Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

large majority. The bill, in all its stages, was discussed as fully as it had been in the Lower House, and on 20th March it was passed. Besides the debates on the bill, a great deal of incidental discussion took place in conse quence of a number of petitions which were presented against it

We shall endeavour to give as correct a view as possible of the argu ments used by the opposite parties in the debates on this important question, endeavouring to throw them, as far as it can be done, into the form of a connected discussion.

It was contended, in the first place, by the supporters of the bill, that this measure was necessary in consequence of the general system adopted, not only in this, but in every other commercial country, of protecting and encouraging the different branches of industry by legislative provisions of different kinds. It was, no doubt, recognised as a general principle in political economy, that the legislature ought not to interfere in matters of commerce, but that the course of trade ought to be left to itself. This general principle, however, could not be acted upon by one nation, unless all the other nations, or at least the most considerable ones, were also to adopt it. In such a state of the world, each nation might purchase whatever commodities it required from those quarters where they could be produced and brought home at the cheapest rate and of the best quality. But the period, unfortunately, was not arrived when the world should be so enlightened as to act generally upon any such principle. Each nation endeavours to protect and encourage its own commerce and manufactures, at the expence of other nations, by duties on the importation of the produce of other countries, or by absolute prohibition of such importation: And, while such is the system adopted by the world in general,

no single nation can act on a different one without disadvantage. Accordingly, a great body of legislative provisions have been made in this country for the protection of our trade and manufactures. These had, in the course of time, been extended into such a complicated system, that the legislature had often found it necessary to protect particular branches of industry, in order to prevent them from falling a sacrifice to other descriptions of industry, even in this country, which, in consequence of some previous pro visions, would have been otherwise more favoured. In consequence of all this, our manufactures had been en couraged by such high protecting duties, amounting frequently to prohibitions, that foreign manufactures were completely excluded from competition in our market: For example (as stated by Mr J. P. Grant,) woollen cloths imported paid 100l. per cent. ; cotton goods 857. 10s. per cent. ; glass 1147. per cent.; brass and copper goods 591. per cent.; earthen ware 79%. per cent.; dressed leather 1421. per cent. ; gold and si ver goods 80%.; gilt ware 100l. &c. It was admitted, that this system of legislative enactments may have been carried too far; but it has been so long acted upon that the state of the country has adapted itself to it. There is no idea of doing it away; and indeed it would be impossible. In such circumstances, it follows, that not to protect any one branch of agricultural industry, while all other branches are protected, is positively to discourage it; and surely, of all branches, this is the last that ought to be discouraged. This argument, as to the expediency of reciprocal protection, was not confined to the case of commerce and agriculture, as viewed in connection with each other for it was also to be considered, that one branch of agricultural produce was already protected. The importation

[ocr errors]

of foreign cattle was prohibited; but if protection was to be given to any description of agricultural produce, it should chiefly be given to grain. It was farther remarked, that Adam Smith himself admitted that there were cases in which it would be advisable to lay burdens on the competition of foreigners. One of these was, when such a measure was necessary for the defence of the country, and he instanced the navigation act. Another case was, when a tax was imposed on the production of the commodity at home. Agricultural produce might be said to be in this situation; for it was the same thing whether a tax was imposed on the production of a commodity, or whether it was excluded from benefits enjoyed by other branches of industry. It was observed by Mr Morritt, that "the farmers were loaded with the support of the ecclesiastical establishment,-the support of the poor, which had been of late years much increasing, and of the roads, which were of so much benefit to the commerce of the interior. How should it be said then, that there was a freedom of trade, if the agriculturists were subjected to so many burdens without countervailing advantages?"

In the second place, it was argued, that if an adequate protection was not offered to the growers of corn, a great part of the land in this country now in tillage must be thrown out of cultivation, and that we should be obliged to draw a considerable proportion of our supply of grain from abroad; the consequences of which would be, not only that the prices would be higher than if we had been able to provide for our own consumption, but that we should be placed in the alarming situation of depending for our subsistence on the pleasure of foreign, and probably hostile nations.

The manner in which a refusal to grant a protection to the agriculturist

would operate in throwing a portion of the land out of cultivation, was explained by Mr Robinson, who observed, that" the great increase of agri. culture which had taken place during the last twenty years, had inevitably been accompanied by an increase of charge to the consumer. It was well known, that those parts of the country which were so fruitful as not to require a great deal of cultivation, when compared with the population, could only produce sustenance to a limited extent; and in proportion as that population increased, and the number of manufacturing establishments became extended, in the same proportion did the call for agricultural produce increase. But the supply to this increased demand could only come from that species of land which could not be cultivated without very considerable expense; and the produce, therefore, of this kind of land, if cultivated at all, must necessarily be sold at a dear rate."-Mr Robinson went on to shew, that if, in consequence of a supply of foreign corn, the market was so depressed as not to afford the cultivator of those inferior lands such a price as would remunerate him, they must, of course, be allowed to go out of cultivation. The fact on which this reasoning mainly depended, that domestic corn could not contend in our markets with foreign corn, seemed to be nearly agreed on by all parties. Indeed it appeared to be proved by the reports and the evidence, that without some alteration in the existing laws, we must be undersold by foreigners in our own markets. The growers of foreign corn were not so heavily loaded with taxes as ours, and consequently could afford to sell it cheaper. Mr Huskisson stated, that large imports from France had arrived on the southern coast of England, where the markets were so overstocked that the English farmer could not get a bidding

for his corn at any price; that he had seen the invoices of those cargoes, and that after all the charges of conveyance were added, the corn so exported could be sold for 50s. per quarter.

In such a state of things as this, with a diminished cultivation at home, and an increased importation from abroad, it was argued, that the price of corn would, in the end, become higher than if we had kept ourselves independent of foreign supply, and, indeed, that the country would generally be in a state of want and scarcity. "For a time," said Mr Robinson," there might be abundance, but in the long run we should be reduced to great want and distress. Suppose that, relying on the importations of foreign corn, and paying for it, for a considerable length of time, at a lower rate, as we might do,-suppose the consequence of this to be, that our own produce was diminished. Suppose that, in this situation of things, a scarcity occurred abroad and at home; in that case we could not get corn, and thus we should have to contend with a double deficiency." But there were many other causes besides scarcity which might impede or prevent our supply from foreign nations. The nations now able to supply us, might, in the course of time, be prevented from doing so by their own increasing wealth and population. They might be prevented by the policy, or impolicy of their governments. It was said by Mr Western, that, in France, the importation would cease by law when corn became 49s. per quarter; and he asked, what security had this country for a constant supply from France? He added, that, in 1764, the French issued a decree respecting the trade in grain, to the effect that all corn exported should be conveyed in French ships, navigated by French seamen; and he asked, what should prevent other countries from following a simi

lar practice, if they found we depended on them for food for our population? Another cause of the precariousness of our foreign supply arose from the chance of our going to war with the nations from whom it was derived. "For the long continuance of peace with France," Lord Binning said, " he placed the firmest confidence in the wise and virtuous prince who had succeeded our bitter enemy, and in the moderation of the government of this country. But should we be driven into a war with France, her hostility would be tremendous when she found herself at once our enemy and our granary. He hoped, indeed, that even wars might be conducted on more liberal principles than hitherto, but still he could not think of risking the entire subsistence of the nation on such a hope, nor be content to rely on the precarious generosity of an enemy for that which was most necessary to our own subsistence. Famine, as applied to fortresses, was one of the most common, as well as one of the most dreadful means of conducting hostility; and what was recognized as a legal mode of warfare on a small scale, might easily be extended to the blockading of whole lines of sea-coast, and the famishing whole nations."

On this subject some striking observations were made by Mr Grattan. He remarked, that "much had been said of the commercial relationship of the country, by those who seem to have forgotten that her political relationship was much more important. The existence of the nation depended on grain those who supplied us had our lives in their hands—they were the masters of our very being; our resources, our finances, our trade, must depend on the will of others; and would it be wise to put the trident itself into the hands of those who would be our enemies the moment it ceased to be their interest to be our

friends? Instead of continuing a phy. sically independent, we should become a physically dependent people. Suppose we were morally certain that we could obtain a supply of grain from abroad, did it follow as certainly that we could obtain that supply at a cheap rate? Might it not at some future period be the policy of the country from whom it was derived. to lay a heavy duty on corn? And might not Eng land, that had ruined her own agriculture, be compelled to pay an exorbitant tax for the very subsistence of her inhabitants? The market at home was always certain, the market abroad uncertain. By looking only to the home market, we should encourage all branches of trade, as well the merchant as the agriculturist; by looking to the foreign market, we should effectually throw our own land out of cultivation. With the assistance of Ireland, the empire was independent of the world. By discouraging the farmer, we not only made the whole world independent of us, but we actually degraded ourselves into supplicants and petitioners to those who had been our bitterest enemies. Let us employ and foster our own means, and we should have more corn than any amount to which even the imagination could extend. Give to Ireland the encouragement to which she was entitled, and the question would not be, whether we wanted corn, but how we should dispose of our abundance then, indeed, would arise another care for the government, for the grower might be smothered in his own plenty. How many thousand acres were there in Great Britain yet uncul. tivated? How many thousand more in Ireland, that might, by due encouragement, be converted into the best land for the production of wheat? And would the House consent to cast away food placed in our own power, for the miserable and mistaken policy of procuring grain cheaply in one year, and

