The corn law question shortly investigated
THE
CORN LAW QUESTION
SHORTLY INVESTIGATED;
ADDRESSED PRINCIPALLY TO THE
AGRICULTURISTS OF SCOTLAND,
by
DAVID HUNTER, of Blackness, Esq.
"HOC FONTE DERIVATA CLADES."
EDINBURGH:—LAING AND FORBES.
MDCCCXXXIX.
EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY J. THOMSON.
THE
CORN LAW QUESTION
SHORTLY INVESTIGATED.
It is in vain to deny that a great and simultaneous effort will shortly be again made during the present Session of Parliament, entirely to do away with the laws which have hitherto existed for the protection of that hitherto all-important interest, British Agriculture. Societies are forming in every quarter, with large subscription funds—meetings are held, at which the most preposterous doctrines are propounded—and the agriculturist stands quietly by, without a murmur, as Sir R. Walpole said, "while the fleece is being shorn from his back." It is this which has caused the present writer to take up his pen, and, however inadequately, to endeavour to rouse all those who have the well-being of the state at heart, to a sense of their impending danger and ruin.
This is no party question; it is one of much higher and more paramount importance, involving the interest of every class of society; and therefore, from its very magnitude, calls on every individual, be his talents what they may, to come boldly forward and express his opinion, and to discuss the question fairly and openly—to meet the "Repealers" with their own weapons—agitate, agitate,—and by sending up petitions from every district in the country—then and only then, will the agriculturists have a chance of justice—and then only will they have the question settled on its substantial merits. They must be prepared to show that they are not to be put down by clamour—that they are not to be sacrificed—not to be put in the mire for the supposed benefit of another interest—that their's is the greatest interest in the state, involving not only the existence of eight or ten millions of a "bold peasantry, their country's pride," but of a capital amounting to three million of millions—which has been invested on the national faith, and which should be held as sacred as the national debt itself—while the capital employed in manufactures is only estimated at L. 217,773,000, or 1 in 15, as compared with the agricultural; and with the further superiority, that the one is all fixed and real in the agricultural, whereas the manufacturing consists of buildings and machinery, of a very transient value.
In approaching the investigation of this national question, I shall first glance at the alleged grievances of the Repealers. These are,
That a total repeal of the Corn Laws is absolutely necessary, from the great decrease of our manufactures and commerce, and the great increase of manufactures on the continent of Europe and other places; and that all prohibitory laws affecting our intercourse with foreign nations, and the duties on importation of foreign corn ought to be abolished. That the high rate of wages and labour in this country entirely precludes the manufacturer from competing with the foreigner; and that a total repeal of the duties on foreign corn is the only means of increasing our home and foreign trade, and bringing wages and prices to the level of the continent.
Now, how stands the fact? Have our manufactures decreased, or have foreign manufactures increased in a relative ratio? If neither of these have taken place, are not the premises of the repealers wholly erroneous, and their conclusions good for nothing? There is not a doubt, that so far from our foreign trade having decreased, it has most materially increased, which I shall show by facts and figures, which cannot be controverted or misunderstood. Before doing so, however, I do think that nothing can be more extraordinary than to assert, that because a flax-mill happens to be set agoing in Belgium, or a cotton-mill in Germany or Switzerland, or a woollen-mill in Saxony, that that is any proof of our manufacturing decline. Belgium and Holland, it is well known, grow the finest flax in the world—were the original seat of the linen and woollen trade centuries ago—and besides, are the most densely peopled country in Europe, and equally civilized as ourselves, consequently have all the adaptation for a manufacturing country. Can it therefore be surprising, that after twenty-five years' peace, they should turn their attention to manufactures, and the more civilized arts of life, which they saw this and other countries so successfully following? One would really be led to believe that our mill-spinners and manufacturers imagined that they had a kind of patent right to supply the whole world with their wares, looked upon the fact of a pair of stockings being spun in Saxony, or a piece of cotton or wool wove in Belgium, as acts of a most outrageous description, which, unless immediately put an end to, betokened their immediate ruin, and that of all England! Does it follow that the corn act is the fruitful source of all this misery, and that its immediate repeal is the only means of cure, and of increasing our home and foreign trade? some carrying their nostrums so far as to declare British agriculture a curse to the country, and that were not a boll of corn grown in the country, so much the better would it be for the country and its manufacturing interest! Such theories are really too absurd to be listened to seriously, and worthy only of those who can apply sophistry to any side of a question. One would almost be led to believe that the demand for manufactures depended principally, if not entirely, upon the quantity of foreign corn imported and used in this country, and that the countries of northern Europe were their only customers! always taking care to tell us that the manufacturing interest, and the export of our manufactures in particular, are paramount to every other consideration.
