\\
SQ SREY
WS
Wrest
AW
\
v
VA
The London Stereoscopic and Photographie Co.
| MEMORABLE MEN OF THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY.
IV.
RIGHARD CoBDEN
| AND wHe Eree Ravers.
BY
Piel APTOHN.
LONDON:
MaoALTHR SOOTT,
14 PATERNOSTER SQUARE,
AND NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
Mreface.
oe, FE have as yet no satisfactory Lirz of Ricuarp
CoBDEN, and no systematic arrangement of his cor-
respondence such as might serve to present to us
a faithful picture of the man and his work. This is the
more remarkable, in view of the fact that the leader of the
Free Trade. movement in England, who occupied one of the
most prominent positions in the arena of politics during
more than a quarter of a century, was continually before
the public, on the platform or in the press, and maintained
a regular and active interchange of opinions with some of
the ablest men of the day. It is something like a reproach —
to his fellow-countrymen that they should so long have been
willing to dispense with a worthy biography of this patriotic
Englishman, which would be at the same time highly attrac-
tive and extremely valuable.
There are, it is true, printed collections of Cobden’s
speeches on various occasions, and of his political writings—
not exhaustive, but containing the best of what an ordinary
reader would care to make himself acquainted with. There
is also the very estimable volume by Mr. Thorold Rogers
8 PREFACE.
- on Cobden and Political Opinion; and there are, in
addition, a number of smaller works on the history of the
agitation against the old protective tariffs, some of which, like
Mr. Ashworth’s Recollections of Cobden and the League, and
Mr. Mongredien’s compact History of the Free Trade Move-
ment, are replete with details of a specially interesting kind.
None of these books, however, is in the strict sense of the
term a biography, and none of them fills the place which
has so unaccountably been left vacant. Mr. Morley’s forth-
coming volumes may be expected to supply what has long
been regarded as a desideratum ; and to these volumes the
admirers of Cobden must be content to look forward.
I need scarcely add that the following pages do not
profess to build on ground which has been marked out for
others; nor do they merely set a new roof on old walls and
foundations. The subject of this volume has been dealt
with as comprehensively as seemed to be possible, without
travelling too far from the record ; and if in places it over-
laps the themes of other volumes which preceded it, the
reader will nevertheless find some chapters—such as those
treating of the pioneers and forerunners of the Anti-Corn
Law League—which have at any rate the merit of com-
parative freshness. :
I have to make special acknowledgment of my debt to
Mr. Ashworth for the assistance which I have derived from
his personal ‘“ Recollections” of Cobden and his colleagues.
The information gleaned from his volume, and from other
writers on kindred topics, is for the most part indicated in
the text, or in foot-notes, which will direct the reader to
the principal authorities on the subject,
L. A,
CONE NoT-S;
CHAPTER I.
The Age of Protection—The European War and its Effects on
England—The Disappointments of the Peace - ; -
CHAPTER II.
The History of the Corn Laws—The Great Monopolists—
Protection in Operation—The Sliding Scale . - .
CHAPTER III.
‘Arguments for Protection—The Protest of the Lords “ :
CHAPTER IV.
Free Trade Principles—Adam Smith and his Contemporaries -
CHAPTER V.
The Political Arena—Reform and Economy—Whigs and Tories
CHAPTER VI.
The Pioneers—-Cobbett—Huskisson—Joseph Hume—Villiers -
PaGE
18
20
29
38
45
53
10° CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
The Corn Law Catechist—Antecedents of Colonel Perronet
Thompson—His Writings—The ‘‘ Catechism” - :
CHAPTER VIIL
The Corn Law Rhymer—Elliott’s Life and Works—The
‘* Rhymes pea and Elliott—The Sheffield Declara-
tion ° - - 2 =
CHAPTER IX.
Cobden’s Early Life—Mr. Ashworth’s Testimony—Cobden’s
Enthusiasm - : : - - . “ .
CHAPTER X.
The Anti-Corn Law League—Its First Members—Its Early Work
CHAPTER XI.
The Literature of the League—Notable Converts —- - -
CHAPTER XII.
The Question in Parliament—Sir Robert Peel’s Ministry—Lord
John Russell in Opposition—Cobden’s First Speech - -
CHAPTER XIII.
Progress of the Agitation, muteahceney a and Addresses—
Popular Agitation - : :
CHAPTER XIV.
The Session of 18483—Peel and Cobden—Cobden and Bright
PAGE
59
71
84
91
105
112
124
135
CONTENTS. 11
CHAPTER XV. PAGE
. The League in London—Covent Garden Theatre—W. J. Fox—
Daniel O’Connell_—- : - 146
CHAPTER XVI.
Cobden as an Orator—Specimens—The Provincial Tour. in 1843
—The Farmers and the League - - - - . ae 1O83,!
CHAPTER XVII.
Sir Robert Peel’s Finance—Mr. Disraeli and the League - - 172
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Conservative ae and Disraeli—The Free Trade
Bazaars - - See Wf:
CHAPTER XIX.
The Last Straw—The Potato Famine—Peel’s Conversion—Mr.
Gladstone—The League Council—The Resignation of Peel 186
CHAPTER XX.
Abolition—Defections from the igen d eaetaaes Corn ee
Dilisery":.< af 7 197
CHAPTER XXL
Peel’s Reward—A Glorious Defeat—The Political Conscience of
Peel - - - an 206
CHAPTER XXII.
The Dissolution of the League—Cobden’s Triumph— His
Testimonial from the Nation—His acknowledgment of
the same - . ‘ - - : : . . u 218
12 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXIII.
The League Revived—A False Alarm—The Derby— Disraeli and
Aberdeen Administrations - - . - : ; 4
CHAPTER XXIV.
International Principles—The Peace Party—‘‘ Peace and Good-
will” —Mr. Thorold Rogers on Cobden’s Political Principles
CHAPTER XXV.
The French Commercial Treaty—Difficulties and Achievements
of Cobden—Recognition of Cobden’s Services’ - - -
CHAPTER XXVLIL
The Work and Character of Cobden—Mr. Mongredien on
Cobden’s Character—Mr. Ashworth—Mr. Thorold Rogers—
The Cobden Club - - - - -
CHAPTER XXVIL
Surviving Fallacies—Recent Signs of Reaction—Utterances of
Mr. Bright—Sir Louis ae ee Beacons-
field and Mr. Gladstone on Free Trade
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Statistics of Progress under Free Trade - - - =o oa
PAGE
223
234
248
255
266
285
CHAPTER IL
THE AGE OF PROTECTION,
ie is not an easy thing for the younger men of the present
generation to realise the state of affairs in this country
before the adoption of the principles of Free Trade, or
the vastness: of the change which was effected when Pro-
tection was abandoned. It is true that we are familiar
enough with these terms, and with the two commercial
systems to which they are applied. The advocates of pro-
tective tariffs are still bold enough to argue their case on
public platforms and in print, whilst the same proofs which
originally succeeded in breaking down the strongholds of
monopoly have now and then to be brought out in defence
of the conquered positions. The controversy itself is yet
alive; but the long and heroic struggle by which the English
people and Government were converted has become a matter
of history, and is too often forgotten.
Amongst the most memorable men of the nineteenth
century, at any rate in the class of politicians and public
economists, we must assuredly count the small and active
band who, first by popular agitation, then by a gallant
- Parliamentary struggle, assailed and demolished the mono-
plies by which the material growth of the nation had so
long been checked. | |
14 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
This volume will record the achievements of Cobden, of
his associates in the Anti-Corn Law League, of his friends
in and out of Parliament, and will seek to show, as con-
cisely and simply as possible, how we won the battle of
Free Trade.
The state of affairs in England at the conclusion of the
Napoleonic wars must be borne in mind if we would under-
stand the economical difficulties of the nation, and the
peculiarities of the situation in which the Corn Laws
assumed their most aggravated form. The previous quarter
of a century had not been a time of unexceptional embar-
rassment and depression. There are always some who thrive
at home when their country is engaged in wars abroad, and
who make gigantic fortunes when these wars are continued
for a long time. Such are the men who trade in arms,
clothing, equipments, food, and the various commodities
most required in war, whose opportunities of dealing on a
large scale are multiplied, who secure vast contracts, and
successfully speculate amidst the ever-shifting conditions of
the markets. Under these circumstances the food producers
were naturally gainers, in proportion as they could command
the prices which they thought fit to ask ; and they also strove
by speculation to increase their harvest of profits. The
landowners, as being the strongest, secured the greater por-
tion of this advantage by raising the rents of their tenants ;
and thus it happened that the farmers themselves, reaping
little or no fruit from the advanced prices, were not only
unable to raise the wages of their labourers, but were, in
many cases, compelled (or they thought themselves com-
pelled) to reduce them. The clergy, who derived much of
their income from tithes, varying in value with the rents, of
course profited in common with the landlords.
Hence the aristocracy, the clergy, the military orders, and
a majority of the merchants and manufacturers, were clear
gainers by the war. Many emerged from it in 1815 with
THE AGE OF PROTECTION. 15
vast fortunes ; but meanwhile the people at large, crippled
by heavy taxation, by the increased price of the necessaries
of existence, by the long discouragement of industries not
stimulated by war, were brought to poverty and want.
Though, in the special channels which have been mentioned,
English commerce had prospered in the past five and twenty
years, there had been many partial and individual failures.
The efforts of Napoleon to shut us out of the Continental
markets had not been altogether in vain; ruin had fallen
upon large numbers, spreading its effects in widening
circles throughout the community.
With the return of peace, Englishmen had expected an
immediate accession of general prosperity. The exceptional
and temporary sources of gain were closed, but it was hoped
that now at length the activity of trade would revive, that
a thousand new markets would be opened to us, that the
half-million soldiers who had been supported in the field
would at once recruit the industrial classes of the country,
and that we should reap the benefit of our grand triumphs,
our friendly alliances, and our newly-acquired foreign
possessions and colonies.
Sir A. Alison* draws a striking contrast between the
condition of our finances and commerce in 1792 and 1815,
which shows the grounds on which these expectations were
based—at any rate by the most sanguine Englishmen :—
‘«The revenue raised by taxation within the year had risen from
£19,000,000 in 1792 to £72,000,000 in 1815; the total expenditure
from taxes and loans had reached, in 1814 and 1815, the enormous
amount of £117,000,000 each year. In the latter years of the war
Great Britain had above 1,000,000 of men in arms in Europe and
Asia; and besides paying the whole of these immense armaments, she
was able to lend £11,000,000 yearly to the Continental Powers ; yet
were those copious bleedings so far from having exhausted the capital
or resources of the country, that the loan of 1814, although of the
enormous amount of £35,000,000, was obtained at the rate of
* History of Europe from 1815 to 1852. Vol. i, ch. iL
16 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
£4, 11s. 1d. per cent., being a lower rate of interest than had been paid ©
at the commencement of the war. The exports, which in 1792 were
£27,000,000, had swelled in 1815 to nearly £58,000,000, official value ;
the imports had advanced during the same period from £19,000,000 to
£32,000,000. The shipping had increased from 1,000,000 to 2,500,000
tons. The population of England had risen from 9,400,000 in 1792
to 18,400,000 in 1815; that of Great Britain and Ireland from
14,000,000 in the former period to 18,000,000 in the latter. Yet,
notwithstanding this rapid increase, and the absorption of nearly
500,000 pairs of robust arms in the army, militia, and navy of these
‘ islands, the imports of grain had gone on continually diminishing,
amd had sunk in 1815 to less than 500,000 quarters. And so far was
this prodigious expenditure and rapid increase of numbers from having
exhausted the resources of the State, that above £6,000,000 annually
was raised by the voluntary efforts of the inhabitants, to mitigate the
distresses and assuage the sufferings of the poor; and a noble sinking-
fund was in existence, which already had reached £16,000,000 a-year,
and would certainly, if left to itself, have extinguished the whole
public debt by the year 1845. When such had been the prosperity,
and so great the progress of the empire, during the continuance of a long
- and bloody war, in the course of which ?t had been repeatedly reduced
to the very greatest straits, and compelled to fight for very existence
against the forces of combined Europe, there seemed to be no possible
limits which could be assigned to the prosperity of the State when the
contest was over, and the blessings of peace had returned to gladden
our own and every other land.” ;
These expectations, however, were doomed to disappoint-
ment; and it is easy to see that they were not altogether
reasonable. Too much was made of the prospect of new
markets for English commodities in our foreign acquisitions,
such as India and the West Indies, and our colonies in
Australia and elsewhere. The advantage was to come, but
not so soon as the sanguine prophets had anticipated. Not
only so, but the tide of prosperity ebbed instead of flowing,
and this so suddenly and violently that within a few years
of the conclusion of peace the country was threatened with
general ruin, and a starving populace had to be policed and
dragooned into submission. Agriculture and trade suffered
alike ; the collapse was as disastrous as it was unexpected.
THE AGE OF PROTECTION. olf
The fact seems to have been that the ports and markets,
which had so long been closed to us, were not ready to
receive what we sent them, so that the removal of restric-
tions in some quarters was not sufficient to compensate for
the abrupt stoppage of industry in others. Over and above
this natural cause of distress, the evil consequences of a long
and wild speculation made themselves felt. The gambling
of factors, contractors, shippers, and others, who had turned
their honest pennies during the war, was followed now by a
reaction. Many retired from the scene gorged with wealth ;
many, caught at an unfavourable moment, had ruined them-
selves and their creditors; whilst others, again, withdrew
from one hazard to another, and, from speculating on the
needs and chances of war, began to speculate in the opening
up or re-establishing of trade with foreign ports. The haste
and over-confidence of merchants and shippers in this latter
direction led to serious consequences in the export trade.
The exports from England of foreign and colonial produce
alone jumped up in the year 1814 toa value of more than
nineteen millions sterling. Three years later, when the
mistake had become manifest, they fell to a little more than
ten millions.
Amidst these discouragements and disasters in the general
trade of the country, the owners and cultivators of land saw
themselves threatened by similar misfortunes. After the
American War of 1812, and the Russian repulse of the French
in 1813, corn began to flow towards England in increasing
quantities from the United States and the North of Europe,
and as a natural result the price of English grain began to
fall. In 1812 it had fetched 122s. 8d. a quarter; in 1813
it had fallen to 106s. 6d.; in 1814 to 72s. 1d.; and in
1815 to 63s. 8d. The producers were alarmed, and in-
mediately clamoured for the exclusion of foreign corn when-
ever the price in the home markets fell under 80s. The
response to this demand in Parliament—where, indeed, the
A 2
18 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
landed interest dominated both Houses—was the Corn Law
of 1815. After this, partly from the bad seasons of 1816- .
1818, but mainly by the operation of the Prohibitory Act,
the prices rose again, until in 1817 English wheat sold at
more than 112s. a quarter.*
The Act of 1815 did not pass without strong opposition.
In the Commons there were repeated divisions against the
limit imposed, as well as upon the principle of exclusion ;
whilst in the Lords a protest against the measure was
formally recorded. Lord Grenville and ten other lords
expressed their disagreement in the following terms :—“ We
cannot persuade ourselves that this law will ever contribute
to produce plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price. So
long as it operates at all, its effects must be quite the
opposite of these. Monopoly is the parent of scarcity, of
dearness, and of uncertainty. To cut off any of the sources
of supply can only tend to lessen its abundance; to close
against ourselves the cheapest market for any commodity
must enhance the price at which we purchase it; and to
confine the consumer of corn to the produce of his own
country is to refuse to ourselves the venefit of that provision
which Providence itself has made for equalising to man the
variations of season and of climate.”
These were admirable arguments for the nation at large,
and especially for the classes whose income was barely
sufficient to purchase the necessaries of existence ; but they
made little impression on the men who were professedly
legislating for their own threatened interests.
Of course the people saw through the new legislation at
once. There was no difficulty in perceiving that the pro-
hibition of corn from other countries made the food of
Englishmen dearer, profiting the rich at the direct cost of
the poor. The fact that thousands of the same men who
———
* dAlison.
THE AGE OF PROTECTION. 19
protested against the Corn Law also protested against the
introduction of machinery, as tending to keep working-men
out of employment, does not diminish the justice or the
force of their complaint ; and yet it is certain that this com-
plaint was ridiculed as irrational by a large majority of the
educated and refined classes of the community. The
populace pressed their grievances on their rulers at every
opportunity, by agitation, by mob violence, by monster
meetings, and by threats; the rulers met argument by con-
tempt, and agitation by sternest repression. Men were
imprisoned, blood was shed, and the people were taught by
lamentable exhibitions of tyranny that it was not safe to
protest against what it was almost impossible to endure.
Brutal massacres like that at St. Peter’s Field, Manchester,
which has come to be known in history as the Massacre of
Peterloo, showed to what a length authority can go in vindi-
cation of privilege. :
Such, then, was the state of affairs in England which
preceded and followed the protective legislation initiated, or
definitely confirmed, in 1815. Before we pass on to exa-
mine the opposing theories of Protection and Free Trade,
and the bitter contest which was waged between them, we
may briefly review the Corn Laws as a whole, from a com-
paratively early date to the eve of their abolition.
‘ CHAPTER IL
Tur History oF THE Corn Laws.
HE Corn Laws were no new infliction upon the country
at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They
were already active and oppressive in the time of the:
Stuarts; and no doubt long before that time the periodical
recurrence of popular distress had led to changes in the:
regulations by which food was introduced from foreign.
countries.
_ In the seventeenth century, however, not to go any
further back, these regulations had become frequent, if not
systematic, and Parliament constantly undertook to modify
them as occasion required. But the principles on which the.
modifications were based appear to have been uncertain
and capricious. The ports were closed to foreign grain (as.
in 1680) when wheat was enormously dear, and opened (as.
in 1690) when the home production had largely increased.
With the ports open, bounties were paid to exporters of corn.
Between 1715 and 1765, only five harvests are recorded as.
having been notably bad ones; more than four millions.
sterling were paid in export bounties; and simultaneously
the excess of imports over exports were very considerable.
It is clear that there was no comprehension of sound
THE HISTORY OF THE CORN LAWS. 21
economy in these regulations. Indeed, they seem to have
been made chiefly to promote the interests of the home pro-
ducers, and of course they were made by the producers
themselves. In 1751 the price of corn was a little over 29s.
a quarter. In 1774 it had risen to 51s. a quarter. The
imports exceeded the exports; and yet under these circum-
stances the English producers bitterly complained because
the bounties on exports were withdrawn.
The strong contention of landowners and farmers was that
agriculture ought to be fostered and encouraged by these
bounties, no matter what the price of corn might be. They
either could not understand, or they shut their eyes to the
fact, that to pay for exporting corn when there was a
deficiency in the home markets was to take the food out of
the people’s mouths and the money out of their pockets at
the same time.
An Act passed in 1791 fixed the import duty at 24s. 3d.
per quarter, when the selling price in England was under
50s. When the price rose to 50s., the duty was 2s. 6d. ;
and when it reached 54s., the duty was lowered to a
minimum of sixpence. This was a sliding-scale which
appeared to its framers to be very reasonable ; but the long
continuance of the revolutionary wars on the Continent soon
threw everything out of gear again. In 1801, the price of
corn had risen to the famine price of 155s. per quarter.
Next year it fell to 75s. 6d. ; and though, by the law above
quoted, the import duty was still to be kept at its minimum,
the producers demanded that importation should be spac
altogether.
On the re-establishment of peace in 1815, the onc of
Lords appointed a Committee to take the whole question
into consideration, and, as a result, the Government of the
day introduced a Bill which provided that the importation
of corn should be prohibited whenever the price fell under
80s. a quarter; though it was permitted from our own
22 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
colonies until the price had fallen below 67s. This was the
proposal of a Tory Cabinet; and nothing could exceed the
unpopularity of the measure. The most earnest protests,
the most desperate resistance, were made against it in vain.
There were riots in London and in the provinces, and sharp
struggles in both Houses of Parliament; but the Bill passed
by large majorities.
This Act of 1815 was one of the worst measures ever
written in the Statute-Book. It was a monstrous instance
of class legislation. Passed by the landowners, it profited them
alone, whilst it weighed with cruel severity on the people at
large. The clergy, indeed, saw reason to side with the land-
owners, since the value of their tithes had almost doubled in
a quarter of a century; but the farmers, though they
believed themselves to be swimming with the classes just
mentioned, were really sinking into deeper distress. Their
rents had, of course, increased in the same proportion as the
tithes ; and yet they clung to the idea that the “ protection”
of their industry must needs bring them profit.
The three harvests which followed the passing of this
Act were conspicuously bad ; and thus the condemnation of
the measure by all just and candid men was promptly
emphasized and illustrated. The country was in a state of
direst poverty and distress, there was grievous discontent
amongst all but the wealthiest classes, and no opportunity
was a) of exposing the unjust legislation under which the
nation groaned. Nevertheless the law continued in force ;
for those who suffered most by it, and many of those who
wrote or spoke most forcibly against it, were without a
voice in the management of public affairs.
The question of free trade in corn, and of free trade
generally, was still far from being matured, even in theory
and in argument. Manifest as were the evils of the system
then in operation, few persons clearly saw the principles on
which they must be attacked and overcome; and the few
THE HISTORY OF THE CORN LAWS. 23
who did see them were not listened to. Experience is a
hard.master, but its lessons are not always learned with a
rapidity in proportion to their hardness, The distress of
the years succeeding the conclusion of peace was usually
ascribed to the sacrifices rendered necessary by the pro-
longed wars with France ; and a majority of the preachers,
teachers, writers, and orators, on whom the masses depended
for their ideas, represented it as a patriotic duty to endure
in patience, not to say with gratitude, the burdens imposed
by our military triumphs. It was a work of difficulty, a
work of slow achievement and extreme odium, to prove that
the worst trials of the commonwealth were imposed upon
them, without any necessity, by unsound laws, by the greed
of dealers, and by the unscrupulous exaction of the rights
and privileges of the landowning class. There were not
wanting men who undertook to give this proof, and to
impress it on the public mind ; but more was needed even
than the Act of 1815 to make the question ripe for legis-
lative settlement. '
In 1822 there was indeed a show of relaxation; for in
this measure it was provided that the importation of corn
should be allowed whenever the price in the home markets
had risen to 70s. At 70s. there was to be a duty 17s. per
quarter, falling to 12s. after three months. When the price
was between 70s. and 80s. the minimum duty was to be
5s.; and when the price exceeded 80s, the duty was to
stand at its minimum of one shilling. This was a nominal
concession ; but its value may be estimated by the fact that
the law was never put in operation, the new scale was never
adopted, and the Act of 1815 was practically untouched.
An Act passed in 1828 (the year of Canning’s Premier-
ship) considerably relieved the pressure of the existing regu-
lations, and established a scale of duties for imported corn,
which, though still acting as a serious obstacle to the
introduction of food, were more elastic and less oppressive
24 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
than the former scales. One hundred and fifty towns were
selected in different parts of the kingdom—ports of entry,
where large sales of a speculative character were regularly
made, manufacturing towns bringing their supplies from a
great distance; inland emporiums, receiving and passing
forward the yield of wide agricultural districts; and smaller
market towns in the agricultural districts themselves, chiefly
supplying consumers without the intermediation of factors.
The selling price of wheat in these various classes of towns
was regularly noted; and by adding together the totals of
the corn sold in all the towns, and the totals of the prices
obtained, and dividing the total price by the number of
quarters, an average price per quarter was obtained for the
purpose of the sliding-scale. When the price so obtained
was 66s., on a further average of six weeks’ results, the duty
on imported corn was 20s. 8d. ; and the duty was to rise by
one shilling for every shilling of depression in price. But
as the price of corn rose in the home markets, the duty was
to increase ; so that with the average price at 67s. the duty
was to fall 2s.; at 68s., the duty fell 2s. more; at 69s., 3s.
more ; at 70s., 3s. more. When the average price was 71s.,
the duty was fixed at 6s. 8d.; at 72s., 2s, 8d.; and at 73s.
the duty fell to its lowest point—one shilling per quarter.
Of course the duty at its higher figures was simply pro-
— hibitive ; and practically it was found that foreign wheat ~
did not come into English markets until the home price
exceeded 70s. per quarter. Between the passing of the Act
of 1828 and the beginning of the year 1841—as appears
from returns made to the order of the House of Commons—
over 3,907,000 quarters of wheat were admitted to English
markets on payment of a duty of 1s.; over 2,788,000 quarters
on payment of 2s. 8d.; and over 1,994,000 quarters on pay-
ment of 6s. 8d. Out of a total of 11,322,085 quarters
admitted in the twelve years, nine millions and a half, or
more than eighty per cent., were imported and paid duty
THE HISTORY OF THE CORN LAWS. 25
en
when the English prices were above 70s. per quarter, whilst
an altogether inconsiderable quantity entered our markets
when the home price had fallen below 60s. Thus the
sliding-scale was very little better for English consumers
than would have been a law prohibiting importation at 60s.,
or even 69s. per quarter.
There were, as we have seen, a few points in respect of
which the Act of 1828 brought about a better state of
things; but the complexity of the sliding-scale, and the
constant variation of the duties on imported grain, were
attended by several disadvantages. Speculation was of
course greatly stimulated; the dealers were always on the
alert, now withholding their grain, now pouring it upon the
markets; large quantities were held in bond, to be pro-
duced only when the duty fell to a remunerative figure. It
often happened that a scarcity was aggravated, or even
created, by these mancuvres, whilst undoubtedly the specu-
lative transactions had the effect of delaying or preventing
the retail distribution of foreign corn when the country
most sorely needed it. :
The extent to which this injurious traffic in one of the
necessaries of existence was carried on may be judged from
the fact that in one year alone, 1838, the sliding-scale of
duties was altered no fewer than thirty-five times, varying
within twelve weeks from 20s. 8d. down to ls., and back to
20s. 8d. again. In this respect the Act of 1828 was dis-
tinctly more harassing and vexatious than the Act of 1815,
or than the Act of 1822 would have been if it had come
into operation ; for under both these Acts the duty, once
altered, must have remained fixed for a period of three
months.
If the Act of 1815 might be described as a Landowners
Monopoly Act, the Act of 1828 deserved the name of 4
Speculators’ Accommodation Act.
As for the general effect.of the Corn Laws upon the
26 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
supply of grain from the foreign markets to England, it
may be mentioned that between the lst of March, 1831, and
the 1st of September, 1838, the duty never fell to its mini-
mum; whilst from July of the first rear to the same month
in the latter year it was never below 20s. 8d. That is to
say, for the whole of these seven years importation was
practically forbidden, though from half-a-million to a million
quarters of wheat were constantly lying in bonded ware-
houses, and though the people were all the while at star-
vation point.
‘Tt cannot be doubted,” a statistical writer said in 1841,
“that the country is supplied under this arrangement at the
dearest possible rate, and in such a manner as almost to
render it totally impracticable for that interchange of com-
modities to take place which would ensue under a steadier
system. If the demand for foreign wheat were only tem-
porary, and sprung up only in seasons of extraordinary
scarcity, there might be some ground for leaving the trade
in its present unsatisfactory state ; but it is now clear that,
except in a succession of abundant years, we must resort
to other countries, and advantage should be taken of this
necessity to create a demand for our manufactures, which
can never grow out of the present manner in which we enter
foreign markets as purchasers of their agricultural produce.” |
In 1840 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (in the
Government of Lord Melbourne) called upon the British
consuls at the European ports between St. Petersburg and
Antwerp, and at Warsaw, Odessa, and Palermo, for an
answer to the following query :—‘ What quantity of grain,
of each kind, could be exported to England, from the
country or district in which you reside, if the trade in corn
in England were made constantly open, at a moderate
duty?” The estimates of the various consuls showed, as a
result of their inquiries, that England might reckon upon
an annual supply of five million quarters, And yet, as we
THE HISTORY OF THE CORN LAWS. 27
have seen, the average supply of foreign grain from every
source, during the twelve years ending with 1841, had been
considerably under one million quarters a-year.
No wonder public opinion was ripe for a change. And
still less wonder that the starving people began to demand,
with ever increasing importunity, the abolition of laws
under which they endured such terrible hardships.
‘The principal arguments of a more technical character
which were urged against the sliding-scale by men who
could not be accused of political bias or controversial preju-
dice, are succintly stated by the authority last quoted, in a
paper contributed to Charles Knight’s Almanac and Com-
panion for 1842.
There was first the complaint that the sliding-scale was
badly arranged in itself, even if a shifting duty of any kind
were necessary. As the scale was settled by the Act of
1828, importation was frequently rendered impossible (or,
at any rate, importation beyond the bonded warehouses) by
a prohibitive duty, although nominally there was no pro-
hibition, The scale in fact offered a kind of bonus, not on
impo tation, as might have been expected when the country
was deficient in corn, but on the withholding of corn from
the markets. Dealers were tempted to keep their grain
until the price rose to a maximum, or the duty fell to a
minimum. They did not pay their duty and distribute
their corn even when they could do so with a fair profit,
but often, and perhaps generally, held on in the hope of a
further change; and thus wheat, of all conceivable com-
modities, was not the object of reasonable mercantile
dealing, but rather of competition and speculative greed.
Again, assuming that the duty had fallen to its lowest
figure, and that the bonded corn could be released at the
rate of one shilling a quarter, the sudden withdrawal of vast
quantities from the warehouses, and the consequent flooding
of the consumption markets, resulted in the most disadvan-
a aeeneemeehemeimenee eat Reva il
28 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
tageous manner, causing violent fluctuations of price, and of
course reacting upon the sliding-scale by affecting the wheat
averages on artificial grounds.
There was a further unsteadiness due to the fact that
most of this competition and speculation took place in a few
posts of entry. The radius of supply was limited, and
the factors who had to purchase for inland markets were
obliged to carry on a sharp competition amongst themselves.
This want of steadiness, moreover, in the corn trade of
England with foreign countries interfered with the ordinary
operation of international commerce, and prevented the
practical .exchange of English manufactured goods for
foreign corn. The payments for corn were made in gold;
and thus—it was commonly argued—the currency was
seriously affected.
The natural remedy for these evils, it was contended by
some, was the adoption of a fixed duty in place of the sliding-
scale, so that at least the disadvantages of the existing
system would be reduced to their lowest terms. The
markets of the world would be virtually open to English
purchasers of foreign corn; there would no longer be a
bonus on withholding grain within reach of the consumers ;
prices would not be artificially forced up; and even a fixed
duty of several shillings might be collected with less
injury and cost to the consumer than a duty of one shilling
could be under existing circumstances.
Of course there were other remedies suggested—and
notably that of a complete abolition of duties. And there
were other arguments, more or less forcible and sound. .
But at the beginning of the decade in which Sir Robert
Peel adopted free trade principles, the sliding-scale itself
was condemned by thoughtful men of every shade of
political opinion.
CHAPTER IIL
ARGUMENTS FOR PROTECTION.
HE sliding-scale of duties on imported corn was of
course not the only protective tariff by which the
commercial legislation of former days attempted to
benefit Englishmen by excluding competition from their
own markets. It was the most characteristic of all the
tariffs, and its direct effect upon the food of the people
made it the most obnoxious and oppressive ; but there were
many other provisions of a similar kind, which had been
imposed either in a vain hope of increasing the revenue or
for the express purpose of encouraging particular hone
iudustries. Very many articles of production and exchange
were thus prevented from coming into the country, or their
introduction was discouraged by duties which rendered it
almost impossible that the manufacturers and merchants of
other lands should bring them to us on terms profitable to
themselves. But the principles which applied to the duties
on corn applied also to other miscellaneous duties, and it
was inevitable that the agitation for free trade in corn
should embrace or be attended by an agitation for free trade
in every kind of commodity which is capable of being made
a subject of international commerce.
30 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
And conversely, every argument which tended, or was
intended, to show the advantage of protecting our home
producers of corn could be employed to prove that our
manufacturers and merchants were entitled to protection
against foreigners. |
The struggle, then, which in its earlier stages was con-
ducted exclusively against the monopoly in grain, and
which was regarded as a battle for cheap food, became in
its later phases a question of general free trade. The Anti-
Corn Law League was virtually an Anti-Monopoly League ;
and it was only natural that the first positive result of the
agitation was the abandonment of the duties on manu-
factured articles.
Now there were not wanting men in an eminent position—
statesmen and political economists, orators and journalists
—who, even as a matter of theory, argued that it was wise
and necessary to maintain these restrictions. There were
more (and indeed, as we have already said, a majority of the
ruling classes in the first decade of the century) who con-
sidered the restrictions necessary in practice, even if they
admitted the theoretical truth of the free trade doctrines.
This was the ground taken by successive Governments in
replying to the representations made by the Free Traders in
and out of Parliament, from the debates of 1815 down to
the complete surrender of Sir Robert Peel. The contention
was natural, it was intelligible, and it was looked upon as
above all things patriotic. To disregard the interests of
other nations in comparison with our own, to give to
English merchants and agriculturists a preference in English
markets (even above what they possessed in the nature of
things) over their rivals from. France, or Germany, or
Russia ; to foster our home industries by taking it out of
the power of consumers to buy the produce of foreign com-
petitors, and thus to force them to buy home produce at a
high price; to exclude the commodities of outsiders so
ARGUMENTS FOR PROTECTION. 31
long as our own warehouses and granaries were full, and to
admit them only when the contents of these had been sold
out at a profitable rate—such were the aims and boasts of
our leading economists, and not merely of those who pro-
claimed themselves Conservative, or were landowners or
grain-producers on a great scale, but even of men as open to
conviction as Huskisson and Gladstone. |
It was not until the Anti-Corn Law League had begun to
make itself a power, and to disseminate the principles of free
trade broadcast through the kingdom, gaining many con-
verts in every rank of society, that the champions of
protection had a special inducement to formulate their
ideas. So long as these ideas were called in question mainly
by the unrefined mob, and by orators like Hunt, Bamford,
and a few doctrinaires, there was comparatively little con-
troversy outside the walls of Parliament. But when the
question had been made urgent and pressing, and especially
when a Conservative Government showed signs of yielding
to the general demand of the country, the protectionists
began to make all that it was possible to make of their
cause. The speeches of the abolitionists and the publica-
tions of the League were met by speeches and pamphlets on
the other side.
Perhaps the most succinct and closely-reasoned defence of
protection was contained in a protest entered in the House
of Lords against the passing of the measure of 1846. This
protest, the substance of which is appended, is supposed to
have been written by the late Lord Derby, who at that time
sat in the Upper House as Lord Stanley, by special sum-
mons. It was signed by eighty-nine peers, who assigned the
following reasons for their dissent :—*
**1. Because the repeal of the Corn Laws will greatly increase the
dependence of this country upon foreign countries for its supply of food,
* See Cobden and Political Opinion, by Mr. Thorold Rogers, p. 36.
32 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
and will thereby expose it to dangers against which former statesmen
have thought it essential to take legislative precautions.
‘2. Because there is no security nor probability that other nations
will take similar steps; and this country will therefore not only be
exposed to the risks of failure of supply consequent on a state of war,
but will also be exclusively subject to an unlimited influx of corn in
times of abundance, and to sudden checks whenever short crops shalk
reduce the ordinary supply from the exporting countries, or their
Governments shall deem it necessary to take precautionary measures
for their own protection, thus causing rapid and disastrous fluctuations
in the markets of this country.
‘*3. Because under a system of protection the agriculture of this
country has more than kept pace with the increasing demand of its
increasing population, and because it is to be apprehended that the ~
removal of protection may throw some lands out of cultivation, and
check in others the progress of improvement which has led to this
satisfactory result.
‘4, Because it is unjust to withdraw protection from the landed
interest of this country, while that interest remains subject to exclusive
burdens imposed for purposes of general] and not of special advantage.
‘* 5. Because the loss to be sustained by the repeal of the Corn Laws
will fall most heavily upon the least wealthy portion of the landed
proprietors, will press immediately and severely on the tenant-farmers,
and through them, with ruinous consequences, on the agricultural
labourers. |
£6, Because indirectly, but not less certainly, injuries will result
to the manufacturing interest, and especially to the artizans and
mechanics, from competition with the agricultural labourers thrown
out of employment, but principally from the loss of the home market,
caused by the inability of the producers of grain, and those dependent
upon them, to consume manufactured goods to the same extent as
heretofore.
‘*7. Because the same cause will produce similar evil results to the
tradesmen, retail dealers, and others in county towns, not themselves
engaged in agricultural pursuits, but mainly dependent for their sub-
sistence on their dealings with those who are so engaged.
‘8. Because the effect of a repeal of the Corn Laws will be especially
injurious to Ireland, by lowering the value of the principal exports,
and by still further reducing the demand for labour, the want of which
is among the principal evils of her social condition.
“9. Because a free trade in corn will cause a large and unnecessary
diminution of annual income, thus impairing the revenue of the country,
.
|
————— ee
ARGUMENTS FOR PROTECTION. 33
and at the same time that it cripples the resources of those classes on
whom the weight of local taxation now mainly falls.
**10. Because a general reduction of prices, consequent on a reduc-
tion in the price of corn, will tend unduly to raise the monied interest
at the expense of all others, and to aggravate the pressure of the
national burdens,
**11. Because the removal of differential duties in favour of Canadian
corn is at variance with the legislative encouragement held out to that
colony by Parliament, on the faith of which the colonists have laid out
large sums on the improvement of their internal navigation; and
because the removal of protection will direct the traffic of the interior
. from St. Lawrence and the British ports of Montreal and Quebec to the
foreign port of New York, thus throwing out of employment a large
amount of British shipping, severing the commercial interests of
Canada from those of the parent country, and connecting those
interests most intimately with the United States of America.
‘12. Because the adoption of a similar system with regard to other
articles of commerce will tend to sever the strongest bond of union
between this country and her colonies, will deprive the British mer-
chant of that which is now his most certain market, and sap ‘the
foundation of that colonial system, to which, commercially and
politically, this country owes much of its present greatness.”
The stress of the argument in these twelve contentions is
laid upon the question of duties on corn, which was natural
enough, both because the protest was entered against a Corn
Importation Act and because the protesters were all vir-
tually corn-producers. But some of the reasons apply equally
well to every other market commodity sunset! to foreign
competition.
