Chapter XII: Part XI (6)

This is a state of matters which cannot continue long without manifest danger even to the tranquillity of the country. It is quite plain that, at present rates, agriculture cannot be carried on as heretofore in Great Britain. The farmer has been the first sufferer; the turn of the landowner is approaching. Let us illustrate this shortly. There must be, on an average of ordinary years, a certain price at which wheat can be grown remuneratively in this country. Sir Robert Peel, no mean authority on the subject, has indicated his opinion that such price may be stated at or about 56s. per quarter. Mr James Wilson, rating it somewhat lower, fixes it at 52s. 2d. Let us suppose, that wheat for the future shall average over England 39s. per quarter, and that the produce of the acre is twenty-four bushels, the loss on each acre of wheat hereafter raised will be, according to Sir Robert Peel, £2, 11s.--according to Mr Wilson, £1, 19s. 6d. What deduction of rent can meet such a depreciation as this? Excluding Middlesex, which is clearly exceptional, the highest rented county of England, Leicester, is estimated at £1, 14s. 10d. per acre; Warwickshire, at £1, 11s. 6d.; and Lincolnshire at £1, 8s. Haddington and Fife, the highest rented counties of Scotland, are estimated at £1, 5s. 6d. per acre. This of course includes much land of an inferior description; but we believe that, for the best arable land, an average rent of 40s. per acre may be assumed. In that case, supposing the whole rent to be given up, the farmer would still be a loser by cultivation, if Sir Robert Peel is correct in his figures.

Without presuming to offer an opinion as to the accuracy of either of the calculations submitted by these two Free-trading authorities, we think it is plain that the more favourable of them, taken in connection with present prices, is appalling enough to the agriculturist, whether he be landlord or tenant. We shall see, probably in a month or two, whether it is likely that even these prices can be maintained. We are clearly of opinion that the price of corn in this country must fall to the level of the cheapest market from which we can derive any considerable supplies; and in that case it is quite as likely that we may see wheat quoted at 32s. or 33s., as at 39s. or 40s. But the matter for our consideration is, that, ever since the repeal of the corn laws, the market price of grain has been greatly below the cost of its production; and that there are no symptoms of any amendment, but obviously the reverse.

The inevitable result of the continuance of such a state of matters is too clear to admit of argument. The land must go out of cultivation. The process may be slow, but it will be sure. It may, doubtless, be retarded by remissions of rent not sufficient to cover the farmer's losses, but great enough to induce him to renew his efforts for another year with the like miserable result; until at length the tiller of the soil is made bankrupt, and the landowner occupies his place. We can hardly trust ourselves to depict the effect of such a social revolution. All the misery which has been already felt--and that is far greater than our rulers will permit themselves to believe--would be as nothing compared with the calamitous consummation of Free Trade.

Yet it is towards that point that we are rapidly tending. Some of the fierce and more plain-spoken Radical journals are so far from contradicting our views, that they openly rejoice in the havoc which has been already made, and in the wider ruin which is impending. They say plainly, looking to the funds, that they see no method of escaping from the domination of the moneyed interest, except through the prostration of the landlords. Their meaning is quite distinct and undisguised. They want to get rid of the national debt, by reducing the value of produce so low, that the usual amount of taxation cannot possibly be levied; and their scheme, however nefarious, is by no means devoid of plausibility. There can be no doubt that the Currency Act of 1819 has operated most injuriously upon the industry of the nation, by enhancing the value of the claims of the creditor; and that these claims, along with the necessary expenses of government, must be paid, _ante omnia_, from the industrial produce of the year. The cheapening process, therefore, is one directly antagonistic to the maintenance of taxation. The anomaly in legislation of forcibly reducing the value of produce, and yet maintaining stringently an artificial standard of taxation, has been reserved for our times; yet, strange to say, though its effects are visible and confessed, few persons have courage or patience enough to grapple with the difficulty. Free Trade and a Fettered Currency are things that cannot possibly co-exist for any length of time; and our sole surprise is, that any statesman could be shortsighted enough to attempt to reconcile them. Taken singly, either of them is a great evil to a country situated like ours--taken together, they become absolutely intolerable. But we have no wish, at the present time, to depart from the point before us. We are merely taking the evidence of adversaries, to show that our views as to the position and prospects of the great productive classes of Britain are so far from exaggerated that they are acknowledged by the most strenuous advocates of Free Trade. The fundholder, nevertheless, may derive a useful lesson from these financial hints, which indicate an ulterior purpose.