Does it never strike these individuals to put a value on the home trade as compared with the foreign? The following table I beg to subjoin from Mr. M'Queen's Statistics of the British Empire, from which it will be observed, that the foreign trade only forms some eighth part of the general amount.
| Produced | Exported | |
| Cotton manufactures | L.52,573,386 0 0 | L.20,573,586 0 0 |
| Woollen goods | 44,250,000 0 0 | 5,736,871 0 0 |
| Linen goods | 15,421,186 0 0 | 2,579,658 0 0 |
| Silk ditto | 13,445,510 0 0 | 637,013 0 0 |
| Hardware, cutlery | 38,170,600 0 0 | 2,869,437 0 0 |
| Butter and cheese | 20,500,000 0 0 | 281,881 0 0 |
| Coals and culm | 17,984,887 0 0 | 218,205 0 0 |
| Brass and copper | 4,900,000 0 0 | 961,606 0 0 |
| Leather | 18,000,000 0 0 | 248,302 0 0 |
| Beer, ale, and spirits | 47,163,847 0 0 | 192,698 0 0 |
| Cabinet wares | 14,000,000 0 0 | 377,941 0 0 |
| Total, | L.274,186,193 0 0 | L.34,617,198 0 0 |
Here then is a comparative value of our home versus our foreign trade—by which it appears that our loudly boasted foreign trade does not amount to one eighth part of the value of our home trade—but even were they nearer an equality—the comparative value of a home and foreign trade has been laid down by Dr. Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, a work of which Mr. M'Culloch, in his introduction to his edition of the work, says:—"In this work the science is, for the first time, treated in its fullest extent; and the fundamental principles on which the production of wealth depends, established beyond the reach of cavil and dispute." The effect on the capital of a country abandoning any given home trade, and adopting a foreign in its place, is thus stated by Dr. Smith in the 2d book and 5th chapter of that great work:—
"The capital which is employed in purchasing in one part of the country in order to sell in another the produce of the industry of that country, generally replaces, by every such operation, two distinct capitals, that had both been employed in the agriculture or manufactures of the country, and therefore enables them to continue that manufacture. When it sends out, from the residence of the merchant, a certain value of commodities, it generally brings back in return at least an equal value of other commodities. When both are the produce of domestic industry, it necessarily replaces, by every such operation, two distinct capitals, which had both been employed in supporting productive labour, and thereby enables them to continue that support. The capital which sends Scotch manufactures to London, and brings back English corn and manufactures to Edinburgh, necessarily replaces, by every such operation, two British capitals, which had both been employed in the agriculture or manufactures of Great Britain.
"The capital employed in purchasing foreign goods for home consumption, when this purchase is made with the produce of domestic industry, replaces also, by every such operation, two distinct capitals, but one of them only is employed in supporting domestic industry. The capital which sends British goods to Portugal, and brings back Portuguese goods to Great Britain, replaces, by every such operation, only one British capital. The other is a Portuguese one. Though the returns, therefore, of the foreign trade of consumption should be as quick as those of the home trade, the capital employed in it will give but one half of the encouragement to the industry or productive labour of the country."
This passage shews the opinion of Adam Smith, that foreign, as compared with home trade, gives but one half the encouragement to the productive labour of a country; and a similar doctrine is laid down by the French economist, Monsieur Say, as follows:—"The British Government seems not to have perceived that the most profitable sales to a nation are those made by one individual to another within the nation, for these latter employ a national production of two values,—the value sold, and that given in exchange."
