Ministers for this unconstitu- tional suspending of the law; Secondly, to call Parlia- ment together not later than the 27th of November, and leave the whole matter to its decision. He gave the arguments for and against both plans, and frankly declared his opinion that if the ports were once opened, even for temporary relief, they could never be closed again. The cabinet separated without coming to any opinion, and agreed to meet again on the 6th of Nov- ember, to determine what jjolicy should be adopted. On the 6th of Noyember the cabinet met again, but not even the reasoning of Peel could move it from a stolid, selfish conservatism. The' proposals of the Prime Minister were supported by only three mem- bers — the Earl of Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. "The other members of the cabinet," remarks Peel, "some on the ground of objection to the principle of the measures recommended, otlters upon the ground that there was not suiBcient evidence of the necessity for them, withheld their sanc- tion." This, he says, would have justified him then in relinquishing office, but fearing that the dissolution of the Government would excite the public mind, he determined to retain office for the present, and give the cabinet until the last of the month to consider the whole question. " In determining to retain office for the present," he said, " I determined also, not to recede Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 211 from the position I had taken, and ultimately to resign office if I should find on the re-assembling of the cab- inet that the opinions I had expressed did not meet with general concurrence." The discord in the cabinet looked like an oppor- tunity for the Whigs, and they thought to make some party capital out of it; and it is only fair to say that they aFso thought that it gave them an opportunity to be of real service to the country. Lord John Russell was in Edinburgh quietly watching the progress of events, and he saw that there was a division in the cabi- net. How wide it was he did not know, but he thought that it was probably wide enough to let him pass through it, and return once more to jDower. All through November the political gloom grew deeper, and at last he thought that his time had come. He was member for the City of London, and on the 22d of November he wrote from Edinburgh a letter to his constituents on the condition of the country. It was written some- what in the spirit of party, and it censured Peel; but the people did not notice that; all they saw was the more important fact that he had gone bodily over to the League, and declared himself in favor of Free Trade. He confessed that he had been converted from the errors of a lifetime. "I used to be of the opin- ion," he said, ' 'that com was an exception to the general rules of political economy." Observation and experi- ence had at last convinced him of the expensive folly of the whole protective system. He said, "Let us, then, unite to put an end to a system which has proved to be the blight of commerce, the bane of agriculture, the source of bitter divisions among classes, the cause of penury, fever, mortality, and crime among the people." Digitized by Microsoft® 212 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. This letter meant that the Whigs were getting off the fence; and presently they were seen tripping over one another in their haste to join the League. It pre- cipitated the crisis, and .broke up the Ministry. As soon as it appeared Sir Robert Peel called the cabinet together. He told his Ministers that he could not any longer assume the responsibility of continuing the Corn-Laws; he proposed to open the ports by an order in council, and declared himself in favor of Free Trade. On the 25th of November the council met, and on the 26th Sir Robert Peel laid before it a memorandum in. which he said, ' ' I, for one, am prepared to take the re- sponsibility of suspending the law by an order in coun- cil, or of calling Parliament at a very early period, and advising in the sjjeech from the throne, the suspension of the law." On the 29th of November he forwarded to each member of the cabinet another memorandum containing the whole argument on the case, but they were not convinced. In answer to it the Duke of Wellington said, "I am one of those who think the continuance of the Corn-Laws essential to the agri- culture of the country in its existing state, and par- ticularly to that of Ireland, and a benefit to the whole community." He thought, however, that a good gov- ernment for the country was of more consequence than the Corn-Laws. He thought that the Government was safer in the hands of Peel than it would be elsewhere, and agreed to stand by him in any policy that he might think proper to adopt. He said, " In respect to my own course, my only object in public life is to support Sir Robert Peel's administration of the Government." The Duke of Wellington was never prone to indulge in cant, and he was not a hypocrite or a Pharisee. . He Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 213 neant what he said, and believed it, but his answer to i'eel shows to what mental destitution the protection heory will bring a man if he cherishes it long. The Duke of Wellington, a naturally practical and sagacious nan, had nursed the protection doctrine so long that le literally believed that a system which had reduced ;he people of England to half rations, and the people )f Ireland to imminent starvation was ' ' a benefit to ;he whole community." Mr. Goulburn, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his mswer to Peel's memorandum, said, "I wish to con- sider protection to agriculture precisely as I would Drotection to manufactures; for agriculture after ill is a manufacture, of which the raw material is 3arth, and the manufactured article is corn." As the American protectionist to-day makes the public debt m excuse for the imposition of protective taxes, so did Mr. G-oulburn then. He said, "From the immense imount of our debt, and the charge imposed on every Interest in the country in respect to it, every manufaot- irer in this country has in justice a claim to be pro- iected as regards the supply of the home consumer igainst the competition of a foreigner, who, not hav- ng the same charges upon him, is, or ought to be able ;o supply articles at a cheaper rate. " Here Mr. Goul- 3urn concealed the fact, or else he did not know it, ;hat this protection given to the manufacturer to help lim bear the burden of the |)ublic debt, was given at ;he expense of other classes of the people, who, in ad- lition to this protective tax, were also compelled to jear their own share of the public debt. This concession ;o the manufacturers, however, was only a pretext for lemanding a larger protection for the agriculturists. Digitized by Microsoft® 214 PEKE TBADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. He goes on to say, ' ' Ou this ground you give linen, cotton, and woolen manufacturers a protection of from 10 to 20 per cent., and to this extent on the same ground I see no reason why corn should not be pro- tected. " He then proceeds to- argue that for peculiar reasons corn should have "an extra protection." Lord Wharncliffe, in his answer to the memorandum, said that in his opinion no case was made out as yet that would justify the Government in taking the' action proposed by Sir Robert Peel. He thought that the Government ' ' could not consistently propose such measures to Parliament as in their conscience they must feel to be, not only an abandonment of the present Corn-Law, but of the principle of Protection." He argued strongly against a Free Trade policy. Lord Wharncliffe V was an old man, scarcely able to endui-e the strain of the prevailing excitement, and ten days after writing that letter he died. Lord Stanley was firm in his resistance to the changes recommended by the Prime Minister. The discussions in the cabinet continued from day to day until the 5th of December. Some of the younger Tories were willing to go with Peel, but Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleugh could not con- sent to overthrow the Corn-Laws, which in some shape or other had taxed the people of England for genera- tions. The clamor of the League could be heard in the council chamber, ajid rather than endure it any longer the whole Ministry resigned. Sir Robert Peel, speak- ing of this last cabinet council, says, "Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleugh, after anxious reflection, each signified his inability to support a measure involv- ing the ultimate repeal of the Corn-Laws. All the, other members were prepared to support such a meas- Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 215 ure. I could not, however, conceal from myself that the assent given by many was a reluctant one— that it was founded rather on a conviction of the public evil that must arise from the dissolution of the Government at such a time and from such a cause, than on the delib- erate approval of thQ particular course which I urged upon their adoption." For these reasons the Ministry was broken up, and Sir Robert went down to Osborne, and handed his resignation to the Queen. Lord John Russell was sent for to form an adminis- tration. He accepted the task, and there was a great deal of "mounting in hot haste," and "hurrying to and fro," and sending for this man and for that man. Al- though Lord John Russell had obtained the promise of Sir Robert Peel that he would support him in carrying out a policy in accordance with the measures advo- cated in the Edinburgh letter, he found himself unable to form an administration. After a couple of weeks' tinkering with the "crisis," he went down and told the Queen that he had failed in his attempt to form a government. He' confessed in the language oi Punch, who was making fun of him at the time, that he was not " big enough for the place." When Lord John Russell was making up the ' 'slate," he offered the greatest man in England, the author of the commercial revolution, a subordinate position as Vice-President of the Board of Trade, under a titled mediocrity, the Earl of Clarendon, who was to be Pres- ident of the Board. This was a good deal like offering Oliver Cromwell a Corporalship under the Earl of Essex. So hard was it for the Whig aristocracy to understand that the democracy of England had at last become a power in the state. Cobden declined the offer, not be- Digitized by Microsoft® ■J -J -J -JJ 216 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. cause the office was not big enough for him, but because he never sought official distinction of any kind. It was not to be regretted that Lord John Russell failed to form a government. Had he succeeded, he would probably have subordinated the mighty question of the hour to the exigencies of party. There was but one man who was equal to the occasion; who had the tact, ability, and temper, the scientific knowledge, the character, and the parliamentary following to carry England safely through. That man was Peel. Lord John Russell advised the Queen tcf send for him, and place the Government in his hands again. Sir Robert resumed his office, and proceeded to reconstruct his cabinet. Most of the old members agreed to serve under him again, and among the new members was Gladstone. Even the Duke of Wellington, whose Tory prejudices were so bitter and so strong, agreed to take ofiice under Peel once more, and promised to stand by him till the fight was ended. It is proof of the confi- dence of the people in Peel's capacity, that as soon as it was known that he had consented to resume his office, the funds rose. Paradoxical as it appears, the Duke of Wellington surrendered to a radical policy for conservative reasons. He saw that in the temper of the people it must be either a commercial revolution or a political revolution, and that in order to prevent the latter calamity. Pro- tection must be given up. The Duke of Wellington was almost a dictator in the House of Lords, so completely under his influence was the Tory majority there; and he terrified "their lordships" into obedience to Sir Robert Peel by saying, ' ' Would you compel the Queen to send for Mr. Cobden?" Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 217 The average estimate of Peel as a leader and a statesman, may be gathered from the following extract taken from a London journal of great popularity. The article was published immediately after the fall of the ministry, and before it was known that Peel would again be called to power. It contains a severe criticism on Peel's conduct in proposing measures di- rectly antagonistic to the principles on which his gov- ernment was formed. After showing that with the present Parliament a WJiig ministry is impossible, it searches the Tory ranks for a new leader to take the place of Peel. It acknowledges that it cannot find one, and says : If a Tory Cabinet cannot be constructed, it is a fatal sign for the j^arty. It is in this respect that the prospects of the Tory party are the most unsatisfactory. It is impossible to say what men occasion and oppor- tunity may not bring forth, but at present there is neither an equal nor a successor to Peel. . . . . Another of his fathom they have not To lead their business. Stanley would seem the approximate leader ; but he is wanting in temper. Gi"aham would not do, for he has been both a Whig and a Corn-Law repealer. Gladstone is beyond all question the most able man in the ranks of the party, but is implicated in the tariff, and com- mitted to commercial liberality as deeply as Peel. Taking the many qualifications that Sir Robert Peel pos- sesses, combined with his position and influence, the man does not exist who can supply his place com- pletely. That, , from a hostile critic, is a fair criterion of the estimation in which Peel was held by his countrymen at that time. It must be remembered that he never was a popular man in the sense of popularity as we understand it in America. A man of great wealth and aristocratic Digitized by Microsoft® 218 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. education, owing nothing to the people, and absolutely independent, lie neither courted them nor flattered them. He could say more truthfully than any man in England, I love the people, But do not like to stage me to their eyes, Though it do well ; I do not relish well, Their loud applause and aves vehement. Nor do I think the man of safe' discretion That does affect it. , All this time the League was pressing its advantage; it faltered not. Immense meetings were held in Lon- don, Manchester and other places. At a great meeting in Dublin Mr. O'Connell proclaimed "every man an enemy who did not support Bright and Cobden." He said: "Why should we not support the abolition of the Corn-Laws? Do they make wages high ? Certainly not, but they give a iictitious value to land. In the county of Kilkenny he had inquired the rate of wages, and found that jt was only one shilling and sixpence per week." He denounced the Governm'ent for not opening the ports. On the 15th of December a vast Free Trade meeting was held at (jruildhall, the City Hall of London, which was presided over by the Lord Mayor himself, in his official character as chief magis- trate of the city. The mighty giants, Gog and Magog, who had guarded London for a thousand years and more, were nearly shaken from their pedestals by the cheers that went up when Cobden rose to speak. He was in great spirits that day, for he knew that the end was near. One of the speakers at the meeting was Mr. Perkins, who, in proposing one of the resolutions, made the following remarks, which look very curious to us now: "The Peel administration," said Mr. Per- kins, ' ' is afraid to face the speech of the President of the United States, which will arrive in this coun- Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 219 try within the next ten days. The Western States of America have now a majority in Congress, and they never will meet this country on terms of amicable feeling and mutual interests until they have free access to the markets of this country." Mr. Cobden was the chief speaker, and he was re- ceived with immense applause. He was in his most humorous and sarcastic vein. Referring to the break- up of the cabinet, he said : "The Protection societies tell us confidently that there is a sufficient supply of corn and potatoes in the country. If this is so, what is the matter at headquarters? If there is no potato rot, what is that murrain which we have got in the cabinet?" "It is easy," said Mr. Cobden, "for our dukes and squires, maundering like old women at agri- cultural meetings, to say there is no scarcity, and to attempt to arrest the opinion in favor of Free Trade. They can gO out to hunt and shoot during the day, and when they come in they can regale themselves with venison, champagne and the like dainties. With them there is no scarci-ty; not so with the people." Two days afterward there was a great meeting at Covent Garden Theatre. Thirty thousand tickets of admission were applied for. Mr. Villiers presided, and speeches were made by Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Fox. But London was excelled by Man- chester. At one meeting there it was resolved to raise twelve hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the League, and three hundred thousand dollars was con- tributed that day. ' Twenty-three men subscribed five thousand dollars each as fast as the secretary could write their names. Nothing could stand against such earnest public opinion as that. The counter-meetings Digitized by Microsoft® 220 PEBE TRADE STEtTGGLE IN ENGLAND. gotten up by the Agricultural Protection Society were so weak and spiritless that they only served to make more apparent the invincible power of the League. Badly educated and ill informed old dukes mumbled out com- plaints against the League, and scolded Sir Robert Peel for deserting them. At one of those Protection meet- ings, the Duke of Richmond, in spite of the fact that the League had mastered both Russell and Peel, said, "The Anti-Corn-Law League is of no power at all unless it be led by men like Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell." These old dukes displayed' such deplorable ignorance, and made such comical blunders whenever they spoke, that they helped the League immensely, and furnished great sport for Cobden, who would rather go gunning for dukes than dukes would for pheasants. At one meeting the Duke of Norfolk brought the whole peerage into ridicule by recommending curry pov^der as a remedy for the public distress. He had' discovered that an excellent thing to make the laborer warm and comfortable in a time of hunger was "a pinch of curry powder in a quantity of hot water," and the Duke of Cambridge made great amusement by innocently doubt- ing the stories about the potato disease, because, ' 'really he hadn't noticed anything wrong with the po- tatoes that were furnished his own table." On the 20th of December, Sir Robert Peel in an interview with the Queen, at Windsor, consented to assume once more the office of Prime Minister. That evening he returned to London, and immediately sum- moned his old cabinet to a council in Downing street. It was late at night before they got together, and this time Sir Robert met them not as a colleague, nor even as their official chief, but as their master'. He informed Digitized by Microsoft® AT LAST, FAMINE. 