Chapter XVI (5)

“We have to report a very dull and unsatisfactory state of business in
this district during the month. There has been a gradual decline in
prices varying from 2½ to 7½ per cent, so that some kinds of goods can
now be bought fully 10 to 12 per cent under the rates which were
demanded in January. These reduced quotations have induced some
parties to enter the market, but still the demand has been much under
the average of what is usually experienced at this season of the year.
The working of ‘short time’ is now generally adopted by the producers
of coarse yarn and heavy goods, and several large mills continue
closed. The drooping tendency of some descriptions of the finer
fabrics has been slightly counteracted during the last week by more
favourable intelligence from Calcutta and China; still, however, our
market is unsteady, and it is more than usually difficult to form any
idea of what is likely to be the future course of prices.

“In the goods market a general quietness has prevailed throughout the
month, buyers acting with extreme caution, purchasing only in small
parcels for the supply of their more pressing wants: prices,
consequently, have been irregular, and some considerable sales have
been made by needy manufacturers at very low rates.”

The dulness here spoken of is particularly observable in the staple articles consumed by the home trade. Messrs Barbour and Brother state that—

“36-inch shirtings have participated in the general depression, and
stocks are beginning to accumulate. 66-reeds, 7¾ lb., have receded in
value 6d. to 9d. per piece, having been sold in February at 8s. to 8s.
4½d., whilst now they are worth only 7s. 6d. to 7s. 9d.”

Again:—

“Domestics T cloths and stout long cloths continue neglected,
notwithstanding the curtailed production, and can now be bought on
easier terms. Average qualities of domestics have been sold at 9d. per
lb., which is by no means remunerative to the maker.”

The concluding paragraph of the circular is very decisive as to the comparatively profitless nature of the manufacture:—

“Cotton has now declined about 1d. per lb. during the last three
months. It is still, however, much higher than is warranted by the
prices which can be obtained for the manufactured article. Indeed, _at
several periods during the last few years, prices of yarns and goods
have been quite as high as those now current, with cotton at 1d. to
2d. per lb. lower than at present_.”

Since the date of the circular containing these gloomy accounts, an important change has taken place, and the tide has set in strongly against the manufacturing community. Immediately subsequent to its publication, the arrival of the American mail-steamer brought news confirmatory of the anticipations of a short crop of cotton, and prices immediately advanced, leaving the spinners and manufacturers to recruit their exhausted stocks at a further loss, as compared with the prices of goods. On the 5th of April, the receipts of cotton at the ports of America were shown to be 310,000 bales less than at the same period of the preceding year; whilst the stock computed to be held in Liverpool was 511,000 bales, as compared with 447,300 bales held at the same date in 1849, or only 63,700 bales more than last year, although spinners had decreased their consumption by 6300 bales per week, and taken 40,000 bales from their own stocks. The total crop of the United States, which had been estimated in the beginning of the year at from 2,250,000 to 2,300,000 bales, was only estimated in the advices by the steamer at 2,100,000 bales.

I fear that, to some readers, these statistics may be rather tedious. They are necessary, however, to enable us fully to understand the position in which this important branch of the manufactures of the country, and the large population dependent upon it, have been placed by the intelligence brought by another later mail from the United States, which arrived in the Mersey on the morning of the 16th ult. I have stated that the estimates formed of the probable crop in America, at the beginning of the year, varied from 2,250,000 to 2,300,000 bales. These had been reduced, up to the arrival of the steamer in the first week of April, to 2,100,000 bales. With this progressive decline going on in the amount of the crop, as estimated by competent judges upon the spot, and with the fact of decreased receipts at the American ports before their eyes, the spinners of this country have, with few exceptions, resolutely refused to give credit to the representations made to them, and kept further exhausting their stocks on hand, or buying only to supply their immediate wants. The arrival of the Niagara, however, has put the question at rest, and not only confirmed the statements as to the crop being a short one, but established the fact that it is likely to be much shorter than was by anybody anticipated. The following is the startling disclosure made by Mr T. J. Stewart of New York, one of the best authorities in the United States, upon the subject, in his circular of the 2d ult.:—

“The crop proves to be a short one—and if measured by the ability of
the world to consume, the shortest one since ’41–’42. The falling off
in the receipts regularly exceeds the progressive estimate I made some
time since, and on which I made up my table of 2,100,000 bales. It
will close _under two millions of bales_. How far below, I cannot at
present say, but the interior of the country is exhausted of supplies
to so great a degree, that it is evident that such a figure is totally
impracticable.”

The decrease in the stocks arrived at the ports of America is put down by him now at 470,000 bales. Of this very insufficient crop of less than 2,000,000 bales—that of the preceding year, I may remark, was 2,728,000—Mr Stewart reminds us that _America will require above 600,000 bales to supply her own mills, or nearly two-fifths of the total quantity consumed in Great Britain last year_. This, of itself, is a somewhat startling fact, and proves the rapid strides which America is making toward depriving this country of its manufacturing pre-eminence.