Thus, two of the most eminent writers on the science of political economy agree entirely in the conclusion that home is doubly advantageous to foreign trade.
The question of the comparative value of a home and a foreign trade being thus disposed of, I cannot doubt its being admitted that no trade is more precarious than a foreign, and none so steady and productive as a home one; in fact, the home trade is the barometer of the national weal and prosperity.
Nor can any argument be more absurd than that a repeal of the corn laws would tend to keep steady the prices of grain;—in confirmation of this, it is only necessary to refer to the ill effects, by means of fluctuation in price, which a different system had produced at the latter end of the last and beginning of the present century. From the year 1797 to 1801 there was a fluctuation in prices of 220 per cent;—for the next period of three years, the fluctuation was 100 per cent, the average being 69s. 9d.; from 1807 to 1811 the variation was 74 per cent, the average being 88s.; and from 1817 to 1824 the variation was 143 per cent; and this brings you down to the period of the existing law; the variation in price of the present law, up to 1834, a period of ten years, has never exceeded 49 per cent.
The argument is equally fallacious, viz. that the labouring part of our population will be benefited thereby. Wages, from the increased competition of that portion of the agricultural classes thrown out of employment by the abandonment of poor lands, and necessarily thrown on the manufacturing class for support, must consequently reduce wages to the lowest possible level—the sole gainer will be the capitalist or millowner; and this state of things will continue for a time, until some ruinous storm, or commercial panic, from over-trading, takes place in some distant and uncontrollable market, and then bankruptcies, with their attendant horrors, will overwhelm the land; the labourers will discover the fallacy of being dependant on precarious employment for their cheap foreign bread, and the value of that security which British agriculture has always afforded them, viz. constant, equally paid, and unvarying employment. How often have we seen within our recollection, under a temporary depression of trade, the manufacturing population thrown back on the agriculturists for support? On whom are they henceforth to fall, when that support is withdrawn? It will then be discovered, when perhaps it is too late, that one of the paramount advantages which raises the agricultural interest, now so undervalued, above other interests is, that the interest of the producer never can be at variance with that of the consumer; for this obvious reason, that the prosperity of the producer creates, to a great extent, the demand for which his labour furnishes the supply. What sympathy will the grower of corn, in the north of Europe, feel in the distresses arising from the depression of trade? To the cries of our starving operatives, the answer will be, "Gold, gold, and we will give you bread;" or, in other words, "transfer us your capital, and we shall feed you with the scanty liberality with which it may best suit the interests of our Exchequers to encourage a horde of needy and miserable dependants."
But I now come to the assertion of the Abolitionists, "the great decrease of our manufactures and commerce generally." This I most totally deny; and, to establish the fact, it is sufficient to refer to the official statement below, by which it will be observed, that, taking a period of ten years—1826 to 1836—our foreign trade has increased in a most extraordinary ratio. The imports and exports of 1836, as compared with 1826, having positively doubled the exports of British and Irish produce and manufactures of 1836—showing an increase over 1826 of 105 per cent.