221 them at once that he had not summoned them for the purpose of deliberating on what was to be done, but for the purpose of announcing to them that he was again Prime Minister, and whether supported or not, was firmly resolved to meet Parliament as Minister, and to propose such measures as the public exigencies re- quiSt-ed. Failure or success must depend upon their decision; but nothing could shake his determination to meet Parliament, and to advise the speech from the throne. As their advice on public questions was not asked, there was nothing for them to decide upon but the personal question whether or not they would re- sume their offices as the ministers of Peel, and promise to support the changes in the revenue and economic systems of the country which he intended to recommend to Paiiiament. They all agreed to serve under his command again, except Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleugh. Lord Stanley positively declined to re- enter the cabinet, and the Duke of Buccleugh requested time to consijder, which was granted him. At the end of two or three days he gave in his adhesion to his old chief and the new policy. He resumed his place, in the cabinet, and agreed to support the measures of Peel. For fifteen years a superstition had prevailed among the Tories that nobody but Peel was competent to gov- ern England. The strong hold it had upon them was now apparent when the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Buccleugh, the Earl of Aberdeen, and men of that character yielded their individuality to him once more, and agreed to support measures they had always op- posed, believing them to be essential to the welfare of the country, because Peel said so. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTEE XV. THE EEFOEMBD SYSTEM. ^ At the beginning of 1846 the public mind of Eng- land was in a feverish condition. Business was good, but there was great anxiety about the anticipated scarcity of food. The contradictory reports on that subject in- creased the excitement instead of allaying it. Those in favor of changes and reforms were accused of exag- gerating the reports about the failure of the crops, while the conservatives were charged with concealing the extent of the calamity. The relations between England and the United States were unfriendly because of the Oregon dispute; and the proceedings of Congress were watched with deep concern. The disruption of the cabinet excited the public nerves and although it was known that Sir Robert Peel would propose changes in the commercial policy of the country, nobody knew what the changes were to be. To create a public opin- ion strong enough to compel him to a radical repeal of the Corn-Laws became the object of the League, and to that end immense meetings were held in all parts of the Kingdom. On the other hand, the Pro- tection societies held counter-meetings, and tried to create a rival agitation, in order to restrain the Prime Minister and keep him to a conservative policy. In this contest the League had a great advantage both in the largeness of its gatherings and in the vigor and ability of its orators. It was always on the aggressive Digitized by Microsoft® THE REPOEMED SYSTEM. 223 while the protection speakers maintained a strictly de- fensive attitude. The League was eager for discussion, while the Protection societies avoided it. At a meet- ing of the "Protection Society," held at Wolverhamp- ton, it was bravely announced that no discussion would be allowed,- and the "noble chairman," the Earl of Sand- wich, said that only on that condition had he consented to take the chair. It is easy to see that meetings like that did more injury to the' protection side than to the other. In this nervous condition of the country the Queen opened Parliament on the 20th of January, 1846. The speech from the throne foreshadowed what was coming. It contained these ominous words: I have had great satisfaction in giving my assent to the measures which you have presented to me from time to time, calculated to extend commerce, and to stimulate domestic skill and industry by the repeal of prohibitory, and the relaxation of protective, duties. I recommend you to take into your eai-ly consid- eration whether, the principles on which you have acted may not with advantage be yet more extensively applied, and whether it may not be in your power, after a careful review of the existing duties upon many arti- cles, the produce or manufacture of other countries, to make such further reductions and remissions as may tend to insure the continuance of the great benefits to which I have adverted, and by enlarging our commer- cial intercourse, to strengthen the bonds of amity with foreign powers. In the House of Lords the mover and seconder of the Address in answer to the royal speech were listened to with the usual courtesy, and then " Sir Devon, the bull," as Punch pictorially described him, j)roceeded to butt the cars off the track. The Duke of Richmond Digitized by Microsoft® 224 FEEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. condemned the anticipated policy of the Government, and called upon their lordships not to abandon the pro- tective system. Referring to the mover of the address, who had asked the House to postpone discussion until they had heard the plans of the Government, he said, "I have heard enough to satisfy me what the Minister intends to do. He intends to withdraw Protection." He then paraded the ancient argument of ' the protec- tionists, that laws which gave them a power to tax their fellow-citizens were in the nature of a contract and a vested right that could not be repealed. He said, "This is getting rid of the compact which Sir Robert Peel made in 1842 with the agriculturists, and which Mr. Gladstone said was made for the purpose of securing to the agriculturists a permanent law. I hope this House will not so far abandon its duty as to be intimidated by the Anti-Corn-Law League, or by the money that body has raised." He then declared that everybody knew that the protection laws were not for the benefit 6f one class only, but were for the benefit of every class in the community. The Duke of Richmond like many others of the English nobility, had plenty of courage, but little wis- dom. He had proved his courage as a soldier in the Napoleonic wars, and in one of the battles had received a French bullet in his lungs; yet in spite of that, he had good lung power and plenty of courage left; and he was perfectly willing to fight the Free Trade loco- motive. Wellington, his old commander, answered him. He told hira it was no use trying to stop the train; that the Corn-Laws were sentenced, and that the sentence would be executed in -a few days. Still the Duke fought desperately, until old Wellington thought, Digitized by Microsoft® THE BEFOEMED SYSTEM. 225 like Richard, that there must be, at least "six Rich- monds in the field." Sir Robert Peel made a short explanation that same night in the House of Commons. In the course of it he said that his opinions on the subject of protective duties had undergone a change. He was yielding to the force of argument and more enlarged experience. He had closely watched the operation of protective duties during the past four or five years, and was now con- vinced that the arguments in favor of their maintenance werfe no longer tenable. He was convinced that low wages was not the result of low prices of food. Sir Robert supported this last statement by facts that could not be denied, the rate of wages and the rate of prices that had prevailed during the preceding six years. He said, "For three years preceding those last past, prices were high while wages .were low, while during the past three years, prices were low while wages were high." This was a very uncomfortable statement for thos6 political economists who had been trading on the fallacy that the protective tarifE was necessary in order to se- cure high wages for the workingman; and that cheap bread, and meat, and clothes, meant low wages. In the year 1884 the National Republican Conven- tion at Chicago performed the paradoxical feat of adopting a high tarifE platform, and placing upon it a candidate supposed to represent a ' ' spirited foreign policy," which being interpreted, was said to mean a policy that would secure for the United States a larger trade with the South American republics and the em- pire of Brazil. Thus the candidate was to pull the wagon one way and the platform the other. The party meant by "trade" selling only, but nwt buying, and Digitized by Microsoft® 226 PBBE TRADE STEUGGLB IK ENGLAND. Mr. Blaine himself, ,iii the manifesto published by him in 1882, in explanation of his course as Secretary of State, says that the intention of his policy was "To cultivate such friendly conimercial relations with all American countries as would lead to a large increase in the export trade of the United States, by supplying those fabrics in which we are abundantly able to compete with the manufacturing nations of Europe. " The his- tory of England and of our own country shows that this desirable object can be best accomplished in one way, and that is by a reduction of the tariff. This truth had forced itself upon the mind of Sir Robert Peel, by the result of actual experiment. In the ex- planation which we are now considering he said^ "Since the year 1842, when the first invasion was made on the principle of protection, the exports of the country had risen from £42,OOjO,000 to £47,000,000 in 1843, to £58,000,000 in 1844, and, leaving out the 'trade with China, the increase had been from £42,000,- 000 in 1842 to £46,000,000 in 1844, and to £56,000,000 in 1845. The results of the revenue presented a similar picture. The state of morality was also a gratifying result of increased prosperity. -The commitments throughout the country had enormously decreased." Against a stone wall built up from facts like these the taunts of the protectionists that Peel had "deserted" and " betrayed " them made little impression, and it was finally agreed that on the following Tuesday the Minis- ter should present his new commercial plans. Peel's was a Free Trade speech, and, as Cobden wrote the next day to a friend, "it would have done for Covejit Ga,rden Theatre," the place where the League meetings were held. It was not the speech of a minister yielding to Digitized by Microsoft® THE EBFOKMED SYSTEM. 227 pressure, but of a man who had become convinced. As he said a few nights afterward, it was the declara- tion of a man who had become converted to a belief that the protective system "was not only impolitic, but unjust." It is impossible to open the national g^tes to im- ports; and keep exports from escaping through the gap. Sir Robert Peel's experiment, made in 1842, timid as it was, proved this; but neither Peel, nor Cobden, nor the most sanguine Free Trader, could have anticipated that within forty-five years, under the stimulus given by free imports, the exports of merchandise from Great Britain and Ireland would amount in value to £248,000,- 000. This of British produce alone, excluding foreign and colonial produce amounting in value to £66,000,- 000 — produce which England had bought from some outside countries and sold to others at a profit. The total value of exports from the United Kingdom in 1889 was £314,000,000. In 1842, after centuries of protection, the exports of the United Kingdom amounted to £42,000,000. In 1888, after forty-two years of Free Trade, they amounted to £314,000,000. This, too, in defiance of the tariff blockades erected against England by nearly all the other nations of the world, not excepting her own colonies. This is a marvelous achievement, when we re- member that Great Britain is not blessed with one-half as many nor one-half as valuable natural resources as belong to Pennsylvania. alone. In 1892 the Protectionists at Minneapolis, although they repudiated the patentee of the double-action wagon, gave it a new coat of paint, and hitched the "Reciprocity" horse to the front of it, to pull it for- Digitized by Microsoft® 228 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. ward, and the "Protection" horse to the rear of it, to drag it back. And England still perseveres, according to Grovernor McKinley, in the benevolent folly of paying the taxes of all nations, by exporting merchandise to them and paying the tariff tribute levied on it. Tuesday, January 27, 1846, was an exciting day in London. It was known that the Prime Minister intended on that day to propose in Parliament a radical change in the commercial policy of England, but it was not known in detail what the change would be. Although Parliament did not meet until four or five o'clock, crowds of people began to assemble in the neighborhood of the House of Commons as early as one o'clock, and before four o'clock the house itself was crowded in every part. Westminster Hall had not seen so great a multitude since the trial of Warren Hastings, while the open street was densely crowded from West- minster Abbey to Whitehall. The Peers' gallery was full of dukes, and earls, and barons, anxious to learn the fate of those monopolies which their order had en- joyed for centuries. The Duke of Cambridge, the Queen's' uncle, was there, and Prince Albert was ac- commodated with a seat inside the bar. A few nights afterward his visit there was criticised by Lord George Bentinck, who resented the presence of the Queen's husband • in the House of Commons as an attempt of the Crown to influence the free debates of Parliament. Some sort of excuse was given by the Court, and the Prince never entered the House again. Many years after- ward Queen Victoria apologized to the nation for the attendance of her husband in the House of Commons, and explained that he merely went there out of curiosity, and for the instruction to be derived from listening to a Digitized by Microsoft® THE EEFOEMKD SYSTEM. 