Such is the state of the agricultural interest throughout the three Kingdoms at this moment, and such are the prospects before us. The evidence, albeit not taken before a committee of either House of Parliament, is too unanimous to admit of a doubt; county after county, district after district, parish after parish throughout England, have testified to their melancholy condition. The _Times_ may talk of mendicity, and the _Economist_ may trump up figures to show that the farmers ought to be making a profit even at present prices; but neither irony nor fiction can avail to discredit or pervert facts so well authenticated as these. Of these facts parliament is fully cognisant--not only from the individual knowledge of members as to what is passing abroad--not only from the sentiments expressed at many hundred meetings, independent of the great demonstrations lately made at London and Liverpool--but from the petitions which have been presented to both Houses, praying for a reversal of that policy which has proved so detrimental to the interests of a large section of her Majesty's subjects. Yet still Parliament is silent, and the first Minister of the Crown refuses to sanction that appeal to the country, which the exigency of the case would seem to require, and which has been resorted to on occasions far less peremptory and pressing than this.

Let us not be misunderstood. Our wish simply is to record the fact of such silence and refusal,--not to be rash in censure. We cannot, and do not forget the peculiar circumstances connected with the last general election--the political tergiversation which preceded it, the hopes and expectations which were then entertained by many, as to the working of the new system,--or the disorganisation of parties. Even the most strenuous opponents of the Free-Trade measures, since these had passed into a law, however iniquitously carried, were desirous that the experiment should have a fair trial, and that it should not be impeded in its progress, so long as, by the most liberal construction, it could be held to justify the anticipations of its authors. Many names of great weight, influence, and authority were found among the roll of those who consented to the new measures; and it was most natural that, throughout the country, a number of persons should be found willing to surrender their own judgment upon a matter yet untried, which had received so creditable a sanction. Therefore it was that the majority of members returned to the present House of Commons were Free-traders, bound to the system by the double ties of previous conviction and of pledge; and though recent elections, as well as the alarming posture of affairs, have contributed materially to alter the position of the two great parties in the House, it would be unreasonable as yet to look for a change, in a body so constituted, at least to that extent which a reversal of the adopted policy must imply.

Neither can we rationally expect, that Lord John Russell will be forward to recognise a failure, where he confidently anticipated a triumph. We believe him to have been, far more than Sir Robert Peel, the dupe of those random assertions and presumptuous calculations which were thrust forward by men utterly unfit, from their previous habits and education, to pronounce an opinion upon subjects of such magnitude and intricacy. We should not be surprised if, even now, his Lordship had some lingering kind of faith in the prophecies of the member for Westbury. Men are slow to believe that the ground is crumbling from below their feet; that the political scaffolding which they assisted to rear has been pitched in a marshy quagmire. Self love, and that kind of pride which is so nearly allied to conceit that it often assumes the form of obstinacy, stand woefully in the way of recantation; and moreover in the present instance to recant is equivalent to resign. We remember well the profound and sagacious remark of Sir Walter Scott, that "the miscarriage of his experiment no more converts the political speculator, than the explosion of a retort undeceives an alchymist." Lord John Russell in all probability is not yet prepared, from conviction, to revise his opinions on a question in which he is so deeply committed. He has a majority in the House of Commons, and, according to the forms of the constitution, so long as he can command that majority, he is entitled to persevere. It is well that our friends, whatever pressing cause they may have for their impatience, should remember these things; and not be too forward in pressing wholesale accusations, either against a Parliament chosen under such peculiar circumstances, or a Minister who is simply adhering to the course long since avowed by himself, and acted on by his immediate predecessor. We may regret, and many of us do unquestionably most bitterly feel, the anomalous position in which we are placed. A more cruel, a more galling thought can hardly be imagined than the conviction which is very general abroad, and which is also ours, that the present Parliament does not represent the feelings or the desires of the people; that it is not consulting their welfare or protecting their interests; and that the duration of that Parliament alone prevents a vigorous and successful effort in the cause of British industry. Yet still, while we feel all this, let us not be unjust to others. We cannot coerce opinion. We cannot force honourable members at once to retrace their steps, or to give the lie to their acknowledged pledges. We cannot complain of open wrong if Ministers decline to accept our voices, in lieu of the voices of those whom we formerly sent as representatives. Their answer and vindication lies in the fact of their Parliamentary majority. Why Parliament should thus be placed in direct antagonism to the country, is a very different question. We need not go far in search of the reason. It is the direct consequence of that policy which Sir Robert Peel thought fit to adopt, not with regard to the abstract measures of Free Trade, but for the carrying of these measures into effect, without an appeal to the country, and by means which proved how closely deceit is allied to tyranny. Upon his head, if not the whole, at least the primary responsibility rests. He has accepted it, and let it abide with him. And let no man affirm that, in saying this, we are prolonging any rancorous feeling, or seeking to rub a sore which by this time should be wellnigh healed. The time for indignation and anger, if injury coupled with perfidy can ever provoke such sentiments, is not yet past; it is now in its fullest force. Had Sir Robert Peel acted as he ought to have done--had he played the part of a British statesman, sincerely desirous that in a matter of such magnitude the will of the country should be respected--the present Parliament, whatever might have been its decision as to Free Trade or Protection, would at least have represented the wishes of the electoral body; and if subsequent events had shown that these wishes were more sanguine than wise, the error would have been a national one, and no weight of individual responsibility would have been incurred. As it is, we are not only justified, but we are performing our duty, in indicating the real and sole originator of our present difficulties; and without wishing in any degree to trench upon his secret sources of consolation, we can hardly imagine that he will derive much comfort from the knowledge, that his tortuous policy has deprived the people in the hour of need of their best constitutional privilege and shield--the sympathy and co-operation of that House which is emphatically their own, and which, to the great detriment of the state, must lose its moral power the moment that it ceases to represent the will, and to protect the interests of the Commons.