| Years. | Imports of Foreign and Colonial Merchandise. | Exports of Foreign and Colonial Merchandise. | Exports of British and Irish Manufactures. | Real or Declared Value of British and Irish Produce and Manufactures Exported. |
| 1826 | L.37,686,113 | L.10,076,286 | L.40,965,735 | L.31,536,723 |
| 1827 | 44,887,774 | 9,830,728 | 52,219,280 | 37,181,335 |
| 1828 | 45,028,805 | 9,946,545 | 52,797,455 | 36,812,756 |
| 1829 | 43,981,317 | 10,622,402 | 56,213,041 | 35,842,623 |
| 1830 | 46,245,241 | 8,550,437 | 61,140,864 | 38,271,597 |
| 1831 | 49,713,889 | 10,745,071 | 60,683,933 | 37,164,372 |
| 1832 | 44,586,741 | 11,044,869 | 65,026,702 | 36,450,594 |
| 1833 | 45,952,551 | 9,833,753 | 69,989,339 | 39,667,347 |
| 1834 | 49,362,811 | 11,562,036 | 73,831,550 | 41,649,191 |
| 1835 | 48,911,542 | 12,797;724 | 78,376,731 | 47,372,270 |
| 1836 | 57,023,867 | 12,391,711 | 85,229,837 | 53,368,571 |
It will thus appear, from an inspection of this Table, that our exports of British and Irish produce and manufactures has increased within the last ten years, at the following enormous rate: —
| In 1826, they amounted to | L.40,965,735 |
| In 1836, to | 85,229,837 |
| or an increase of 105 per cent. Now, of the above amount, Northern Europe, including all Germany, (the corn-growing country,) just took | L.9,999,861 |
| While, in 1826, it took | 7,822,776 |
| or an increase of 25 per cent. | |
| Russia (included in the above) seems to have remained very steady; for in 1827, she took of British exports, | L. 1,402,970 |
| and in 1836, she took | 1,742,433 |
From Russia, England draws the whole of her flax, hemp, tallow, hides, &c.; and yet the whole manufactures Russia takes in return, only amount to about a forty-fifth of our general exports. Were we to take her Polish corn in addition, duty free, would they be materially increased?—I fear not. Russia and Northern Europe know too well what must be the result; and the more perseveringly we attempt to force our manufactures upon them, to the ruin of their own, and the more decidedly such a design may be formed by the English Government, the less will that design be likely to succeed. It will have something more formidable than commercial rivalry to contend with,—national jealousy will be roused, and national policy opposed to it, upon just grounds. International commerce is beneficial when commodities are interchanged to the mutual benefit of the two countries, and to the promotion of the industry in both; it is injurious when it renders one country dependent upon another for the conveniencies, and in the last degree ruinous if it induce a dependance for the necessaries of life. If the British Government were either so far misled or intimidated, that it should consent to sacrifice the interests of the agriculturists to the unstable interests of the manufacturers, foreign Governments most certainly will not allow their manufacturers to be ruined. They are not so stultified as to give us reason to expect this from their policy,—are we so stultified that we should expect it from their friendship? There can be no reason to doubt that they would gladly avail themselves of our necessities to fill their own Exchequers, both by keeping a tax on manufactures as at present, and raising or depressing an export tax on their corn, just as it suited their immediate circumstances. During the scarcity which prevailed in this country in the years 1800 and 1801, a duty of ten shillings a quarter was laid on the export of corn from the Prussian dominions; and we see the same course followed by the Neapolitan and other Governments of the present day. It is therefore evident that were the Corn Laws repealed to-morrow, a loss of 25 per cent. would probably fall on the British agriculturist; but it is equally evident that our home consumer would not be benefited by this extent, but solely the foreign Government and foreign grower, who would possess entirely the power of regulating the price. Exactly a similar case happened on repealing the duty on rape seed, amounting to L.200,000.—In the course of six or seven years, the English grower of rape seed was driven wholly out of the market, and the price of the article got up to what it was before the duty was taken off—the whole L. 200,000 going to the foreign growers.
Mr. M'Queen states, "Admitting that foreign grain was admitted free, and that the agriculturist was no longer to have any protection for his capital and for his industry, the reduction of rental could not be less than 25 per cent. This rental is L.81,000,000; this would make L.20,000,000 loss to the landholder, and of capital, at 30 years' purchase, L.615,000,000—equal to the whole national debt, and three times as much as the capital vested in every species of manufacture. So much less must every land-holder consume of every other article of produce imported into, raised, manufactured, and consumed in this country, so much would his property be deteriorated one-fifth; and so much, in proportion, would the capital of every establishment dependant on home trade and consumption be lessened. The manufacturing labourer for export would gain nothing, for just so much must his wages be lowered to enable his employer to export without a loss; and so much must the wages of every tradesman, of every description, throughout the United Kingdom, be lowered. While these would all be lowered to a still greater extent by the number of additional labourers which will be thrown out of employment in agriculture, and forced into the manufacturing market,—when those who work solely for the home market will be found discharging a large portion of their hands, instead of employing additional at reduced wages."