229 great debate, as her sons were always permitted to do. It was insinuated that Sir Robert Peel himself had con- trived the attendance of the Prince, for theatrical effect, and for its influence on the House — a " smart" politi- cal trick of which he was quite incapable. The members known to be in favor of Free Trade were loudly cheered, while the Protectionists were greeted with silence. The Duke of Wellington re- ceived a great ovation, for it was known that he had promised his assistance to Peel. Although he had opposed every popular movement of his time he was always forgiven because of Waterloo. Near five o'clock a roar of cheering rolling along the street announced the coming of Sir Robert Peel. As he alighted from his carriage he raised his hat in acknowledgment of the hearty greetings of his countrymen, and passed in- to the House. He carried a small box in his hand. It Contained the death warrant of the protective sys- tem. In that little box were carefully arranged the details of the new commercial policy, , the enlightened system of Free Trade. About five o'clock Sir Robert Peel rose and moved that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole on customs and corn importation. The House having resolved itself into committee. Sir Robert began his speech. For three hours the crowd listened to the Minister, as one after another each protected interest went down to its doom. He gave due notice that while he called upon the agriculturists to resign the protection they had long enjoyed, he should require the manufacturers to resign theirs also. With just and impartial hand he struck protection from the linen, the svoolen, and the cotton manufacturers, from the iron- Digitized by Microsoft® 230 FEEB TEADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. workers and the silk-weavers, from the soap-makers and the brass-founders, from the shoemakers and the tan- ners, from ribbon-makers and from hatters, from tin workers, and from button-makers, from tailors and from carriage-makers, from bi'ewers and from clock- makers, from West India sugar planters and from — almost everybody. With great candor, in what Lord Beaconsfield says was not a candid speech, Sir Robert Peel described the process of his conversion from, the Protection to the Free Trade faith. lie quoted some good doctrine from the American Secretary of the Treasury, who had lately said, "By countervailing restrictions we injure our own fellow-citizens much more than the foreign nation at whom we purpose to aim their force, and in the conflict of opposing tariffs we sacrifice our own com- merce, agriculture, and navigation. Let our commerce/ be as free as our political institutions. Let us with, revenue duties only, open our ports to all the world." Thus among the missionaries who had helped to con- vert Sir Robert Peel was the American Secretary of the Treasury. Let us hope that the time is not far distant when we shall see another Secretary of the Treasury equally wise. At the very beginning of his speech Sir Robert Peel laid the foundation of his argument, First on the scientific wisdom of the Free Trade theory, and Secondly, on the practical results of the experiment of 1842. For three or four years he had patronized Free Trade as a "theory" which might be philosophically correct, but was so hampered and qualified by the accidents of government and actual business, by .for- eign relations, and local surroundings, as to " be of Digitized by Microsoft® THE REFORMED SYSTEM 231 doubtful utility in practical political economy. He had passed out of the region of doubt into the strong light of conviction and now advocated Free Trade as just and wise, not only in theory, but in practice, too. He said, "lam about to proceed on the assumption that the repeal of prohibitory and the relaxation of protective duties is in itself a wise policy — that pro- tective duties abstractedly and on principle are open to objection — I am about to act on this presumption— that during the period of the last three years there has been in this country an increased productiveness of revenue, notwithstanding the relaxation of heavy taxation — that there- has been an increased demand for labor; that there has been increased commerce; that there has been increased comfort, content, and peace in this country ; and I say that the enjoyment of these benefits has been concurrent with the policy of repealing prohibitory and reducing protective "duties." This was a strong opening, and it was plain that if he could prove what he said by the facts of commerce, revenue, and wages, the Prime Minister had already made out his case against the protective system. That he felt confident of his ability to do so was plain from the challenge with which he accompanied his statement. He called upon the opposition to meet him with a counter- proposition, viz. : "that Protection is- in itself a good." He justified the "horizontal" plan on the ground that whatever a man lost by the withdrawal of protection from his own interest was made up to him by the gain which he received by the withdrawal of protection from all other interests. He said, " I make no separate and isolated proposals. I have confidence that the pro- posal for which I contend is just, when I ask all Digitized by Microsoft® 232 FREE TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. protectionists to make the sacrifice, if it be a sacrifice, which the application of the principle requires of them." He then referred to the sacrifice he had made of revenue in admitting raw materials free, and said, ■ " In 1844 we reduced altogether the duty upon wool; in 1845 we reduced altogether the duty upon cotton. There hardly remains a raw material imported from other countries uj)on which the duty has not been re- duced. The manufacturers of this country have free access to the raw materials which constitute the fabrics of their manufactures. I am entitled, therefore, I think, to call upon the manufacturer to relax the pro- tection which he enjoys." Sir Robert Peel then criticised as unjust and un\fise all the protective taxes on the clothing of the people. He said, "In dealing with the clothing of the great body of the people, I call on the manufacturers of the great articles of cotton, woolen, and linen to relinquish their protection." He then went into historical argument to prove that the protective system had originated with the manufacturers, and that the agricultui-igts had adopted it in self-defense. He quoted Adam Smith as saying, ' ' Country gentlemen and farmers are, to their great honor, of all people the least subject to the wretched spirit of monopoly." This was received with loud laughter and derision by the Free Traders, but Sir Robert with admirable coolness and self-command re- peated the quotation, and proceeded thus, ' ' The manu- facturers seem, to have been the original inventors of those restraints upon the importation of foreign g'oods which secure to them the monopoly of the home market. It was probably in imitation of them, and to put them- selves on a level with those who they found were dis- Digitized by Microsoft® THE REFORMED SYSTEM. 233 posed to oppress them, that the country gentlemen and farmers of Great Britain so far forgot the generosity which is natural to their station, as to demand the ex- clusive privilege of supplying to their countrymen corn and butcher's meat." All that apparent flattery was probably ironical on Peel's part, but whether so or not, it was a fair com- mentary on the protective system, which is a competi- tion of classes to get "level "with one another and something to boot. Lord Beaconsfield, in describing this remarkable speech, a dozen years afterward, insin- uates that Peel was not ingenuous in making this com- parison between the "country gentlemen" and the manufacturers to the advantage of the former, and that it was only a part of that consummate art by which he managed the House of Commons. Of this part of it Lord Beaconsfield says, " "While the agitated agriculture of the United Kingdom awaited with breathless suspense the formal notification of its doom, wondering by what curfning arguments the policy of its betrayer could be palliated, the Minister addressed and pursued at consid- erable length to the wondering assembly, an elaborate and argumentative statement, the object of which was to reconcile the manufacturers to the deprival of pro- tection. Considering that this protection was merely nominal, the sacrifice did not appear to be too severe, yet the orator seemed scarcely sanguine of inducing his audience to consent to it. With imperturbable gravity the Minister read to the House the passage of Adam Smith, -in which that eminent writer acknowledges, that ' country gentlemen and farriers are the least subject to the wretched spirit of monopoly,' and fixing, with a sort of mournful reprobation, the manufacturers as Digitized by Microsoft® 234 FEEB TRADE STETJGGLE IN ENGLAND. the originators of the protective system in this country, the speaker declared, amid the titter of the Free Trad- ers, which, however, was solemnly reproved, 'that it was but justice that they should set the example of re- linquishment. ' " Lord Beaconsfield evidently regarded the whole tribute to the country gentlemen as what the boys call '"'taffy," and had he known the word he would probably have used it. The whole comparison was a sort of soothing chloroform by which Peel en- deavored to quiet the couiltry gentlemen while he was pulling their teeth. Whatever import duties remained on the manufactures of cotton and woolen clothing under the proposed new tariff, were limited to the finer fabrics indulged in by the rich; on those used by the great body of the people the tax was altogether abolished. As it is now in the United States, so it was in Eng- land then, each protected interest purchased the silence of a rival interest by protecting that also, leaving the great mass of the consumers to bear the burden of "the whole tax accumulations; for instance, in order to pro- tect the tanner. Government levied a high tariff on tan- ned leather, and then it bribed the shoemaker and the saddler into acquiescence by levying a similai- tariff on saddles and harness, and boots and shoes. Of course, in returning to a correct system, the reverse plan must be adopted, and the reduction of the tax on one must be accompanied by a kindred reduction on the other. Recognizing the force of this, Sir Robert Peel said, "Having remitted the duty on almost evei-y article con- nected with the tanning prqcess, I propose to remit the duty on dressed hides. There will then not be one raw material which the manufacturer of leather cannot Digitized by Microsoft® THE REFORMED SYSTEM. 235 command without the payment of duty. Having done that, I propose to diminish the duty on foreign boots and shoes imported into this country." This was the "horizontal" plan, and it is difficult to see how any other could be either just or wise. To take the tax burthen from leather in one shape, and leave it upon leather in some other shape, would be unstatesmanlike and unfair; and all the taxes upon leather being re- moved, there was no longer any excuse for permitting the shoemaker to levy taxes upon everybody else, in order to protect his business. Sir Robert Peel applied this principle to hats and other things. Having re- mitted the duties on the materials of the hat manufact- ure, he then reduced the duty on hat^. He still clung to the delusion that he could make a missionary pulpit of the custom house, and use the tariff schedule as an abolition tract, so, while he reduced the tariff on sugar, he limited the reduction to that grown by free labor. He proposed to punish Brazil, Spain, and the United States for preserving slavery by making a custom house discrimination against their sugar. At last he came to the Corn-Laws, and in the midst of breathless anxiety, he announced that the duties on Indian corn, and on all cattle, vegetables, and other j)rovisions were to cease at once. On wheat, barley, oats, peas, and beans, a small duty would remain for three years, and on the first day of February, 1849, that duty also was to cease, . excepting a nominal tax of about three cents a bushel on wheat, for procuring statistics of information; and even that was abolished in due time. It is not necessary to go into any further details of an argument which lasted three hours and a quarter, and which concluded amidst great excitement on his own side of the House, and immense cheering on the other. Digitized by Microsoft® 236 FRBK TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. This was the most important speech delivered in Parliament in modern times; it was fraught with' greater consequences to Great Britain than any other, and it was answered by the Tories not with argument, but with personal denunciation of the Minister. Lord Beaconsfield, who was the most virulent and sarcastic of all Peel's enemies, and who came into parliamentary prominence through his poisonous assaults upon him, writing of the speech in 1858, attempts to throw con- tempt upon it while admitting its power, lie says, "But no inability to endure the dread suspense on the part of his former adherents effected the slightest alter- ation in the tactics which the consummate master had arranged. He had resolved that a considerable time should elapse before they learned their doom, and. that a due impression should be conveyed to the House and to the country that on this night of saorifioes the agricul- tural classes were not the, only victims. -And in this he succeeded so well, that, even to this day, controver- sies are continually arising as to the nature and degree of protection still retained and enjoyed by the staple manufactures of the country." Lord Beaconsfield tries to account for the power of a speech he could not answer, by pretending that the success of it was due' to the crafty tactics and manage- ment of Peel rather than to any merit in the production itself. He says, "This remarkable man, who in pri- VEtte life was constrained, and often awkward, who could never address a public meeting or make an after- dinner speech without being ill at ease, and generally saying something stilted, or even a little ridiculous, in the Senate was the readiest, easiest, most flexible and adroit of men. He played upon the House of Com- Digitized by Microsoft® THE EEPOBMED SYSTEM. 237 mons as on an old fiddle. And to-iiight, the manner in which he proceeded to deal with the duties on han- dles and soap, while all were thinking of the duties on something else, the bland and conciliatory air with which he announced a reduction of the impost on boot fronts and shoe leather, while visions of deserted vil- lages and reduced rentals were torturing his neighbors, were all characteristic of his command over himself, and those whom he addressed." Here with incautious candor, the man who next to Lord George Bentinck was the chief leader of the Protectionists in Parliament, con- fesses that the opposition of the Tories to Free Trade was due to a vision of '-reduced rentals." To main- tain high rents for idlers the food and clothing of the industrious must be made scarce and dear by means of a protective tariff. Again, trying to explain the success of Peel in pre- senting his new policy to the House of Commons, and the discomfiture of the Protectionists, Lord Beaconsfield, instead of admitting that it was too great for him and his party to answer, impudently pretends that it was too little. He remarks, " Some fine judges have recog- nized in all this only the artifice of a consummate mas- ter of the House of Commons, lowering the tone of an excited assembly by habitual details, and almost prov- ing by his accustomed manner of addressing them that, after all, he could have done nothing very extraordinary. When a Senate, after a long interval and the occurrence of startling transactions, assembles, if not to impeach, at least to denounce a Minister, and then are gravely anointed with domestic lard, and invited to a specula- tion on the price of salt pork, an air of littleness is irresistibly infused into the affair, from which it seems Digitized by Microsoft® 238 FEEE rpADE STKUGGLE IX ESGLAND. hopeless to extricate the occasion." All this is inge- nious, and contains within it a flavor of patrician con- tempt for details and vulgar things like lard and soap and leather, but the fact remains that the speech made a profound impression upon Parliament and the country, an impression which has never been removed, but which remains to this day. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER XVI. THK NEW POLICY. The plan of Sir Robert Peel was a surprise to all parties. Although much was expected, the country was astonished at the bold and comprehensive sweep of the new policy. The Free Traders were literally dumb, for although the measure fell short of their extremely radi- cal demands, it came so much nearer to them than was expected, that they thought it would be ungracious in them to criticise the Minister, who with a rebellious . party on his hands, had the fortunes of a great empire in his keeping. They felt that Peel was bringing all the resources of patriotic statesmanship to the solution of a revenue and economic problem that was agitating the country, and unsettling the theories of ages; that he was actuated by a sincere desire to establish the prosperity of his country on a permanent and sure foundation, and at the same time avert an impending scarcity which might culminate in famine. They there- fore said nothing in reproof, leaving the task of censure to his own party. The Tories immediately began to whimper and scold; they dwelt upon the perversion of the Government to the Free Trade heresy, but they did not attempt to refute the arguments of the Prime Min- ister, nor to contradict his testimony. Their oratory might have all been condensed into the painful exclama- tion of the Earl of March, son and heir of the Duke of Richmond, a baby statesman with no brains, who cried Digitized by Microsoft® 240 FEEE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. out, that ' ' really he never in all his life was so horri- fied, so distressed, or so astonished, as when he heard the Prime Minister's plans that night." Visions of "reduced rentals" had' horrified and distressed him. The speeches were all in support of a motion for a con- tinuance. Like a culprit under sentence. Protection made a pitiful appeal for a few days' respite. Its friends ap- pealed for time to consider such important changes; and finally, two weeks was granted. Some demanded that the sense of the country should be taken by the dissolu- tion of Parliament and a. new election. Some were in favor of referring the whole matter to a " commission," and thus to obtain a reprieve; but it was of no use, their dilatory motions were all overruled, and on Monday, the 9th of February, the great debate began, the most important that had taken place since 1688. The feat- ure of the night was the introduction of Lord Morpeth, who had just been elected from the West Riding -of Yorkshire, where he was defeated in 1841. He brought with him no less than 103 petitions from Yorkshire ask- ing for Free Trade. One petition from Leeds was signed by 19,000 men, and one from Bradford by 14,000. Some amusement was created by Mr. Ferrand, who challenged the signatures as not being the free and unbiased acts of the men who signed. He was prepared to prove, he said, that the workingmen in many factor- ies in Yorkshire were obliged to come into the counting- houses of the owners and sign. Lord Morpeth silenced him by saying that in his belief the signatures were all the true and independent acts of the parties; and then, amid considerable excitement, the question having been put that the Speaker leave the chair that the House might Digitized by Microsoft® THE NEW POLICY. 