HF
PRICE ONE SHILLING.

2601 A 595716
L43
1993 What Protection Does
FOR THE
Farmer and Labourer.
A Chapter of Agricultural History.
BY
I. S. LEADAM, M.A.,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW; LATE FELLOW OF BRASENOSE COLLEGE, OXFORD.
Author of "Farmers' Grievances"; "Agriculture and the Land Laws," &c.
FIFTH EDITION,
Revised and Enlarged.

PEACE
GOODWILL
Cobden
FREE
ADE-PEA
TRADE
Club
AMONG
NATIONS
CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited:
LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE.
1893.
[ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]

ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
LUNIBUS
03 UNUM
TLEBOR
SI-QUÆRIS-PENINSULAM-AMIENAM
CIRCUMSPICE
HF
2601
443
1893
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
FOR THE
FARMER AND LABOURER.
A Chapter of Agricultural History.
BY
M.A.,
I. S. LEADAM, M. A.,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW; LATE FELLOW OF BRASENOSE COLLEGE, OXFORD,
Author of "Farmers' Grievances" ;
"
Agriculture and the Land Laws," &c.
FIFTH EDITION.
Revised.

PEACE
TRADE
GOODWILL
Cobden
Clab
FREE
AMONG
NATIONS
CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED:
LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE,
[All rights reserved.Į
DEDICATION OF THE FIRST EDITION.
To
JAMES HOWARD, ESQ., M.P.
FOR THE COUNTY OF BEDFORD,
CHAIRMAN OF THE FARMERS' ALLIANCE,
A FAR-SEEING AND STRENUOUS ADVOCATE OF THE
FARMERS' TRUE INTERESTS,
These Pages are Enscribed.
November 9th, 1881.
151870
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
(REVISED.)
THE continued and accelerated fall of prices, the
consequent but more gradual decline in rents and the
incipient reductions of wages since the year 1881, when
this pamphlet was first published, have naturally increased
the unrest and dissatisfaction of the commercial and
industrial world. From these feelings the Fair Traders
have reaped what harvest they can lay claim to. As
though the events of history had never happened or had
never been recorded, they appeal to the hopes of those
whose profits they promise to raise, or to the discontent
of those who have fallen behind in the race of com-
petition. To the manufacturer and farmer they offer the
bait of increased returns to capital, to the labourer a rise
in wages, unmindful of the fact that to their fathers and
grandfathers the same hopes were held out and the same
promises falsified. It is intelligible that to men unversed
in abstract speculation a priori reasoning is not always
convincing, and it has been observed with truth that all
the dialectics of Cobden might have been fruitless but for
the stern lesson impressed by the Irish famine. I rest
the case against Protection to agriculture, therefore, in
the main upon experience, though I endeavour to reinforce
experience by showing the necessities out of which it
issued, and by deducing the moral which it points.
"Experience," said Benjamin Franklin, "keeps a dear
school, but fools will learn in none other, and scarce in
that." My hope is that the penal discipline of their
vi
PREFACE.
forefathers may be a sufficient lesson for the existing
generation.
The two former editions of this pamphlet have received
some not unfriendly criticisms from Protectionist Farmers.
"It is impossible," says one critic in a letter which was
communicated to me, "to follow him in his argument
that, because prices were augmented by Protection,
Farmers sustained a loss instead of a gain, as he begs the
question all the way through. In the first place, Rents
were not fixed on the assumption that wheat would make
the maximum price, but by supply and demand.” It is
a curious commentary on this statement that another
Protectionist Farmer, writing about the same time, says,
"Sir Robert Peel made a promise that wheat should
never be under 56s. a quarter"-a striking indication of
the interpretation assigned by Farmers to the anticipated
effects of a Protective tariff. But, indeed, so far have I
been from begging the question, that to any one who will
take the trouble to read the evidence of the Farmers
themselves it is clear to demonstration that Rents were
fixed in expectation of a steady maximum. See in the
evidence before the Committee of 1821 that of Mr.
Custance (p. 3); before the Committee of 1833, of Mr.
Oliver (p. 51); of Mr. Hope of Fenton Barns and of
Mr. Howden (pp. 61-3) before the Committee of 1836.
I heard not long ago from a landed proprietor a con-
firmatory tradition on the side of the Landowners. He
told me that he remembered his father saying that as
soon as the Corn Law of 1815 was passed the steward
was sent round the estate to raise the Rents. Unless
human nature is greatly changed both in Farmers and
Landlords, which will scarcely be contended, the phe-
nomenon which regularly recurred under the Corn Laws
would to a certainty reappear under a new one. And
how little human nature has changed on the Farmer's
side is shown by the illusory imaginings in which one of
PREFACE.
vii
my critics still indulges: "I must say it would be well to
legislate now so as to keep corn up to 56s. a quarter and
meat up to 8d. a pound, and thereby enable the Farmers
to live and pay fair rents."
Others, again, of the Protectionist Farmers with
whom I have come in contact have adopted a rôle of
self-sacrificing patriotism. Starting with the assumption
that it would really be advantageous for the country to
double its wheat area, they have criticised my conclusions
as to changes in the distribution of wealth which would
assuredly ensue. "It is invidious," they have argued,
"to insist upon the moral certainty that the Landlords
will appropriate the entire gain. A beneficial result will
have been attained which in the long run extends to
the whole community. Men of real public spirit will,
therefore, abstain from inquiries which have only the
effect of 'setting class against class.' They forget,
however, that their initial assumption is more than
questionable. It certainly cannot be shown from the
point of view of practical economics that an artificial
extension of the wheat area is desirable. If such an
extension were economically profitable, it would take
place without legislative forcing. The military argument
is disposed of by our experience of the time when
Napoleon was master of the wheat-exporting granaries
of the Continent. But even were their assumption
justified, the analysis of the changes in distribution
arising out of Protection is not out of place. The main
argument addressed to Farmers and Labourers is based
on nothing else than prophecies that the consequence
of Protection would be to put more into their pockets,
to distribute to them a larger share than before of the
national wealth. This is the challenge thrown down by
the Protectionists themselves, and this challenge I take
up. It is too late, then, for them to retreat from their
chosen position in a cloud of evasive heroics.
viii
PREFACE.
There is another class of argument of which I have
said nothing in the text, as not being strictly germane to
my topic. It is asserted by Fair Traders, and the
doctrine is embraced by Lord Randolph Churchill in
his Fair Trade as distinguished from his Free Trade
speeches, that the imposition of import duties would give
a healthy stimulus to the revenue. But investigation of
the effects of a tariff upon revenue shows its imposition
to be followed in general, if not by an absolute decline,
at least by a decline in the rate of increase. Some who
have pretensions to rank in political life, like Mr. Chaplin,
seriously suggest, in the face of the everyday experience
of commercial men, to say nothing of common sense,
that the duties are paid by the foreign exporters. The
simple commercial transactions which I have selected for
illustration on p. 90 is sufficient refutation of this obvious
fallacy. Others who think that the country will be
relieved by a tariff seem to suppose that duties are paid
by miracle. "He omits," says one of my critics, “one
important item, viz., the relief of taxation by the import
duty. If a duty of 5s. a quarter on wheat and 4s. a
quarter on barley and maize, and 3s. a quarter on oats
were imposed on importations at the present time, some-
thing like £8,000,000 per annum would be received
and might be applied to national purposes." Be received
—yes, but from whom? My friend, like Lord Randolph
Churchill, who is the first Chancellor of the Exchequer
since Addington untinged by Political Economy, would
do well to read that simple chapter of Bastiat on "That
which is seen and that which is not seen." The transfer
of them from one pocket to another may be a relief, as
this pamphlet shows, to one class of the community, but
it cannot be a lightening of the national burdens.
August 31, 1887.
PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.
DURING the months that have elapsed since the publi-
cation of the third edition, the cry of the Fair Traders
has become louder. In November last a meeting at
Oxford of more than a thousand Conservative associa-
tions from all parts of the country carried by an
overwhelming majority resolutions in favour of com-
mercial reaction. The most remarkable incident of this
declaration is that, since Lord R. Churchill of late
abjured Protectionism, it receives no overt encourage-
ment from any of the Party leaders. Indeed, the
politicians who are responsible for it can scarcely be said.
to take place even in the second rank. Nevertheless,
an agitation so popular with the local Party wire-pullers
cannot fail to be the cause of considerable embarrass-
ment to the Government, as well as to individual Con-
servatives who hesitate between Party ties and reluctance
to commit themselves to a doctrine, the realisation of
which must, as they know, result in acute distress among
the mass of the population.
One notable and constant characteristic of Protection
has already developed itself. A few years ago the Fair
Traders professed themselves desirous, as a rule, of
nothing more than a five-shilling duty on wheat, and
this rather by way of retaliation on the United States
than as in itself of advantage to the community. On
pp. 64-66, and generally throughout the pamphlet,
I have argued on the assumption that this was their
X
PREFACE.
demand. Nor have I departed from that assumption in
this edition. But I observe that expectation is whetting
the edge of Protectionist rapacity. We have not to wait
for the appetite which partial fruition invariably brings.
Our Protectionists, like the ancient Sibyl, are already raising
their terms. On the 8th of December (1887) the "National
Association for the Preservation of Agriculture and our
other Industries" held a demonstration in St. James's
Hall. Their chairman, after picturing the supposed
ruinous consequences of Free Trade, remarked amid
cheers that " a 10s. 6d. duty would have saved us from
all these disasters, and would not have raised the price
of wheat above 50s. a quarter." A month earlier, at a
meeting of the "National Fair Trade League," one of its
leaders, Lord Stanley of Alderley, declared in favour of
IOS. When once this factitious hunger is excited, 50s. a
quarter is as little likely to satisfy as 80s. in 1815-28.
Protectionists, by whatever name they call themselves,
are in the very nature of things like the daughters of the
horseleech, "crying, Give! give!
""
The Farmers, except where neighbourhood to great
towns induces reflection upon political possibilities, are
largely worked upon by Protectionist promises. Not
that they can altogether shut their eyes to the mass of
evidence proving the injurious effects of Protection to
themselves as a class. The secret spring of their inclina-
tions is to be found in the liberal dealings with their
tenants of the majority of English Landlords, and the
conviction which each man cherishes that, however
those upon the properties of other owners may suffer,
he will himself escape. At a discussion introduced by me
at a meeting of a local Chamber of Agriculture, this
argument was advanced with reference to a well-known
Protectionist Landlord, who was not, it was urged, likely
to take advantage as against his tenants of the op-
portunities which, as was admitted, a Corn Law would
PREFACE.
xi
put into his hands. As though a contingency so pre-
carious and isolated as the forbearance of exceptional
individuals could furnish an adequate basis for a revolu-
tion in national economy, or justify the cultivators of the
soil in exposing their fortunes as a class to assured and
final ruin!
There are other Farmers, especially among the shrewd
and independent Scots, who interpret with a more dis-
cerning eye the causes and consequences of the present
distress. "Do you not think," writes a well-known
farmer of Midlothian, who ascribes his losses to the
competition of high rents rather than to the competition
of low prices, "Do you not think that some means
should be used to bring before the nation the real cause
of British agriculture now requiring Protection, i.e., that
in the past the conditions under which it has been
carried on have been so unreasonable?-I may say, so
ridiculously unreasonable?" "Farmers in my district,"
he adds, "have been ruined and expatriated after they
had shown that they could carry on British agriculture
profitably without Protection.” In the judgment of
these, among the best Farmers in the kingdom, the
mischief for which this illusory remedy is sought is of
home-growth. The practice of renting tenants on their
improvements, and of refusing them security of tenure,
has weakened their capacity to withstand severe pressure.
To these evils my correspondent desires that the Cobden
Club should direct public attention. For my own part,
I can plead that I have long been sensible of them.
have never been content to meet Protection with a
simple non possumus, but whether through the Farmers'
Alliance, or as a candidate for Parliament, I have
invariably urged upon farmers that "No Protection" was
not the last word of Free Traders. The Farmers' interest
lies not merely in desisting from the vain pursuit of a
chimera, but in concentrating effort upon the substantial
I
xii
PREFACE.
improvements of their condition which are really within
their grasp.
By a strange inconsistency, those who figure as ad-
herents of Protection generally declare themselves opposed
to Socialism. Yet between Protection and Socialism,
whether the Socialism come from above or from below,
from Ministers of State or a revolutionary party, there is
an absolute identity of principle. The only difference
lies in the application. Both Socialists and Protec-
tionists alike fancy that the stroke of a pen can create
national prosperity. Both believe that Ministers can
beneficially direct the common course of commercial
transactions. Both look to a redistribution of wealth
through the agency of the State. It is no wonder that
in countries where Protectionism is the accepted creed
Socialism flourishes. There is only one point of differ-
ence between the two. Socialism invites the intervention
of the State to mulct the rich for the benefit of the poor,
the few for the many. Protection invokes it to tax the
poor in favour of the rich, the many for the few.*
January 1, 1888.
I. S. L.
* Since writing the above, there has come into my hands an instruc-
tive pamphlet on "The French Corn Laws," by M. Yves Guyot, deputy
for the department of the Seine. It is translated by Mr. J. W. Probyn,
and published by the Cobden Club. M. Guyot remarks upon the
French Elections of 1887, which turned chiefly on the question of further
Protection to agriculture: "The Protectionists in reality made only one
speech, in which they reiterated in every kind of form that the State
should guarantee to the proprietor the certainty of his rent. These same
Protectionists are very indignant when certain Socialists demand that
the State should guarantee a certain minimum salary for their work. It
is, however, exactly the same theory."
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION.
THE exceptionally scanty harvest of 1892, and the fall
of prices which rendered the deficiency of yield more
severely felt by the farmer, have given fresh life to the
Protectionist movement. This found its opportunity in
the National Agricultural Conference held in London at
the beginning of December, 1892. Recent political
changes had concurred to favour the Protectionist party,
who had for six years been unwilling to embarrass a Con-
servative Ministry. But an active agitation for Protection
has long been the policy of the Conservative party in oppo-
sition. Differences did, indeed, disclose themselves among
the delegates to the Conference. While some, especially
such as live among the great centres of population in
the north of England, turn for a remedy to reforms of
land tenure and greater freedom of cultivation, the
majority, especially those from the country districts of
the south, remain strongly favourable to Protection.
Upon these the lessons of history, if indeed they have
ever been their study, have been lost. Yet the en-
thusiasm of the landlords, and the frank avowal of one
of them that “he spoke as a ruined landowner," might
reasonably have awakened suspicion that the farmers'
pockets were not the first thought in the minds of all.
Clearly, unless the "ruined landlords" are permitted
by raising their rents to appropriate the whole of the
xiv
PREFACE.
proposed duty, since not even the most sanguine anticipate
that the duty will be heavy, their fortunes are not likely
to be re-established. In that event what becomes of the
farmer?
The difficulties incident to a division of the spoil
were prudently postponed by the Conference. But the
Protectionist leaders are sensible that they have to face
the difficulty of converting the agricultural labourer to a
crusade for a rise in the price of food. In an interview
accorded to a representative of the Evening News, and
published in that paper on December 12th, 1892, Mr.