It is essential to observe, that the population of this country consume to the extent of L.245,000,000 in manufactures (p. 6); and following, of course, the free-trade theory, the manufacturers admit that these can be purchased in other countries 40 or 50 per cent. lower than in this. Consequently admitting, for the sake of reasoning, the false and fallacious ad captandum vulgus argument, that the Corn Laws cost the consumer L.25,000,000 yearly, the protection to manufacturers, as above shewn, costs the people of Great Britian and Ireland L.98,000,000. (M'Queen.)—Are the manufacturers so blind as not to see this, that seven-eighths of the manufactures of this country are consumed at home—the surest of all markets—that the manufacturing interest exclusively connected with the foreign trade, both in capital and production, forms but a small portion indeed of the component parts of the numbers, the capital, the wealth, the strength, and the producing powers of this great country; and that the greatest misfortune which could befal the manufacturers would be the consummation of their wish to reduce the British agricultural tenantry and peasantry to the level of the Russian or Polish serf, whose wages, according to answers sent to Lord Palmerston's queries in November 1833, amount to about 1s. 8d. per week.—at Dantzig, amounting yearly from 52s. to 64s.,—and at Holstein, 73s. to 100s.? Saxony is likewise constantly mentioned as a country rivalling England in the cheapness of her manufactures,—would our mill owners like to reduce wages to the level of Saxony? Why, it is stated on the best authority, that in October 1837, "a man employed on his loom, working very diligently from Monday morning to Saturday night, from five o'clock in the morning until dusk, and at times with a lamp, his wife assisting him, could not possibly earn more than 20 groschen (2s. 6d. Sterling) per week."
There is likewise no doubt that the Prusso-Bavarian commercial league, or Zoll verein of 1834, has done much to foster trade in foreign states—but what has done much more, is the opening of the great rivers of the continent of Europe to steam power, thus carrying the raw material into countries formerly impracticable to carriage, but at a most expensive rate. Hence, the success of manufactures in Saxony, Switzerland, and Germany—aided by the application of the great extent of water power, to manufactures in those countries, the difference of this power to steam being reckoned, (see Kempton's Evidence, Committee on Commerce, 1833), being as L.2. 10s. to L.12. 10s. by steam.
The agriculture of this country has now reached a pitch unexampled in history, whether considered for the enormous capital[2] employed on it, or the scientific manner by which the latter is employed,—it has, in short, grown with the growth of the empire, and every succeeding year brings forward some new improvement. In immediate connection with it, we possess a hardy peasantry—educated and brought up in a way which no other country has a parallel, we possess a yeoman tenantry, living contentedly on small, but hard-earned gains—and a proprietory, men of the most enlightened habits and attainments, who, by their industry, have rendered the country more like an extensive piece of pleasure ground, than the barren woods and tracts which Tacitus describes as belonging to the penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos,—and yet with this pleasing state of things—and it being clearly proven that commerce and manufactures are in an equally, or still more flourishing state, as is proved by their enormous increase within the last ten years, in population and wealth, in every trading and manufacturing district of this kingdom,—yet the Government is assailed, and told "to stop the plough, in order to speed the spinning Jenny." And we are gravely told manufactures are the true source of national wealth; some even go the length of asserting that it would be better for the country if we were not to grow a boll of corn on our own soil. In short, that our whole country must be converted into a great workshop of mills, power looms, and spinning Jennies, from one end to the other. Now, how long society would exist under such a state of things, I shall not stop to inquire; the Report of the House of Commons on the Factory question, declared, that, compared with these factories as regarded morals, "the sugar plantation was as a garden of Eden."