241 resolve itself into a committee on tlie Corn and Impor- tation acts, Mr. P. Miles, on tlie part of the Protec- tionists, moved as an amendment that the House should resolve itself into committee that day six months; and on that amendment the great debate began. Mr. Miles was not regarded as a very able man, and his remarks merely served to open the discussion, noth- ing more. He repeated the usual Protection generali- ties, but brought no evidence nor attempted any proof. He declared that there should be a dissolution of Par- liament before such momentous changes ; he believed that in the mind of the Prime Minister the cause of protection had long been doomed, and that potatoes were the last pretext for sealing its fate. He repeated Peel's old argument about the danger which would arise if the country became dependent upon foreigners for grain. The country might now consider Free Trade to be the ruling principle of 'Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Miles was truthfully prophetic when he said : "Sooner or later every interest must bow to the opera- tion of the Free Trade principle." He felt convinced that the shipping interest would, before long, be de- prived of protection. "Of what use, " inquired Mr. Miles, "are navigation laws, or reciprocity treaties, if pro- tection is to be taken from our own productions?" He expressed his fears that the League would not dissolve as it had promised to do if the Corn-Laws were repealed. He feared that it would preserve its organization, and agitate for revolutionary changes in another direc- tion. Sir W. Heathcote seconded the amendment in a speech wherein he declared that "domestic industry requires protection in proportion to the amount of manual- labor necessary to carry it on ;" and by force of Digitized by Microsoft® 242 FREE TEADE STKTGOLE IX EX^U.A.>'D. this principle he tried to make it appear that agriculture being more "nianuar' than manufactures, ought to have more protection. In other words, that occupations haY- inw the advantage of machinery needed no protection, while those that used no machinery did. This curious doctrine did not strike the House of Commons as very profound, although, if ''the lower wages in otJtier countries " theory was correct, it was a good one, and Sir "W. Heathcote sat down without having created any great sensation. As the converts at a camp-meeting in relating their "experience," all say the same thing, so a half-a-dozen Tories followed Sir W. Heathcote, and echoed him in monotonous repetition. Then Lord Sandon startled the House by making a good, sensible argument against the measure, and at the same time declaring that he should vote for it. He foreboded great disaster from it, especially to farmers and farm laborers. His motive, he said, for voting for the measure was the conviction that it was impossible to maintain Protection against public opinion. "We may gnimble and struggle," he said, "but the question is decided against us." The position in which Lord Sandon fouiid himself shows how difficult it was for some Tories to separate them- selves from Peel. They had so longlooked up to his cool head for guidance that the habit of doing so had become an infatuation. They could not believe it pos- sible that they themselves might be right and Peel wrong. They had leaned upon him so long that, with- out him, they were helpless. Even the Duke of AVel- lingtou talked in the House of Lords very much .is Lord Sandon did in the House of Commons, showing that in spite of what they called his "desertion" of Digitized by Microsoft® THE NEW POLICY. 243 tliem, a large number of the Tory party had ceased to have any individuality of their own, but had permitted themselves to become absorbed in the personality of Peel. The chief incident of the first night's debate was the speech of Lord John Russell. , His position was peculiar, for he had been turned out of office by Peel in 1841, for proposing si small modification of the Corn- Laws, and he was now marshaling the Whig party to support a proposition of his rival and antagonist for their total repeal. Lord Beaconsfield, in his anxiety to point suspicion at Peel, asserts that Lord John Russell spoke in the tone of a man who had been wronged by Peel, and unfairly driven from oflice ; that his manner was complaining, and justly so. The speech does not bear that interpretation. It is magnanimous and patriotic. True, Lord John Russell did criticise some of the details of the new plan, es23ecially the three years' respite; and h.e also complained that when he had endeavored to introduce similar reforms he had been met by a party opposition, and finally driven from power; but it was all said in such a manly way as to elicit cheers from both sides of the House, and even from Sir Rpbert Peel himself. Lord John Russell said: "Considering the plan of the Minister as a great meas- ure, a measure that is to lay the foundation of a com- pletely new principle with regard to our commercial legislation — that principle being neither to foster one trade nor the other, but to leave them to ' flourish or to fade,' according to the energies and skill of the people, and believing that is- the sound principle, I am prepared to give every support I can to the plan brought forward by the right honorable gentleman. " Digitized by Microsoft® 244 FREE TEADE STRUGGLE IX ENGLAND. As party warfare goes, it would not have been es- pecially unfair if Lord John Russell had taken advanl^ age of the "crisis" to turn the' Tories out, but in this instance he certainly put patriotism above party, and the relief of the people before official jealousy and personal recriminations. Referring in a dignified man- ner to Mr. Lascelles, who had just remarked that he supported the plans of the Prime Minister because he thought him more likely to succeed in passing them than Lord John Russell could, he said, " It is by the aid of the Whigs, and by the conduct that we shall pursue that the measure will attain its success." Then waiv- ing all personal ambition, and ignoring private griefs, he generously said, "If the tight honorable gentleman has the glory of adopting plans of commercial freedom which will benefit his country, which will enable the poor man to get a better reward for his labor, which will increase the demand for all the productions, and which, after these questions are settled, will, I hope, open the way to the moral improvement of the people of this country, hitherto prevented by their want of adequate means of comfort — if the right honorable gen- tleman has the glory of cartying a measure fraught with such large and beneficial results, let ours be the solid satisfaction that, out of oflice, we have associated together for the purpijse of aiding and assisting the triumph of the Minister of the Crown." It was important that the position of the Whigs should be declared thus early, and the speech of Lord John Russell was a great disapj)ointment to the rancor- ous faction of Protectionists, who under the lead of Lord George Bentinck and_ Mr. Disraeli were seeking to obstruct and defeat the reformation. They had Digitized by Microsoft® THE NEW POLICY. 245 hoped that the Whigs would find partisan excuse for opposition, in revenge for 1841, and naturally enough, they could see no merit in the speech. Their vexation lasted long. A dozen years afterward Mr. Disraeli, describing it, said, "Lord John Russell, who followed in a speech which was not one of his happy efforts, agreed with Lord Sandon, ' that the Minister had not laid his grounds broadly and extensively enough in point of time.' Lord John was not very felicitous in point of time himself. Embarrassed by his engage- ment to support the measure of his rival, little antici- pating the importance and duration of the debate then taking place, and anxious to free himself as soon as possible from the fulfillment of an awkward duty, he wasted his ammunitibn much too soon in the engage- ment, spoke inopportunely and ineffectively, and the future first Minister of the country was not heard of in the House of Commons for three weeks. " The weakness of this criticism is apparent as the motive of it is sus- picious. Mr. Disraeli's opinion is based upon the erro- neous assumption that had Lord John Russell known that the debate was to last for three weeks, he would have dramatically drawn importance to himself during the whole of that period by concealing his intended action, until near the end of the debate, and then reveal- ing it in a j)yrotechnic shower of dazzling sparks. But Lord John Russell was far too dignified for tricks like that. He had made up his mind to support Peel's measures, and he believed that it was due to Peel, to the country, and to himself, that he should say so early in the debate. The debate of the second night is valuable reading, as it exposes the economic error so firmly believed in Digitized by Microsoft® 246 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. by the Americau protectionists to-day, and so tena- ciously teld by the English protectionists forty-five years ago; that we should sell to other nations, but not buy of them; and that wise legislation should facilitate the exportation of our products, and forbid the importation of those of other countries. The debate was opened by Mr. Stafford O'Brien, a land-owner, and member for the county of Northampton. He ridiculed what he called "the maxims of political economy," and de- clared that they could not be applied to practical pur- poses. He dug up the ancient "pauj)er labor" scare- crow, and exhibited it again. He became pathetic over the sorrows of the workingman, after the maudlin fash- ion peculiar to the rich monopolists of that day — and this. He said, 'Suppose that acting uJDOn the axiom , of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, he, a wealthy man in England, furnished his house with paper-hangings from Paris; suppose that he traveled in a continental carriage — that he pur- chased all his earthenware in Germany; suppose all this; when he looked out of the window of his gaudy house, or his foreign-built carriage, what would he see? A vast multitude of unemployed, starving Englishmen. And what would they say to him? 'We are poor Eng- lish f)aper-stainers; we are Birmingham hardware men; our trade has been taken away from us, what are we to do?' " This kind of talk still had some weight outside, among ignorant workingmen, whose prejudices against "foreign pauper labor" could be easily aroused, but it was laughed at in the House of Commons, as a detected imposture; it was tiresome twaddle there. Mr. O'Brien''' requested his countrymen to starve with patience so that he might obtain high rents for his land; and on Digitized by Microsoft® THE NEW POLICY. 247 those terms he was willing to promise that he would not buy his fine carriages in France, nor his crockery in Germany. Sir James Graham followed Mr. O'Brien, and ap- plied this principle to his argument, that no country can permanently maintain exportation without imports in some shape or other to balance it; nor can a nation maintain importalions for any length of time, without exporting something to pay for them. He said, "The honorable member, from Northamptonshire described a state of things where a certain person has the walls of his house covered with French paper-hangings, fur- nished with articles of German hardware, and who rides in a Brussels carriage, while workmen are crowding the market with nobody to hire them. How does he think those carriages are to be obtained? Whatever may be the form of the transaction by which they are obtained, that transaction of necessity resolves itself into a barter. Directly or indirectly there must be an exchange of commodities, and you must in the long run export some of your own productions to pay for what you have got from abroad." Sir James Graham in replying to the challenge of Lord Worsley that if the members of, the Government had changed their opinions they should manfully own it, said, "I accept that challenge. I do frankly avow my change of opin- ion, and, by that avowal, I dispose of all the speeches." Next to Peel himself, Sir James Graham was perhaps the ablest debater in the Ministry, and his speech on this occasion was regarded as a successful defense of the Government. Speaking as a landlord, he said, ' 'For one, sooner than it should be said of myself, or any of the class to which I belong, that our object was Digitized by Microsoft® 248 FKBE TEADB STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. to secure for ourselves an increase of rent, and not to promote the welfare and happiness of the great body of the community ^ — sooner than leave any room for such a suspicion, I should say, speaking for myself, that I would descend to a lower estate, and abrogate my in- heritance." That Sir James Graham really meant what he said there is no reason to doubt. That he would have made the sacrifice willingly is probable; but when he claimed chivalry of that kind as an attribute of "the class to which I belong^" the landlords of England, he spoke with innocent and unconscious irony. That "class" was protectionist, selfish, and unpatriotic. It claimed the lands of England by right of conquest, and it would not surrender any of its baronial privileges though famine threatened the people. It was pro- tectionist and rapacious to the end. While this debate was proceeding in the House of Commons, another with more pathos in it, was going on outside. It was conducted at night by the " pro- tected" farm laborers of Wiltshire. Its revelations were of a startling character, and the protectionists, both in Parliament and out of it, were greatly disturbed by them. The. Tories were thrown upon the defensive; while apologies and explanations came* thick and -fast. It may be doubted whether the skillful oratory and logical argument of Peel, and Graham, and Bright had so much effect as the rude pathos of those rustic hinds, who had been "protected" to starvation by a false and selfish economic system, the relic of a barbarous age. Their simple statements constituted eloquence of a very exciting kind. They could not be answered by argument; they could only Digitized by Microsoft® THE NEW POLICY. 249 be denied, and denial was useless, for the facts were too plain. Some of the speakers were women, and the stories they told of suffering made the protectionists appear to be the mere apologists of poverty and injustice. One man said, " My friends— I be a laboring man; I have a wife and seven children in family, my wages at the present time is eight shillings a week." Another said, " For the last fortnight I have received only six shillings a week. I know many men with four chil- dren who have only six shillings a week. I expect to be discharged when I get home for coming to the meeting. It be them Corn-Laws — them cursed Corn- Laws — that make bread dear. I have been employed like a horse in drawing a cart. I was one of five men yoked to the cart." Many others talked in the same way, but the speeches of the women were more pathetic and sorrowful than those of the men. One woman said that she was compelled to feed her children upon nettles and weeds, and this, thdy said, is ' ' Protection. " This exposure of the condition of the "protected" English peasantry was a j)owerful weapon in the hands of the Free Traders, and the protectionists were not able to soften down the indignation which it caused among the people. On the fifth night of the debate, Sir Robert Peel addressed the House. He spoke for three hours, and gave a full explanation of the break-up of his Govern- ment in December, and his resumption of office. He defended himself from the imputation of unfairness to Lord John. Russell, and read a letter which he had sent to the Queen on the 8th of December, two days after his resignation, and when he expected that Lord John Russell would succeed in forming an administration. Digitized by Microsoft® 250 TEEB TRADE STEUGGLE IN^ EXGLAND. In that letter he had promised Her Majesty that he would support Lord John Russell in any measures he might bring forward for a repeal of the Corn-Laws, not inconsistent with the spirit of- his lordship's letter from Edinburgh to the electors of the city of London. He then gave his reasons for introducing the measures before the House, and defended .them on principle and on grounds of expediency. Even Lord Beacons- field admits the strength of this important speech. He says, "The sjDeech of Sir Robert Peel was one of his best; indignant and vigorous, free from the affectation of fairness, and that too obvious plausibility in which of late years he had somewhat luxuriantly in- dulged; he threw off the apologetic tone, and was uncom.promising, both in his principles and demeanor. The peroration was in the high League style, though, of course, adapted to the more refined taste of the House of Commons." This is a great concessio"n on the part of Lord Beaconsfield, but the speech de- served it. Some of Peel's facts and arguments coming from the towering height occupied by an experienced Prime Minister and statesman fell with crushing weight upon the protectionist resistance, and absolutely broke it down. For instance, he made this challenge, ' ' Show me," he said, "one relaxation, one removal of prohi- bition, which has not contributed to the advantage of the great body of consumers. I will go farther, I will show you that these removals of prohibition have con- tributed not merely to the general weal and advantao-e of the consumers, but that they are perfectly consistent with the jiermanent benefit and increased wealth of the producer." He then enforced his challenge by some Digitized by Microsoft® THE NEW POLICY. 