J. Lowther expounds the plan of the Protectionist cam-
paign-"Raise prices of produce to a point that pays
for production* and the result would be that the dimin-
ished wage would be augmented
Improved
prices, as the result of Protection, would increase the
wages of the labourer." Unfortunately for this dictum,
"improved prices, as the result of Protection," were, as
the following pages show, accompanied by the lowest
possible level of wages to the labourer. And while the
level of wages was low, the taxation upon those wages
imposed through the agency of general Protective duties
was considerable. The wages, in short, were less and
went less far. Upon this important feature of the Pro-
tective system the leaders of Protection to Agriculture
are judiciously reticent. They use language which con-
veys that while the labourer will enjoy some advantage.
from the enhanced price of the commodities sold by his
employer, he will, in his capacity of consumer, enjoy
the benefit of the cheapness of Free Trade. But Agri-
cultural Protection, as the Sheffield Conference of Con-
servatives showed, is only one branch of a system
designed to raise the price of commodities all round,
including those of which farmers and labourers are pur-
chasers. What guarantee then has the labourer that,
* As to this point see the inquiry of 1814, page 5 infrà.
PREFACE.
XV
assuming his wages to be raised as an indirect conse-
quence of duties upon food, the rise will not be more
than counterbalanced by the increase in the price of the
other articles of his consumption?
Discerning that mere empty promises, such as those
of Mr. J. Lowther, are not likely to attract the labourer
to a policy involving immediate and evident sacrifices,
another Protectionist leader, Sir E. Sullivan, endeavours
to prove Mr. J. Lowther's dictum by reasoning.
In a letter to the Morning Post of December 12th,
1892, Sir E. Sullivan bases his argument upon the
maxim that "in every industry wages for labour are
regulated by the value of what the labourer produces."
From this he infers that when wheat is cheap wages are
low, and when wheat is high wages are high also. But
the maxim is only true with limitations. Where the
labouring class is highly organised, it is able to secure
a share of the produce, limited by the current returns for
risk and profits of the employer. On the other hand,
where the supply of labour is great and practically unre-
stricted by organisation, the employer can dictate the
terms, and the "iron law" of Ricardo asserts its tend-
ency. In the case of the agricultural labourer, his
poverty, his isolation, and his dependence render ef-
fective union extremely difficult, if not impossible. His
wages, therefore, do not vary as the value of produce.
Were an Agricultural Labourers' Union able to dictate
terms, as Sir E. Sullivan suggests, the farmers' profits
would be encroached upon from below, and the farmer,
in his turn, would be less able to pay the increased rent
which follows upon a Protective duty. Latent as the
antagonism of interests may be so long as Govern-
ment abstains from intervention, it is instantly stirred up
to life by a Corn Law. No sliding scale of wages would
satisfy an efficient Agricultural Labourers' Union, for the
labourers would argue, and with perfect justice, that
xvi
PREFACE.
their right to intercept the whole of the value added by a
duty was as good as the right which the landlord claims
to base upon it a rise of rent. The farmer, exposed to
attack on both sides, would retaliate on the labourer as
the weaker party, and seek to save his profits by paring
down wages. In this he would be encouraged by the
landlord, whose object in promoting Protection would be
entirely frustrated were a rise in wages to consume the
fund out of which he contemplates a rise in rents. And
that these inferences are not idle imaginings is shown by
every page of the experiences here recorded. Low wages,
low profits, and high rents are the inevitable issue of Pro-
tection to agriculture.*
An argument has recently been invented by the Protec-
tionists calculated to allay the apprehensions of a rise in
price, whether felt by the agricultural labourer or by the
general consumer. With an heroic defiance, not merely
of economic probabilities, but of every-day experience,
they maintain that a rise in the price of a raw material
does not involve a rise in the price of the manufactured
product. They allege the case of France, where the free
importation of bread does much to nullify the action of
the Corn Law. Yet even in France, as M. Guyot has
shown,† their assertions are untrue. According to them.
the great offender is the middleman, especially the baker,
who maintains a normal price for bread irrespective of
the cost of wheat or flour. All that Protective duties
would do then would be to reduce the profits of the
baker, while leaving the consumer untouched.
The question may well be asked why, if the bakers
of this country can effectively control such a giant
monopoly, they should not, in the event of a Corn Law,
so raise their prices as to retain their customary rate of
* For the conditions under which dearness of corn may be accom-
panied by higher wages see below, page 74, note. They are not such
as to commend themselves to the labouring classes.
† Infrà, p. 30, note.
PREFACE.
xvii
profit? The public would in that event be not less but
more at their mercy, since the unrestricted importa-
tions of the raw material which, according to economists,
tend to promote competition in manufacture, would
be cut off. The basis of monopoly is limited supply.
And if there be any foundation for the opinion of the
French mayors,* that the bakers for their own profit
combine to establish an artificial price, the logical conse-
quence is the action they have taken to declare an
Assize of Bread. It is obviously the duty of a Govern-
ment to combat evils which its intervention has brought
into being. If then Protection should be adopted in
this country, the Assize of Bread must again, as insepar-
able from the Protectionists' position, find a place upon
the statute book. From this step to that of municipal
bakehouses is, as mediæval economic history and the
experience of modern Marseilles alike show,† a natural
and necessary transition. We shall then find ourselves
immeshed in the elaborate system of fixing prices and
wages which, whatever its justification in the Middle
Ages, has been gradually discarded as incompatible with
the conditions of modern industrial development. For
the only alternative to a paternal despotism will be a
social anarchy to which the darkest days of the old
Corn Laws will present but an insignificant parallel.
As a matter of fact the statements of the Protec-
tionists as to the price of bread in this country are for
the most part pure fictions. Mr. James Lowther is
represented as saying, in the interview already cited,
that “bread is no cheaper to-day, when wheat stands
* See p. 79, note.
+ In February, 1893, the municipal authorities of Marseilles, unable
to agree with the bakers as to the official price of bread, occupied the
bakeries with the police and military, and with the assistance of supplies
from the Government depôts, themselves undertook to provision the
city with bread. The issue of the struggle is that the bakers have
capitulated, probably with the intention of recouping themselves in the
manner indicated by M. Guyot,
b
xviii
PREFACE.
at 28s. a quarter, than when it stood at 40s." Similar
language is used by Lord Winchilsea, who is endeavour-
ing to enlist the agricultural labourers in a Union of which
the but partially avowed object is the restoration of the
laws under which, seventy years ago, they were rendered
desperate by starvation.* But the agricultural labourers
are probably better informed than the gentlemen who
would persuade them at the same time that their bread is
too cheap and not cheap enough. Letters have appeared
in the papers from some of the great bakers of London
effectually disposing of Mr. Lowther's delusion. "In April,
1891," writes one of them,† "the price in London of the
best household bread, made of the best London-made
flour, was 8d. per 4lb. loaf, the price of the flour was 40s.
per sack; to-day the price of the best household bread
is 6 d. per 4lb. loaf, the flour costing 30s. per sack. In
these cases both the bread and the flour are the very
best, no better flour being made in England. A fall of
one halfpenny per 4lb. loaf is equal to a fall of 4s. per
sack in flour. It is evident that bread having fallen råd.
per 4lb. loaf in the last two years, and flour only 10s.
per sack, the baker is getting, instead of a greater profit,
a smaller by 2s. per sack than in 1891." The Royal
Arsenal Co-operative Society, Woolwich, was selling
bread in January, 1893, at 5d., and in the autumn of
1892 at 6d. a quartern, the difference being represented
by a fall in the price of flour. ‡
Another of the Protectionist leaders-Mr. Howard
Vincent, M.P.-subsequently endeavoured to improve.
upon Mr. Lowther's judicious generalities by specific
* The basis on which this Union was founded was to carry out the
objects of the Conference of December, 1892, of which the principal was
the reinstatement of Protection. After some attempts to conceal this,
Lord Winchilsea, its founder, has definitely declared for differential,
i.e., Protective, duties (Times, January 20th, 1893).
+ Mr. W. Neave Hill in the St. James's Gazette, January 10th, 1893.
Statement by the Manager, see St. James's Gazette, January 14th,
1893.
PREFACE.
xix
statements as to the comparative prices of bread in
England under Free Trade and in France under miti-
gated Protection. According to Mr. Vincent, the price
of bread in Paris is equivalent to about 71d. the 2 kilo.
loaf, whereas in London the price is 7d. the 4lb. loaf,
which is two-fifths of a pound lighter than the French
loaf. To this Mr. Mundella, M.P., President of the
Board of Trade, replied as follows:-
"Board of Trade, Whitehall Gardens, S. W.
"February 18th, 1893.
"DEAR MR. HOWARD VINCENT,
"I regret that the pressure of business has pre-
vented me from replying earlier to your letter of the
11th inst., which was delivered to me by your secretary
on the afternoon of Sunday, the 12th. I understand
your contention to be that working men pay 7d. for a
4lb. loaf in England, whereas bread, equally good,
weighing 2 kilos., is sold in France for from 75 to 80
centimes, and you call in question my statement made
in the Debate on the Unemployed. Permit me to say
that you are entirely mistaken, both as to the statement
made by me and as to the price paid by the English
workman for the 4lb. loaf.
"The facts are very simple, and may be briefly stated
as follow: On the 11th and 12th of August last I pre-
sided over Group C of the Royal Commission on Labour,
and examined a number of masters and workmen en-
gaged in the baking trade in various parts of the United
Kingdom. The evidence showed that in the north of
Ireland the price of bread at that date was 5d. for the
4lb. loaf, and that that was the rate generally paid by
workmen throughout the north of England also; that
the finest bread was sold as high as 6d., but that both
first and second quality were in some cases sold at 41d.
and 5 d. respectively; that in Staffordshire, where it is
XX
PREFACE.
weighed over the counter, it was sold at a id. per pound,
or 3d. for the 3lb. loaf, and 4d. for one of 4lbs. The
London witnesses gave evidence that bread by makers of
good reputation-such as Chibnall, Jasper, and others—
was retailed at 5d. the 4lb. loaf in London. A few
days later I went to France and found that the price
generally charged for bread of second quality was 80
centimes for a loaf of 2 kilos. I made inquiries at the
bakers' shops, of the workmen, and of the peasants whom
I saw carrying home their weekly supplies, and found
that the invariable price quoted was, as I have said, 80
centimes for 2 kilos.
"I do not wish it to be understood that this bread
was less wholesome or less nutritive than our English
bread at the lower prices which I have quoted, but owing
to its colour and texture it would be objected to by
English workmen, and even by the residents in our union
workhouses. I know from long experience that there is
nothing that the working classes, even the very poorest,
so much object to in bread as the discolourisation and
close texture which was characteristic of the bread which
I examined in France. You are altogether in error in
the statement that the price paid by working men in
London for the 4lb. loaf is 7d. It is not improbable
that such is the price charged for fancy bread in the
neighbourhood of Grosvenor Square to the inhabitants
of that aristocratic locality, but working men are not
accustomed to reside in such fashionable quarters, or to
buy bread of such a description.
"I have taken some pains to ascertain what were the
prices generally ruling last Monday morning. I find
that the price of the 4lb. loaf of excellent quality de-
livered at the door in Kensington was 51d. The price
in Woolwich and Chatham was 41d. and 5d., and
Neville's bread of the very finest quality was delivered
for my own table at 6d. From inquiries made in
PREFACE.
xxi
Sheffield, I find that the Sheffield Union, like the York-
shire people generally, bake their own bread, that it is
made with flour of excellent quality, and costs id. per
lb., and that this is the general cost throughout York-
shire and elsewhere, where it is customary for the people
to bake their bread at home. In Sheffield, where the
bread is purchased from the baker, the price to-day is
5d. I believe in the foregoing I have given you the
very outside prices that are being paid. I have heard of
much lower quotations. At Spalding the Union has
recently contracted for bread, which I am assured is of
very good quality, at 23d. the 4lb. loaf; and that 4d. is
a very common price in working-class neighbourhoods in
the large towns. A recent Foreign Office report from
Italy gives the price in the third week in December,
1892, as ranging from 7d. per 4lb. loaf at Milan to 9 d.
at Rome. You will thus perceive that in Protectionist
countries the price of bread is from 25 to 50 per cent.
dearer than it is in this country. I propose to send this
correspondence to the press on Monday.
“I remain, etc.,
“A. J. MUNDella.
"C. E. Howard Vincent, Esq., C.B., M.P.”
Mr. Mundella's statements were corroborated by
letters from experts in the Times, of which two examples
will suffice-
"PRICE OF BREAD.
"TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
"SIR,-Referring to the letters of Mr. Howard
Vincent, M.P., and the Right Hon. A. J. Mundella, the
President of the Board of Trade, on the price of bread
to the working classes, I have investigated the subject at
various times during the last thirty-four years, and the
following carefully prepared statement may be interesting
to many of your readers. It is, excepting the first item,
xxii
PREFACE.
extracted from the last paper read by me on the subject
at the meeting of the British Association at Manchester
in September, 1887. I have not yet completed the
returns for 1893, but, as far as I have gone, the prices
quoted by Mr. Mundella appear to be correct.
"The average price of bread of good quality, de-
livered over the counter for cash, in 1887 was 42d. per
4lb. loaf; in 1859 it was 51d., in 1849 it was 6d., and in
1839 it was 8 d. per 4lb. loaf.
"An average workman's family has been taken at
five persons, consisting of himself, his wife, and three
children, and their expenditure in bread has been as
follows:
d. s. d.
1893 Average workman's family in bread, 8 4lb. loaves @ 51=38
1887
""
""
""
1859
""
""
""
42=3 2
5=38
1849
1839
""
""
6=4 0
""
""
83=58
"I am yours obediently,
"DAVID CHADWICK.
"36, Coleman Street, London, E.C., Feb. 21.
"P.S.-The price to-day of the best household bread
at the counter in one hundred of the best bread shops in
London is 5 d. per 4lb."
"TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
"SIR,-With reference to the published corre-
spondence concerning the price of bread between the
President of the Board of Trade and Colonel Howard
Vincent, M.P., may I be permitted to point out that the
last-named gentleman is quite mistaken in stating that
the fall in the average price of wheat during the past
twelve months has had no appreciable effect upon the
price of bread ?
"As chairman of one of the leading bread companies,
I am able to state, from the experience of a close con-
PREFACE.
xxiii
nection with the trade, that the price of best bread at
this time last year was 6d. per 4lb. loaf, against 51d. at
the present time. This reduction of id. is equal to
75. 9d. per sack of flour, whereas the average price of
the latter is only 7s. 3d. less than it was at the same time
last year. This will clearly prove that the reduction in
the price of bread is even greater than the reduction in
the price of flour; and this is the case with all the prin-
cipal producers of bread in the metropolis.
"I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
"FREDERICK BEDDOW.
"2, Gresham Buildings, Basinghall Street, London, E.C.
"Feb. 22."
Another of the clients whose cause is pleaded by the
Protectionists is the taxpayer. Production, they tell us,
is crippled by taxes. If just so much duty is levied on
foreign wheat and flour as represents the total of internal
taxation, imperial and local, the home producer will be
placed upon a level with his competitor from abroad.
Further, the general burden of taxation will be relieved
by the amount of these duties.
This proposal lands its advocates in a dilemma. If
the imposition of duties involves, as the Protectionists.
assure the farmers, a corresponding rise of price, it is the
consumer and not the foreigner who will pay the whole.
The reasons for this will be found on pages 79-80 of
the text. It is the English taxpayer who will have fresh
burdens added to those he has to bear. Should any
Protectionist doubt this conclusion, he has only to look
at the history of the M'Kinley tariff.
Contemporaneously with these proposals in the sup-
posed interest of the farmer, the Protectionist whispers
words of comfort to the general public. No rise in price,
he assures-as we have seen-the consumer, would follow
the imposition of a duty. But if this proposition be true
xxiv
PREFACE.
the proposal ceases to have any attraction for the British
farmer; indeed, he would be the worse off, as the enact-
ment in his interest of an illusory remedy would surely
estrange from him public sympathy.