As a practical agriculturist myself, I have no hesitation in stating, that I think a modification of the present graduated scale of duties would be infinitely preferable to a fixed duty, for this simple reason, viz. that a fixed duty on foreign corn is imaginary, when corn is cheap at home, because, it is not worth while to import it; and the self same fixed duty could not be levied when corn was dear. The proposal, therefore, is a mere absurdity, unless it be intended to fix the duty so low as to complete at a blow the ruin of the British agriculturist. Then indeed it ceases to be absurd, and is only to be classed among the destructive projects of the day. Where would be the advantage of a fixed duty with corn at its present price? Or where would be the protection to agriculture, with wheat at 36s. per quarter, as it was in 1834, and the price on the Continent at 20s. to 25s. per quarter, and oats at 5s. to 7s. Mr. Gladstone, in his pamphlet on this same question, says:—"It is within my recollection, that at certain periods when our ports were shut, within the last twenty years, wheat was shipped, equal to the growth of Norfolk, free on board, at Rostock, and other Baltic ports, as low as 15s. per quarter." He then asks what rate of fixed duty would protect the British farmer against such competition?
I consider the present self-acting sliding scale of duties, accommodating itself to every emergency, as infinitely preferable, and worthy of the great statesman, now no more, (Mr. Huskisson), who introduced it. Like the steam engine, it adjusts itself, and is its own regulator. That British agriculture will be enabled to keep pace with the increasing population of the country, I think there does not remain a doubt, the system of tithes, which has been such a clog to improvement in Ireland and England, is yearly occupying the attention of the Legislature, and when settled on a basis, perhaps similar to the system in Scotland, the increase in the growth of corn will be very great. The waste lands will also certainly be brought into cultivation. As regards them, the following table may be of use:—
| Cultivated Acres. | Uncultivated Acres. | Unprofitable Acres. | Summary of Acres. | |
| England, | 25,632,000 | 3,454,000 | 3,256,400 | 32,342,400 |
| Wales, | 3,117,000 | 530,000 | 1,105,000 | 4,752,000 |
| Scotland, | 5,265,000 | 5,950,000 | 8,523,930 | 19,738,930 |
| Ireland, | 12,125,280 | 4,900,000 | 2,416,664 | 19,441,944 |
| British Islands, | 383,690 | 166,000 | 569,469 | 1,119,159 |
| 46,522,970 | 15,000,000 | 15,871,463 | 77,394,433 |
Britain, therefore, contains fifteen millions of acres of uncultivated ground at the present moment, and all of which is fit for cultivation—here then is a field for the true patriot to consider the best means of bringing under cultivation what is now lying a wild waste. A former House of Commons passed a resolution, that no greater benefit could be conferred than by bringing waste lands into cultivation; George III. used to say "that the ground, like man, was never intended to lie idle." Lord Brougham has likewise stated, "that without at all comprehending the waste lands which have been wholly added to the productive tenancy of the island,—not perhaps that two blades of grass grew where only one had grown before, but certainly that five grew where four used to be,—and that this kingdom, which foreigners used to taunt as being a mere manufacturing and trading community, inhabited by a shop-keeping nation, had in reality become, for its size, by far the greatest agricultural state in the world."
It may be said that poor land rarely repays cultivation—this is not supported by fact. Nine-tenths of the land in Scotland is poor land, and this land not only employs a great rural population, pays a good return for cultivation, but exports a great deal of grain, and since steam has been introduced, sends the best beef and mutton to the London market; but which beef could not be sent, were it not raised under a regular rotation of crops, of which grain is a principal. The merest tyro in agriculture knows that poor land will not lay in grass, (which the Repealers recommend), but would grow good crops of whin and broom, of crops certainly neither the most productive nor ornamental, either for the tiller or the proprietor. Such counsel is on a par with what William the Conqueror did, viz., rendered an extensive track desolate, that he might enjoy the pleasure of the chase. The Economists recommend an equally destructive course in support of their favourite theory. Well might Frederick the Great say, if he wished to punish a province, he would place it under the rule of a Political Economist.