We are well aware that such reflections as these can bring but sorry comfort to the farmers. Their situation is one of unparalleled hardship, unrelieved by any consideration which can make the case of other sufferers more tolerable. We fully admit the vast extent of the powers which, since the Great Revolution, are held to be vested in Parliaments. We cannot gainsay the doctrine that these powers may, on occasion, be exerted to the uttermost; but we say, after the most careful and thoughtful deliberation, that the proceedings of the legislature with regard to the farmers of Great Britain are irreconcilable with the principles of justice, with the sacred laws of morality, which no legislative resolutions can abrogate or annul. The farmers are entitled to maintain that, in so far as regards them, the public faith has been broken. Such of them as hold leases had a distinct and unqualified guarantee given to them by the protective laws; and the allegation that the substitution of the sliding-scale for a fixed duty acted as a release for all former Parliamentary engagements, is a quibble so mean and wretched that the basest attorney would be ashamed to use it as a plea. The whole of the farmers' fixed and floating capital, estimated at the enormous sum of five hundred millions sterling, has been laid out on the faith of Protection; and yet when that Protection was furtively and treacherously withdrawn, no measure was introduced for the purpose of relieving them from engagements contracted under the older system, which were obviously incompatible with the lowered prices established by the formidable change. The public, we are afraid, are not aware of the extent of that depreciation which is still going on, _and which already exceeds the whole annual value of the manufacturing productions of Great Britain_. We borrow the following table from a late pamphlet by Mr Macqueen entitled, "Statistics of Agriculture, Manufactures, and Commerce, drawn up from Official and Authentic Documents;" and having tested it by every means in our power, we have no hesitation in adopting it. It is, in truth, a fearful commentary on the rashness and folly of our rulers.

COMPARATIVE VALUES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.

Protective Depreciation. Value 1850.
value.
Grains, potatoes, &c., £237,543,750 £80,764,875 £156,778,875
Straw, 100,700,000 30,210,000 70,490,000
Green crops, pasture, &c., 222,404,786 66,721,435 155,683,351
Sundries, 8,500,000 2,125,000 6,375,000
Wool, British, 15,400,000 1,540,000 13,860,000
------------ ------------ ------------
£584,518,536 £181,361,310 £403,187,226

But this is not all. We have still to deal with the depreciation or diminished value of the farmers' fixed capital, invested in live stock, &c., which at the rate of 25 per cent, (a most moderate calculation, and below the mark in so far as Scotland is concerned,) shows a loss on £504,833,730 of £126,208,432 _additional_!

We put forward the case of the farmers thus prominently, because, in addition to the great public wrong which has been done to them, they have serious reason to complain of the general apathy of the landlords. We do not allude to the part which the landowners took in 1846. We believe that the majority of them were sincerely disgusted by the conduct of the men who had climbed into office on their shoulders; and that they loathed and despised in their hearts the treachery of which they were made the tools. We know, moreover, that a great many of them abstained from taking part in the election of 1847, not being able to see their way through the political chaos in which we were then involved, and having, naturally enough, lost confidence in the probity of public men, and despairing of the remodelment of a strong constitutional party. Such things were, perhaps, inevitable; and it may be argued with much show of reason, that no better line of conduct was open to the landlords, and that they did wisely in reserving themselves for a more favourable opportunity, when experience, that stern and unfailing monitor, should have exposed to the Free-traders the falsity of their wild expectations. But it is impossible for them now to plead that the opportunity has not arrived. The experiment has been made, and has failed--failed utterly and entirely, if the practical refutation of the views advanced by all its leading advocates is to be considered as equivalent to failure. The current of reaction has set in strong and steady, not only in the counties, but in the towns; not only among those who, from their position, must be the earliest sufferers, but among those who are connected with the trade and general commerce of Britain. The disorganised party has rallied and is reformed under leaders of great talent, tried skill, and most assured loyalty and honour. How is it that, in this posture of affairs, any considerable section of the landlords is still hanging back? Why is it that they do not place themselves, as is their duty, at the head of their tenantry, and enforce and encourage those appeals to public justice, and to public policy, which are now making themselves heard in every quarter of the kingdom? We confess that we are at a loss to know why any apathy should be shown. The conduct of the tenantry towards the landlords has been generous and considerate in the extreme. They were invited, in no equivocal terms, to join their cause with that of the Free-traders and financial reformers; and they were promised, in that event, the cordial assistance of the latter towards the adjustment of their rents, and the equalisation of their public burdens. We venture not an opinion whether such promise was ever intended to be kept. Still it was made; and no effort was left untried to convince the farmers that their cause was separate and apart from that of the owners of the land. Their refusal to enter into that unholy alliance was most honourable to the body of the tenantry, and entitles them, at the hands of the proprietors, to look not only for consideration and sympathy, but for the most active and energetic support. Very ill indeed shall we augur of the spirit and patriotism of the gentlemen of England, if they longer abstain from identifying themselves universally with a movement which is not only a national one, in the strictest sense of the word, but upon which depends the maintenance of their own interests and order. Surely they cannot have been so dull or so deaf to what is passing around them, as not to be aware that they were especially marked out as the victims of the Manchester confederacy! These are not times in which any man can afford to be apathetic, nor will any trivial excuse for languor or indifference be accepted. Exalted position, high character, the reputation for princely generosity, and the best of private reputations, will be no apology for inactivity in a crisis so momentous as this. Organisation, union, and energy are at all times the chief means for insuring success; and we trust that, henceforward, there may be less timidity shown by those who ought to take the foremost rank in a contest of such importance, and who cannot abstain longer from doing so without forfeiting their claim to that regard which has hitherto been readily accorded them.