It was observed by Sir W. Harcourt in the debate on
the Address (Feb. 7, 1893) that "there is nothing more
remarkable in the history of these committees on agri-
cultural distress than the fact that it has always ap-
peared to the party who has suffered from that distress.
that the first and best remedy for it was what is called
in America "soft money." It is outside the scope of
this work to enter into the question of Bimetallism. But
since the plea for Bimetallism as a cure for agricultural
distress is now urged upon historical grounds in the House
of Commons, the soundness of this foundation is per-
tinent to the present inquiry. In the earlier part of the
same debate (Feb. 6, 1893), Mr. Everett, M.P., alleged
that "it was the abundance of inconvertible notes be-
tween 1797 and 1815 which led to the high prices and
the great prosperity."* There is room for much astonish-
ment at the resurrection in the House of Commons in
1893 of the ancient superstition that the printing-press
can create prosperity! The specific contention of Mr.
Everett was long ago demolished by Tooke in his "His-
tory of Prices," and the years selected by him, when the
circumstances are scrutinised, lead to entirely opposite
conclusions. To take the first period Mr. Everett adduces.
In 1798, 1799, and 1800 there were deficient harvests.
There was coincidentally an increase in the Bank circu-
lation. But at this period Bank of England notes were
actually at a gold premium, so that the fertilising pro-
perties of inconvertible paper were altogether inoperative.
The rise in prices can well be accounted for by the de-
* The substance of the following argument on Agricultural De-
pression and Currency appeared in two letters contributed by the author
to the Economist newspaper of February 18th and March 4th, 1893.
PREFACE.
XXV
ficient yield, especially if Gregory King's law* be borne in
mind. But the events of the years immediately follow-
ing enable us, by the application of the Method of
Difference, completely to refute Mr. Everett's inference.
From 1801 to 1803 the harvests were moderately pro-
ductive. Wheat fell from an average of 119s. 6d. in
1801 to 69s. 10d., 58s. 1od. and 62s. 3d. in 1802-4.t
Now had bank notes been the original cause of the
high prices, the further issues of bank notes which took
place during those years would have raised the previous
prices higher still. The inference follows that the price
was dependent upon yield. A deficient harvest in 1804
was followed again by a rise in price. In short, the
prices of wheat are in the nature of a barometrical
record, for in 1804 Bank of England paper was again
at par, and remained until 1808 at the insignificant
discount of 21 per cent. The highest price reached was
the average of 126s. 6d. a quarter for 1812, the last of a
series of four deficient harvests. Here, if anywhere,
might be seen the beneficent influence of "soft money.
But while in 1810 the increased issues of the Bank of
England amounted to some £2,500,000 in notes of £5
and upwards, and £2,000,000 in notes under £5, the
price of wheat in 1810-11 fell from 106s. 5d., the average
for 1810, to 95s. 3d., and this notwithstanding an in-
crease in the depreciation of Bank paper from 8 to 20
per cent.‡
The Bank issues in August, 1810, had
reached the "enormous and unprecedented amount
of £23,775,000." Between that time and 1812,
when wheat prices were at their highest, the circula-
tion of country banks had fallen from £21,000,000
* Infrà, p. 76, note †.
">
†These prices are taken from the "Statement of the annual
average price of each kind of grain in England and Wales from 1771 to
1841.' Parliamentary Papers, Feb. 11, 1842.
"
Porter's "Progress of the Nation," page 429, ed. 1847.
§ Tooke, i. 365.
xxvi
PREFACE.
to £19,000,000,* and a like reduction had taken place
in the issues of the Bank of England from £17,000,000
to £15,000,000. While from 1812 to 1815 the issues.
were increasing, the price of wheat was falling. In the
face of these facts, what becomes of the proposition
that "it was the abundance of inconvertible notes be-
tween 1797 and 1815 which led to the high prices and
the great prosperity of agriculture during that period"?
As to the assumption of the prosperity of agriculture not
much need be said. That the high prices increased
rents there can be no dispute, but as early as 1804 the
fall of wheat gave rise to complaints of agricultural dis-
tress, which led to the enactment of the first Corn Law
of the century. In 1814 a state of things which Mr.
Everett summarises as "great prosperity
"great prosperity" was thus
described by the Committee of the House of Commons,
upon whose report the Corn Law of the following year
was passed-" Destitution seems to impend over the
property of all those whose capital is engaged in the
cultivation of the soil."
We now pass to the next period selected by Mr.
Everett. "The year 1816," he says,
(6 was a time of
dreadful distress. There was a very wet harvest, but it
was not this which produced the distress. At this time
the inconvertible notes were to be called in, and it was
the apprehension of this which led to the great fall in
prices and the consequent distress."
Mr. Everett is right to mention the harvest. The
operation of the cause he selects as productive of agri-
cultural distress can be easily tested. "The incon-
vertible notes were to be called in." In point of fact,
however, the Bank of England notes, the basis of the
currency, were increased, not diminished, in the years
prior to 1816, though calling in implies restriction
of circulation. In August, 1814, they amounted to
* Lords' Committee on Cash Payments, 1819, page 12.
PREFACE.
xxvii
£28,360,000, an increase of £5,000,000 over February,
1813, and this increase was only reduced by £500,000
in 1815. Mr. Everett is, therefore, mistaken in his sugges-
tion that an initial calling in was taking place. As for the
country bank paper, as Mr. Horner observed in the House
of Commons (May 1, 1816), "the reduction of the cur-
rency had originated in the previous fall of agricultural
prices." This fall was due to the superabundant harvest
of 1813. In August of that year wheat was at 1125.;
in the December following at 73s. 6d. a quarter. To
ascribe the fall to a reduction of the paper money is to
put the cart before the horse. In the following year the
ports were opened, and 800,000 quarters of wheat entered
the country.
"In 1822," says Mr. Everett, "agriculture was plunged
in wholesale bankruptcy." This is attributed by him to
the return to cash payments. It is a curious coincidence
that the harvests immediately preceding had been
exuberant. So great was the yield in 1820 that Mr.
Wakefield, an eminent land-surveyor, declared before the
Committee on the State of Agriculture in April, 1821,
that there was then " as much corn left in the country as
generally in common years after harvest." The crop of
1820 was rivalled by the crop of 1821. Mr. J. Sanders,
giving evidence before the Lords' Committee on Agri-
culture in 1836, was asked, "To what do you attribute
the fall of corn in 1822?" His answer was, "To the
very extraordinary crop in the year 1821; 1821 was a
crop on the largest scale." Again there is a coincidence
adverse to Mr. Everett in the state of the circulation.
In the first place, Bank paper had risen to par in 1817,
and the discount between that time and May, 1821, when
it became convertible, was exceedingly insignificant.
In the next place, though the lowest amount of Bank of
England notes under £5 in circulation in 1822 was
£1,200,000 less than in 1821, yet there was an issue of
xxviii
PREFACE.
sovereigns in 1821 of nearly £7,500,000, and people
can trade with sovereigns at least as well as with
paper. The total circulation of 1822, the year in which
restricted circulation is said to have ruined agriculture,
actually exceeded that of 1821 by nearly £3,000,000.
As for the country bankers, their issues were, as they
must be, responsive to the demands of country business.
Mr. Hudson Gurney was asked by the Bullion Com-
mittee of 1819, "What determines, in your opinion, the
fluctuations in the amount of country bank paper?"
and replied, "The price at which the staple commodity
of each district is selling; for example, I consider that
our circulation would increase with a high price of corn,
and would decrease with a low price of corn; corn being
the staple of Norfolk." What has been said of the
prospects of prices at this time sufficiently accounts for
the contraction of the country note issues as a consequence.
In 1823, Mr. Everett tells us, the Government gave
the small notes ten years more of life, "and immediately
matters levelled up again." This is a mistake, of vital
importance, as to date. The repeal of the clause of the
Act directing the suppression of the country notes.
took place not in 1823 but in June, 1822. Country
bankers were then free, with ten years of life before
them, to multiply their issues. "The subsequent rise
in the price of corn, which is so commonly ascribed to
the supposed influence of the prolongation, did not take
place till a twelvemonth after the notice of that pro-
longation had been given."*
•
"In 1829," says Mr. Everett, "Parliament antici-
pated the ten years which they had given in 1823
We had the same trouble again: there was another fall
in prices." But the announcement was made in 1826,
and according to Mr. Everett's previous reasoning the
apprehension of the calling in of the notes would have
Tooke ii. 115.
PREFACE.
xxix
caused the price of corn to fall. On the contrary, it
rose from 58s. 8d. in 1826 to 66s. 3d. in 1829. The
reason, of course, was a deficiency in the harvest. The
fall of prices in 1830 was only 2s., and in 1831 wheat
was again at 66s. 4d., which looks as though the dis-
appearance of £1 notes had not been very ruinous to
agriculture. In the Lords' Committee on Agriculture,
1836, the point was succinctly put to the currency-
mongers. "Whenever there happens to be a rise, you
look out for some justification in the state of the har-
vest; and whenever there is a fall, you look out for some
justification in the state of the currency, abandoning any
argument to be drawn from wet harvests, or the operation
of the weather?"
"In 1833 there was another inquiry into the agricul-
tural distress, and that distress was shown to have had its
origin in the lower scale of prices arising from the con-
traction of the money in circulation." Such a cause
would have immediately affected commerce and industry.
But the evidence of Mr. Samuel Gurney and Mr. Lewis
Lloyd, the bankers, was to the contrary effect.
"Money
is so abundant," said Mr. Lloyd to the Committee of
Inquiry, "that the only difficulty is finding employment
for it." On the other hand, the evidence taken before
the same Committee goes to show that, at any rate in
the southern counties, there never was a better crop of
wheat than in 1832. "It was an extraordinary crop." ‡
There were similar reasons for the fall in 1834-35, as
amply appears from the evidence given before the Com-
mittee of 1836.§
* Evidence of E. S. Cayley, Esq., M.P., page 279.
+ Hughes' evidence, 1833.
Cornely's evidence, 1833.
"There have been three or four very abundant harvests in suc
cession" (Bell, 11,891). "Five good harvests" (Jacob, 84-90).
"But
for the great crop of 1834 the country would now be in a situation to
require importation " (Hodgson, 6,404-6,408). The crop of 1820 was
the most abundant this country ever produced, with the exception of
the crop of 1834" (Sanders, 6,147).
XXX
PREFACE.
At this stage of the controversy, a leading article in
the Manchester Guardian of February 20th, 1893, pro-
posed to shift the issue to another ground. "The in-
fluence," it said, "of a contraction of the currency,
relative or absolute, in causing agricultural and industrial
distress, is not disputed by any historian or economist of
repute ; but it is admitted that its effects cannot be rightly
gauged except by the comparison of more or less pro-
tracted periods." The periods it selected for comparison
were 1792 to 1797, 1797 to 1819, 1820 to 1831, and
1832 to 1850. Mr. Everett, in a letter published in the
Economist of February 25th, adopted the same line of
argument, abandoning the original position of changes in
agricultural prices synchronously with enlargements and
contractions of the paper issues.
Exception might fairly be taken to the proposal to
shift the ground of discussion from years to cycles of years.
Emissions of paper money in excess of legitimate demand
are undoubtedly accompanied by an immediate rise of
prices. I say "in excess of legitimate demand "—a term
I will illustrate presently-because no other sense can be
attached to Mr. Everett's doctrine of "abundance” of
inconvertible notes, and of the prosperity consequent
upon it. Now, as to the immediateness of the effect,
take the history of assignats. On April 1st, 1795, 24
livres in coin were worth 238 in assignats; by July they
were worth 808; by October, 1,205; by January, 1796,
There was no intermediate "cycle of years
4,658.
before the consequences of "the abundance of incon-
vertible notes " made themselves felt. I grant that this is
an extreme case, because the declining prospects of
ultimate redemption contributed as much to the depre-
ciation as the mere excess of issues. These had reached
22,000,000,000 francs, or £880,000,000, in October,
1795. But the same phenomenon recurred in the United
States in 1862, the first year of the forced circulation of
""
PREFACE.
xxxi
greenbacks. The premium on gold in February stood at
2, and in December at 34. The history of the paper
money issued in America during the Revolution is in exact
correspondence with these two cases. Changes produced
by this cause are immediate, not protracted over a cycle.
I go back to Mr. Everett's main contention, that
"the abundance of inconvertible notes between 1797 and
1815 led to the high prices and the great prosperity of
agriculture during that period." And let me first dispose
of the word "prosperity." In the debate on the Address,
Mr. Everett used the word without qualification. He
subsequently* admitted that it was not genuine prosperity,
for that "prosperity so created does not last." He had
omitted to reflect that violent fluctuations are highly
injurious to any industry, and that a system which in-
volves these cannot confer prosperity. But he afterwards
repented him of his partial concession, and asked,
"What made rents rise? What else was it but pro-
sperity ?" I reply: What made the shares of the South
Sea Company rise, or in John Law's Company of the
Indies? Not prosperity, but the hope of prosperity.
I recall the report of the Committee of the House of
Commons in 1814, which excepted no class connected
with agriculture from the verdict of misfortune. If Mr.
Everett would know why, despite the nominally high
rents, even the landlords were sufferers, he will find the
reasons set forth in Lord Fitzwilliam's "Address to the
Landowners of England" in 1834.
Next as to "the abundance of inconvertible notes."
This "abundance" is imaginary, in the sense that it was
a spontaneous emission irrespective of legitimate demand,
or exceeding combined paper and metallic issues had
there been no restriction. The Bank directors who gave
evidence before the Bullion Committee of 1810, declared
that their advances were only upon good mercantile bills,
* Economist, Feb. 25th, 1893.
xxxii
PREFACE.
at the rate of five per cent. This is what I mean when
I speak of issues in conformity with legitimate demand.
"The Bank," said the governor, "never forces a note
into circulation" (p. 91). "The amount of the bank
notes in circulation (is) controlled by the public for in-
ternal purposes" (p. 157). 'From the manner in which
the issue of bank notes is controlled, the public will
never call for more than is absolutely necessary for their
wants" (ibid.). Now, had no notes been in existence at
all, the Bank would have made its advances on precisely
the same principles. Would the "abundance" of sover-
eigns then have caused the high prices of agricultural pro-
duce? If the Bank directors' account of their system is
true, as we must suppose, where was the "abundance"
of paper producing these results ?
•
It is the case that the circulation increased during
the years in question. This in itself is no evidence of
"abundance ”—in other words, inflation. The Man-
chester Guardian justly reminded me that there was "an
increase of population and expansion of trade and in-
dustry," and this is as true of the period of the war as
after the peace. Nor need we rely upon the evidence of
the Bank directors to prove that no such "abundance"
existed. Thornton, in his work on Paper Credit (p. 236),
supplies a gauge by which to judge paper issues.
" An
excessive issue of paper has not been the leading cause
of a fall in the exchange if it afterwards turns out that
the exchange is able to recover itself without any material
reduction of the quantity of paper." In this country, as
Tooke pointed out, "the exchanges, upon every pause
from the pressure of extraordinary foreign payments,
tended towards a recovery." And this took place even
coincidently with increased issues. Finally, no con-
traction of the circulation was required, when the
pressure of foreign payments had ceased, to restore the
exchanges and the price of gold to par. Then there
PREFACE.
xxxiii
could have been no "abundance," in the sense of an
excessive issue, raising internal prices. Would all this
have been even remotely true of assignats or green-
backs, or the continental currency? If these are the
facts as to the Bank of England issues, it follows that
not they, but the war, the seasons, and the Corn Laws
were in turn and together the causes, and the exclusive
causes, of the high prices of 1797-1819.