The dangers referred to in the first reason are perhaps
chiefly “ee which would arise from the occurrence of war
between ourselves and a nation which had largely supplied
our markets. Certainly the Napoleonic wars had given us
a memorable instance of commercial exclusion, and it was
natural to argue that we should suffer more from such a
state of things if we had made ourselves dependent on
foreign supplies. But it might be answered to this that we
were already practically dependent on foreign supplies, that
A 3
34 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
we had to resort to foreign corn whenever our own harvests:
were insufficient, that this necessity was sure to increase with
an increasing population, that in these cases we had to pay a
monstrous price for our imports, and that. by adopting a
plan which would give us a regular supply at low prices we
should certainly not be in greater peril of a sudden scarcity
than under the old system. Events, of course, have proved
that the danger in time of war is not a formidable one, and
that, under the regulating influence of free trade, no cause
makes a very serious difference in the price of corn. A
recurrence of the state of things which existed on the Con-
tinent at the beginning of the century is not sufficiently
probable to be taken into serious consideration by economical
legislators ; and, even if a new Napoleon were to arise, the
attempt to place England under a commercial blockade
would be less likely to be repeated, and less effectual if
made, after the adoption of free trade than before it.
Moreover, England, with her navy and her maritime fleet,
her colonies in every quarter of the globe, and her close
relations with so many trading countries, is more indepen-
dent of partial exclusions and enmities than any other
nation. ;
The presumption contained in the second reason was not
borne out. It is true that some countries have for a time,
and under special circumstances, returned to the system of
protection. And it is true that the evil consequence appre-
hended by the protest has been partially experienced by us
—not, however, in the corn trade so much as in respect of
the iron and other industries. But one of the contentions
of free trade is that the nations adopting it profit by the
prosperity of the population as a whole, though individuals
may occasionally suffer, and on a general average of the
markets, though an industry here and there may be
occasionally embarrassed. It is impossible to obtain
“security ” that all other nations will cling to free trade
‘
:
4
‘
‘
ARGUMENTS FOR PROTECTION. 35
at the same time, or without intermission; but, on the
other hand, there is no danger of our being “exclusively
subject to an unlimited influx” of any commodity. .
The third and fourth reasons are unsound. They argue
from the special interests of a class, as against the general
interest of the nation; and they beg the question by saying
that the law ought to remain as it was, simply because it
had conferred exclusive advantages and privileges upon the
landed interest. To the fifth reason it might have been
sufficient to reply that the farmers and the agricultural
labourers could not possibly fare worse than they had done
under the system of protection, by which the landowners
and the speculators were the only gainers.
The sixth reason was a curious plea against a change
which had been brought about by the earnest and
determined efforts of the manufacturers and the inhabitants
of the great towns. These men had been quite willing that
the experiment should be tried first in connection with their
own immediate interests, and in the markets from which
they derived their own incomes; and it was not to be sup-
posed that, after they had demanded and assented to the
abolition of tariffs on manufactured goods, they would feel
any alarm as to the competition of agricultural labourers, or
the diminished purchasing power of grain-growers and their
dependents.
There was in this reason an appeal or an allusion to the
undoubted dislike of free trade by asection of ‘the artizans
and mechanics,” and especially by the Chartist leaders. It
is not difficult to understand why such an antagonism should
exist. The Anti-Corn Law agitation was, as we have seen,
and as we shall presently have further occasion to see, the
special work of the manufacturers; and Chartism opposed
itself with greatest bitterness to the owners of mills and
factories. The men whodestroyed machinery, burned down
the hives of labour, and proclaimed war against the large
36 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
employers, were not in a mood to look favourable upon an
association of Lancashire cotton merchants. Nor were Mr.
_ Cobden and his friends inclined to accept the alliance of
the Chartists on equal terms, even if it had been offered to
them ; for the methods of the Chartists (or of some of their
most prominent’ leaders) were professedly violent, whereas
the Manchester school very steadily and successfully. re-
pudiated every weapon except that of logical argument.
The Chartists were therefore predisposed to think that free
trade would limit the employment of workmen, and would
bring crowds of agricultural labourers to compete against
them in the workshops and mines.
The seventh reason makes a somewhat similar appeal to
the interests of the small provincial traders, who of course
regarded themselves as dependent on the landowners and
the agricultural classes, and who were alarmed to think
that their patrons were on the high road to ruin. There
were many amongst them who could rise superior to such
considerations, and who could accept the principle of free
trade with confidence; but asa rule they united with. the
landlords, clergy, and farmers in their cry against the
innovation.
The eighth reason points to a result which did, as a matter
of fact, ensue from the removal of protection. Here again
we have a sectional and temporary disadvantage to set
against the general profit of the nation. But the true
cause of Irish distress must be looked for elsewhere. It
existed under protection, when the landowners were at the
height of their prosperity; and it exists still, when the
agricultural interest has had time to recover from the shock.
of 1846.
The ninth reason has been entirely disproved by experience.
The ‘diminution of annual income,” and the “impairing the
revenue of the country,” are ludicrous inapplicable terms, in
the light of our national records for the past thirty years.
EEE a
ARGUMENTS FOR PROTECTION. 37
The tenth reason will have greater force in the mind of
some than it will have in the mind of others. But we
could not afford to reject the advantages arising from
a liberal commercial legislation even for the luxury of
crippling and humiliating the “ monied interest.”
The last two reasons will also have a, different weight
with different people. No doubt our adoption of free trade
rendered it necessary that we should make our greater
colonies more self-dependent, whilst it sacrificed much of
the profit which we might otherwise have gained from some
of the smaller ones. Coupled with the abolition of slavery,
it prevented us from drawing the revenue which our newer
possessions, such as the West Indies, had been expected to
yield. But the very remarkable progress which has been made
by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape Colony |
since the date of this protest: of the Lords, deprives these
contentions of their chief significance, and will appear to
most Englishmen as an argument in favour of, rather than
against, free trade. The colonies just named are now prac-
tically independent countries. They have grown and
prospered until they can stand without any fostering
restrictions from the mother country. Time will bring to
them the solution of their doubts; but so far as we have
gone, free trade has not produced any breach in our colonial
system such as that which resulted from the financial policy
of a hundred years ago. .
These opinions, these pleas for protection, which were
maintained in 1846 by a minority in the House of Lords
itself, had been something more than Tory fallacies a few
years before. They were, in the main, the official views on
commercial policy and international trade, which no Minister
in power had gravely contested up to the time when Sir
Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone, and a few of their colleagues
had been won over by the undnswerable arguments of Mr.
Cobden and his associates. |
CHAPTER IV.
FrEE TRADE PRINCIPLES.
HE principles of Free Trade naturally began to be
expounded and systematically enforced as soon as”
the advocates of the restrictive systems had taken
to dogmatising. A little more than a hundred years ago,
Adam Smith published his work on The Wealth of Nations,
and, in a chapter dealing with the systems of Political
Economy which represent the products of land as the sole
principal source of national wealth, he enunciates certain
ideas which have often been regarded as the basis of
systematised Free Trade doctrine in England. His work,
successful in the first instance, was comparatively neglected
for some years, during the height of the revolutionary crisis ;
but in the first decade of the present century it was repub-
lished, and went through several editions, and his authority
has been freely recognised by all writers and speakers on
economical questions.
Adam Smith is led to examine the “ Agricultural system,”
as he calls it, and to discuss the freedom in trade, by com-
menting on the views of Quesnai, a French predecessor in
the same field. Quesnai had ‘constructed an ‘“ Economical
Table,” in which he had set down what he considered the
{ »
ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee ae ee
FREE TRADE PRINCIPLES: 39
normal and natural distribution of the produce of land
‘amongst proprietors, cultivators, and unproductive con-
sumers. This “Economical Table” showed the nature of
the distribution in a state of complete liberty and of the
highest prosperity, “in a state where the annual produce is
such as to afford the greatest possible nett produce, and
where each class enjoys its proper share of the whole annual
produce.” In other tables he showed how the distribution
would be made in different states of restraint and regula-
tion, “in which either the class of proprietors, or the
barren and unproductive class, is more favoured than the
class of cultivators, and in which either the one or the other
encroaches more or less upon the share which ought properly
to belong to this productive class. Every such encroach-
ment, every violation of that natural distribution which the
most perfect liberty would establish, must, according to this
system, necessarily degrade more or less, from one year to
another, the value and sum total of the annual produce, and
must necessarily occasion a declension in the real wealth
and revenue of the society.”
This was the view of Quesnai, whom Adam Smith calls
a “very ingenious and profound” writer. The English
economist quarrels with the Frenchman for representing
that agricultural products are the principal or only source
of increased wealth, ‘representing the class of artificers,
manufacturers, and merchants, as altogether barren and
unproductive ;” and in this the critic was doubtless right.
But he did not entirely follow his leader in the contention
that the political body would only thrive under a precise
regimen—‘“ the exact regimen of perfect liberty and perfect
justice.” On this point Adam Smith says, that “the natural
effort which every man is continually making to better his
own condition is a principle of preservation capable of pre-
venting and correcting, in many respects, the bad effects of
a political economy in some degree both partial and oppres-
40 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
sive. Such a political economy, though it no doubt retards
more or less, is not always capable of stopping altogether
the natural progress of a nation towards wealth and pros-
perity, and still less of making it go backwards. If a.
nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect
liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation
which could ever have prospered.”
It is evident that the English writer constrained himself
to take the most moderate view of the restrictive regulations
which he found in force; but the spirit which pervades his
work as a whole shows him to have been thoroughly con-
vinced of the necessity of free commerce for national pros-
perity. As Dugald Stuart points out in his well-known
essay on Adam Smith’s work, the great and leading object
of his speculations is ‘to illustrate the provision made by
nature in the principles of the human mind, for a gradual
and progressive augmentation in the means of national
wealth, and to demonstrate that the most effectual plan for
advancing a people to greatness is to maintain that order of
which nature has pointed out; by allowing every man, as
long as he observes the rules of justice, to pursue his own
interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and
his capital into the freest competition with those of his
fellow-citizens. Every system of policy which endeavours,
either by extraordinary encouragements to draw towards a
particular species of industry a greater share of the capital
of the society than what would naturally go to it, or, by
extraordinary restraints, to force from a particular species of
industry some share of the capital which ‘would otherwise
be employed in it, is, in reality, subversive of the great
purpose which it means to promote.”
Here we have the true and fundamental principle of
free trade, that is to say, free and unrestricted competition—
the natural development of industry and enterprise, without
interference and without limitation. Here was the germ of
FREE TRADE PRINCIPLES. 41
general theory whereof his comments on Quesnai’s ideas were
merely an application. As we have said, Adam Smith
rather indicates and prepares the way for free trade doctrines
-than expounds and systematizes them ; but the effect of his
book upon the reader’s mind is to produce a conviction of
its justice, and of the absolute truth of its most characteristic
theories. The author speaks with something like bitterness
of the selfish monopolies and restrictions which were created
by tariffs, bounties, and the like, in order to secure what was
called the balance of trade. ‘Commerce,” he says in one
place, “‘which ought naturally.to be among nations, as
among individuals, a bond of union and friendship, has
become the most fertile source of discord and animosity. .
The capricious ambition of kings and ministers has not,
during the present and the preceding century, been more
fatal to the repose of Europe than the impertinent jealousy
of merchants and manufacturers. The violence and injustice
of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil for which per-
haps the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a
remedy. But the mean rapacity, the monopolising spirit of
merchants und manufacturers, who neither are nor ought to
be the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be cor-
rected, may. very easily be prevented from disturbing the
tranquillity of anybody but themselves.”
The landowning monopolists were somewhat more tenderly
dealt with ; but, so far as logical argument and proof were
concerned, the aim of Adam Smith was fully accomplished
by his book. He was, moreover, not only a writer, but a
lecturer and an eager controversialist ; his ideas impressed
themselves at once on the minds of hearers as well as of
readers, so that, as Dugald Stuart says, though he survived
the publication of his principal work only fifteen years, he
had the satisfaction of seeing the opposition which it at first
excited gradually subside, and to witness the practical
influence of his teaching on the commercial policy of his
42 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE. -
country. The growth of this influence was, no doubt,
seriously checked by the intervention of an epoch of war
and distress; but he had sown the seeds of truth in the
minds of his fellow-countrymen, and he was destined to find
in Cobden and the Manchester School the practical ete
tors of his ideas.
In fact, Adam Smith may be said to have founded a
school of political economists, whereof Cobden and his
friends, fifty or sixty years later, were a section. His per-
sonal and immediate influence seems almost to have been
exaggerated by some of his admirers, great as it undoubtedly
was. Thus Sir James Mackintosh speaks of the Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations as
“perhaps the only book which produced an immediate,
general, and irrevocable change in some of the most impor-
tant parts of the legislation of all civilised nations.” “Ina
few years it began to alter laws and treaties, and has made
its way through the convulsions of revolution and conquest
to a due ascendant over the minds of men with far less than
the average of those obstructions of prejudice and clamour
which ordinarily choke the channel through which truth
flows into practice.”
If this is somewhat too much to say for Adam Smith’s
work, the default is due to the highly unfavourable character
of the times immediately succeeding the publication of his
work more than to any lack of cogency in his arguments; ; and
though his success was scarcely so great, in a practical sense,
as Sir James Mackintosh suggests, it was logically complete.
As a writer, Adam Smith is pre-eminently convincing, no
less by his candour and. moderation than by his exactness
and clearness. His treatment of Navigation Laws is an
excellent instance of the method which he adopted. He
states the case of the advocates of the shipping’ monopoly
with so much fulness that some of his critics have been
misled into thinking that he defended it. He admits that
FREE TRADE PRINCIPLES. 43
the Navigation Act of his day, by encouraging English
trade with the colonies, and laying burdens upon the ship-
pers of other nations, had forced into this particular trade
‘a greater amount of the capital of Great Britain than
would otherwise have gone into it,” and that certain advan-
tages had accrued from it in certain special quarters. He even
goes so far as to say that the Act had “very properly endea-
voured to give the sailors and shipping of Great Britain the
monopoly of the trade of their own country.” But he puts
this forth only as a seemingly advantageous rrangement ;
and in another part of his book he takes occasion to point
out that “the monopoly of the colony trade, so far as it has
operated upon the employment of the capital of Great
Britain, has in all cases forced some part of it from a foreign
trade of consumption carried on with a neighbouring, to one
carried on with a more distant country, and in many cases
from a direct foreign trade of consumption to a roundabout
one.” Again: “The monopoly of the colony trade has
forced some part of the capital of Great Britain from all
foreign trade of consumption to a carrying trade ; and, con-
sequently, from supporting more or less the industry of
Great Britain to be employed altogether in supporting,
partly that of the colonies, and partly that of some other
countries.” And again: “The monopoly of the colony trade,
by forcing towards it a much greater proportion of the capi-
tal of Great Britain than what would naturally have gone
to it, seems to have broken altogether that natural balance
which would otherwise have taken place among all the
other branches of British industry. The industry of Great
Britain, instead of being accommodated to a great number
of small markets, has been principally suited to one great
market. Her commerce, instead of running in a great
number of small channels, has been taught to run princi-
pally in one great channel. But the whole system of her
industry and commerce has thereby been rendered less
44 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
secure, the whole state of her body politic less healthful
than it otherwise would have been.” _
This is the general drift of Adam Smith’s argument. He-
is constantly insisting on the necessity of giving free play to
the natural course of trade, as in a physical body it is
necessary to keep the circulation of the blood in the veins
without restriction, lest a sudden arrest in the flow of an
artificially swollen stream should “bring on the most.
dangerous disorder upon the whole body politic.” This is
the essence of his teaching, that free trade allows a natural
development, tending to a natural prosperity, whereas every
check upon the development of natural resources is a loss
and a danger. . .
Yet, though he was so clear in his own mind, and though -
he brought such deep conviction to the minds of others, he
was by no means confident of the practical success of his
theory. ‘To expect that the freedom of trade should ever
be entirely restored in Great Britain,” he says in one place,
“is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should
ever be established in it.” An apostle should not throw
cold water on the ardour of his disciples. No man in the
present day would enunciate a creed which he felt to be
true, and at the same time protest that to believe in its
triumph would be absurd. But perhaps the unqualified
triumph of free trade principles in England, in face of the
immense difficulties which Adam Smith foresaw, has done
‘as much as anything else to give the philosophers and
prophets of to-day their sanguine confidence in the future.
CHAPTER V.
Tar PonitTicaL ARENA.
e
-A7 E have already glanced at the condition of affairs in
England after the conclusion of peace in 1815.
“ Peterloo” came four years after Waterloo, but
the general distress and discontent which had found expres-
sion at Manchester in 1819 were to continue for a whole
generation without finding a remedy. Boys had become
middle-aged men, and middle-aged men had turned gray,
whilst England was steeped in the most bitter misfortune,
and whilst Englishmen were starving. It needed such a
terrible experience to wring just measures of reform out of
the ruling classes, and to make men of wealth and position
realise the desperate plight of the great majority of the —
people.
The first demand to which the legislature yielded was
that of Parliamentary Reform. Cobbett had a true instinct
when he told the people that they could never gain what
they needed until they were better represented. The
leaders of the agitation for Reform used the same language.
Some went so far as to argue for universal suffrage and the
abolition of the hereditary Chamber, but all agreed that a
wide extension of the suffrage was necessary before the
46 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
popular grievances could be remedied. Of course the
distress of the country was always appealed to as the
strongest proof that could be required of the badness of the
existing form of government, and of the necessity for its
modification. It is noteworthy that even in the third
decade of the century, before the cry for commercial reform —
had been generally raised, Manchester played a leading part
in the struggle.
Mr. Greville, in his interesting diary,* writing in the first
month of 1831, reveals to us the feeling of anxiety and
trepidation with which many men in the upper ranks of
society then regarded the growing popular discontent.
“Met Colonel Napier last night,” he writes on January
25th, “and talked for an hour of the state of the country.
He gave me a curious account of the organisation of the
manufacturers in and avout Manchester, who are divided
into four different classes, with different objects, partly
political, generally to better themselves, but with a regular
government, the seat of which is in the Isle of Man. He
says that the agriculturists are likewise organised in
Wiltshire, and that there is a sort of freemasonry among
them ; he thinks a revolution inevitable; and when I told
him what Southey had said—that if he had money enough
he would transport himself and his family to America—he .
said he would not himself leave England in times of danger,
but that he should like to remove his family if he could.
... . What a state of terror and confusion we are in,
though it seems to make no difference! ”
The same writer, in the same page of his diary, refers to
a report that the king, who had then recently ascended the
throne, was ill; and he adds that if he were to die, “and
the little girl,” there would only be the Duke of Cumber-
land left to inherit the crown. ‘ That,” he says, “would be
a he a
* The Greville Memoirs. Vol. II., p. 108.
THE POLITICAL ARENA. 49
a good moment for dispensing with the regal office.” Such
a remark from such a writer is a curious illustration of the
feeling of Englishmen in those times, even in regard to
the monarchy. Sentiments of this kind, in men of Mr.
Greville’s position, could not have been generated except
under the most grave and extraordinary conditions ; but
there is quite enough in the circumstances of the time to
account for them. ‘There was, indeed, at this moment an
actual revolution in England, which was the direct result of
long-continued misery. The Duke of Wellington’s short
Administration ended amidst disorders, outbreaks, riots, —
suppressions of a violent character, of almost daily occurrence.
The close of the year 1830 was marked by specially alarm-
' ing events. “London,” says Mr. Greville, ‘is like the
capital of a country desolated by cruel war or foreign
invasion, and we are always looking for reports of battles,
burnings, and other disorders.” ‘ Reform, economy, echoed
backwards and forwards, the doubts, the hopes, and the
fears of those who have anything to lose, the uncertainty of
everybody’s future condition, the immense interests at stake,
the magnitude and imminence of the danger, all contribute
to produce a nervous excitement which extends to all classes
—to almost every individual.”
The popular excitement was in-a large measure calmed
down by the passing of the Reform Act of 1832; but there
still remained the “economy ” which Mr. Greville mentions
as the other subject of general complaint. As time went on,
and it was found that the reform of Parliament was not
producing the great results which had been expected from
it; as the sufferings of the people continued unabated, and.
Lord Grey’s Government had done little more for the
country than the Duke of Wellington’s, the discontent
speedily revived. The great Liberal majority was divided
by fissures as wide as those between the Whigs and Tories,
and whilst some members of the party of progress (like
48 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
Lord John Russell) began to demand a further development
- in the representation of the people, the Radicals took up
the question of economical reform. This became henceforth
more and more the question of the day. Trade still
languished, the manufacturers were still crippled, the arti-
zans and labourers starved ; food was at starvation prices,
the masses of the nation were pauperized. Throughout the
reign of William the Fourth, there was little or no improve-
ment of a permanent character. In the earlier years of
Victoria’s reign matters rapidly grew worse, and thus when
the century entered on its fifth decade the distress of the
country rose to as high a pitch as it had ever yet reached.
This was the moment when Sir Robert Peel assumed office
with the famous Administration which was to sweep away
the worst of all monopolies. Cobden and the Anti-Corn
Law League had been prominently before the public for
“some years; but we shall have less occasion hereafter to
break the thread of our narrative if we now so far anticipate
as to glance at the state of parties in 1841, and consider the
political circumstances in which Peel undertook the task of
government. |
As already said, the Government of 1832 had satisfied no
one. The results were scarcely commensurate with the
efforts made to place it in power, and after the Reform Act,
which had been discounted by anticipation, there was little
or nothing in the measures of Lord Grey and his colleagues
about which the friends of progress could grow enthusiastic.
The difficulties of the party began forthwith, and there was
not much strength or cohesion amongst the Liberals for a
long time to come. The Whigs of course triumphed over
the Radicals, and the mild supremacy of Lord Melbourne
kept a Ministry together with much difficulty and to practi-
cally little purpose. Meanwhile the Conservatives patiently
awaited the moment when they would be recalled to power,
their chief difficulty being as to who should form a Cabinet
THE POLITICAL ARENA. 49
when the time arrived. The only serious claimants for the
‘ Premiership were Peel and the Duke of Wellington, and
between them the rivalry was at one time severe. The
Duke, however, failed in his attempt in 1834, and the
memory of his Administration in 1830 was not such as to
encourage his adherents, or to breathe hope into the minds
of those who were dazzled by his personal prestige. It was
manifest that Peel was the most promising candidate of the
two, although he was the least popular amongst the old
_ Tory chiefs.
Sir Robert Peel was one of a succession of prominent
English statesmen who, in different epochs of the present
century, have held up the flag of Conservatism, whilst
practically sympathising more with popular progress than
with the cautious premediation which belong to the tra-
ditions of the Conservative party. Canning had been such
aman, and so had Huskisson, who was one of the earliest
official Free Traders. Mr. Gladstone was such a man,
though he has advanced far beyond the line where his
models would have arrested themselves. These are the
politicians who have exemplified in some degree the sar-
castic definition of Conservatism which Lord Beaconsfield
puts in the mouth of one of his characters—Tory Men and
Whig Measures. Peel was the beaw idéal of the class, for
he combined the two main characteristics of political life—
circumspection and action—whilst he was personally in his
prime, and able to look forward to a long and honourable
career. It was well known that he had certain leanings of
‘amore Liberal character than the majority of his friends
approved, and yet this fact did not prevent him from making
good his claims as the leader of the territorialists. When
he assumed office in 1841 it was distinctly as the represen-
tative of the country party ; not that he was pledged (as it
was erroneously stated) specifically to resist all attempts to
modify the principle of protection, but because he had
A4 |
50 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
become the natural chief of the party, and because it was
expected of him that he would maintain the interests of the
landlords and the agriculturists with fidelity and success.
But Peel was a statesman before he was a politician; and
the distinction was due in the main to the fact that he
was open to conviction on the greatest domestic question
of the day. It would indeed have been strange if a man
of his candour and perception had been impervious to con-
viction in such a matter, and in such extraordinary circum
stances. ‘The first year of his Premiership was the turning- —
point of the agitation in the country, for it was the crisis
of the country’s sufferings, when the hard lessons of national
adversity came to the assistance of theory and deduction.
It was, in fact, impossible that any statesman of that day
should be ignorant of—should not be profoundly impresed
by—the state of the people and of popular opinion.
Nothing was wanting to inform or to stimulate the minds
of men. Already, as we have seen, there was the Anti-
Corn Law League, there were the Chartists in full activity,
there were ruined manufacturers and wholesale strikes,
there were crammed poorhouses and unreached starva-
tion, there were desperate riots and undetected crime, there
was the earnest declamation of the Parliamentary Radicals,
and the candid admission of the leaders of the two great
political parties. On every side there was abundant evi-
dence of evils which must be remedied if the rulers of
England were to retain the name of statesmen, and if
England itself were to avoid a revolution. When the
Queen came to the throne, five years had passed since the
Reform Bill, and nothing had come from it, so far as the
wretchedness of the people was concerned. Now five years
more had passed, and nothing had come from the change.
The Chartists had begun the new reign by addressing a
petition to the Queen, setting forth the grievances of the
working classes, and virtually appealing to her from the
THE POLITICAL ARENA. 51
incompetency of her Ministers. This petition, drawn up by
William Lovett, one of the Chartist leaders, was presented
by Lord John Russell (since Lovett and his friends were
not prepared with the indispensable swords and wigs); but
the petitioners received no answer, except the formal
assurance that Her Majesty had been acquainted with their
prayer. The young monarch, however, gave suflicient
evidence of sympathy with her people, and was at any rate
more disposed to relieve them than the last George and the
last William had been. It was not in the power of the
Crown to remedy the evils from which England was suf-
fering ; and Lord Melbourne’s Ministry went too cautiously
about the task to satisfy the popular impatience.
The agitations which characterised the first few years of
this reign, and which derived their force from a common
origin, were quite distinct in their aims and methods. The
Chartists were intolerant and apparently jealous of every
movement except their own;* and it is important to bear
in mind the complete isolation of Mr. Cobden’s struggle in
its earlier stages. Feargus O’Connor, and the men who
acted with him, consistently maintained that their own cure
was the only one that could be applied with success, and
condemned the efforts of the Anti-Corn Law League as
useless, and even pernicious. They told their followers
that nothing short of universal suffrage would do them any
good, that the question of the Corn Laws, and of free trade,
was comparatively insignificant, that their sole hope con-
sisted in the resolute, and, if necessary, the forcible
extortion of the Charter from the ruling classes. Their
animosity against the League went so far as to make them
turn aside in their own campaign to fight against the men
*The six points ‘of the Charter were universal suffrage, vote by
ballot, annual Parliaments, equal electoral districts, abolition of the
property qualification for members of Parliament, and the payment of
members. é
52 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
who were really fighting the battle of the people, and who,
as it eventually appeared, were on the right and the straight — q
path towards the goal. The Peel Administration were not
greatly moved by the violence of the Chartists, by strikes
and riots, by the month’s abstinence from labour, by the © §
declamations of O’Connor, Oastler, and the men of August ;
but they were impressed and converted by Cobden and his
peaceful assault of argument. i
CHAPTER VI.
THE PIONEERS.
E have considered both the soil in which the new
economical doctrines were to be sown and culti-
vated, and the germ from which the harvest was
to be raised. It is time that we should make acquaintance
with the men whose labour tilled the ground, scattered the
seed, and gathered in the crop.
Before Cobden was in a position to advocate his views,
and even whilst he was still a boy, there had been active
champions of free trade principles in England. One of the
earliest, if not one of the strongest of these, was William
Cobbett, whose trenchant pen was employed in defence of
popular rights from the very beginning of the great revolu-
tionary epoch. He began by declaiming against what he
was pleased to call the cant and hypocrisy of Tom Paine;
he published a paper at Philadelphia which gained him a
welcome in England, in the first year of the century, as a
Tory ; he denounced the peace of Amiens, and started
another paper in this country which was believed to have
been supported by Tory gold. There is, however, no proof
_of this, and soon after the Porcupine Gazette had failed, and
the Weekly Register had been set on foot, Cobbett developed
a thoroughly democratic temper, and easily transgressed
54 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
the narrow limits which then restricted freedom of speech.
In 1804 and 1810 he was convicted of libel, and on the
latter occasion he was fined a thousand pounds and sen-
tenced to two years’ imprisonment. In 1816 his Zwopenny
Trash brought him into evil odour with the authorities,
and, fearing the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, he
fled to America in the following year. Though his influence ©
was in some degree impaired by this, he returned to do
yeoman’s service in the popular cause. Thus we find him,
immediately after the Reform Act, urging Englishmen to
renewed efforts, complaining that the Act had done nothing
for them, and pointing to economical reform as the special
necessity of the time.
In the Weekly Political Register for June Ist, 1833,
Cobbett quoted some statistics from the Hxamuer relating
to the import duties on food, to which, under the title of
“Partial Taxation,” he prefaced a characteristic introduc-
tion. ‘This matter,” he wrote, “has attracted the eyes of
the people at last. I started the game long ago, and had all
the sport to myself for a good while; but now all have
joined in the chase. Spring Rice... . would do better
to answer this than to boast of the ‘high honour and
generous conduct’ of those who have imposed these taxes ;
and Peel’s Bill Peel would be as well employed in the same
work as in calling on ‘the gentlemen of England’ to unite to
resist the member for Oldham. It is these taxes, thus par-
‘tially imposed, that give me that power which an inborn
quality in Peel’s Bill Peel makes him so much overrate.
Repeal these taxes, or make them impartial, and my power,
whatever it may be, is gone. This is what the ‘gentlemen of
England’ ought to unite in: their uniting in coughing, and
groaning, and howling, and braying against me is of no more
use than would be such efforts if made use of to still the
winds or the waves. Nay, this is just so much done to
weaken their own power, and to add force and effect to
THE PIONEERS. 55
mine. Do justice to the people. That is the way to
‘expunge’ my ‘speculations on confusion;’ and there is no
other way. Before the reader enters on the examination of the
following tables, let him call to mind that, belong to which
faction the wrong may, they have it between them. ... . It
is their own work, and let them enjoy the fruits of it.”
Cobbett wrote much in the first person, and his eloquence
very frequently took himself and his actions for its theme.
But he is justified in his boast that he had frequently pro-
tested against the food-monopolies, and against the unequal
effect of the tariffs on rich and poor.
The statement in the Lxaminer, which Cobbett commends
to his own readers, deals with some of the principal articles
subject to Excise and Customs duties, and calculates in each
case the amount of duty payable on the lower, middle, and
higher qualities of the various commodities, drawing the
conclusion that the higher-priced goods were taxed at lower
rates in a spirit of favouritism to the rich. Thus, the com-
monest paper was charged with a duty of 200 per cent. of
the value, the middle kind at 100, and the best kind at
25 per cent. The rates on sugar were respectively 105, 66,
and 30; on tobacco, 1400, 600, and 150; and similarly
’ with many other articles. The writer speaks of “ what are
ridiculously called discriminating and protecting duties,”
which he describes as “ neither more nor less than iniquitous
taxes imposed on the people of this country in order to put
money into the pockets of some one bloated and overgrown -
interest or another—landholders, slaveholders, or ship-
owners.” After giving thirty or forty examples of discrimi-
nating duties, he continues :—“‘ We might add to this a long
list of foreign articles taxed, not for revenue, but to confer
a monopoly upon the corresponding productions of the
English soil, to raise rents, or, in other words, to take
money out of the pockets of the people for the purpose of
putting money into the pockets of the landed aristocracy.”
56 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
On ten or a dozen agricultural products the taxes amounted
to three millions sterling ; ‘‘ but this is very far from being all.
The duties on such articles as perry, cider, and bacon, are
prohibitory. That on such a necessary of life, for example,
as bacon is 28s. per cwt., which is equal to an ad valorem
duty of sixty to seventy per cent. In all this we make no
reference to the effect of the Corn Laws, which by good judges
are estimated to-enhance the price of bread in this country by
a sum equal to £18,000,000 a-year, and to amount to a tax
on the non-agricultural classes of society of £12,000,000.”
By this time free trade had become a Parliamentary
question. As we have seen, Huskisson and even Canning
had virtually confessed their belief in the superiority of
freedom in commerce over prohibitory duties. Speaking
of the silk trade in 1824, Mr. Huskisson, then President of
the Board of Trade, declared that the duties had left
Englishmen far behind their neighbours in that branch of
industry. ‘We have witnessed that chilling and benumb-
ing effect which is always sure to be felt when no genius is
called into action, and when we are rendered indifferent to
exertion by the indolent security of a prohibitory system.”
This was a remark of very general application, and there
were many who made a point of applying it to every other’
protected trade. It was, in fact, the repeal of the law pro-
hibiting silk manufactures which, as Huskisson foresaw,
really protected our own silk industry from extinction.
Joseph Hume was in the House of Commons at this time.
He had eagerly supported Huskisson in 1824, and he
seldom or never let a session pass without arguing the case
of free trade. In 1826 he moved a resolution directly con-
demning the Corn Laws, though without obtaining much
assistance on his own side of the House. In 1834 he raised
a debate on the same issue, which lasted over two nights,
and gave it as his opinion that the repeal of the existing
laws, prohibiting imports under certain conditions, would
|
;
:
‘
3
4
;
THE PIONEERS. 57
have the effect of doubling or trebling our home manufac-
tures. He contended not only against prohibition, but
against protection of any kind; but he was left in a very
small minority in the Reformed Parliament. Nevertheless,
the paradoxes which were now set down as mischievous or
impracticable were soon to be the accepted principles of the
Government. |
The Hon. (since then Right Hon.) OC. P. Villiers, brother
_to the Earl of Clarendon, took up the question in the House
-. of Commons. From the first year of the present reign he
made annual motions for inquiry into the operation of the
Corn Laws, or moved resolutions against them; and his
minorities were at least respectable, including most of the
independent talent in the House. In 1838 he made one of
his best and most forcible speeches on the subject, vigorously
describing the evil effects of protection on all classes of the
community, and appealing to the landlords on grounds of
reason and justice, as well as of self-interest. ‘Do they,”
he asked, ‘‘see no signs in the present times that should
make them pause before they determine to maintain a
system opposed by the industry, the intelligence, the com-
merce, and the masses of this country, and which they
cannot possibly, beyond a limited time, expect to retain ?”
But Mr. Villiers pleaded in vain. He made no impression
on Lord Melbourne, or his principal colleagues in the Cabinet,
though he had the votes of Sir John Cam Hobhouse and Lord
Morpeth. Ministers and Opposition combined against him,
and in the first year of the formal agitation of the Anti-Corn
Law League he was out-voted by more than two to one.
Whigs and: Tories were long obstinately combined against
suggestions of any changes in the laws. The would-be
reformers were chiefly found amongst the Radicals, though -
very naturally there were Liberals of nearly every shade
who had recognised the necessity of free trade. In addition
to those who have been named, there were men like Lord
58 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
—_——
Howick, Mr. C. P. Thompson, Sir George Grey, Sir Henry
Parnell, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Clay. The
latter brought forward a motion in 1837 for the adoption of
a fixed duty of ten shillings a quarter; and, as Mr. Thorold
Rogers observes in a volume already quoted, he had intended
to persist in an annual motion to the same effect, if Mr.
Villiers had not taken up the question in a more thorough-
going manner.
The opinions of many Radicals on the subject of the Corn
Laws were better known by their platform utterances out-
side Parliament than by their silent votes in the House.
The advocacy of free trade figures largely and frequently in
the election speeches and addresses of the fourth decade of
the century. For instance Mr. Roebuck, a fiery Radical in
his younger days, and one of the most uncompromising
Chartist leaders, appealed in 1831 to the electors of Bath,
and in a “rapid survey of abuses” declared war against the
monopolists. ‘Under the head of persons paid for doing
nothing,” he said, “besides mere sinecurists, I include the
whole body of monopolists, whether they be monopolising
landlords, merchants, corporations, or bankers. They have
peculiar privileges—privileges of money’s worth, for which
they render us no return—and for this reason, if for no
other, their monopolies ought to be abolished. West India,
Kast India, Bank, Corn Law, Corporation monopolies, must
all be swept away. We must have free trade in everything ;
and this too without inquiring whether other nations will
follow our example. If they be ignorant, there is no reason
why we should act as if we were so. They will quickly find
out their error if we set them the example of wisdom.” |
The example was set, and to some extent followed by
' other nations. In what fashion and with what result we shall
hereafter inquire. Meanwhile a few pages may be pleasantly
devoted to the catechist and the poet of the free trade ~
movement—to Perronet Thompson and Ebenezer Elliott.
CHAPTER VIL
THE Corn. Law CATECHIST.
g, DOLONEL T. PERRONET THOMPSON, whose
writings were freely drawn upon by the Council of
the Anti-Corn Law League for arguments and
illustrations, and whose Corn Law Catechism was one of the
earliest works in which the fallacies of the protective system
were popularly exposed, well deserves to be called the cate-
chist of the school whereof Cobden was afterwards the
lecturer and master. Indeed it is more than probable that
Cobden himself owed much of his information and inspi-
ration to Colonel Thompson, who had written most of his
articles, tracts, and letters on political and economical reform
before the future statesman had taken any active part in
the campaign.
Colonel Thompson resided, after he had retired from the
army, at Cambridge ; and it was from Queen’s College, in
that University, that he dated the preface of his Catechism
on the Corn Laws in February 1827, and of his True Theory
of Kent, first published in 1826. If it may be concluded that
the eight or ten weeks intervening between the publication
of these two works sufficed the author to put the first-named
into shape, the fact would testify no less to his enthusiasm
60 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
than to his ability and settled conviction. The Zrue Theory
of Rent, written in the form of a review of Mill’s Political
Economy, is an exposition of the fallacies of Ricardo and
others, and is based on the principles of Adam Smith. It
at once attracted notice to its anonymous writer; and it
may be taken as a proof, if any were needed, of the valuable
mental training afforded more than half a century ago by
the positive teaching of the Cambridge lecture-rooms and
curriculum, more particularly in respect of moral and econo-
mical philosophy.* Colonel Thompson, however, was not first
indoctrinated with philosophical ideas at this comparatively
late period in his life, for we find in the collection of his works
(published in 1842) a fragment On Morals and Law, written,
as he tells us, in 1813, “in the intervals of military service
in the European Peninsula by a subaltern of Light Dragoons.”