It will be observed that, as yet, we have put the case for Protection upon very narrow grounds. We have shown that, so far as the agricultural body is concerned, Free Trade has proved most injurious, and that it cannot be persisted in without bringing downright ruin to that section of the community. If we had nothing more to advance than this, still we should be entitled to maintain that enough has been adduced to show the necessity of retracing our steps. The annihilation of such an important body as the agriculturists of Britain, implies of itself a revolution as great as ever was effected in the world; and to that, assuredly, if the agriculturists stood alone, they would not tamely submit. When Mr Cobden or his satellites addressed the people of Manchester, through their League circulars, to the following effect, "If the Americans will only put down their monopolising manufacturers, and we put down our monopolising landowners here, when our election time comes, we will lay the Mississippi valley alongside of Manchester, and we will have a glorious trade then!"--and again, "Our doctrine is, let the working man ply his hammer, or his spindle, or his shuttle, and let the Kentucky or the Illinois farmer, by driving his plough in the richest land on the surface of the earth, feed this mechanic or this weaver, and let him send home his produce in exchange for the products of our operatives and artisans"--they seem to have forgotten the temper and mould of the men with whom they proposed to deal so summarily. It is not quite so easy to expatriate three millions of able-bodied men; nor do we opine that a power morally or physically adequate to the task of such removal exists in the manufacturing districts. But, in reality, of all idle talk that ever issued from the lips or the pen of an inflated demagogue, this is the silliest and the worst. It presupposes an amount of ignorance on the part of his audience anything but flattering to the calibre of the Manchester intellect: indeed we hardly know which is most to be admired--its intense and transparent folly or its astounding audacity. The home trade is a thing altogether kept out of account in the foregoing splendid vision of a calico millennium. Mr Cobden, it will be seen, contemplates no home consumption, except in so far as the operative may provide himself with his own shirtings. The whole production of Britain is to be limited to manufactures; the whole supplies are to be derived from the hands of the reciprocating foreigner!

There does not exist in this great and populous country any one class the labour of which can be restricted, or the profits curtailed, without an injurious result to the interests of the whole community. This is not simply a maxim of political economy; it is a distinct physical fact, which no ingenuity can controvert. Yet, strange to say, our rulers have acted, and are acting, with regard to by far the most important class of the country, as if no such fact were known; and they now profess to be amazed at its speedy and inevitable consequence. That agricultural distress must react upon the manufacturer, the trader, shopkeeper, and artisan, is as necessary a consequence as is a failure in the supply of water after a long-continued drought. If our taxation is artificial, and our national establishments costly, it must not be forgotten that our private expenditure is generally on the same scale. We consume within the country a far greater amount of manufactures than we can ever hope to export, and the only limit to that consumption is the power of purchase. The profits of the landowner, which depend upon the value of produce, do not constitute a fund which is removed from public circulation. On the contrary, these profits furnish the means of labour and employment to the greater portion of the industrious classes, who otherwise would have no resource; and if they are violently curtailed, it must needs follow that a large amount of employment is withdrawn. That is precisely our case at the present moment. By the admission of foreign produce, which is in fact foreign labour, the value of agricultural production in this country has fallen very nearly thirty per cent, and the consequence is a greatly diminished expenditure, and a slackening of employment grievously felt by those who are supported by manual labour. How, indeed, is it possible that it can be otherwise? A very little thought must convince every one that all incomes in Britain must depend upon the amount and value of the national production, and that, by reducing and lowering that, a direct attack is made upon the profits of every kind of labour. It is singular that consequence so plain should ever have been overlooked; still more singular that statesmen should have been found to maintain an opposite theory. The only explanation we can suggest as to this singular departure from the leading principles of economical science is, that of late years Ministers have habitually consulted the interests of the capitalists rather than those of the people. Sir Robert Peel has invariably shown himself a capitalist legislator. At the outset of his career, and while under the Israelitish guidance of Ricardo, he succeeded in carrying those Currency measures which increased by nearly one-third the weight of the national obligations. Later in life we find him engaged in measures of arbitrary bank restriction, thereby occasioning commercial panics, and securing another rich harvest for the moneyed class. His tariffs and Free-trade measures exhibit precisely the same tendency. They are all constructed with a view to cheapness, or, what is the same thing, to the diminution of the value of labour, so that the fortune of the capitalist or fundholder is now virtually doubled: while the industrious classes, with a lowered rate of wage, are compelled to undergo the additional evil of unrestricted foreign competition.