The next cycle is that of the resumption of cash pay-
ments. The average price of the quarter of wheat from
1820 to 1831 was 6os., as contrasted with 90s. during
the war period from 1797. It is assumed that the con-
traction of the circulating medium operated as a cause to
lower prices. Upon this assumption, Max Wirth, the
German historian of commercial crises, observes that
though the contraction would have produced, had the
war continued, a great revolution in prices, it is otherwise
when peace is restored, because in war the balance of
accounts has almost always to be made in gold, while in
peace a large part of the circulating medium is replaced
by exchange. As to the earlier part of this cycle-viz.,
from 1823 to 1825-Tooke comes to the conclusion, after
a careful inquiry, that "the prices of corn did not vary
coincidently in point of time, nor proportionately in
degree, with the variations in the prices of commodities"
(II. 190). Why not, if the contraction was the factor
governing the situation? With respect to the second
part of the cycle (1828 to 1832), Tooke has shown that
the price of the Winchester quarter of wheat on the
average of five years ending in 1832 would, adding the
44s. a quarter of the old Corn Law of 1808 to 1813,
have equalled the average of the last five years of the
war. The fall was, therefore, due to the repeal of the
law, wholly independent of currency.
The cycle 1832 to 1850 includes the introduction of
Free Trade in corn, as well as that cheapening system of
C
xxxiv
PREFACE.
production known as "High Farming," which followed
the General Enclosure Act of 1845. The effect on prices
of the importation of gold from Australia is, of course,
notorious. I never questioned it.
This review of the years and cycles selected by the
Agricultural Bimetallists shows both their facts and their
conclusions to be at fault. If the successive periods of
agricultural distress which recurred under the Corn Laws
were due not to the operation of those laws in stimulating
the cultivation of wheat upon unfavourable soils, and the
consequent rise of rents and fall of profits and wages, but
to blundering manipulations of the currency, a case would
be made for a reconsideration of Protection to Agriculture.
As for Bimetallism, which is the immediate object of Mr.
Everett's advocacy, it must look for its arguments else-
where than in a fallacious retrospect of the relations of
currency to agricultural prices.
Various other suggestions have been made for meet-
ing agricultural depression, among them the adoption.
of a sliding scale for rents based upon the prices of
produce. From the evidence before the House of Com-
mons Committee on the State of Agriculture in 1836 it
appears that this had been tried in Scotland in combina-
tion with long leases. It is generally believed to have
been satisfactory, though the witnesses at that inquiry
passed no distinct judgment upon its effect. Its incor-
poration into Mr. Gladstone's Irish Land Act would
undoubtedly have averted the confusion which has
attended the working of that measure. An objection
has been raised that it involved an uncertainty to the
tenant as to the amount of his prospective outgoings,
and this must certainly have been so in the days when,
through the operation of the Corn Laws, violent fluctua-
tions of prices constantly occurred, and no efficient
system of statistics existed. Again, the quantity and
quality of a harvest are coefficients of its value to an
PREFACE.
XXXV
individual farmer. After all, however, the relations
between rent and profits could scarcely be more unsatis-
factory than they are under the normal arrangement of
to-day. A Royal Commission in Holland which has
recently (February, 1893) reported upon the tenure of
land in that country, recommends-though with hesita-
tion-that the judge of the district should, upon the
evidence of experts, and at the instance of one of the
parties, where a sliding scale of rent is agreed to be paid,
fix an average price for produce. It is probable that in
this country owners will be reluctant to adopt a system
which is in this way likely to lead to the establishment
of Land Courts.
Among the farmers opposed to Protection and who,
as has been said, belong for the most part to the North
of England, where rents in the neighbourhood of the
great towns are exceedingly high, there is a strong dis-
position in favour of the "three F's" of Irish tenancy.
A Federation of Tenant Farmers' Clubs has been estab-
lished to push forward reforms in this direction. On the
other hand, the anti-Protectionists among the landlords
direct attention to the profits made at the expense both
of farmers and consumers by the middlemen who pur-
chase agricultural produce wholesale. Associations for
the co-operative distribution of produce by the farmers.
themselves already exist in Suffolk (Market Gardeners'
and Farmers' Association) and in Yorkshire. It was
stated at the Agricultural Conference of December,
1892, that ninety members of the Yorkshire Association,
farming principally arable land to the extent of 20,000
acres, had a turn-over in 1891 of over £12,000, paid 5
per cent. on their capital and declared a bonus; and cer-
tainly if the number of small holdings is to be extended
the need for such co-operation is pressing. A reso-
lution was moved at the Conference by a delegate
from Suffolk, for the establishment of an "Agricultural
xxxvi
PREFACE.
Produce Association," with a central depôt in London
and branches throughout the country, and was carried
unanimously. The Cobden Club does not as a body
commit itself to specific methods of reform; but it is
convinced that most of the difficulties with which British
agriculture has to grapple come from within rather than
from without. At a meeting of the Committee of the
Club on February 11th, 1893, a resolution was carried
which, while condemning the Protectionist proposals of
the Agricultural Conference, indicated the general lines
upon which agricultural reform should be based. The
resolution runs as follows:-
'That the Committee of the Cobden Club condemn
the resolution in favour of a return to Protec-
tion passed by the London Agricultural Con-
ference in December last, upon the ground
that experience has shown that agricultural
Protection in any form, while entailing in-
jurious sacrifices upon the nation at large, is
especially prejudicial to the farmer and labourer.
It renders the occupation of the farmer addition-
ally precarious, while the anticipations excited
by legislation have always raised rents, at the
expense of profits and wages, to a level higher
than could be justified by the increased prices.
"The Committee further record their opinion that
the real remedies for agricultural depression
are to be sought in reform of the laws affect-
ing the ownership and occupation of land, in
the removal of restrictive covenants from agri-
cultural leases and the cultivation of more varied
crops, in the extension of agricultural education
and the improvement of agricultural practice, and
in co-operation among producers themselves in
the distribution of agricultural produce."
May, 1893.
I. S. L.
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
FOR THE
FARMER AND LABOURER.
•
"Of all things an indiscreet tampering with the trade of provisions
is the most dangerous
because there is nothing on which the
passions of men are so violent, and their judgment so weak, and on
which there exists a multitude of ill-founded popular prejudices."
"
It is a perilous thing to try experiments on the Farmer."
EDMUND BURKE, Thoughts and Details on Scarcity."
Distress.
Reform.
THE continuing grave crisis* in the fortunes of agri- Agricultural
culture has naturally attracted attention to the con- Proposed
ditions under which the Farmer carries on his industry. Remedies.
It is generally agreed that, unless he is to be abandoned.
to the shifting chances of the seasons, some remedy for
his difficulties must be found. One school of reformers
attributes his embarrassments to causes chiefly indirect in
their operation—to the trammels subject to which the
present Proprietors of Land enjoy their property, to the
obstacles thrown by law in the way of its improvement,
and to the devices contrived by settlement to withhold it
from the market. Others dwell rather upon evils attach-
ing directly to the status of the Farmer himself: the risk
of confiscation for his capital invested in the soil, the
liability to arbitrary raisings of Rent upon his own
improvements,† the operation of the Law of Distress,
* The variations in the number of Farmers' failures during the past
seventeen years show the fluctuations of pressure. They are as
follows:-
England and Wales
Scotland
...
1875.
255
1876.
1877.
1878.
1879.
1880.
388
396
626
1, 196
1,097
...
17
14
24
1881.
1882.
1883.
47
1884.
IIO
84
...
918
533
422
221
1885.
236
1886.
...
56
66
57
1887.
1888.
1889.
72
1890.
63
341
124
1891.
...
297
...
...
104
276
58
252
179
188
56
45
England and Wales
Scotland
England and Wales
Scotland
46
These figures are taken from Kemp's Mercantile Gazette, Dec. 29, 1886,
and Dec. 30, 1891.
† In 1884, Mr. Smith-Woolley computed the reductions of rent up
to November of that year, from the experience of his own office of land
B
2
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
which at the same time impairs the Farmer's credit and
enhances the Landlord's rental, the ravages of game, the
instability of tenure, and the want of capacity to conform
to the altered circumstances of agriculture naturally
engendered by a system which admits neither independ-
ence nor security. For the labourer there is a general
consent that Allotments should be fairly tried, and that
small holdings should be put within the reach of the
more educated and enterprising. The national modera-
tion of Englishmen, especially of the classes engaged in
agriculture, is disposed to be content for the present with
these reforms.
reforms. There is, however, a section of root-
and-branch reformers who, not satisfied by the gradual
diminution in the size of holdings, and consequent con-
centration of capital with
with an increased number of
proprietors, which, with time, would follow these changes,
demands the appropriation of the soil by the State, and
the wholesale creation of a peasant proprietary. This
school is largely composed of persons generally un-
•
}}
agency, at an average of 30 per cent. This computation appears to
have been based upon the figures of new lettings, or, at least, to have
included them. Sitting tenants have been less liberally dealt with.
From the returns to a circular issued by him in 1884 Mr. James Howard
estimated the remissions to sitting tenants up to that date at 13 per cent.
In 1884 a Return was moved for by Sir George Balfour showing the fall
of rents in Great Britain since 1876-7. The Return was headed" Rental
of farms, market gardens, nursery grounds (Schedule B) in 1876-7 and
1882-3, with decrease for each county in the six years.' This gives
the rental of Great Britain in 1876-7 at £59,300,285, and at £55,841,857
in 1882-3-a decline of 5·8 per cent. The difference between the per-
centages appears to be due to the fact that Mr. Smith-Woolley's and
Mr. Howard's returns were of purely agricultural holdings. The
extension of the area of cultivated land, representing 2.6 per cent.
between 1876 and 1883, and an additional 4 per cent. down to 1885
helps further to account for the variations. The Income Tax Returns
of 1892, Schedule B, give the average rentals of Great Britain for 1874-5
to 1879-80 as £57,459,188, and for 1884-5 to 1889-90 as £55,250,130,
a fall of only 3'84 per cent. After all, the Income Tax Returns,
Schedule B, only give an approximate indication of the rise and fall of
rents. They include the tithe rent-charge, which does not decline at
the same rate with the rent. They also include sums paid for drainage.
"I know many farms where the drainage rate is 15s. an acre, and that
is included in Schedule B. During these bad times the drainage tax
has increased, and so the apparent reduction of rent in Schedule B is
very small indeed, while the actual reduction to the landlord is enor-
mous. Mr. W. C. Little at the Farmers' Club, Dec. 1884. Sir R.
Paget at the Agricultural Conference held in London in December,
1892, calculated the fall of agricultural rents in the fifteen years 1879-93
at 20 per cent., which is a very probable estimate.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
3
acquainted with the conditions of English agriculture,
but who look to find sympathetic audiences among the
mechanics of large towns. They point triumphantly to
the establishment of peasant proprietors in Prussia by
Stein and Hardenberg, and in Russia by Alexander II.,
entirely forgetting that those beneficial reforms were not
the conversion of a manufacturing into an agricultural
population, but, in effect, the natural evolution into small
Farmers of predial serfs. But the British public as yet
evinces no disposition to the belief that changes are only
salutary in proportion as they are sweeping. These
schools of opinion have long held possession of the field,
but another has of late emerged from the discredit of a
quarter of a century. The commercial depression from Protection.
which during the last fifteen years the world has been
suffering has revived the Protectionist party among our
manufacturers, and has suggested Protection as a cure
for the ills of agriculture. In the view of those who
advocate a change in this direction, the Farmers'
calamities have not been due to the disabilities enumer-
ated, but to the severity of foreign competition in corn.
Security for the Tenants' investments in the soil is not
an urgent need, since in Great Britain, at any rate, the
Landlord executes the greatest part of the permanent
improvements, and Landlords are just now loth to part
with energetic Tenants. For the same reason the Land-
lord is generally justified in raising Rents upon improve-
ments. The Law of Distress enables him to extend
indulgence to struggling Farmers. All these fancied
grievances, it is urged, could be supported with in-
difference by the Farmer if he could but realise a
remunerative price for his produce. What this remuner-
ative minimum may be is not at present authoritatively
determined. Mr. James Lowther, representing the party
of Protection to agriculture, has advocated the imposition
of a duty upon foreign wheat of at least 5s. a quarter, and
this seems the sum which generally finds acceptance
among agricultural Protectionists. By the imposition of
this duty, it is said, the area of the corn lands, which has
of late showed a progressive contraction, will again be en-
larged; the labouring population will suffer no privation,
and the Farmers will enjoy a sensible relief.
B 2
4
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
History of
Protection.
1802-4.
Farmers'
distress.
It is sufficiently obvious that if a duty of 55. on corn
would be an assistance to the Farmer, he would derive
benefit in proportion to the height to which this duty
was raised. So far, therefore, as his exclusive interest is
concerned, the duty of 10s., preferred by some,* would be
twice as remedial as a duty of 5s. Agriculture is the
most indispensable of industries, and if it be conceded,
as by the theory of Protection it is, that one industry may
tax others for its advantage, then agriculture has the first
claim to be heard, and the right to a superior degree of
relief, both on the ground of the comparative severity of
its distress and of its primary importance to the com-
munity. The advocates of Protection to agriculture must,
therefore, ask for the highest duty which the jealousy
of the manufacturing interest will permit them to obtain.
Accordingly it is of importance to weigh the advantages
which accrued to the Farmer through the various Pro-
tective duties imposed by the different Corn Laws. In the
light of such a retrospect the Farmer will be best able to
determine the minimum which, should he so desire, he will
instruct his representatives to demand. Moreover, in the
history of agriculture there is no more instructive chapter.
During the great French war which came to a close
in 1815 considerable difficulty was at times experi-
enced in provisioning the Army and Navy, there being
at that time no exports of corn from America, and the
corn ports of the Continent being shut against us by
Napoleon. This necessarily enhanced the price of food
at home, and caused inferior soils to be brought into
cultivation. Barley, rye, and oats were largely employed
for human food, and so apprehensive was the Legislature
of dearth that it was enacted that bread should not be
sold by the bakers until it had been at least twenty-four
hours out of the oven, and thereby acquired a certain
degree of staleness which should render it less liable to
be cut to waste.
In 1801 the average price of British wheat rose to
1195. 6d. a quarter. This extraordinary price further
* See Preface to the Fourth Edition, p. x. suprà. In the Debate on the
Address (1893) Mr. H. R. Farquharson, a Protectionist member, pleaded
for a measure to raise wheat to a normal level of 40s. Since the average
price of wheat for 1892 was 30s. 4d. this would mean a duty of
9s. 8d.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
5
enlarged the corn area. With wheat at such quotations
the Farmer of to-day might think himself prosperous;
nevertheless in 1802-3 and 1804, as prices declined there
were complaints of agricultural distress. The Committee
of the House of Commons, to whom petitions relating to
agricultural distress were referred, reported: "It appears
to your Committee that the price of corn from 1791–1803
has been very irregular. The casual high prices have
had the effect of bringing into cultivation large tracts of
waste land, which, combined with the two last productive
seasons and other causes, have occasioned such a depres-
sion in the value of grain as, it is feared, will greatly tend
to the discouragement of agriculture, unless maintained
by the support of Parliament." Accordingly, in 1804, the
first Corn Law of the century was passed, imposing a
prohibitory duty of 24s. 3d. when the price was below
635., and extending the operation of the existing bounty
on export. The object of this Act was the relief of agri-
culture by keeping prices at something like the height of
1801.
From 1805 to 1813 the price of wheat was maintained.