It is obvious, from the above circumstances, that the American planters, and the holders of cotton in that country and in Liverpool, have the manufacturer at this moment within their grasp, and will be enabled to extort from his necessities still higher prices than those which have for months past rendered his business a losing one. The stocks of cotton held in the manufacturing districts are unprecedentedly light, and those of goods have been of late considerably reduced. But can an advance be secured on the manufactured article, corresponding with that demanded for the raw material? Few people believe this to be practicable. With the exception of a little temporary activity in the demand of goods for the East Indian market, towards the middle of last month, the gloomy feeling existing in every branch of the trade had deepened, and the demand for nearly every article perceptibly lessened. The accounts received by export houses from foreign markets are not of a character to encourage further operations; and the demand for the home trade remains very limited. In broad terms, _the leading foreign markets are glutted for months to come, and the population throughout the agricultural districts, and in the large towns of the kingdom as well, are diminishing their consumption of cotton and other fabrics to the lowest possible point_. With respect to the foreign trade, the worst feature is the falling off in the demand from the United States, to which I showed that, in the first two months of this year, we had shipped goods equal to the one half of last year’s exports. The returns for these shipments may be expected to be very unsatisfactory. On this subject, the last steamer (the Niagara) brought the following report:—

“The spring trade of New York _had disappointed all classes_. Early in
January there was an unusually active demand. High prices were
obtained, and large sales were made; since then business had fallen
off, and _the month of March, which ought to have been the best, had
been extremely dull—more so than had been known for many years_. The
stock of British and other foreign dry goods was not large, but the
demand was small.”

From this market, expectations of the most sanguine character had been previously indulged in, which are thus rudely dashed to the ground.

As yet the manufacturing community, stunned by the conviction which has been forced upon them of their desperate position, have formed no definite resolution as to the course to be pursued. For a week or two longer, it is possible that a portion of them may make further fruitless efforts to keep down the market for the raw material, which will now be held by speculators, aided by the abundant funds in the hands of bankers, with the certainty of ultimately realising higher rates. In the opinion of parties acquainted intimately with the whole circumstances of the trade, the only available course for spinners is to decrease consumption still further, by an extension of the system of working short time, or by closing a considerable portion of the mills altogether. Profitable working, even without an increase in the price of the raw material, is out of the question, with markets in their present depressed condition. But with such an advance as must be paid, if even the present reduced rate of consumption is to go on, the business would be perfectly ruinous.

It is painful to reflect upon the severe suffering which must be entailed upon the operative and middle classes, throughout the manufacturing districts, by a general suspension of operations, or even by an increase of short-time working. These classes, greatly reduced as their wages have been during the past two years, have not, I may repeat, recovered as yet from the effect of the suspension of manufacturing activity to which they were forced in 1847 and 1848; and are consequently in a much worse position to be thrown again upon their own resources. The neatly furnished cottage no longer remains to be dismantled for the purpose of providing food for their families. The little savings’ bank hoards disappeared in those years, and have not since been replaced. A few employers, no doubt, may be disposed to allow to their hands a pittance sufficient to provide against actual deprivation; but it is to be feared that the mass will act with no such humane considerateness. Another result of such a course must be still farther to decrease the consumption, and depress the prices, of our large stocks of imported produce, and thus to inflict heavy losses upon their holders.

It is to me perfectly clear, and the fact is tacitly admitted by a large portion of the community engaged in mercantile and manufacturing pursuits, that a most trying and fearful crisis is at hand; and that the present summer will not end without her Majesty’s Ministers, and the Free Trade party, being compelled to acknowledge that the speech from the Throne, and the representations of prosperity made by them at the opening of Parliament, were, if not deliberate perversions of the truth, at all events most ill-considered and hasty. We had in February last, it is now evident, no such thing as even prosperous manufactures, or a healthy state of commerce. Whilst these representations were being made, and agricultural pursuits alone pointed to as being in a state of temporary depression, the leading manufacture of the country was being carried on without profit, and our merchants and traders were feeling the ground shake beneath their feet. It is of no use, however, to refer to the past. The questions for the nation now to consider are—first, What is it which has brought about this general prostration of the country? and next, Where is the remedy to be applied? It is idle for the Free-traders to point any longer to potato rots, to railway manias, or to high prices of cotton, as the cause of the failure of their predictions of coming general prosperity. The truth is palpably before the world that the foreign trade, stimulate it as we may, will not employ the industry of the country; and that a prosperous home trade is indispensably necessary to render the foreign trade a profitable one. It is equally idle to tell us that the present state of things is only temporary, and that a different result of our recent policy will be attained by and by. In what direction are we to look for the change? Is any new world about to be discovered? Is there a single outlet to be found for our manufactures, which we cannot close up in a month? I confess that I cannot discern a gleam of hope for the future, or a prospect of the restoration of this great nation to its wonted prosperity, except in a total reversal of the legislation of the past few years, by which, and by which alone, has been caused that prostration of its industry and enterprise, which we are now witnessing on every side—in our own once happy land, and throughout the length and breadth of that vast colonial empire, once the pride of Great Britain, and the envy of the world, but now her shame, ruined and robbed as it has been by the legislation of designing or incapable statesmen. With our agricultural population fast sinking into pauperism and insolvency, or taking flight from our shores, as from those of an infected land, to fertilise with their capital and enterprise other soils, which own protective governments and a kindred people; with the landed aristocracy of the kingdom, and squirearchy and the yeomen, stripped of half their possessions—the baronial hall no longer distributing its hospitality to thousands, and pinching poverty and thrift marking the household arrangements, where of old there was plenty, a cup for the needy, and consolation and succour for the afflicted; with the middle classes in our towns forced down in the social scale, and hovering over the gulf of insolvency and ruin, and the labourer turned out, a desperate man, to wrest with the strong hand the food which we deny him the means to purchase, whilst we mock him with its cheapness—the manufacturing body will strive in vain for the consummation of that object which, in their selfishness, they proposed to themselves as the result of the boasted Free-trade policy—viz. the setting up of their houses over those of the time-honoured names of the land. Blindly and madly they have detached the handful of snow from the summit of the mountain; with mocking jeers of hideous and idiotic glee, they have seen its gathering bulk, and watched its progress as it rolled, prostrating the cottage and the farmstead, and spreading devastation over the vineyard and the waving corn; and they stand now shuddering at the mighty avalanche which is thundering above the tall chimney and the smoky town, and will shortly involve themselves in the general calamity and devastation. Yes, the fears of these men are at length beginning to be effectively roused by the contemplation of the work of their own hands. I say _beginning_, because the day of retribution is only now coming upon them, and making itself felt. The philosophers of the loom and spindle talk now “with bated breath” of the efficacy of their universal specific. There are doubting anxious faces on ‘Change, gloomy greetings as they meet in the streets, and idle hands in the once busy salerooms and warehouses. Many, whose voices were lately loud in cheering the flattering tales and sophistries of their Cobdens and Brights—some of those even whose subscriptions enabled the former to buy his Woodland farm, and whose votes and influence hoisted the blustering Quaker into a seat in the Legislature, are now ready to acknowledge, in private, that “there is some mistake;” that they have, perhaps, gone too far; and that, after all, Free Trade is “only an experiment.” Alas! it is one whose fatal effects will have to be deeply deplored, and from which the country will not recover for years to come. A quarter of a century of toil will scarcely replace the capital which has been swept away, up to the present period. More remains to be swept away; but now it will be the capital of the authors of the calamity.