Let us now, for a brief space, proceed to consider the internal adjustment of the strength and industry of Britain. It is a subject well worthy of study, especially at the present moment, when a general feeling of perplexity prevails, and when those who unfortunately gave ear to the specious representations of the Free-traders are convinced of their error, but are yet in doubt whether it be possible to retrace our steps. It is a subject, moreover, upon which we are bound to enter, seeing that official cunning has been used to conceal the real posture of affairs in this country, and, by undervaluing the magnitude of some interests, to give a factitious and altogether imaginary importance to others. We trust that we shall be able to show, to the satisfaction of our readers, the gross extent to which this kind of delusion and imposture has been carried.

Upon no subject whatever are more erroneous impressions entertained, than upon the relative importance and strength of the two great classes of the country. Of late it has been quietly assumed that the manufacturers are infinitely superior to the agriculturists, not only in point of numbers, but in respect of capital employed or available; and many people have been puzzled to understand why, if this should be the case, such vehement opposition should be made to any proposal for readjusting the direct and local taxation, which confessedly weighs most heavily upon the proprietors and occupiers of the land. We have been told, in as many words, that henceforward the voice of the towns is to dictate the policy of Britain--that the agriculturists are a worn-out class, scarce worth preserving--and the most influential of the Free-trade journals has not hesitated to recommend a wholesale emigration to the Antipodes, or any portion of the surface of the globe where corn can be cultivated cheaper than in England. We have been not only taunted, but threatened, whenever we presumed to expostulate. Reference was made to certain "masses," who were ready to rise in defence of perennial cheapness; and Mr Cobden has warned us not to provoke the exercise of that power which is vested in himself, as dictator of the democracy. In short, we have been given to understand that, if protection to native industry, in any shape, should be re-introduced--which only can be done by the will and legitimate sanction of Parliament--physical force shall not be wanting on the other side.

The use of such language argues great ignorance of the national temper. We have heard a good deal lately of what is termed the dogged Anglo-Saxon spirit, the main characteristic of which we take to be its decided antagonism to bullying, and its inveterate hatred of coercion. It is too much to expect that a controversy such as this should be conducted without some asperity of language, and therefore we make no clamorous complaint when Mr Cobden, or his friends, think proper to designate the British agriculturists as "ignorant clodpoles" and "horse-shoe idiots," or the landed proprietors as "a selfish and degraded faction," or the Protectionist press as the "hireling tools of oppression." These are very old and very harmless terms of rhetoric, and we are not sure that we can claim entire vindication from the charge of having retorted with tolerable energy. The real danger begins when men step beyond constitutional limits, and advocate resistance to the legislature by appealing to the passions, as they have pandered to the prejudices, of the mob.

Having premised so much, we think no one can misinterpret our motives, if we set ourselves seriously to the task of refuting a great fallacy which has been hatched and propagated by the Free-traders. It is one so monstrous in itself that we hardly could have supposed that any man, who had reflected for a moment on the subject, could have yielded to the delusion: nevertheless, we believe it to be most common, and it has been over and over again repeated at public meetings, until it has lost its quality as an assertion, and been treated as a recognised fact. It is within the recollection of all of us, that, both within the walls of Parliament and at the great outward gatherings of the League, the superiority of the manufacturing over the agricultural interest of Great Britain was broadly asserted, and assumed as the basis of the leading argument of the Free-traders. Sir Robert Peel expressly adopted this view in 1846, while advocating the repeal of the policy, which he had hitherto professed to support; we say, _professed_, because no man now doubts--indeed, it is fairly admitted by himself, with something like a sneer of triumph--that for many years he had been practising a deliberate imposture on the public. This view necessarily must have had some foundation on authority, if not on fact; and we can trace that authority to a statistical writer, Mr Porter, on whose accuracy, and method of dealing with figures, far too much reliance has been placed by statesmen high in office.