In 1812 it reached 126s. 6d.,* and the average for the
five years prior to 1814 was 1075. The opening of
foreign ports which followed upon the return of peace
rapidly lowered prices. The Landlords became alarmed,
and insisted that the ruin of the British farmer must
ensue with wheat at 74s. 4d. and threatening further
decline. Such a result was certainly inevitable if Rents
were to be maintained at the high rates they had reached.
In 1814, therefore, a Select Committee was appointed by
the House of Commons to consider petitions relating to
the Corn Laws. The Committee inquired with much
diligence into the "present expenses of cultivation, in-
cluding the Rent," and its Report contains passages which
show to whose real advantage the high prices of wheat
had conduced. In the years of distress which followed,
and which will hereafter be considered, the Farmer
frequently looked back with regret to this period. Those
who had leases dating from the preceding century no
* The_depreciation of the currency had increased. The real price
was not beyond 100s. a quarter. Porter's" Progress of the Nation,"
ed. 1847, chap. i., sect. ii.
6
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
1814.
Inquiry into
distress of
Farmers.
>>
doubt derived considerable profit; but to the majority
the "expenses of cultivation rose faster than the prices
of produce. In the years 1790-1795 the Farmer had
found little difficulty in earning a livelihood with wheat
as low as 435. But on the 7th of March, 1814, Mr.
Western, a Protectionist member, laid upon the table of
the House of Commons a series of fourteen resolutions,
declaring the "unexampled distress" of the agriculturists,
the danger of its continuance, the slackness of the demand
for agricultural produce, the heaviness of the burdens
upon the Farmers in the shape of Tithes, Taxes, and
Poor Rates.* "Thousands have been already ruined,
and destitution seems to impend over the property of all
those whose capital is engaged in the cultivation of the
soil." The outcome of these complaints was a demand
for increased Protection. It was the concurrent opinion
of most of the witnesses before the House of Commons
CC
It is sometimes maintained that the burden of taxation in this
country is so exceptionally heavy as to justify the imposition of duties
upon foreign imports with the object of putting competition on an equal
basis. This proposition, of course, extends to all industries. It is
no doubt arguable that the land in this country is unduly burdened in
comparison with other industries, and upon this contention, if substan-
tiated, may be founded a plea for the equalisation of burdens upon all
internal investments of capital. The argument, as applied to land,
depends upon the assumption that taxation forms part of the cost of
production. But taxation forms no part of the cost of production so
long as it leaves a margin of rent. Even if taxation did form part of the
cost of production, then, assuming the statement to be true that taxation
here is exceptionally heavy as compared with that of other countries,
this does not sustain an inference in favour of import duties. For, in
the first place, it is an axiom of international trade that "it is not a
difference in the absolute cost of production which determines the inter-
change, but a difference in the comparative cost," that is to say, a
difference in the cost of one class of exchangeable commodity as com-
pared with another in the same country, not a difference in the cost of
the same class of commodity in the exchanging countries. The best illus-
tration of this is given by Professor Cairnes in the fact of the importation
by Australia, in the time of the first gold discoveries, of the foodstuffs
she could have grown more cheaply herself. Cp. J. S. Mill, “Principles.
of Political Economy," Book III., chap. xvii., s. 2; and Cairnes'
"Leading Principles of Political Economy," Part III., International
Trade, chap. i., Doctrine of Comparative Cost. A pressure of taxa-
tion, therefore, equally distributed among the various industries, does
not, so far as international trade is concerned, affect their capacity to
maintain themselves. As to agriculture, "it may even be contended
that a people which must pay a particularly large amount to its ex-
chequer stands all the more urgently in need of liberty to seek out the
most profitable employment of the capital which remains.
Roscher, "Ueber Kornhandel und Theuerungspolitik," Stuttgart, 1852.
W.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
7
Committee in 1814 that 80s. per quarter is the lowest
price which would afford to the British grower an ade-
quate remuneration, while several other witnesses, equally
distinguished for their knowledge and experience in
matters connected with the letting of estates and the
agriculture of the country, state that the price of 8os.
a quarter will not afford sufficient protection to the
British grower. Several prices, from 84s. to 96s., have
been stated by different witnesses as the lowest which,
under the present charges and expenses of cultivation,
would afford a fair remuneration to the grower.
+
""
twenty
years.
The first ground for these estimates was that "it is Rent
stated by all the evidence that, within the period of doubled in
twenty years, the money Rent of land, taken upon an
average, has been doubled.” * This had been the first
effect of the high prices for which the Farmers were
desirous. In view of the item of Rent alone, those high
prices had brought no benefit to the Farmers, but the
contrary. The average price of wheat for the years 1775—-
1794 (inclusive) had been 46s. 3d. ; † the average price of
wheat for the years 1795-1814 (inclusive) was 85s. 4d.
It is plain that it was necessary for the Farmer, other things
being equal, to receive such a price as would cover the
addition made to his rent. But he did not. Rents, it
may be said, rose gradually, but so did the price of wheat.
In 1801 wheat had attained its maximum; but, as we see
from the Report of the Committee of 1814, though prices 1814.
had declined, Rents had been maintained by the specula-
tive competition of the Farmers themselves. Nor is the
extent of the Farmers' losses through these years of
Protection and high prices to be measured only by the
difference between the doubled Rent which he paid his
Landlord, and the inadequately increased price which he
received in the market. Mr. William Driver, Land
Surveyor, being asked by the Committee, "Are you aware
that the Poor Rates have increased rapidly within the
last ten years?" answers, "Yes, I am aware that they
have very materially." "To what do you attribute that
increase?" "To the high price of corn." Mr. William
* See Appendix A.
+ The imperial quarter is the measure taken throughout.
Compare the evidence of Mr. W. Ilott in 1821 on p. 32.
8
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
and Poor
Rates.
High prices Henning, of Dellington, Somerset, Landowner, being
asked, "Has the Poor Rate increased in the course of the
last ten years?" answers, "From ten to fifteen years it
has increased more than double." As will be seen from
evidence given before subsequent Committees, when
harvests were abundant and wheat was cheap, the returns
to the Farmer were so much below his outgoings that he
was unable to support his labourers. They were, there-
fore, thrown upon the parish. Official statistics prove that
in 1801 the sum expended for the relief of the poor was
£4,017,871, and in 1814, £6,294,581. The evidence
of the witnesses before the Committee of 1814, and the
comparative cheapness of corn, show that most of this
increase was in the agricultural districts, for the agricul-
tural labourer occupied a somewhat anomalous position.
The Poor Rates showed less agricultural pauperism during
high prices of corn,* whence it was seriously argued that
dear bread was beneficial to the labourer. The fact was
that, whether bread was dear or cheap, the labourer
was in a state of continuous pauperism, engendered
of a vicious Poor Law system. When the returns upon
wheat were high, the Farmers could afford to give full
* It has been uniformly assumed by the advocates of a Free Trade
in corn that pauperism in the agricultural districts rose and fell with
the rise and fall respectively of the prices of corn. The writer is con-
vinced, both from the evidence given before the various Parliamentary
Committees, some of which is quoted in the text, and from the figures
adduced by the Free Trade controversialists themselves, that this is an
error. The statement is made in his Anti-Corn Law pamphlets by Earl
Fitzwilliam, and set forth in detail in the Prize Essay of Mr. Greg,
published by the Anti-Corn Law League. Mr. Greg gives a table as
follows:-
SUMS EXPENDED FOR THE RELIEF OF THE POOR.

Counties.
Under the Old
Poor Law.
Under the New
Poor Law.

1829.
£
1833.
1837.
1839.
£
£
Bucks
Bedford
...
135,239
124,200
61,634
72,367
...
...
84,513
77,819
37,447
39,889
Essex
...
282,132
239,946
149,356
165,340
Devon
222,381
210,825
169,449
194,361
Dorset
90,949
84,293
63,531
81,373
Total
515,214
737,083
481,417
553,330
Average Price of Wheat
66s. 3d.
525. I1d.
55s. Iod. 70s. 8d.
The figures of the years 1829 and 1833, under the Old Poor Laws,
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
9
*
employment, and the labourers contrived, with difficulty,
to maintain existence, independent of the Poor Rates, on
sums averaging about 6s. a week.* When the price of
wheat was low, and the Farmers were themselves im-
poverished, a condition of things which, in view of the
prices with reference to which their Rents had been
fixed, was the more frequent, the labourers' destitution
was relieved out of the Poor Rates, which accordingly
increased in amount. To be well within the mark, there-
fore, it may be assumed that the growth of the Poor
Rates between 1801 and 1814, a dear year and a com-
paratively cheap one, was not greater in the agricultural
districts than elsewhere. Yet even so an increment is
exhibited of 50 per cent., an additional burden upon the
Farmers' shoulders.
prove nothing, for it will be observed that while the price of wheat de-
clined 21 per cent., the cost of agricultural pauperism was diminished
by no more than 9 per cent. If the fall in the price of wheat had the
effect ascribed to it, that effect was successfully counteracted by the
growth of pauperism under a system which seemed specially contrived
to foster it. It is fairer, therefore, to judge Mr. Greg's figures by the
years 1837 and 1839, in which an improved Poor Law was in force. In
the year 1839 the price of wheat is advanced 26 per cent.; the cost of
agricultural pauperism, on the other hand, has only increased 14 per
cent.; an increase sufficiently accounted for by the rise of wheat, with-
out taking into account the growth of population. In the same way
Mr. Villiers, speaking in the House of Commons in June 1844, said,
"In the fifteen agricultural counties he found the increase in the amount
of Poor Rates between 1836 and 1842 was 21 per cent." It happens,
however, that the rise in the price of corn was 18 per cent., viz., from
48s. 6d. to 57s. 3d.; that the population had considerably multiplied,
and that the health and comfort of paupers were more carefully super-
vised. Upon this point, therefore, the Free Traders have overrated
their case, but they might have maintained with justice that for the agri-
cultural labourer, the difference between a year of high and a year
low prices was simply the difference between independent and dependent
destitution.
of
* The natural and necessary tendency of Protection is to depress
wages. Wages may be defined as the labourer's share of that which is
produced. It is admitted that under Protection production is diverted
into channels less productive than it would otherwise seek. So much is
allowed by our Fair Traders, who therefore profess to be all Free
Traders at heart, and only desirous of using Fair Trade as a means to
an end.
But if under Protection the productiveness of capital be less,
it follows that the labourer's share will be less, unless he can make
profits bear the loss. This, however, he cannot do, for capital being
less productive there is less return to be employed in setting labour in
motion. Instead of capital competing for labour, labour competes with
labour for employment. Want of employment drives the artisans into
the field, and a fall of agricultural labourers' wages is the inevitable
consequence.
IO
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
Data for
Early in 1816, the Board of Agriculture addressed.
circular letters of inquiry as to the agricultural state of
every part of the kingdom. One of its queries was as to
the "State of the Labouring Poor and Poor Rates,"
and the replies received by it are summarised as
follows:-
"The total number of letters containing replies on
the first of these subjects amounts to 273.
“Two hundred and thirty-seven letters describe the
state of the poor under various expressions, denoting
a want of employment in terms more or less forcible.
"One hundred and one of the above letters, expatiating
on the degree of this want of employment, describe the
extreme distress resulting from it as amounting to great
misery and wretchedness, and in some cases to an
alarming degree.
Eighteen letters describe the state of the Labouring
Poor as neither better nor worse than formerly.
"Twenty-five letters give a favourable report, represent-
ing their state as not in want of employment, and therefore
not distressed.
"These forty-three cases so much more favourable than
the rest require a few words of explanation, as in fifteen
of them there occur circumstances tending to show that
whatever the present state may be, it will soon become not
superior to that of the rest. In seven of these cases,
they are attended by minutes of unoccupied farms and
notices to quit. In two others, Poor Rates are stated
to be high and increased. In one other, the favourable
report combines with the fact of fifty farmers being dis-
trained for rent. In another case, the favourable report
is confined to one or two parishes with much distress in
their vicinity. In one other, in which the Poor are re-
presented as not suffering, it is admitted that they have
less employment than heretofore.
In another case,
employment is found by manufacturers, and in one, the
Reporter employs all the poor of his parish, on a princi-
ple of charity."
Taking these two items of Rent and Poor Rates
estimating alone, therefore, the net result to the Farmer of
Protectionist legislation for enhancing the price of corn
was, on the evidence of the distressed Protectionist
Farmers'
losses, 1795-
1814.
FOR THE FARMER AND Labourer.
1 I
Farmers themselves, a serious annual loss. During the
twenty years 1795-1814 wheat had, as has been seen,
risen less than 85 per cent. Rent, on the other hand,
which, as witnesses before the later Parliamentary
Committees testify, was adjusted upon the basis of
the anticipated returns to wheat, had risen 100 per
cent.; and Poor Rates, at the lowest possible estimate,
50 per cent.
rise of
How much under the mark this estimate is, particu- Excessive
larly applied to the Northern parts of the Kingdom, may Rents in
be conjectured from the evidence of Mr. Low, the Pro- Scotland.
fessor of Agriculture in the University of Edinburgh,
before the Committee of the House of Commons in
1833, as to the rise of Rents during this period in Scot-
land. He says: "Comparing the period from the year
1781 to 1794 with the period from 1800 to 1804, I think
the average rise of Rents in Scotland was about 86 per
cent.; and comparing the same period, 1781 to 1794,
with that from 1804 to the end of the war (1814), I
think there was a rise of 150 per cent. on a medium.”
This is confirmed by the official estimates of the Rental
of Scotland as £2,000,000 in 1795, and £5,278,685
(exclusive of houses) in 1815. If these be just calcula- Losses of
tions, the balance against the Scottish Farmer would be the Scottish
yet heavier. The rise in Poor Rates, which were below
the Rates in the South of England, may be reduced to
25 per cent.
Yet even this is a portentous growth. It
is of more importance to observe again that the rise of
Rent 150 per cent. was a rise infinitely exceeding in
proportion the rise of wheat. Nor did the Farmer
derive any compensation from the price of meat.
portation was prohibited, consumption was comparatively
unprogressive, and the excessive fluctuations (100 per
cent. in six years-1808-14) which were the natural
effect of Protection, served only to the further enhance-
ment of Rents. It is therefore no matter for astonish-
ment that by 1814 the cry of agricultural distress had
grown loud and universal.
Im-
Farmer.
increased
In accordance with the report of the Committee of The remedy
1814 a Bill was carried through Parliament in the sought in
following year for the purpose of affording further Protection.
Protection to the depressed industry of agriculture.
12
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
Considering the evidence of the witnesses as to the
lowest remunerative price of corn-evidence, be it
remembered, in all cases based upon the assumption that
Rents were to be maintained at their existing level-this
measure of Protection was exceedingly moderate. This
was due, perhaps, to the discontent which it aroused in
many parts of the country, and which in some places
broke out into disturbances, only quelled by military
force. It was unblushingly maintained by the Land-
owners that it was for the welfare of the State to uphold
at their accustomed level the fortunes of a class which
supplied officers to the public service.* The Parliament
of 1815, therefore, being composed almost exclusively
of Landowners, proceeded to enact a Corn Law which
excluded foreign wheat when the price was under 80s.
a quarter, allowing its free importation when above 80s.
Opposition It was not only by the manufacturers that this enact-
ment was opposed. In the House of Lords it gave occa-
Protection. sion to a weighty protest drawn up by Lord Grenville, the
friend of Pitt, framed not merely upon abstract economic
principles, but upon the teaching of recent experience. It
was a prophecy of consequences which inevitably ensued.
to further
* This argument is seriously urged by Mr. Jacob, a distinguished
Protectionist Pamphleteer. It is obviously a view that would enjoy
general social currency. It has recently reappeared. In December,
1884, Lord Walsingham, in reply to a circular of Lord Rosebery
requesting the opinions of the peers as to the reform of the House
of Lords, indicated a protective measure as the reform really needed,
for "if peers, who are for the most part landowners, were not forced by
one-sided Free Trade to let their London houses and live in the country,
the attendance in the House of Lords would be greatly increased.