Five years before this Mr. Thompson had been Governor
of Sierra Leone, the first one appointed by the Crown after
the transference of that settlement from the Sierra Leone
Company. According to his own statement, he was ‘ordered
home as fast as possible,” for the zeal with which he put the
Slave Trade Abolition Act in motion, liberating a large
number of slaves, and giving dire offence to the merchants
and other dealers.
The first political productions of his pen showed the
strong bent of his mind towards radical ideas; and they are
marked by great shrewdness and energy. Colonel Thompson
took an active part in the Reform movement of 1831-2,
amongst other things writing a telling letter to Earl Grey,
analysing the division in the House of Lords on the first
rejection of the Reform Bill. In the election of 1835 he
was returned to Parliament for the borough of Hull, with —
which he had a family connection. At the beginning of his
candidature he had undertaken, if elected, to write to his
* Mr. Nassau Senior was Professor of Political Economy when Colonel
Thompson resided there.
THE CORN LAW CATECHIST. 61
constituents a series of letters on the proceedings of Parlia-
ment; and he kept his word, writing during two sessions
an average of two letters a week. They were printed as
received in two of the local papers. Scattered through
these letters the reader finds many discursive comments on
the events and questions of the day, and not a few of
them bear directly upon the subject of free trade.
_ In 1837, before the general election necessitated by the
accession of the Queen, the “Working Men’s Association”
of London, being “ anxious to have their political principles °
more prominently brought before the public, and particularly
before the ‘Liberal’ members of Parliament,”* called a
meeting at the Crown and Anchor, in the Strand, which was
attended by several members of the House of Commons,
Colonel Thompson included ; and an adjourned meeting was
afterwards held at the British Coffee House. A petition
was agreed upon, resolutions were passed (in favour of
- universal suffrage, equal representation, free election without
reference to property, the ballot, and short Parliaments not
exceeding a duration of three years); and the whole pro-
ceeding may be looked upon as the foundation of the
celebrated Chartist movement. The Committee selected to
draw up a Bill (that is the Charter) embodying the principles
enumerated above, all of whom were present at the meetings »
and signed their names to the documents, were Daniel
O’Connell, M.P., John Arthur Roebuck, M.P., John
Temple Leader, M.P., Charles Hindley, M.P., Thomas
Perronet Thompson, M.P., William Sharman Crawford,
M.P., Henry Hetherton, John Cleave, James Watson,
Richard Moore, William Lovett, and Henry Vincent. Mr.
Fielden, M.P., Mr. Wakley, and Dr. Bowring, M.P., also
signed their names in approval of the resolutions.
These, then, were the earliest and most active Chartist
* According to the Northern Liberator of 10th January 1840—the
account being apparently contributed by Colonel Thompson himself.
62 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
leaders, and it speaks well for Colonel Thompson’s consis-
tency that, whilst many of his colleagues assumed a tone
of bitterness towards the Anti-Corn Law League, and were
undoubtedly jealous of its interference with their own more
political objects, he was as ardent an economist in 1840 as
he had been in 1827, and rendered efficient aid to the
League.
The greatest aid of all was experienced from his little
work (it was more than a pamphlet, since it occupied 120
‘ pages) which he had entitled, “A Catechism on the Corn
Laws, by a Member of the University of Cambridge.” The
first edition, as we have said, was published in 1827, and in.
1840 it had reached its twentieth edition. The later issues
were sold at sixpence, which implied the abandonment of all
profit by the author; and, in addition to its circulation in
this form, the council of the League printed and circulated
wholesale, amongst its other tracts, a collection of passages
from Colonel Thompson’s miscellaneous writings. —
The Catechism consisted of two parts—first, an introduc-
tion explaining the principles and operation of the Corn
Laws, and, secondly, a series of questions and answers, with
an exposure of many fallacies of the day, illustrating the
former part, and set forth in a pithy manner, well calculated
to rivet the attention of the reader. The introduction is
based upon arguments already laid down in the True
Theory of Rent. An imaginary case is put of the creation
of a monopoly in the Isle of Wight for the production of
food for the United Kingdom. The parallel is supported in
a lively and spirited way, and the author arrives at his
conclusions with as much vigour as ingenuity. But it is
the concise reasoning and exposition of the Catechism itself
that the strength of this production mainly resides. We
will quote a few of the most characteristic portions.
The first half-dozen questions and answers take us at once
into the middle of the controversy :— |
THE CORN LAW CATECHIST. 63
Q. ‘* What is meant by Corn Laws?
A. ‘‘ Laws which enact that the labourer shall not exchange his pro-
duce for food, except at certain shops—viz., the shops of the land-
owners ; or not without paying a fine.”
@. ‘For whose benefit are these laws intended ?
A. “‘ Manifestly of those who support them—the landowners.”
Q@. ‘‘ What are the effects of these laws?
A. ‘*The same in kind as would arise from limiting the food
consumed in the United Empire to what could be produced in the Isle
of Wight.”
Q. ‘* What would be the consequences of such a limitation ?
A. ‘* That the manufactures, wealth, and power of the United
Empire must be limited to something like those of the Isle of Wight.”
Q. ‘* How would this be brought about ?
A. ‘*First, by a general distress amongst the manufacturing
labourers, arising from employment and wages being reduced to
what afforded the smailest pittance of food upon which life could be
supported ; as is the case now.
‘‘By a general glut and stagnation of trade, arising from more
goods being manufactured than could possibly Ue sold with a living
profit ; as is the case now.
** By the impossibility of any man’s prospering in any new manu-
facture, trade, or project ; as is the case now.
** By the population, both of labourers and traders, being limited in
proportion to the limitation of food—the first by hunger, the second
by bankruptcy ; as is the case now.”
Here we have, as it were in a nutshell, the axioms and
postulates of economical science as applied to the con-
demnation of the corn monopoly. The arguments were not
new, even in 1827, and the author takes care, on more than
one or two occasions, to point out that others before him
had preached in the wilderness. He quotes Adam Smith
and J. B. Say; he avows himself a disciple of Bentham: but
to Colonel Thompson himself belongs the credit of setting
forth the truths which he had mastered in their clear, compact,
familiar form, which it was so easy for every one to under-
stand, and which impressed the memories of the simplest
64 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
_—
reader. We cannot wonder that the Anti-Corn Law League
found it to their interest to give the widest possible
circulation to such conclusive expositions of their creed as
they found ready to their hands in the paragraphs above
quoted.
From this beginning the Catechist proceeds to put and
respond to the case of the monopolists, especially combatting
the argument that the increased rents of the landlords, due
to the protection of agriculture, represent a national gain.
The controversial force and heat of the author are measured
by the subjoined replies, which at the same time illustrate
the thoroughness of his convictions and the uncompromising
character of his attitude :—
Q. ‘What would be a sufficiently fair composition to offer to the
owners of land ?
A. ‘That the community, on its part, would give up the inquiry
into the claim rent has to be only equally taxed with manufacturing
industry, if the landowners, on their part, would give up the idea of
preventing men from having as much food as they can buy.”
Q. ‘*How should the injustice be removed, so as to produce the
greatest good and the least suffering ?
A. ‘* By removing it gradually. Give them time. Give them ten
years if they please, beginning with the present, and taking off a tenth
yearly, tillitis gone. But remove it.”
Q. ‘‘ What should be done, if anything short of final removal was
proposed ? '
A. ‘‘A discerning community would clearly take all that was
offered, and not relax in its endeavours to get the rest. Such a pro.
posal leaves untouched the body of the wrong, and all the dangers
arising from a sense of injustice. It is like the generosity of the
feudal lord, who, instead of insisting on his droit de seignewr for the
full tale of three nights, should graciously offer to compound for one.”
Q. ‘Ought not the landlords, at least, to have a duty of five shillings
by way of compensation for taxes ?
A, ‘‘By all means take off the taxes from them, whether it be just or
not; but do not let five shillings worth of taxes be raised from the
landlords at the expense of fifty shillings to the rest of the community.
Let it be settled that, like the noblessse in France, the landlords shall
en es SE Sy
THE CORN LAW CATECHIST. 65
pay no taxes, sooner than that what they do pay shall be recovered by
a tenfold loss on the community.
“The English people have been in the habit of laughing at the
French, calling them slaves, and all kinds of names, because before
the revolution their aristocracy paid no taxes. In the eighteenth
century the French aristocracy paid no taxes ; and in the nineteenth the
English aristocracy paid taxes, and recovered them through another tax
that caused the community to lose the amount ten times over: Which
side has a right to laugh? We are prodigiously stupid. Our posterity
will have very little to say about the wisdom of their ancestors.”
Then follows a string of three hundred and sixty-five
fallacies from the literature of the day, with their refuta-
tations attached—from speeches of Lord Redesdale and
others in Parliament, from contemporary newspapers, from
articles in Blackwood’s and other magazines, and from the
current commonplaces of the third decade of our century.
Many of these are very much to the point; whilst some
touch only the fringe of the question. Colonel Thompson
does not let us forget that he had in him the makings of a
Chartist, as well as of an economical reformer. ‘‘ What is
the answer,” he asks, ‘‘to the proposition—That the opera-
tives are a lazy race, and seldom go to work before
Wednesday ?~-A. The landlords never go to work at all.”
“That the landlords are marked out for spoliation?—A.
They are marked out for the operation which is performed
on a horse-leech by dipping its tail in salt. And they may
think themselves well off that this is all. They will have
their tails salted yet, they may depend upon it.” ‘That
the landlords are amiable and well-conducted ; and their
daughters handsome?—A. It may be true; but other men
have handsome daughters to take care of too.”
There is pith in the following paragraphs; and the
rebuttal of the menace of revolution is particulary happy :—
Q. “That money may as well be taken from the fund- hoteers as
from the landlords ?
A, “Thus saying that it is the same thing to defraud a just creditor
~
Ao
66 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
and to prevent a shopkeeper from raising his prices by a forcible
monopoly.”
Q. ‘That if expediency is to be the rule, away, away go all corn
ate and public annuities together ?
‘¢ Justice is expediency. The payment of the public asmnieliee is
mally and therefore expedient. The corn laws’are unjust and inex-
pedient in all other ways besides.”
Q. ‘That the landlords, however, wish for no sweeping measures ;
they only wish to be let alone ?
A. ‘*When a man has possession without right, this is commonly
what he wishes.”
Q. ‘‘ That the alteration is revolutionary and dangerous ?
A. ‘Not a word was said about revolution when the alteration was
the other way. The danger is not so much in doing the thing as in
leaving it undone. Everybody knows that if it is not done it is
because a disproportionate share of the representation is in the hands
of the landlords. Everybody knows, too, that for the rich not only to
have the natural influence of their riches, but to have a monopoly of
the representation besides, is in point of naked justice as unreasonable as
if they were to claim not only to have the benefit of their riches in the
market but to have the poor kept out in addition; and that if the
system stands, it is only because things go on tolerably well under it.
If one order of individuals takes advantage of it to make the others
keep them, things do not go on tolerably well; and men will call out
for a change. The middle classes in this country have an insuperable
aversion to unnecessary changes; but if they find out that their
distresses, though not coming absolutely in the shape of want of bread,
but in the shape of the bankruptcy of their sons and of their daughters’
husbands, the general stagnation of trade and the impossibility of
rising in the world by honourable industry, are traceable to a common
cause—they will join the others and make a mass of opinion which it
will be impossible to resist. If the landowners insist on thrusting the
reason for radical reform into every man’s ledger and meal-chest, they
must take the consequences ; one thing or the other will give way. At
the same time, the danger of change is on all sides greatly exaggerated.
Under a despotic government nothing is done without an explosion ;
but in a country so far advanced in freedom and habits of order as
Great Britain, as soon as a suffering majority believes that a measure
ought to pass, all opposition sneaks off. It will be interesting to see
how long a nation that can read and write will go on believing that
THE CORN LAW CATECHIST. 67
the way to be wise is to do nothing that looks like common-sense. If
one part of the nation complains that it is unrepresented, and con-
sequently robbed, the other party comes forward to declare that it
shall never be represented at all, unless their own voices are increased
in an equal degree. If one calls out for a purge, the others cry out,
‘Oh, but it will be unfair if you do not give me an astringent too.’
And it never seems to occur to anybody that the question is not keep-
ing up an equilibrium in the bowels of the patient, but of doing some-
thing that shall do him good. If any man desires experimental proof
of the senselessness of what is termed virtual representation, let him
_ take it in one word—Cornlaws.”
We may add afew more exposures of current fallacies,
chosen here and there from the pages of the Catechism,
most of which were amongst those selected by the Council
of the League for distribution :—
Q. ‘‘ That if there is less business done between the landowners and
the manufacturers, there must be a contraction of the currency ?
A. “The only consequence would be, that there would be fewer
shillmgs and more silver spoons. The time is past when men could
be deceived by tricks upon currency.”
Q. ‘*That the system of free trade must ruin England if adopted by
her alone ; and she must either give it up or enforce it universally?
A. ‘* When the draper buys bread, it may be very well if he can
persuade the baker to buy clothes from him in turn. But if he cannot,
it would be great folly to fancy he must he ruined because he refuses to
_buy bread. The Americans make a foolish tariff, by which they allow
one-half of their people to rob the other, with a general loss equal to
the difference in question besides. But that is no reason why England
should do an equally foolish thing in reply. If an American chooses
to put out one of his eyes, there is no necessity for an Englishman’s
doing the same for reciprocity.”
Q. ‘*That we are altogether in an artificial state, and, therefore,
must go on as we are ? :
A, ‘*This only means that the community is losing by a great many
hurtful monopolies, instead of one. Men are agreeing to vote for a
general famine, for the promise of a halfpenny roll apiece themselves.
Each sees the mischief of his neighbour’s bargain, but fears to lose his
own; and so all suffer like fools together. What the landowners
really say, ‘ Let us rob you all, and then you shall rob one another.’
68 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
This is the bargain they offer; and the manufacturers swallow it open-
mouthed.”
@. ‘* That the countries where cheap corn is found are very miserable?
A. ‘*The question is not whether those countries are happy, but
whether having their corn would make us happy. The objection is
like saying, ‘On no account let your ladies wear furs. You have no
idea what wretches the North-Western Indians are; and above all,
their women.’ The misery of the people quoted proceeds neither
from having corn nor from having furs, but from totally different
causes, wa our buying their corn or furs is ons step prards
removing.”
Q. ‘*That in the countries where corn is the dearest the manufac-
turing and trading classes are, in regard to both numbers and extent
of business, beyond all calculation, more rich and prosperous than they
are in those where corn is the cheapest ?
A. ‘‘It would be very odd if it were otherwise. Corn being dear,
means that a great quantity of the commodities of manufacturers and
traders is given for corn; which can only happen where the manu-
facturers and traders have a great deal to give, and are so numerous as
to make the competition great. The argument is like saying that
where most is got by taking purses, it will be found there are most to
take. It is the effect for the cause.”
Q. ‘* That people ought not to want to populate so much ?
A, ‘‘ If Noah has shut himself up in his ark, and let his family eat
nothing but what could be grown upon his decks, he would soon have
had an outcry against population, and an emigration committee ; and
Shem, Ham, and Japhet would have been ‘distressed manufacturers.’ .
And instead of reading lectures on not multiplying, his remedy would
have been to let in foreign corn.”
Q. ‘* That emigration is no evil because it is voluntary ?
A, ‘*And so is a man’s cutting his throat. But there can be no
right to inflict misery on an innocent man till he is driven to cut his
throat.”
The Catechism ends with a smart fusillade of fallacies
and rejoinders on the subject of the English country gentle-
man :— |
Q. ‘That the race of English country re English farmers
and English yeomen, is worth preserving ?
THE CORN LAW CATECHIST. — 69
A. “‘Notif they are to be kept at the public expense. As long as
they keep themselves everybody is glad to see them.”
Q. ‘* That a bold peasantry is their country’s pride ?
Al. ‘*The bold peasantry must keep their country ; not the country
them,”
0: ‘That the landlords are the Corinthian capital of society ?
A. ‘‘ And must therefore of necessity be supported by the rest.”
Q. ‘*That they are a source of light and knowledge to the lower
orders ?
A, ‘*They teach them what cy are anxious they should learn ;
and others do the same.” _—
Q. “‘That they have sound political principles ?
A. ‘They take the side they think best for themselves; and
others do so too.”
«That they fought the battle against the Jacobins 3
. Which other people are to pay for.”
“That all they get they expend ?
. ‘*Most other people do the same.”
“That they are supporters of the fine arts ?
. ‘*Which produce the same effects in any other hands.”
**That they feed fat cattle ?
. ‘And are paid for them.”
‘*That they keep up rural sports ?
‘Men have no claim to be paid for amusing themselves as - they
like best.” -
Q. ‘* That they kill foxes and otters ?
A. ‘‘The mole-catcher would do it better.”
ROAOASHASAS
Q. ‘* That they sit at quarter sessions ?
A. ‘‘ And strange things they sometimes do there. For instance, in
Buckinghamshire they sentenced John Doe to five months imprison-
ment for intending to assault the lord’s hen-pheasant, and Richard Roe
to three for assaulting the serf’s daughter.”
Q. ‘* That they are the unpaid magistracy ?
A, ‘If they demand to be kept, they are not.”
70 COBDEN AND FREE tie
Q. ie That they are good moral characters ?
A. “Other men are so too. But it is impossible for all moral men
to be kept.” :
Q. ‘That they are generous, brave, and humane ?
A, ‘All Englishmen, from time immemorial, by their own account,
have been so too.”
Q. ‘*That nobody could do without them ?
A. ‘‘ Nobody could do poibont everybody. But ovoet ae cannot
be kept at the public expense.”
Many of -these sentences have become proverbial in the
mouths of politicians and economists; and the Catechism as
a whole stamped its author as one of the most vigorous and
successful leaders in the Anti-Corn Law crusade. The
catechetical form of teaching was very popular in the con-
troversy of the age, and Colonel Thompson resorted to it
from time to time in the Spectator, the Sun, and elsewhere.
Nearly a thousand exposures in all were published by him
in the course of the free trade movement; but it was the
** Catechism” which first struck the prolific vein, and which
did most to educate the assailants of the Corn Laws.
,'
CHAPTER VIII.
Toe Corn Law Ruyrmer
iQ r
p= BENEZER ELLIOTT, whose Corn Law Rhymes
P were published at intervals between 1831 and 1846,
was born at Masborough, near Rotherham, in York-
shire, in the year 1781. His father was an ironfounder, and
was himself an author in a small way, having printed in
1798 a “ Paraphrase on the Book of Job, agreeable to the.
meaning of the Sacred Text ;” but we should probably have
heard little or nothing of either of them if it had not been
for the ardour with which the son threw himself into the
Anti-Corn Law movement, and the vigorous expression
which he gave to his sympathy with the poor, and to his
indignation against the monopolists. At an early age, and
whilst still following his father’s calling, he seems to have
been deeply touched by the sufferings of the working classes,
and the fervour of his benevolence is conspicuous in all his
poems, contemplative as well as aggressive.
The first collection of Elliott’s poems was printed in 1823,
and they stamped him at once as a genuine interpreter of
nature and humanity. He was in some sense a disciple of
Crabbe, though excelling him in the brilliance of his ima-
gination, and especially in his sweet pictures of natural
72 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
scenery. Even these earlier outpourings of his poetic muse
are dashed here and there with the bitter strain of indig-
nation, as though the poet could never for a moment forget,
alidst the Hope of nature, all the discords of the world
around him, Like his great contemporary Wordsworth, he
was grieved to think “ what man has made of man,” and he
could not leave the thought behind him even when he
entered on the domains of pure fancy. Note, for instance,
the rapid change from tenderness to bitterness in the four
beautiful stanzas from a poem called “The Excursion ” :—
‘* Dear children ! when the flowers are full of bees,
When sun-touched blossoms shed their fragrant snow ;
When song speaks like a spirit, from the trees
Whose kindled greenness hath a golden glow ;
‘When, clear as music, rill and river flow,
With trembling hues, all changeful, tinted o’er
By that bright pencil which good spirits know
Alike in earth and heaven—’tis sweet, once more,
Above the sky-tinged hills to see the storm-bird soar.
‘*? Tis passing sweet to wander, free as air,
Blithe truants in the bright and breeze-blessed day,
Far from the town—where stoop the sons of care
O’er plans of mischief, till their souls turn gray,
And dry as dust, and dead-alive are they—
Of all self-buried things the most unblessed :
O morn to them no blissful tribute pay !
O night’s long courted slumbers! bring no rest
To men who laud man’s foes, and deem the basest best |
‘*God ! would they handcuff Thee? and, if they could,
Chain the free air, that, like the daisy, goes
To every field, and bid the warbling wood
Exchange no music with the willing rose
For love-sweet odours, where the woodbine blows,
And trades with every cloud, and every beam ,
Of the rich sky? Their gods are bonds and blows, :
Rocks and blind shipwreck ; and they hate the stream
That leaves them still behind, and mocks their changeless dream.
THE CORN LAW RHYMER. 73
*“They know ye not, ye flowers that welcome me,
Tus glad to meet, by trouble parted long !
They never saw ye—never may they see
Your dewy beauty, when the throstle’s song
Floweth like starlight, gentle, calm, and strong !
Still, Avarice, starve their souls! still, lowest Pride,
Make them the meanest of the basest throng !
And may they never, on the green hill’s side,
Embrace a chosen flower, and love it as a bride!”
The simple mention of the word “town” brought up
vividly before the poet all the miserable contrast between
the squalid home of the dwellers in the great cities and the
calm and peaceful beauty which he had been describing.
The sternness of the times soon gave prominence to Elliott’s
harder muse—hard, that is to say, not in want of sympathy
with nature and with his kind, but in severity born of the
very excess of his sympathy. He began to look on the
question of the popular distress as a political question, a
problem capable of solution, and in the solution of which
he might himself take part. He: cast in his lot with those ‘
who publicly and incessantly condemned the Corn Laws, and
resolved to devote his talents to the advance of the move-
ment. He did so with less fuss than Cobbett, and perhaps
with more force, undeterred by the reproaches and ridicule
of his critics.
** For thee, my country, thee, do I perform,
Sternly the duty of a man born free ;
Heedless, though ass, and wolf, and venomous worm,
Shake ears and fangs, with brandished bray, at me.”
The Corn Law Rhymes had an immense influence on
public opinion, especially amongst the masses. Some of
them were sung at meetings; others were constantly quoted
and referred to, and the author was recognised as one of the
great forces by which the reform was rendered inevitable.
Perhaps the most familiar of his rhymes, and the one which
found its way most directly to the hearts of the people, was _
74 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
that which compared the people of England to ‘‘ Caged Rats.”
Few things more sharp and cutting will be met ares in ths
polemical songs of the century.
‘* Ye coop us up and tax our bread,
And wonder why we pine ;
But ye are fat, and round, and red,
And filled with tax-bought wine.
Thus twelve rats starve while three rats thrive
_ (Like you on mine and me),
When fifteen rats are caged alive,
With food for nine and three.
“Hark ! Havoc’s torch begins to glow—
The ending is begun ; |
Make haste! Destruction thinks ye slow;
Make haste to be undone !
Why are ye called, ‘ My Lord,’ and ‘ ‘Squire,’
While fed by mine and me,
And wringing food, and clothes, and fire
From bread-taxed misery ?
‘* Make haste, slow rogues! prohibit trade,
Prohibit honest gain ;
Turn all the good that God hath mace
To fear, and hate, and pain ;
Till beggars all, assassins all,
All cannibals we be,
And death shall have no funeral,
From shipless sea to sea.”
The Corn Law Rhymes were written for men of little
refinement of manner, who were not accustomed to weigh
words, and who would not have been so shrewdly touched
by poems of a too fastidious character. The first volume,
indeed, was ‘printed by order of the Sheffield Mechanics’
Anti-Bread Tax Society,” and it was at the time commonly
supposed to be the work of a mechanic. These facts should
be remembered as we read Elliott’s verses, some of which
are the fierce and savage outpourings of a mind consumed
with indignation. The poet Southey, a personal friend of
the Rhymer, and himself a Tory, wrote a critique on Elliott’s
THE CORN LAW RHYMER. 75
works for the Quarterly Review, which,: however, was
declined at the last moment by the editor, who doubtless
thought it somewhat strong meat for his readers. Though
Southey professedly reproves the author for his harsh
language, an under-current of sympathy is manifest. The
following passage is a good example of much of the con-
Oxiinal criticism of the day :—
‘*The demon of anarchy has never inspired anything more ferocious
than the whole of the Corn Law Rhymes—those poems which have
given Mr. Elliott his ‘crowning’ fame. He might be congratulated on
that fame if the power and vigour of these pieces could be contemplated
apart from the-spirit that they breathe and the purposes to which they
are devoted ; but if the vials of wrath are to be poured out upon this
guilty nation, and the author should live to see the fulfilment of his
poetical and political prophecies—(wishes we will not call them)—it
will be to him like ‘ Luke’s iron crown ;’ and ‘ Damien’s bed of steel’
could not inflict upon him keener pangs than he would feel in reflecting
that, to the utmost of his power, he had contributed to inflame the
madness of the people. . . . . Not ina spirit of ill-will, but earnestly,
and as a Christian admonition, we entreat him to take this warning
into his calmest and most serious consideration. Mr. Elliott is but
half a Radical; for in the fiercest of his effusions there is an avowal of
Christian belief.”
This was in Southey’s grandest style ; but what follows is
better still :—
‘* Repulsive, and even hateful as his invectives are, it is not difficult
to perceive where the root of his error lies; and. that the root is good,
though it is upon a worse than Upas graft, a graft of Zaccoum—the
Tree of Hell—that it now bears poisonous fruit! He has ‘considered
all the oppressions which are done under the sun,’ and ‘the tears of
such as are oppressed and have no comforter ;’ he has regarded those
‘of whose labour there is no end,’ and those also ‘ whose insatiable eye
no riches can satisfy.” But the light which leads him astray is not ‘a
light from heaven!’ .... ‘Isit strange,’ he says, ‘ that my language
is fervent as a welding heat, when my thoughts are passions, that rush
burning from my mind, like white-hot bolts of steel?’ And is it
strange, we would ask, if one who lets these fiery passions take the
place of thought, should be misled by them?... . That the poorare
too poor is a truth which we have proclaimed as loudly as the ‘ Corn
76 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
Law Rhymer,’ but in a different spirit and in a different tone; and
that there are cases in which the rich are too rich, because in propor-
tion to the growth of their riches is the consequent increase of poverty
and wretchedness, is another and not Jess momentous truth, which it
would be worse than folly to dream of concealing, while that poverty
and that wretchedness are trumpet-tongued in proclaiming it.” *
So much for Southey ; let us return to the “Corn Law
Rhymer” himself. Few ideas in Elliott’s polemical writ-
ings were more prominent, or more sad, than his sugges-
tions of the hopelessness of the sufferers’ condition. This
idea is expressed with dramatic force in the following
lines :—
**ScenE—A wide plain, covered with skeletons and snow.
Enter PAYALL and ALLBELLY. .
Payall. Heart of mud and brain of steel!
What hast thou been doing ?
Allbelly. Calming tumult, curing ruin—.
Eating children, fathers, mothers,
Nieces, nephews, sisters, brothers ;
Heap’d thousands at a meal.
Payall. All-maw! all-cursing ! all-accursed !
Thou’rt loathsome as thy food.
Allbelly. I eat them up to do them good ;
To do them good, I starve them first.
To plunder is to bless,
To murder is to save:
What could men less, in thankfulness,
Than feed this living grave ?
But not their flesh alone -
Doth my vast hunger need ;
On torture’s groan, on famine’s moan
On mute despair I feed :
My fateless greed
Their all of life controls :
I eat their souls.
——
* ** More Verse and Prose by the Corn Law Rhymer.” Vol. II. -
‘ss THE CORN LAW RHYMER. Hine)
The plain is suddenly darkened, and a gigantic Shadow enters,
deepening the gloom.
Shadow [to Allbelly]. Eternal Stink ! where are my children ?
Allbelly. Hare.
Shadow. Where ?
Allbelly. I am they.
Shadow. Maggot! hast thou no fear of me ?
Allbelly. Thee? I am Maggot.
Shadow [to Payall]. Misery! Hast thou no hope?
Payall. None, none—nor trust in thee:
Why should I have, if thou permitt’st to be
That loathsome monster? or a thing like me?”
In a note to this fragment Elliott informs us that it
originated in a conversation which he had had with a
gentleman in a railway carriage, who “asserted the worn-
out and infernal blasphemy, that the Corn Laws were
enacted to benefit the consumers! One would think,” the
author adds, ‘“‘ that our Protectionists (if they are, as they
seem never tired of proving, at once the worst and the most
insolent of criminals) might be satisfied with having
escaped hanging; yet they continue to act as if they
thought themselves still privileged to outrage the common
sense of every victim whom they have not yet quite
succeeded in stamping into the grave!”
It will be seen that Elliott could write as vehemently in
prose as in verse; and we can easily conceive how rasping
would be the effect of such reproaches upon supporters of
the Corn Laws, who really believed that these laws had
nothing to do with the popular distress. 3
.As Southey said, Ebenezer Elliott was a man of strong
religious feeling—though this fact does not seem to have
prevented him from being an utter and entire Radical.
Many of his poems bear witness to his devotional earnest-
78 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE. ¥
ness; and there is something peculiarly touching in his ode
on “ The Poor Man’s Day,” from which we take the follow- |
ing beautiful stanzas :—
‘*From the fever
(Idle never,
Where on Hope Want bars the door),
From the gloom of airless alleys,
Lead thou to green hills and valleys
Weary Lordland’s trampled poor.
‘* Pale young mother }
Gasping brother !
Sister, toiling in despair !
Grief-bow’d sire, that life-long diest !
White-lipp’d child, that sleeping sighest !
Come and drink the light and air.
** Still God liveth ;
| Still he giveth
What no law can take away ;
And, oh Sabbath! bringing gladness
Unto hearts of weary sadness,
Still art thou ‘ The Poor Man’s Day.’”
The first series of the Corn Law Rhymes was printed, as
we have said, in 1831 (in the form of a thick pamphlet,
with paper covers, at the low price of ninepence). A second
series was published in London two years later. The two
volumes, entitled ‘More Verse-and Prose by the Corn-Law
Rhymer,” were not issued until 1850, one year after the
author’s death; but many of the pieces in this collection
had appeared separately from time to time. ‘They cover
the whole period up to the final repeal of the obnoxious
laws; and it is worth while to notice one of the latest of
Elliott’s poetical diatribes, which describes the condition
of “England in 1844.” -In these lines we have a long
catalogue of the follies and cant of the time, as seen from
the Rhymer’s point of view; and a ghastly panorama is
THE CORN LAW RHYMER. ~— 79
spread before us, full of flitting shadows, gibbetted states-
men—
. ‘** Rascaldom, Parsondom,
Lazy big Beggardom,
Playing the fool ; ”
“‘breadtaxers stealing rates;” ‘‘brassface and timberface,
half-faced by Doubleface ;” “law working ruin well ”—as for
instance :—
‘*Four thousand poachers caught—
Rascalry’s statute-taught
Doctors of laws! ...
‘“ Whigs, for th’ exchequer’s good
Lauding restricted food ;
Cheered by the House. . . «
** Jacky Finality
Still for the ‘quality.’ ...
** Plenty the farmer’s hell—
Sliding-scale works so well !
Radnor and common sense
(Confound their impudence !)
Calling lies, lies.”
Thrust follows thrust, and truth drives truth home, in this
eloquent picture of the night before the dawn. But there
is a whisper of hope and confidence in the last two stanzas,
which bring before us the most prominent men of the day,
whose long and bitter struggle was now rapidly approaching
an end :—
‘Cobden, our ‘Man of Men,’
Doing the work of ten,
Each worth a score !
Bright (star and dove of peace,
Hampden of love and peace),
Villiers (for honest men,
Storming the robber’s den),
Worth fifty more !
80 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
‘Peel, hardest task’d of all,
Gage’d, kick’d, and mask’d for all,
Cooking his hash ;
Slandered man, wily man,
Bare back and empty pan,
Gloomily waiting all °
For the great general—
General Crash !”
Such, then, was the poet of the Anti-Corn Law move-
ment, and at once the pioneer and the follower of Cobden
and the League. We have allowed him to carry us
hurriedly over the ground of the conflict, which it will be
our business in the succeeding chapters to review with
greater deliberation ; but there is yet another contribution
to the history of the struggle for which we must be indebted
to Ebenezer Elliott. The Sheffield Mechanics’ Anti-Bread
Tax Society, already referred to, was one of the earliest of
the associations which the League subsequently united in a
single organised body. It issued its ‘‘ Declaration” in 1831
iu the Parliamentary Reform Bill had been passed,
and fifteen years before the Corn Laws were virtually
repealed. This document, with Elliott’s comments upon it,
will convey an accurate idea of the popular agitation which
at that date was beginning to force the demand for abolition
into the front rank of political questions.
The Declaration of the Sheffield mechanics was as
follows :—
‘*Convinced that the mechanics are the only body of men in this
country sufficiently independent to oppose, with any chance of success,
the hosts of corruptionists who are feeding on our labour, and at the
same time limiting the market for our productions; trusting also that
we shall speedily be joined by every wise and good mechanic in the
empire, and supported by the yet undebased portion of the middle-class
of our countrymen, if any such there be,—We, the Sheffield Mechanics’
Anti-Bread Tax Society, declare, that in a fully-peopled country it is
an act of national suicide to restrict the exchange of manufactured
goods for corn; because where there is a law which restricts the
THE CORN LAW RHYMER. — ~ 81
necessaries and comforts of life, profits and wages being nowhere worth
more than the necessaries and comforts which they will purchase, are
demonstrably measured by the restriction ;—That the present Corn
Law, while it enables a few thousand landed annuitants to convert the
general loss into a temporary but ultimately fatal gain to themselves,
is destructive of everything which is valuable to us as men; and that,
while that law, and the will and power to alter it for the worse, con-
tinue as they are, no reduction of taxation, how extensive soever, can
~ be other than a mere transfer of a certain amount of the public money
from the Government to the landlords. We therefore further declare,—
That, as we cannot escape from the consequence of the Corn Law
(except by causing it to be repealed, or by emigrating with our heart-
broken wives and children), we will, by all the legal means in our
power, oppose the horrible anti-profit law, alias Corn Law; and never
remit our exertions until the monopoly of the first necessary of life be
utterly destroyed. The case of our oppressors, as stated by themselves,
furnishes unanswerable reasons why we ought no longer to maintain
them in their present character of palaced paupers. They say they can-
not live without alms. Ifthe assertion be true, why do they not go to
the workhouse for their pay as other paupers do? If it be not true,
why are they not sent to the tread-mill for obtaining money under
false pretences? These questions suggest two others. We, however,
insist not yet on compensation for the past.”
Ebenezer Elliott stood sponsor for this ‘ Declaration,”
and enforced it with some remarks of his own, which were
printed at the same time, and quoted by Southey with
ingenuous candour, though not without a sneer at the “ pro-
fessors of Jeremy-Benthamism.” No-doubt Bentham was
one of Elliott’s masters and teachers, as he was of Perronet
Thompson also.
‘* When the Sheffield Mechanics’ Anti-Bread Tax Society was first
instituted, the members, in common with most of their countrymen,
had almost ceased to hope for a reform in Parliament. Determined to
invite the legal co-operation of all the oppressed throughout the king- ©
dom, they formed themselves into an association, with the design of
attacking a particular point in the enemy’s line. By overthrowing the
Corn Laws, they knew they would compel their enemies themselves to
become reformers. The announcement of the Reform Bill, in the
infancy of their union, indficed them to suspend their operations. Had
A 6
82 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
not that announcement been made, the Society would at this time, I
doubt not, have influenced, as members and co-operators, at least five
hundred thousand adult males! They who doubt this startling asser-
tion will make what allowance they please for the exaggeration of a
poetical imagination ; but I beg of them to remember that the Bir-
mingham Political Union originally consisted of four members only.
Should the Reform Bill disappoint our just expectations, the Sheffield
Mechanics’ Anti-Bread Tax Society is still in existence. It may yet
be necessary to array, a Political Union of all the plundered
against all the thieves; and I must in candour say, that it will not
be the fault of the latter if the very next contest which history
will have to record will not be that of the People of Great Britain v.
Fifty Thousand Palaced Paupers. In fact, that contest is already
begun. What is the struggle which now agitates the empire but the
beginning of the end—the great question of profit and wages, alias
bread, bread, bread—and whether the Tories, by continuing to tax it,
shall destroy the nation with themselves? One would think the
answer cannot much longer be doubtful—No !”
. Elliott takes the same occasion of entering on the subject
of the Sheffield trade, which at that moment was affected
by the simultaneous action of a foreign demand for its
manufactures and a reaction produced by the general dis-
content of English working-men. We continue to quote
from Mr. Southey’s paper :—
‘*T cannot conclude without a few remarks on the present state of
the trade of Sheffield, as connected with the tendency of the Corn
Laws. The Germans, being able to buy the necessaries of life without
restriction, are becoming dangerous competitors to us; but in conse-
quence of the troubles on the Continent, our merchants have lately
received many orders, which in other circumstances would have been
executed abroad ; and the great and sudden demand for our goods has
caused a general strike for increased wages. The present glut of
orders, then, is an accident ; but gluts and scarcities generally are the
results of absurd legislation; and I might assert, without fear of
refutation, that if trade were universally free neither gluts nor
scarcities could to any great extent, or for any great length of time,
exist. This, then, is the favourable moment for the repeal of the Corn
Laws. If we wait until the Continent is pacified, and our rivals enter
again into active competition with us, the advance which has here
?