And this portion of these philosophers are busily and eagerly striving to persuade the farmer that he is foolishly nervous under the apprehension of permanent low prices; and that these have now reached the level at which the foreigner can no longer supply us profitably. Unfortunately, whilst they are sagely assuring the world of this fact, grain and flour keeps steadily pouring into our ports, at still further reduced prices; and additional evidence is daily being afforded of the total ignorance of the subject displayed in their statistics and calculations: supplies are reaching us daily from countries which were left altogether out of the catalogue of those from whose growers we were led to anticipate competition. Thus from France, a country which it was always said was not able to grow sufficient for its own consumption, the receipts at the port of Liverpool during two weeks, in which alone the quantity is quoted separately, were as follows:—

French flour.
Week ending March 19, 6000 barrels.
April 9, 6166
and 2419 American.

And from that country, and the whole of the ports of the North of Europe, distant from us by only a few days’ sail—by a voyage made in less time than the average consumed in those made from port to port on our own coasts—supplies will continue to come, at rates with which the British grower can never hope to compete. In fact, the farmer of the North of Europe may in future be treated as a British subject—enjoying all the immunities of one, without contributing towards his burthens. He is nearer the London or the Liverpool markets than a Norfolk or a Lincolnshire farmer; and that he frequently pays less for the conveyance of his produce than it will be seen from the following table, which contains the rates actually paid in Liverpool by importing houses during the years beginning in 1847 to this year, such farmer pays:—

COASTING and FOREIGN FREIGHTS of WHEAT to LIVERPOOL.

┌─────────────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────────┐
│ │ 1847. │ 1848. │
├─────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ │ Per quarter. │ Per quarter. │
│ │_s. d._ _s. d._│_s. d._ _s. d._│
│From Stettin, │5 0 │ │
│ „ Dantzig, │4 6 │4 0 │
│ „ Rostock, │6 0 │4 0 │
│ „ Hamburg, │4 0 to 3 6 │4 0 to 3 0 │
│ „ Rotterdam, │ │2 6 │
│ „ Antwerp, │ │3 0 to 2 6 │
│ „ Bremen, │ │3 3 to 3 0 │
│ „ Bruges, │ │ │
│ „ Ghent, │ │ │
│ „ New York, │ │ │
│ (last │ │ │
│ rates,) │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│_From Coasts of │ │ │
│ England to │ │ │
│ Liverpool._ │ │ │
│ Colchester, │2 0 │2 0 │
│ Woodbridge, │2 6 │2 6 │
│ Salcombe, │2 6 │2 6 │
│ Kingsbridge,│2 6 │2 6 │
│ Lynn, │2 6 │2 1 │
│ Ipswich, │2 3 │1 9 │
│ Yarmouth, │2 1 │ │
└─────────────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────────┘