This shows a landlord's opinion as to which class it is that reaps
the benefit of agricultural protective duties and ought to do so. A
later expression of the same view occurs in a speech delivered at a
demonstration of "The National Association for the Preservation of
Agriculture and our other Industries" in St. James's Hall on the 8th
December, 1887. Mr. Poynter, Chairman of the Association, speaking
of food, said: "The so-called cheapness had only been brought about
by the appropriation of a large part of the landlords' property.' So in
France, M. Yves Guyot, in his pamphlet on "The French Corn Laws,"
speaking of the supporters of the law of 1887, which increased the Pro-
tection to agriculture, says :-"In the midst of big words about agri-
culture it was, however, so clearly the question of property which pre-
occupied the minds of the chief supporters of the law, that its reporter,
M. Méline, spoke of the profit of agriculture as being 2,600 millions of
francs. But this sum represents in France the rents of the landowners,
not the incomes of the cultivators and farmers." (p. 11.)
"
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
13
PROTEST SUBSCRIBED BY TEN PEERS, ENTERED IN THE 1815.
JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, AGAINST THE
CORN LAW OF 1815.
"DISSENTIENT I.-Because we are adverse in principle
to all new restraints on commerce. We think it is
certain that public prosperity is best promoted by leaving
uncontrolled the free current of national industry, and we
wish rather, by well-considered steps, to bring back our
commercial legislation to the straight and simple line of
wisdom, than to increase the deviation by subjecting
additional and extensive branches of the public interest
to fresh systems of artificial and injurious restrictions.
"II. Because we think that the great practical rule of
leaving all commerce unfettered applies more peculiarly,
and on still stronger grounds of justice as well as policy,
to the Corn Trade than to any other. Irresistible,
indeed, must be that necessity which could, in our
judgment, authorise the Legislature to tamper with the
sustenance of the people, and to impede the free purchase
of that article on which depends the existence of so large
a portion of the community.
(C
III. Because we think that the expectations of
ultimate benefit from this measure are founded on a
delusive theory. We cannot persuade ourselves that this
law will ever contribute to produce plenty, cheapness, or
steadiness of price. So long as it operates at all, its
effect must be the opposite of these. Monopoly is the
parent of scarcity, of dearness, and of uncertainty. To cut
off any of the sources of supply can only tend to lessen
its abundance; to close against ourselves the cheapest
market for any commodity must enhance the price at
which we purchase it; and to confine the consumer of
corn to the produce of his own country is to refuse to
ourselves the benefit of that provision which Providence
itself has made for equalising to man the varieties of
climate and of seasons.
"IV.—But whatever may be the future consequences
of this law at some distant and uncertain period, we see
with pain that these hopes must be purchased at the
14
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
The Corn
Law of
1815.
Its
expense of a great and present evil. To compel the
consumer to purchase corn dearer at home than it might
be imported from. abroad is the immediate practical
effect of this law. In this way alone can it operate.
present protection, its promised extension of agriculture,
must result (if at all) from the profits which it creates by
keeping up the price of corn to an artificial level. These
future benefits are the consequences expected, but, as we
believe, erroneously expected, from giving a bounty to
the grower of corn by a tax levied on its consumer.
“V.—Because we think the adoption of any permanent
law for such a purpose required the fullest and most
laborious investigation. Nor would it have been suffi-
cient for our satisfaction could we have been convinced
of the general policy of a hazardous experiment. A still
further inquiry would have been necessary to persuade
us that the present moment is fit for its adoption. In
such an inquiry we must have had the means of satisfying
ourselves what its immediate operation will be, as
connected with the various pressing circumstances of
public difficulty and distress with which the country is
surrounded; with the state of our circulation and
currency, of our agriculture and manufactures, of our
internal and external commerce, and, above all, with
the condition and reward of the industrious and labour-
ing classes of our community.
"On all these particulars, as they respect this question,
we think that Parliament is almost wholly uninformed;
on all we see reason for the utmost anxiety and alarm
from the operation of this law.
Lastly, Because if we could approve of the principle
and purpose of this law we think that no sufficient
foundation has been laid for its details. The evidence
before us, unsatisfactory and imperfect as it is, seems to
us rather to disprove than to support the propriety of the
high price adopted as the standard of importation, and
the fallacious mode by which that price is to be ascer-
tained. And on all these grounds we are anxious to
record our dissent from a measure so precipitate in its
course, and, as we fear, so injurious in its conse-
quences."
"To this Bill," wrote Earl Fitzwilliam, twenty-five
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
15
years later, in his address to the Landowners of England, 1815-1822.
"I gave my assent, and of all the important questions
upon which I voted in the course of the twenty-five years
during which, with one short interval, I have sat in
Parliament, it is the only one upon which I regret the
part I took. I am and have been for years satisfied
that that measure was founded on the most erroneous
principles, and that it has been attended by the most
disastrous consequences. In this place allow me to draw
your attention to the effects which it produced upon poor
Tenants. Relying upon the wisdom and power of the
Legislature, they were induced by it to expect prices for
their produce which the law and the proceedings that led
to its enactment held out to them by Act of Parliament.
If prices rose to an extravagant height, as they did in
1817, in consequence of the deficient harvest of 1816,
the expectations of the Farmers and Land Valuers rose
still higher; while, on the other hand, if they fell below
the Parliamentary standard, the fall was attributed to
some accidental and transient cause, and was disregarded
in fixing Rents, both by the Landlord, the Valuer, and
the Tenant.'
>>
of the
Farmers.
The Act was, however, passed amidst the general Hopes
congratulations of the Farmers. The bidding for farms
grew brisk: Rents shot up.
Rents shot up. Inferior land was reclaimed
at vast expenditure of Tenants' capitals, and the pro-
ductiveness of soil already in cultivation was stimulated,
though with necessarily decreasing returns. The impetus
thus artificially applied to corn-growing worked its natural
results. In view of the abundance of wheat in the
market, it was impossible to maintain it at the promised
price of 80s. a quarter. The year after the passing of
the Act and before the effects of the Farmers' internecine
competition had fully disclosed themselves, it reached an
average of 78s. 6d. The harvest of 1817 was extra-
ordinarily deficient. The average price of wheat in the
last two years of scarcity, 1812 and 1813, had been
126s. 6d. and 109s. 9d. a quarter; yet in 1817 it
only reached 96s. 11d. a quarter, though for a short time
in the spring of that year it rose to what Lord Fitz-
william justly called "the extravagant price" of 120s. a
quarter. After 1817 prices gradually fell, and it is
16
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
of the
Farmers
disap-
pointed.
The hopes important to observe that from 1819 to the present day
the average price of wheat has never reached even that
minimum which the Legislature promised to the Farmer in
the Corn Law of 1815. Nevertheless, the Farmers were
still hopeful. They paid their exorbitant Rents and
continued their expenditure of capital. Yet year by year
prices continued to sink. The efforts of the Farmers to
make up in quantity what they lost in price, only recoiled
upon themselves, until in the year 1822, without having
been exposed to foreign competition, they had brought
wheat down to the price of 44s. 7d. a quarter. In the
winter of 1821-22 wheat had actually sold at less than
40s. a quarter.* "The consequences of this state of
things," says Lord Fitzwilliam,† "cannot have escaped
Unexampled recollection. Great difficulties had been felt by the
agricultural interest in 1814, 1815, and 1816, but the
difficulties of all former years were surpassed by the
distress of the winter of 1821-22. The insolvency of
Tenants at this period was unparalleled in the history of
the agricultural classes; and the inefficiency of the Act of
1815 was so universally acknowledged that an alteration
in the law was made in the Session of 1822; but the
alteration being contingent on circumstances which never
occurred, no permanent or practical change took place
till the year 1828. During the whole period, therefore,
from 1815 to 1828, the prohibitory system of 1815 was
in virtual operation. Year after year the Farmer was
deluded by fallacious hopes, excited by the law itself.
His Rent was paid out of his capital and not out of his
profits, till that capital became insufficient for the proper
cultivation of the land."
distress of
the Farmers.
Lord Fitzwilliam, though, as a Landowner, at least a
disinterested witness, was an avowed opponent of the
Corn Laws. To obtain, therefore, unquestionable testi-
mony of the effect of the Act of 1815, it is better to turn
to the evidence given by Farmers themselves still clinging
to Protection before a Protectionist Committee of the
House of Commons in 1821.
Among the Parliamentary papers for 1822 occurs a
"List of Petitions which have been presented to the
* See Preface to the fifth edition, pp. xxvii, xxviii.
† First Address to the Landowners of England, 1839.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
17
House of Commons in the years 1820, 1821, and 1822 1821. Par-
(up to March, 1822), complaining of agricultural distress." liamentary
There were :—
In 1820...
In 1821...
...
...
159
187
And in the first three
months of 1822 ... 129
Total
...
Petitions from Towns, Districts,
Counties, &c.
475 in 27 months.
Inquiry
into the
Farmers'
distress.
before the
The petitions for 1822 show an increase of 175 per
cent. over those for the previous year, and although it by
no means follows that this is to be taken as a gauge of the
growth of the distress, it indicates at least that the evid-
ence given in the early part of 1821 does not measure
the full height of the crisis. Yet that evidence draws a
forcible picture of the Farmers' calamities. "Are you of Evidence of
opinion that Farmers in general, in your knowledge, have Farmers
incurred a great loss of capital ?"— "I have no question Parlia-
of it: a friend and neighbour of mine had occasion to mentary
newly arrange some estates, and new-let them. Two Committee.
years since, on the death of his father, the Tenants got
upon the estate—some, I am sorry to say, partly upon a
borrowed capital. If a Distress was taken now (they
cannot pay Rent, and I believe they will not be able the
next Rent day), I am convinced those persons would be
annihilated, inasmuch as they would have no capital
left."*"Within your knowledge, confining yourself to Exhausted
the county of Sussex, do you believe that the capital of Capital,
the Farmer has decreased?"-"I can speak positively to
my own capital being very considerably decreased; and
I have every reason to believe it is so generally through-
out the county."—"If these unfortunate times should
continue, what must be the case with respect to the
Farmer and his productions ?"-"My opinion is that
those who commenced farming within the last ten years.
with little capital must all give up their farms."+
"Is it not very difficult to collect Rates, from the Intolerable
poverty of the Farmers ?". Excessively so: Warrants Rates.
of Distress have never been issued without the greatest
* Mr. William Henning, Farmer, of Ilminster, Somersetshire.
† Mr. John Ellman, Farmer, of Glynde, Sussex.
C
18
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
General
rural
distress.
Estimates
pains, by the parish officers and magistrates, to collect
the Rates without them.”*
"Are there many persons leaving their farms in conse-
quence of distress in your neighbourhood? and what is
the extent of the distress?"_"I believe it is only the
hope of some relief being granted that at this time pre-
vents hundreds from leaving their farms. A Farmer of
forty years' standing has lately been distressed for Rent;
another is now upon the parish who, but a little while
ago, was worth £2,000, and hundreds with large families
are on the very brink of ruin, and are obliged to mort-
gage the next crop of corn before they can gather in the
same. The labourers are unemployed, the tradesman are
applying to the parish for relief, the shopkeepers and
manufacturers in large towns are without customers,
except on credit."†
"At what period do you think your losses com-
menced?"—"I think from the year 1814."- "Down to
the present time?”—“Yes.”- "Can you at all estimate
of Farmers' what your aggregate loss has been during that time alto-
gether?"-"I think in the year 1813 I could have re-
tired with £10,000 or £12,000, and now I should think
not more than half the sum, at least not more than two-
thirds."‡
losses.
Since
Farming is a most ruinous business. In my state-
ment it appears that the Farmer is minus in the cultivation
of 100 acres of arable land, at the present prices,
£137 2s. 6d., or per acre per annum £1 7s. 5d.
1813 we have mostly been declining in circumstances.
With respect to the existing Corn Law, the more I con-
Law of 1815 template it the more I consider it a mere phantom, and
The Corn
discovered
to be a
delusion,
quite incompetent to afford any effectual relief to British
agriculture. It having been demonstrated to the Com-
mittees of the Lords and Commons that an average of
8os. per quarter for wheat was requisite to remunerate
the British grower, it was, no doubt, the intention of the
Legislature to grant Protection to that extent, though in
its operation it will have no such effect.
As the present
law opens the British market to foreign grain for at least
* Mr. Thomas Barton, Clerk to the Magistrates, Battle, Sussex.
+ Mr. Job Lousley, Farmer, of Blewberry, Berks.
Mr. William Ilott, Farmer, of Abbey Milton, Dorsetshire.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABourer.
19
six weeks, where the prices attain 8os. per quarter for 1821.
wheat, 275. for oats, 53s. for beans, and 40s. for barley, at
the opening of the ports there is generally such an influx of
foreign grain that wheat will speedily fall from 20s. to 30s.
per quarter, and other grain in proportion. It is, there-
fore, sufficiently evident that nothing but total prohibition,
or a duty equivalent thereto, can re-establish confidence.”*
Are the present Corn Laws of any use to the
Farmer?"-"Certainly they are not: they are insufficient
and ineffectual, and were so from the beginning."+
Rents.
Such being the condition to which the Farmers were Causes of
reduced, the evidence further shows how the Corn Laws the distress.
operated to bring about this state of things. "What has
the Rent of your farm increased from the year 1792 ?"—
"The farm was let upon lease for twenty-one years, from
Michaelmas, 1790, which ended in 1811. It was in-
creased in 1811 from £680 per annum to £1,200 ”—¿.e.,
an increase of 76 per cent.—"When was the first abate-
ment in rent?". "The first abatement, to the best of my
recollection, was in 1815. Three years after I took a
fresh lease." "To what amount was that?"-“ £200 a
year, reducing it to £1,000, the rent I now pay." The
total rise, therefore, between 1790 and 1815, after the
depression had begun, was 47 per cent.
،،
"From
"How long have you occupied this farm?"-
the year 1796.”- "Was it upon a lease?"—"Yes."
"For how many years!
"" "The first was fifteen."
"From 1796 to 1811?”—“Yes.” "At what Rent?"
"£300 a year."-" At the expiration of the lease in 1811
did you take a fresh lease?"-"Yes."-" For what term ?'
"Eleven years."-" At what rent?" £500 a year
—¿.e., at an increase of 66 per cent.§-" With regard to
the payment of Rent at the last Michaelmas, when
Rents are generally due in Kent, do you believe that
any Farmers have paid that rent out of profit ?”—“I do
not know an instance where they have."-" Do you con-
ceive the Tenantry in the county of Kent at this moment
are in a state of solvency ?"—" I think it very doubtful.”||
* Mr. William Stickney, Farmer, of Holderness, East Yorks.
† Mr. G, Webb Hall, Farmer, of Sneed Park, Gloucestershire.
Mr. John Ellman, suprà.
Mr. S. Capper, Farmer, of Pottern Manor, Wilts.
Mr. John Lake, Farmer, of Bapchild, near Sittingbourne, Kent,
C 2
20
WHAT PROTECTION Does
1815-22.
Evidence at
the Parlia-
mentary
Inquiry.