THE CORN LAW RHYMER. 83
taken place in wages will be another premium in their favour. But
who does not see that, until the Corn Laws: are repealed, the great
question of wages can never be settled in England ?—that gluts must
alternate with scarcities ?—gluts of orders with gluts of goods ?—that
the feast of to-day must be followed by the famine of to-morrow ?—
insolence by humiliation, humiliation by insolence? and that, with the
intemperance and want of forethought resulting from the absence of a
steady demand for goods, the conflicts and heartburnings of the
employers and the employed must continue? But how long will such
a state of things yet last? Can we compete for ever with un-
bread-taxed rivals? No! capital will go where it will pay: skill
will follow capital; and our manufacturers will at length stop,
simultaneously, and for ever! The immense camp of London will
then be without pay; the immense camp of Glasgow will be without
pay ; the immense camp of the West Riding of Yorkshire will be
without pay, and almost within shout of a still more multitudinous
camp—that of Lancashire, also without pay! And all this may happen ;
and if the Corn Laws remain much longer on -the statute-book, wii?
happen, perhaps in one and the same week, day, or hour! If I am
called upon to produce from history a record of similar catastrophes, I
shall answer that history can furnish no record of a similar state of
things. The British Government is the only one that ever legislated
against the bread of its people, by impeding the exchange of manu-
factured goods for food, at the very moment when such exchange
ought to have been facilitated by all possible or conceivable means.”
The Rhymer’s prose, it will be admitted, was as nervous
and forcible as his verse. No wonder Southey had scarcely
the heart to visit him personally with very severe blame,
CHAPTER IX.
CoxspEn’s EArRLy LIFE.
\ ICHARD COBDEN was born at Dunford, near
Midhurst, in Surrey, on June 3rd, 1804. It was
the same decade which was to see the birth of Lord
Beaconsfield and Mr. Gladstone. Of these three men,
Cobden started with fewest advantages, and decidedly with
the least ambition. By comparison, therefore, he achieved
the greatest results; for he undertook the advocacy of a
cause which had nothing to recommend it except its logical
strength, and he. lived to see his views accepted by the
Parliamentary leaders of both parties. He had no Parlia-
mentary knowledge or training when he was selected by a
large constituency to plead the cause of Free Trade in the
House of Commons, and perhaps if he had survived to this
day he would never have acquired the skill in dealing with
men and measures that his two great coevals have displayed.
But it is certain that’ in the best sense of the term he
deserves to be numbered amongst the most memorable
statesmen of the nineteenth century. |
An agitator, as such, and so long as he continues to be
an agitator, may have thoroughly statesmanlike instincts ;
but the very fact of his appealing direct to the people,
:
a
COBDEN’S EARLY LIFE. 85
and against the Parliament which formally represents the
people, implies that he deliberately resigns all pretension
to the name of statesman in its ordinary-signification. But
the agitator of a great political question may have wider,
sounder, and more prudent views in regard to the govern-
ment of the State than the men who happen to be holding
its helm and directing its course; and in that case the
triumph of the agitation brings with it the confidence of
the people in their instructors, and the formal classification
of these instructors in the rank of Parliamentary statesmen.
It was so with Mr. Gladstone a few years ago, after he had
stepped out, as it were, from the Parliamentary ranks, and
had appealed successfully to the masses. It was so with
Richard ‘Cobden, who passed direct from his early con-
victions to the stage of popular agitation, and from the
stage of agitation to the levels of formal and Saag os oon
statesmanship.
Cobden’s father was a farmer, who died when his son
was young, and without having prospered in his occupation,
though he farmed, at least in part, his own land. In his
political speeches, on more than one or two occasions, Mr.
Cobden refers to the circumstances of his early life. ‘My
father,” he said in a speech at Norwich in 1843, “lost his
property as a tenant farmer, and I fled from the family
occupation to a manufacturing district, in hopes of finding
that independence which was denied to me in the far more
preferable pursuit of farming.” The death of the father
occurred whilst the son was still a mere boy, and to this it
was due that Cobden’s early education was scanty and
imperfect. He had been sent to the small grammar school
at Midhurst, where he seems to have given evidence of
talent above the average of his schoolfellows; but on the
death of his father he was removed to London, and soon
afterwards entered the warehouse of his uncle, a merchant
named Partridge, in Watling Street. Before he was thirty
86 : COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
years old he had travelled extensively for the firm, and had
so completely mastered the business, and made so many
friends, that he conceived an ambition to found a mercan-
tile house on his own account. Being without capital, he
accepted the offer of two friends, and, borrowing a sum of
five hundred pounds, entered into partnership with them
in an agency for the sale of printed cotton goods. They
established themselves in Manchester, in a house in Mosley
Street, in the year 1832; and the junior partner in the
firm of Gillett, Foster, and Cobden developed excellent
business capacities, and in particular that faculty for im-
pressing and winning the confidence of other men which
was his most distinguished characteristic throughout his
career. By his personal address he secured the agency for
a large cotton printing house at Sabden, near Clitheroe,
which enabled his firm to establish a London agency.
After a time they took over the Sabden Works from Mr.
Fort; and thus within four or five years from his first
venture in an independent way of business, Cobden found
himself in the enjoyment of a considerable income. |
Mr. Ashworth, from whose interesting volume of recollec-
tions * most of these details are derived, bears witness to
the character enjoyed by his friend in Manchester, to the
solidity of his business repute, and to his personal qualities
and force of character. It was in 1837 that Mr. Ashworth
became acquainted with Richard Cobden, through the intro-
duction of a common friend. In the same year the British
Association met at Liverpool, and Mr. Ashworth read a
paper on the subject of “A recent strike at Preston,”
which, as he tells us, “brought together a good many
political economists.” It may have been at this time,
though it was probably at a much earlier date, that Cobden
began to direct his attention very closely to the economical
* Recollections of Richard Cobden, M.P. (Cassell & Co. ),
COBDEN’S EARLY LIFE. 87
condition of the country ; and Mr. Ashworth’s narrative is
interesting as giving us the first indication of his friend’s
resolution to attack the Corn Laws.
Speaking of the economists who had come to Liverpool
to attend the Association meeting, Mr. Ashworth men-
tions that the subjects of the Corn Law, Protection, and
Monopoly were frequently under discussion amongst them,
and were denounced as great obstacles to the commercial
progress of the country, especially the first-named, “as being
the most flagrant, and the sustaining buttress of the whole
fabric of legislative monopoly.” ‘Mr. Cobden and I,” he
continues, ‘being members of the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce, had often conferred together upon the mis-
chievous influence of the Corn Law; but the discussions
raised by Mr. Foster and his friends so aroused his feelings
that it became almost a constant topic of conversation with
him ; and one evening, after a soiree at the Liverpool Town
Hall, he stopped suddenly, as we were walking quietly at
midnight up Pembroke Place, and with some abruptness
said: ‘I'll tell you what we will do; we’ll use the Chamber
of Commerce for an agitation to repeal the Corn Law.’
My reply was that it could not be done, that the rules of
the chamber would not admit of it, and that the sub-
scriptions to the chamber would be inadequate for the
purpose; therefore the agitation, if undertaken, must be
independent, and must be provided with funds raised for
the special purpose. He seemed disappointed, and said:
‘Well, my income is so safe that I would not give anyone
five per cent. to assure it; and I am determined to put
forth my strength for the repeal of these Corn and Pro-
vision Laws.’”
Here spoke the enthusiasm, the confidence, and the
determination of the man who was to be the life and soul of
a vast and patriotic movement. He may have under-
estimated the work on which he was about to enter. Mr.
88 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
Ashworth says very truly that, counting the odds which
were arrayed against them—‘ on one side a few compara-
tively unknown and uninfluential men, and, on the other,
almost the entire ruling class of the country”—it was
wonderful that even a seven years’ struggle, and the expen-
diture of nearly half-a-million, should have prevailed over
the opposing prejudices. But Cobden had more than his
money to bring to the contest ; and, as we have seen, the
times were ripening for the harvest.
Cobden did not forget his resolves when the Liverpool
meetings and banquets were at an end, and he had gone
‘back to the routine of his office. He was occupied, soon
after his return to Manchester, in conjunction with his
friends, in securing a charter of incorporation for several
of the new manufacturing towns of South Lancashire,
under the Act of 1835. The fact is worthy of note, not
simply as illustrating the progressive and energetic spirit of
the men who founded what was afterwards known as “the
Manchester School,” but also because it marks the date at
which this great centre of the growing cotton trade became
the leader and model of the new commercial corporations.
Manchester had become known as a centre of reforming
organisation before Cobden went to live there—as was
indicated in a previous chapter by a quotation from Mr.
Greville’s Diary. But the recruit was a host in himself—
“doing the work of ten, each worth a score,” as the
Rhymer presently said of him.
The battle of Free Trade, so far as Mr. Cobden and his
Manchester friends were actively concerned in it, was
begun in the Chamber of Commerce, much as Cobden had
suggested to Mr. Ashworth in Liverpool. At a meeting of.
the Chamber, held late in 1838, a proposal was made to
petition Parliament for a modification of the import duties
on corn and on other articles of food. On this, Cobden,
Mr. Ashworth, and Mr. J. B. Smith prepared an alter-
.
{
C—O Ee
COBDEN’S EARLY LIFE. | 89
native petition, praying for the total repeal of the duties.
Cobden having moved the adoption of this petition at an
adjourned meeting of the Chamber, it was found that the
majority were in favour of the bolder measure, which was
carried on a division by five or six to one. This triumph
drew the “first blood” in the campaign, and it incited the
merchants and manufacturers who had won it to proceed
without delay to the initiation of a special movement for
the agitation of the question. In less than a month after
the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, the Anti-Corn
Law League had come into existence.
Cobden’s career was now fairly before him. He had
already shown to his friends and acquaintance the stuff of
which he was made, and a few months sufficed for him to
Show it to the country also. It may be well to mention,
before we proceed, that he was in every way well equipped
for his enterprise. Though his schooldays had been short,
at would be a mistake to suppose that he was an uneducated
and imperfectly informed man. He had himself made up
for the deficiencies of early training. His life in London
was a studious one; he had read much, he had made him-
‘self a good French scholar, and, as his speeches abundantly
prove, he had studied political economy to good purpose.
He had travelled whenever an opportunity presented itself
—one voyage to Egypt having been made shortly before the
‘date at which we have arrived. He was thus a man of
some cultivation; and the instinctive refinement of his
mind, with his excellent moral qualities, enabled him to
maintain his dignity throughout an anxious and troubled
period, during which he was subjected to a good deal of
misrepresentation and abuse.
Professor Thorold Rogers, writing of him as a near
connection in the preface to his volume on Cobden
and Modern Political Opinion, tells us that he was “ready
to speak upon every topic of public interest,” and that “ his
90 ' COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
knowledge of facts was as remarkable as the clearness with.
which he interpreted the moral or political significance of
events. the advocates of Free Trade, as it was over-
whelmingly disastrous to the Whigs. There was a majority
of 91 against the dissolving Ministry, and in favour of the
policy of Sir Robert Peel. Prominent supporters of Free
Trade like Lords Howick and Morpeth lost their seats, and
though Cobden was elected for the borough of Stockport
many of his friends were rejected. It is to be remembered
that the electors were simply the ten-pound householders in
boroughs, and the freeholders in counties. The mass of the
people who had been converted by the Anti-Corn Law
League were not possessed of the franchise, and the sound
doctrines of economical reform still needed a long and
untiring advocacy in order to ensure their acceptance.
Sir Robert Peel’s attitude on this occasion has often
been criticised and called in question. The spirit of his
candidature in 1841 is sufficiently manifest from his address
to the electors of Tamworth, in which he declared that his
party, which it had been his “object in political life” to
form, and which had “paid him the compliment of taking
his advice and counsel,” wasa united party. ‘‘ No difference
of principle,” he said, ‘prevails as to the course which we
ought to pursue. So far as the Corn Laws are concerned, I
cannot consent to substitute a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter
for the present ascending and descending scale. The pro-
position of buying corn in the cheapest market is certainly
tempting in theory ; but before you determine that it is just,
" you must ascertain the amount of the burdens to which
land in other countries is subjected, and compare them with
RE
THE ANTI-CCORN LAW LEAGUE. 101
the burdens imposed upon land in this country, ‘I think a
prudent statesman would pause before he subverted the
principle on which protection is given to agriculture in this
country.” * :
Lord John Russell, returning thanks for his election in
the City, admitted the defeat of his party, but declared his
belief that the truth of their principles would prevail over
the vast majority of the Tories. ‘ Returned to office, they
may adopt our measures and submit to the influence of
reason, or, if they refuse to do so, they will be obliged to
relinquish power ; and the monopoly of trade will share the .
fate of religious intolerance and political exclusion.” This
was a remarkable prophecy, destined to be fulfilled in an
extraordinary manner.. Nothing seemed so unlikely in
1841 as the adoption by Sir Robert Peel of the measures
proposed by Lord John Russell and his friends a few months
before. It was at any rate manifest that the victorious
party—the great majority of them coming from the English
counties—were enthusiastic advocates of Protection, and
that the leader and creator of this party was pledged to
maintain the standard around which his followers had
rallied. .
We have now come to the end of the first stage in the
history of the Anti-Corn Law League, distinctly marked
by the modification of opinion amongst the official Whigs,
and by the election of Mr. Cobden to the House of Commons.
Other significant victories of Free Trade advocates were
those of Dr. Bowring (one of the earliest members of the
League) at Bolton, Mr. Mark Philips and Mr. Milner
Gibson (a recent convert from Conservatism) at Manchester,
and Mr, Brotherton at Salford. The position taken up by
the Leaguers on the hustings had been that which they
resolved upon after their fruitless deputation to London;
—
* Irving, June 23, 1841.
102 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
they held themselves aloof from party organisations and
pledges, resolving to confine themselves to their single object,
and to accept its full accomplishment from any party which
might offer it. Mr. Ashworth mentions that an impression
had prevailed amongst the late Ministerialists that their
proposal of an eight shilling fixed duty would find favour
with the League, “but the Council disclaimed any com-
promise with injustice, and issued an address urging their
friends not to allow the cause of repeal to be thus weakened.”
It was the only way to conduct such an agitation, in the
face of such opposition, to success.
As Colonel Perronet Thompson had said fifteen years
before, in the preface to his Catechism on the Corn Laws,
‘a patient perseverance in keeping the question before the
eyes of the community, a moderate but firm protest against
any palliative being accepted in lieu of removal, an absolute
disavowal of participation in any engagement to consider
the subject as at rest, a cheerful confidence that a wrong
known is virtually a wrong deceased, however circumstances
may retard the moment of its dissolution, a rational degree
of co-operation and mutual encouragement, and a pledge for
the unceasing employment of all legitimate methods to pro-
cure the mitigation and final abolition of the evil”—these
were the instruments which effected the prohibition of the
Slave Trade, and these would sooner or later effect the
abolition of the Corn Laws. ‘Patience is a virtue; but
not that patience which accepts the dereliction of one por-
tion of a wrong as compensation for the eternity of the
remainder.”
In Lord Beaconsfield’s Hndymion the author has an
interesting reference to the Anti-Corn Law agitation. His
testimony is especially valuable on the subject of the con-
trast between the League and the Chartists, whilst it ~
at the same time fairly describes the difficulties of the
Government in 1842 :—
THE ANTI-CORN LAW LEAGUE. 103 -
“‘The condition of England at the meeting of Parliament in 1842
was not satisfactory. The depression of trade in the manufacturing
districts seemed overwhelming, and continued increasing during the
whole of the year. A memorial from Stockport to the Queen in the
spring represented that more than half the master spinners had failed,
and that no less than three thousand dwelling-houses were untenanted.
: One-fifth of the population of Leeds were dependant on the poor-rates.
The state of Sheffield was not less severe; and the blast furnaces of
: Wolverhampton were extinguished. There were almost daily meetings
at Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds, to consider the great and in-
creasing distress of the country, and to induce Ministers to bring for-
ward remedial measures ; but as these were impossible, violence was
soon substituted for passionate appeals to the fears or the humanity of
the Government. Vast bodies of the population assembled in Staly-
bridge and Ashton and Oldham, and marched into Manchester. For
a week the rioting was unchecked, but the Government despatched a
strong military force to that city, and order was restored.
‘The state of affairs in Scotland was not more favourable. There
were food riots in several of the Scotch towns, and in Glasgow the
multitude assembled, and then commenced what they called a begging
tour, but which was really a progress of not disguised intimidation.
The economic crisis in Ireland was yet to come, but the whole of that
country was absorbed in a harassing and dangerous agitation for the
repeal of the union between the two countries.
‘* During all this time the Anti-Corn Law League was holding regular
and frequent meetings at Manchester, at which statements were made
distinguished by great eloquence and little scruple. But the able
leaders of this confederacy never succeeded in enlisting the sympathies
of the great body of the population. Between the masters and the
workmen there was an alienation of feeling, which apparently never
could be removed. This reserve, however, did not enlist the working
classes on the side of the Government ; they had their own object, and
one which they themselves enthusiastically cherished. And this was
the Charter, a political settlement which was to restore the golden age,
and which the master manufacturers and the middle classes generally
looked upon with even more apprehension than Her Majesty’s advisers,
It is hardly necessary to add, that in a state like that which is here
faintly but still faithfully sketched, the rapid diminution of the
revenue was inevitable, and, of course, that decline mainly occurred in
the two all-important branches of the Customs and Excise.
‘« There was another great misfortune, also, which at this trying time
hung over England. The country was dejected. The humiliating
- 104 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
disasters of Afghanistan, dark narratives of which were periodically
arriving, had produced a more depressing effect on the spirit of the
country than all the victories and menaces of Napoleon in the heyday
of his career. At home and abroad there seemed nothing to sustain
the national spirit; financial embarrassment, commercial and manu-
facturing distress, social and political agitation on the one hand, and
on the other the loss of armies, of reputation, perhaps of empire. It
was true that these external misfortunes could hardly be attributed to
the new Ministry—but when a nation is thoroughly perplexed and
dispirited it soon ceases to make distinctions between political parties.
The country is out of sorts, and the ‘Government’ is held answerable
for the disorder.”
CHAPTER XI.
Tue LITERATURE OF THE LEAGUE.
HE operations of the Anti-Corn Law League were of
‘ course not carried on without the expenditure of a
large sum of money. Labour, energy, and enthusiasm
were not in themselves enough; they were indispensable
to the work, but they required to be supplemented; and the
necessary resources were not lacking. The first subscription
of the founders of the League, when their undertaking
began to assume really formidable proportions, amounted to
£50,000. Most of this was subscribed in Manchester, and
it was spent, as Mr. Ashworth tells us, at the rate of from
£6000 to £10,000 a-year up to 1843, “in the pursuit of
inquiries into the condition of the country, in the distribu-
tion of tracts and serial publications, in the employment of
lecturers and the holding of public meetings.”
At the time of the General Election in 1841 there was a
great increase of enthusiasm in support of the movement,
and the Council began to see the fruits of their labours in
the better comprehension of the subject throughout the
country. Funds began to pour in more generally—not at
first from London, or from the south of England, or from
the agricultural districts, but mainly from the manufactur-
106 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
ing districts of the north-west. Many and peculiar were
the methods adopted by the friends of the League in order
to swell the amount of its funds. THarly in 1842 a bazaar
was held in Manchester, which realised something under
£10,000, a large proportion of the articles sold having been
contributed or collected by the wives and female relatives of
the members of the association. Mementos of the League’s
work, and enforcements of the League’s principles, figured
in the hall and abounded amongst the articles offered for
sale. There were Free Trade handkerchiefs, Anti-Corn
Law bread-plates, anti-monopoly pin-cushions, and all that
feminine ingenuity could devise to tempt the buyers of
trifles who were so much in earnest. |
Meanwhile the circulation of tracts and pamphlets had
already been enormous, even during the continuance in
office of the Whig Ministry. We have seen what the
Council of the League had done in the popularisation of the
writings of Colonel Thompson and Ebenezer Elliott. They
had other pamphlets on their list; they offered prizes for
short essays, and published several of these ; they reprinted
speeches, collections of authorities, long and short extracts
from various popular writers. The short tracts alone,
excluding mere fly-leaves, made up a volume of over a
hundred pages in 1842. All this popular literature was
sown broadcast over the country, and yet the leaders were
apt to be discouraged by the slowness of their propaganda.
‘“‘ At one of the League meetings,” Mr. Ashworth writes,
‘when the reports of the stolid ignorance of the people, the
obstinacy of the Ministry and of the most influential
members on both sides of the House of Commons, had
made the Council somewhat dull and sad, Mr. Cobden
jumped up and said that they must no longer be contented
to dispense simply Free Trade tracts, but they must circulate
condensed libraries on the Corn Laws; and instead of
raisin a subscription of £50,000, he thought they might as
THE LITERATURE OF THE LEAGUE. 107
well ask for £100,000 at once. Up to 1843 the sum of
£47,814 toward the (second) £50,000 fund had actually
been received by the treasurer of the League, and nine
millions of tracts, weighing upwards of one hundred tons,
and 29,000 copies weekly of the League newspaper, besides
other publications, had been issued from the office.”
The newspaper here mentioned was the Anti-Corn Law
Curcular, which was conducted with much spirit, and served
an excellent purpose in guiding and directing the efforts
of the League’s members in different parts of the country.
It was a treasure of information and argument as long as it
continued in existence, and may be read even to this day
with the greatest satisfaction. Cobden himself for some
time took a prominent part in preparing it for the press ;
and of course, in so doing, and in the other multifarious
duties which he performed, he entirely sacrificed his private
prospects as.a manufacturer.
There were, at any rate in the first stages of the move-
ment, other tracts and circulars—“ Anti-Bread Tax Cir-
culars” and the like—issued by branch associations ; but
these for the most part ceased when Manchester had finally
become the head-quarters and organizing centre. The news-
papers were generally unfavourable to, or contemptuous of,
the League until they saw that the principles which it
advocated were being taken up by statesmen and backed by
popular opinion. Almost the only London paper which
acknowledged and reported its achievements was the Sun,
and in this case there was a solid inducement of £500 a-year
subscribed by the Council of the League to the proprietors.
But eventually the Liberal papers were converted—not by
subventions, but by arguments and the logic of facts—and
then it was recognised that the agitation had passed through
its phase of ridicule.
Whilst we are considering the literature of the Corn Law
movement, we must not omit to notice the standing appeal of
?
108 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
the Council to the electors—and it was to the electors almost
exclusively that the League addressed its exhortations.
Every parcel of tracts, says Mr. Ashworth,* contained a
copy of this appeal, which ran as follows :—
‘*You are an elector. To you is entrusted the privilege of choosing
the law-makers. It is a trust for the good of others; and upon the
right or wrong exercise of this trust depends the happiness or misery
of millions of your fellow-creatures. At the next Parliamentary election
you will be entitled to choose between a bread-taxer (one who withholds
food from the people) and a candidate who will untax the poor man’s
loaf. The choice involves an awful responsibility. Think, solemnly
and carefully, before you decide. Examine the evidence which is now
placed in your hands. Ignorance cannot be pleaded after knowledge
has been freely given to you. Remember that you will decide for
plenty or scarcity, for comfort or misery, for health or disease, for life
or death, to many thousands of immortal beings. Remember, above
all, that your decision will be recorded on high, and that you will be
called to account for your vote at that dread tribunal, when all man-
kind will be judged—not by their professions, not by their prayers,
but when the blessed will be told, ‘I was an hungered, and ye gave me
meat.’”
The religious tone of this appeal, and some of the pub-
lications of the League, bears witness to the peculiar earnest-
ness and solemnity of its guiding spirits, and does much
to explain the strong hold which they gained over the
more sober classes in the country generally. It may be
mentioned that the sect of the Quakers, amongst other
nonconformist and dissenting bodies, was practically unani-
mous in its early and steady adhesion to the principles of
the League.
Amongst the most telling of the tracts above mentioned
was one containing extracts from speeches of Earl Fitz-
william, who (with Lord Clarendon, Lord Lansdowne; Lord
Radnor, and other eminent members of the Upper House)
had boldly come forward to sanction the Free Trade move-
* Recollections, &c., p. 78.
ee
THE LITERATURE OF THE LEAGUE. 109
ment, when to do so involved them in no little odium and
unpopularity. Lord Fitzwilliam took the trouble to collect
statistics showing the wages of agricultural labourers during
the month of May, for more than thirty years, with the price
of corn at the same time; and the result was to prove that,
deducting from these wages the cost of a given quantity of
wheat, sufficient for the average maintenance of a man, the
balance was in almost every case greater when corn was
at its cheapest. Now it was a common fallacy of the Pro-
tectionists—who took as their authority a conditional
observation of Adam Smith—that there was most prosperity
and highest wages at a time when food was dearest. Lord
Fitzwilliam’s figures very neatly and completely disproved
this statement so far as it applied to the cost of corn under
the system of Protection.
Another tract contained materials for discussion and in-
ference drawn from the report of Joseph Hume’s committee,
‘mentioned in a previous chapter, which had been appointed
“to inquire into the several duties levied upon imports into
the United Kingdom, and how far those duties are for pro-
tection to similar articles, the produce of this country
or of the British possessions abroad, or whether the duties
are for revenue alone.” Of the value of this inquiry, and of
the report issued by Hume and his colleagues, Mr. Mon-
gredien says:—* “ Whatever may have been the motives
under the influence of which Mr. Hume’s committee of
inquiry was allowed, its appointment led to most important
though slowly-developed results. It elicited from numerous
experts, and, among others, from such men as Macgregor,
G. R. Porter (the able anthor of the Progress of the
Nation) and J. Deacon Hume, who had for forty-nine years
been engaged at the Customs and at the Board of Trade,
evidence utterly condemnatory of the prevailing system.
——-
* Free Trade, in ‘‘ Cassell’s Shilling Library.”
110 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
That evidence went to show that while revenue duties give
to Government what they take from the public, protective
duties give what they take from the public to a limited
number of private traders, and by so doing, divert capital
and labour from remunerative to wasteful employment. It
is difficult to over-estimate the result accruing from the
labours of this Import Duties Committee. Their report at
first attracted but little attention, but they were so striking,
the reasoning so cogent, and the inferences so significant,
that soon thoughtful and conscientious statesmen received
from it fresh lights which largely modified their previous
opinion. Its influence was perceptible in some degree in
the Whig Budget of 1841, but was recognisable to a far
greater extent in the fiscal improvements introduced soon
afterwards by Sir Robert Peel. It was the first semi-official
adoption of Free Trade principles, and was somewhat the less
obnoxious to the landowners as it bore on the entire range
of protected articles, and did not direct any separate or
special attack on the Corn Laws.” As a budget of trust-
worthy facts and statistics, Hume’s report was of course
very valuable for the purposes of the Anti-Corn Law League.
Other tracts were written by, or contained extracts from
the works of, Mrs. Loudoun, Mr. W. R. Greg, the Rev.
Baptist Noel, and others; whilst the brief ‘ authorities,”
gathered from writers new and old, were both numerous
and effective. Amongst these fragmentary quotations was
one from the American statesman, Benjamin Franklin, who
said, “‘ Wherever commerce is known to be always free, and
the merchant absolute master of his commodity, there
will always be a reasonable supply of corn.” In some
instances the League fortified itself by the admissions
of its opponents, or of writers more frequently quoted
in support of Protection. Thus, Ricardo had admitted that
“all classes, except the landlords, will be injured by the
increase in the price of corn.” An article in the Zimes had
THE LITERATURE OF THE LEAGUE. 111
described the Corn Law as ‘an extension of the pension
list to the whole of the aristocracy of Great Britain.”
Lord Stanley, “heckled” during the election of 1841 by Mr.
John Brooks, a member of the League, had confessed that
the Corn Laws increased the price of corn, and consequently
the rents of the landlords, whilst the wages of the labourers
were not simultaneously increased.
Mr. Ashworth quotes a passage from a reply sent by
Carlyle to an invitation to a baaquet in the year 1843.
“As for the Corn Laws,” wrote Carlyle, ‘my opinion, any
time these ten years, has been complete; and even, so to
speak, more than complete. For these ten ycars I have
heard no argument, or shadow of an argument, in behalf of
them which was not of a kind (too literally) ‘to make the
angels weep.’ I consider that if there is a pernicious, por-
tentous, practical solecism, threatening huge ruin under the
sun at present, it is that of Corn Laws in such an England
as ours of the year 1843. I consider that the Corn Laws
lie on the threshold of all and every important improvement
in our anomalous, distressed, and distressing condition of
society ; that they fatally block up all possibility of the
innumerable improvements which are fast becoming indis- »
pensable, if England is to continue to exist. That it is the
duty of all English citizens to do whatsoever is practical for
the removal of those laws. That they will have to be
removed, unless this universe and its eternal laws are a
chimera. That God declares against them, audibly to all
just hearts ; and that man is now fast declaring—that all .
men cannot too soon declare—how much lies beyond the
Corn Laws, desperately calling for revision, for reformation,
among us ; and till the Corn Laws are removed, the problem
cannot so much as begin.”
This was not the only occasion on which Carlyle lent his
powerful aid to the cause of the Free Traders.
CHAPTER XIL
THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT.
HE Parliament of 1841 did not meet until the 19th of
August, and after that some time was occupied in
discussing the Queen’s Speech and handing over the
seals of office from the Melbourne Cabinet to the Cabinet of
Sir Robert Peel. September was wel! advanced before the
new Government was in a position to use its initiative.
Little, therefore, was done for the country in this brief
autumn session, which terminated on the 7th of October.
But the debates which actually occurred were sufficient to
show the attitude and temper of the various sections in the
House.
A four nights’ debate took place on Mr. Stuart Wortley’s
amendment to the Address, the discussion turning mainly
on the condition of the country, and on the dispositions of
Lord Melbourne’s Government to relieve it. In this con-
nection, the Queen’s Speech, after referring to the unsatis-
factory state of the national finances, had said :—“ It will
be for you to consider whether some of these duties (import
duties on foreign goods) are not so trifling in amount as to
be unproductive to the revenue, while they are vexatious
to commerce. You may further examine whether the
-
|
|
:
THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT. 113
' principle of Protection, upon which others of these duties
are founded, be not carried to an extent injurious alike to
the income of the State and the interests of the people.
Her Majesty is desirous that you should consider the laws
which regulate the trade in corn. It will be for you to
determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural
fluctuation of supply, whether they do not embarrass trade,
derange the currency, and by their operation diminish the
comfort and increase the privation of the great body of the
community.” The debate resulted in the defeat of the
Ministry by 91 votes; and thus the Whigs were not per-
mitted to show the Pantry what they would have done to
satisfy its demands.
Sir Robert Peel invited the Duke of Wellington to enter
his cabinet without holding office. His Chancellor of the
Exchequer was Mr. Sole his Home Secretary was Sir
James Graham, and other posts were held by the Duke of
Buckingham, the Earl of Aberdeen, and Lord Stanley.
Mr. Gladstone accepted the position of Vice-President of
the Board of Trade, under Lord Ripon, and, on seeking re-
election for the borough of Newark, he expressed a con-
viction that the farmers might rely upon ‘adequate pro-
tection” for their interests, and upon the maintenance of
the sliding-scale of import duties.
No doubt this was the basis on which Sir Robert Peel
originally intended his commercial policy—so far as the
corn tax was concerned—to rest. He was in no sense
prepared to abandon the Corn Laws altogether, or to
abolish the sliding-scale, or to accept the principles of Mr.
Cobden and the League; but, on the other hand, he came
into office resolved to make as great abatements in the tax
‘as he might find practicable. And he took the earliest.
opportunity of giving his friends to understand this. In
his first speech after the General Election he warned his
supporters of the necessity of a change of some kind. “If
A 8
114 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
you ask me,” he said, “whether I bind myself to the main-
tenance of the existing law in its details, or if you say that
this is the condition on which the agricultural interest give
me their support, I say that on that condition I will not
accept their support.” It was argued by some of the more
fanatical Protectionists that it was too late for Sir Robert to
repudiate the support of those who had elected him, in full
confidence that he would refuse every compromise; but the
Premier was able to reply that he had never given warrant
for this extreme belief, and that he could not, consistently
with his duty as a statesman, have ea himself to such
a course.
There was great discontent with the Guverninetle when
it prorogued Parliament in 1841, without having passed
any adequate measure for the relief of the popular distress ;
but Sir Robert Peel had claimed time for the due considera-
tion of the interests committed to his charge. The anxiety
to know how far he would have the courage to go in his
promised reform was extreme. The increasing gravity of
the situation during the later months of 1841 made many
converts to the principles of the League, and when Parlia-
ment reassembled in 1842, in the first week of February,
the declaration of the Premier was awaited with the utmost
curiosity. The Queen opened the Session in person ; and, after
noting with regret the distress in the manufacturing districts,
and acknowledging the “exemplary patience and fortitude”
with which the people had borne their sufferings, Her
Majesty invited Parliament to consider the laws “which
affect the importation of corn and other articles.”
On the 9th of February the Premier announced his in-
tentions. He maintained the sliding-scale, as had been
anticipated ; but he made the duty on imported corn very
considerably lighter diminishing it at the various stages by
more than one-half. We have quéteds in a previous chapter
the rates of duty on corn which had been in force for four
|
4
THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT. 115
years past. The following changes were now proposed.
“When corn”—Sir Robert Peel said—“is at 59s, per
quarter and under 60s. the duty, at present is 27s. 8d. ;
when it is between those prices, the duty I propose is 13s.
When the price of corn is at 50s. the existing duty is
36s. 8d., increasing as the price falls; instead of which I
propose when corn is at 50s. that the duty shall only be 20s.,
and that that duty shall in no case be exceeded. At 56s.
the existing duty is 30s. 8d.; the duty I propose at that
price is 16s, At 60s. the existing duty is 26s. 8d.; the
duty I propose at that price is 12s. At 63s. the existing
duty is 23s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 9s. At 64s. the
existing duty is 22s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 8s. At 70s.
the existing duty is 10s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 5s.
Therefore it is impossible to deny, on comparing the duty I
propose with that which exists at present, that it will cause
a very considerable decrease of the protection which the
present duty affords to the home grower.”
Little as this proposal was likely to satisfy the country at
large, it was certain to give considerable offence to the
champions of Protection, and the Premier did what he could
to soften the blow to them. He denied in his speech the
assertion that the distress in the country was due to the
restrictions on imports; he affirmed that the home produc-
-tion of corn was excessive; he declared that the abolition
-of the Corn Laws would only add agricultural to commercial
suffering ; and he even asked from the landlords and farmers
-a dispassionate and moderate discussion of the question, on
the ground that there was “universal calm” in the country,
-and an absence of anything like popular violence.
It was true enough that there was no violence amongst
the advocates of Free Trade, or amongst the starving people
to whom Mr. Cobden and his friends had been appealing
.and lecturing for years past. But the “calm” of which Sir
Robert spoke was curiously illustrated by the crowds of
116 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
eager people who at that moment filled and surrounded the
House of Commons, and who had saluted him on his way
from Whitehall to Palace Yard with cries of “No Bread
Tax!” The statement was significantly commented on by
Cobden himself, who in the course of the debate condemned
the new scheme as “an insult to a suffering people,” who
‘“‘deserved very different treatment” from the aristocracy
and the Cabinet which represented it.
A Conference of Anti-Corn Law delegates was held in
London at this time, more than seven hundred being
assembled ; and they immediately protested against the pro-
posal of the Government as “a denial of the just demands
of the people, and a selfish and unrighteous proposal,
destructive of every interest in the country.”* The League
took occasion to make its dissatisfaction widely known, and
to proclaim its resolution to refuse the offered compromise.
Large meetings were held in various parts of the country,
and the agitation was thenceforth carried on with greater
vigour fe ever.
The debate was renewed on the 14th of February by a
motion of Lord John Russell on going into Committee, to
the effect that the House, “considering the evils which have
been caused by the present Corn Laws, and especially by
the fluctuation of the graduated or sliding-scale, is not pre-
pared to adopt the measure of Her Majesty’s Government,
which is founded on the same principles, and is likely to be
attended by similar results.” After the mover had spoken,
Mr. Gladstone followed on the Government side, claiming
credit for what had been done under the circumstances in
the interest of the people at large, and after consideration
of the various conditions of the case. On the next evening
Lord Palmerston took part in the debate, and was even
stronger and more rhetorical than Lord John Russell in
* Ashworth, Recollections, p. 47.
THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT. 117
favour of the policy which they had adopted. He spoke of
the dependence of men upon each other, and of the natural
means of ~intercommunication provided between distant
countries. The reason, he said, for this dispensation of
Providence is, “‘ that the exchange of commodities may be
accompanied by the extension and 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 civilisation
with one hand and peace with the other, to render mankind
happier, wiser, better. This is the dispensation of Provi-
dence, this is the decree of that Power which created and
disposed the universe. But, in the face of it, with arrogant,
presumptuous folly, the dealers in restrictive duties fly,
fettering the inborn energies of man, and setting up their
miserable legislation instead of the great standing laws of
nature.”
The Opposition leaders were open to the retort that the
same arguments which they now alleged against Ministers
were applicable a short time ago to themselves. That isa
very common retort-in Parliamentary life, and in all such
cases it is possible for the accused to pride themselves on
the fact of prior conversion. Lord John Russell’s motion
was rejected by a majority of 349 against 226.
Cobden meanwhile had reserved himself for the more
direct motion for total repeal which Mr. Villiers intended to
bring forward. Less support was to be expected for this
than for the former motion, but of course it was more con-
genial to the spokesman of the League. Five nights were
occupied in this renewed debate, wherein the leading men
on both sides, especially those who had not spoken on Lord
John Russell’s motion, took part. It was on this occasion,
and on the concluding night (Feb. 24th), that Cobden made
his first important speech in the House of Commons. He
was not ill received by his colleagues as a body, though he
118 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
had to face plenty of ridicule and prejudice, and though
here and there a member, like the irrepressible Mr. Ferrand
of Knaresborough, resorted to the imputation of unworthy
motives.
One passage in this speech is specially worthy of attention,
because it brought the advocate of total abolition into
momentary conflict with Sir Robert Peel; and because the
conflict, slight as it was, showed how much better armed
was the new debater, with his telling facts and unanswerable
arguments, than the old and practised Parliamentary leader.