251 startling statistics, showing the increased importation of timber under the reduced tariff, which increased supply had stimulated ship-building and every trade of which wood was the raw material. A reduction of the tariff on silk and its materials had been followed by the increased prosperity of the silk trade. For centuries the English silk manufacturer had been protected by a high tariff against the "pauper labor" of France. With an air of triumphant superiority that almost shriv- eled up the protectionists, he exclaimed, "Loolc at the state of your silk trade at this moment. The French have long been accustomed to plume themselves upon their silk manufactures. But it may, perhaps, surprise not a few of those who are now listening to me, to learn that last year, with our relaxed tariif, we actually ex- ported to France more silk than we exported to the whole universe in any year of the protective system. And there is no branch of manufactures in which the same improvement is not observable." Those magnificent realties were only a " theory " in 1842, but they had become cannon-ball facts in 1846, battering down the ramparts of "Protection," and crumbling that old rapparee "theory" into ruins grim and hated as those of the old Bastile. Proceeding with his argument, in the self-confidence of a man who knows what he is talking about, he turned upon the angry crowd behind him, and said, " I am prepared to prove all this," but there was not one of them bold enouo-h to call for the evidence. Rcfovring to the dread of foreio-n competition, he pointed to the immense re- sources of England, her coal and iron, her freedom, the skill of her artisans, the physical and mental strength of her people; and then with the haughty Digitized by Microsoft® 252 PEBE TUADE STBUGGLE IN ENGLAND. pride of an Englishman looking down up'on surround- ing nations, and scorning to believe that they were able to compete with his own countrymen in manufactures or in anything else, he inquired, " What have you to fear?" Some day a triumphant statesman standing in the Capitol at Washington, and pointing to the resources of our country, a hundred-fold greater than England ever had, and to the activity, intelligence, and the in- dustrial skill of our peoj^le, will silence our own pro- tectionists by repeating the question of Peel, ' ' What have you to fear ? " The debate went on for three weeks, and was greatly enlivened on the last night of it by a speech from Mr. Cobden. He was good-natured, and indeed, rather patronizing to the Tories, and he assured them that their fears of Free Trade were foolish. He told them that they themselves had lost confidence in the sound- ness of the "Protection" principle, and that their ac- tions proved it. "You wish for an appeal to the country," he said, "and you will abide by its decision. If you could depend ujjon your principles you would not take such a course. You would say that you would not yield to one defeat or many, but you have no confi- dence in your doctrine." Referring to the threat that the bill should be defeated in the House of Lords, he said with great significance, " Recollect there is no cot- ton-sjjiuner nor manufacturer there." Like a kind father talking to a lot of children, Mr. Cobden lectured the protectionists ; and so amiably was it all done, that they bore it with good humor, if not with pleasure. Once, when he told them that in case of a new election they would lose every town containing as many as 25,000 inhabitants, they interrupted him with loud cries of Digitized by Microsoft® I I I I THE NEW POLICY. 253 " No," "No," but he replied quickly, "I tell you that you have neither Liverpool nor Bristol." He made much ridicule of the old arguments about " dependence on the foreigner," "land going out of cultivation," the " drain of gold," etc., which, he said, although knocked, in the head long ago, had come out again in this debate as fresh as ever. " You would know better," said Mr. Cobden, "if you lived in the world, and not in a charmed circle. Recollect," he continued, "I want no triumph; but I want us all to confer together to see if we cannot carry out something better for our country, and when this great measure is passed we will dissolve the League — but not till then." The hopeful, modest, and sunshiny tone of Cobden's speech lifted the debate into a more friendly atmosphere, and then Lord George Bentinck closed it.. He had lately been chosen leader of the Protectionist party, and for three hours he made an obstinate struggle against a hostile tide; and when he finished his remarks there were loud calls of "Divide," "Divide." More than a hundred speeches had been made, and it was thought that the debate would end on Friday night, the 27th of February. Great crowds of people waited in Parliaipent street all night long, anxious to hear the result. It was three o'clock in the morning of Saturday, February 28, 1846, when the debate ended; and when the division was had there appeared to be — for the. Government proposals, 337; against them, 240. The revolution was accomplished. The cheers of the Free Traders inside and outside the House waked up London. The Protectionist Parliament of 1841 had, in the beginning of 1846, established Free Trade as the commercial policy of England by a majority of ninety- Digitized by Microsoft® 254 FEEE TEADB STEUGGLE IN" ENGLAND. seven votes. The great struggle was ended, and the industry of Britain was free. In the year 1436 the first law was passed restricting the importation of foreign grain. It had beeil altered for better and for worse many times since then, and now at the venerable age of four hundred, and ten years, it was slain on the spot where it was born. As the League had proclaimed from the very beginning, it carried down with it the whole system of protection. The schedule of import duties yet remaining was based on the principle of a tariff for revenue only. A fine illufetration of the bigotry of good, old fash- ioned, protection Toryism was furnished during the , progress of this debate by the Duke of Newcastle. He owned a great part of the county of Nottingham, and in that county his will was law. He directed who should be elected to Parliament, and who should be de- feated. Now, it so happened that his eldest son, the Earl of Lincoln, was member for South Nottingham shire, and he was also a member of Sir Robert Peel's administration. He had changed his opinions on the subject of Protection, and had become a supporter of the Free Trade measures of the Government. He had resigned one post in the administration to accept an- other, that of Chief Secretary for Ireland. The accept- ance of this new office vacated his seat in Parliament, and required him to go before his constituents for a re- election, and before them he accordingly went. The Duke of Newcastle, ho wetter, had become so angry and indignant because Lord Lincoln supported Peel, that he gave orders that his son should be defeated, and defeated he was. Mr. Hillyard, a Protectionist,, was elected in his place by a majority of 700 votes. The Duke of Digitized by Microsoft® THE NEW POLICY. 255 Newcastle was a representative specimen of what Sir James Graham called, "the class to which I belong," a class which he thought would make sacrifices, rather than have it said that "our object is to se- cui'e an increase of rent, and not to promote the welfare and happiness of the great body of the eomm unity," The Duke of Newcastle furnished convincing evidence that a man who is pi-ivileged by a Protective Tariff to levy toll and tribute upon his f ellow-citizenS cares noth- ing about the welfare and happiness of the community. All he cares about is the welfare and happiness of him- self. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER XVII. A TAKIFF FOK RETEXUE ONLY. The vote of Febraary 27tli was merely for going into committee ; the measures approved by it were not yet law. Every separate clause and item in the new tariff could be debated and amended in committee of the whole. This offered to the Protectionists a chance to delay the bill, and they spitefully resolved on a pol- icy of obstruction. They hoped, in a bewildered sort of way, that if they could- gain time something might "turn up" to help them. They did not know exactly what, but, like the doomed criminal, they looked upon even a respite as including within it the chance of ulti- mate escape. Lord Beaconsfield confesses this with a simple fatuity not excelled by Mr. Micawber himself. In his "Biography of Lord George Bentinck" he says: "The great object which Lord George now proposed to himself was to delay the progress of the Government measures, so that they should not reach the House of Lords before Easter. He believed that time still might insure their discomfiture. The majority of the 27th of February was only in favor of going into committee. Before, therefore, any bill for the repeal of the Corn- Laws could be brought forward the principle of every projected alteration of the tariff must individually be sanctioned by a particular vote. The opportunities for resistance, therefore, were considerable and encourag- ing." Digitized by Microsoft® A TAEIFF FOE REVENUE ONLY. 257 Rarely have statesmen pursued an object so micro- scopically "little" as this, which Lord Beaconsfield calls "great." Hunger was general throughout Eng- land and Scotland;" while actual famine was impending over Ireland. The ministers offered relief to the starv- ing people by repealing the "Protective" tariff on food, and this horse-racing son of a duke employed all the opportunities which the rules of Parliament gave him to resist this beneficent measure ; and these, re- marks Lord Beaconsfield, were "considerable and en- couraging." This policy of delay was adopted, and, in fact, it was not until May that the bill passed its third reading and went up to the House of Lords. But all this was mere formality, after the vote of February 27th, — the mere ceremonial of nailing on the coffin-lid and preparing the deceased for burial. The funeral might be delayed, but it could not be prevented. When the bill went up to the House of Lo^ds the Tory peers made a fussy pretense of throwing it out, but they were at last afraid to do so. They had only one man among them of really great ability. That man was Lord Stanley, who had lately resigned his place in the cabinet rather than consent to a repeal of the Corn-Laws. The hopes of monopoly centered on him,* and every protectionist in England was cheering him with the ancient slogan, " On, Stanley, on!" He made a great speech, which, for a moment, gave a little courage to his party. He opposed Free Trade with the same vehemence that his father and his grandfather had opposed railroads, and for the same antiquated reasons. The old earl used to employ a lot of people whose duty it was to shoot railroad surveyors when they came upon his lands. Lord Stanley paraded over and over again Digitized by Microsoft® 258 TEBB TKADE STEUGGLE IN ENGLAND. the ancient heresies of the protective system as if the steam engine and the printing press had not yet come. Shut out from the light of the nineteenth cen- tury, in the gloomy grandeur of the House of Lords, his speech might have been the speech of his ancestor fresh frorn the fight at Bosworth field. On the same day that the bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons the Duke of Buccleugh, on the part of the Government, moved its first reading in the House of Lords, which was instantly opposed by the Duke of Richmond, who passionately denounced the measure as "an unauthorized abandonment of the great principle of Protection to British industry," Lord Monteagle replied to the Duke of Richmond, and said that ' ' the doctrines of Free Trade recognized a clear distinction between protective duties and a, tariff for revenue only." Earl Grey made the ablest speech on the Free Trade side. He had lately been transferred to the House of Lords by the death of his father. As Lord Howick, he had, in the House of Commons, proved himself, next to Mr. Villiers, the most philo- sophical and consistent Free Trader among all the mem- bers of the aristocracy who took that side ; and in his new position he was pronounced and clear as he was in the Lower House of Parliament. He said that^ ' ' he could only accept the scheme of the Government as an installment, not a perfect measure of Free Trade. He was still, as he had ever been, against all du€ies for protection; and he could answer for the great body of the manufacturers that they desired not a particle of protection for themselves when they asked for the re- moval of all protective and differential duties on every article of consumption." It is a pleasant coincidence Digitized by Microsoft® A TARIFF FOE REVENUE ONLY. 259 that Earl Grey and Mr. Villiers are still, at the age of ninety, active statesmen, attending to their parliament- ary duties — one of them in the House of Lords, the other in the House of Commons. Lord Ashburton of the house of Baring, was one of the few peers who belonged to ' the commercial classes, and he insisted on preserving the plan of "Reciprocity." "The Germans," he said, "had their ZoUverein, and France her restrictive system, and England required a eimiliar system to counteract them. " Replying to Earl Grey, he said, he did not believe that the manufacturers would redeem the promise that had been made in their name. Lord Ashburton showed a very good knowledge of human nature when he said that "he believed the magnanimity of the manufacturers to be of the kind that would like Free Trade for every commodity except that which they themselves supplied." He did not see that this very sarcastic opinion, while intended to apply specially to persons, contained within it a geui eral application to the whole protective system, which offers a 'legislative temptation stimulating greed, and seducing men to prey upon one another. All men de- sire Free Trade in the articles which they must buy; and laws are mischievous, and corrupting, which tempt them to ask protection on the products they have to sell. The selfish genius of the protective system was responsible for it, that the manufacturers were "of a kind that would like Free Trade for every commodity except that which they themselves supplied." Lord Stanley reserved his great speech for the de- bate on the second reading of the bill. It was strong in oratory, but weak in argument, and its ignorant denial of the famine impending over Ireland must for- Digitized by Microsoft® 2(!0 I'-iiKio ruADH s'nuiiiiii.M in kniu.and. ever oxcliulc Lord Slunlcy I'roin llio ji;!ilaxy of jj;rnat slutosMiiMi. All.lioiiu'li (liii :i|>|)n).'U'liiiij;' H('-(iiii\h'h wan m plainly visiblo :is i.