The history of all nations, ancient and modern, proves that exactly as domestic agriculture, was fostered, so the nation prospered—the celebrated Sully called it one of the breasts from which the state must draw its nourishment." Rome, by the extension of her power over other nations, and the demands of the Roman populace for cheap bread, was obliged to admit a free importation of grain from Sicily, Lybia, and Egypt, the great granaries in ancient time. And what was the result? Exactly what is contended would ensue from the application of a similar principle to the British islands. The Italian cultivation was destroyed as much as the Assyrian or Egyptian was increased, and so far from the price of grain being diminished to the Roman populace, it was fully higher, on an average, than it has been in England for the last ten years, while the small arable farms of Italy, the nursery of the Legions, were absorbed in great sweeps of pasture, the race of independent cultivators was destroyed, the strength of the vitals of the state was consumed; and at length the independence of the central provinces of the empire was destroyed, and the Mistress of the World, as Gibbon has remarked, came to depend for her subsistence upon the floods of the Nile.
But I am now overstepping the limits I proposed to myself on entering this great and important question,—and I think I have satisfactorily demonstrated that the premises of the Corn Repealers, are not proven nor founded on fact,—that to do away with protection to British agriculture, besides being little better than wholesale robbery, would transfer 25 to 30 millions a year to the pockets of foreign serfs, at the expense of Britain. That such a measure should sap the foundation of all property, public and private. The security of the fundholder rests wholly on the land. Strike one-fifth off its value, and so much will the security of the fundholder and mortgagee be weakened. With such a diminution and destruction of real property, the taxes of the country can never be collected;—public credit once shaken, who can foretel the result? and this all caused by a few speculative theorists and mill-owners, who, not satisfied with moderate gains, strive to make fortunes at a single stride. The increase of machinery in the cotton trade alone, during the last three years, has been upwards fifty-three per cent.; and the difference of cotton-wool imported was as in 1820, 152,829,633 lbs., opposed to 460,000,000 in 1838;— about 400 per cent. of increase; yet we are told our manufactures are declining! The wonder is, how the consumption has been able to keep pace at all with this enormous production. The increase of the linen and woollen trades will bear a similar comparison. Has agriculture made similar progress? is it not an acknowledged fact, on the contrary, that rents have fallen one-third? while burdens of every kind, in the shape of land-tax, tithes, poors-rates, besides the malt tax, and many other taxes which exclusively press upon land, remain unabated. Look at the manufacturer rolling in his carriage, and purchasing up the estates of the landed proprietors, and the poor agriculturist jobbing on as he can. Withdraw protection to this important interest, and both food and wages would vanish from our population—such would be the result of enriching the foreign at the expense of the British cultivator.
I conclude in the eloquent language of Mr. M'Queen. The intention of "Alexander and Napoleon, avowed to conquer the world, was sanity compared to the design promulgated by a small party of exporting manufacturers, led by a few wrong-headed political economists, to monopolize the whole manufacturing business thereof. The world repels the senseless step with derision, and every right-thinking mind in the United Kingdom repudiates the design with scorn and indignation. The day you yield to their clamour, and submit to their dictation, on that day you tear to pieces the title-deeds of all real property in the United Kingdom; you destroy the security of all funded property, and you sever, by injustice to Ireland, the last link of the chain which connects Ireland with Great Britain."
.jpg)
- ↑ Porter's State of the Nation,
- ↑ Mr. M'Queen estimates the agricultural property of Great Britain as follows:—
Rental. Value at 30 years. Great Britain and Ireland, land, L.63,395,684 L.1,901,870,520 Do. Residencies, &c. 5,000,000 150,000,000 Do. Timber, produce yearly, 3,000,000 90,000,000 Do. Land Tax, 1834, 1,203,578 36,107,340 Do. Poors' rates, perpetual charge, exclusion of rent, 5,434,890 163,046,700 Do. Yearly value of tithes, 4,841,053 145,231,500 Do. Mines, fisheries, &c. 3,994,031 119,820,930 L.85,665,658 L.2,604,077,080 Farmers' Capital. Horses, 1,770,544 L.44,452,365 Cattle, 15,400,000 215,600,000 Sheep, 53,258,668 66,573,335 Swine, 18,270,000 18,270,000 Poultry, &c. 9,800,000 Dead Stock, 102,938,000 Wages and Supplies, 197,200,000 654,833,730 Total value of Capital in Land, L.3,258,910,810 To which vast sum, Mr. M'Queen adds household furniture, at L.100 for each establishment, which amounts to L.52,000,000.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse