Chapter X: Part IX (3)

Lord John Russell, who addressed the House last, on the Ministerial side, was not very distinct in his admission as to the existence of distress. If there was any, he seemed to think it was caused by corn speculation, and he rang the changes on the old topic of periods of transition and depression. The division was in entire accordance with the debate, for it resulted in the rejection of the amendment on the address, proposed in the following terms, “But humbly to represent to her Majesty that, in many parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland, the various classes of her Majesty’s subjects connected with the cultivation of the soil are labouring under severe distress, mainly attributable, in our opinion, to recent legislative enactments, the operation of which is aggravated by the severe pressure of local taxation.”

That such an amendment was called for on the part of those who are opposed to the free-trade policy, we think will be generally admitted. It was but right and reasonable that the case of the agriculturist should be brought under the notice of parliament at the very earliest opportunity; not with the view of forcing on an immediate reversal of the national policy, but to obtain, if possible, a distinct acknowledgment of the position in which the most important section of the community is placed. That acknowledgment has not been given. It would almost seem as if the Free-traders, in the intoxication of their headlong career, already considered the great agricultural interest as completely prostrated as the colonies, with regard to which no notice whatever was vouchsafed in the royal speech. Mr Cobden is perfectly furious that the point should be again mooted. He considered protection as defunct, and the ghost of it laid in the Dead Sea; and now, when it starts up before him, a living, thriving, and withal a formidable reality, he has recourse to language unmeet for the mouth of any respectable conjuror. Lord John Russell can do little more than utter a feeble and wholly inapplicable descant upon the advantages of the station of an English gentleman—forgetting all the while that such a station implies the performance of certain duties, of which not the meanest are the advocacy of the rights of the British labourer, and the maintenance of the British constitution. The amendment, as every one anticipated, was rejected; but, notwithstanding, it has served its purpose. It has elicited opinions, a commentary on which will be valuable before the present session is over; it has shown the agricultural interest how little they have to expect from the present Parliament; it has laid the foundation for distinct propositions regarding the equalising and proper adjustment of taxation, which no doubt will be brought forward _seriatim_, and submitted to the consideration of the Commons. If these are rejected, as they probably will be, and if every measure of relief is met by a direct or a virtual negative, it will then be time for the defenders of British interests to lay their complaint at the foot of the throne, and to ask for a dissolution of the present Parliament, in order that the constituencies of Great Britain may have an opportunity of recording their votes for or against the continuance of the present policy.

We shall, of course, be told that the point has been already settled. What is settled? Have not our fiscal regulations been altered year after year; and was there not a settlement disturbed by the repeal of the Corn Laws, at least as deliberate as that which is now assumed to be inviolable? How long is it since “the experiment,” to which we were entreated to give a fair trial, lost its experimental character, and became a law, fenced against repeal as closely as a statute of Darius? Is there a single free-trade prophet who can hold up his head and say that his vaticinations have been fulfilled? Mr M’Gregor prophesied that the nation would become richer, at the ratio of two millions a-week. Mr Economist Wilson prophesied augmented prices to the agriculturist, adding this ingenuous commentary,—“that there is no better evidence of a prosperous community or country, _than the existence of a high average price of provisions_, when the condition of the labourer, as is the case in this country, is relatively better than in other countries; and that, on the contrary, there is no stronger evidence of a miserable and impoverished country, than the existence of low prices of provisions, where the condition of the labourer is comparatively and infinitely worse than in other countries where prices are higher.” Mr Cobden prophesied thus in 1843 and 1844, not once but many times,—“The landlords will (with free trade) have better rents.” “Give us a free trade, and land will be as valuable as it is now.” “I believe that land would be more valuable in this country if you had at once an entire abolition of the Corn Laws.” We could cite similar testimony, uttered by a host of prophets as numerous as those of Baal, but we think the above instances may suffice; and it is on the faith of such vaticinations that we are peremptorily desired to consider the late ruinous measures as fixed and unalterable! The railway and the free-trade delusion reached their highest point in one and the self-same year. We have seen the quacks, impostors, and swindlers of the one system, scouted by the unanimous voice of public reprobation already; the leading partisans of the other cannot long hope to escape the infliction of a similar doom.

It has been said, in various quarters, that we have taken too gloomy a view of the future agricultural prospects of Great Britain. It may be so; but, at all events, we are borne out, and even exceeded, by Mr Villiers. If any man has doubts as to the depression of the agricultural interest, let him peruse carefully the following statement of the mover of the address:—

“He (Mr Villiers) had made a calculation of the saving effected by the
people of this country, in consequence of the present reduced price of
food. He found that the average price of wheat in 1847 was 69s. 5d.;
on the 29th of December 1849, it was 39s. 4d.; the average price of
barley in 1847 was 43s., and, in 1849, 25s.; of oats, in 1847, 28s.,
and in 1849, 15s.; and there had been a corresponding reduction in
beans and peas. The usual calculation was, that our population of
30,000,000 consumed one quarter of corn to each person annually; but,
taking a low estimate of consumption, and calculating that the
population annually consumed 20,000,000 quarters of each of these
descriptions of grain, he found that the saving effected by the
difference of prices between 1847 and 1849, amounted to £61,000,000.
He had also estimated, on the same moderate scale, the saving effected
by the difference in the prices of meat, butter, cheese, potatoes, and
other articles, in 1847 and 1849, and he found that it amounted to
£30,000,000 more; so that there had been a total saving in the
expenditure of the people upon food of £91,000,000 between 1847 and
1849. This was the result of free trade _in the very first year of its
operation_. And when so large an amount was saved for expenditure on
other articles than food, he thought it was no matter of astonishment
that the general condition of the people had improved, and that the
country was in a flourishing condition.”

We shall not investigate the accuracy of this calculation, nor shall we discuss the soundness of the conclusions. It is enough for us that Mr Villiers holds it to be matter of congratulation that, in one year, “the very first year of the operation of free trade,” agricultural produce has been depreciated to the amount of £91,000,000. This is worth a little consideration. Messrs Cobden, Bright, & Co., have taken much pains of late to impress upon the farmers that the present struggle is “a mere landlord’s question;” that the tenantry have nothing earthly to do with it; and that their sole object ought to be a speedy lowering of the rents. Our statistics, published in the Magazine, although certified by a large body of the leading agriculturists in nearly every district of Scotland, have been designated as “cooked,” by Cockneys who never saw a blade of wheat grow except on a Sunday excursion to Thames Ditton, and by pseudo-political economists, who, when detected in deliberate falsification, have not even the grace to tender a lame apology. The gravity of an insult depends upon the respectability of those who utter it. Foul language from the mouth of a cabman does not excite any rancorous feeling in the bosom of the man who is favoured with the abuse of Jehu; and, therefore, our correspondents, in number more than thirty—gentlemen of the highest respectability and character in Scotland—need not be disturbed by any imputations emanating from the quarters which we are reluctantly compelled to notice. But, since our opponents affect to disbelieve the accuracy of our views and calculations, let them deal with those of Mr Villiers. He puts down the amount of saving in food at £91,000,000, for a single year. The net rental of Great Britain and Ireland is £58,753,615:[9] and it therefore follows, that _supposing no rent whatever to have been paid_, the tenantry must have suffered loss or diminution of profits to the extent of £22,246,385! These are the free-trade calculations—not ours. We do not wonder that the _Times_ did not lose a day in casting discredit upon a statement which, though cheered on the Ministerial side of the house, was, in reality, a more damnatory exposition of free trade than the most ingenious Protectionist could have devised. For our part, we shall not venture to say whether Mr Villiers was right or wrong. A calculation, of this extended nature, might tax the powers of the ablest actuary; but, if it be correct, surely we stand acquitted of all exaggeration; and, what is of far greater importance, no one can henceforth venture to assert that this is a mere “landlord’s question;” since, if all rent were abandoned, the loss to the tenantry, in a single year, would be twenty-two and a quarter millions!

But let us pass in the meantime from the agricultural case, and see what real ground exists for the self-gratulations of ministers on the general prosperous state of the country at the opening of the present session. We quote the paragraph from the royal speech:—“Her Majesty has great satisfaction in congratulating you on the improved condition of commerce and manufactures.” We shall consider the two interests separately.

First, as to commerce, and its main branch, the shipping and shipbuilding interest. The repeal of the Navigation Laws having been effected in the course of last year, it might be premature to form a decided judgment on the working of the new system. Most certainly we have not done so; and we think it would have been only decent had her Majesty’s Ministers exercised a similar discretion. But in order to make out a case of prosperity, the commerce of the country could not be overlooked; and facts, (when they _are_ facts,) however slight, are too valuable to be dispensed with on such an occasion as this. Accordingly, we are told that the shipping interest never was in a state of greater activity and prosperity than now. Mr Villiers opened thus:—

“It was rather early, perhaps, to express any opinions of what would
be the general results of that great change; but there was reason to
believe that all the anticipations of its advocates would be
infinitely more than realised, and that all the fearful predictions of
its opponents would be falsified. _The interest most affected by these
changes had not been for some years in such a state of activity as it
presented at this moment._ In the Thames and Tyne, in the Wear and
Clyde, the business of the shipbuilder or shipowner exhibited a more
cheering aspect. _From all our dockyards the reports were equally
satisfactory_; and many of the gentlemen who had been most prominent
in foretelling ruin and destruction from the change, admitted the
advantages they were deriving from it.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely acquiesced in this statement:

“At the present moment no one could find fault with the change which
had taken place in the Navigation Laws, if he took the trouble to look
at the state of the great shipbuilding ports of this commercial
country. He might mention one port, which, above all others, should be
regarded as indicating the condition of the shipbuilding interest
throughout the seaports of England, namely, Sunderland; but he might
also mention Liverpool and the Scotch ports, where the shipbuilding in
the year 1849 went on with more rapidity than in any former period;
and not only was the quantity of shipping built at these places
greater than in any former year, but a better class of vessels was
built, vessels calculated and fitted for the long voyage.”

Mr Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade, was even stronger in his averments:

“He confidently appealed to every member of that house who had
considered the subject, and, above all, to the representatives of the
great shipping ports of this country, whether it was true to say that
the industry of the dockyards had been paralysed by the measure of
last session. On the contrary—and this was a subject on which he
naturally felt the greatest interest, and which he had looked into
with the utmost care—he had never made an assertion in that house with
greater confidence, _and he challenged contradiction on the part of
any mercantile man or gentleman interested in shipping_, than when he
stated his belief that the industry of shipbuilding, that the
confidence of the mercantile public in shipowning, that the whole
business of the country connected with shipbuilding and shipowning,
were in a state most satisfactory and most encouraging to those who
did not believe that they were paralysing that important branch of
industry by the measures of last session. He believed the fact to be
that there were at least as many ships building at this moment as at
any period within the last twenty years in this country.”

In the face of such unqualified averments and challenges, on a point necessarily statistical, and in opposition to the President of the Board of Trade, who, from his official position, was the man of all others most likely to be furnished with full and accurate information, it would have been rash in any individual member to have hazarded a flat contradiction. But a question of such vital importance as this is sure to be thoroughly investigated; and we are indebted to that excellent paper, the _Shipping and Mercantile Gazette_, for an elaborate and complete refutation of the whole case so ostentatiously paraded by Government. Our contemporary, we are sure, will not quarrel with us if we transfer into our columns a good deal of the valuable information obtained by so much industry and perseverance, for which the thanks of the whole community are justly due.

“We are prepared,” says the editor of the _Shipping and Mercantile
Gazette_, in his leading article of the 31st January, “to prove that
the depression in our shipping—in building as well as in freights—has
not been so great for years as it is at the present time; in short,
that it is _depression_, and not improvement, which is UNIVERSAL, with
scarcely ‘the exception of a few ports.’

“With regard to shipbuilding, it is necessary to bear in mind that
shipbuilders cannot stop their business all at once; they have yards
on lease—materials on hand—and apprentices to maintain; therefore they
must be doing a little at almost any risk.

“With a view to obtain correct information upon the subject, we have
procured authenticated returns from accredited correspondents at all
the ports, which we shall proceed to lay before our readers; merely
premising that, as the foreign and colonial trade diminishes in
profit, it drives ships into the coasting trade, which, as it will be
seen, is suffering severely from the depreciating effects.”

The following are a few of the returns, inserted alphabetically:—

“ABERDEEN, _Feb. 2, 1850_.

“It is vain to try to conceal the very depressed state of the shipping
interest at this port at present, everything around us having a dreary
and most discouraging aspect. Our docks are full of vessels of every
class and size, and nothing for them to do. Freights offering (and
they are very few indeed) are not, by any means, at remunerative
rates: 30s. to 33s. per load timber from Quebec, or 67s. 6d. per ton
guano from Peru, will never pay the shipowner, while he pays the
present rate of wages, and gives the usual rations to his seamen. If
freights are to be kept down by foreign competition, the British
sailor must be brought down to the level of the foreigner; but such a
state of things, we hope, will still, by some means or other, be
averted.

“Notwithstanding the justly high character our shipbuilders here have
attained in the construction of their ships, and the great perfection
they have come to in the construction of vessels with the clipper-bow,
and which are now making such unparalleled rapid voyages, we believe
they have few, if any, orders on hand; and in the absence of such have
been building on speculation, and have at this moment a few vessels on
the stocks for sale, superb specimens of naval architecture, and no
immediate prospect of purchasers. One of our local papers was holding
out to us the other day that we need not fear foreign competition,
having vessels of such great sailing and carrying qualities. This
would be all very well, if guaranteed to this country alone; but it
will soon be found that foreigners will get improved vessels as well
as we, and, most probably, get our carpenters to go from this country
to build them.

“The number of seamen at this port is about 2330, of which at present
there are about 280 unemployed. Vessels laid up, 45—a greater number
than was ever known in any previous year.”

“BOSTON, _Jan. 26, 1850_.

“Our harbour-master here, who has been upwards of forty years master
of vessels out of this port, states that HE NEVER KNEW THE SHIPPING
INTEREST AT SO LOW AN EBB AS AT THE PRESENT TIME; and he firmly
believes the future prospects are very discouraging. The majority of
our vessels are _now_ worked by the masters at _thirds_, and many of
them have lost money during the past year—that is, have not made the
former wages of £5 per month; in fact, many of them have not made
mate’s wages—viz., £3, 5s. per month, who have not reduced their pay
more than 5s. per month, and ordinary seamen at the same rate.”

“CAERNARVON, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“Ours is nearly altogether a coasting trade, engaged principally in
the export of slates, which averages about 91,000 tons per annum.
During the year 1849 the export declined to 79,000 tons, and at
present there are no prospects of its revival. The shipping belonging
to the port is in a _most depressed_ condition; freights are very
difficult to be had; and when they are offered, the rate is ruinously
low—say 9s. per ton to London, 4s. and 5s. to Liverpool, and so on in
proportion. Masters of our coasters are remunerated out of the profits
of the vessels they command; and so small have been their earnings of
late, that some are giving up _the command_, and shipping as _able
seamen_, inasmuch as they earn better wages in the latter capacity!
Shipbuilding is almost at an end here; no one will invest capital in
coasting vessels now, so depressed are freights, and so clouded is the
future.”

“CORK, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“I subjoin a statement of freights, &c., at this port:—

Per load timber.
Freights, Quebec, 1847 40s.
„ „ 1848 32s.
„ „ 1849 30s.
per ton.
„ W. C. So. America 1848 £4 5 0
„ „ beginning of 1849 3 17 6
„ „ end of 1849 3 7 6

“The other freights are in the same proportion.

“The wages of shipmasters have been reduced _one-third_. A few years back we generally had six or eight vessels on the stocks at this port, AT PRESENT ONLY ONE, and that is an iron screw-steamer, building for the Cork Steam-ship Company. The great majority of the vessels now belonging to this port are colonial built.

“Shipmasters have been obliged to accept of reduced wages in order to obtain employment to enable them to support their families. Several of them who were fortunate in having a little money saved, have commenced _tailoring_, rope-making, acting as coasting pilots, &c. &c.”

“DROGHEDA, _Feb. 1, 1850_.

“There are no ships building here, although we have a good dockyard;
nor are there any repairing, although we have an excellent patent
slip: there are four or five ships laying up, which the owners will
not repair. They would willingly sell, but no person can be got to
purchase: in fact, were it not for the purpose of giving employment to
the masters and crews, I do think that our vessels would be laid up,
for they are not earning one shilling for their owners. It is also my
firm belief that, in seven years, one half of our ships will drop
away, and what was once a nursery for our navy, will not be so, for in
a little time the coasting trade will almost cease to exist, as we
have to contend with railways, steamboats, and foreigners driven into
our trade by the late change in the law.

“As regards our sailors, they are to be seen every day walking about
our quays, anxious to procure employment, but, from the complete
annihilation of our trade, they are unable to procure any;
consequently they and their families are in a most wretched
condition.”

“LIVERPOOL, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“The shipping trade is exceedingly depressed here, and freights are
wholly unremunerative. A Manchester house has just chartered an
American ship from Calcutta, at £2, 15s. 6d.

“FREIGHTS ARE AT LEAST 15 PER CENT LOWER, ON THE AVERAGE, THAN THEY
WERE LAST YEAR.”

“MARYPORT, _Jan. 29, 1850_.

“Cumberland has long been famed for its celebrity in shipbuilding, its
vessels being known to, and appreciated by, the merchants in every
region of the globe; but I am sorry to observe that, at the present
moment, owing to the unwise repeal of the Navigation Laws, THE SEVERAL
SHIPBUILDERS AT MARYPORT, WORKINGTON, AND WHITEHAVEN ARE WITHOUT ANY
CONTRACTS—a circumstance strangely at variance with the account which
lately appeared in some of the Free-trade journals at Manchester. It
was then stated that several eminent merchants of that locality were
desirous of building a large amount of tonnage in England; but, owing
to the several builders being so full of contracts, they were
necessarily obliged to go abroad to build their vessels. It would,
however, seem that these gentlemen had entirely forgotten the
geographical position of Cumberland, or else we must suppose that they
would have deemed it their interest to have made contracts there;
unless, indeed, they found, as I strongly suspect they did, that the
Continental builder could build cheaper.”

“PLYMOUTH, _Feb. 2, 1850_.

“The shipping interest of this port is in a very depressed state, many
vessels being laid up; and, consequently, their crews are out of
employment, and our quays quite deserted by shipping. The vessels in
actual service are principally employed in the coal trade, and by the
owners only, at very reduced freights—at from 5s. to 5s. 6d. from
Wales, and from 6s. to 6s. 6d. from the north; others sailing out of
other ports at anything but remunerating freights. There are nine
shipwrights’ yards in this port, in one of which only one vessel is
building for a shipowner; and one sold from another. Two vessels have
been for sale for many months past. In each of the others, vessels,
varying from 100 to 300 tons, are being built on speculation, but
progress very slowly. From a want of that enterprising spirit evinced
in times past, there are not half the shipwrights kept in the yards
now, and a reduction has already taken place in the wages. Many
masters and sailors are also walking the quays unemployed; but we are
told, by those who use the old adage of the pinching shoe, that a man
may get as much for 10d. now as he could have got for double that sum
some time since. Where is the use of things being _so very cheap_,
when the poor man is deprived of the means of employment? Our exports
are very trifling: manganese at about 6s. to 10s. to Liverpool and
Scotland; lead and copper ores 3s. to 7s. per ton! Our
imports—principally timber from Quebec, hemp, tar, fruit, &c. The
former was 30s. to 32s. per load last year; what it will be this it is
impossible to tell, now the foreigner goes into the trade. Six of our
vessels (Quebec ships) are gone to Sierra Leone, thereby leaving the
trade open to the foreigner. The average wages are from 30s. to 40s.
for seamen in the coasting trade, 40s. foreign; £4 to £8 for masters,
£2, 10s. to £3 mates, at per month, which are much lower.”

“RUNCORN, _Feb. 1, 1850_.

“The number of vessels belonging to the port of Runcorn is about 70,
of the total burthen of about 6500 tons, most of them engaged in the
coasting trade. Freights to and from this port are very scarce, and
when any are offered they are at a miserably low rate. We should say
that freights are, at the least, 25 per cent less than they were in
the years 1845, 1846, and 1847. Nearly all the vessels belonging to
this port are sailed by the shares—that is, the master takes one half
the freight after all port charges are deducted from it, and he has to
pay out of his share seamen’s wages, and also to find victuals; the
owner has the remaining half, out of which he has to pay all expenses
for wear and tear. But the present rates of freight are so very low
that the masters cannot keep out of debt, let alone earn anything for
themselves, and the owner’s share is not sufficient to keep the vessel
in efficient working order. THE SHIPBUILDING TRADE HERE IS IN A MANNER
DESERTED: there are only two vessels on the stocks; one has been
partially finished for the last twelve months, and the other for the
last six months. There is not the slightest inducement for persons to
lay out their capital in shipping, there being no certainty of the
smallest return.”

“SUNDERLAND, _Feb. 1, 1850_.

“Various statements having lately been published relative to the state
of shipbuilding at this port, it is desirable that those interested in
knowing how far the statements alluded to are correct, should be made
acquainted with the real facts. It is true that at the close of last
year there were about 92 ships on the stocks at this port; since that
time several of them have been launched: many of them were larger than
the average of ships built here, and about two-thirds of them were
sold from the builders. Be it, however, understood that of the
two-thirds sold, say 60 out of 92, upwards of 30 were purchased by
outfitters, or ship-jobbers, who purchase the hulls of ships in order
to have the outfit; _they are therefore still in the market_. Many of
the shipbuilders, and also outfitters, had great stocks of timber and
other materials on hand twelve months ago, previous to the ships in
question being put on the stocks. It was then the opinion of the
shipbuilders that the project to repeal the Navigation Laws, and grant
foreign-built ships British registers, would not be carried, from the
general manifestation of feeling against that measure evinced by
practical men generally, who best understood the subject.
Shipbuilders’ stocks were therefore kept up, and in many instances
increased, and remunerating prices for ships were maintained. Since
the act was passed which repealed the Navigation Laws, prices have
been gradually on the decline. Within the last two years the average
price for a ship, A 1 eight years classed, was from £10, 10s. to £11
per ton; now the price for a ship of that character, is from £8, 10s.
to £9 per ton. The most respectable shipbuilders of this port freely
declare that their trade appears fast hastening to the destructive
state of agriculture; and that, if the present line of policy is
pursued, all who are engaged in their trade must be great sufferers.”

Letters to the same effect are given by the editor of _The Shipping Gazette_, from correspondents at Aldborough, Bude, Dundalk, Kinsale, Maldon, Padstow, Pwllheli, Strangford, Torquay, Westport, and Woodbridge; so that from the ports all round the British Islands, the cry of distress, caused by the crushing effect of free trade upon the body of British industry, is arising. And this is what our Whig rulers call unexampled prosperity!

From the leading Plymouth journal of 31st Jan. we extract the following letter, which we would venture to recommend to the earnest attention of Mr Labouchere. It contains some statements of a very different complexion from those which appear to have passed through the hands of the officials of the Board of Trade.

“_To the Editor of the West of England Conservative._

“SIR,—My attention having been called to a paragraph in your journal,
which states that the shipwrights in one of the principal firms in
Plymouth had struck for wages, I have to inform you that the firm is
mine.

For several years past I have paid my men 18s. per week on new work,
and 21s. per week on old work; and they never lost any time, but by
their own fault.

For some time past I have had complaints from many shipowners, that,
as their returns were greatly reduced by freights constantly lowering,
we, the shipbuilders, must reduce our charges, or they would be
compelled to take their ships to other ports. Added to this, a friend
of mine, Captain Shapcott, for whom I built a ship two years since,
and with which he was so much pleased that he wished me to give him a
price for another, of about 230 tons burthen. I accordingly did so;
she was to be a first-class vessel, and entitled to class A 1 twelve
years, at Lloyd’s. My proposals were sent to a merchant in London,
whom Captain Shapcott wished should be the principal owner. This
gentleman (Mr Brooking) replied, that as everything was coming down,
wages, and materials for shipbuilding, must come down also; and that,
unless I would engage to build for £10 per ton, and find a very large
number of articles more than I had for the former vessel, he would not
contract at all. He also said, that he had been in treaty for a ship
to be built for him in Prussia, which he found he could do for £3 per
ton cheaper than he could have one in England. I was obliged to
decline engaging to build on such terms, as would have occasioned me a
loss of some hundreds of pounds.

On Friday, the 18th January, on paying my men, I gave them a
memorandum, stating these particulars, and that I imagined they must
have been expecting, for some time, that wages would be reduced, not
only from what they must know themselves, but also from the great
reduction in the price of provisions and clothing. I, at the same
time, offered them 17s. per week on new work, and 19s. per week on old
work, telling them that, as their labour was their own property, if
they could do better, I should have no objection whatever. They all,
29 in number, refused to work; and, I believe, the greater part of
them have not been employed since, as I have seen them walking the
streets.

Not pretending to be a politician, I can only give my own opinion of
the acts of the Legislature; and, from the first, I believed that the
abrogation of the Navigation Laws must have the effect of depriving
thousands of Englishmen of employment.

Put this case to myself. I have employed more than 100 persons in
building and fitting ships; every other class, such as rope-makers,
sail-makers, block-makers, boat-builders, coopers, painters, glaziers,
chain and anchor makers, provision merchants, and others engaged in
putting a ship to sea, have all employ here. A merchant goes abroad
and builds (which he will do) at, it may be, a less price, and see the
consequence—the foreigner is employed, and our artisans must be idle;
it is the natural result. As to the bugbear of Free trade, it will
ruin England,—can I compete with a foreigner? He has his timber, his
labour, and materials for fitting out his ship infinitely cheaper than
I have; he is not oppressed by heavy Government and local taxation;
and when his ship comes to England, she has all the privileges of a
ship of the first class, which it is in my power to build; and
further, by the manner in which Lloyd’s class ships, she will fully
stand A 1 with mine.

I contend that it is the duty of Government so to legislate that their
artisans should have employment, and any act which deprives them of
it, must be detrimental to the nation. That is my firm belief. I must
apologise for occupying your columns, but, as you first mentioned the
circumstance of my workmen, I thought it right to state the reasons. I
am, sir, yours,

WM. MOORE, Shipbuilder.”

There is more than this. Messrs. Lindsay & Co. have published a table of freights for the last four years, which exhibits an average decline ranging from thirty-five to fifty per cent. The following are a few notable instances:—

s. d. s. d.
Singapore, from 105 0 to 60 0
Calcutta, 117 6 77 6
Hong Kong, 105 0 55 0
(last quotation from there)
Bombay, 95 0 60 0
Ceylon, 95 0 70 0
Mauritius, 84 0 60 0
Callao, 95 0 63 0
Havannah, 85 0 47 6
Odessa, 95 0 42 6
Alexandria, 12 0 5 6
Cronstadt, 32 6 19 0
Quebec, 47 6 32 0

This decline of freights deeply concerns the agriculturist, since it unsettles even those loose and incorrect calculations, which were brought forward by the Free-traders for the purpose of proving that high freights must necessarily act as a powerful check to the importation of foreign corn, in the event of the abolition of the duties.

The challenge so confidently made has been accepted in another quarter. At the great Wiltshire meeting held at Swindon on the 6th February, Mr George Frederick Young spoke as follows:—

“Another point which has been taken as a kind of _cheval de
bataille_—a sort of hobby-horse which the Ministers were determined to
ride—I am somewhat familiarly acquainted with; I allude to the
shipping interest. As they have brought that interest so prominently
before parliament, I may, perhaps, be allowed to correct their
statements when they are at fault. What were we told about the
shipping interest in the House of Lords? I thought that they might
have managed to get up returns, to answer the purpose of the occasion,
of a somewhat specious character, extending over a large surface,
before they asked the house to come to a conclusion. But what did they
do? They said that the shipbuilding interest is in a most prosperous
state; and that it is prosperous, they deduced from the fact that
there were 90 ships building in the port of Sunderland on the 31st of
December last. It is the truth that that was the case at that time,
but it is not the whole truth; and the whole truth is, that though
there were 90 ships building in that great shipbuilding port, 24 of
them only were sold, whilst 66 were standing, 31 of them being ready
to launch, but could not get purchasers. I find also, that out of 251
ships which were building at the several shipbuilding ports at that
date, there were but 66 sold, making nearly 200 out of the 250 that
could not obtain purchasers, (hear, hear.) Is that fair? (cries of
‘no,’ and cheers.) Is that the way in which a great public question is
to be supported by the Ministers of the Crown? Yet these gentlemen
have not thought it to be beneath them to stoop to such paltry
prevarication for the purpose of misleading the parliament, (great
cheering.) But I will give you yet another instance, which is even
more pregnant still. In the course of the debate on the Address in the
House of Commons, Mr Labouchere made use of these words in reference
to the shipping interest:—‘This was a subject in which he naturally
felt the greatest interest, and which he had looked into with the
utmost care. He had never made an assertion in that house with greater
confidence, and he challenged contradiction’—most unusual on the part
of a Minister of the Crown—‘on the part of any mercantile man, or
gentleman interested in shipping, when he stated his belief that the
industry of shipbuilding—that the confidence of the mercantile public
in shipowning—that the whole business of the country connected with
shipbuilding and shipowning, was in a state the most satisfactory and
encouraging to those who did not believe that they were paralysing
that important branch of industry by the measures of last session.’ I
will not affect to conceal the part which I took upon reading these
words. I viewed the statement with indignation. I knew that it was not
a fact; and on Saturday morning, the instant I had seen it in the
paper, I drew up this declaration, which was advertised in all the
daily journals of London on Monday morning:—

“‘We the undersigned shipowners and others connected with the building
and equipment of ships in the port of London, having observed with
much surprise that in the debate on the Address in the House of
Commons on the 1st inst., the right hon. the President of the Board of
Trade confidently stated, and ‘challenged contradiction on the part of
any gentleman interested in shipping, that the whole business of the
country connected with shipbuilding and shipowning was in a state the
most satisfactory and encouraging,’ consider it a duty to declare our
conviction that the statement of the right honourable gentleman must
have proceeded from misinformation, and is entirely erroneous. We
declare that the shipping interest is, on the contrary, at this moment
in a state of great depression, no employment being obtained for
British ships offering any reasonable prospect of remuneration for the
capital embarked and the expenses to be incurred; that the accounts
from all the great shipping ports of the world announce a
superabundance of tonnage and extremely low rates of freight,
rendering the prospect for the present year most discouraging, and
that the various trades connected with shipping consequently and
necessarily participate in the general depression; and we make this
declaration without any party or political motive, and entirely
without reference to the causes that have produced the depression we
describe, in the desire alone that the legislature and the public
should be truly informed as to the real facts of this important
question, which appear to be misunderstood by her Majesty’s
Government.’

“I will tell you the result. That declaration was advertised to lie at
the London Tavern on Monday, Tuesday, and to-day; and upon the very
first day it received the signatures of several hundreds of the most
eminent men connected with this branch of our national industry, and
from among whom I will undertake to say I can pick out twelve names of
men who are owners of not less than 100,000 tons of British shipping
(cheers.) That the President of the Board of Trade should venture to
make such a statement, and challenge contradiction from any one, is, I
think, most extraordinary. Is it not calculated to produce this
effect—that statements made by the Ministers of the Crown, with
whatever confidence, will be received with a little doubt and
distrust, and that though they come even from so upright and
honourable a man as Mr Labouchere, it will be necessary to
substantiate them by something better than mere assertions of belief?”

We are sorry that Mr Labouchere should have committed himself so far. His personal character is beyond suspicion; and we do nothing more than express the universal feeling of his political opponents when we say, that no one will prefer against him the charge of having made a wilful misrepresentation of this nature. But it is the curse of men high in office, that they are surrounded by subordinates, whose share of honourable scruple is of the most convenient elasticity, and who sometimes have a substantial interest in the verification of their hazarded opinions. To this kind of influence Mr Labouchere is peculiarly subjected. The returns on which he founded, with so rash a confidence, had evidently passed through the hands of some veteran statist and figure-monger, and been adapted to suit an immediate purpose, rather than to conform to the actual truth. On no other hypothesis can we account for so strange a perversion of fact; for we believe that, after the evidence cited above, no man, whatever may be his political opinions, will hold that the commerce of the nation is not materially depressed, instead of being, as Ministers represented it, flourishing beyond all precedent.

We next come to the manufacturing interest, which assuredly ought to be in a most prosperous condition. In the course of the bygone year, tranquillity was restored on the Continent, and the interrupted markets were opened with every prospect of a fair demand. Notwithstanding the fall of prices, it might have been supposed that agricultural depression had hardly time to react upon the home market; and food was cheaper than perhaps it has been in Britain within the memory of man. Yet, with all these advantages, it is by no means certain that our manufactures are in a sound condition. The official tables indeed exhibit a large increase of exports, but these tables are quite useless as exponents of actual value. No later than last session, Sir Robert Peel gave a decided testimony on this point.

“Let me observe,” said he, “that nothing can be more unsafe than any
inference drawn from the returns which give the declared value of
manufactures imported. Owing to the manner in which the accounts of
imports and exports are prepared, arguments drawn from that source
must be exceedingly fallacious.”

The _Liverpool Standard_, applying itself to the statistics of the cotton trade, has done good service in exposing the nature of the export returns. According to the official statement, there would appear to be an increase of nearly £4,210,000 in the exports of cotton manufactures and yarn; but the _Standard_, going to the fountainhead, has shown that the increase in the entire quantity of cotton _spun_ in Great Britain in 1849, was only a little over one-twelfth of the previous year’s consumption. The conclusions of our contemporary are very forcible:—

“_We place no confidence whatever now in these customs reports. Since
the abolition of the half per cent duty on exports_, there is nothing
in the world to prevent goods being entered at any prices the shipper
pleases. A bale of cotton and other goods may be valued at £5 or £500,
without incurring a farthing of increased charges at our ports; and,
without imputing to any party the wish to do a moral wrong, and to
make out a favourable case in behalf of a particular policy, it is
enough to throw discredit upon returns, thus left unprotected against
error, to know that extensive malversation can be carried on.”

When we turn for information to the manufacturing districts, we find some mills working on short time, and less employment generally diffused than might be expected in an average year. We hear of nothing but the most gloomy anticipations, contrasting very strangely, indeed, with the triumphant language of Ministers. The depression is not confined to the remoter towns; it exists in Manchester itself, as will be seen from the following statement—the last which has reached us—from the great manufacturing capital:—

(From the _Manchester Guardian_.)

“MANCHESTER, Tuesday, Feb. 12.—We have had a spiritless and rather
drooping market. The merchants have shown a growing indisposition for
business; looking upon prices as, for the most part, too high to
warrant further exports in the present state of supplies in foreign
markets. The letters received this morning from Germany give
quotations of prices which afford no encouragement for the immediate
resumption of operations. There has been some inquiry from the Greeks,
but with little result. As to the home dealers, seldom have they been
so little seen in the warehouses of the manufacturers. There is
evidently a diminished confidence among all classes of buyers as to
the maintenance of prices; and a determination to proceed cautiously,
buying only for the supply of the most pressing wants, is become
general. The business of the day has, consequently, fallen in amount
below that of any Tuesday for some time back. Under these
circumstances, those spinners and manufacturers whose contracts are
drawing to a close have shown a willingness to make some concession in
price rather than suffer an offer to pass by them. Water twist may be
quoted ⅛d. to ¼d. lower; and in mule yarn the buyer has some advantage
in price, except as to fine counts, from No. 60’s upwards. In printing
cloths, there is a giving way of about 1½d. per piece, and 3d. in
shirting. There is a difference in point of firmness, however, among
spinners and manufacturers, and a corresponding irregularity is
observable in the quotations. The spinners of water twist, and the
manufacturers of domestics, T’s, and some other stout cloths, are so
much discouraged by the little prospect there is of an improvement in
the unfavourable trade they have so long experienced, that many of
them are seriously intending to diminish their production. One or two
establishments in Manchester have either stopped altogether or
resorted to short time, and an attempt is being made to induce a
general adoption of the latter measure in these branches of
manufacture. At Rochdale two or three mills have taken one or other of
the above courses; and we have before us the names of seven firms at
Heywood who have limited the hours of work in their mills.

“STATE OF TRADE.—MANCHESTER, Thursday.—We have no improvement since
Tuesday. The demand, whether for cloth or yarn, is not equal to the
production, and prices, consequently, tend still in favour of the
buyer. Indeed, no considerable sales could be effected without
material concessions in price.”

Reading such an account as this, we feel perplexed as to the meaning which the Ministry attach to their favourite term prosperity. We are almost tempted to suppose that they consider want of employment the greatest possible blessing which can befall the labouring man.

This account, it will be observed, is dated posterior to the opening of Parliament. We may therefore be told that the depression had no existence at the time when the royal speech was framed. Such was not the case. The depression was felt much earlier, as appears by the following extract taken from a favourite organ of the Free-traders. On 1st December last, the _Economist_ thus spoke of the cotton trade—

“At the beginning of this year, great expectations were entertained of
our home demand. It was argued, and with good reason, that we never
yet had a year of general employment and low prices of provisions
combined, which was not also a year of very large domestic consumption
of manufactured fabrics. This year labour has been in very brisk
request, and food has never been so cheap and plentiful since 1836.
Yet our expectations from these facts have not been fully answered.
The sellers of printing-cloths and medium shirtings report that their
home demand has, on the whole, been good; the sellers of domestics
report, on the contrary, a decidedly dull business, worse than that of
last year; but we believe that all agree that the anticipations with
which they began the year have by no means been realised. We suspect
the cause to be this:—The depreciation in railway property, the
effects of the Irish famine, and the commercial crash in 1847, have
impoverished all classes of the community to a much greater extent
than has been allowed for in the calculations of our tradesmen. We
question whether ‘the power of purchase,’ on the part of the British
community, is nearly equal to what it was in 1845.”

We here perfectly coincide in opinion with the _Economist_. The power of purchase, on the part of the British community, is not nearly what it was in 1845; and for that diminution of power, he may thank the operation of the free-trade system. If the calculations of Mr Villiers are correct—if agricultural produce has depreciated to the extent of £91,000,000—there is no necessity whatever for recurring to Irish famine, railway losses, or commercial embarrassment, for an explanation of the unhealthy state of the home market. If we divide the population of the British islands, between agriculture and manufactures, in proportion to the ascertained number of those employed in either pursuit, we shall find that rather more than 18,700,000 are dependent on agriculture; whilst the number of those directly and indirectly drawing their livelihood from manufactures is short of 8,100,000.[10] Any blow levelled at the larger interest must perforce materially affect the lesser; and our decided conviction is, that the manufacturers have yet to learn, through adversity, a wholesome lesson. They have been taught to look to the foreign, or exporting trade, as their chief source of gain; and, in doing so, they have had to face a competition with other countries, which, in the course of a few years, has lowered their profits fully 50 per cent. They are still willing to go on, in the pure reckless spirit of gambling, caring nothing what social mischief they occasion, so long as they can deluge the markets of the world with their bales of calico and cotton. For this end, by an unholy and unprincipled combination, they have contrived to substitute foreign in place of British agricultural labour, whilst, with unparalleled selfishness, they reject all proposals for an equitable distribution of taxation.

The annual amount of the manufacturing productions of this country is estimated at £178,000,000; and it is said that last year we have exported £58,000,000. If this be the case, there remain goods to the value of £120,000,000, to be consumed at home; and the amount of the actual consumption mainly depends upon the consumers’ power of purchase. Mr Villiers tells us that £91,000,000 have been _lost_ to the agricultural classes—for depreciation is neither more nor less than direct loss. It is an obvious fallacy to assume, as Mr Muntz does, that this sum is merely to be considered as transferred from one pocket of the community to another, as a note for five pounds might be. In the latter case, the capital represented by the note is not destroyed; in the former, the agricultural produce having been purchased and consumed at two-thirds of its productive cost, there is clearly a direct loss to the producing party. The annual amount of agricultural produce in this country was estimated, according to former average prices, at £250,000,000; and if this be accepted as true, or even an approximation to the truth, the estimate of Mr Villiers will show a depreciation of more than a third of the value. To that extent, therefore, the power of purchase in the home market is lessened; for if £120,000,000 of manufactures are made to be consumed at home, and the means of the consumers are reduced by £91,000,000, how is it possible that trade can remain in a prosperous condition?