"Have the Farmers on the arable farms paid their
Rents from the profits of their farms, or from their
capital ? ”—“ I have had the remark made by many most
respectable Tenants that they are paying their rents out
of their capital at the present moment."—"Do you see
any chance of the condition of the Farmer being
bettered?"—"Not unless the price of corn can be ad-
vanced." "Can you point out any other means ?"-" A
reduction of his Rent and other outgoings."
"Have
you the means of stating whether the Rents have in-
creased very much within the last thirty years?"-
"From
1796 to the present time they have increased double, or
Upon what calculation did you fix the Rent?”
"The average of wheat at 10s. a bushel.
have heard of particular cases where Landlords have
asked more than the valuations, and I have heard of
others putting them up to auction and very high Rents
obtained."
more.
">
I
"What has been the increase of Rents from 1797 to
1813? "I think they are trebled."-"In what pro-
portion do you suppose the charges of cultivation in-
creased?"—"I am inclined to think the charges in-
creased with the Rent."†
No doubt part of this rise was a rise upon the
Tenant's own improvements certain to be imposed in a
time of factitious competition. Of this, too, we have
direct evidence. "To what extent have the Rents been
raised during the period of the high prices ?""I think
considerably more than double; certainly more than
double."- "Has there been any considerable outlay of
capital to produce this rise of Rent?"
"Yes; un-
doubtedly there has."—"Has not a considerable propor-
tion of those advances of capital been made by the
Tenants ?"—" Yes; a very great deal of that has been
laid out by the Tenants; no doubt of it."—" More than
by the Landlord, do you conceive, with enclosures,
draining, and so on?" "I should think it had. I
should think so, certainly." ‡
The guarantees of the Legislature were thus successful
* Mr. William Custance, of London, Receiver of Rents.
† Mr. E. Wakefield, of Essex, Land Valuer,
Mr. John Iveson, Land Agent.
FOR THE FARMER AND LAbourer.
21
Farmers at
Inquiry.
in stimulating Rents, but were impotent to maintain 1815-22.
prices. The difference between expected prices and Evidence of
prices realised was thus, as in 1814, a measure of the the Parlia-
Farmer's loss, though not, as will be seen, of his whole mentary
loss. "Do the present prices at which corn is selling
(wheat 56s. Id., barley 26s., oats 19s. 6d.) remunerate
the Farmer for the expense of tillage, Poor Rates, and
Rent?"--" I am certain they do not, in our neighbour-
hood, in the county of Sussex." "Do you attribute the
whole fall in the price of corn to the increased supply of Fall of
corn or the decreased consumption ?"—"It must be prices of
principally from the increased supply at market.” *
>>
corn
through
among
"Since 1814 all produce has been at a high price. competition
How do you account for having sustained losses when Farmers
the produce was at a high price?"-" Since 1814 it has themselves.
only been a short time at a high price, or a remunerating
price; not during the whole time. "At what price
should wheat be to remunerate you in a proper way for
growing it?"—" I think at 96s. a quarter." Another
†
witness says: "There is a depreciation in the average
of all agricultural produce of nearly 31 per cent., and in
those which the Farmer has most to depend upon of 40
per cent.; while the Poor Rate is advanced 82 per cent.
and the Taxes 75 per cent., the price of labour is reduced
only 12 per cent." +
prices of
meat
So far as meat was concerned, the decline in prices Fall of
was due to the paralysis of trade and manufactures which
was a common feature of the Protectionist system. Mr.
Thomas Attwood, of Birmingham, put in a statement
showing the decreased consumption of meat in the large turing
towns of the Midlands in the years 1818-20.
through
distress of
manufac-
districts.
Birmingham decreased consumption beef and mutton.
Leeds
""
Sheffield
Walsall
Dudley
I-lac Hão --|
"}
"
""
")
slight
11
'I think," added the witness, "these returns are
calculated to show the distress of the manufacturing
* Mr. John Ellman, suprà.
+ Mr. W. Ilott, suprà.
Mr. R. C. Harvey, Farmer, of Alburgh, Norfolk.
22
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
1815-22.
districts, and the effect which the diminution of con-
sumption in those districts must necessarily have on the
sales and prosperity of the agricultural classes." To this
cause of slackness is to be added the fact that, as the
evidence shows, the Farmers were rapidly diminishing
their stock of cattle under the pressure, and were thus
Increasing overdoing the markets. Since the Farmers were crushed
destitution by their Rents, and unaided by remunerative prices, it
was not to be wondered at that those in dependence
upon them sank into destitution. The Poor Rates in-
creased notably—an increase, it is only fair to recognise,
due in part to the injudicious encouragement to popu-
lation afforded by the old Poor Law. "From your ob-
servation among the working classes, is their situation
better or worse ? "_"I consider the labourers employed
in agriculture to be considerably worse off than they were
five or ten years ago. "*
of labour-
ing classes.
Enormous
Rates.
"To what cause do you attribute the labourers being
much out of employment?"—"The principal cause is
the inability of the Farmers to pay them their wages.Ӡ-
"Can you give any reason for the number of persons
thrown out of employ ?"-"Certainly; the inability of
the Farmers to pay them. I could in three or four days
bring forward a thousand able-bodied labourers who
have no employment."+
Can you state to the Committee whether your Poor
rise of Poor Rates are in general high in your part of the county ?"-
"The Poor Rates probably have in the last twenty-five
years increased in a threefold degree."§—" In the year
1819 the Poor Rates were increased enormously, at least
one-third; and it may be remarked that the decrease in
the year 1820 in not any favourable symptom, as there
would most likely have been a greater number out of
employ than ever, had not the farmers agreed to take
each a share of the unemployed men and pay them out
of their own pockets; and in dividing them it amounted
to about one man to every fifty acres, who are a most
heavy burden on their hands. In the year 1818 I
* Mr. John Ellman, suprà.
+ Mr. S. Capper, suprà.
± Mr. T. Barton, suprà.
Mr. Thomas Orton, Farmer, of March, in the Isle of Ely.
FOR THE FARMER AND LAbourer.
23
the Parlia-
mentary
occupied about 200 acres of land at Hagbourne, and Evidence at
although I employed my usual number of labourers and
paid them in full, yet my Poor Rates in that year amounted Inquiry of
to the enormous sum of £121, or 12s. an acre.
Mr. 1821-22.
Harvey was obliged to employ fifty labourers on a farm
of 1,400 acres, “to keep them off the parish."
"14
Mr. William Ilott put in evidence a statement of Poor
Rates in the parish of Dowlesh, Dorsetshire, from 1814
to 1820 (shillings and pence omitted) :-
1814-15
1815-16
1816-17
1817-18
1818-19
1819-20
£232
318
...
307
increase, 97 per cent.
...
423
324
457
A statement was put in by the Chairman of the Com-
mittee, which presents an almost incredible picture of
agricultural pauperism. It was an extract from a Report
of a Committee of the Guardians of the poor, for forty-
four Parishes within the Hundred of Blything, Suffolk,
showing the amount paid for able workmen unemployed
(shillings and pence omitted).
From Easter 1814 to Easter 1815 £5.
"}
11
1815
1816
"
> }
11
1816
1817
1,384, increase 27,680 per cent.
2,704, increase 95 per cent.
tural
Corn Law
These were years of comparatively cheap corn, when The growth
the Farmers were therefore in straits. Yet the extra- of agricul-
ordinary increase between Easter, 1815, and Easter, distress
1816, seems to point to some new disposition of the increased
returns. This does not, however, appear in the witness's with the
evidence. "Will you be so good as to account for the of 1815.
very great increase?" "Because of the increase in the
number of persons thrown out of employment.'
"Were
they agricultural labourers or otherwise ?"-"Entirely
agricultural.”—“Do you happen to know whether the
result was the same in the parishes adjoining ?”—“ I
believe they increased in a much greater proportion, because
I believe that the poor are much better managed in these
Mr. J. Lousley, suprà.
24
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
1816.
rural
cendiarism.
incorporated Hundreds than they are in the neighbour-
Wholesale ing Hundreds, where they are not incorporated."--At
pauperism. the end of March, 1816, Mr. Brand declared in Parlia-
Riots. In- ment of the agricultural population that "the poor, in
many cases, abandoned their own residences. Whole
parishes had been deserted, and the crowd of paupers,
increasing in numbers as they went from parish to parish,
spread wider and wider this awful desolation." "In
Suffolk nightly fires of incendiaries began to blaze in every
district, threshing machines were broken or burnt in
open day; mills were attacked. At Brandon, near Bury,
large bodies of labourers assembled to prescribe a maxi-
mum price of grain and meat, and to pull down the
houses of butchers and bakers. They bore flags with
the motto, 'Bread or blood.' At Bury and at Norwich
disturbances of a similar nature were quickly repressed.
But the most serious demonstration of the spirit of the
peasantry arose in what is called the Isle of Ely.
Retrogres-
sion of
agriculture.
Early in the Session Mr. Western described the agricul-
tural distress of this district as exceeding that of most
other parts of the kingdom. Executions upon the pro-
perty of the cultivators, distresses for Rent, insolvencies,
farms untenanted, were the symptoms of this remarkable
depression.
In the Fen countries the tempta-
tion of immediate profit had more than commonly led
the Farmer to raise exhausting crops.
The high
prices of wheat from 1810 to 1814 had supplied this
temptation."*
No resources could withstand such a congeries of
burdens, and as the Farmers suffered, their land fell back.
"From
your long experience are you of opinion that the
agriculture of the country has advanced or deteriorated
within the last three years?"—"I conceive it to be very
considerably deteriorated."†
Mr. Rodwell, a Farmer and Land Agent in Suffolk, said
"there was not then one-tenth part of the beasts fattening
upon corn and oilcake there had been a few years be-
fore." Mr. Harvey‡ spoke of reductions of stock, growing
less turnips, and much double-cropping. Farmers were
* Martineau's "History of the Peace," Book I., ch. iv.
+ Mr. J. Ellman, suprà.
‡ Suprà.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
25
catching at a straw, and desirous of getting all they could
in a year.
Mr. Lake* handed in an account, a specimen, it is
to be feared, of the balance-sheets of most Farmers
during these years.
"Losses sustained on three Holdings of Land, the principal
part of arable; all in most excellent condition, and carried on with
the greatest economy, and without even a riding horse on either."
No. 1. A great part Tithe free 1819 500
The same...
Acres. Rents.
Rents
1,130
Loss.
£ 5. d.
242 16 8
...
No. 2. All liable to Tithe
...
1820
1819 126
1820
769 16 4
150
79 O O
...
302 9 10/0
No. 3. About ths Tithe free...
1819 350
1820
508
186 15 0
...
414 12 5
A Farmer's
Balance
Sheet under
Protection.
The same...
The same...
£1,788
2
976 1,788 1,995 10 31
£
S. d.
Rent paid ...£3,576-Loss 1,995 10 31
Report of
The Report of the Select Committee which received the Select
this impressive evidence, so confirmatory of the experi- Committee
ence of the years prior to 1814, and so illustrative of of 1821-22.
the anticipations of Lord Grenville and the Free Traders,
showed that the belief as to the advantages of Protection
with which they had entered upon the inquiry, had
sustained a complete shock. They saw that the total
prohibition advocated by some of the witnesses as the
sole remedy was impossible in an overflowing population.
Stringent Protection had served but to bring ruin upon
the Farmers, who yet were unprepared to welcome a
relaxation. The Committee, therefore, were unable to
recommend any specific remedy, but they embodied in
their Report some observations which are noteworthy as
being the earliest symptoms of conversion to Free Trade
in Corn of an influential section of the House of Commons.
"It is with deep regret that your Committee have to
commence their Report by stating that, in their judgment,
the complaints of the petitioners are founded in fact, in
so far as they represent that, at the present price of corn,
* Suprà.
26
WHAT PROTECTION DOEs
Farm Rents
paid out of
capital.
Did
benefit the
Farmer?
the returns to the occupier of an arable farm, after
allowing for the interest of his investment, are by no
means adequate to the charges and outgoings; of which
a considerable proportion can be paid only out of the
capitals, and not from the profits, of the Tenantry.
"This pressure upon the Farmer is stated by some of
the witnesses to have materially affected the retail
business of shopkeepers in country towns connected
with the agricultural districts.
"The opinion of your Committee, in respect to the
present pressure upon the Tenantry, is formed upon the
best documentary evidence which the nature of the case
admits of, confirmed by the testimony of many respect-
able witnesses, as well occupiers of land as surveyors and
land agents; and it is further strengthened by a com-
parison of the difference between the existing price and
the average price of the last ten years, the period within
which most of the present engagements, affecting the
Tenant of the soil, may be supposed to have been
contracted. If the present price could, under all the
present circumstances, be remunerative, the average price
of that period must have afforded an excessive profit,
which does not appear probable, nor warranted by facts.
"It is no more than an act of justice to the
Tenantry of Great Britain to state that, so far as your
Committee have been able to ascertain, the Rents, with
some exceptions in particular districts, have hitherto been
collected, without more arrear than has occurred on
several former occasions. This punctuality, whilst it is
highly honourable to the character of the Tenantry,
affords (your Committee trust) a ground of hope that the
great body of the occupiers of the soil, either from the savings
of more prosperous times, or from that credit which
punctuality will generally command in this country,
possess resources which will enable them to surmount the
difficulties under which they now labour.
[
"The ruinously low prices of agricultural produce at
monopoly this moment cannot be ascribed to any deficiency in the
protecting power of the law. Protection cannot be carried
further than monopoly. This monopoly the British
grower has enjoyed for the produce of the two last
harvests; the ports (with the exception of the ill-timed
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
27
and unnecessary importation of oats during six weeks of
the last summer) having been uninterruptedly shut
against all foreign import for nearly thirty months.
"Your Committee may entertain a doubt (a doubt
however, which they wish to state with that diffidence
which a subject so extensive naturally imposes upon their
judgment) whether the only solid foundation of the
flourishing state of agriculture is not laid in abstaining,
as much as possible, from interference, either by Protec-
tion or Prohibition, with the application of capital in any
branch of industry? Whether all fears for the decline of
agriculture, either from temporary vicissitudes to which
all speculations are liable, or from the extension of other
pursuits of general industry,* are not, to a great ex-
tent, imaginary ? Whether commerce can expand,
"
* An argument was at this time in vogue in favour of Protection to
agriculture which is occasionally employed now. Adam Smith ("Wealth
of Nations," Book II., ch. v.) distinguished agriculture from other
industries on the ground that in the former "nature labours along with
man," rent representing the surplus value thus gratuitously added. It
followed, then, that capital employed in agriculture was more beneficial
to the community than employed to other investments. From this it is
a short step to the position that it is to the advantage of the State to
encourage the application to agriculture of capital which might other-
wise be employed elsewhere. This step was taken by Malthus in his
Grounds of an Opinion on the Policy of restricting the Importation of
Foreign Corn (1815)," and in other of his writings. Adam Smith's view,
of course, descends from that of the Physiocrats, of whom he says that
in representing the labour which is employed upon land as the only
productive labour, the notions which it inculcates are perhaps too
narrow and confined" (Book IV., ch. ix.) The same criticism may
be applied to his modification of that original. The forces of nature,
gravity, elasticity, wind, temperature, yield a no less gratuitous co-
operation to capital invested in manufacture or commerce. Indeed, if
a comparison is to be instituted between the productiveness of agricul-
tural and industrial capital, the former must take the last place, as is
pointed out by Ricardo in his chapter 'On Rent (Principles of
Political Economy," chap. ii.), for the law of diminishing returns does
not hold good of industry. Roscher here agrees with Ricardo.
large ship transports in proportion more cheaply than a small one: the
horse-power in a large steam-engine is cheaper than in a small one.