[ocr errors]

of entailing dependence and famine upon the country ever afterwards ""

Another consequence of the agriculture of the country being allowed to fall back, and of the inferior lands being thrown out of cultivation, was stated to be, the accumulation of distress on that large proportion of the agricultural and labouring community, who had been employed in cultivating those lands. It was observed by Mr Lockhart," that those inferior lands produced a great deal of sustenance to the country; and it was asked, where, if those soils were to be taken out of cultivation, were provisions to be procured for those who were now fed by them, who were employed in tilling them, and who, if they were given up, would be thrown out of employment? It was clear that they must be fed from the products of that land which was sufficiently rich to grow corn without a very expensive system of agriculture. Would not this raise the price of corn produced on those fine soils? And would not the poor rates, which the bad soils had hitherto helped to defray, be thrown entirely on those of a different description ?" "In Great Britain," said Mr Brand, "half the population was engaged in pursuits of agriculture, and what would be their situation were things to remain unaltered? What was their state at the present moment? The labourers were unable to procure employment from the farmer, and they were consequently thrown upon the poors'-rates. By the refusal of the farmer to give employment to the labourer, he was thrown upon the overseer, who again sent him back to the farmer; and an immense number of those unfortunate individuals were now actually converted into what are called roundsmen, being handed round from farmer to farmer, who was to endeavour to find them some employment, that they might not become complete burdens upon the

parish. By these means, perhaps, they earned half their usual rate of wages, and how was the other half to be supplied but from the poors'-rates?" The consequence of the agricultural population being thus thrown out of employment would be, that they would endeavour to find subsistence by crowd. ing into the towns, and endeavouring to find subsistence by manufacturing employments. But, even supposing that there would be a demand for labour of this kind, (which was not probable) how was it possible to transform all at once a country labourer to a skilful mechanic? And was it not evident that such a violent change in the habits and mode of living of so large a body of the people must be attended with much misery? The evil effects of this change in the state of the population would not be merely temporary; If the people now em ployed in agriculture," said Mr Bankes, "could be withdrawn from the country, and cooped up in towns, to follow manufactures, we should no longer have that brave and hardy peasantry which was the boast of this country,

[ocr errors]

Gens patiens operum, studiisque asperrima belli.

Instead of having a peaceable, easily governed society, the population of the country would be placed in such a state, that the peace of the commu. nity would depend upon their being constantly kept in employment. How seldom was any combination or ferment heard of in the country from the stoppage of agricultural labour? But how frequently and how recently had the peace of the country been disturbed from manufacturers being out of employment?"

The consequences to Ireland of the adoption or rejection of the bill, were particularly adverted to. Sir John Newport made a statement of the extent to which Ireland, as an agricultural country, had been affected by the

[ocr errors]

Intercourse Act which had been passed in 1806, and in what proportion Britain had been benefited by her intercourse with Ireland since that period. During the three years, 1804, 5, 6, which preceded the passing of the Intercourse Act, Ireland exported to England 975,000 quarters. In the three subsequent years, 1808, 9, 10, the exportation reached under the Intercourse Act 1,800,000 quarters; and in the three last years it had amounted to 2,170,000 quarters. In answer to this, he presumed it would be said, that Ireland was sufficiently benefited by this exportation, but was she benefited alone? No,-precisely in the same proportion of the increase in the demand for corn upon Ireland from Great Britain, had been the increase in the demand for woollens upon Great Britain from Ireland. The export of woollens from Great Britain to Ireland in the years which he had already mentioned, when speaking of the increasing exportation of corn from Ireland to Great Britain, had increased from 2,100,000 yards to 2,300,000 yards; and from 2,300,000 to 3,700,000 yards." It was further stated by Sir Frederick Flood, that Ireland had sent to Britain in 11 years corn to the value of 11 millions; and in 1812 alone, to the value of three millions. "The population of Ireland," Mr Robinson said, "would probably be found greater than was supposed, and it was decidedly agricultural. They possessed no capital to invest in manufactures. That country grew more than it could consume. Even if the inhabitants consumed the same species of food which was made use of in England, still he believed the country produced more than enough for their support. The Irish did not, however, consume the produce of their soil: They reared it up for sale, and if we did not purchase it what would become of them? What were they to

« VorigeDoorgaan »