In dealing with the census of 1841, and compiling his tables with a view to show the relative occupations of the people, Mr Porter has adopted the ingenious plan of massing commerce, trade, and manufactures together, and exhibiting the aggregate of these in contradistinction to the purely agricultural interest! At page 55 of the last edition of his _Progress of the Nation_ we find this statement--"The following more elaborate table of the occupations of the population of Great Britain, as ascertained in 1841, his been compiled from the Reports of the Census Commissioners. _It affords the best abstract_ that has hitherto been attainable upon this important branch of political arithmetic."

We turn to the table indicated in this modest passage, and we find the following results for Great Britain alone:--

Persons engaged in commerce,}
trade, and manufacture, } 3,092,787

Agriculture, 1,490,785

Labour not agricultural, 758,495

This, of course, is exclusive of the army, navy, learned professions, domestic servants, and various other employments, besides women and children. In another table, Mr Porter, estimating the male population of Great Britain, (excluding Ireland,) who were then upwards of twenty years of age, at 4,761,091, divides them thus:--

Agriculture, 1,198,156
Trade, manufactures, &c., 2,125,496
Other classes, 1,437,439
---------
4,761,091

If, as Mr Spackman most properly observes in his excellent work, the _Analysis of the Occupations of the People_, one of the principal objects of taking the census is to trace the relative degree of dependence of one class upon another, how can this be done if all the trade and commerce of the country is to be mixed up with manufactures? "Mr Porter would have us to consider trade and commerce, _and manufactures_ as synonymous terms, and that together they only form one class; and he seems to be so thoroughly haunted with the numerical weakness of the manufacturing interest, that his fear of its being discovered peeps out in every paragraph; and, by mixing them up in every table in which they are mentioned in his book, with those engaged in trade and commerce, he has effectually succeeded in his object."

As we propose to lay before our readers the results of Mr Spackman, it may be proper shortly to state the principles which have guided him in his classification of the official returns. He recognises but two great classes of the community engaged in the production of wealth, and upon these he justly considers the whole of the remainder to be dependent. The following extract from his preface will sufficiently explain his view:--

"Of the number of persons actually employed by the
agriculturists and manufacturers, no difference of opinion can
exist, as we have adopted the Government classification in
every instance, and copied the figures given in the returns. We
believe this classification to be correct in principle, and but
slightly erroneous in details.

"Political economists may exercise their ingenuity by calling in
question this classification, but we believe it is the only one
that accurately traces the dependence of an individual on the
one or the other interest; and, as this is the primary object
of all such matters, if it attains this end, it is sufficient
for all purposes. By the landed interest we mean not only
the proprietors of the soil, but all that are engaged in its
cultivation, and all the interests that are dependent on and
supported by both landlord and tenant. An agriculturist is one
who grows the raw material. The manufacturer changes the fabric
from cotton into calico, flax into linen, wool into cloth, raw
into manufactured silk, mineral ores into various combinations
of metals, and the skin of an animal into leather.

"All besides the agriculturists and the manufacturers are
auxiliaries, not principals. Thus the handicraftsman alters the
form, but not the substance, and adapts the article to the use
of the consumer,--so the miller, baker, and butcher; the tailor,
milliner, and shoemaker.

"There is also a very numerous class, who neither produce,
manufacture, nor alter the shape or substance of an article,
and these are called merchants, if they buy and sell in a
wholesale manner, or shopkeepers and retail dealers if they sell
by retail. The business of these is to distribute all articles
imported from abroad or produced at home, through every city,
town, and village, in the United Kingdom; and the Government
definition of all these auxiliaries is 'engaged in trade and
commerce.'

"The dependence of any particular class engaged in trade and
commerce, or in handicraft, is not upon the party who produces,
alters, or supplies the article, but on the individual who
consumes it; and if there is any tax whatever on the raw
material, or on anything used in its manufacture, adaptation, or
distribution, it is on him that all and every item of such tax,
together with all profits and charges, must ultimately fall.

"Inasmuch, however, as there is no wealth in this country of any
amount, but what has been derived either from agriculture or
manufactures, nor any of which the value is not determined by
the success of these, so again this consumer, whatever his rank
or position in society may be, is mainly dependent on them. The
rental of land, the income from houses, or investments in the
public funds, are merely the representatives of so much labour;
and the means necessary to pay them are principally drawn from
either agriculture or manufactures.

"Our annual creation of wealth may be thus stated:--

Agriculture, £250,000,000

Manufactures, deducting the }
value of the raw material, } 127,000,000

Money interest, 37,000,000

Colonial interest, 18,000,000

Foreign commerce, (including }
shipping interest,) 10 per } 15,000,000
cent on amount of exports }
and imports,}

Fisheries, 3,000,000
------------
£450,000,000"
------------

_And from one or other of these does every individual in the land derive his income or means of support._ The Peer of the realm, the landed proprietor, the Government annuitant, the clergyman, the medical and the legal adviser, with the banker, merchant, dealer, and handicraftsman of every class and kind,--derive what is necessary to support their state and condition, and their daily sustenance, from these spring-heads of national wealth. This is the substance of the nation, and what we call money consists merely of the counters we use to denote and measure the value of this substance as it passes from one to another.