Cobden had been referring to the proposal of a-private
member to fix the prices of all the principal articles of
agricultural produce ;* and he said, “It may be very amusing
to find that there are a few gentlemen still at large who
advocate the principle of Parliamentary interposition to fix
the prices at which articles are to be sold; but when we
find a Prime Minister coming down to Parliament to avow
such principles, it really becomes anything but amusing. If
ask the right honourable baronet, and I pause for a reply—
is he prepared to carry out that principle in the articles
of cotton and wool as well as corn?”. The Premier here
admitted that it was impossible to fix the price of food by
legislation. ‘‘Then,” rejoined Cobden, “on what are we
legislating? . . . We come to this conclusion, that we are
not legislating for the universal people ! ”
Loud cheers on both sides attested the interest with
which this discussion was being watched. Mr. Cobden con-
tinued :—“TI ask the right honourable baronet whether,
while he fixes his scale of prices to secure to his landowners
fifty-six shillings per quarter for wheat, he has any sliding-
scale for wages? Will he give the people a law to keep up
the rate of wages? He will say that you have passed
resolutions to the effect that you cannot keep up the rate of
* Ashworth, Recollections, p. 48.
THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT. 119
wages ; but that is no reason why you should pass a law to
mulct the working-man by one-third of the loaf he earns,
What are the pretexts upon which the corn tax is justified ?
We have heard that there are exclusive burdens borne by
the agriculturists. I think the country has a right to know
what they are, and that it is due to the House that they
should be enumerated. A witty gentleman who sits near
me says the only exclusive burdens upon land which he
knows of are mortgages. I tell the right honourable gentle-
man that for every particular burden he can show me as
pressing upon the land, I will show him ten exemptions.
In conclusion, what I supplicate for on the part of the
starving people is that they, and not you, shall be the judges
of their need of corn ; that they, and not you, shall say when
it is wanted. You, who never knew the want of a meal in
your lives, do you presume to know when the people want
_ bread? The right honourable gentleman is the cause of our
present position, and upon his shoulders will the people lay
the whole of the responsibility. . . . Are you,” Mr. Cobden
appealed to the House in conclusion, “prepared to carry out
even-handed justice to the people? If not, your law will
not stand—nay, your House itself, if based upon injustice,
will not stand !”
This was a fervent, plain-spoken address, which showed
its hearers that their new colleague was no mere demagogue,
as some of them had imagined, seeking to establish the |
influence of the platform over the House’ of Commons.
Cobden’s vigour, as Mr. Mongredien says, though it pro-
voked the wrath, commanded the attention of his opponents.
“They might impugn his statements, and scoff at his infer-
ences, but none could ignore the raciness and terse lucidity
of his style. His address excited uproarious dissent, but it
established his reputation as a Parliamentary debater, and
secured to him for ever the ear of the House.”
The Premier was able to give his response to this appeal
120 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
on the 11th of March, when he explained the financial policy
of the Government in a long and very important speech.
He had to admit a deficit of two millions and three-quarters,
and an estimated deficit for the following year of nearly
two millions and a-half. New Customs and Excise duties
had ceased to be productive at anything like their nominal
rate; an extra duty of five per cent. on the general tariff had
only realised one-twentieth of that amount. He proposed,
therefore, to take a new departure, and, in order to enable
himself to simplify the tariff, he asked the House to assent
to a duty on incomes, which (at sevenpence in the pound)
would yield £3,700,000. Fresh stamp and spirit duties
would give him £410,000 more, and an export duty of 4s. a
ton on coals would produce a further sum of £200,000. In
this way he anticipated a surplus of £1,740,000, whereof he
proposed to apply £1,200,000 to a reduction of the tariff.
Describing this important Budget to the House of Com-
mons, Sir Robert Peel claimed for the Government that they
had attempted to remove all absolute prohibitions on the
importation of foreign articles, and to reduce prohibitory
duties to such a scale as would enable foreign producers to
compete with Englishmen in English markets. ‘There are
instances,” he admitted, “in which that principle has been
departed from, and where prohibitions are maintained, and
in those cases we justify departure from the rule upon
special circumstances; but the general rule has been to
abolish prohibitions, and reduce prohibitory duties within
the range of fair competition. Our object has been to
reduce the duties on raw materials, which constitute the
elements of manufactures, to an almost nominal amount, to
reduce the duties on half-manufactured articles, which enter
almost as much as raw materials into domestic manufactures,
to a nominal amount; and with reference to articles com-
pletely manufactured, our object has been to remove pro-
hibitions and reduce prohibitory duties, so as to enable the
THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT. 121
foreign producer to compete fairly with the domestic manu-
facturer.” ~
There was evidently system and deliberation in this
scheme, which was undoubtedly a concession to the manu-
facturing interests, and was intended to benefit them even
at the expense of the owners of large incomes. The re-
ductions of duty were very numerous. There were at that
time no fewer than 1200 imported articles liable to the
jpayment of a duty, and the tax was reduced on 750 of these.
But at the same time there were many harassing restrictions
which remained untouched, and the principle of Protection
was tenaciously clung to. Mr. Cobden and his friends
refused to compromise their demands, and Sir Robert Peel
had not expected that they would do so. He had answered
them beforehand in the last words of his exhaustive
speech :—“I know,” he said, “that many gentlemen who
are strong advocates for Free Trade may consider that I
have not gone far enough. I believe that on the general
principle of Free Trade there is now no great difference of
opinion, aud that all agree in the general rule that we
should purchase in the cheapest market and sell in the
dearest.”
At this there was naturally a loud cheer from the
Opposition benches. But Sir Robert continued :—“TI know
the meaning of that cheer... . I may be met with the
complaints of gentlemen opposite of the limited extent to
which I have applied the general principle to which I have
adverted to those important articles. I thought, after the
best consideration I could give to the subject, that if I pro-
posed a greater change in the Corn Laws than that which I
submitted to the consideration of the House, I should only
aggravate the distress of the country, and only increase the
alarm which prevailed among important interests. I think
that I have proposed, and that the legislature has sanc-
tioned, as great a change in the Corn Laws as was just or
122 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
prudent, considering the engagements existing between
landlord and tenant, and also the large amount of capital
which has been applied to the cultivation of the soil ©
Under these circumstances, I think that we have made as
great a change as was consistent with the nature of the
subject.”
The Premier’s explanation was clear and significant —
‘enough. He would have gone much further if the agri-
cultural interests—that is the landlords—had permitted
him. He was practically a Free Trader already, as were
some of his colleagues ; but he was obliged to proceed with
great caution lest he might offend his weak-kneed brethren.
Already the Duke of Buckingham had left the Cabinet
because he would not sanction this modification of the
tariff Others were wavering, and there were many
signs in the House that the Tory rank and file were
alarmed by their leader’s liberality. Sir Robert was not
prepared to go further for the present, though he was
prepared to do so if he saw a favourable opportunity. All
this was readable between the lines of the Premier’s speech.
The financial and commercial proposals of the Govern-
ment were carried by large majorities, though they were
opposed at various stages and on various grounds. On the
third reading of the Tariff Bill, Mr. Cobden moved an
amendment to the effect that it was beyond the power of
Parliament to regulate the wages of labour, and that it was
consequently inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to
regulate the prices of food. The amendment was negatived,
and the Bill passed, as also did the Corn Law Amendment
Bill, and the Income Tax Bill. The duties on corn were
finally simplified in such a manner that whilst one shilling
a quarter was charged, as before, when the price of wheat
was 73s. or over, the tax rose to 2s. at an average price of
72s., to 10s. at an average price of 63s. or under, and to
20s. at an average price of 50s. or under.
THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT. 123
Such, then, were the measures passed in the first year of
office by the Government which was afterwards to establish
Free Trade without reservation. They gave temporary
satisfaction to the moderate sections of both parties; but
they were bitterly opposed by the champions of the landed
interests, whilst they were rejected as entirely inadequate
by the opponents of all restriction. Macaulay, during the
debate on Mr. Villiers’s annual motion, had described the
Corn Bill as “a measure which unsettles everything and
. settles nothing; a measure which pleases nobody; a
measure which nobody asks for, and which nobody thanks
him for; a measure which will neither extend trade nor
relieve distress.” ‘This was a rhetorical way of putting it,
but in substance the judgment was true. Neither side in
the controversy was pleased, and the controversy itself was
not settled. The Premier earned no gratitude, and the
effects of his measure were comparatively slight. The
popular distress was not relieved, and it soon became
necessary to advance much further. Buta step had been
taken in the right direction, the tariff had been greatly
reduced, and a basis had been laid down for future
operations,
CHAPTER XIII
PROGRESS OF THE AGITATION (1842).
y HE Parliamentary campaign of 1842 confirmed the
leaders of the Free Trade movement, and of the
Anti-Corn Law League in particular, in the belief
that agitation and popular enlightenment were more than
ever necessary. There was encouragement in the attitude
assumed by the Government, if not in the obstinacy of the
Conservative majority. Sir Robert Peel and his Cabinet
had shown themselves capable of receiving an impression
from logical arguments, and of acting upon it in a candid
manner. If they had not gone so far as the occasion
seemed to demand, Mr. Cobden and his friends drew the
inference that the impression must be made yet more deep,
and that the weight of demonstration must be accumulated
until it should be no longer possible for Ministers of the
Crown to refuse a full concession of the principles involved.
It was now, therefore, that the League determined to make
more active exertions than ever, to strengthen its organisa-
tion, to increase its funds, and never to rest until the Corn
Laws had been finally swept away.
Before the end of the session of 1842 the deputies of the
PROGRESS OF THE AGITATION. 125
Association met again in London, and had repeated
interviews with Ministers, as well as with other influential
members of the House of Commons, Their object was to
press on the attention of the Legislature the terrible gravity
of the situation throughout the country, and especially in
the manufacturing districts of the north. The League had
collected a vast amount of information on this subject,
which revealed a state of affairs almost incredible to any-
one hearing the details for the first time, though familiar
enough in those days to men of observation. Of all the
Ministers interviewed, Sir Robert Peel appeared to be most
open for discussion, if not to conviction. In some instances
the deputies were rather brusquely treated. Mr. Ashworth
relates an incident which took place at their interview with
Sir James Graham. He had been speaking of the feeling
amongst the industrial classes, who complained that whilst
they had to endure grievous privations the landlords enjoyed
protection by law, with rents greatly increased, and with
comforts unknown to and undreamed of by their forefathers.
Sir James interrupted him, and exclaimed, “ Why, you are
a leveller!” Did Mr. Ashworth, he asked, mean that the
labouring classes held themselves entitled to some of the
landlords’ estates? ‘I, under some emotion,” says the
narrator, “turned to the deputation, and inquired whether
in their opinion I had conveyed any such idea in what I
had said? They at once cheered me, and declared that it
was utterly impossible that such an impression should have
been conveyed in what I had said.. _Mr. Thomas Ashton
appeared indignant at the imputation, and called out, ‘Go
on, Mr. Ashworth, and never mind him.’”
The Conference of deputies, during their stay in London,
issued an appeal to every member of the House of Commons,
which compressed into a few sentences the collected infor-
mation in the hands of the League. This document, which
holds a distinct place in the history of the movement, was
126 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
dated from the King’s Arms Hotel, Palace Yard, June 25th,
1842, and ran as follows :—* i
‘¢Srr,—We, whose names are appended to this document, have been
for some days in London seeking interviews with Her Majesty’s
Ministers, and with members of Parliament of all political parties,
that we might communicate to them facts which we deem most -
important respecting the present very alarming condition of the
country, and more particularly of the North of England. We have
had opportunities of stating our sentiments to various members, and
we have also had an interview with Sir Robert Peel. We propose to
lay before you the substance of the statements which we endeavoured
to press upon the attention of the Prime Minister, and we respectfully
and earnestly request your consideration of the following facts :—In
Glasgow 12,000 persons are on the relief funds, and wages are still
falling. In Dundee the number of unemployed is increasing, and
wages falling. In 1836 Dundee consumed 150 head of cattle per week ;
in 1841, 91 head; and in 1842 only 71 head. In Accrington, out of a
population of 9000 persons, not more than 100 are fully employed.
In Marsden, near Burnley, out of 5000 persons, 2000 have become
paupers, and the remainder are on the verge of pauperism; the poor-
rate is one shilling in the pound per month. In Great Bolton the
amount levied in 1827 was £3951, and in 1841 £16,740 ; the rated rental
is upon £86,000, and only £36,000 is paying to the poor rates, the
remainder being either empty property, or else the occupiers are unable
to pay the rates. In Stockport the poor-rate is 10s. in the pound, and
the guardians are £5000 in debt. In Wigan many families remain in
bed during the day, because they feel hunger less intolerable when
in a recumbent position. In Prescot, having 1100 inhabitants, prin-
cipally employed in watchmaking, there were 200 recently summoned
in one day for non-payment of the poor-rate. A watch movement,
which a few years ago was selling for 30s., may be bought for 4s. 6d.
In Saddleworth, from a survey made in December 1841, there were 55
farms without tenants; 26 mills were unoccupied, whilst most of the
others were working short time; and matters are still getting worse.
In Sheffield the poor-rate of 1836 averaged £162 per quarter; in 1839,
£541 ; and in the June quarter of 1842 it was £4253. In Leeds, with
a population of 80,000 persons, there are 10,000 who have been sup-
ported from a voluntary relief fund, which is now exhausted. In
Nottingham the number of persons receiving parish relief, in 1841,
* Ashworth, Recollections, p. 55.
PROGRESS OF THE AGITATION. 127
was 4458, and in 1842, 7938. In the Midland Counties one-third of
the hosiery population are unemployed, and in the glove trade three-
fifths are unemployed. Bodies of men, under leadership, parade the
‘town of Leicester asking for alms, and it has been deemed necessary to
introduce a troop of horse soldiers to preserve the peace of the place.
In Manchester the shopkeepers have stated, at a public meeting, that
such is the poverty of the people that theit trade has fallen off one-
third, and that there are thousands who buy their bread by halfpenny
and pennyworths, and that private charity is insufficient to relieve the
necessitous. Details such as the foregoing might be increased indefi-
nitely. We have facts of an equally painful character from almost
every part of the country. We believe that if the Corn Laws be
abolished trade will revive, and the abodes of millions of the wretched
will be filled with gratitude and joy The predictions as to the conse-
quences of delay have already been more than fulfilled. You have
passed a new Corn Law this session, and grain has advanced in price
since its enactment, and it still rises. You have turned the burden
somewhat, but you have not lightened it. We ask you to open the
ports for the free admission of foreign grain, and to do this before you
separate. Justice, policy, humanity, the very safety of our common
country, imperatively require it. In your present course, your motives
are doubted; self-aggrandisement, rather than a regard for your
country’s welfare, is believed to be the object of your legislation.
Your names are loaded with obloquy, and harsh terms are applied to
you, on account of your unwillingness to liberate the industry of your
country. We feel bound to warn you of the evils which impend, if
you prefer the unwise policy you have hitherto adopted. We shall
hail you as the deliverers of your country if you have the wisdom to
see what is right, and the courage to act boldly and immediately on
what is wise. Our sense of the critical position of our country has
caused us thus to address you. The responsibility rests with you, and
a heavy responsibility it is. That the Wisdom which cannot err may
guide your councils is our fervent wish.—We subscribe ourselves, with
the greatest respect, HAMER STANSFIELD, Leeds; WILLIAM RAwsonN,
Manchester ; W1Lu1amM Roars, Independent Minister, Wigan ; JAMES
Less, Saddleworth; CHartes Baker, Baptist Minister, Stockport ;
Wit11aAM Dixon, Accrington.”
The immediate purpose of the London Conference, which
continued its sittings till the end of July, was to convince
the Government of the actual and momentary pressure of
the distress, the danger of further neglect, which might
¥
128 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
result in serious disorders, and the necessity of special legis-
lation before Parliament was prorogued. It was, however,
ansuccessful in its efforts) The Ministers personally ap-
pealed to were inclined to think that the accounts of popular
suffering had been exaggerated, or else that the evils were
only temporary, and due to causes over which they could
exercise no control. They pointed to the facts that fresh
mills were constantly being opened, that the quantity of
cotton imported into the country was greater than ever, and
that some manufacturers, at all events, were making large
fortunes. It was even suggested that much of the suffering
might be attributed to want of application, or to unwise
agitation ; that it was more the business of the employers
than of the State to relieve it; that the demands of the
people upon Parliament were made in ignorance ; that if
men were driven to emigrate, it was rather “to invest what
money they had in hand” (as Sir Robert Peel expressed it)
than to obtain work and food; and that if there were any
danger of popular outbreaks, the responsibility would rest
upon those who laid bare and exaggerated the distress.
Nothing, therefore, was done or attempted by the Govern-
ment; and the Conference separated on the eve of the
prorogation with a protest against this inaction. The
deputies maintained that they had proved “ the impolicy and
wickedness” of the Corn Laws. They had forced on the
attention of Parliament both the causes and the remedy of
national distress; they had spread far and wide a mass of
facts and arguments on the great principle of industrial
freedom, and they felt that their labours had not been in
vain. But the time for argument seemed now to have
passed. It was for the people to act and insist; to bring
pressure upon their representatives ; to tell them that “men
must live, though party should perish.” ‘ Your own intelli-
gence, your own virtue, your own energy,” this short address
to the people concluded, “must deliver you. We now
PROGRESS OF THE AGITATION. —‘129
separate, but are prepared to reassemble at such time and
place as the Council in Manchester may determine. Provi-
dence has given plenty. A few men of wealth and title have
opposed their mandate to the will of Heaven. Shall mortal
man be more just than God?”
No doubt it was going a little too far to say that “a few
men of wealth and title” deliberately condemned the people
to starvation, which is what the last three sentences imply.
Amongst the landowners, possibly, there were some who
knew that their rents were maintained by the very laws
which made the people suffer, and who yet tenaciously
clung to them. These may have deserved the reproach, but
it could not be strictly applied to the members of the
Government, who, mistaken though they were, honestly
believed the Corn Laws to be good for the country, and
attributed the distress to a convergence of different causes.
During the recess, the League renewed its campaign with
vast energy, sending its lecturers all over the country, and
seconding their attempts to educate the people by an un-
limited supply of the publications which have already been
mentioned and described. A fresh addition to the litera-
ture of the League, originally published in the “Circular,”
was a resolution moved by Mr. John Bright, and seconded
by Mr. Ashworth, at a meeting held in Manchester soon
after:'the prorogation. ‘This was probably drawn up by Mr.
Bright himself, and was one of his earliest, if not his first,
contribution to the written arguments of the Free Trade
movement, Mr. Bright moved that the following statement
should-be circulated throughout the United Kingdom :—
‘‘ Whilst wholly disregarding the wicked and calumnious attacks
made upon us by the abettors of monopoly, we feel it to be our duty to
recall to the calm consideration of all classes the long prevailing evils
against which we have unceasingly contended—evils which we solemnly
believe have led to the existing commotions, and which, unless removed,
will inevitably involve the nation in still greater calamities.
‘In the autumn of 1838 the accumulating privations ime alarming
A
130 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
prospects of the people impelled a united effort to procure the abolition
of the Corn Law.
**TIn the spring of 1839 a numerous body of delegates assembled in
London, and appealed to the House of Commons to be heard at their
bar ; but their application was refused.
**JIn 1840 another delegation assembled in London, to press upon
Parliament and the Ministry the necessity of repealing the Corn Law,
and this second appeal was likewise rejected.
‘In 1841 another and more numerous body of delegates met, and
reiterated their facts and arguments, and again the Legislature refused
the act of justice demanded of them.
‘* During the Parliamentary recess between 1841 and 1842 meetings
were held in almost every part of the céuntry, amongst which was one
of 650 ministers of religion held in Manchester, and another of 800
ministers and office-bearers of Scotch congregations held at Edinburgh,
all proclaiming the moral and physical deterioration of the working
classes, and the ruinous effects of the Corn Law upon every department
of industry.
‘* In 1842, at the opening of the Parliamentary session, 700 delegates
commenced their sittings in the Metropolis. They sought.an interview
with the Prime Minister, who declined to receive them. They pub-
lished an appalling statement of the sufferings of the population, and
showed the intimate connection between those sufferings and the
working of the Corn Law. The Legislature then sanctioned a change
in the law, which was entirely worthless, and tantamount to an utter
denial of the just claims of the people.
‘** Subsequently, another delegation assembled in London, and had
interviews with the Prime Minister, and with various of his colleagues.
They laid before them the state of the country, the impending destruc-
tion of some, and the great depression of all trades; the intense and
widespread sufferings of the people; the exasperation of feeling at the
hopelessness of redress which prevailed amongst them, and the danger
that some great social convulsion would result from the infatuated
resolution of the majority of the Legislature, despite the prayers of
millions of petitioners, to maintain at all hazards their destructive
monopoly. We have long foreseen, and often foretold, the disastrous
effects of the Corn Law, pointed out the chief cause of distress, sug-
gested the remedy, and foretold the consequences of delay; our duty
has therefore been performed, and the responsibility now rests upon
the Government and the Legislature.
‘‘ Whilst we strongly and unequivocally condemn every breach of
the public peace, we desire to express our sympathy with the unmerited
PROGRESS OF THE AGITATION. 131
and long-continued sufferings of the working classes, and our belief
that the industrious population of this country, if justly governed,
would invariably be disposed to conduct themselves as peaceable,
honest men, and good citizens.
‘* Finally, we declare our unshaken conviction that the unjust and
inhuman Corn Law is the main cause of the evils which afflict the
industrial community, destroying the profits of the manufacturers,
reducing the wages of the working-men, and bringing beggary and
ruin upon a large portion of our countrymen ; and we desire to record
our deliberate opinion that the dense and increasing population of this
country cannot be in a prosperous, comfortable, or contented condition
so long as they are subjected to the pressure of the Corn Law; and
that there can be no guarantee for the peace of society, or for the
security of life and property, whilst large masses of the people are
sinking into a state of abject destitution. We therefore earnestly
implore our countrymen of every class to unite with us in urging upon
the Government the necessity of immediately reassembling the Legis-
lature with a view to the total abolition of the destructive monopoly in
the food of the people.”
The year 1842 was not to pass away without violence ;
but this violence was due to the agitation of the Chartists,
and was nowhere sanctioned by the leaders of the Free
Trade movement. The advocates of the Six Points were
moved to special aetivity by the acute popular distress of
this year, and they revived the idea of a month’s universal
strike, which they thought must inevitably force the hands
of the Legislature, and compel it to grant the People’s
Charter without reservation. The ‘sacred month” began
in the second week of August, and a Pilgrimage of Idleness
took place through many of the large manufacturing towns
of the north, chiefly of Lancashire, which compelled the
working-men in the factories and mills to cease work. In
some cases the magistrates interfered, and the Riot Act was
resorted to in order to disperse crowds from which danger
was anticipated to the public peace. Of course the manu-
facturers were great sufferers by these proceedings ; and as
it was the manufacturers of Lancashire above all others who
Loe ils COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
were the leaders and directors of the Free Trade movement,
the contrast between their action and the action of the
Chartist leaders became more marked than ever. Some of
them made earnest appeals to their workmen to abstain
from the violent method which they had been persuaded or
constrained to adopt ; and Mr. Bright in particular issued a
manly address to the working-men of Rochdale, in which he
showed them that the immediate attainment of the Charter
was impossible, whilst, even if they secured it, they could
not hope for a rise of wages until the restrictions on trade
had been removed. Mr. Bright sympathised with the
objects of the Chartists, he believed that they would one
day be secured; but he told his fellow-townsmen that the
first step towards entire freedom must be commercial
freedom, the freedom of trade and industry. The aris-
tocracy, he pointed out, looked upon the Anti-Corn Law
‘League as their greatest enemy, and “that which is the
greatest enemy of the remorseless aristocracy of Britain
must almost of necessity be your firmest friend. Every
man who tells you to support the Corn Law is your enemy
—every man who hastens, by a single hour, the abolition of
the. Corn Law, shortens by so much the duration of your
sufferings. Whilst that inhuman law exists, your wages
must decline. When it is abolished, and not till then, they
will rise. If every employer and workman in the kingdom
were to swear on their bended knees that wages should not
fall, they would still assuredly fall if the Corn Law con-
tinues. No power on earth can maintain your wages at
their present rate if the Corn Law be not repealed.”
The vehement methods were soon exhausted without
attaining their object ; the calmer and more logical methods
were continued, and with greater promise of success, from
day to day. The League was more than ever stimulated by
the Chartist outbreak, and strengthened its organisation in
every conceivable manner. The country was subdivided
PROGRESS OF THE AGITATION. 133
into twelve districts, each of which was taken in hand by a
lecturer. By the middle of October two thousand lectures
had been delivered, and upwards of five million tracts had
been circulated. Meetings had been held in hundreds of
places, many of them presided over or attended by ministers
of religion, especially of the dissenting bodies. A memorial
had been presented to the Queen signed by more than a
quarter of a million women of Manchester and the neigh- -
bourhood, whilst others of a similar character, though less
numerously signed, had been sent from other towns.* By
this time the second fund of £50,000 had been expended,
and the League called for a third subscription of like
amount, which was speedily forthcoming—more than
£10,000 reaching the central offices in the course of
November. In short there was never any period in the
eight years’ history of the Anti-Corn Law League when
greater determination and enthusiasm was displayed by its
officers, or by its supporters throughout the country.
It is needless to say that the advocates of Free Trade
continued to encounter much prejudice amongst certain
classes of their fellow-countrymen, and that persons who
were ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, of the true state of
affairs persisted in confounding the League with the in-
stigators of public disorder. As Miss Martineau wrote
shortly afterwards, the League “had not had time to win
the respect and command the deference which it was soon to
enjoy ; but it was known to be organised and led by men of
station, character and substance, men of enlarged education,
and of that virtuous and decorous character which dis-
tinguishes the middle class of England.” Notwithstanding
this, ‘it was believed—believed by men of education—by
men in Parliament—by men in attendance on the Govern-
ment—that the Anti-Corn Law League sanctioned assassina-
* Ashworth, p. 71.
134 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
tion, and did not object to carry its aims by means of it.
This is, perhaps, the strongest manifestation of the bagels
of the time.”
Amidst such a condition of affairs, with the controversy
at its height, and the feelings of all public men roused to
an extreme pitch of excitement, the year nto came to a
close.
CHAPTER XIV.
Tue Session or 1843.
HE first month of the year 1843 was distinguished by
several incidents not without interest, and even im-
portance, in the history of the Free Trade movement.
One of these was the murder of Mr. Edward Drummond,
private secretary to Sir Robert Peel, who was shot in the
back by a man named McNaughten, in Whitehall. The
murderer declared, when examined, that he had been perse-
cuted by the Tories for years past ; and there is little reason
to doubt that he was insane, as he was declared to be by the
jury which tried him. He was supposed to have mistaken
his victim for the Premier; but his crime would not have
called for mention here if it had not been most absurdly and
unjustifiably laid to the charge of the Free Traders, and
actually referred to in that connection in both Houses of
Parliament.
This stupid accusation was an outcome of the intense
jealousy and heat which had been stirred up between the
reformers and the champions of the old ideas; and a
ludicrous instance of the same feeling may be quoted by way
of contrast. A manufacturer in the North of England, who
had just perfected a process for the production of velveteen
136 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
. cloth, sent a piece to Sir Robert Peel, which was stamped
with one of the numerous designs then in vogue, symbolising
in some fashion the principles of Free Trade. Sir Robert
either had not noticed the design, or he attached no import-
ance to it, for he accepted the gift; but shortly afterwards
his attention was drawn to it, and he thought it necessary to
return the cloth to the donor. In doing so he wrote that
‘he was not aware till to-day that the specimen of manu-
facture bore any allusion to matters which are the subject of
public controversy. He begged therefore to return that
which had been accepted under an erroneous impression.”
No little amusement was created by this solemn after-
thought ; and the letters which passed on the subject came
to be described as “the velveteen correspondence.” *
The Parliamentary session was opened on the 2nd of
’ February, and on the 13th Lord Howick moved in the
Commons for a Committee of the whole House to consider
that part of the Queen’s Speech referring to the continued ~
depression of English trade. On the fifth night of the
debate which ensued upon this motion, Cobden delivered a
speech of great force, which led to a somewhat remarkable
scene. After referring to the measures of economical
reform already passed by Ministers, and noticing that their
principles were sound “in the abstract,” he commented on a
previous speech of Mr. Gladstone’s. ‘The Vice-President
of the Board of Trade,” he said, ‘admits the justice of the
principles of Free Trade. He says that he does not want
monopoly ; but then he applies these just principles only
in the abstract. Now, I do not want abstractions. Every
moment that we pass here which is not devoted to pro-
viding for the welfare of the community is lost time. .. .
The right hon. gentleman is a Free-trader only in the
abstract. We have nothing, I repeat, to do with abstrac-
* Irving, January 7, 18438.
|
a a |
——
THE SESSION OF 1843. 137
tions here. The right hon. gentleman used another plea.
He said that the system has been continued for centuries,
and cannot now be abandoned. If the Attorney-General
be in the House, and I hope he is, what would he say to
such a plea in an action of trover? Would he admit the
plea? Would he say, ‘I know you have right and justice
on your side in the abstract, but then the unjust possession
has been for so long a time continued that it cannot be at
once abandoned? What would be the verdict in such a
case? The verdict would be one of restitution—of total and
immediate restitution.”
In the course of his speech Cobden declared that Sir Robert
Peel was individually responsible for the present state of
things—responsible by virtue of his office, which, however,
he had the privilege of being able to resign. Referring to
an attempt which had been made in the House of Lords to
connect the League with the maniacal act of McNaughten,
Cobden described the accusation of Lord Brougham in this.
connection as “the ebullition of an ill-regulated intellect,
rather than the offspring of a malicious spirit.”
His speech was well received, and was probably not with-
out effect upon the voting, which left the Free Traders in a
less hopeless minority than had been the case in the pre-
ceding session. Sir Robert Peel, however, was enthusi-
astically cheered when, following Cobden, he indignantly
commented on the latter’s statement that he was personally
responsible for the condition of the country. ‘Be the con-
sequences of the insinuations what they may,” he said, ‘‘never
will I be influenced by menaces such as these to hold language
or adopt a course which I consider in the slightest degree
inconsistent with my public duty.” Cobden rose up in his
place and disclaimed the use of the word “personally.”
““You did—you did!” the Premier exclaimed. ‘“ At any
rate,” he continued, “the hon. gentleman held me in-
dividually responsible. He may do so, and he may
138 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
induce others to hold me individually responsible ; but it
shall in no way influence me in the discharge of my public
duty.”
This incident caused an extraordinary excitement in the
country, and especially amongst the members and sup-
porters of the League. The charge against Cobden was not
allowed to rest as it had been formulated in Parliament.
It was repeated and aggravated by the most injudicious
friends of Protection, both in the press and on public
platforms, The Zwmes newspaper, less measured in its
language than it has since become, wrote in the following
strain on the morrow of the debate :—‘* We do not impute
to Mr. Cobden an intent to murder; but we do impute to
him that with his eyes open, knowing fully the threatening
consequence to Sir Robert Peel’s life of popular odium, and
with no other purpose than to increase his own credit and.
power with the most violent class of politicians, he feels no
scruple at recklessly and unceasingly labouring to direct
that odium, personally and individually, on the Minister
“whose life has been once already attempted. It is difficult
to avoid the suspicion that, though he has no intention to use
the pistol himself, he does not find himself at liberty to
affront those who do. If he is not anxious to put the
Premier out of the world, he cannot, by the extreme of
charity, be fancied very careful to keep him in it.” 3
But the country as a whole was more just, and Cobden’s
popularity was greatly increased as the result of the attacks
which had been made upon him. A large meeting was held
in Manchester for the purpose of expressing sympathy with
him, when an address was ‘voted to him by more than ten
thousand voices. This address recorded that the League—
for the meeting was summoned as a general meeting of the
League—had seen with indignation “the attempts made by
the monopolists to heap slanders upon the man who has
been so powerfully instrumental in denouncing the injustice
a
:
:
elt i lee ae
THE SESSION OF 1843. 139
of that legislation which has brought this once flourishing
country to the verge of ruin.” The address continued :—
“We can understand that the distinguished position in
which you are placed is well calculated to excite the
hostility of all who believe themselves interested in the con-
tinuance of the wrong which you have done so much to
expose. Jortified by the approbation of your own con-
science, and by that of a vast majority of your fellow-
countrymen who have watched your career with intense
and increasing interest, you can well afford to despise the
assaults and calumnies of the abettors of monopoly. We
bid you go on! Your country and mankind call upon you
not to falter in your course; and may He who is the dis-
penser of all mercies prosper you in your arduous labours.”
Mr. Ashworth,* writing of this large gathering of Free
Traders at which he was present, and spoke eloquently on
behalf of his friend, says:—‘*The meeting in Manchester,
on the 23rd of February, was called as an ‘ extraordinary
general meeting’ of the League, and was certainly one of
the most ‘extraordinary’ meetings ever held in Manchester
or the country; the Free Trade Hall being crowded to
excess, although calculated to hold more than five thousand
persons. The meeting was called ‘to repudiate the charges
made in the legislature against the League, and more par-
ticularly against Richard Cobden, Esq., M.P.’ The word
‘charges’ covered both the personal attack of Sir Robert
Peel in the Commons and Lord Brougham’s bitter in-
vectives upon the same subject in the Lords.” Mr. George
Wilson presided, and in the course of his address said :—
“7 deny all alliance with, and approbation and knowledge of,
any agent or means, other than those that are peaceful,
moral, and in accordance with the British constitution, for
the accomplishment of our object, and I hurl back the
* Recollections, &c., p. 87.
140 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
_—_
calumny as a most atrocious, most wilful, and most
audacious falsehood.”
Amongst the other speakers at’ this memorable meeting
was Mr. Bright, who had now become a hard-working
member of the League, and a frequent speaker on Free
Trade questions outside the walls of Parliament. Mr.
Bright strongly condemned the attacks which had been
made on Cobden, not merely by the Premier, but by Liberals
such as Lord Brougham and Mr. Roebuck. ‘“ Every man,”
he said, ‘must deplore the fact that the Prime Minister of
this country should have degraded himself by such an -
exhibition as that which he made in the House of Commons
last week. I rejoice that we have so speedily again an
opportunity of meeting in this hall, to denounce the law
which the Prime Minister acknowledges to be unjust, and
which he knows full well must soon be repealed. Look at
the miserable tactics of our opponents from the beginning.
We are not at the climax of the game they have been
playing. They treated us at first with ridicule. After-
wards they pretended to meet us with a little of argument ;
and that failed, as it was likely to fail. Then they hinted
at the suppression of the League as an illegal association ;
but though there are laws in this country with meshes so
small that it might be possible we should not be able to get
through them, yet these laws are laws which no Minister
dare enforce, unless he have the sanction of the great body
of the intelligent population of this country; and I dare
assert that on this question the intelligence of this country,
and of the middle classes in particular, is in direct antag-
onism to the Ministry of the day. This project, then, of
. Suppressing the League as an illegal association did not do,
and slander was next resorted to. . . . I confess that I feel
sensations of the deepest humility when I sit in the gallery
of the House of Commons and see the Protectionists all
conscience-stricken. But what shall we say of him who is
THE SESSION OF 1843. 141
the leader of that band of men, and who shrinks from the
just responsibility which has been laid upon him? There
_ was no obligation laid upon Sir Robert Peel to assume the
reins of power. I hold that his own ambition made him
seek that office; and if he will seek the power, and patron-
age, and influence, and fame of office, I, for one, will never
allow him to shrink from the responsibility of office... .
I do not stand up to flatter the member for Stockport. I
believe him to be a very intelligent and very honest man. I
believe that he will act with a single eye to the good of his
- country. I cannot suppose that the triumph of the great
principles of which he is so distinguished an advocate is far
distant, and when that is accomplished we shall be amply
repaid by the marvellous change which in a few years will
take place.”
In the course of this fervent and effective speech, which,
with others, wrought the vast meeting to a high pitch of
enthusiasm, Mr. Bright referred to Cobden as “the most
distinguished member” of the Anti-Corn Law League.
That is a title which has never been called in question ; but
Mr. Bright himself must be admitted to have been the most
eloquent and impressive speaker of the indefatigable band.
“Cobden and Bright” were very commonly spoken of as
the two chief representatives of the Association. The
latter had not yet been returned to Parliament, and his
- work was mainly out of doors; but the basis of his reputa-
tion as an orator and as a statesman may be said to have
been laid during the last few years of the Free Trade
movement. Cobden had early seen the worth and power of
his friend. Soon after their first introduction at Man-
chester, he had invited Mr. Bright to aid him in his
contemplated assault on the strongholds of Protection. He
had influenced the young Rochdale manufacturer as he
influenced all with whom he came into contact; and there
is no need to remind the reader of the terms in which Mr.
142 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
Bright has spoken of his former leader. The close connec-
tion and friendship between the two men endured until the
death of Cobden, when the mantle of the one prophet—
though not a double portion of his spirit—descended upon
the other.
The better footing which the League had now secured in
London compelled the Council to study the needs and ex-
pectations of larger and more critical audiences than their
lecturers had been accustomed to address. They’ had
occasionally held meetings in the largest room of an hotel,
such as the Freemasons’ Tavern, or the Crown and Anchor, -
or even ina public hall. In 1843, after failing to obtain
Exeter Hall, they engaged Drury Lane Theatre for six nights
in the course of Lent, and there held a series of crowded
meetings, at which Cobden, Bright, and other members of
the League delivered effective speeches. Macready was at
the time lessee of the theatre, and his liberality in dealing
with the League was reproved by the proprietors, who
entered their veto against, the employment of the building
for political purposes.
On the 4th of April, a vacancy having occurred in the
representation of the city of Durham, the seat was contested
by Mr. Bright, who came forward as an advocate of Free
Trade, and Lord Dungannon. The latter was elected by
a majority of 101, but a petition was subsequently lodged
against him on the ground of bribery, which proved success-
ful, and in the following July Mr. Bright again contested
the seat, obtaining a victory over his opponent by a majority
of 78 votes. He made his affirmation and took his seat
in the House of Commons, where he rendered great assist-
ance to his friends in their patriotic movement.
Under one guise or another there were frequent dis-
cussions on Free Trade throughout each session of Sir Robert
Peel’s Administration ; and one of these, which had a special
importance of its own, occurred in 1843 on the repetition
THE SESSION OF 1843. 143
of Mr. Villiers’s annual motion for the abolition of the Corn
Law. It occupied five nights, and ended in a vote of more
than three to one against the motion; but the logic of the
debate was all in favour of the minority. The Ministers
preached Free Trade, whilst professedly adhering to Pro-_
tection ; their uncompromising followers reproached their
leaders with weakness ; the Whig champions argued for the
motion whilst they voted against it; and the Free Traders
who had the courage of their opinions spoke out with the
full force of conviction.
Cobden made a very powerful speech. Amongst other
wholesome truths which he addressed to the country party
was an exposure of the landlords’ conduct towards their
tenants. The farmers, he said, had been brought to distrust
those who had so often promised them good things, and who
had so often disappointed them. ‘The very reason they are
ready to look on us with friendly eyes is that we have
never promised them anything. We tell them distinctly
that legislation can do nothing for them. It is a fraud.
They must never allow bargaining for loaves and rents to
be mixed up with politics. They must deal with their land-
lords as with their wheelwrights and saddlers, with a view
to business and business alone. Those who are most ram-
pant for Protection are the landlords of the worst farmed
land... and why is it so? Not because the tenants are
inferior to those elsewhere—Englishmen are much the
same everywhere; but the reason is, there are political
landlords—men who will not give their tenants leases but
with a view to general elections.”
No wonder the landlords—or such at least as felt them-
selves to be shrewdly hit by accusations like these—began
to nurse a bitter hatred against the League and its
champions. Even the farmers, in spite of Cobden’s reference
to them, showed great animosity against the Free Traders ;
and in the course of this same session the member for
144 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
Stockport was insulted and hustled in the Corn Exchange
in Mark Lane.
An ardent Protectionist paper, the Morning Post, com-
mented in the following strain on Cobden’s lively speech,
and on the effect which it had produced amongst the country
gentlemen :—“ Melancholy was the exhibition in the House
of Commons on Monday. Mr. Cobden was the hero of
the night. Towards the close of the debate he rose in his
place and hurled at the heads of the Parliamentary land-
owners of England those calumnies and taunts which con-
stitute the staple of his addresses to farmers. The taunts
were not retorted. The calumnies were not repelled. No;
the representatives of the industrial interests of the
British Empire quailed before the founder and leader of
the Anti-Corn Law League. ... Melancholy was it to
witness, on Monday, the landowners of England, the repre-
sentatives by blood of the Norman chivalry, the representa-
tives by election of the industrial interests of the Empire,
shrinking under the blows aimed at them by a Manchester
money-grubber.”
Another occasion on which Cobden spoke in support of
his adopted cause was on 22d of June, when he moved an
amendment to a Government measure dealing with the
Sugar Duties. In this motion he contended that it was
not expedient that, in addition to the burdens laid on the
mother country in respect of civil, military, and naval
establishments of the colonies, Englishmen should be
required to pay a higher price for the productions of the
colonies than they would have to pay for like articles from
other countries ; and that, therefore, all duties favouring the
colonies ought to be abolished. He carried 122 votes with
him on a division, the majority for the Government being
81.
Late in August the session of 1843 came to an end, with-
out having produced any measure, or any distinct vote, which
THE SESSION OF 1843. (145
could be regarded as favourable to the advocates of Free
Trade.
In the summer and autumn of this year Messrs. Cobden
and Bright visited the market towns in a large number
of midland and southern counties, for the special purpose of
addressing the farmers. They were in many cases eminently
successful, at any rate so far as the work of the platform
is concerned. We may return to the subject of these meet-
ings in a future chapter,
eo L0
CHAPTER XV.
Tur LEAGUE IN LONDON.
AHE election of Mr. Bright for Durham, already men-
tioned, was eclipsed a few months later by a deter-
mined contest for a vacancy in the City of London, ~
where the principles of the League had recently made con-
siderable progress. Mr. Pattison, a Free-trader, fought the
battle against Mr. F. T. Baring; and as he came forward
distinctly as a representative of the League, and with its
active co-operation, great interest was displayed in the
, election by the general public. The result was a majority
for Mr. Pattison, and a consequent increase of strength and
influence to the League, which at this time gained many
converts amongst all classes.
The London election may be regarded as one of the first-
fruits of the renewed exertions which the Council of the
Anti-Corn Law League had put forth in the autumn of 1843,
when they resolved to raise a fund of £100,000, to publish
a large weekly paper under the title of The League, and to
engage Covent Garden Theatre for fifty nights, at a cost of
£60 a night. The last resolution was a bold and confident
one; but the Council knew what they were about, and
the event quite justified their action. The Covent Garden
THE LEAGUE IN LONDON. 147
meetings were a great success, and played an important part
in securing popularity and ultimate triumph. __
A notable champion of Free Trade in the later phases of
the struggle, Mr. W. J. Fox, came into prominence at these
meetings. Mr. Mongredien draws a striking picture of him
as he appeared at this time on the platform. ‘On the 28th
September the first public meeting convened by the League
at Covent Garden Theatre took place. Mr. George Wilson,
as permanent chairman, presided. Every part of the vast
area was crowded to excess. Richard Cobden, and after
him Mr. Bright, spoke, and their two admirable and
effective speeches elicited enthusiastic applause. There
then came forward a round-faced, obese man, of small
stature, whom (if you avoided looking at his eyes) you
might take to be a person slow of comprehension and slow of —
utterance—a sleek, satisfied, perhaps sensual person—a
calm, patient, and somewhat lethargic man. The only thing
remarkable about him (always excepting his eyes) was a
mass of long, thick, black hair, which waved over his neck
and shoulders. This man spoke, and the vast audience
was thrilled by his wonderful eloquence. It was W. J.
Fox, the Unitarian. minister, and afterwards member for °
Oldham. The moment he began to speak, he seemed another
man. His large brown eyes flashed fire, and his impressive
gestures imparted dignity to his stature. His voice dis-
played a combination of power and sweetness not surpassed
even by the mellow bass tones of Daniel O’Connell in his
prime. His command of language seemed unlimited, for he
was never at a loss. . . . Not argumentative and persuasive
like Cobden, or natural and forcible as Mr. Bright, his
Sorte lay rather in appealing to the emotions of his audience,
and in this branch of the oratorical art his power was
irresistible.” ¢ :
The first of the Covent Garden meetings was successful
in every way. It was inaugurated by a_ business-like
148 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
statement of the receipts and expenditure of the previous
year, which showed that nearly the whole of the second
fifty thousand pounds had been spent. Nine millions of
tracts and other publications had been circulated through
the country; six hundred and fifty lectures had been
delivered at the expense of the League; one hundred and
fifty-six deputations had been sent to public meetings; and
the remainder of the money had been absorbed by the
general cost of the organisation, and by the salary of four-
teen lecturers.
Mr. George Wilson, the President of the League, who
was in the chair at this meeting, reviewed-the work which
had been accomplished out of doors; and he claimed that
the success of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright in the counties
had been invariable. ‘Go where they would,” he said,
“‘ they had found no party in the country, out of Parliament,
which had argued in support of the Corn Laws. . . . It was
in Parliament, and in Parliament alone, that the question
had to be discussed and decided. There was no great party
out of Parliament that was in favour of monopoly.”
This view was put very strongly before the meeting, and
Mr. Cobden dwelt upon it in his speech. After some
general arguments of an effective character on the relation
between Protective duties and the actual condition of the
country, he went on to sketch the programme of the League ©
for the future ; and this passage throws a clear light upon
the working of the great organisation in its‘ later stage. The
design of the League, Mr. Cobden said, was to put itself
into. communication with the electors in constituencies
which were represented by monopolists. ‘I have been,”
he said, “to your cathedral cities and rural boroughs, which
are now represented by monopolists; and I have heard
upon the best authority that three-fourths of the inhabi-
tants are heart and soul Free Traders, Therefore we pro-
pose to provide a copy of the registration list for every
.
THE LEAGUE IN LONDON. 149
borough and every county in the kingdom. We intend to
bring these registers to a central office in London, and to
open a correspondence the most extensive, probably, that
ever was contemplated, and the most extensive that ever,
I am sure, was undertaken. Those electors amount to
800,000 ; but I will take 300,000, thus excluding those in
the already safe boroughs, as forming the numbers necessary
to constitute the return of a majority in the House of
Commons. We propose to correspond with those 300,000
to begin with. We intend, then, to keep the constituencies
well informed by means.of the penny postage, enclosing all
useful information connected with our question, together
with tracts containing the most recent illustrations of it.
What could be more desirable than to send to-morrow to
those three hundred thousand electors copies of the news-
papers containing the best reports of this meeting? But we
propose to send them one letter each a week, and that will
cost twopence for the stamp and the enclosure. That will
be £2,500. Besides this correspondence, we shall urge upon
our friends to organise themselves, and to commence a can-
vass of the constituencies, to ascertain the number of Free
Traders ; and in every case where it is possible to obtain a
majority of electors in favour of Free Trade, that majority
is to be asked to memorialise their members, where they,
have not hitherto voted rightly, to vote.in favour of Mr.
Villiers’s motion, which will be brought on early next session.
Besides that, deputations will urge upon the electors to have
a Free Trade candidate ready to supplant every monopolist
who still retains a seat for a borough; and the League will
pledge itself, where a borough constituency finds itself at
a loss for a candidate, to furnish it with one, and to give to
every borough in which a vacancy occurs an opportunity
for its electors to record their votes in favour of ae Trade
principles.”
Mr. Cobden ate took up the point which had already
150 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
been touched upon by the chairman, as to the necessity of
appealing from Parliament to the country at large, and as
to the resolution of the League in this respect. It was not,
he declared, their intention to recommend any further
petitioning to the present House of Commons. At this
announcement, says Mr. Ashworth, from whose account of
this meeting we are now quoting, the audience, almost as |
one man, rose and burst into a series of the most enthusi-
astic cheers, which lasted for several minutes, accompanied
by waving of hats and handkerchiefs, and other tokens of
satisfaction. ‘‘So soon as the proceedings in reference to
the electoral body to which I have alluded shall have
reached such a point as to justify the step, the Council will
recommend the electors—not “to petition Parliament, of
that enough has been done already—but to memorialise the
Queen—(vehement cheering)—that she may be pleased to
dissolve the present Parliament—(renewed cheering)—
which, like everything generated in corruption, must neces-
sarily be short-lived; and to give to the electors an
opportunity of using the light and experience which they
have acquired since the last election, to enable them to
return a different class of men from those who constitute
the majority of the present House of Commons.”
Cobden’s enthusiasm, his absolute confidence in the success
of the agitation, his fervent devotion to the one clear prin-
ciple which he had adopted and sworn to establish, entirely
carried away his audience. His speech was a great success ;
as also was the speech of Mr. Bright, who came after him.
The new member for Durham already displayed the oratori-
cal qualities which have since distinguished him amongst
the speakers and thinkers of the nineteenth century; and
his speech on this occasion showed great fluency, vigour,
power of invective, and even philosophical breadth. He
took perhaps a wider view of the Free Trade question than
any of his associates, and encouraged his hearers to expect
THE LEAGUE IN LONDON. 151
from the coming reform a vast benefit to the international
relations of the greatest countries in the world. The
supporters of the League, he said, and especially the most
intelligent and cultivated supporters, believed that Free
Trade would bless the world, and would especially bless this
country. “As England was the greatest trading nation
in the world, so Free Trade would benefit her most. She
was the most commercial country, because she possessed
the greatest powers of production and consumption, and by
production and consumption, which rendered exchange a
necessity, the trade of the world was carried on. They
wanted to have the question settled for the world, as well
as for England. They were tired of what were called the
natural divisions of empires. They wanted not that the
Channel should separate this country from France—they
hoped and wished that Frenchmen and Englishmen should
no longer consider each other as naturally hostile nations,
It was common to speak of rivers, and mountains, and seas,
as the natural divisions of countries, separating one nation
from another, from all time and for all time; but there was
no barrier which nature had reared which was a thousandth
part so detrimental to the interests of mankind, or so much
calculated to embitter their feelings and promote hostilities,
as were those miserable and unnatural barriers which legal
restrictions on trade had imposed, and which were upheld
by lines of custom-houses between nation and nation.”
Mr. Bright has frequently professed his fidelity to these
opinions of his earlier days, which are the common opinions
of all enlightened men in the present time. Even they who
allow themselves to doubt the wisdom of unfettered trade
under any and every condition, even when other nations
resort to protective tariffs, fully admit the civilising influence
of the principle as between the people of one country and
the people of another. But we owe it to Mr. Bright more
than to any other single man that this grand and unquestion-
152 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
able truth was made proverbial wisdom amongst the men of
the last generation. The reconciling influence of free com-
merce between England and France, and in.a less degree
between England and the United States, has been very
remarkably illustrated since Mr. Bright spoke in 1843.
One more noteworthy speech at the same meeting deserves _
to be quoted. Mr. Fox, in his peculiarly nervous, florid,
and -picturesque style, won a triumph equal in its way to
those of Cobden and Bright. He dwelt more especially
upon the sufferings of the people. Certain parts of his
address would have been quite as much in keeping with the
spirit of a Chartist meeting. The following eloquent
passages will easily explain the deep impression which it
made on the Covent Garden audience. Mr. Fox was speak-
ing of the claims of the League on the inhabitants of the
great towns. His hearers themselves knew enough of the
dire poverty which oppressed the nation ; but their case was
not the worst conceivable. ‘Did one want to exhibit it in
this great theatre, it might be done, not by calling together
such an audience as I now see here, but by going into the
by-places, the alleys, the dark courts, the garrets and cellars
of this metropolis, and by bringing out thence their wretched
and famished inmates. Oh! we might crowd them here—
boxes, pit, and galleries—and with their shrunk and
shrivelled forms, with their wan and pallid cheeks, with
their distressful looks—perhaps with dark and bitter pas-
sions depicted in their countenances—we might thus exhibit
a scene that would appal the stoutest heart and melt the
hardest—a scene that we would wish the Prime Minister of
this country. to see, when we would say to him, ‘There,
delegate of majesty, leader of legislators, conservator of
institutions, look upon that mass of misery! That is what
your laws and your power, if they did not create, have failed
to cure or even to mitigate.’ And supposing this to be
done, supposing this scene to be realised, we know what
THE LEAGUE IN LONDON. | 153:
would be said. We should be told that there has always
been poverty in the world; that there are numerous ills
which laws can neither make nor cure; that, whatever is
done, much distress will still exist. They will say, ‘It is
the mysterious dispensation of Providence, and there we
must leave it.’ ‘Hypocrites! hypocrites!’ I would say to
them, ‘urge not that plea yet; you have no right to it.
Strike off every fetter upon industry ; take the last grain of
the poison of monopoly out of the cup of poverty ; give
labour its full rights ; throw open the markets of the world
to an industrious people; and then, if after all there be
poverty, you will have earned your right to qualify for the
unenviable dignity of a blasphemer of Providence. But until
then, whatever restriction exists, while any impediment is
raised to the wellbeing of the many for the sordid profit of
the few—till then you cannot, you dare not, look this gaunt
spectre in the face and exclaim, ‘Thou canst not say I did
it.’ ”
Then the speaker turned rapidly to another picture,
equally vivid and affecting—the picture of the overcrowded
and degraded population of the agricultural districts. ‘Up
they troop to some great town; they come—men, women,
and children ; they toil their way along the high-roads, and
then, without friends or help, they look around them. They
look for work, they ask for alms, they endeavour in vain to
find that for which they are seeking, for monopoly has been
there beforehand; and having driven them out of the
country, it bars the occasion for their employment in the
towns, and so they are beaten and battered from pillar to
post ; and they have, perhaps, to incur the frown of power
for some irregular attempt to support themselves. The
police hunt and hound them for endeavouring to sell
apples or lucifers in the streets; they are sent to the
station-house, they are brought out to be committed to
gaol; they pass through various stages of disease to the
154 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
only factories into which they can get—into those great
factories of typhus which abound in great towns. One
union workhouse sends them to another, the overseers send
them to the magistrates, and the magistrates send them
back to the overseers ; and at last, in this hopeless and
heartless strife, they drop out by the way. Death completes
what monopoly began; and we, inhabitants of great towns,
know that all this is passing around us, and we are quiet
and acquiescing, and conscience never demands, ‘Are you
not accessory to these murders?’ ”
The Covent Garden meetings became very popular in
London, and they were always crowded and enthusiastic.
Between thirty and forty were held in all—most of them in
1844—and their effect upon public opinion could not easily
be exaggerated. The audience listened to arguments, to
figures, to stern logic; but they also relished strong invec-
tive—such for instance as Daniel O’Connell occasionally
gave them. O’Connell did not mince his words. At one
meeting he made a bitter attack upon the landowners. “TI
declare to you,” he said,* “the injustice and iniquity of the
landed aristocracy overcome me with horror and loathing
which I cannot describe! . . . They tax the bread, not for
the good of the State, in which you might all equally partici-
pate—not for protection against a foreign enemy, or to keep
domestic peace—but for the benefit of one particular class.
All the rest of the community are taxed, that that tax may
not go into the purse of the public, but that it may go into
the pockets of private individuals. Why, really, it is too
bad that you should be called sensible people and bear this.
I, of course, mean you no disrespect, but there is a thick-
headedness about it that I cannot understand. Duke of
Northumberland, you are not my king! I owe you no
allegiance—I will pay you no tax! Duke of Richmond—
* As quoted by Mr. Ashworth, p. 181.
o~ ete tee
THE LEAGUE IN LONDON. 155
there have been Richmonds flourishing before you, and you
may have connection with royalty, but you are not my king
yet, and no tax shall you have! I owe you no allegiance,
and I will pay you no tax! Take them altogether, we owe
them no allegiance, and we are bound to stand together one
and all, in peaceable conduct, but in determination—in
tranquillity, but with firmness—resolved that we will not be
cheated—that we will not be robbed—that we will not be
humbugged. I should like to see one of those great Dukes
levying his tax in kind. I should like to behold him going
into one of the lanes in our manufacturing towns, to a poor
wretched family, where the father after a day’s fatigue was
affecting to have no appetite, that he might leave a few
more mouthfuls of bread for his famishing children, or. the
wretched mother endeavouring to give nutriment to one
babe while another was screaming because it had no food:
I should like to see this great Duke, with his stars and
garter, walking into such an assembly, and laying hold of
the biggest hunch of the loaf, and saying, ‘ This is my bread-
tax, and you may eat the rest of it as you like.’” _
By this time the whole country was aroused; and the
breadth and strength of the agitation was illustrated on the
one hand by the cheers which greeted such sallies as that
which has just been quoted, and, on the other, by such facts
as the Marquis of Westminster’s gift of £500 to the funds
of the League. |
CHAPTER XVL
CoBDEN AS AN ORATOR.
ICHARD COBDEN, as we have already seen, was
the hardest worker and the most indefatigable
speaker on behalf of the Anti-Corn Law League.
He was the captain, the leader, the model of the great
economical movement which he had set on foot, and which
he had determined to guide with scrupulous moderation.
Others might be more fervid, more rhetorical, more attractive
to a merely curious audience; but it was to Cobden that
men listened when they wanted to understand all the
bearings of the subject, and it was by his addresses and
writings—for he was an industrious correspondent—that the
most valuable converts were brought over from the camp of
Protection. He had all the necessary statistics at his
fingers’ ends; there was no need for him to study books and
prepare himself when he attended a League meeting, or a
market ordinary, or a sitting of the House of Commons.
He had for fifteen years past so primed and stored his mind
with facts and illustrations that he was never at a loss in
any company ; and no company ever contained him without
being conscious of, and strongly influenced by, his presence.
His was the energetic spirit and genius which gave the
COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 157
League its vast dynamic force, which turned a few believers
into a multitude, which made the multitude an army, and
which led the army to victory.
Cobden’s work was specially valuable in two respects; he
formulated a truth and he converted disbelievers. It was
he who, as he boasted in one of his speeches, “ popularised
Adam Smith,” and it was he who persuaded Peel and his
colleagues to make a policy of Free Trade. He “made that
which had hitherto been the theory of a few philosophers ”
the conviction of a school of practical politicians, and who,
by the devotion of his life, made the conviction become
“the practice of a nation.”* The clear-sightedness which
enabled him to see an overwhelming force and necessity
in the idea which he had learned from the Scotch economist
was not more conspicuous than the single-minded earnest-
ness which forbad him to accept a compromise of his belief. '
He might have agreed, like the rest of us, with Adam
Smith’s theory, and then have left it alone; and the epoch
of economical reform would have been indefinitely delayed.
Or he might have begun his crusade, and have been satisfied
with a moderace fixed duty on corn, as he was once inclined
to be; and all the battle would have to be fought over again.
But he was a man of adifferent stamp. ‘The idea had come
_to him as a revelation, which he was constrained to preach
to others ; and the task, once undertaken, was persevered in
with invincible resolution.
These were the two great causes of Richard Cobden’s
success; and they were rendered all the stronger by the
ingenuousness and straightforward earnestness of his
manner, which invariably impressed his hearers.
Of Cobden’s personal character and talents we shall
have other occasion to speak. For the present, we regard
him merely as an orator, bearing witness. to his convictions
* Thorold Rogers, Cobden and Political Opinion, p. 62.
158 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
on public platforms or on the floor of the House of Com-
mons. The quality of his speeches was different from that
of Mr. Bright’s, of O’Connell’s, or of Fox’s. He did not
reach the lofty, forcible, voluminous rhetoric of the former ;
he could not match the vehement invective of the
“Liberator,” nor the turgid and picturesque style of the
Unitarian minister. He was more calm than either of
these ; he kept himself closer to his theme, and illustrated
his arguments not so much with imaginations as with simple
and telling facts. For that reason he was the most per-
suasive of all the lecturers who pleaded the cause of Free
Trade. Theothers might work more quickly and effectively
upon the emotions of their hearers, and might for a
moment elicit more enthusiastic cheers; but Cobden con-
verted and convinced. He was not dry: there is life
enough in his recorded speeches ; and, as we have seen, he
could use the language of invective, and even of menace,
when roused to fervour by circumstances of special excite-
ment. But his characteristics were those of quiet reserve
and thorough confidence in his principles, of calmness and
strength, such as a man may feel when he knows that the
steady accumulation of evidence -is absolutely certain to
achieve his object.
The campaign amongst the farmers, which has already
been referred to, was perhaps the most successful of Cobden’s
efforts as a platform speaker ; and at all events his speeches
during this tour, in the spring, summer, and autumn of
1843, have-been more completely reported than any others
made by him to provincial audiences after his election to
the House of Commons. He went professedly as an
evangelist amongst the farmers, to preach them glad tidings
of what was to befall them in the future; and at.the same
time he was well aware that they regarded him 4s a
daring intruder, and that they were for the most part dis-
posed to receive him with incredulity and antipathy. Insome ~
COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 159
cases they protested against his interference ; in other cases
they stayed away from his lectures; and ina very few cases
they out-voted him. ;
But the chief objection to the visits of Cobden and Bright
to the agricultural boroughs were raised by the landowners,
the objecting farmers being in many instances the mere
mouthpieces of their landlords, with whose interests they
imagined their own to be inextricably bound up. The fact
. that at the great majority of these meetings the Free Trade
resolution or amendment was triumphantly carried may be
attributed in part to the presence of others beside farmers,
. In part to the recent adoption of Free Trade principles as a
political cry by the Opposition leaders, but also no doubt in
great measuré to the genuine power of persuasion exercised
by the chosen advocates,* by which unquestionably the
Protectionist party lost many adherents.
Coming ostensibly as emissaries from the large manu-
facturing towns, the two chiefs of the Anti-Corn Law
* Mr. Ashworth, to whom I am indebted for the specimens of
Cobden’s addresses to the farmers contained in the present chapter,
writes as follows of this provincial campaign :—‘‘ Although the Council
of the League found it advisable to carry the agitation for Corn Law
repeal into the strongholds of the enemy, and for this purpose to
obtain the services of a host of lecturers, amongst whom were to be
found some of the most eloquent men in the kingdom—as, for instance,
Wm. Johnson Fox, sometime M.P. for Oldham; George Thompson,
sometime M.P. for the Tower Hamlets; Dr. J. Bowring, afterwards
M.P. for Bolton; Mr. Sidney Smith; Mr. J. S. Buckingham ; Mr.
A. W. Paulton ; Mr. James Acland; Mr. R. R. R. Moore, Barrister-
at-law ; Mr. T. Falwey, and many others—yet the great leaders of the
League did not at any time hold themselves absolved from hard work.
On the contrary, this extension of the agitation only increased the
desire of the people throughout the country to listen to Messrs. Cobden
and Bright; and they, although both engaged in and dependant on
their incomes from trade, yet left their establishments to the conduct
of partners or assistants, whilst they devoted time, talent, health, and
income to explode a great fallacy, to denounce and overturn a piece of
160 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
League were not surprised to find themselves looked upon
with jealousy and even aversion by many of the squires,
their dependants and sycophants. But they laboured, not
unsuccessfully, to strengthen the sympathies between the
two sections of the community, and to show the farmers
how infallibly their own advantage must be promoted by
the general extension of trade, which might in the first
instance benefit the inhabitants of the great towns, Thus
at Norwich, in March 1843, Cobden impressed on his: *
hearers (as recorded in the “ Anti-Bread Tax Circular ”) this
fact of the mutual dependence of the two classes. ‘ We,”
he reminded them, “send our manufactures to you in the.
agricultural districts, and you send your corn to us; and
yet there are political landlords who would fain persuade
you that your interests and ours are opposed to each other.
Did not Dr. Marsham, at the Buckingham dinner, say that
five millions of the people of this country lived upon oat-
meal, and five millions more rejoice upon potato diet?
Let these people be fed as they ought to be fed. Let
unjust and selfish legislation, and by so doing to increase the welfare
of the country at large; and they did this at a time when even the
utmost care and attention to business often failed to bring a profitable
result. Mr. Cobden, besides fulfilling his duties in Parliament, and
assisting at meetings of the League in Manchester, London, and other
large towns, found time to address no less than thirty-one county meet- -
ings; whilst Mr. Bright also attended thirty similar gatherings; and,
at fifteen meetings out of a total of forty-six, both gentlemen attended
and spoke. On these occasions they were frequently accompanied by
the veteran Colonel Thompson, and occasionally by the Hon. C. P.
Villiers, M.P. ‘It would have been strange indeed if the calm, argu-
mentative, and persuasive eloquence of Mr. Cobden, with the fiery
energy and earnest denunciations of injustice and folly levelled at the
aristocracy and the legislature by Mr. Bright, and the trenchant
sarcasms of Colonel Thompson, had not told upon public opinion ; and
the numerous adhesions to the cause of Free Trade which followed
these meeting clearly showed that the workers would not fail of their
ultimate reward.”
a
COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 161
them be fed as the working population in America are fed
—let them have wheaten bread every day—let them have
butter and cheese—and let them have free scope for their
industry, and they will then be able to buy these things.
Give to the artizans the free trade they ask for, and the
_demand for their labour will enable them to purchase the
extra quantity of corn that will be brought in from abroad,
and you will be left with plenty of customers still.”
Cobden’s argument in this passage is not for the mere
repeal of the Corn Laws, but for the establishment of Free
Trade. The particular was gradually being absorbed in the
-general, not with him alone but with the League as a whole;
and though they continued to recognise and maintain that
the question of food duties stood on a basis quite distinct
_ from that of any other kind of imports, yet at the same
time they had come more and more freely to adopt the
wider platform.
At Taunton the orator branched off into a rapid sketch
of the history and effects of the obnoxious laws restricting
the importation of corn. Under the present system of corn
and provision laws, he observed, the farmers were the least
prosperous part of the community, judging by their own
declarations. ‘They had either been great hypocrites in
saying that they had been distressed and unprosperous, or
else they had been the most unfortunate part of the com-
munity. It began in 1815, and the professed object of the
iaw which was passed in that year was to give the farmers
a high and steady price for their wheat. Well, from 1815
to the present time there had been five successive periods of
agricultural distress ; five times had the farmers, as a body,
been up in arms, complaining of what they called unparalleled
distress and difficulty. Could they say that any other class
of traders, such as drapers, grocers, etc., or professional men,
had been found up in arms in a similar manner complaining
of their condition! If this unparalleled distress had only
A ll
162 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
come upon the farmers, was that not primd facie evidence
that something had particularly interfered with their in-
terests? He would go back to 1815 to see how the law had
produced distress. The law was made for keeping corn up
to 80s. per quarter. Some of those who advocated what
‘they called Protection denied that; but the evidence taken
before the House of Commons in 1814 went to show that
they passed the law to keep the price of wheat up to 80s.
per quarter, and for this purpose—to keep out foreign wheat.
When they had got the law, the landlords and their stewards
went and bargained with the farmers for their rents, and
they (the farmers), under the impression that they were to
get 80s. per quarter for their wheat, entered into arrange-
ments accordingly. What was the consequence? In 1822,
seven years after this arrangement, wheat was selling in the
English markets at 42s, per quarter. ... Then in 1828
the farmers got another law, and they then thought they
had got the perfection of Protection. The sliding scale of ©
duty was adopted in 1828, and the object of that scale
was to keep corn up at from 65s. to 70s. per quarter; and
the farmers again entered into arrangements with the land-
lords and their stewards, and the land agents were again
set to work to fix the proper rental of the land. What
followed? Why, in December, 1835, wheat was sold for
36s. per quarter.” Thus the effect of the Corn Laws had
been. to ruin trade and starve the people. ‘ They destroyed
trade so that people could not even buy wheat at 36s, a quar-
ter. ‘The poor were dying off, and women and children and
‘weak men perished by thousands during these years.”
This is a very good instance of the calm and convincing
argument employed by Cobden when he had an audience
who could thoroughly understand him, and who might be
supposed to be fairly open to conviction. Every word must
have told with the Somersetshire farmers; and it is easy to
understand that these conventional Protectionists might
J es Sune
COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 163
have been won over by scores and hundreds to the cause so
clearly explained to them, and in which they recognised
themselves to have so large an interest. It was evident
enough, in all the speeches made by Cobden to, the far-
mers, that he knew and sympathised with their difficul-
ties; and it would have been a contradiction of human
nature if they had been able to listen to his words un-
moved. It was the cause of the distressed tenants them-
selves which he pleaded with so much discrimination and
tact ; and he offered them a rentedy which could not greatly
injure them, whilst it would certainly bring them new
customers in place of any they might lose. As Cobden said
at a meeting in Hertfordshire, on the 29th of April, farming
.for many years past had been the worst of all trades, not-
withstanding the protection it had received from Parliament.
_“There had never been any members representing the par-
ticular interests of grocers, drapers, innkeepers, or other
trading persons sitting in the House of Commons. Whatever
Parliament might do, farmers could command good prices for
their produce only so long as their customers could afford
to pay them, and the farmers’ customers were the town popu-
lation, the traders, the manufacturers, and merchants of the
kingdom When the distress existed among them, it could
not fai] to reach the agriculturists, and what the latter
body was now suffering from was the reaction of the distress
suffered by the former, which was as sure to follow as night
to succeed the setting of the sun.”
Here was an explanation of their misfortunes and griev-
ances such as had never yet been given to them ; but it bore
on its face the stamp of truth and accuracy, and commended
itself to their acceptance. It would be a mistake to suppose
that a majority of the farmers took Mr. Cobden for a
prophet, or even for an authority; but a certain number
of them did, and many more felt inclined to give his plan .
for relieving them a fair trial.
164 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
As an example of the simple and ready illustrations by
which the orator was wont to enliven his speeches, the
following passage from a speech at Uxbridge may be cited.
It had once been argued, he said, that the country would
be ruined by the introduction of railways. ‘‘ He recollected
the present Duke of Buckingham presiding at a meeting
at Salt Hill to oppose the making of the Great Western
Railway, on which occasion his Grace represented railways
as the most pestiferous things in the country—just as, in
former ages, some people had been found to weep and mourn
when they could no longer burn old women for witchcraft,
declaring that the country would be ruined by the alteration
of the law on that subject. He would take a more recent
case. Previous to 1824 the duty upon foreign wool was
6d. per lb. The manufacturers complained that they could
not carry on their business if the duty was maintained at
this high price. A Parliamentary Committee was appointed,
and the reduction of the duty to ld. per lb. ultimately de-
termined upon, notwithstanding strong opposition on the
part of the landlords. What was the result? British wool
advanced in price from 11d. to 1s. 10d: per lb., whilst the
imports increased from 5,000,000 of pounds avoirdupois,
at high duty, to 56,000,000 of pounds when the duty was
lowered.”
The next passage is peculiarly interesting, because it in-
cludes certain details of an autobiographical character. At .
Reading, towards the end of August, as the session was
coming to a close, Cobden addressed a meeting from which
most of the neighbouring farmers had been persuaded to
keep away ; though, to counteract this deliberate trick of
the landlords, the League took care to have the speech
printed, and sent by post to every farmer who had voted for
the Protectionist candidates in the last county election.
“Some apology,” said Cobden, “or at least explanation, was
due to the farmers of Berkshire for calling them together
—
4
COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 165
on such an occasion, at that hour of the day, and at a season
of the year when their occupations were certainly of a most
important character. In attempting to remove the Corn
Law as the foundation-stone of all other monopolies, they of
the League were met in the House of Commons by a body
of landowners, who told them that this Corn Law was
necessary for the benefit of the farmer and of the farm
labourer. If those men would avow their own reasons for
maintaining the Corn Law, the task of the League would be
comparatively easy ; but when they thus put forward the
farmer and the farm labourer, saying that all they did was
for their benefit, it became a doubly difficult matter to get
rid of the Corn Law. He had always had his suspicions,
since he was a boy on his father’s farm, that the Corn Law
was no benefit to the farmer or to the farm labourer. From
the first moment he could think at all on the subject, he
confessed that he had always viewed the Corn Law as a
rent law, increasing rent to the landlord and tithe to the
tithe-owner ; and since maturer years had given him an
opportunity of looking more narrowly into the subject, and
examining the evidence contained in the blue-books of the
House of Commons on agriculture, the suspicion he had
before entertained had become a conviction—that, instead of
it being a benefit to the farmer and the farm labourer, the
Corn Law was an injury to them all. . He therefore left the
House of Commons, and went to the country, to challenge
discussion on this subject—to call upon the supporters of the
Corn Law in the rural districts to meet him, and defend
it before their neighbours and friends; and if they shrank
from meeting him in a place like Reading, whatever their
pretence might be, it must be that they felt convinced that
their cause was a bad one, and that they could not maintain
it.”
Cobden’s speeches on these occasions were more economical
than political ; but now and then he found an opportunity
166 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE...
to go into the political aspects of the case. Whenever he |
did so, he took care to point out that party had very little
to do with the question. It was plain that he personally
inclined to the Liberals more than to the Tories ; but still
he was never an ardent partisan for anything but Free
Trade. The time came when he might have entered the
Cabinet, and he declined the offer made to him. But
whilst the battle continued to rage, he kept himself very
carefully from identification with either of the two great
parties which divided the honours and responsibility of
' Parliamentary government. The Tories, he said in a speech
delivered at Rye, had simply humbugged the farmers.
They had made them great promises, but no sooner were
they in office than they left their former friends in the lurch.
As for the Whigs, -being out of office, they wanted to get in
again, and they were trying to make the farmers believe in
the efficacy of a fixed duty. ‘ Now,” said Cobden, ‘do not
let them deceive you: a fixed duty of even one shilling a
quarter is a fixed injustice. I will show you in a few
- tainutes why we cannot have a fixed duty on corn. What
I want to know is, why there should be any meddling with
the farmer’s more than any other trade. Why is the trade
of a farmer to be protected more than that of.a butcher, or
a grocer, ora draper? But, with all this protection, where
is the farmer who, with the same capital, has made more
money than those who have followed the other trades that
I have mentioned? We have not had’a set of.landlords
sitting, night after night, to protect grocers or cabinet-
makers ; and yet, according to their own admission, they
have done better, as a rule, than the farmers have with all
this protection, as they call it. I know that you have the
same feelings as I have, in private, and that farmers say one
to another, ‘This is only a landlord’s question.’ Then, I
say, why cannot farming be carried on without being
meddled with by legislation? To hear us talk in Parlia-
' COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 167
a
ment about farmers, one might suppose that farming was
not a trade, but an office under the Government, and that
we voted you a certain sum of money annually out of the |
taxes. I shall be told by some of those men who advocate
a little monopoly, that you could not carry on farming
without being protected. Now I have travelled a good
deal, and I never found foreigners» work harder than
Englishmen, nor cheaper; and I believe that in England,
taking into account the quantity of labour performed in a
given time, it is cheaper than on the Continent. We shall
be told that farmers have exclusive burdens. I say quite
the contrary. The landlords have taken off all exclusive
burdens, not to benefit the farmers, but to raise the rents
and benefit themselves. If there be these exclusive burdens,
why do they not prove them? - We have challenged them
to do so in the House of Commons, but they have declined.
But if they have made a mistake in overtaxing themselves,
why not arrange it, and not place this bungling tax on the
poor man’s loaf?”
One of the last of the autumn addresses to the farmers
was delivered at Oxford in September, when Cobden won a
notable victory at a public meeting from Lords Camoys and
Norreys, Mr. Henley, and other representatives of the terri-
torial interest in the county. In this address he appealed
very successfully to the farmers as to the results which had
accrued to them from the policy of Protection, and from the
return of Sir Robert Peel to power at the last general
election. He contended that the forcing up of the price of
corn had done little more for them than to force up their
rents. That was what they actually received as their share
of the benefits of the Corn Laws; but it was by no means
all that had been promised them. They had been deceive?
‘even in the matter of prices for their produce. The Cory
Laws, he insisted, had cheated the farmers ever since 1815,
by leading them to expect prices which they had never
168 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
obtained. ‘In 1814, witnesses before a committee of the
House of Commons stated that the land could not be cul-
tivated unless there was a price of 80s. a quarter for wheat.
The law of 1815 recognised that price. If there is any man
here who remembers that period, let me ask him, was it not
the universal belief that the law of 1815 would secure 80s.
a quarter for wheat? And what was the price of wheat in
1822, seven years afterwards? Why, only 42s. a quarter.
In 1822 the agricultural distress was universal. In a single
Norwich newspaper of that period there were no less than
120 advertisements of sales of farming stock. Well, what
did youdo? The tenants went and asked—for what? Why,
for another Act of Parliament! They had an Act giving them
a nominal price of 80s. a quarter ; so they asked for another
Act. Well, more committees sat, more witnesses were
examined, and, after five or six years, another Act was
given you, involving that perfection of wisdom, the sliding
scale. That sliding scale was to secure not only high
prices, but steady prices. In 1828 the sliding scale passed,
and you were to have 64s. a quarter for your wheat. Well,
you took the sliding scale, and in 1835 wheat was down to
39s. 4d.; and there may be many here who remember it
being sold in Oxford market that year at 35s. Well, you’d
have thought the farmers had had enough of Protection
after this. But no! the Parliament of 1841 was dissolved.
The ‘farmers’ friends’ came down to the hustings, and
the sillier a man was, the greater the promises he made you,
so much the more did you farmers throw up your caps at
him. Yes, there’s not a farmer here who won’t confess it ;
he'll hang down his head like that man there, but he'll
confess it nevertheless. Well, I heard your ‘friends’ pro-
pose their last Corn Law. Sir Robert Peel brought it
forward, and he said he would give you, as far as legislation’ ~
could secure it, a price ranging from 54s. to 58s. a quarter for
your corn. Well, in less than eighteen months after he had
COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 169
made that promise, what were the prices of wheat? From
46s. to 47s. a quarter—10s. less than it had been promised
to the farmer only twelve months before! I say, therefore,
that those legislative Acts have never realised to the
farmer what they promised ; and I say, further, that Acts of
Parliament never can give you high prices. The farmers have
taken farms on the strength of these Acts, and they have
been ruined because they could not pay the rents for which
they had taken them ; and it is because these Acts have
ruined you that I am here to-day to denounce what is called
legislative Protection.”
Here, as elsewhere, Cobden urged the farmers to make
common cause with the manufacturers, in order to get rid
of the system of monopoly, from which both classes suffered
in so especial a manner. Each depended on the other; and
it was in the power of the producers of food to secure a vast
increase in the number of their customers, which would
more than compensate them for any foreign competition.
‘Your prosperity,” he said, ‘“‘ depends on the manufacturers.
Believe me, whatever designing people may tell you, you
cannot injure the manufacturing population without the
_ distress and suffering returning upon your class. But I will
tell you how you may make us your best customers; I will
tell you how you may improve our means of dealing
with you. Knock off our fetters; give us freedom for our
industry ; let us grow and shoot as freely as garden trees ;
let us expand under the influence of the pcre sun of .
liberty, and I will promise you then that we shall not have
taken root in vain.”
There can be no doubt that this provincial tour of the
leading Free Traders had a very beneficial effect, and contri-
buted largely to the eventual success of the movement. The
farmers as a class were not won over, but there were many
converts amongst them, and the League had every reason to
be satisfied with the achievements of its lecturers. 1843
.
170 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
was a year of hard work and growing confidence for the
economical reformers. For the first time they made it
- manifest that they had a large and enthusiastic party behind
them in the country. The. provincial meetings were supple-
mented by the monster meetings at Drury Lane and Covent
Garden Theatres, which proved that the metropolis had
been virtually won by the Manchester organisation ; and
without doubt the members of the Government had been
deeply impressed by the demonstration.
The Manchester Council at once felt the benefit of chews
enthusiastic meetings in the great accession of strength by
which they were followed. An article in the Anti-Bread
Tax Circular,* commenting on the proceedings at Bedford,
when Cobden defeated a Protectionist resolution by a
majority of three to two, described the orator as “a sort of
Napier in his way,” who liked “to carry the war into the
enemy’s camp, no matter what the odds in numbers, or what
preparations they had made for defence. At Bedford the
squires, like the Beloochees, died hard. They neither gave
nor took quarter. At Hertford their tactics were different.
They affected to treat the meeting there with contempt, and
were beaten by two to one. At Uxbridge they tried argu-
ment, with what success poor Colonel Wood may say ! ‘At
Bedford they wisely resolved not to trust too much to
reason, but to canvass the county betimes, in the belief that
the farmers must stand by their opinions, if once put down
in black and white. This excess of caution bespeaks alarm;
it shows that experience is getting the better of prejudice
amongst the tenantry, and that the landlords dare not
trust their own jury, however dexterously packed. The
fact is, that a few leading truths have been knocked into
men’s heads by Mr. Cobden, which have found the readier
reception’ because they explain a phenomenon occurring
* Ashworth, Recollections, p. 110.
COBDEN AS AN ORATOR. 171
periodically in the emptiness of their pockets, in spite of a
law which promises them a higher price than they have ever
yet got for all the wheat and barley which they grow, They
formerly believed that Parliament could fix the prices of
corn just as easily as it creates a turnpike trust; and
although they sometimes got a glimpse of the fact that the
largest portion of the gain must go into the pockets of the
landlord, they hoped that time would give them a fairer
share of the cake. Their faith is now completely shaken by
Mr. Cobden’s proofs that no Corn Law can ever guarantee
them even 36s. a quarter, and they may well ask, as they
did at Bedford, ‘ What is the use of a Corn Law, if tenants
are to get Dantzic prices and to pay English rents?’” __
In fact, it is tolerably safe to say that the work of con- .
version, so far as the country was concerned, had been
practically accomplished by the end of 1843. Henceforth
it was a mere question of overcoming official reluctance, and
of inducing the Government to yield to the wishes of a
popular majority.
CHAPTER XVII.
Sir RosBert PEEL’s FINANCE.
“oe :
f° was on the first day of the year 1844 that the
Marquis of Westminster sent his donation of five
hundred pounds to the funds of the League, and in
a letter to the Chairman of the Council he expressed a hope
that they would obtain from the Government, whoever
might be at the head of affairs, the fullest measure of free
trade compatible with the national credit. This adhesion
of the marquis, together with his munificent gift, formed a
subject for congratulatory comment at a large number of
meetings held during the first half of January, by branch
associations of Free Traders throughout the country. These
meetings were assembled in anticipation of the new session
of Parliament, but rather with a view to influencing the
minds of the Government and the Protectionists than as a
preparation for action in the House of Commons itself.
Only a few weeks had passed since the representatives of
the League had declared, in Covent Garden Theatre, that
they would appeal from Parliament to the people; and the
comparatively languid proceedings of the economists in the
two Houses sufficiently proved their determination to abide
by this decision.
SIR ‘ROBERT PEEL’S FINANCE. 173
Meanwhile the Protectionists became thoroughly alive to
the perils of their position, Alarmed by the provincial
gatherings of the previous year, and by the spirit which
Cobden and his friends had aroused amongst the county
voters, the landowners set up an opposition league in their
own interests, which they called a “Society for the Protec- .
tion of Agriculture.” The Duke of Richmond acted as
Chairman, and many locally influential men did their best
to endow this new creation with vitality ; but it effected
very little against the steady progress of the Free Trade
movement. The more this progress was made manifest the
greater became the exasperation of the landlords, and some .
of these relieved their feelings by describing the members of
the Anti-Corn Law League as “ ragamuffins,” as “ the refuse
of mankind,” as instigators of disorder and assassination,
and the like.
On the 14th of March Mr. Cobden made a formal motion,
in order to secure a test division, for a Select Committee to
inquire into the effect of import duties on tenant farmers
and farm labourers. The motion was defeated by a ma-
jority of 91 in a House of no more than 350, It is needless
to say that the agitation out of doors was not calculated to
have much effect on the votes of the House of Commons, at
any rate so soon after Cobden had announced his resolution
to appeal from the members themselves to their constituents.
In the following June Mr. Villiers’s annual motion for a
repeal of the Corn Laws was defeated by the large majority
of 328 to 124. This was almost all that occurred in Parlia-
ment during the session of 1844 in connection with the
great economical question which was so deeply agitating
the minds of the people. There were, indeed, other financial
and commercial measures of very considerable importance.
It was the year of Sir Robert Peel’s Bank Charter Act and
of Mr. Gladstone’s railway regulation proposals, as well as
of the Government’s Sugar Duties Bill, on which they were
174 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
defeated by a Porkbidation on both sides of the House.
The Cabinet secured a reversal of the adverse vote by a
threat of resignation ; but the issue was mainly confined to
the rate of differential duties on sugar produced by free and
slave labour respectively. The Budget of the year showed
-a surplus of more than four millions, and an estimated
surplus of more than three millions, out of which Mr.
Goulburn reduced the duties on wool, coffee, currants, and
two or three other articles.
The Manchester Council was working hard all this time
in its educational campaign, bent on its task of instructing ©
. the voters in every constituency, and preparing them for the
next general election, when it was generally supposed that
the battle would have to be fought out. The work achieved
by the organisation in this one year was enormous. No
fewer than three-and-a-half millions of publications were set
out from the offices, including 20,000 copies of the League
paper each week. The daily average of letters written and ~
despatched was one thousand, whilst the average number |
received was nearly one hundred a day. Lectures were
delivered in the various borough and county constituencies
of England and Wales at the rate of about twelve in each
week ; and in addition to this, it must be remembered that
the Liberal newspapers were now fast adopting the principles
of the League, and assisting it in preparing the mind of the
country for a change.
A device was. sesbrtd to in 1844 which was not without
its influence ‘on the result, though it was professedly in-
tended to operate only when the constitueneies were asked
for their verdict. A clause in the Reform Act of 1832,
known as the Chandos clause, had given the franchise to |
small freeholders in the counties ; and it occurred to Cobden
and his colleagues that the strength of their party in any
future election might be vastly increased by the wholesale
purchase of qualifications. They therefore recommended
SIR ROBERT PEEL'S FINANCE. . . 175
——_
their friends to adopt this course ; and the advice was taken
in a large number of instances. The clause had been freely
acted upon in past years by the territorialists themselves,
who had no ground whatever for complaint against the
reformers ; and this system of creating faggot votes was not
yet regarded with disapproval -by public opinion as it after-
wards came to be. So thoroughly did the League pursue
its.new policy that the organ of the Duke of Richmond’s
Protection Society began to sneer at it as a “registration
club,” and to suggest that the wealthy manufacturers of
- Lancashire, West Yorkshire, and Cheshire were determined
to buy the political power which their principles could not
secure for them.
An interesting event of this year was the coquetting
which took place between the League and the Young Eng-
land party, under the leadership of Mr. Disraeli. Early i in
~ October the last-named, with his friends Lord John Manners
and Mr. Smythe, paid a visit to Manchester, where they
attended and spoke at a banquet at the Atheneum Club in
that city. Cobden and other Free Traders -were there, and
mutual compliments passed between the two groups of
. remarkable men who were thereafter to play such pro-
minent parts in the history of their country. Cobden, as
we know, was not averse from receiving assistance to his
cause whenever and by whomsoever it might be offered, and
he would naturally look with complacency on the chance of
detaching a few votes from the large Ministerial majority
which so consistently snuffed out his motions in the House
of Commons. He could not at that moment foresee the day
when Sir Robert Peel would represent the policy of Free
Trade in Parliament against the fervid declamations of his
fellow-guest. |
As for Mr. Disraeli, the reader of his romances will
remember that the time of which we are writing was the
period in his career when he was producing the trilogy of
176 . COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred, written expressly to fami-
liarise Englishmen with the idea of a political party of
youthful reformers, who were to cement the “new union”
between the Tory aristocracy and the democracy. It was a
union in which Cobden and his friends could certainly find
no place so long as the Cora Laws remained in force; but
Mr. Disraeli was just the man to conceive a method for the |
bridging over of such a difficulty. However this may be, it
is certain that the novelist has more than once adorned his
pages with a sketch whereof some of the features were sug-
gested by Richard Cobden. Millbank in Coningsby, and
Job Thornberry in Endymion, have been identified by some
critics with the Free Trade champion who entered Parliament
for the first time in 1841, at the moment when the leader
of the Young England party was casting about for recruits.
Meanwhile the state of the country as a whole had shown
no great improvement since the crisis of 1842. The purely
agricultural districts were even worse off, in many respects,
than they had been when Sir Robert Peel took office, for
whoever profited by the Corn Laws it was certainly not the
class of farm labourers. In some branches of trade and
manufacture there had been an advance. The modifications .
of the tariffs introduced by the Peel Administration had
not been without a good effect, and a stimulus of a very
wholesome character was felt in the markets which depended
on these tariffs. The surplus of 1844 was only one sign of
a more hopeful future, and there were a few sanguine
politicians who began to look forward to a general recovery
_ of national prosperity. But the advocates of Free Trade
saw in all these facts only an additional incentive to per-
severance. Mr. Mongredien correctly estimates the position
of affairs in the autumn of this year. ‘There was now,” he
says, ‘every promise of another abundant harvest, which
would, if realised, accelerate the improvement which was
already visible in almost every branch of trade. A more
'
4
SIk ROBERT PEELS FINANCE. 177
cheerful tone prevailed among all classes of the community
but one. The national revenue had recovered with unex-
pected elasticity, and not only was the previous year’s
deficiency of £2,400,000 cleared off, but a large surplus
remained. The condition of the working classes had under-
gone considerable amelioration, except in the case of agri-
cultural labourers. What with heavy rents based on high
prices, and comparatively low prices consequent upon a good
harvest, farmers were sorely tried, and they cut down the
wages of their men to the utmost endurable point. In
many districts the farm labourers, ignorant and torpid, had
to submit to a pittance of 5s., 6s., or 7s. per week, and their
misery drove them into savage despair. Rick-burning and in-
cendiarism in various forms became rife in the counties of Suf-
folk and Norfolk, and the agricultural section of the empire:
exhibited a striking exception to the universal improvement.
In startling contrast to this fact was another fact—that they
were by far the most highly protected class in the country.”
There were, of course, at least three distinct classes in
the “agricultural section” of the community—landlords,
farmers, and labourers. The landlords were thoroughly
protected in their own special interests, and they throve
upon it. The farmers were so far protected that they were
isolated from competition in the food markets, and they
occasionally profited by securing high prices for their pro-
ductions—though the profit was only temporary and inter-
mittent. The labourers were entirely without protection in
their own especial interests, and the consequence was that
they suffered more than any one.
Protection, in fact, was a very good thing for those who.
had the reality as well as the name. But what Cobden
and his friends were endeavouring to show was that the
system known as Protection was a reality only for a few
monopolists, whilst it was a mockery and a sham for every-
one else.
AY 12
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE CONSERVATIVE SPLIT.
Cabinet had been gradually sowing dissension in the
ranks of the Protectionists ; and the year 1845 opened
amidst evident signs of disorganisation in the Ministerial
majority. The defeat of the Government in the preceding
session, on the amendment of Sir P. Miles to their Sugar
Duties Bill, had served as a warning to Ministers of what
_they might expect if any considerable body of their sup-
porters should see fit to coalesce, for however brief a period,
‘with the Liberal Opposition ; and as the dissatisfaction of
the ultra-Protectionists increased, it became more and more
manifest to Sir Robert Peel that he would have to choose
between a defeat by such a coalition and the acceptance
of Liberal aid-on his own part. The events of 1845 assisted
him in coming to a conclusion on this somewhat delicate
issue.
Out of doors the Premier was beginning to fare worse
than in Parliament itself. ‘The complaints of the Con-
servative malcontents grew continually louder and deeper, .
The old protective laws, it must be remembered, and
especially those relating to corn, were favourable to English
Ses compromising spirit displayed by Sir Robert Peel’s
THE CONSERVATIVE SPLIT. ~—«4179
growers and to all connected with the landed interests,
to the detriment of the people at large. The landlords and
the farmers clung to the discredited system of monopoly as.
long:as it was possible to do so; they considered their pros-
perity to be bound up in it, although there were not wanting
sensible men who reminded them that the general increase
of national welfare must of necessity be shared by them ;
and, consequently, they were enraged to think that the very
men whom they had assisted into power in 1841, and on
whom they had looked as the advocates and champions of
their own particular interests, should now show signs of
tampering with those interests, and yielding to the clamour
for Free Trade. Little by little Sir Robert Peel became
very unpopular in the counties, and there were ominous
signs of discord in the Conservative ranks.”
The remarks quoted above are taken from the present
writer’s account of The Life and Work of Lord Beacons-
jield,* where the part played by Mr. Disraeli in the struggle
of Protection against Free Trade is passed under review.
Sir Robert Peel, as it is there pointed out, was too open
to conviction to please his most uncompromising followers,
some of whom doubted the strength of his Tory principles,
and did not scruple to call him a traitor to his party. ‘ Both
in and out of the House he was attacked and accused; and
the nearer his views approached to those of the Free Traders,
the more bitterly was he assailed by men who had been
elected to support him. Amongst the Conservatives who,
between 1843 and 1845, began to fall away from his leader-
ship, and to form an irreconcilable group of the majority,
was Mr. Disraeli himself. He had hitherto followed, praised,
and even flattered Peel; but it is manifest that at this time
his feelings underwent a complete revulsion. He made him-
self one of the spokesmen of the Opposition on the Ministeriat
* Vol. II. of the present Series.
180 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
—
side of the House, and began to taunt and abuse his former
leader. : . . Whilst Mr. Disraeli was thus defining his posi-
tion as a Tory, in anticipation of the split in the Conserva-
tive ranks which he was one of the first to foresee, his great
rival in the future, who had already made his mark in the
House, and who was amongst the most favoured and faithful
friends of Peel, was playing a most important part in the
great controversy of the day, and contributing as much as
any one else to the triumph of the Free Trade movement.”
Mr. Gladstone was without a seat in this session; and he
employed his leisure in writing a pamphlet on Kecent Com-
mercial Legislation. ‘In this important work, which indi-
cated the tendency of the writer’s mind towards inevitable
conclusions .on the economical questions of the day, Mr.
Gladstone reviewed the measures passed within the previous
four sessions, and showed that in every case the modification
or abolition of duties had stimulated trade and improved the
condition of the country. He expressed a belief that the
truest statesmanship would thenceforth consist in removing
the fetters from industry, and seeking rather to liberate the
hands of working-men than to protect isolated classes of the
community. We may never know how much Sir Robert
Peel owed to the clear and energetic mind of his former
colleague and friend ; but perhaps we shall not err in assum-
ing that this pamphlet, and the practical conversion which
it attests, had something to do with the apparent conversion
of the Premier to the views of the Manchester School.”
The first indication of the Premier’s intention to advance
in this session upon the same path of commercial reform
which he had already entered three years before, was given
in a speech on the 14th of February, when he explained |
the Budget for the ensuing twelve months. This Budget
estimated the surplus at about a million and a half, without
the Income Tax; but Sir Robert Peel invited the House of
Commons to renew their tax for a further term of three
THE CONSERVATIVE SPLIT. 181
years, and to devote the surplus of £3,409,000, which he
would then have at his disposal, to the complete abolition of
the duties on glass, cotton, wool, and foreign timber, to the
reduction of the sugar duties, and to the repeal of no fewer
than 430 imposts on articles which yielded only moderate
increments of revenue. He admitted that his proposal was
a bold one, which could not be acceptable to all his friends ;
but, responsible as he was for the result, he was not afraid
of the risk which he ran.
A month later, Cobden moved for a Select Committee
to inquire into the cause and extent of the agricultural. dis-
tress; but he was defeated by a majority of 92. On the
17th of March, Mr. Miles, speaking in behalf of “the agri-
cultural interest”—-which of course was not precisely the
same thing as the interest of the agricultural labourers for -
which Cobden had pleaded—asked for the appropriation of
a part of the surplus to the needs of his clients. He found
no more than seventy-eight supporters, but a lively debate
arose upon his motion. It was in the course of this debate
that Mr. Disraeli made one of the first. of his pungent
attacks on Sir Robert Peel in connection with the subject of
Free Trade. ‘ If,” he said, “‘ we are to have Free Trade, I,
who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be pro-
posed by the hon. member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), than
by one who, through skilful Parliamentary mancuvres, has
tampered with the generous confidence of a great people and
a great party. For myself, J care not what may be the
result. Dissolve, if you please, the Parliament you have
betrayed, and appeal to the people, who, I believe, mistrust
you. For me there remains this at least—the opportunity
of expressing thus publicly my belief that a Conservative
Government is an organised hypocrisy.”
The Premier fecliacd to enter into a percha) controversy
with his assailant, but he reminded the House that in 1842,
when the modification of the tariff was proposed, Mr.
182 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
Disraeli had declared that “the conduct pursued by the
right honourable baronet was in exact, permanent, and per-
fect consistency with the principles of Free Trade laid down.
by Mr. Pitt.” Sir Robert added that he held the panegyric
and the attack in the same estimation. He might have
quoted yet more striking passages from Mr. Disraeli’s
speeches in 1842 and 1843, in which he had maintained
that Sir Robert Peel was not the Minister of a class but of
the people, and that his proposals were conceived in the
highest mood of statesmanship.
The opened breach between the Premier and the least
tractable of his followers was widened by the Maynooth dis-
cussion, when the Government measure for endowing that
Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland was supported and
carried by aid of the Liberals. The numbers were: For the
Bill, 158 Conservatives and 165 Liberals; against it, 145
Conservatives and 31 Liberals.* The enlightened and
liberal policy of the Government in regard to Ireland
increased the vivacity of the attacks made upon him by Mr.
Disraeli and other Conservatives, which served to hasten
the adoption of Free Trade principles by Sir Robert Peel.
For the present, however, no better fortune attended the
efforts of the recognised advocates of change. Mr. Villiers.
was defeated in his annual motion by a majority of 132,
and the session ended without any indication that the
Ministerial conversion was at hand.
In this session a Committee of the House of Lords was
appointed to inquire into the special burdens on land; and
several prominent Free Traders tendered their evidence,
chiefly for the purpose of showing that the landlords bore
comparatively light burdens of taxation and rating. The
_ result of the Committee’s labours does not seem to have.
been as cogent as their lordships anticipated ; for of course
* Irving, April 19, 1845.
Slt ate
THE CONSERVATIVE SPLIT. 183.
the object of Lords Stanley, Buckingham, and Richmond
had been to prove the necessity of special protection for
their menaced interests. |
Meanwhile the Anti-Corn Law League had actively pro-
secuted its task, In May 1845, it held a bazaar in Covent
Garden Theatre, which has become famous in the history of
the Free Trade movement. During the three weeks of its
continuance more than 100,000 persons paid for admission ;
the stalls were presided over by four hundred ladies, the
wives and daughters of the members ; and more than twenty-
five thousand pounds were added to the funds of the League.
This handsome contribution brought up the year’s receipts.
to £116,000,
Miss Martineau gives her impressions of this memorable
bazaar in a striking passage ‘Covent Garden Theatre,”
she says, “was fitted up with great taste and skill for
- @ bazaar; and the show was something quite unlike any-
thing ever seen before in this country. In the large Gothic
hall into which the theatre was transformed, there was a
great display of manufactures—freely presented in aid of
the League fund—which sold for £25,000, besides leaving a
sufficient quantity to supply another large bazaar at Man-
chester. It was open from the 5th to the 29th of May, and
125,000 persons paid for admission within that time. Four
hundred ladies conducted the sales ; and, generally speaking,
each contributing town had a stall, with its name, and some-
times its civic arms, painted above it. The porcelain and
cutlery exhibitions, the mirrors and grindstones, the dolls
and wheat-sacks, shoes and statuettes, the relics of antiquity
and the last fashion of coloured muslins, flannels, and plated
goods, anatomical preparations, laces and boots, made a
curious and wonderful display, which was thought to produce
more effect on some Parliamentary minds than all the
eloquence yet uttered in the House of Commons.”
The members of the League were naturally proud of this
184 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
success, which unquestionably did much to advance their
cause, even if it did not assist in the conversion of the
Government. As fostering and illustrating the enthusiasm
of the metropolis for Free Trade principles, it may even be
held to have exercised an influence on Sir Robert Peel and
his colleagues. The official organ of the League wrote of it
in the following terms :—
‘*No catalogue of particulars can give anything approaching to an
adequate idea of the magnificent whole, and no language can picture an
exhibition which presents, in one view, specimen-products of every
variety of that vast industry which has made this little island a queen
among nations. The brilliant success—a success concentrating on a
single focal point of time and space the work of many months and of
every part of the United Kingdom—is such as really startles with its
splendour even those who have watched the undertaking through every
step of its progress, and who have personally superintended every detail
of its execution. We had but imperfectly realised that vast conception
which the zeal of the Free Traders of Great Britain gave us to execute,
and which now stands before the world in all its finished magnificence,
a spectacle without precedent and without rival. But it is not asa
mere spectacle that we can speak or think of our League bazaar. It is
not for a piece of pageantry that our great manufacturing and mining
capitalists have obeyed the suggestion of the women of Great Britain,
and sent the bulkiest and costliest products of the loom, the forge, and
the steam-engine, to be exhibited under one roof with the fairy-like
creations of women’s exquisite taste and delicate handiwork. It is
fraught with high moral meaning. There is a deep, true soul in it. It
is the embodiment of a profound conviction. It is the utterance of a
stern and inflexible determination. It is a nation’s manifesto against
a gigantic iniquity.”
This was not the only occasion on which ladies took part
in the Anti-Corn Law League. The President of the
League rendered a deserved tribute to their enthusiasm and
perseverance at a Covent Garden meeting held soon after
the closing of the bazaar. Mr. Wilson said (as quoted in
Mr. Ashworth’s book*) :—“ From the first, many ladies have
* Recollections, p. 187.
eS ee ee eee ee a ee ree i
ee
THE CONSERVATIVE SPLIT. 185.
attended our meetings, and countenanced by their presence
the greater portion of our public proceedings; and in a
time of great distress in our manufacturing districts, when
our petitions to the Legislature had failed, they memorialised
Her Majesty the Queen, praying that it might please her to
look upon the sufferings of the people, and to mitigate them
by admitting for consumption, duty free, the corn which
was then fing in bond. The ladies obtained signatures to
that memorial by a personal canvass from door to door, and
in the depth of winter, throughout the manufacturing dis-
tricts of the North of England.”
The Covent Garden bazaar was almost the last great
effort which the Anti-Corn Law League was called upon to
put forth. Nature herself was coming to its assistance ;
and in the autumn of 1845 events occurred -which decided
the wavering mind of Sir Robert Peel.
CHAPTER XIX,
THE Last STRAW.
HE last straw which broke the camel’s back of endu-
rance, and made it impossible for any prudent and
dispassionate statesman to maintain his defence of
Protection, was the potato disease. The menace of an entire
failure of this crop, the vast increase of distress in all parts
of the United Kingdom, the fear lest the growth of the root
should thenceforth be impossible, and the manifest necessity
for wholesale importation of grain, worked together upon
the minds of those who were responsible for the lives of the
people, and practically frightened them into concession.
Early in August 1845 the potato growers and dealers
began to complain of the serious aspect’ of their crops.*
* «One fine day in August, Parliament just having been prorogued, an
unknown dealer in potatoes wrote to the Secretary of State, and
informed him that he had reason to think that a murrain had fallen
over the whole of the potato crops in England, and that if it extended —
to Ireland the most serious consequences must ensue. This mysterious
but universal sickness of a single root changed the history of the
world. ‘There is no gambling like politics,’ said Lord Roehampton,
as he glanced at the Times at Princedown; ‘four Cabinets in
one week; the Government must be more sick than the potatoes,’ ”—
Endymion.
ee.
en
=
THE LAST STRAW. 187
Week by week the accounts grew worse, and at length it
was seen that a dire calamity was about to fall upon the
country. On the 13th of October Sir Robert Peel wrote a
letter to Sir James Graham, subsequently published, which
may be accepted as marking the crisis of the conversion to
which he had gradually been brought. ‘TI foresee,” he said,
after mentioning the failure of the potato crop, “the
necessity that may be imposed upon us at an early period-
of considering whether there is not that well-grounded
apprehension of actual scarcity that justifies and compels the
adoption of every means of relief which the exercise of the
prerogative, or legislation, might afford. JI have no con-
fidence in such remedies as the prohibition of exports or the
stoppage of distilleries ”—remedies which had been proposed
in some quarters. ‘The removal of impediments to import
is the only effectual remedy.”
On the last day of the same month a long Cabinet Council
was held to consider the emergency, which, in Ireland
especially, threatened to develop into famine and pestilence.
Sir Robert Peel drew up a memorandum expressing the views
which he had urged upon his colleagues. ‘The calling of
Parliament at an unusual period,” he wrote, “on any matter
connected with the scarcity of food, is a most important step.
It compels an immediate decision on three questions: Shall
we maintain unaltered ?—shall we modify !—shall we suspend
the operation of the Corn Laws? The first vote we propose
—a vote of credit, for instance, for £100,000, to be placed at
the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant for the supply of food—
opens the whole question. Can we vote public money for
the sustenance of any considerable portion of the people on
account of actual or apprehended scarcity, and maintain in
full operation the existing restrictions on the free import of
grain? I am bound to say my impression is that we cannot.”
Next day Lord Stanley wrote to the Premier, expressing
his regret that he should differ so widely in opinion with him
188 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
and Sir James Graham “as to the necessity of proposing to
Parliament a repeal of the Corn Laws.” ‘TI foresee,” he said,
“that this question, if you persevere in your present opinion,
must break up the Government one way or the other; but I
shall greatly regret, indeed, if it should be broken up, not in
consequence of our feeling that we have prepared measures
which it properly belonged to others to carry, but in conse-
quence of difference of opinion among ourselves.”
Lord Stanley was touching upon a question which was
afterwards to be discussed with great eagerness and obstin-
acy; but it is somewhat remarkable that he should have
thought it necessary, in the crisis of a national scarcity, to
consider which of the two political parties was entitled or
compelled to enact a measure which he did not deny to be a
measure of relief.
Sir Robert Peel persisted in his effort to relax the
import duties forthwith; but he was out-voted in the
Cabinet. He proposed to issue an Order in Council re-
mitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling, and
opening the ports for the admission of all species of grain
at a smaller rate of duty, until a day to be fixed upon. It
was only as a temporary expedient that he suggested this
remission of duty ; but his colleagues could not bring them-
selves to agree with him. Sir James Graham, the Earl of
Aberdeen, and Mr. Sidney Herbert voted with him, but the
rest of the Cabinet negatived the proposal—some through
dislike of the principle, others because they thought that
the evidence of necessity was not sufficiently strong.
The secret history of this period—the history which was
not at the time laid bare to the general public—proves that
Sir Robert Peel was actuated by a conscientious feeling of
duty. He really regarded it as a matter of life and death
to the masses of the people; but he could make no other
reply to the appeals.and, reproaches constantly addressed
to him than to declare that “the subject was occupying "—
THE LAST STRAW. 189
the unremitting attention of Her Majesty’s confidential
advisers.”
Meanwhile one after another of the prominent men of the
day, who had not hitherto given in their adhesion to the
doctrines of Free Trade, or at any rate to the programme of
the League, now came forward to announce their conversion.
Lord John Russell wrote to his constituents on the 22nd of
November, protesting against further indecision and pro-
crastination. ‘It is no longer worth while,” he said, “to
contend for a fixed duty. In 1841 the Free Trade party
would have agreed to a duty of 8s. per quarter on wheat,
and after a lapse of years this duty might have been further
reduced, and ultimately abolished. But the imposition of
any duty at present, without a provision for its extinction
within a short period, would but prolong a contest already
sufficiently fruitful of animosity and discontent. ... Let
us then unite to put an end to a system which has been
proved to be the blight of commerce, the bane of agriculture,
the source of bitter division among classes, the cause of
penury, fever, mortality, and crime among the people. But
if this end is to be achieved, it must be gained by the. un-
equivocal expression of the public voice. It is not to be
denied that many elections for cities and towns in 1841, and
some in 1845,* appear to favour the assertion that Free
Trade is not popular with the great mass of the community.
The Government appear to be waiting for some excuse to
give up the present Corn Laws. Let the people, by petition,
by address, by remonstrance, afford them the excuse they
seek. Let the Ministry prepare such a revision of the taxes
as in their opinion may render the public burdens more just
and more equal; let them add any other provision which
courteous and even scrupulous forbearance may suggest ;
* Lord John Russell would have in his mind the recent contest for
Sunderland, when Colonel Thompson, though actively supported by
Messrs. Cobden and Bright, was defeated at a by-election.
190 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
but let the removal of restrictions on the admission of the
‘main articles of food and clothing used by the mass of
the people be required in plain terms, as useful to all great
interests, and indispensable to the progress of the nation.” *
Cobden himself could not have written with more vigour.
The effect of Lord John’s letter was very great, and it was
heightened by the conversion at the same time of Lord
Morpeth, Lord Shaftesbury, and others, who added the
weight of their personal influence to what had now become
an irresistible demand. Meetings were held daily in many
parts of the country; resolutions were adopted and for-
warded to the Premier; the excitement became as great and
as general as it had ever been before. The League was, of
course, extremely active ; and it had been amongst the first
to draw a moral from the failure of the potato crop in favour
of the abolition of the Corn Laws.
Mr. Ashworth gives:an account of a League meeting held
on the 28th of October, in the Free Trade Hall at Man-
chester, for the purpose of devising further financial plans,
which shows the intensity of the feeling aroused by the
critical condition of the country. ‘The attendance on the
platform,” he writes,t “indicated a remarkable amount of
sympathetic feeling amongst wealthy manufacturers. The
audience within the hall was estimated at upwards of eight
thousand persons. Mr. Wilson, the chairman, called upon
Mr. Cobden, who at once directed attention to the proper
remedy for the calamity—viz., the opening of the ports of
the United Kingdom. He proclaimed this as the only means
by which to vreiae against the famine which threatened
starvation and death to millions of our fellow-subjects in
Ireland. His speech was very eloquent, and concluded
* Lord John Russell’s resolution to accept the principle of total -
abolition was taken, as he has himself declared, against the advice of
his Whig friends.
t Recollections, p. 196.
THE LAST STRAW. — 191
thus :—‘ We must not relax in our labours; on the contrary,
we must be more zealous, more energetic, more laborious
than we have ever yet been. When the enemy is wavering,
then is the time to press upon him. Let us at once come
forward to avert this horrible destiny. I call, then, upon
all who have any sympathy with our cause, who have any
-promptings of humanity, or who feel any interest in the
wellbeing of their fellow-men, upon all who have apprehen-
sions of scarcity and privation, to come forward and avert
this impending visitation.’”
Mr. Bright was present at the same meeting, and made a
vigorous speech. ‘ At this moment,” he said, “all around
us is strengthening the conviction of former years, and is
telling us, in a voice louder than ever, that all the words of
reproach, all the harsh sayings which we have uttered
against the Corn Law, have failed to express its true
character as it is now exhibited before us. The present
state of feeling is one of distrust and alarm. And why? Is
it not because the prices of provisions are rising, .and that
there is an apprehended scarcity before us? It has been
said that the Corn Law was a law to secure plenty, and to
secure it from our own soil. If that be true, then in this
hour of apprehended scarcity, of distrust and alarm, what is
there to which we should so readily turn in the hope for
relief as to this very Corn Law, which has been pronounced
to be the height of legislative wisdom? ... Peel’s pet law
is now working precisely as its supporters wished it to work.
It is to prevent the trade in foreign corn—to make you and
your fellow-men—the twenty-seven millions—work and
work, and scramble and scramble, and starve it may be, in
order that out of the produce of your industry—out of the
scarcity of wages of the many—something may be taken by
law, and handed over to the rich and the great, by whom
and for whom the law was made. . . . How dreadful the
abandonment of duty, how awful the crime, not less than
192 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
that of those who made the Corn Law, if we should fail in
the work we have set ourselves to do, which is to abolish
the law that restricts the bounty of Providence, and to
establish the original and Heaven-given law, which will
secure plenty to all the earth.” .
The resolution arrived at by the League was to raise a
fourth fund of half-a-million sterling, with which to renew
the agitation in 1846; and at a large public meeting on
the 23rd of December the subscription was opened.
On this occasion Mr. Ashworth was the first speaker, and
in introducing the business of the day he used expressions
which brought out more strongly than the League meetings
had been wont to do, the fact that some, at least, of its
members regarded the question as specially one of cotton
manufacture against corn monopoly. The audience, Mr.
Ashworth said, represented more than the town of Man-
chester; there were present men from the neighbouring ©
districts ‘upon whose shoulders rested the great interests of
our cotton manufacture—a manufacture not yet seventy
years in existence, but which had already attained the
greatest magnitude and importance of any organised in-
dustry which the world had ever seen. A crisis had
arrived when they ought to consider the impending dangers
to that industry, and of famine to the community at large ;
and also to determine whether the cotton manufacture of
this country should hereafter become matured to a greater
extent of usefulness and power, or be compelled to sink
submissively under the baneful influence of corn monopoly.
' It was well known that the cotton trade had now become
essential to the continuance of our wellbeing as a nation.
It owed no sort of allegiance to the soil of England (and
examples were not wanting to show that by a mistaken
policy it might be driven hence to other shores), and it was
evident it could only be retained in a state of prosperity in
this country by adopting the Free Trade policy so strongly
|
|
|
Pe Se ee | eee
_— -—_- -_~
ee a Ye) eee oe Pe
THE LAST STRAW. 193
insisted upon by the League.” Mr. Ashworth then _pro-
posed—‘ That this meeting hereby expresses its high sense
of the invaluable services which the National Anti-Corn
Law League has rendered to the cause of Free Trade, and
that, in order to enable the Council to make renewed and
increased exertions for the repeal of the Corn and Provision
Laws, a subscription in aid of the great fund of £250,000
be now commenced; and that the following gentlemen
(whose names were announced) be appointed a committee
to canvass for subscriptions in Manchester and the sur-
rounding districts.” beet as
This resolution having been carried unanimously, one
person subscribed £1500, twenty-three persons subscribed
£1000 each, one subscribed £700, twenty-one subscribed
£500, and the total amount promised in the room was
no less than £60,000. Mr. Cobden, who was present,
expressed his high satisfaction on finding that there was a
“determination in the country to back the exertions of
the League with adequate funds, to whatever period the
controversy might be prolonged. Two years ago, when they
held a meeting in a small room adjoining, and when £14,000
was subscribed, an influential London paper, in its graphic
mode, designated the League a ‘great fact ;’ and now when
the subscription of to-day was over £60,000, he thought
the League might be designated a still greater fact. The
fair and honest settlement of the Corn and Provision Laws
—that is, their total abrogation—would at once dissolve the
League; and it might be useful to some of their more
candid opponents that they should know this.” Possibly
thinking that Mr. Ashworth’s reference to the cotton trade
might be misunderstood, he added that “they had not been
promoting a narrow interest; the cause was that of the
whole kingdom—of the whole world—and in carrying out
Free Trade from this, its birthplace, the cradle of their
principles, Manchester would become identified to all ages
A 13
194 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
with the cause—just as Jerusalem was with the origin of — ;
our faith, and just as Mecca was in the eyes of the Maho-
medans, so would Manchester be identified in the eyes of
historians as the birthplace and the centre of the greatest
moral movement since the invention of printing ; one which
would have a greater effect in the world’s history than
any struggle that had ever taken place in the annals of
civilisation.” |
Cobden’s pride was pardonable ; and the manner in which
he contrived to set the Free Trade agitation to which he
had devoted himself on a higher level than one of sectional
interest affords a testimony to the statesmanlike elevation
of his views.
On the last day of November Sir Robert Peel was
strengthened by a memorandum from the Duke of Wel-
lington, who had a seat in the Cabinet without office. The
Duke began by declaring his opinion ‘that the continuance
of the Corn Laws was essential to the interests of agricul-
ture “‘in its present state,” and especially to that of Ireland,
and that the laws were “a benefit to the whole community.”
But (and this was the Duke of Wellington’s guiding prin-
ciple in politics) a good government for the country was
more important than Corn Laws or any other consideration.
Accordingly the Duke affirmed that “as long as Sir Robert
Peel possesses the confidence of the Queen and of the public,
and he has strength to perform the duties, his administra-
tion of the government must be supported. My own judg-
ment would lead me to maintain the Corn Laws. Sir
. Robert Peel. may think that his position in Parliament, and
in the public view, requires that the course should be taken
which I recommend; and if that should be the case, I
earnestly recommend that the Cabinet should support him,
and I for one declare that I will do so.”
The logical deduction from this rather vague statement
é
might seem to be that the Duke would concede from fear
THE LAST STRAW. 195
what he would not concede from principle. To grant a
measure for the sake of ‘‘good government,” which was
nevertheless maintained to be contrary (in its natural effects)
to “the benefit of the whole community,” could scarcely be
anything else than an expedient to prevent the people from
using force. But the logic was not pressed home in the
Duke of Wellington’s case, though Sir Robert Peel, as we
shall see, fared worse.
On the 4th of December an announcement made in the
columns of the Zimes took most persons by surprise. ‘The
decision. of the Cabinet,” according to that paper, “is no
longer a secret. Parliament, it is confidently reported, is to
be se icegedt for the first week in J anuary, and the Royal
- Speech will recommend an immediate consideration of the
Corn Laws, preparatory to their total repeal.” This state-
ment was one of the first public intimations that the Cabinet,
or an important section of it, was contemplating the repeal
of the laws, and it was received with much excitement.
The Standard next day flatly contradicted it as an .“ atro-
cious fabrication,” and the Protectionists refused to believe
that they had been thrown over by their friends in the
Government. As a matter of fact, they had not been.’
Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleuch had positively
refused to agree to any measure which would “involve the
ultimate repeal of the Corn Laws,” though most of the other
members of the Cabinet would have followed the Duke of
Wellington’s advice by concurring in Sir Robert Peel’s
proposal. But the Premier doubted his ability to carry a
serviceable measure under the circumstances ; and he there-
fore sought an interview with the Queen on the 5th of
December, and tendered his resignation.
The Queen having proposed to send for Lord John
Russell, Sir Robert Rated that he had been prepared to
bring forward a measure which would have been in accord-
ance with the last paragraph of Lord John’s address to his
196 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
constituents ; and if such a measure were now proposed by
the new Liberal Government, he should use his influence to
promote its success. But when Lord John asked him for a
pledge that he would support immediate and total repeal, he
felt it his duty to decline. After a few days, and when it
was clear that he could not rely on even a temporary
majority in the House of Commons, Lord John Russell gave
up the attempt to form a Ministry, at the same time pro-
mising his co-operation in the settlement of a question
‘which in present circumstances is the source of so much
danger, especially to the welfare and peace of Ireland.”
Thus, a fortnight after his resignation, Sir Robert Peel
was again charged with the duties of first Minister of the
Crown. By the end of the year he had reconstructed his
Cabinet, appointing Mr. Gladstone to the Colonial Office in
the place of Lord Stanley, who could not overcome his
reluctance to accept the approaching change. The Duke of
Buccleuch, however, “felt it his imperative duty to his
Sovereign and his country to make every personal sacrifice,”
and remained in office as Lord Privy Seal. Other irrecon-
' cilables amongst the leading Tories were the Dukes of
Buckingham and Richmond; whilst the Protectionists as a
body made no attempt to conceal their rage at the defection
of Peel. They were not all so extravagant in their re-
proaches as a Dublin Conservative paper, which said of Sir
Robert, in the interval between his resignation and resump-
tion of office :—‘‘ He obtained power as a traitor, he aban-
doned it as a coward ; for, after all, the dastard died of fear.
_ At the head of the greatest party that England ever formed,
with a majority in both Houses of Parliament such as no
Minister ever yet commanded—what is henow? A degraded
creature at the feet of Lord John Russell, humbly praying
that he may be a participator with him in power, or, this
being refused, that he may be elevated to a peerage.”
CHAPTER XX.
ABOLITION.
It was known beforehand that the Corn Laws were at
length to be repealed, by a coalition between the
moderate Conservatives and the Liberals ; but the advocates
of reform did not, in the meanwhile, relax their efforts. A
few days before the reassembling of Parliament, Lord John
Russell, speaking at Glasgow, observed that if Sir Robert
Peel wished to propose a safe measure, it must be formed on
broad and extensive principles. And Cobden, addressing a
large meeting in the Free Trade Hall, said that whatever
course the Premier might pursue, Free Traders had but one
course, which was to insist throughout on total repeal. They
had nothing to do with Whigs or Tories; they were stronger
than either party, and could beat them both. Some suspicion
had been raised by the sudden conversion of most of Sir
Robert’s colleagues, and it was thought possible that he
might have won them back by a compromise which would
destroy the value of his measure. These fears were in some
degree justified.
The Queen’s speech expressed the satisfaction with which
Her Majesty had given her assent to the Bills previously
er session of 1846 was opened on the 22nd of January.
@
198 ‘COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
passed, having for their object to extend commerce and
stimulate home industries, by the repeal of prohibitive duties
and the relaxation of protective duties, Parliament was now
exhorted to consider whether the principles on which it had
already acted might not with advantage be yet more exten-
sively applied. This was at any rate promising; and Sir
Robert Peel confirmed the impression by his speech during
the debate on the address. After admitting that the “ mys-
terious calamity” of the potato disease had led to his —
» resignation in December, and to the legislative change which
he now contemplated, he went on to pay a just tribute to the
apostles of Free Trade. ‘It would be unfair,” he said, “if
I were to say that I attached exclusive importance to that
particular cause. I will not withhold the homage which is
due to the progress of reason and to truth, by denying that
my opinions on the subject of Protection have undergone a
change. Whether holding a private station or a public one,
I will assert the privilege of yielding to the force of argument
and conviction, and acting upon the results of enlarged
experience. It may be supposed that there is something
humiliating in making such admissions. Sir, I feel no such
humiliation ; I should feel humiliation if, having modified or
changed my opinions, I declined to acknowledge the change
for fear of incurring the imputation of inconsistency.”
The true question for them to consider, the Premier said,
was whether the change was sufficiently explained by facts,
and whether the ‘motives of the change were disinterested.
It would be base to change merely from a personal feeling ;
but when the change appeared to be reasonable, no public
man would be justified in resisting it for fear of the taunts
which he might bring on himself. He went on to vindicate
the genuine character of his Conservatism against those
who had impugned it. It was no easy task to ensure the har-
monious and united action of an ancient monarchy, a proud
» aristocracy, and a reformed House of Commons. It was for
ABOLITION. Ne
this end that he was labouring, and for such objects only did
he value the possession of power. But even for these objects
he did not covet it. ‘It is a burden far above my physical,
infinitely beyond my intellectual strength. The relief from
it with honour would be a favour, and not a punishment.”
He did not shrink from the responsibilities, the sacrifices, the
perils of office, but he would not retain it with mutilated
power and shackled authority. ‘I will not stand at the helm
during the tempestuous night if that helm is not allowed
freely to traverse. I will not undertake to direct the course
of the vessel by observations taken in 1842. I will reserve
to myself the unfettered power of judging what will be for
the public interest.” -
This noble declaration was warmly received by the House,
and won for Sir Robert Peel the sympathy of all bL. his
most bitter enemies—who had until recently been his most
fulsome flatterers. A few days later he unfolded the policy
which he had decided to adopt. There was, on the face of
it, a fatal blot in the eyes of the uncompromising followers
of Messrs. Villiers and Cobden, inasmuch as it proposed
to continue the Corn Laws, in a somewhat modified form,
‘for three years longer. The Premier proposed to fix the
minimum duty at four shillings when wheat was sold at 53s.
a quarter, rising to a maximum of 10s. when wheat had
fallen below 48s. Other grain was to be charged less in-
proportion, and all grain from the colonies was to be ad-
mitted duty free. Numerous reductions or remissions were
made in respect of other customable articles. In the shape
of compensation to the landlords and agriculturists there
were certain proposals diminishing the “burdens on land,”
including a relief of the local rates in respect of the poor.
In a long and powerful speech the Premier appealed to
the territorialists to assist him in making these readjust-
ments of the revenue, which he considered inevitable in any
case, and for which the time seemed to be so opportune.
200 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE. |
“ From a sincere conviction that the settlement is not to be
delayed ; that, accompanied with the precautionary measures
to which I have referred, it will not inflict injury on the
agricultural interest—from these feelings I should deeply
lament, exclusively on public grounds, the failure of an
attempt which, at the instance of Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment, I have made on this occasion, to recommend to your
calm and dispassionate consideration these proposals, with
no other feeling or interest in the ultimate issue than that
they may, to use the words of Her Majesty’s speech, con-
duce to the promotion ‘of friendly feeling between different
classes—to provide additional security for the continuance
of peace—and to maintain contentment and happiness at
home by increasing the comforts and bettering the condi-
tion of the great body of the people.’”
The chief objection taken to these proposals by Cobden
and his friends was on the ground of the three years’
delay ; but the advocates of Free Trade concerned them-
selves, between the introduction of the Corn Importation
Bill and its second reading, less in opposing the measure
than in strengthening the hands of the reformers. The
League held meetings; their candidates won the West
Riding of Yorkshire without a contest, and Westminster
after an obstinate struggle between Sir de Lacy Evans and
Admiral Rous. The cause, however, sustained a check of
a remarkable character in South Nottingham, which had
been rendered vacant by Lord Lincoln’s acceptance of office
under Sir Robert Peel. As the Duke of Newcastle still
clung to the Protective principles, and Lord Lincoln con-
tested the county as a Free Trader, his father employed the
family influence against him with such success that he was
defeated. The Duke’s conduct on this occasion affords an
instance of the excited state into which the Government
proposals had thrown a large number of the champions of
Protection, The Duke of Buckingham boasted at a public
ABOLITION. vr e208
dinner that he and the Duke of Richmond would do the
Bill all the harm they could, and cripple it so that it could
never become law. ‘The Duke of Richmond himself assured
his fellow-peers that the Anti-Corn Law League would
never rest until it had destroyed the Church. ‘
The Corn Importation Bill was read a second time, after ~
being debated for twelve nights, on the 27th of February.
Cobden in his speech told the Protectionists that the laws
on which they set so much store were regarded by the
country as emblems of witchcraft—horse-shoes nailed to the
door to keep the witches away. He had another topic pro-
vided for him by a bitter remark of Mr. Disraeli, who had
twitted Sir Robert Peel with having styled Mr. Cobden an
assassin—alluding to the speech of the Premier after the
murder of Mr. Drummond in 1843, to which reference has
been made ina preceding chapter. This unkindly-reminder
gave Sir Robert Peel an opportunity of withdrawing fully
and unequivocally “‘an imputation on the hon. member for
Stockport which was thrown out in the heat of debate under
an erroneous impression of his meaning.” And Cobden
reciprocated the good feeling of this apology by declaring
his own regret at the terms in which he had referred to the
Premier. He trusted that “all he or the right hon. baronet
had previously said on that subject would be obliterated
from their recollection, and that no one on either side of the
House, after what had passed that night, would attempt to
revive the matter or make any allusion to it.”
By this time, it may be observed in passing, Richard
Cobden had already endeared himself to most of those who
knew him by his simple and candid character, and by the
real generosity of which the above remark, and especially
the dignified reference to Mr. Disraeli’s insinuation, are an
instance. He was acute enough in controversy when
aggression was a necessity; but his natural and ordinary
tone was eminently conciliatory.
202 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
The actual leader of the Protectionists was not Mr.
Disraeli, but Lord George Bentinck, who spoke for more
than three hours in this debate, after everybody had made up
their mind. The second reading was carried by 337 to 240;
_ and the subsequent stages, as well as the tariff resolutions,
" were passed by equally decisive majorities. Nothing that
Lord George Bentinck and his followers could do availed to
defeat or mutilate the Bill. Mr. Villiers attempted, without
success, to make the operation of the measure immediate ;
he was supported by no more than 78 votes. Some delay,
however, was caused by the obstruction of the Irish members,
owing to a Coercion Bill which the Government had thought
themselves bound to introduce, and which eventually brought |
about their overthrow.
The Protectionists joined with the Irish members and a few
English Radicals in opposing this Bill; and a remonstrance
from Cobden on the obstruction of public business—though
he was opposed to coercion—led to a triangular duel between
him, the Premier, and Mr. Disraeli, which is described by Mr.
O’Connor in his Life of Lord Beaconsfield :—
‘*Mr. Cobden,” says Mr. O’Connor, ‘‘ used a sentence by accident
which had serious results. He was arguing that whatever temporary
success the coalition of the member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O’Brien)
and Lord George Bentinck might have in defeating Sir Robert Peel’s
measure, the Corn Laws were doomed. These laws might still be
supported by the friends of Lord George Bentinck, but there were
other people to be considered—there were the people of England. ‘I
don’t mean,’ went on Mr. Cobden, ‘the country party, but the people
living in the towns, and who will govern this country.’ The last
sentence in this passage is open to misunderstanding—if taken by
itself. It might be interpreted to mean that the towns should govern
the country. But taking the passage in conjunction with what pre-
ceded and followed it, the meaning is plainly enough this: that how-
ever these aristocratic landlords might rave, whatever devices they
might employ to defeat Sir Robert Peel’s Bill, the people generally
were determined that, for once and all, the Corn Laws should be
abolished. That this was the meaning of it is made perfectly clear by
the sentence which follows :—‘I tell him that the English people, and
ABOLITION. | 203
the Scotch, and the Welsh, and I believe the Irish too, are, from what I
have heard, determined not to be content with a suspension, but to
have a total abolition of the Corn Law.’ The speech of Mr. Cobden
was, as a whole, favourable to the Government, and a crushing con-
demnation of the tactics of the Protectionists. It received accordingly
a considerable amount of applause from the Treasury Bench; and Mr.
Disraeli, knowing the readiness to take offence of the insolent dullards
by whom he was followed, saw that this circumstance might be utilised
against Sir Robert Peel. He first accused Mr. Cobden of defining the
people of England as ‘the persons who live in the towns,’ ‘which, as I
have shown, was altogether a forced construction on Mr. Cobden’s
words ; and then went on to say :—‘ The right hon. baronet imme-
diately cheered that expression. The circumstance struck me at the
time, for it came from the same right hon. individual who was once
so proud of being at the head of the gentlemen of England. At the
moment that the hon. member for Stockport, in a tone of menace,
threatened the country party with the control of public opinion, and
said that a powerful sentiment of indignation would arise among the
people of England at their conduct—in the most frank and open spirit
he gave them his definition of what the people were, as being the
jnhabitants of the towns—the right hon. baronet cheered that senti-
ment—he accepted that definition.’... The phrase of Mr. Cobden
was innocent enough; all he meant to say was that the people
were determined and able to overcome faction. But suppose Mr.
Cobden’s words had the meaning attributed to them by Mr. Disraeli,
was Mr. Disraeli justified in making his charge against Sir Robert
Peel? Even if Sir Robert Peel thought the towns should rule the
country, was it likely that a man of his cautious character would cheer
the expression of such an opinion? ... A long and desultory dis-
cussion ensued and the natural result followed. Mr. Disraeli was
shown by Mr. Cobden to have totally misrepresented his words,
Sir Robert Peel, confirmed by several others, proved that Mr.
Disraeli’s assertion that he had cheered the supposed definition was
incorrect ; and Mr. Disraeli had to apologise both for the misrepre-
sentation and the false charge.”
The third reading of the Corn Importation Bill was carried
on the 15th of May by a majority of 98. Another passage
of arms between Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Disraeli is worth
notice, mainly on account of an apparent sneer at Cobden,
introduced in the latter’s ‘ venomous attack,” as the Premier
204 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
justly called it. ‘The first day after the right hon. gentle-
man made his exposition to this House,” Mr. Disraeli said,
“fa gentleman well known and learned in all the political
secrets behind the scenes, met me, and said, ‘What’ do you
think of your chief’s plan?’ I said I did not exactly know
what to say about it, but, to use the phrase of the hour,
I supposed it was a great and comprehensive plan. ‘Oh,’
he replied, ‘we know all about it: it is not his plan at all;
it is Popkin’s plan.’ And, sir, is England to be governed
and convulsed for Popkin’s plan ?”
This poor wit had no effect upon the House, for whether
the repeal of the Corn Laws might be called Peel’s or
Cobden’s plan, every accurate observer of the state of
England at that crisis knew that the country had been con-
vulsed for want of Free Trade, and that it could be appeased —
only by the opening of the ports. Perhaps it would have
been appeased more completely and speedily if the ports had
been opened forthwith, instead of deferring for three years
the virtual emancipation of trade.
In the House of Lords there was some warm debating, but
no prolonged struggle. The Dukes of Richmond and Buck-
ingham did their best, and Lord Stanley warned his colleagues
against hasty and ill-considered legislation, The Duke of
Cambridge, the Duke of Beaufort, Lord Malmesbury, and
others, spoke angrily or solemnly against the Bill, whilst in
favour of it were Lords Granville, Clarendon, Brougham,
Grey, and the Duke of Wellington. The second reading
was taken by a majority of 211 to 164—a large vote for
the House of Lords, and a surprisingly large majority, due
perhaps in great measure to the earnest appeal of the Duke
of Wellington.
Thus the Corn Law Importation Bill ile both Houses,
and received the royal assent.
The scale of duties on imported wheat, as settled for the
next three years, was as follows :—
ABOLITION. 205
Whenever the average price of wheat, made up and pub-
lished in the manner prescribed, should be under 48s. a
quarter, the duty on importation was . . . 10s.
48s. and under 49s. : p 2h . : Bape. OR,
49s, and under 50s. : : : és 2 be tape
50s. and under 51s. ¢ . . ; . A ey te
51s. and under 52s. 3 3 f A oy) 6s.
52s, and under 58s. , é : : : PaaS
538s. and upwards . P ; 4s.
For barley the duty was fixed at “half the Asie rates, and
for oats rather less. From the Ist of February 1849, the duty
on all kinds of grain was to be fixed and remain at one shilling
a quarter; and at that rate in fact it did remain, until it
was dispensed with by Mr. Gladstone twelve years later.
Large progressive reductions were at the same time made
on timber and agricultural seeds, whilst the duties were
entirely repealed on a long list of articles of food, live and
dead meat, cotton, linen, silk, and wool, pnd manufactures of
these “not wholly or in part made up.” 17,807. 4.) 414. os) 18,991 4.18006, 8225 esos
T8510) c5 weg kd O04 tas 520 .. 18,184 .. 8,360,985 .. 141,057
1861 .. ... 2,845. ... . 22,554 22. 5,761, 60820... 2208, 720
iby Se ~. 18,785 2... 2,796. ... 21,68) 23.025, 745 00se ea ecuaee
ny ¢ See -» 17,926 .. 2,946 .. 20,872 .. 5,864,588 .. 203,603
1879. -- 16,449 .. 8,580 .. 20,029 .. 6,249,833 .. 193,548
‘* Hence it appears that in 1879 there was an increase of 1808 vesscls
(the total including an increase of 3166 steamers, each of them capable
of performing two or three voyages for one of sailing vessels), as com-
pared with 1849; of 3,153,491 tons in their capacity, and of 40,937
in the number of men employed. The following is an account of the
tonnage of British and foreign vessels—sailing and steam—entering
and clearing, with cargoes and in ballast, at ports in the United
Kingdom from and to foreign countries and British possessions :—
TONNAGE OF VESSELS ENTERED AND CLEARED.
British. Foreign. eee t
1840.0, ose 0's 8,490,485 1 2. i. sitet. a 2,940 ECs 3,541,303
1854... ss «» 10,744,840. 2. 2, cs, 10d coon 2,820,611
1861 6. a ee” 15,420,582 os ee A 0a eee 4,245,423
TST L sss siete 28,084,748 view io Oe ed 8, DLS, tO me ee 14,521
1S72 ceo. soe! sw a, 285 119j;000 05) cue ho hol CoO mmr mane 14,937,155
1878 ©... ‘ss se 20,047,844 .2 2. vs 16, (O2/642) Cree eae one
1874 0% pises? ost .80j)089,683 oe wee 3G. 2) SLO, oe0) 2) ae 14,904,702
1879 5 4s. ke 87,488,907) 2.0 Bo SLB 2S) 200 eee 22,152,532
‘‘ Hence it appears that whilst the increase in British tonnage in 1879,
compared with 1840, has been 30,948,506 tons, or 476 percent., that in
foreign tonnage has been 12,332,277 tons, or 411 per cent.” —Abbreviated
JSrom the ‘*‘ Financial Reform Almanack, 1881.”
STATISTICS OF PROGRESS. BUS
aA EL
NATIONAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE,
Receipts.
1850. 1871. 1874, 1877. 1880.
ard n Aree gue aoe a pn el
Customs ............| 22,264,258 | 20,238,880} 20,823,324] 29,044,263) 19,169,605
Excise ..............| 14,965,525 | 22,833,907] 27,115,970] 28,408,052} 25,218,303
Stamps ............| 7,014,440 | 8,979,729] 10,463,212| 11,126,493} 11,306,914
Income Tax ........| 5,585,594 | 6,290,611} 5,641,791| 5,840,718] 9,604,606
Oi ihe he : } 4.485.033*| 109,292} 1,071,991) 1,084,890; 1,047,076
Assessed Taxes .. =n 1,633,919} 1,252,465} 1,460,462} 1,601,960
Post Office..........] 2,156,563 | 4,917,098} 5,481,297{ 6,021,267| 6,548,778
Telegraphs.......... 2 697,983) 1,057,824) 1,607,050} 1,438,014
56,472,313 | 66,683,371| 72,407,874} 75,093,195] 75,525,258
Crown Manus... ote. 160,000 446,151 463,241 488,295 470,216
Miscellaneous....... 753,345 | 3,229,220| 3,706,764) 4,517,561) 5,280,933
-———_———————— | | |
Totals.........°..|£57,385,658 |£70,358,743/£76,577,879 | £80, 099,051 £81,276,407
* Includes Assessed Taxes since transferred to Excise.
Expenditure.
1850. 1871. 1874. 1877. 1880.
| | | ee,
£ £ £& £ £
Interest, &c., of Debt ..| 28,323,961) 26,826,437) 26,706,726] 27,992,833 Eig
8,3
Army) including all 8,881,140] 13,430,400] 15,940,965) 15,921,734 ie
6,9
Navy _ Charges. 942,397) 9,456,641/ 10,279,899] 11,364,383 ee
Fortifications and Local-
POAIOM gala onic es viens oe Si 150,000 500,000 900,000 AC
Totals, Debt and War ..| 44,147,498) 49,863,478] 53,427,590) 56,178,950) 59,444,476
Civil Charges .......... 6,978,8¢8| 138,309,510} 17,067,609) 14,928,891 a
Collection of Revenue..| 4,161,226] 6,522,550} 6,471,311} 8,000,588
SH |
Totals........2.+2«-|£55,287,532/£69,995,538/ £76, 966,510| £79,108,429'| £84,364,753
Commenting on such figures as these, the Financial Reform Alinanack asks :—
‘Ts it not monstrous that so large a proportion of the public income should be
derived from taxes which press heavily on the masses, and render our boasted
Freedom of Trade an empty mockery, and that so much of the expenditure is
devoted to unproductive purposes? But, bad as it is, this’ is not the worst.
There are many other taxes besides duties of Customs and Excise which tend
directly to cripple trade and industry, and deprive the people of employment ;
and if a due proportion of these were credited to the shoulders of those who
bear a very considerable part of them, and crown lands, post-office, and many of
the miscellaneous receipts were deducted, it would be found that to every pound
of revenue from taxes, properly so called, these improvident imposts contribute
15s, at the very least. Moreover, purchasers of taxed commodities have to pay
294 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
some fifty per cent. beyond what the Government receives to the retailers
thereof; and we have in addition to maintain a whole army of Customs and
Excise officers by land, and great ships of war with fleets of smaller vessels at
-sea, for the protection of this most pernicious system. Even this is not all, for
the obstructions, loss of time, employment of otherwise unnecessary labour, and
other results of Customs and Excise regulations—many of the most absurd, as
well as of the most annoying nature, are attended with additional cost, and are
so many shackles on what. is nevertheless called Freedom of Trade. Yet
merchants, shipowners, traders, manufacturers, and others subject to them, not
merely bend patiently under the yoke, but fondly imagine that trade is free, and
are blind to the immense extension of it which would inevitably result from
its entire enfranchisement. Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture busy
themselves with comparatively trivial details, and, with exceptions that might
be counted on half one’s fingers, are utterly indifferent to this which ought to be
with them the ‘question of questions,’ inasmuch as, properly weighed, it is
more important to them individually, and to the nation collectively, than all the
matters with which they have hitherto busied themselves, or may busy them-
selves hereafter. It is also one of vital interest to artizans, mechanics, opera-
tives, and labourers with hand or head of every degree, who have hitherto been
as indifferent to it as Chambers of Commerce and their constituents. It is
beyond all doubt that if trade were really free with all the world there would
be employment for every able-bodied man in the three kingdoms, and for more
of them than we could muster, with ample remuneration for it.”
090‘T9°G68T|616'0L9'99|996'ZOL'SE 9F3‘°60L |888‘TS9‘T|ZF8FFS' L|ZFF 008 F9E|99z 989 80z| LL0‘SF8‘S6T|ZE6'L69‘'ST0'T porsed efor ot[3 105“
295
$16‘900'G89 _|096'F98"0z|929°6FE‘OT| GZT'T jeTh‘ese |TH8‘TFO‘T|ISS‘ee0'SoT|8T9'Fza‘RB |L28‘TSs‘sd |GSL‘9Ss‘T#e | “< 9 oust “OLsT “
O6F'EST‘9F0' TOFS 919 'SE|IZI' FES '6T) TEL‘EOT |ST F080 ‘T|EL9 086 G/GeL‘ZSs‘EST|1FS‘809‘80T| L08‘63L‘60T|ESF‘STO‘E8s | ‘ OZ 69ST “ GFST “
159°0Z9°L9T. |6L°660'6 |S9T'6T9°S | 066'F [09S‘LST [82°28 j9Z6‘FI6'SG |96L‘GSS‘FT [EFF'OSSOL |LTEEEEF6 [81.46 SPST 07 OFST ‘STLIOI,
_————_—_—_——<— |_| el ee OOo OSS OS 2
‘enSvIT] MV'T W10N-WUY 94} Jo WoryNosstp 917} Joye suvek AZUoM4-puv-so1y} oUIOS ‘poreodor AT[veL OIOM SMT U0 oY}
WST[AL OUT} OY} Whosy SIVAA Wades SuLINP pue £ Pooy USToIOJ Jo uoTye}I0d II oy} OSeINODSIp 04 ‘papueqUt 4ou jt ‘poyefMoTeo
AIIM YTYM ‘Opel, OY} UO SMOTZOLIYseI sNoLoUo ysout pure ‘Ajnq Suy[ryg oy} Jopun suvok Aywom Surmp { wey us0g
Plo 94} Jopun sivok aww Surmp poyiodur [voy pue ‘mnopg ‘urery Jo saiyyuenb oy} uMoYs ore o[qey, sIy} Uy
. | 929'0PS GIT [oco‘L09%F loca'TI9‘T | “""" jesatzs 998‘ZET 69e‘eo6'6s \6LO‘IZ‘TL |SF6'SLL'6 |SEFFOG'IG [vt tresses este tts OIST
T | 8ZG'G18'96 |F90'G8E'S |LES‘OGT'T | "°°" [EOPLE |TLL'T9 | TEP‘EZ8‘T |ZOL‘LOG‘TT |S90‘TFS'6 JLEL‘TEO'TS [rvst eter esse eters SUST
Q_ | SILiOLZ‘Sh |864'G09'T |FES'66L'T | “""" |LTS'S — |6ZS‘T9S_ lesL‘OoL‘OL [OE9‘OSs‘OL |LBE‘LTS'L |STT‘90G'DE [reser e Tete ttt OLST
RY) | Pc0%6s1'29 |gT9'Z86T |6sL'98G°T | 69T's |ssc‘srs |LSF‘OOL [6ar‘OFS'S [OST‘LOF‘G |TZL‘e89'9 JOBL‘9ET'6s [iT TTT tT LOBT
Ro} SSHLET'8h |0L6'606_|€80'FIT'T | I9b°GS ees'> | I88"9LF |8e6‘esz‘9 |ec6‘zgc‘a |c9s‘Ic6'F Ye0e L886 | ee ee eae
th | LL OSH'S9 9.1G°ZOP'S |960'664'L | L98‘T OSG°S — |864'FS._ fone‘ FFS‘sT |ScE‘FIT'G [seP‘TOO'S |SOL‘OFI'LE [ot * TTT ttt? LOST
& | SPs P99 |LPS'GOL'T [S888'OIL | Sci’ [ezO'sT |€L8'83h joss‘eos’, [eLL‘ror‘a |eps‘ese’s |TPE‘OOs'eSs [ttt ttt tt SS8T
> | G3P'9FGIS JOPE'RLH'T |S99 019 | 9108 |FIZ'T |69L°6 |OLG‘S0G‘S |6FL°SHSS [S8B'OFG‘T [GZE'OPE'ST [-- tet s GgeT
Si | soa‘terts |eco‘ese‘t ELL 8Lb """* |TL8'8S |263'TH |aLr‘s0s‘9 |6s9‘0sL's |TL0*PEs°S [LZO“COO'ST fits EST
Ry | ozo'sts‘ze jozs‘a96‘r |2F9‘Fs0'T | to's joco't —_fess‘966 joce‘ees'6 |tra'ssr‘s |ZL1‘2e6' WOO 088 06 eee ee var a ee
By, TZO'S98"8T —|690°860'T |T8L'996 "** /P96TS 008"4 —-fess‘Fz0'S [e89'OLT'S [esP'PssT JOSG'S6T‘OT |i "*tttr ett ttt t* OFST
L09°186'9 — |9F9°G0B_— |E9S"LTS an P8103 [92's S88'1SS |98Z‘OFD = |ATO‘6TO'G = "teeter ttt: BERT
S | oor‘gou‘st . leso'ses just ‘ere ""** 1884'S |FOS*EL [60166 §=—s | FGO“LSHT [LOL°EES'S. 06Z‘099'OT [reer ttt” OFST
tr “SIMO | “BYAAQD | “SYK | “BYANO | “SIAL | “SPO | “89M “BYAO “BYAL) “SYA
eS pe ae Sa RS es sa aia Cees Gearon Nenad hk Menino
~ . ; ; "UI09 “MoLg
Ny a3 pal ‘suvog | ‘stog Bor ae betes ‘oky | uerpuy ‘sqvq «| “Aopreq | -yeoum “IVOX
ze) Ms Lo ae 10 ezreyt pur quot AL
N
~
NN
R
(,.yoounuypy wiofay porounuyy ,,—'spouysgy yooysyynjg Worf poprduog )
“OAISNJOUL 9/ET 0} OPST Wor ‘spollog [eIMUSIL], Je CALUOAN] NIVUD 10Y}O puv LVAHAA JO SAILIINVAYH—"]
296 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
J.
Procress of the CouNTRY in TRADE, REVENUE, ConsUMPTION, and
WEALTH, between 1840 and 1878.—(From Mr, Mongredien’s
Free Trade Movement in England.) |
‘‘TrapE.—In 1840 the foreign trade of the United Kingdom (com-
bined exports and imports) amounted to £172,133,000, equivalent to
£6, 9s. 113d. per head of the population, In 1878 it amounted to
£614,255,000, or £18, 3s. 6d. per head, a marvellous rate of increase !
In the United States the proportion of foreign trade to the population
is £4, 13s. per head. In France it was, in 1876, £8, 3s. per head. In
Russia it was, in 1876, £1, 9s. per head.
‘‘ REVENUE.—The public revenue for the year 1840 was £51,850,000 ;
for the year 1878, £81,598,000; and the latter sum presses far less
heavily on the people now than did the former sum on the people
then. The income-tax in 1848 (the first year of its incidence) yielded,
for every penny in the pound, £801,000. In 1878 the taxable incomes
had so increased that every penny in the pound of income-tax yielded
£1,947,000.
‘¢ CONSUMPTION PER Heap.—Of those articles wlich are partly pro- .
duced at home and partly imported, the consumption per head cannot
be exactly ascertained, because the extent of the home production
cannot be accurately defined. But of those articles consumed by the
people, which are wholly imported from abroad, the consumption per
head is easily calculated, and it is as follows for the two years which
we have taken for comparison :—
CoNSUMPTION PER HEAD OF POPULATION OF THE UNITED Kinepom,
IN 1840 AND 1878, OF THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES :—
1840. 1878.
Tea : 2 ees e : 1:22 lbs. 4°66 lbs.
Sugar (raw) . ‘ oe iss 15°20 ,, 48°56 ,,
Coffee . , ‘ ; . 1:08 ,, 0°97 ,,
Rice. ! : : y 0°90 ,, 7°50 ,,;
Currants and Raisins . : 1:46:55; 4°49 ,,
Tobacco ‘ ? ‘ ; 0°86 ,, pA hs a
‘¢ Wratru.—An eminent statist, Mr. R. Giffen, has, by a series of
elaborate calculations, arrived at the conclusion that in 1875 the total
capital of the people of the United Kingdom might be reckoned as a
minimum at £8,500,000,000. ‘This,’ he says, ‘is the capitalised
value of the income derived from capital, using as far as possible the
.
g
4
2
z
pee
——y————————
STATISTICS OF PROGRESS. 297
date of the income-tax returns as the basis of the estimate, and with
the addition of an estimate of the amount of capital in use not yielding
an income.’ By a similar process he has made out that the total
capital of the country in 1865 was £6,100,000,000, and consequently,
that during the intervening ten years the national estate had im-
proved at the rate of £240,000,000 per annum, In 1875 the amount
assessed to the income-tax was £571,000,000; in 1865 it was
£396,000,000. Now in 1848, when the income-tax was imposed,
the amount assessed to it was only £251,000,000. Let us then
take the proportion between the taxable income and the national
capital, as given by Mr. Giffen for the two periods 1865 and 1875, and
apply to the £251,000,000 taxable income of 1843, and ‘we shall find
that its gives £3,880,000,000 as the total capital of the country in
1843. This, of course, is only an approximate valuation, but it cannot
be far wrong, and it leads to the conclusion that the capital of the
country has far more than doubled since 1840, while the increase of
the population has only been 28 per cent. This enormous mass of
wealth makes our national debt an easy burden compared with its
pressure in 1840, and the process of accumulation is still going on at
the average rate of at least £200,000,000 per annum.”
298 COBDEN AND FREE TRADE.
K.
The following table shows, in order of magnitude, the Annual Revenue
derived by various countries from Customs Duties, according to the
latest returns available :—
United States . «ss +. £26,200,000
Great Britain . =. ww. 20,000,000
France ‘ - 5 : : 4 . 10,250,000
Germany . : : : i - 5,880,000 -
Russia : 4 : : : : . 5,800,000
Italy . ‘ : 7 : : . 4,240,000
British India . r : ; , . 2,700,000
Austria. . : f : ; . 2,820,000
Portugal . : ; : : : . 1,850,000
Spain z : : 5 : 2M SNe Gened
Sweden . t ; ; - - 1,200,000
Denmark . ‘ . ‘ . ; . 1,100,000
Belgium . . : : : : : 865,000
Holland . ° 385,000
-—Sir L. Mauuer (Letter on Reciprocity).
Printed by WALTER Scott, ‘‘The Kenilworth Press,” Felling, Newcastle.
ae i i ; ve fie Ss 3 eet) .
% awk o , ‘ \ c. 4 2: } j
Spe \ ada} oe a a ‘ y ‘ \ a : t ~» Se ~~
: vt e = 2 aT *
* 7 < > e . J ~~ ~™h 5 bh hi
ap 4 hs © - rd . : w .. ® ¢ ay ‘ ? 4 oo» ‘ k %-