┌─────────────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────────┐
│ │ 1849. │ 1850. │
├─────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ │ Per quarter. │ Per quarter. │
│ │_s. d._ _s. d._│_s. d._ _s. d._│
│From Stettin, │4 0 to 2 9 │3 0 │
│ „ Dantzig, │4 0 │3 0 │
│ „ Rostock, │4 0 │ │
│ „ Hamburg, │3 0 │1 9 │
│ „ Rotterdam, │2 0 to 1 9 │1 9 │
│ „ Antwerp, │2 6 to 1 6 │1 3 to 1 0!│
│ „ Bremen, │ │1 6 │
│ „ Bruges, │1 6 │1 6 │
│ „ Ghent, │1 6 │1 6 │
│ „ New York, │ │3 0 │
│ (last │ │ │
│ rates,) │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│_From Coasts of │ │ │
│ England to │ │ │
│ Liverpool._ │ │ │
│ Colchester, │ │1 6 │
│ Woodbridge, │1 9 │1 6 │
│ Salcombe, │ │2 0 │
│ Kingsbridge,│2 0 │ │
│ Lynn, │ │ │
│ Ipswich, │1 9 to 1 6 │1 6 │
│ Yarmouth, │1 10 │ │
└─────────────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────────┘

Yet the freight on wheat was to be a sufficient protection for the farmer!

I must here, sir, leave the subject to your own powerful pen. I have given you the facts as I have collated them from the most authentic sources, and the observations which I have made personally; and they have more than confirmed the impressions with which I entered upon this inquiry.— have the honour to be, &c.

ALISON’S POLITICAL ESSAYS.[5]

The collection of scattered periodical essays, especially such as are of a strictly political character, is an adventure far more perilous to the reputation of an author than the issue of any single work deliberately planned, and laboriously executed in the closet. The historian, dealing solely with the records of the past, reviving or recreating pictures which have long ago appeared upon the ancient canvass, may without difficulty arrange his scattered portraits and groups in such an order, that they shall impress the public mind with a feeling of absolute novelty. A historical paradox, if ingeniously conceived and plausibly conveyed, is sure to command attention. The fickleness of the Athenians was by no means idiosyncratic to that volatile nation. All men weary of hearing the same phrase and the same judgment invariably repeated. They suspect the justice of Aristides, or the perfidy of Crookback Richard, on account of the unanimous verdict, and are by no means displeased when any daring casuist steps forward, armed with a tolerable array of proof, to detract from the rigid virtue of the one, or to palliate the vices of the other. In truth, the materials of all history are so various and conflicting in their character, that an artist of consummate skill, who is withal not over-scrupulous, may easily pass off fictions under the disguise of broad reality. Historical sketches, therefore, which relate to past events, may be viewed in the light either of lively episodes or of profound commentaries; and their republication, after a term of years, can in no way affect the soundness of the author’s judgment.

To republish criticisms, especially such as relate to the works of cotemporaries, is certainly a more delicate task. It is easy to comment upon an author whose works have been long before the public, and frequently and diligently scanned. High criticism may discover beauties or detect faults which have escaped the notice of less keen and scrutinising observers; but, in the aggregate, certainly in the majority of cases, the broad opinion which has been expressed by others is allowed to remain unchallenged. The influence of previous judgment invariably sways the critic. None are rash enough to deny the genius of Shakspeare; at the same time, nothing is more certain than that, were another Shakspeare to arise amongst us at this moment, there would be no kind of unanimity as to his deserts. In all ages and in all countries this has been the rule. Personal spite, unacknowledged and possibly unperceived envy, party difference of opinion, disparity of station, prejudice of education—all these, in their turn, have passed, like so many clouds, between the sun of living genius and the critics who surveyed its orbit. Nor ought we to overlook the fact that, in many instances, meteors have been mistaken for suns, and the eyes of the critic been dazzled by a glare, to which his own willing imagination lent at least one half its brilliancy. Therefore it is that contemporary criticism, when republished in an abiding form, rarely satisfies the expectation of the reader. His own judgment has been formed, apart from the considerations and prejudices which are so apt to beset the critic; and he conceives an unfavourable impression of the literary acuteness of the writer, when he finds a gross discrepancy between the older and the later estimate.

But far more trying to an author is the republication of political essays, composed during the progress of great national events. This branch of composition is peculiar to our own age, in which periodical literature is so marked and eminent a feature. Pamphleteering is of venerable date. Sir Thomas More, Milton, Marvell, Swift, and Defoe, were all notable pamphleteers; but periodical writing, in the highest sense of the term, is the invention of the present century. That great and influential organs of public opinion, ranking among their contributors the men of the highest intellect and the most laborious acquirements, should have been established in our time, marks not only the development of the influence of the press, but the importance of the events which such men are imperatively summoned to discuss. It marks even more, for it has established a power beyond the boundaries of the old constitution, which, as it is used or misused, cannot fail to affect materially the destinies of Great Britain.

Every political treatise referring to events which have engrossed the attention of the day, either as modifications or as changes of our social system, must be valuable in later years. It must necessarily recommend or condemn measures on account of their probable operation in the time to come; it must in some degree be a prophecy, or else it is practically worthless. The politician studies the past merely as his guide for the future. If he is learned, wise, and at all an adept in the science which he professes—than which no other is of so momentous an import—he will consider past history as the barometer which must guide him in predicating the approach either of a tempest or a calm. Temporary clamour or occasional obstruction will not lead him to forsake clear principles of action, or to recommend a grand constitutional remedy in the case of a trifling local disease. He must look forward beyond the sphere of immediate action—resolute in this belief, that one false step, however small, may upset the equilibrium of the State. Expediency, the modern idol, finds little favour in the eyes of the true and sagacious statesman. He tests measures by their intrinsic value, regardless of the “pressure from without;” and he looks upon Parliamentary majorities as of less moment than the maintenance of the real interests of his country.

If we apply these remarks to our later political history, and to the conduct of those men whom circumstances have elevated to the highest stations in Government, we shall at once perceive that the first great principles of practical statesmanship have been abandoned. The welfare and integrity of the Empire has been made a subsidiary object to the triumph of party ambition; and accordingly, CONSISTENCY, that grand test of a politician’s sincerity and soundness, is the very quality which is wanting. To consistency, indeed, neither Lord John Russell nor Sir Robert Peel, for many years the rival chiefs of party, can lay the slightest claim. They have been playing a long, and, doubtless, an interesting game, with the map of Britain and its dependencies before them as a chess-board: they have directed the whole of their energies to giving checkmate to one another; and with this view they have again and again altered the relative positions of king and queen, bishops, knights, castles, and pawns. To counteract the last move of his adversary was the great object of each of these ingenious players. It was a pretty trial of dexterity and finesse; but we trust, for the sake of the chessmen, that the match is finally concluded. Talent of this kind may, indeed, be available when it is necessary to contend with a foreign adversary; but it is worse than mischievous when practised systematically at home.

To have surveyed the political events of the last twenty years with a calm and dispassionate eye—to estimate the consequences of each concession to popular clamour, and each move for party purposes—to form inductions as to the future from the indelible history of the past—to trace the causes of social misery and disquiet to their remote and recondite source—to discern the coming cloud of adversity in the midst of apparent abundance—required more than common thought, learning, sagacity, and prescience; and the man who has done all this, cannot fail to be ranked, in the estimation of those whose judgment is of real value, among the first masters of political and economic science. Many brilliant commentaries upon passing events, which at the first blush were received as absolute oracles of wisdom, have utterly failed in their predictions, and are now consigned to oblivion. They failed—if from no other cause, at least assuredly from this—that they flowed from the pens of partisans, whose whole energies were devoted to the advancement of themselves and their faction. Party spirit, indeed, has of late years almost entirely overshadowed that patriotism which was once our highest boast. Truth may be spoken of an opponent—and very often more than truth; but it is seldom expressed with regard to the political conduct of those whom men are accustomed to regard as their friends. Private motives are allowed to interfere with the more rigorous functions of the censor; the moralist is changed into the apologetic rhetorician; the judge becomes the interested advocate.

Were the present crisis of our political history less momentous than it truly is—were not the great and final struggle for a return to the principles, by means of which our national greatness was achieved, so near at hand—we might, from motives and considerations easily appreciable, have left this volume of Mr Alison’s collected political essays without any special notice. For a long period of years, embracing the most important changes which have been made in the institutions and relations of this country, Mr Alison has been a constant contributor to the Magazine, adopting his own views, enforcing his own opinions, without reference to the distinctions of party or the position of individual statesmen. We believe that, in some respects, the attitude of the Magazine has differed from that assumed by any periodical publication in the country. It has never been the organ of a Party, and never subservient to a Government. Many times we have been compelled to differ from those whose political opinions have been thought most closely to approximate to our own; and never have we hesitated to express that difference in clear and unambiguous terms, knowing that a true and honourable conviction never ought to be concealed, or can be without affecting the integrity of those who entertain it.

The present publication sufficiently discloses the part which Mr Alison has taken in the political discussions which have arisen during that eventful period. They are valuable to the rising generation for two especial reasons. In the first place, they are a faithful record of the impressions which passing events made upon the mind of a highly-gifted, generous, and independent man, the object of whose life was apart from those pursuits which inflame the passions, whilst they warp the judgment, of the mere partisan. In the second place, they will enable the reader to trace, step by step, the innovations which modern Liberalism has made upon the older limits of the constitution; and to estimate the consistency of those who at one time affected to be the opponents of that Liberalism, and at another, whether through weakness, or treachery, or ambition, came forward to assist in its blind and infatuated progress.

Perhaps the most interesting papers in the present volume are those which refer to the memorable and exciting era of the Reform Bill. They are not only interesting, but highly instructive in a constitutional point of view, as showing the utter disregard of the Whig faction to the maintenance of that political framework which, when in power, they affect to worship with almost superstitious veneration. Never, probably, was there a period in our history when the passions of the populace were more dexterously and deliberately excited by men of high station, and by no means contemptible intellect. Treason was then in vogue: sedition openly encouraged. Most of us can recollect the ugly and ominous emblems which were paraded through the streets of the larger towns, and the violence with which every one supposed to be hostile to the popular measure was assailed. Haughty aristocrats, like the late Earl Grey, condescended to treat with Jacobin clubs and political unions; the physical power of the masses was appealed to as an argument of irresistible weight, and Whig officials were privy to the plan of a projected Birmingham insurrection. The voice of reason was entirely stifled amidst the general democratic howl, and all suggestions as to a modification of the grand electoral scheme were treated with fierce hostility. The framers of the measure had no wish that its details should be narrowly sifted, or submitted to the test of principle. There was a deep meaning in the phrase, which at that time passed into a proverb, “The Bill—the whole Bill—and nothing but the Bill!” No other method of reform, however large and comprehensive, would have suited the junta who then deemed themselves secure of an interminable lease of power. And why? Because any other measure which might have embraced the claim of the Colonies to a share in the Imperial representation, would have interfered with their special project of lowering the landed interest, and giving a decided preponderance in Parliament to the votes of the urban population.

We are far from wishing to maintain that the spirit which animated the councils of the Conservative leaders of the day was in all respects the most prudent; or that they did not to a certain extent accelerate the movement by withholding minor concessions, which might have been gracefully and advantageously given. But in justice to them it must be remembered, that they had a great principle to contend for—a principle too little understood then, and perhaps only now becoming generally appreciated on account of the pernicious effects which have resulted from its violation. The older Representative system of Great Britain might appear to the casual eye artificial, unequal, and therefore unjust; but it had this grand and wholesome advantage, which we look for in vain in its successor, that, by means of it, not only were the great classes of the community at home adequately represented, but our fellow-subjects of the Colonies could, and did, exercise a direct influence within the walls of St Stephen’s. To allow this influence to be encroached on, however covertly or plausibly, seemed tantamount to an abandonment of the principle by which the Conservative party had been guided throughout; and subsequent events have shown that no exaggerated estimate was formed of the tendencies of democratic rule. This conviction of the prospective danger of the Reform measure to the integrity of the British Empire was, we know, the main cause of that early, though perhaps injudicious, resistance to the extension of the electoral suffrage, which finally gave way before the impulse added to popular excitement by the example of foreign revolution. As regarded the welfare of our Colonies, the Reform Bill was virtually a death-blow. It laid the foundation for a rapid succession of measures, selfish in their tendency and grossly impolitic, which have already gone far to pervert the loyal feelings of the Colonists, by teaching them that the mother country has decided upon a policy altogether injurious to their interests as subjects of the British Crown. They have had no voice, no direction in the legislative enactments which have since that time so deeply affected their prosperity; they have been governed rather as tributaries than as portions of the Empire; and their complaints have been too often treated with undisguised contumely, or, at best, with haughty indifference. Our opinion as to the importance of the maintenance of our Colonial dominions, and the imminent necessity which exists of securing that maintenance by giving them some effective voice in the legislative councils of Great Britain, has been repeatedly expressed. No other step will suffice to stay the tide of disaffection; and happy will it be for all of us, if the practical refutation of the Free-trade delusion, now becoming every day more obvious and acknowledged, shall lead to such prudent measures, with regard to our dependencies, as may again consolidate into one great and united mass, inspired by the same feelings and actuated by the same interests, the scattered elements of British greatness and renown.

But apart altogether from Colonial considerations, the Reform Bill has been productive of the most serious consequences to the internal economy of this country. Under its benign operation the National Debt, instead of being diminished, is augmented; whilst, at the same time, by a system of ruinous cheapness, induced by the free admission of foreign produce to compete in the home market with our own, incomes have been lowered by nearly a half, and the means of paying the increased taxation have been proportionably curtailed. We do not believe that the Whigs, while straining every energy to carry the Reform Bill, meditated the possibility of any such results. We have their own statements—at least those of Lords Melbourne and John Russell—to the contrary; and even were it otherwise, we are not disposed to attribute to that party so great a share of political prescience, as to assume that they foresaw the consequences of their own deliberate act.

It was, however, foreseen by others. In 1831, Mr Alison, arguing from historical precedents, predicted that the natural effect of the passing of the Reform Bill would be the repeal of the Corn Laws.

“When it is recollected,” wrote he, “that 300 English members of the
Reformed house are to be for the boroughs, and only 150 for the
counties, it may easily be anticipated that this effect is certain.
And in vain will the House of Peers strive to resist such a result:
their power must have been so completely extinguished before the
Reform Bill is past, that any resistance on their part would be
speedily overcome.

“This first and unavoidable consequence of this great change will at
once set the manufacturing classes at variance with the agricultural
interest; and then will commence that fatal war between the different
classes of society, which has hitherto been only repressed by the
weight and authority of a stable, and, in a certain degree, hereditary
government, composed of an intermixture of the representatives of
_all_ interests. When it is recollected that wheat can be raised with
ease in Poland at prices varying from 17s. to 20s. a quarter, and that
it can be laid down on the quay of any harbour in Britain at from 33s.
to 40s., it may easily be anticipated what a revolution in prices
will, in the _first instance_, be effected by this measure. We say in
the _first_ instance—for nothing seems clearer than that the
_ultimate_ effect will be, by throwing a large portion of British land
out of cultivation, and in its stead producing a more extensive growth
of grain on the shores of the Vistula, to restore the equilibrium
between the supply of corn and its consumption, and, by means of
destroying a large portion of British agriculture, raise the prices
again to their former standard.”