"To do equal justice to all classes, the legislation of a
country ought, therefore, to keep steadily in view their
relative importance, not only as regards numbers, but also their
powers of production, and the proportion which they severally
bear of the national burdens. Unless this is the governing
principle, it strikes at the root of their prosperity, and the
injury inflicted on a class is evinced in the gradual decay of
the whole community."

Acting upon these distinct, and, we submit, perfectly sound principles, Mr Spackman has compiled his tables in the following manner. The Government returns are quite explicit as to the number of those engaged directly in agriculture and in manufactures. Mr Spackman takes each county separately; and having set down the relative numbers of each class, he divides the remainder of the population between these according to their proportion. For example, let us instance his table of the county of Lanark, which is the great seat of Scottish manufactures. We find, from the official returns, that the following numbers are directly engaged:--

In Agriculture, 13,169
In Manufactures of all kinds, 61,378

The residue of the population being 352,425, he divides in the same proportion, and thus gives us as a result:--

Engaged in Agriculture, 13,169
Dependent on, 62,257
------ 75,426
Engaged in Manufactures, 61,378
Dependent on, 290,168
------- 351,546
-------
Total of county, 426,972

In the same way, by estimating the population of Perthshire directly employed in agriculture and manufactures, Mr Spackman forms his table thus,--

Engaged in Agriculture, 16,302
Dependent on, 64,233
------ 80,535
Engaged in Manufactures, 11,509
Dependent on, 45,346
------ 56,855
------
Total of County, 137,390

The grand result for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is as follows:--

Engaged in, and dependent on
agriculture, 18,734,468
Engaged in, and dependent on
manufactures, 8,091,621
----------
Population, exclusive of those
travelling on night of census, 26,826,089

Lest it should be said that Mr Spackman has acted upon any wrong principle in framing these tables--for we know by experience that a certain class of political economists can see no virtue in any figures which are not of their own construction--let us turn to the Government reports, and extract from them the number of males _directly_ employed in the two great branches of production.

AGRICULTURE.

Farmers and Graziers, 737,206
Agricultural Labourers, 2,312,388
Gardeners, Nurserymen, &c. 60,767
All others, 9,196
---------
Total Males, 3,118,557

MANUFACTURES.

Above 20, 717,780
Under 20, 168,964
--------
Total Males, 886,744

"It will thus be seen," says Mr Spackman, "that the farmers and graziers alone, as a body, are more in number than all the males above twenty years of age employed in manufactures, and only 150,000 short of the whole number of males of all ages so employed. If we add the two and a quarter millions of labourers which these farmers and graziers give employment to, the _male_ population employed in agriculture are nearly as four to one compared with those employed in manufactures. The same remark will also apply as to age: those above twenty are four to one; those under twenty are nearly two to one."

We put forward these statements with no other view than to exhibit to our readers the national importance of that agricultural interest which has been so bitterly assailed, and which is threatened still by a heavier accession of calamity. If the bastard system of Free Trade is to be considered according to its influence on the welfare of the majority of the people of Britain, there can be no doubt to which side the vast preponderance belongs. The "horse-shoe idiots," though dull in intellect, are numerous in the flesh to an extent of which, perhaps, even Mr Cobden was little aware. It is quite true that the extended area over which they are disposed does not afford them the same means of combination which are within the reach of the inhabitants of the factories. The agriculturalists have no wish to interfere with their neighbours' livelihood, and little inclination to move at the bidding of mercenary demagogues. They seldom speak until suffering or a sense of injustice compels them to appeal to the legislature: and their unwillingness to join in agitation has, ere now, been made subject of taunt against them. Were it otherwise, we should not attach one half the importance which we do to the movement which is visible all over the face of agricultural England--a movement which the advocates of Free Trade may affect to despise, but which, in reality, has struck them with consternation. And no wonder that the movement should have been made. Let us pass from the mere numerical consideration, and look to the extent of property which is embarked on the one side and on the other.

We have already stated the annual value of the agricultural production of these kingdoms to be £250,000,000, whilst that of manufactures is little more than £127,000,000. To this latter sum we must add about £50,000,000, being the estimated cost of the raw material, if we wish to calculate from the exports the importance of the home market compared with that which is to be found abroad. For example, if the declared value of the exports shall amount to 69 millions, we are entitled to assume that about 117 millions are consumed at home in a year of ordinary prosperity. This, of course, is no more than an approximation to the truth, but it is the nearest which can be made from such documents, reports, and returns, as are accessible to the statist. Let us take Mr Spackman's estimate of the capital employed, referring our readers for the details to his exceedingly interesting work.

AGRICULTURAL CAPITAL.