\w I'limiol-Hhaiu'd cloiul whicli {)or- (ciids !i, lini-riciuu\ lie ,s|i(iki' of it iiH "lui iillorly hiiHolcss vision ii:uinl,int>' (lio iiniij;'iM!il.ii)n dI' Sir Uohcrt 1*(U(I;" and liii doclarod llial, "no c.onnlry of oniinc^iicc! liail iwor vi'niiii'cd npon tlio rasli i^xpiM'inu'nt, of ioavinsj; corn uii- proU'i'-l.i'd by r(\,sl,i'ii',t,ivo diit.ios on I'oriMtrn inipor(,a(ri()n," lli^ ,sai(l tlial rod lie, ins;' tint pi'ict' of wlicnl, in order U) r«- liii'Vc a, ncarcil-y in potaUKNs would prodiuu^ no morc^ olTect Uian a law U) rcdniHi llio prici', of pinc'-a|iploH. Ilo also diMionni'cd llic L('a!;iu^ an'r.ain to Htay the liunjfer of the people, but oidy for a t.ime, and on the ex|iress condition t,hat as soon as their huni^er waH re- lieved t,li(^ i)rolee1,iv(^ t,ariir should be re-imposed, to mal<<' them bunj.fry an'ain. Jjord Stanley then clainiexporl,s of Uritish manid'actures jirovccl the valuo of t,lie pro- Digitized by Microsoft® A 'I'AHIFK FOR IIIOVKNUIO ONLY. 2(11 teotivo HyNU'iii, hut, this was lucrcly tJic old Hoi.liiHiry that two oonditioiiM hoinji- shown, din^ iriiiHl, bo thocnuHc of tho other, liarf^c^ (ixiKirtN of man ii fact iirod floods being poHNil)lo under tlio in'otcctivo sysloni, Lord Stan- ley protiMidiHl that, tlioy would ho iiniiossihlo without it. This asHuniption is adopted by tho Ainorican I'votcc- tionists now. Thoy olaini that all tho ]>V()N|>orit.y of tlio country is dtio to tlie jirotootivt^ syHtorn, t:()taliy I'orgot- ting tho ton thousand means of wealth that (n)7n])c.l prosperity in spite of the tax laid u])on our int(^rnal re- sources by tlu' protective policy. The riillac-y of Lord Stanley's argument was a])parciit in the I'Mct. that every reduction of tarllf duties had been followi^I by a larger export, trade, and it ignored the prohahility t.hat exports would he ninlti|)lied still more should protection he abaiuloned altogether. Tluit this probability was well founded was snhsecpiently demonstratcMl by the test of actual experiment. Lord Stanley was afterward twicer Prime Minister of England, but this speindi provt'S that lie was delicient in that broad wisdom and penetrating iforesight so essential to tlie cluiracter of a statesman. Ati last lie apjiealed to tlie siOfisli laiKHonl feeling, and warned the House of Lords that sJionld the Oorn- Laws he repealed, tlieir wealth and iniluencH-, and stand- ing in the country would begone. He said, "What- ever may be the dittieultics of reconciling the ac^tion of our mixed constitution- of keeping the halamu^ even between a proud aristocracy and a reformed House of Commons -^ depend upon it, those diffioulties will not be less if, instead of a proud aristocracy you substitute a pauper aristocracy." In all tliis there was a patrician insolence towering and luiughty as a eastleon tho llliine. Here was an "order" of professt'd idlers, wlio by con- Digitized by Microsoft® 262 FEEB TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND.. quest, confiscation, and all manner of injustice, had possessed themselves of the land,, claiming special priv- ileges as the reward of usurpation, insisting that they formed a superior caste whose prerogative it was to live in luxury on the toil of others, and -whose vested right it was to make the food of the people dear in or- der to increase the wrongful rent of lands. The saci-i- legious idea that Norman barons might have to earn their own living like Saxon peasants, went through the House of Deadlocks like a cold wave, and gave most of the lords a chill. The mere suggestion of it they re- sented .as a wrong. Referring to the rack-renting body of British and Irish landlords. Lord Stanley pathetically said, "My Lords, these are the true aristocracy of the country. If you reduce these men in the scale of society you will inflict an irretrievable and irreparable injury upon the country." He patronizingly invited the Plutocracy to maintain Protection, and promised that they too should come into the sacred order. "God forbid," he exclaimed " that our successful manu- facturers and our princely merchants should not take their places among our aristocracy." The speech of Lord Stanley is proof that class legislation must pro- duce classes, and that special privileges in the way of taxation will create a Plutocracy, which in due time will , become an Aristocracy, narrow, selfish, and oppressive as the House of Lords. Lord Brougham replied vigorously to Lord Stanley and at the end of his remarks he , paid a fine tribute to " the public virtues, the prodigious powers of mind, and the immense courage" of Sir Robert Peel, who, he said, ' ' had cast away all private and personal consider- ations — had disregarded his own interests — had given Digitized by Microsoft® A. TARIFF FOR REVENUE ONLY. 263 up his right to powev and superiority — and had ex- posed himself to the most tempestuous and troubled sea that the political world had in modern times ever exhib- ited — who had given up what to an ambitious man was much — the main security of his power — he had sur- rendered what to a calculating man was much — his in- fluence and authority with his party- — and he had given up what to an amiable man was much, viz., private friendship and party associations. All these sacrifices he had made voluntarily and with his eyes open, in order to discharge what he deemed a great public duty. " It was an ironical freak of politics that the man who as Mr. Robinson, had moved, when a member of the House of Commons, for the enactment of the Corn- Laws in 1818, was the very man, who, as Earl of Ripon, moved in the House of Lords the second reading of the bill for their repeal in 1846. He confessed in a straightforward way that he had been converted; and anticipating the charge of inconsistency, which he knew would be fired at him, he said: "I know you can fextract from the records of this House, language and sentiments of mine different from those I utter here to-night; but I take no shame to myself because the only time to regret any change of opinion is when it proceeds from a bad motive." He then moved the second reading of the bill. After two or three nights of peevish and feeble debate the second reading was carried by 211 to 164. Punch in its merriest mood never caricatured the House of Lords with such effect as the "noble peers" themselves unconsciously did in their childish resistance to Free Trade. While the nineteenth century, just introducing tHe age of steam and electricity, was de- Digitized by Microsoft® 264 FREE TRADE STRUGGLE Iff ENGLAND. manding freedom for its energies in the name of nearly all the industrial forces of England, the thirteenth cent- ury, represented by a meeting of coroneted nobles, was protesting in behalf of the feudal system against rail- roads, telegraphs, and steamships, the mercenary agents of a Free Trade policy. While the intellectual Free Trade agitation was dissolving the mercantile supersti- tions of medieval England, and breaking cabinets to pieces, and while its Titanic palpitations throbbed like an earthquake under the British monarchy,- a meeting composed exclusively of peers was held at the Clarendon hotel to protest against the development and exchange of God's bounties, and especially to protest against the abolition of the old stage coach "Protection," which, they pretended, had carried England in triumph through a great and prosperous career. This quaint and curious meeting, which resembled the fifth act of a burlesque play, was the anti-dimax of the aristocratic resistance to the new era. There is a scene in one of Gilbert and Sullivan's comic operas where a select set of nobles wearing their barbariafi cor- onts, dance a comic dance and sing a comic song; and this comes nearest in character and appearance to the laeet- ing of dukes and earls and barons held at the Claren- don hotel to protest against Free Trade. The Clarendon was a ^' grand, gloomy and peculiar" hotel in Bond street, where the mutton was supposed to have a finer patrician flavor than it had elsewhere, as indeed it had; and certainly the Clarendon was the most fit and appro- priate place in London for the meeting. The Duke of Richmond was in the chair, supported by the Duke of Cleveland, and the ancient Gothic style of talk indulged in by Lord Stanley, Lord Beaumont and some other Nor- Digitized by Microsoft® A TAEIFF FOB REVENUE ONLY. 265 man Lords there present, gave those finishing touches of exaggeration to a caricature of the House of .Lords from the contemptuous effects of which it has never yet recovered. These Don Quixotes and Sancho Panzas ''unanimously resolved" that they would charge with lance and saber upon Free Trade whenever that form of modern civilization should appear in the House of Lords. Unhke the chivalrous Don, their courage failed them at the last, and, although they had the power to defeat the Free Trade measures on the third reading, they sat in sulky silence, afraid of the nineteenth century, and they did not even vote. Almost as ludicrous as the meeting of the Lords at the Clarendon was the meetijig of their tenants at Willis's rooms, a genteel place at the West End for concerts, lectures, dances, and the like. This meeting was her- alded as a meeting of the " farmers," and so far as the men there present actually farmed the land they were entitled to be called farmers; but they were not farmers in the sense of independent yeomen, and therefore their meeting had no moral weight. It was notorious that they were only tenants and actual dependents of the barons who met at the Clarendon, farmers who voted and spoke at the bidding of their landlords. For this reason th^ir protest' against Free Trade counted nothing. The fact, also, that they chose little rooms to meet in, so that they might call them "crowded," raised a laugh against them, and forced a comparison with the great meetings of the League at Covent Garden theatre and elsewhere ; a comparison humiliating to the farmers at Willis's, and to the Lords at the Clarendon. The Duke of Richmond took the chair in one room, and the Duke of Buckingham in Digitized by Microsoft® 266 FREE TEADB STKUGGLE IN ETSTGLAOTJ. the other, while Mr. Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck spoke . to the farmers; promising them that the House of Lords would reject the Free Trade measures, or so mutilate them by amendments as to compel a dissolu- tion of Parliament. The last appeal for protection, came from the Duke of Richmond, who presented a petition from some rib- bon-makers praying that their contem^ptible monopoly m.ight be spared from the general wreck. Once more Richmond and Buckingham called upon their lordships to fight for their ancient order, and have no fear of the League. This was Quixotic advice, and useless, for the baronial courage of the peers who met at the Claren- don hotel had already "oozed out at their finger ends," like the bravery of Bob Acres, and they feared that if they threw out the bill, and thereby compelled a dissolution of Parliament, the excitement of the people would add such power to the League that, in its rage, it might sweep away, not only the Corn-Laws, but the House of Lords itself. They therefore allowed the Free Trade measures to pass ; and they were so disheartened that on the 25th of June the Corn and Customs bill went through the House of Lords on its third reading with- out even a division. Digitized by Microsoft® CHAPTER XVIII. THE FALL OF PEEL. It was dramatic that on tlie very same night that the Free Trade measures passed the House of Lords, the Government of Sir Robert Peel was overthrown. On the Irish Coercion Bill, the irreconcilable Tory faction in the House of Commons, led on by Lord George Bentinok and Mr. Disraeli, took revenge upon the Minister for his Free Trade policy by voting with the opposition. Although both of them approved the Coercion bill, and had voted for it in its early stages, they saw in the defeat of it a chance for unst3,tesmanlike revenge, and Lord George in the classic dialect of the race-track called upon his faction to go over to the enemy, and ' 'kick out the bill and the ministers together. " His orders were obejred, and the administration was defeated by 292 to 219. Sir Robert Peel immediately resigned. On the following Monday night he an- nounced his resignation in a speech of much good tem- per, pathos, and dignity. In the hour of his fall his political sky was at its brightest. On that very day came an oflScial dispatch from America announcing that the United States Government had settled the Oregon question on the terms proposed by him, and thus had dissipated the war cloud which for some time had dark- ened the relations between the two countries. He said that he would offer no factious opposition to the gov- ernment of those who had thrown him out of office. Digitized by Microsoft® 268 FEKE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. He promised to support Lord John Russell's adminis- tration in carrying out the new commercial policy. He said, ' 'If that be the policy which will be pursued, I shall feel it my duty to give to his government my cordial support. I presume that Her Majesty's gov- ernment will adopt that policy — and that if other coun- tries choose to buy in the dearest market, it will be no discouragement to them to permit us to buy in the cheapest." He then advised Lord John Russell to abandon the "treaty," "retaliation" and "reciprocity" system in his foreign commercial policy. "I trust," he said, "that the new Government will not resume the policy which they and we have found so incon- venient; namely, haggling with foreign countries, in- stead of taking that independent course which we be- lieve to be conducive to our own interests." Of course much of his speech was a review of his Free Trade policy, and to the leader of the Free Trade movement he paid this magnanimous tribute. He said, "The name which ought to be associated with the suc- cess of the Free Trade measures, is not the name of the noble Lord, the member for London, nor is it my name. It is the name of a man, who, acting as I believe from disinterested motives, has, with untiring energy, by appeals to reason, enforced their necessity with an elo- quence the more to be admired because it was un- affected and unadorned; — the name which ought to be associated with these measures is the name of Richard Cobden." This roused the Free Traders to enthusiasm, and the cheering was loud and long. Many. Tories joined in it, for everybody respected Cobden. At last in the midst of deep silence, he said: "Sir, I shall leave office, I fear, with a name se- Digitized by Microsoft® THE FALL OF PEEL. 269 verely censured by many honorable gentlemen, who, on public principle, deeply regret the severance of party ties; I shall surrender power severely censured, I fear again, by many honorable gentlemen, who, from no in- terested motive, have adhered to the principle of Pro- tection as important to the welfare and interests of the country; I shall leave a name execrated by every monopolist, who, from less honorable motives, main- tains protection for his own individual benefit; but it may be that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good will in those places which are the abode of men whose lot it is to labor, and to earn their daily bread .by the sweat of their brow — a natne remembered with expressions of good will, when they shall recreate their exhausted strepgth with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened by a sense of injustice." As he took bis seat nearly the whole House rose, and cheered him for several minutes; the sulky Protec- tionist faction alone sat silent. Since the time of Wol- sey no Prime Minister of England had fallen with greater dignity. When the cheering had subsided he again rose, and moved that the House adjourn until Friday, to give Lord John Russell time to form the new administration. Then taking the arm of a friend, he left the House. In order to avoid the vast con- course of sympathizing citizens in the streets, he left by the side door that leads into Westminster Hall, and tried to escape that way, but the crowd heard of it, and headed him off. Hundreds of men formed a circle around him, and with rude but respectful courtesy, they escorted him to his home. Never in the history of England was the fall of a minister so like a triumph. Digitized by Microsoft® 270 FREE TEADB STEtTGGLE IN ENGLAND. That Sir Robert Peel regarded the downfall of his ministry as affording him a grateful relief from the cares of oiRce, is shown by the following letter to his friend, Lord Ilardinge, Governor-General of India, written immediately after his resignation: Dhayton Manok. July 4, 1846. My Dear Hardinge: You will see that we are out — defeated by a combination of Whigs and Protectionists. A much less emphatic hint would have sufficed for me. I would not have held office by sufferance for a week. Were I to write a quire of paper I could not recount to you what has passed with half so much accuracy and detail as the public papers will recount it. There are no secrets. We have fallen in the face of day, and with our front to our enemies. There is nothing I would not have done to ensure the carry- ing of the measures I had proposed this session; but the mo- ment their success was ensured, and I had the satisfaction of seeing two drowsy old Masters in Chancery mumble out at the table of the House of Colnmons, that the Lords had passed the Corn and Customs bills I was satisfied. Two hours after this, intelligence was brought that we were ejected from power; and by another coincidence as marvelous, on the day on which I had to announce in the House of Com- mons the dissolution of the Government, the news arrived that we had settled the Oregon question, and that our pro- posals had been accepted by the United. States without the alteration of a word. Lady Peel and I are quite alone herein the loveliest weather-^feasting on solitude and repose, and I have every disposition to forgive my enemies for having conferred upon me the blessing of the loss of power. Most truly and affectionately yours, RoBEKT Peel. That Peel would have been called again to power is reasonably certain, for he was a vigorous man, only sixty-two years old, when, in the summer of 1850, he Digitized by Microsoft® THE FALL OF PEEL. 271 was killed by a fall from his horse, while riding in St. James's park; an event that filled the land with pro- found and unaffected sorrow; an event that, it may be confidently said, affected injuriously, and perhaps dis- astrously, the politics of England. Had he lived, the Crimean War folly might have been averted^ On his monument, erected by the workingmen of England, is chiseled this immortal tribute, "He gave the people cheap bread." This history ends here. Although the application of the new commercial system to all the conditions of the empire; to its agricultural, manufacturing, mining, colonial, shipping, and other interests was the work of a series of years and many acts of legislation, yet the struggle to establish the Free Trade principle as the policy of England ended with the triumph of Sir Rob- ert Peel's measures in 1846. The repeal of protection to shipping, known as the "Navigation Laws," did not take effect until 1850, and it 'was not until some years later that all traces of the protective system were eliminated from the revenue policy of England, and the tariff on imports made for purposes of revenue only. The protective duty on sugar lingered along for some tirue on the plea of discouraging slavery and en- couraging the free labor of, the British West Indies. Some duty on timber survived for awhile on the theory that in return for the allegiance and trade of the colony of Canada, the Canadian