We have lately been favoured, from certain quarters, with ingenious
disquisitions touching the probable future price of grain in this
country—disquisitions to which we by no means object, as, apart
altogether from their truth or their falsity, they manifest a growing
uneasiness as to the possibility of maintaining the Free-trade system
for many months longer. We may perhaps be allowed to take some credit
to ourselves for having effected this change in the tone and
sentiments of gentlemen who, not long ago, were clamorous in their
praise of cheap food and diminished agricultural prices. In our
January Number, by the aid of the most intelligent, skilful, and
experienced agriculturists of Scotland, we proved, beyond the power of
refutation, that no British farmer could stand his ground against the
present influx of foreign corn, and that no possible reduction of
rent, short of its annihilation, would enable him to meet the
deficiency. We were met, as might naturally be expected, by the double
weapons of rancorous abuse and deliberate falsification.[6] But these
having utterly failed in their purpose, our antagonists have since
changed their ground altogether, and are now attempting to argue,
against the experience of each successive week, that the present fall
of prices is merely temporary, and that wheat must again rise to
something like its former level. How long they may continue in their
endeavours to propagate this fresh delusion we know not. They cannot
mislead the farmers, at whose door ruin is at present knocking with an
unmistakeable sound. The only men they can mislead are their unhappy
dupes, who have been taught to believe that the prosperity of Britain
depends solely upon one of the weakest, most unstable, and most
precarious of its manufactures.

In the same article from which we have just quoted, Mr Alison wrote as follows:—

“Now, the misery arising from the reduction of the resources of the
farmer could not be confined to his own class in society; it would
immediately and seriously affect the manufacturing and commercial
interests. The great trade of every country, as Adam Smith long ago
remarked, is between the town and the country: by far the greatest
part of the produce of our looms is consumed by those who, directly or
indirectly, are fed by the British plough. Not the haughty aristocrat
only, who spends his life in luxurious indolence among his hereditary
trees, but the innumerable classes who are maintained by his rents and
fed by his expenditure—the numerous creditors who draw large parts of
his rents through their mortgages, and live in affluence in distant
towns upon the produce of his land—the farmers, who subsist in
comparative comfort on the industry which they exert on his
estates—the tradesmen and artisans, who are fed by his expenditure or
the wants of his tenantry—all would suffer alike by such a change of
prices as should seriously affect the industry of the cultivators.
Every shopkeeper knows how much he is dependent on the expenditure of
those who directly or indirectly are maintained by the land, and what
liberal purchasers landlords are, compared to those who subsist by
manufactures; and it is probable that the first and greatest sufferers
by the repeal of the Corn Laws would be many of those very persons
whose blind cry for Reform had rendered it unavoidable.

“Now, the discouragement of British agriculture consequent on a
free-trade in corn would be _permanent_, although the benefit to the
inhabitants of towns could only be temporary. After the destruction of
a large portion of British agriculture had been effected, by the
immense inundation of foreign grain, prices would rise again to their
former level, because the monopoly would then be vested in the hands
of the foreign growers; and the bulky nature of grain renders it
_physically_ impossible to introduce an _unlimited_ supply of that
article by sea transport. But the condition of British agriculture
would not be materially benefited by the change; because prices would
rise _solely_ in consequence of the British grower being, for the most
part, driven out of the field; and could be maintained at a high level
only by his being _kept_ from an extensive competition with the
foreign cultivator. Should the British farmers, recovering from their
consternation, recommence the active agriculture which at present
maintains our vast and increasing population, the consequence would
be, that prices would immediately fall to such a degree, as speedily
to reduce them to their natural and unavoidable state of inferiority
to the farmers of the Continent.

“In considering this subject, there are two important circumstances to
be kept in view, proved abundantly by experience, but which have not
hitherto met with the general attention which they deserve.

“The first of these is, that, in agriculture—differing in this respect
from manufactures—the introduction of machinery, or the division of
labour, can effect _no reduction whatever_ in the price of its
produce, or the facility of its production; and perhaps the best mode
of cultivation yet known is that which is carried on by the greatest
possible application of human labour, in the form of spade
cultivation. The proof of this is decisive. Great Britain, with the
aid of the steam-engine, can undersell the weavers of Hindostan with
muslins manufactured out of cotton grown on the banks of the Ganges;
but it is undersold in its own markets by the wheat-grower on the
banks of the Vistula, or in the basin of the Mississippi. It is in
vain, therefore, for a state like England, burdened with high prices
and an excessive taxation—the natural consequence of commercial
opulence—to hope that its industry can, in agriculture as in
manufactures, withstand the competition of the foreign grower.
Machinery, skill, and capital can easily counteract high prices in all
other articles of human consumption: in agriculture, they can produce
no such effect. This is a law of nature which will subsist to the end
of the world.

“The second is, that a comparatively small importation of grain
produces a prodigious effect on the prices at which it is sold. The
importation of a tenth part of the annual consumption does not, it is
calculated, lower prices a tenth, but _a half_—and so on with the
importation of smaller quantities. This has always been observed, and
is universally acknowledged by political economists. Although,
therefore, the greatest possible importation of foreign grain must
always be a part only of that required for the consumption of the
whole people, yet still the effect upon the current rate of prices
would be most disastrous. The greatest importation ever known was in
1801, when it amounted, in consequence of the scarcity, to an
_eighteenth_ part of the annual consumption; but the free introduction
of much less than that quantity would reduce the price of wheat in the
first instance, in an ordinary year, to 45s. the quarter.

“The repeal of the Corn Laws, therefore, is calculated to inflict a
_permanent_ wound on the agricultural resources of the empire, and
permanently injure all the numerous classes who depend on that branch
of industry, and confer only a _temporary_ benefit, by the reduction
of prices, on the manufacturing labourers. The benefit is temporary,
and mixed up, even at first, with a most bitter portion of alloy; the
evil lasting, unmitigated by any benefit whatever.”