Value of the Land, at 25 years' purchase of the annual rental of
Great Britain and Ireland, amounting, to £58,753,615 £1,500,000,000

Farmers' capital, employed in the cultivation of the soil, independent
of the stock on hand, at all times, of cattle, grain, &c., £5 to
£6 per acre on 46,522,970 acres, about 250,000,000

Stock in hand--
About 7,500,000 head of cattle, }
" 31,000,000 sheep and lambs, }
" 1,500,000 horses, } 250,000,000
" £50,000,000 value of timber, }
}
On an average, three months stock of grain, seeds,
hay, and other produce always on hand, }
-------------
Estimated agricultural capital £2,000,000,000
-------------

MANUFACTURING CAPITAL.

In Cotton, £24,500,000
" Woollen, 16,500,000
" Linen, 7,000,000
" Silk, 4,000,000
" Lace, 2,000,000
" Hose, 1,000,000
All others, 23,000,000
-----------
Estimated manufacturing capital, £78,000,000
-----------

The first reflection which must come home to the mind of every one who considers these tables, is the astounding audacity of those who have characterised the landlords as a grasping and rapacious class. Singular, nay, almost incredible as it may appear, the annual value of the production of manufactures is nearly double the amount of the whole capital invested. This fact sufficiently explains the manner in which so many colossal fortunes have been realised, while it also suggests very painful reflections as to the condition of the operatives who are the creators of all this wealth. But what are we to think of the conduct of the men who, not content with such enormous returns, have leagued together to swell them to a greater amount, by demanding the free importation of foreign produce, under the pretext that the people were oppressed by the continuance of a system which gave remunerative prices, continuous employment, and the means of livelihood to two-thirds of their aggregate number? We acquit many of the leading and most respectable manufacturers from being participators in any such scheme. Those connected with the home trade have very generally been opposed to the application of the Free-trade doctrines, the leading advocates of which were comprised of men who manufactured solely for exportation, and whose goods were neither intended nor adapted for British consumption. It was for the exclusive benefit, as at the instigation of the latter, that the Corn Laws were repealed. Few can be sorry--we confess we are not--that even they have been disappointed in their expectations. No tariffs have been relaxed in consequence of the ill-omened surrender; on the contrary, the Continental states, as well as the Americans, are protecting their own manufactures with increased vigilance; whilst, on the other hand, they are availing themselves of our folly, by deluging our market with their agricultural produce, securing by these means the double advantage of promoting both branches of industry. Never was there a vainer notion than the chimera that other states would abandon their rising manufactures to reciprocate with Great Britain, when that haughty power had deliberately deprived herself of the means of enforcing reciprocity. _The countries from which we import the largest amount of grain are not the countries which take the largest amount of our manufactures._ Even if the case were otherwise, we maintain that we should be heavy losers, and in no way gainers, by the transaction. Nationally, this is so clear that we need not waste words by arguing the point; but we go further and say that, even had other states reciprocated, the manufacturers, as a body, could not have been gainers by Free Trade, unless the relative proportions between the amount of home and foreign consumption had been entirely changed. For, so long as two-thirds of our whole manufactures are annually consumed in Britain, the condition of the consumers there, and their power of purchase, must be a matter of greater importance to the manufacturer than that of consumers abroad. The interest of the shopkeepers and of the artisans is almost entirely bound up with the home trade; and nothing can be more suicidal to the traders than to give any countenance to a system which strikes at the amount of their profits, by crippling the means of their customers.

Were our object merely to show the glaring injustice which has been done to the landed interest, we could proceed much further in disentangling details from the confusion into which they have been purposely thrown, by such statistical writers as Mr Porter. But we apprehend that, in the present temper of the nation, there is little occasion for this. Men of all classes have had that opportunity which experience can alone give, of testing in their own individual case the advantages which were so confidently predicted by those who advocated the commercial change. Those who have benefited by it will, of course, remain Free traders. We are not unreasonable enough to expect that they will abandon that policy which is profitable to themselves, even though they should be convinced that it has proved the reverse of profitable to others. But we can conscientiously say, that we are acquainted with very few such persons. In the country they do not exist: in the towns, we hear of nothing except continued and weary depression. Almost every day fresh complaints of want of employment are thrust upon us. Establishments are reduced, because those who were considered wealthy, and those whose wealth depended upon produce, have no longer the means to support them as before: even professional incomes are declining: and no one ventures now to indulge in that expenditure which, four or five years ago, gave an impulse to the industry of the people. All this we believe to be acknowledged, and we have heard it from the lips of many whose political creed is quite at variance with our own.

Most important testimony to the same effect was borne, at the recent meeting in Liverpool, by gentlemen who, from profession and connection, belong to the mercantile and trading classes of the community. It is no vague apprehension of coming evil, no slight or ephemeral touch of distress, which has elicited declarations of opinion so strong as were there expressed. The urgency of the case is felt and acknowledged; and ere long we have not the slightest doubt that demonstrations of similar magnitude and importance will take place in other of the English towns.