forests ought to be protected against the "jiauper forests" of the United States, while, the Navigation Laws resisted reform because Adam Smith had said that they were an exception to the Free Trade theory, for they, developed a mercantile marine from which native sailors could always be ob- Digitized by Microsoft® 272 FREE TEADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. tained to man the royal navy in time of war. The protectionists, of course, ofEered a mechanical I'esist- ance to the removal of these restrictions, and they de- clared that the repeal of the Navigation Laws was the death knell of England, the transferring of her ship- building industry to the United States, the disappear- ance of her flag from the ocean, the decay of her fighting power, and the end of her naval superiority. These arguments were strong, and the protectionist forebodings had much weight; so much weight, indeed, that in 1850, Lord John Russell's bill for the repeal of the Navigation Laws passed its second reading in the House of Commons by a meager majority of only fifty-six. Still, it was felt that the Free Trade experiment, hav- ing been entered upon, and the principle of it solemnly sanctioned, all protection exceptions to it were illogical and inconsistent ; and, under the pressure of this reason- ing, all commercial restrictions of every kind were finally swept away. As a fortune-teller never goes out of business be- cause his predictions fail, so the Protection soothsayers who had proj^hesied national ruin as the inevitable con- sequence of repealing the protective tariff, started again with the same old stock of dismal omens as soon as a proposition was made to repeal the Navigation Laws, and they began foreboding again with as much impudence as if aj.1 their former portents had not failed. I cannot resist the temj)tation to quote a few specimen auguries from our old friend, UlackwoodTs Magazine, because they have silch a comical appearance now : The act of Navigation is not favorable to foreign commerce, or to the growth of that opulence that can arise from it. As defense, however, is of much more Digitized by Microsoft® THE FALL OF PEEL. 273 value than opulence, the act of Navigation, perhaps, is the wisest of all the commercial regulations of England. The fanaticism of political economists, who, like all other fanatics, are inaccessible to reason or experience, is, without doubt, a main cause of the disastrous policy to which the nation seems now irrevocably pledged. Shipbuilding and ship-navigating are twice as costly in Great Britain as they are in Norway or Denmark. How could it be otherwise when they have the material of ships and rigging at their doors, while we have to transport them to the British shores from Canada or the Baltic? That the system of Free Trade, the universal pref- erence of foreigners for the sake of the smallest reduc- tion of price, to our own subjects — must, if persisted in, lead to the dismemberment and overthrow of the British Empire, cannot admit of a moment's doubt. What made the Roman power steadily advance dur- ing seven centuries, and endure in all a thousand years? The protection which the armies of the legions afforded to the industries of mankind Free Trade in grain at length ruined it ; the harvests of Lybia and Egypt came and superseded those of Greece and Italy, and thus this fall. It is evident that the decline of British and foreign shipping will be so rapid under Free Trade in ships that the time is not far distant when the foreign tonnage em- ployed in conducting our trade will be superior in amount to the British. In all probability, in six or seven years that desira- ble consummation will be effected. The awful warning which goes by the name of the "Roman Empire" was Blackwood? s favorite example. If a little boy at the dinner-table asked for a second piece of pie, he was gravely and solemnly admonished hj Blachxoood's that " luxury caused the downfall of 18 Digitized by Microsoft® 274 FEEE TRADE STBUGGLE IN ENGLAND. the Roman Empire" ; and that venerable false prophet religiously believed not only that the repeal of the Ro- man Corn-Laws brought about the downfall of Rome, but also that buying corn in Egypt caused the downfall of Israel. And JSlackwoocTs Magazine is prophesying still. As soon as Great Britain was freed from the incum- brances of what is improperly called "Protection," that aspiring nation bounded forward to a prosperity greater than it had ever known before. The object of this history has been to avoid statistics as much as possible, for they are dry reading ; but a few argu- mentative statistics may not be out of place. In 1840 the foreign commerce of the United Kingdom, exports and imports, not including bullion and specie, amounted to 665 millions of dollars ; in 1880 it was 3,485 mil- lions, and in 1889 it was 3,716 millions. Within those figures may be included all other statistics of every kind. A few more details, however, will not tire the reader, and will be found valuable. In 1840 the im- ports into Britain amounted in value to 310 millions of dollars, in 1880 they amounted to 2,055 millions. In 1840 the exports from Britain, of British produce, amounted to 255 millions of dollars, in 1880 they amounted to 1,115 millions. Fractions are excluded here, and a pound is called five dollars. The foreign and colonial produce exported from Britain in 1840 amounted to 50 millions of dollars, in 1890 it amounted to 315 millions. The above figures show a wonderful increase in the wealth and material prosperity of the country; a growth out of all proportion to the increase in the population, but they do not show how that increased prosperity was distributed among the people. Xor is it necessary Digitized by Microsoft® THE FALI, OP PEEL. -I I 3 that they should, for the laws that govern, or ought to govern the distribution of wealth among those who have produced it, belong to another branch of political science, and need not be discussed here. We are not without assistance, however, in determining this ques- tion. The statistics of average annual consumption of the principal imported and excisable articles per head, for the total population of the United Kingdom, from 1840 to 1880, show the most surprising and beneficent results of the Free Trade policy. It may be stated in one sentence that in IS-IO the working people of Eng- land, Ireland and Scotland were always hungry. This, of course, is not literally true, but it is true enough. In 1880 the hunger had not entirely c«ased, but it was the exception, not the rule. In 1840 there was im- ported into Britain of com, wheat and wheat flour 42 fts. per head, for all the population; in 1880 the quan- tity was 210 ibs. per head. In 1S40 the quantity of butter imported was 1 ft per head ; in 1880 it was 7 fts. Of cheese 1 ft. in 1840, 5 fts. in ISSO; of bacon and hams one-tenth of a pound in 1S40, 15 fts. and nine- tenths in 1880 ; of potatoes one one-hundredth of a pound in 1840, 31^ fts. in ISSO. It may be said that this table is fallacious because it only shows the in- crease to the people from importations, but does not show the loss they have sustained from decreased home production resulting from the repeal of the Corn-Laws; but the reply to that is that there has been very little decrease, for nearly as large a quantity of those articles is raised in England now as was raised then, so that the people have all the home production for their use and comfort, aud this enormous importation also. The in- creased wealth of a country, stated in terms of money Digitized by Microsoft® 276 FEEB TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. may be misleading as a test of the average wealth of the people; but the increased wealth of a country, stated in terms of eggs and bacon, may be accepted as evidence of increased average comfort, for those articles are con- sumed by the working classes; and that they are able to buy so much more of them than they formerly could, is evidence of increased employment and higher wages. The increase has continued up to the present time. We have another test, and a fair one. In 1840 there was imported into the United Kingdom one-quarter of a gallon of wine per head for all the population ; in 1880 it was less than half a gallon per head. Wine is the luxury of the rich, and these figures all show that the increased consumption of bread and meat was by the people at large. Another fair test, which will ap- ply to both the objections above mentioned, is furnished by tea and sugar. These are not raised in England, and, of course, all that was used of them in 1840 was imported, the same as that used in 1880. The returns prove that in 1840 there was imported into the United Kingdom IJ lbs. of tea per head for all the population, while in 1880 the quantity amounted to 4^ lbs. per head. In 1889 it was 4.90 Bbs. per head. Of raw sugar the quantity imported in 1840 was 15^ lbs. per head, in 1880 it was 54:^ lbs. Of refined sugar none was im- ported in 1840, in 1880 the importation was 9^ lbs. per head. In 1 889 the ration of refined sugar for the year was at the rate of 26 lbs. for every man, woman and child in the Kingdom. Of course, every man, woman and child did not get exactly that quantity, but the extra allowance taken by the rich of the increase was an in- significant quantity, when compared with the extra allowance taken by the poor. Digitized by Microsoft® THE FALL OF PEEL. 277 Between 1840 and 1890 the wages of the working people of England largely increased, but it is not nec- essary to mention that, because the increased con- sumption of food shown by the above figures proves that the people must have had more wages to buy those coniforts with, or they could not have been imported at all. They prove that the Free Trade policy has given to the people of England more to eat, more to wear, and better houses to live in. It has given them higher wages with less hours of labor. It has given them more holidays, more books, and more enjoyments, and their moral advancement has grown with their material pros- perity. The man who sees' the English now, and re- members the England of 1846, can scarcely recognize the people, so great has been the improvement in one generation. A word or two about shipping, because the United States tenaciously clings to the Navigation Laws bor- rowed from England, which the people of that country unanimously believed for centuries were absolutely nec- essary to establish and maintain her shipbuilding in- dustry at home, and her mercantile interests abroad, without which she could not have a nursery of sailors to man the royal fleet in time of danger. In the debate of 1849, on the bill. for the amendment of the Naviga- tion Laws, English statesmen had got no-farther along in their political education than to talk like this, Mr. Drummond looked upon the measure as one of a series, "the end and intention of which was to discharge British,, in order to give employment to foreign work- men." Mr. Bankes agreed with Mr. Drummond that the whole scheme was part of a policy for the " depres- sion of the British laborer." Mr. Hillyard said that Digitized by Microsoft® 278 KitKii: TiiAi>i« htimhiiilh! in K>f'ii,ANi». tlu! cflVcl, of it would b<) "to draw . In 1881), the number of Digitized by Microsoft® THE FALL OF PEEL. 279 Steamers had increased to 5,585, and the^ tonnage to 4,664,808 tons. In 1849, the numher of sailors employed on those vessels (not including masters), was 152,611. In 1880, the number was 192,972. In 1889, it was 230,263. In 1840, when the Navigation Laws for the protection of British shipping were in full force, the excess of British tonnage over the foreign tonnage entering the ports of the United Kingdom^ was 3,541,303 tons. In 1880, the excess was 23,961,905 tons. In 1840, the total tonnage of all the vessels en- tering and clearing at the ports of the United Kingdom was, British, 6,940,485 tons; foreign, 2,949,182 tons. In 1880, it was as follows: British, 41,348,984 tons; foreign, 17,387,079 tons. On the impartial protectionist seeking to know the truth, those facts and figures may have some weight; on the selfish protectionist, interested in the preser- vation of monopoly, they will make no impression. On him reason, argument, facts and figures are all lost. To him the instructive numbers just given are unsub- stantial and unreal, a vagary of Free Trade, a theory and a delusion. To him a barn, or a ship, or a grain elevator is nothing but a cloud, and "very like a whale"; to him the demonstrations of geometry are only the fanatical theories of Euclid, the doctrinaire. He is outside the courts of reason. Every Pi-otectionist argument is entitled to respect- ful treatment, except one — that which consists in a sneer at England for her Free Trade policy, a policy which has been so largely beneficial, not only to the people of Great Britain, but to tbe people of America. It is difficult to keep down au expression of contempt when we hear men who inhabit the fertile plain between Digitized by Microsoft® 280 FEEB TKADB STRUGGLE IN BNGLA^JD. the Alleghanies and the Rocky Mountains speak with derision of a policy which ofEers them a free and open market for everything they raise, and for everything they are able to manufacture, a policy which has not only multiplied the comforts of life to all the people of Great Britain, but which has given an added value to every acre of land in that exuberant American valley. THE END Digitized by Microsoft® INDEX. Agricultural ' protection 101, 158 seq. 184. Agricultural protection meet- ings 220, 222. Agriculture, foreboded ruin of — by free trade 54. Albert (Prince) presence of —in House of Commons resented 228. America, natural advantages of, 25. American bacon 79. American barrel-staves 190. American Cotton, removal of duty on 194. American grain, duty on 97. American produce, importa- tion of 153. American protectionists, argu- ments of 41, 64, 66, 68, 95, 109, 135, 137, 167, 168, 170, 175, 183, 195, 199, 213, 227, 246, 261. American reformers 118. American Secretary of the Treasury on Free Trade 230. American statesmen 177. American system of protec- tion 10, 14, 76. American wheat 107. Annual Register on the Corn Law Agitation 145. Annual Register on the pros- pects for 1845, 181. Anti-Corn-Law League 9, 25, 29 seq. 39, 48, 58, 73, 88, 106, 126, 129, 145 seq. 168, 181, 184, 209, 218, 222. Apparel, regulation Of — in Eng- land 18. Aristocracy and Plutocracy 262. Ashburton, Lord 259. B Balance of trad^ 110. Baring, Mr. 42. Beaconsfield, Lord, on Free Trade Debate 233, 236, 243, 245 250 256 Bentinck,'Lor'd George 253, 256. Big-loaf (the) argument 144. Blackwood's Magazine 15, 90, 121, 135, 139, 272. Blaine Mr., tariff policy of 165, 226. Boston, protest of — against Pro- tection 13. Brazil, commerce with 157. Bright, John 28, 89, 130, 145, 146, 162, 188, 203. British Colonies, discrimina'- tion in favor of 79, 80. Brougham, Lord 37, 87, 262. Buckingham, Duke of 59. Burdett, Sir Francis 71. Cattle, importation of — dis- cussed 77, 79, 83. Charter, the Chartist 131. Chartist riots, 89. Chartists, 129 seq. Cheap bread — cheap wages, ar- gument 52 seq. 74, 134, 205, 225. 281 Digitized by Microsoft® 282 INDEX. Cteap commodities and inde- pendence 138. Cheap goods, alarm at the idea of 107. Class legislation 143. Clothing, duties on 232. Cobden, Richard 28, 50 seq. 55, 74, 86, 101, 116, 126, 145, 158, 170, 196, 204, 215, 219, 226, 253. Cobden, Richard, Sir Robert Peel on 268. Commerce, supposed ■ timidity of 106. Community, artificial prosper- ity of special classes an injury to the 20, 199. Consumption ruled by price 179. Contract, protective tariff as a 109, 113, 118. Contradictory protective laws 16. Corn, meaning of term, in Eng- land 25. Corn Laws (of 1815) 23. Corn Laws, abolition of the 235. Corn Laws, cruelty of the 185. Corn Laws, 'debates on the. See " Debates " Corn Laws, distress caused by the 90 seq. 248. Corn Laws, operation of the 113. Corn Laws, Lord J. Russell's Resolution on the 201. Croker, John Wilson 134, 195. Debates in Parliament 33 seq. 39 seq. 42 seq. 53 seq. 62 seq. 73, 75, 78 seq. 84 seq. 94 seq. 105, 108 seq. 117, 158 seq. 166 seq. 192 seq. 196, 198 seq. 223, 229 seq. 240 seq. Destruction of property as an economic blessing 123. Disraeli, Mr. 98, 198. See " Beaconsfield, Lord." Distress caused by the Corn- Laws 90 seq. Distress of the country, debate on motion as to the 94 seq. Douglass, Sir Howard 114. Dukes, comical blunders of old 220. Duty, reduction of — to increase revenue 42. Ebrington, Lord 204. Economic principles, education in 15, 126, 143. Edinburgh Review, on protect- ive legislation 22. Edinburgh Review, on relation between prices and wages 142. Elliott (Ebenezer) the Corn- Law Rhymer 24, 142. England, Protection laws of 16 seq. Englishmen, insular prejudices of 120. Exchange of commodities, the basis of trade 247. Export duties, abohtion of 190. Export trade and tariff reduc- tion 226. Famine (threatened) Peel's pro- posed remedies for 209. Farm laborer, condition of the 127. Ferrand, Mr. 93, 97, 166. Flail, for thrashing grain 130. Food, the ultimate object of land cultivation 204. Foreign competition, dread of 251. Foreign commerce of Great Britain 274. Foreign pauper labor, ghost of Eraser's Magazine 15, 82, 91, 134,194. Free breakfast table 178. Digitized by Microsoft® INDBX. 