We are now in the course of enduring that precise phase of suffering, arising from the repeal of the Corn Laws, which was predicted by Mr Alison more than eighteen years ago; and it is solely from the extent of that suffering that we are inclined to form a better augury for the future than we could have ventured to have done in the course of the bygone year. Three months have not passed since, at the opening of Parliament, the Whig Ministry with unparalleled audacity ventured to congratulate the country on its general prosperous condition! Themselves indeed they might congratulate, that, by means of an income and property tax, imposed under false pretences by a former Premier, the public revenue was still sufficient to meet its ordinary engagements; but what other ground of congratulation there was, no host of witnesses could tell. Could they venture to congratulate the country _now_ on the state of the manufacturing districts? Has this little interval of three months, at a time of universal peace and unparalleled cheapness, sufficed to change universal prosperity into widespread and acknowledged depression? Not so. The depression had begun long before—it commenced so soon as falling prices warned the agricultural consumers of the fate which was in store for them; and if Ministers did not know this, they are utterly unfit to retain their places longer. The continuance of that depression can be only measured by the existence of the Free-trade system. If that is allowed to go on, and if there be indeed, as is now the common cant of the Liberal journalists, no possibility of retracing our steps, the next move will be one of plunder. No foreign trade can compensate for the tithe of the loss sustained by the depreciation of property at home. That cheapness which means nothing else than curtailment of individual profits, from the highest to the lowest, cannot possibly coexist with expensive government and enormous taxation. The public creditor will be marked for the next blow; and his situation is the more precarious from the peculiar monetary history of the country, and the first important measure—pity also that it had not been the last!—which Sir Robert Peel was instrumental in carrying through the House of Commons.

We are not only hopeful but sanguine as to the power of Great Britain in extricating herself from a difficulty, not transient as before, but settled in its character, because we believe that the downfal of a wretched, presuming, and ignorant faction cannot be much longer delayed. We have been cursed, for many years back, by the predominance of a race of quacks, impostors, sham economists, and political adventurers, who, through favour of the Reform Bill, have forced their way into Parliament, after having failed in the ordinary occupations of trade, and have succeeded in palming their crude and pestilential doctrines upon Ministers too occupied with individual ambition to care much for the public welfare. Does any one believe that such men have any interest in maintaining the public credit, or that they would not, did an opportunity occur, attempt to defraud the creditor, as they have already succeeded in diminishing the means of the debtor? Surely a thoughtful review of the political events which have occurred within the last five years is enough to remove any lingering credulity on this point. We do not ask any one to adopt our views, or to accept our construction. Let him deliberately reflect upon the language of these men in 1845, when the political and commercial fever was at its height—when private individuals were persuaded that they might rear fortunes without the drudgery of industry, and when statesmen were preparing to recommend the same false principle for the general guidance of the nation. How the upstart economists swaggered, strutted, and cackled then! Not a whit less incompetent and treacherous, as guides in their own path, than were the mushroom clerks and pimpled adventurers of the Stock Exchanges in another, they stood forth like so many political John Laws, proclaiming that unbounded wealth, increased demand for labour, and endless influx of capital would be the immediate result of their magnificent free-trading schemes. They had figures and blue-books, returns, calculations and balance-sheets, painfully concocted by plodding theorists, ready at hand to back up their asseverations, and to satisfy the doubts of the most sceptical. This is peculiarly an age in which men are befooled by figures. A century ago, it was enough that a statement should pass from writing into print, and be included in the columns of a journal, in order to secure its currency as a point of popular belief. The increase of journalism has in some respects remedied this, most men being now alive to the fact that typography possesses no peculiar immunity from falsehood. But figures are—or at least were a few years ago—untainted in their reputation. Few people were cautious enough to resist a tempting calculation. It never entered into their heads to suppose that there lay gross error, radical fallacy, and often deliberate fraud, in the imposing array of cyphers which were ostentatiously paraded for their inspection. If half-a-dozen unscrupulous swindlers determined to start a railway, nothing more was required to secure a rush for the scrip, than a summary of phantom traffic, exhibiting a clear return of some fifteen or twenty per cent after deduction of the working expenses. We all know what has been the result of that widespread infatuation. In precisely the same manner did the economists concoct their accounts, when they issued their Free-trade prospectus. Less honest, or perhaps more daringly fraudulent than the railway projectors, they did not propose to grant any compensation for the land at all, but their traffic tables were undoubtedly an arithmetical _chef-d’œuvre_! Two millions per week of clear gain was about the smallest estimate; and to this result various persons, whose previous biography, now that they have emerged as public characters, might be interesting, pledged their valuable reputations!

That they imposed upon the leaders of party, as well as upon a large section of the nation, is no matter of marvel. Statesmen are not exempt from folly, imprudence, or delusion, any more than private persons. One may be cold, selfish, and greedy; another rash, unscrupulous, and obstinate; but, as there are few fish which will not take a bait, so there seem to be few modern statesmen proof against the temptation of altering their policy, if, by doing so, they believe that they can secure possession of an unlimited lease of power. In the present case the bait was dexterously spun between the two rivals, and the anxiety of both to secure it was so great, that neither took the precaution of examining curiously into the nature of its actual texture.