283 Free Trade, a live issue 27. Free Trade, American Secre- tary of the Treasury ou 230. Free Trade, as now viewed by Mr. Gladstone 96. Free Trade, beneficent effect of 65, 275. Free Trade budget 189. Free Trade, effect of— on ex- ports 227, 257, 261 Free Trade, Lord J. Russell's conversion to 211. Free Trade movement, early in- significance of 36. Free Trade, growth of 23 seq. 145 seq. Free Trade, Peel's arguments in favor of 230 seq. Free Trade, Peel's conversion to 194. Free Trade, petitions by work- ingmen in favor of 240. Free Trade policy, value of 15. Free Trade, resolution in favor of 201. Free Trade 'Speech of Sir Robert Peel 230 seq. Free Trade struggle, meaning of 9. Free Trade, true principles of 149. G Gibson, Mr. Milner 115, 169, 193. Gladstone, Mr. W. E. 79, 81, 95, 109, 118, 158, 160, 162, 163, 168, 174, 187, 193, 217. Gold, drain of 110. Goulburn Mr. 177, 213. Government, supposed creation of prosperity by 20. Granby, Marquis of 71. Great Britain and Pennsylva nia compared 227. , Great Britain, prosperity of 274. Graham, Sir James 198, 202, 207, 208, 247. Grey (Earl) 258. See "Lord Howick." Grimes, Mr. James W. 182. H Heathcote, Sir W. 241. Herbert, Mr. Sidney 196. High prices, conditions of — ac- cording to Cobden 64. High tariff platform 225. Home industry, protection of 10, 16, 21, 31, 114, 213, 246. Home industry, supposed inju- ry of— by Free Trade 135, 161. Home market, value of 139. Horizontal plan of tariff re- ductions 77. House of Commons, lords by courtesy in the 155. House of Commons. See " De- bates." House of Lords, Free Trade caricature of the 265. House of Lords, feudal ideas of the 85. House of Lords. See "De- bates." Howick (Lord) 94, 111, 164, 169. See "Grey (Earl)" Hume, Joseph 79, 118, 155, 186. Huskisson, Mr. 10, 16. I Ignorance of economic princi- ples 124. Illustrated London News 52, 153. Import duties, burden of 181. Import duties, payment of 228. Imports, the most advantag- eous part of commerce 164. Improvements (public) opposi- tion to 124. Income tax 181, 192. Independence and cheap com- modities 138. Industry, protection the paraly- sis of 15. Digitized by Microsoft® 284 Interests (protected) competi- tion among 182. Ireland, failure of potato crop in 207. Ireland, famine in 2^3. Irish Coercion Bill 267. K Knatc'hbull, Sir Edward 112. Labor, comparative value of 74. Labor (native) protection of 167. Labouchere, Mr. 38, 157. Land cultivation, food the ulti- mate object of 204. Landed interest, peculiar bur- dens supposed to affect the 105, 112. Landed interest, protection of the 22, 30, 105, 196. Landed interest, selfishness of the 248. Latitudinal protection 13. Layard, Captain 169. Leather manufactures, duties on 234. Leather monopoly in England 19. Liberal press, protectionist feeling of the 153. Lincoln and Cobden, compari- son of 51. Liverpool, Lord 11. Local protection 19, 100. London merchants, free trade petition of 10. Longitudinal E'ree Trade 13. Lords by courtesy only 155. • Lords, meeting of — at the Clar- endon Hotel 264. Lower classes, jealousy of 122. M Macaulay, Mr. 75, 194. Machinery, effect of introduc- tion of 54, 86, 87, 93, 97. Machinery, effect on wages ascribed to 166. Machinery, opposition to 123i Manchester, Chamber of Com- merce of 29, 34. Manchester, Free Trade feeling at 219. Manchester, Free Trade meet- ings at '88. Manual Labor, protection for 241. Manufactures, beneficial effect of Free Trade on 251. Manufacturing interest, pro- tection of 148, 213. Maynooth College, grant of money to 187. McKinley bill and Gladstone's Reciprocity 95. McKinley Bill and wages 200. Mediaeval sentiment as to trade 112. Melbourne, Lord 40, 85. Mercantile system of protec- tion 10. Miles, Mr. P. 197, 241. Monopoly, at the expense of the consumer 21. Monopoly, effects of leather 19. Monopoly, strength of — in Eng- land 32. Monopolies, opposition of — to Free Trade 39. Monopolies,proteBts of — against the New Tariff 82. Moral results of material pros- perity 226. Moral Science, universality of laws of 12. Morpeth, Lord 240. Morrill tariff 200. Morrison bill, debate in Con- gress on 113. Muntz, Wm. 114. N National Republican Conven- tion of 1884 225. Navigation Laws, repeal of 271. Digitized by Microsoft® INDEX. 285 Navigation Laws, supposed effect of 272, 277. Newcastle, Duke of, protec- tionist, bigotry of 254. New Tariff Bill, debate on the 75, seq. New Tariff Bill, questionable good faithi of Peel and Glad- stone in relation to 81. O'Brien, Mr. Stafford 246. O'Connell, Mr. 43, 54, 64, 131, 150, 209, 218. Oregon question, settlement of 267. Organized hypocrisy 198. Overproduction, fear of 28, 123, seq. Overproduction, misleading name for under-consumption 126. Parliament, form of opening 32. Parliament, opening of, in Jan- uary, 1846, 228. Parliamentary debate of 1842 61, seq. Palmerston, Lord 36, 69. Patrician insolence 261. Patriotism and protection 28. Pattison, Mr. 156. Pauper labor (foreign), ghost of 121. Peel, Sir Robert 27, 33, 36, seq., 51, 37, 60, seq., 76, 86, 106, 118, 142, 150, 171, 186, 189, 192, 198, seq., 205, 207, seq., 216, 221, 225, 229, seq., 249, seq., 267. Peel, Sir Robert, confidence of Tories in 212, 216, 221, 242. Peel, Sir Robert, death of 271. Peel, Sir Robert, downfall of 267. Peel, Sir Robert, Free Trade Speech of 230. Peel, Sir Robert, letter of— to Lord Hardinge 270. ! Peers, protest of — against the Free Trade policy 264. Pennsylvania and Great Brit- ain compared 227. Penny Magazine 37. People, sufferings of the — due to protection 55, 109, 116. Petitions by workingmen in favor of Free Trade 240. Plutocracy and Aristocracy 262. Potato disease 204. Potatoes and patriotism 80. Politifcal Economy, universality of laws of 13, 194. Political. prophecy fulfilled 193. Price, affected by buying power 159. Price (normal), a secondary con- sideration, 137. Prices rule consumption 179. Principle, valueless concession toll. Protected interests, selfishness of 182, 191, 259, 261. Protectioil against slave labor 43, 156, 179, 194. Protection in favor of Colonies 271. Protection laws of England 16, seq. Protection of classes 199. Protection, Mr. Gladstone's ex- cuse for 95. Protection, stimulus of 199. Protection, the paralysis of in- dustry 15. Protection io local industries 19. Protection to native industry 10, 13. Protection to special trades 19, 22, 175. Protection, Tory Journals on 15. Protectionist feeling, grounds of 120. Protectionist jugglery 66. Protectionist principle (the) 96. Protectionists, selfishness of 172. Digitized by Microsoft® 286 INDEX. Protective policy of Middlesex farmers 14. Protective system 9. Protective system, a competi- tion of classes 233. Protective system, Cobden's argument against the 55, 67, 101. Protective system, death war- rant of 229. Protective system, downfall of the 253. Protective system, effect of 35, 115, 213. Protective system of the United states, effect of 55, 115, 161. See "American Pro- tectionists." Protective system, origin of 232. Protective system, Peel's argu- ment for 64. Protective system, supposed compensator, character of 105. Protective Tariff, considered as ■ a contract 109, 113, 118. Provisions, increased importa- tion of — under the New Tariff 81. Public houses, places of resort 129. Quarrel between Cobden and Peel 102. Quarterly Review 133. Queen's Speech, reference in — to Free Trade principles 223. Queen's Speech, reference to public distress in the 92. Queen Victoria, apology of 228. R Rain and Protection 206. Raw materials, removal of duty from 78, 190, 232. Reciprocity, doctrine of 96, 99, 116, 162, 164, 227. Rent and wages 136. Resolutions, Lord John Rus- sell's Whig 200. Restraint of trade, evil 169. Retaliation, childish policy of 115. Revenue, increase of, by reduc- tion of duty 42. Revenue, tariff for 113, 148, 254, 258, 271. Revolutionary, all opposition to monopoly, said to be 40. Ribbon -makers, petition of 266. Riches, consist of other things than money 19. Ricardo, Mr. 162. Richmond, Duke of 85, 184, 223, 258, 266. Ripon, Earl of 40, 263. Roebuck, Mr. 111. Rogers, Mr. Thorold, on protec- tion in the United States 76. Russell, Lord John 34, 36, seq., 69, 80, 93, 112, 117, 164, 17^, 192, 198, 200, seq., 211, 215, 243. Sandon, Lord 38, 43, 242. Scottish people, intelligence of the 14b. Shipping, British 278. Slave labor and protection 43, 156, 179, 194, 235. Sliding scale for duty on for- eign grain 38, 117. Smith, Adam 10, 138. Soothsayers, Protectionist 272. Speculation, economic value of 118. Speculative guesses, 136. Stanhope, Lord 84. Stanley, Lord 44, 214, 257, 259. Statute of limitations in favor of Protection 68. Stump oratory not peculiar to America 129. Subsistence, standard of 141. Sugar duties 156, seq., 193, 235. Digitized by Microsoft® INDEX. 287 Sugar duty, effect of 42. Surplus revenue, applications of 177, 181. Tariff for revenue only 113, 148, 254, 258, 271. Tariff reduction, material and moral effects of 224. Tariff reductions, with surplus revenue 178. Tariff Reformer, Lord Palmer- ston as a 70. Tariff Reformers, as opposed to Free Traders 119. Taylor, Mr. James 130. Tenant farmers, meeting of — at Willis' Rooms 265. Thackeray on reciprocity 165. Thompson, Colonel Perronet 24. Timber, importance of cheap 195. Times (the), on Mr. Cobden 160. Tories, alarm of the 37, 38. Tories, influence of Peel over 212, 216, 221. 242. Tories, surprising victory of the 49. Tory party, the 217. Trade based on exchange of commodities 247. Trade, improvement in 151. Trade, mediasval* sentiment as to 112. Trade (restraint of) evil 169. Trade statistics 274, seq. Treaty concessions regarding imports, Gladstone on 163. Tweedledum and Tweedledee 117. Tyler, Mr., on reciprocity 116. U United States, benefit to the — of English Free Trade policy 279. United States, free access of the — to English markets 218. United States, protective sys- tem of 55, 115, 161. See "American Protectionists." Universal protection, impossi- bility of 175. Victorian era, commercial pol- icy at commencement of 26. Villiers, Hon. M. Pelham 28, seq., 73, 100, 108, 117, 166, 172, 186, 202. Vincent, Henry 130. W Wages and McKinley bill 200. Wages and rent 136. Wages, increase of 277. Wages, increase of — with cheap- er food 53, 152. Wages, laws of 140. Wagbs, protection to 113. Wages,- supposed aim of the Leaguers to reduce 130, 133. Wages, supposed effect of Free Trade on 42. Wages, supposed reduction of^ through cheap food 134, 140, seq., 205, 225. Walpole, Sir Robert 11- Wealth, what it consists in 110. Weaver, condition of the 120. Wellington, Duke of 54, 214, 216, 224, 229, 242. Westminster Review 126. Wharncliffe, Lord 214. Whig government, perplexity of the 37. Whig party, overthrow of the 46. 53. Whigs and Tories 26. Whigs (the) and Free Trade 167, 171, 200, 212. Whigs (the) on Peel's Free Trade Policy 244. Digitized by Microsoft® 2SS INDEX. Wiltshire laborers, pathetic ai^uments of the 248. Wood, Mr. G. W. 33. Wool, duty on 17S. Wool-grower, protection to 17. Woolen manufacturer, protec- tion to 17. Workingmen, comparison be- tween town and country 127. Workingmen, improved condi- tion of 130, 275. Workingmen, petitions of — ^in favor of Free Trade 240. Workingmen (town), intelli- gence of 128. Digitized by Microsoft® MAKING SCARCITY WHEELBARROW" CHICAGO : The Open Court Publishing Company 1892. Digitized by Microsoft® This article, with others, written in a similar vein, .on the labor question and on various topics of political economy, and finance, was originally pub- lished in The Open Court (No. 34), All the essays thus included, are now to be obtained in book-form in the work entitled " Wheelbarrow," published by The Open Court Publishing Co. Digitized by Microsoft® MAKING SCARCITY. Some time ago I made a few remarks upon that " competition " hobgoblin, which makes the hair of workingmen stand up in fright, "like quills upon the fretful porcupine." From my boyhood, it was a ter- ror to me, but it does not scare me now. As I grew older I grew bolder, and at last I walked close up to it and examined it. I found it was a hollow pumpkin, with eyes, nose, and mouth cut in it, and stuck on a stick clothed in the drapery of a white sheet. I see that the President of the Federation of Trades Unions has exhibited this venerable old ghost to the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. Whether it scared the committee or not I cannot say. Since then I have noticed that some other gentleman has appeared before the same committee, in company with the same spectre, and demanded that convict labor shall not be put in competition with the me- chanic trades, but shall be exclusively devoted to the business of "working on the roads." I have tried to analyze the principle of non-com- petition, as enforced by the trades unions, and so far as I have been able to resolve it into its constituent elements, its chief ingredients appear to be monop- oly and selfishness, with some very foolish dread of the evils of abundance. Take this convict labor ques- tion for example. Convict labor is not opposed on Digitized by Microsoft® MAKING SC ARC ITT. any ground but that of "competition." It- competes with outside labor, that is, it produces something, and this production is the injury complained of. Let us reduce the question to a concrete form. Suppose that the two thousand convicts in the penitentiaries of Illinois are all compelled to work at the shoemaking trade, and suppose that they each make a pair of shoes a day, or 62,400 pairs a year, will it be con- tended that the addition of this number of shoes to the common stock is an injury to the people of Illi- nois ? There is no one who will claini that ; but the President of the Federation will say : " It is an injury to the shoemakers' trade, and therefore it, ought to be prevented." Very well, then make tailors of the convicts. This plan doesn't solve the difficulty either, for the tailors won't agree to it, nor the tinkers, nor the tanners, nor the masons, nor the carpenters, nor any other trade^ As the butcher, and baker, and candlestick-maker all refuse to work in competition with the convicts, and as none of these economists are daring enough to re- quire that the convicts live in idleness, an easy solu- tion of the problem is found by compelling them " to work upon the roads." But really this is only shift- ing the difficulty, and is no solution at all. At school I have solved many a hard problem in long division/^! which is as far as I went, by getting some other boy to do the sum for me, and the President of the Feder- ation adopts the same plan with the convict labor dif- ficulty. He dumps it on the "laborer" class, and says : "Here, you man with the wheelbarrow, work, this hard sum." But I am not able to work it, be- cause I find that I cannot set the convicts at any use^ ful employment without putting them in competition Digitized by Microsoft® WHEELBARROW. with somebody. They must either live in idleness at the expense of the community, or they must earn something to pay for their board ; to earn something they must produce something, and that is an addition to the aggregate wealth of the people, at which we all get a nibble at last. If adding to the wealth of a country is an injury, then subtracting from that wealth must be a benefit, and therefore the destruction of shoes and clothes, and houses and furniture, must be a desirable thing ; the Chicago fire,, instead of being a great calamity, was a great blessing. This fallacy is firmly cherished by -workingmen ; it is the guiding principle of trades unions, and is productive of want and poverty incal- culable. It was instilled into me in my very child- hood, and it was late when I got rid of it. I never ate a meal when a boy, that was not somehow or other complicated with the everlasting consideration of " work." When I got a good dinner I knew that my father was " in work" ; when the meal was scanty I knew that he was "out of work." In our home all human affairs whirled round and round the image of " work " forever. A big fire devoured a street — "It will make work," I heard my father say. A ship was lost at sea laden with silk, and leather, and cloth — "It will make work," said my father. A reservoir broke jail and swept the heart of the town away — •." It will make work," my mother said ; and so all human calamities were softened as blessings to me ; they made work, and work made wages, and wages made bread and potatoes and clothes for ipe. God bless the shipwreck, and the fire, and the flood j they make " Work, work, work, till the eyes are heavy and dim, And work, work, work, till the brain begins to swim." Digitized by Microsoft® MAKING SCARCITT. Oh, comrade of the trowel, the needle, and the awl ; oh, toiler at the anvQ. and the leom ; oh, brother of the jackplane and the shovel ; oh, chivalry of toil by land ^d sea, it is not work we need so much as rest ! Let us make all the wealth we can, and destrijjr nothing ; let us not be jealous of each other's talent, but teach each other everything we know ! Let us make plenty' in the land, and then let ns try to shape our social system and the laws so that a fairer share of it will come to us after we have made it- Last fall I picked up a newspaper and read in great black headlines this alarming news : "A Heavy Frost. It spread over various sections of the North- west Friday night- Early planted com escaped with little injury ; the late crop practically ruined-" It re- quires no great skill in political econom3', as they call it, to understand that the bl^fating of the com crop is a great calamity ; it means less food the coming win- ter, and less food means less of clothes, and coaj, and wood- And yet there are a lot of workingmen who would regard a blight of the hat crop, or the shoe crop, or the coat crop as a blessing to labor ; but in truth th^ are all equally injurious as the blighting