On the other hand, the active forces of the soil in agriculture are
exhaustible: their productivity declines, as a rule, proportionally with
the intensiveness of their exploitation. As rent rests upon this difference
in cost of production, this fact speaks indeed, not of a superiority of
agriculture over the other branches of industry, but rather of a definite
though unavoidable inferiority. The rent is no accretion, but only a
portion of the national income. The more the landlords receive, the
less do the capitalists and labourers." W. Roscher, "Ueber Kornhandel
und Theuerungspolitik," Stuttgart, 1852.
"A
28
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
manufactures thrive, and great public works be undertaken
without furnishing to the skill and labour which the
capitals they employ put in motion, increased means of
paying for the production of the land? Whether the
principal part of those productions which contribute to
the gratification of the wants and desires of the different
classes of the community must not necessarily be drawn
from our own soil, the demand increasing with the
population, as the population must increase with the
riches of the country? Whether a great part of the same
capital which is employed in supporting the industry
connected with manufactures, commerce, and public
works, does not, passing by a very rapid course into the
hands of the occupier of the soil, serve also as a capital
for the encouragement of agriculture? Whether in our
own country in former times, and in other naturally
fertile countries up to the present time, agriculture has
not languished from the want of such a stimulus ? and
whether, in these countries, the proprietors of land are
not themselves poor and the people wretched in propor-
tion as, from want of capital, their labour is more
exclusively confined to raising from their own soil the
means of their own scanty subsistence ?
"If these questions should be answered in the
affirmative, it follows that the present solidity and future
improvement of our national wealth depend on the con-
tinuance of that union by which our agricultural prosperity
is so closely connected with the preserving of our manu-
facturing and commercial greatness.
""
The Committee concludes its Report by expressing its
regret at being unable to point to specific remedial mea-
sures, especially in the direction of further Protection.
The public, who had not studied the evidence, and
the mass of the Farmers, who were unable to interpret
its teaching, showed no disposition to concur with the
unpopular doctrines of the Select Committee. Yet, as
some change was necessary, a statute was passed in 1822
reducing the limit of prices at which importations could
take place to 70s. for wheat, 35s. for barley, 25s. for oats.
Behind this ostensible relaxation, however, ranged a new
scale of import duties, by which foreign grain was subject to
heavy three-month duties up to a price of 85s., to a duty of
FOR
29
THE FARMER AND LAbourer.
175. when wheat was at 70s., of 12s. when between 70s. and
8os., and of Ios. when at 85s. It happened that prices con-
tinued too low for this measure to come into operation, but
its enactment is an indication how little had been learned
by agriculturists from the trials of the preceding years.
Farmers.
of wheat.
Save the general abatement of Rents, which were Continued
swallowing up the whole produce of the land, no change distress of
took place for many years after the inquiry of 1821-22 Violent
to improve the condition of the Farmers. They were fluctuations
existing on the sufferance of their Landlords. So far in the price
from being maintained at the expected 80s. a quarter,
wheat averaged for the ten years 1820-29 58s. 5d. per
quarter ;* yet there were violent and ruinous fluctuations.
Thus the competition stimulated by promised high prices
doubled the supply of wheat, and in 1822 the fall of
price since 1817 was 54 per cent. Seven years later a
rise of 53 per cent. occurred, to be followed in 1835 by a
fall of 41 per cent., succeeded again in three years by a
rise of 64 per cent. These fluctuations were, of course,
in reciprocal relation to the extensions and contractions
of the wheat area, alternating according to the hopes or
apprehensions of the Farmer. The sliding scale enacted
in 1829 only served to accentuate these movements, and
to the uncertainty of an industry necessarily dependent
upon the seasons were added the oscillations of the
Exchange. By the Corn Law of 1829 64s. took the
place of 80s., the price guaranteed by the Legislature in
1815. Below 64s. a prohibitory duty of 23s. 8d. was
imposed; between 64s. and 69s. this was reduced to
16s. 8d.; and when the price exceeded 73s. the import
duty was the nominal sum of is. a quarter. The effect
of this was, of course, to convert the Farmer's trade into
a rampant speculation; and at the moment when the
rise of prices was about to reward him for the penury of
years an influx of foreign wheat would lower the value of
his crops 25 per cent.†
* The disproportion between the average prices experienced in the
two divisions of time (1811-21 and 1821-31) was not so great in reality
as in appearance, owing to the depreciation of the currency in the
former decade; but still, when full allowance has been made for this
consideration, it will be found that the fall of price was nearly 25 per
cent. (Cp. note to p. 5.)
†The same phenomena have been observed in France since the
The Corn
Law of
1829.
30
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
1827-30.
Acute agri-
cultural
distress.
The burden
of the
Poor Rate.
1822-33.
Under these circumstances it is not surprising that
agricultural distress seemed a permanent condition of
things. In 1827, in a single newspaper published at
Norwich there were 120 advertisements of sales of farming
stock in one day. The distress of the country was
referred to in the Speech from the Throne in 1830, and
in the autumn of that year alarming riots broke out in
the agricultural districts, which were, in fact, occasioned
by the abuses of the Poor Law, and aggravated by general
high prices and universally inadequate wages. Land-
owners themselves were suffering, being obliged by their
Tenants' insolvency to abate their excessive Rents by 20,
30, or 40 per cent., and yet then, in many districts, they
had large tracts of country on their hands. Since all the
conditions productive of distress continued their virulent
operation, Rents, despite abatements, being maintained
at their artificial level, and Poor Rates mounting to an
appalling height, as time went on the state of the Farmers
In 1832 the Poor Rates in the following
grew worse.
agricultural counties, levied on each head of the popula-
tion, were as under :—
Berkshire
Dorsetshire
Essex
...
S. d.
S. d.
16 8
Kent
...
15 2
II 7
17
6
Sussex
Wiltshire
20 II
...
...
16 7
Corn Law of March, 1887, imposing a duty of 8s. 8d. a quarter. The
competition promoted amongst the Farmers flooded the market with
native grain just after the harvest, when rents had to be met and
expenses were at their maximum. "The most needy, who more than
others need protecting, realise the soonest and at any price," says
M. Guyot. According to a table published by him of comparative
prices of wheat in Paris and London in 1887, after the passing of the
Protectionist Law, the difference between the highest and lowest prices
from April to November 19th in Paris was 4f. 15c. per 100 kilogrammes;
in London, no more than 3f. 05c. But the fluctuations in France were
at that time mitigated by four causes :-1. The general fall of prices.
2. The continuance of the importation of untaxed wheat from Algeria,
which came in to the amount of 1,182,000 cwts. in 1886.
3. The
abundant harvest of 1887. 4. The importation of bread untaxed, which,
during the first seven months of 1887, nearly tripled the importations of
the corresponding months of the preceding year. As soon as the wheat
harvest of France and Algeria is deficient the fluctuations which have
already manifested themselves will be highly accentuated. It must be
remembered that English Protectionists do not propose to tolerate
either the first or the last of these mitigations. In M. Guyot's opinion,
the price of wheat in 1887 was also kept down by speculative importa-
tions excited by anticipations of a rise, and which resulted in loss to
the speculators.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
31
The burden upon the Farmers must therefore have
been infinitely greater. In the manufacturing counties
of Lancashire and Yorkshire (West Riding), Cornwall,
Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Staffordshire, on the
other hand, Poor Rates varied from 4s. 8d. to 6s. 10d. per
head only. The average payment for the whole popula-
tion was 9s. 11d. per head. The pauperism of those
labourers who were fortunate enough to find employment
as contrasted with the wealth conferred upon the Land-
lords by the Corn Laws was well sketched in a broadside
circulated in 1826, but not less true in 1832.
"THE REAL CAUSE OF THE DISTRESSED CONDITION
OF ALL CLASSES-A FEW PLAIN QUESTIONS TO A
LANDOWNER.
How many acres does your estate consist of ?—10,000.
What was it let for forty years ago (1786)?—10s. per
acre, or £5,000.
How much do you receive now (1826)?—30s. per
acre, or £15,000.
How many farms have you upon it ?—Fifty.
How many labourers do they employ ?--About 500.
What was the price of wheat forty years ago (1786)?
-4s. a bushel.
What is the price of wheat now (1826)?-8s. per bushel.
What was the price of labour in 1786 ?—8s. a week.
What is the price of labour now (1826) ?-8s.; the
same.
Then the labourers lose by the present system one
bushel of wheat per week?—Yes; they do.
What is the loss to the labourer in money now the
bushel of wheat is 8s. ?—£20 16s. a year each.
Then the 500 labourers employed on your estate lose
£200 a week?—Yes.
SO.
And their loss yearly amounts to £10,400?-Exactly
And the shopkeepers in the neighbourhood lose cus-
tomers to the same amount ?—Yes.
And the wholesale traders who supply the shopkeepers
lose in the same proportion ?—They do.
And the manufacturers also are deprived of a market
for their goods in the same ratio ?-Certainly they are.
32
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
Continued
distress of
Farmers.
Another
Parliament
ary inquiry.
Report of
the Select
Committee
on Agricul-
tural Dis-
tress, 1833.
Then all classes must be in distress in consequence ?-
Most assuredly, in great distress."
In 1833, the Speech from the Throne having again
specified the distress of agriculture, it was determined
once more to resort to Parliament for a remedy, and a
Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject.
The Report of this Committee is especially instructive,
both because it reviews the fortunes of the Farmers since
the investigation of 1822, and, as was the case with the
Committee of that year, is unable to prescribe a cure.
It shows that during the intervening period of thirteen
years agricultural distress had been deepening. The
Report runs as follows :—
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE
OF AGRICULTURE, 1833.
"On looking back at the report of the Committee in
1821, to whom the Petitions complaining of the depressed
state of agriculture of the United Kingdom were referred,
it will be found that the Report commences by stating
that the complaints of the Petitioners are founded in fact,
in so far as they represent that at the present price of corn
the returns to the occupier of an arable farm, after allow-
ing for the interest of his investment, are by no means
adequate to the charges and outgoings, of which a con-
siderable proportion can be paid only out of the capitals
and not out of the profits of the Tenantry. The average
price of wheat for the year 1821 was 54s. 5d. per quarter.
The average price of the present year is 53s. id., and
although some of the charges connected with general
taxation have been reduced since 1821, yet the local
burthens, such as Poor Rate and County Rate, have in
most parts of England been grievously augmented. The
Committee of 1821 arrived at the conclusion that the
returns of farming capital were at that time considerably
below the ordinary rate of profit,' and no evidence
adduced before your Committee of diminished out-
goings, contrasted with the change of prices in the
interval, would warrant, at this moment, a different
conclusion.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
33
"The Committee of 1821 express a hope that the
great body of the occupiers of the soil, either from the
savings of more prosperous times, or from the credit
which punctuality commands in this country, possess re-
sources which will enable them to surmount the difficulties
under which they now labour.' Your Committee, with
deep regret, are bound rather to express a fear that the
difficulties alone remain unchanged, but that the savings
are either gone or greatly exhausted, the credit failing,
and the resources being generally exhausted. The Com-
mittee of 1821 assumed what they believed to be then
true, that'the annual produce of corn, the growth of the
United Kingdom, was upon an average crop about equal
to the annual consumption.' Your Committee have
formed a decided opinion that the produce of Great
Britain is, in the average of years, unequal to the con-
sumption, that the increased supply from Ireland does
not cover the deficiency, and that, in the present state of
agriculture, the United Kingdom is in years of ordinary
production partly dependent on the supply of wheat from
foreign countries.
"Your Committee have already glanced at the in-
crease of certain outgoings borne by the Farmer, which
it is clearly established in evidence have not been com-
pensated by a corresponding reduction of his fixed money
payments; on the contrary, while the profitable returns
from land have generally decreased, the burthens to which
it is subjected have been augmented. The Poor Rate is
heavier; the County Rate is heavier; the Highway Rate
has increased; and this evidence would lead to the con-
clusion that the outgoings of the Farmer are generally
larger than he can afford to pay during the present prices.
of agricultural produce, without a sacrifice of the profit
on his capital which he is entitled to realise. Your Com-
mittee are of opinion that the present reluctance to
purchase land, or to take it on lease, is to be ascribed to
losses recently sustained in agriculture.
"The present price of Meat, as compared with Corn,
is high; but this has been in a great measure attributed
to an extensive loss in the flocks of sheep, occasioned by
rot, which recently prevailed amongst them for two or
three years consecutively.
D
34
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
The
Farmers'
distress,
1822-33.
Exhaustion
of the
Farmers'
resources.
"In conclusion, your Committee avow their opinion
that hopes of amelioration in the condition of the
Landed Interest rest rather on the cautious forbearance
than on the active interposition of Parliament.”
Such is the picture of the condition of agriculture
under the laws which had been specially enacted for its
assistance, drawn by a Committee not yet converted, as
their Report shows, to the abolition of a system proved
so disastrous. Since the inquiry of 1822, the Farmers, it
would seem, had been yearly brought nearer ruin. Rents
had been maintained at speculative heights, yet prices.
had fallen despite the restrictions on importation; the
Poor Rates had continued to grow, yet the Farmers were
obliged to employ an increasing quantity of superfluous
labour to keep able-bodied men off the parish; wages
were being paid out of capital, and the tradesmen and
manufacturers, the Farmers' customers, were being con-
tinuously impoverished. These are results described by
witnesses not hostile to the Corn Laws, the popular
movement against which had not as yet begun. The
following extracts from their evidence disclose unmis-
takably the extent and disaster of the Farmers' ruin :-
EXTRACTS FROM EVIDENCE GIVEN BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, 1833.
"With respect to the condition of the Farmers, their
capital is diminishing, I think considerably, in every part
of the country. The Tenant cannot lay out money in
improving the land; he has not the means.
"14
"Supposing a Tenant were sold up in Scotland, what
proportion of capital would be left, in your opinion?".
"Perhaps none. In general a large proportion of his
means goes to the Landlord; the remainder is equally
divided among his other creditors."†
You say that a good many Farmers, if sold up,
would have nothing left; do you apply that to prudent
Farmers, and well acquainted with their business?"-
"I apply that to hard-working, honest, industrious men.”
* 216-17. Mr. Adam Murray, Farmer and Land Agent, of East
Lothian.
† 2,886. Mr. T. Oliver, Farmer, of Midlothian.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
35
"Do you speak of Farmers who had an adequate
capital to stock the land, at one time?"" Yes."*
((
Supposing 100 Farmers to be taken indiscriminately
from the district of which you are speaking (Doncaster),
and to be sold up, how many of those, do you think,
would have anything left?"—"I should think half the
smaller Farmers-Tenants renting from 50 to 150 acres
—would be insolvent."+
"You say a large portion of the Farmers are at
present insolvent, and that they have been sinking in
their condition: what diminution of existing Rents would,
in your opinion, put them in the case of living comfort-
ably, with that reasonable profit that you think a Tenant
should make ?”—“I am of opinion that it must require
a great reduction of Rent or much better times, that
if there were better times there need not be much
reduction.”—“What you mean by 'better times' is
better prices? "_" Yes; everything seems to stand still.”‡
I know several Farms where there have been three
Tenants who have become paupers.' -“Each going in as
a Farmer upon the Farm, and carrying capital in?"
"Yes, sufficient to stock it."" Each losing every
shilling?"—"Yes, and becoming workers on the road."
Did you say that throughout the Weald of Kent and
Sussex there is scarcely a solvent Farmer?"—“There is
scarcely that description of Farmer."-"Are you speaking
of the men that had once capital to stock their own
farms?"-"Yes, well."§
..
""
“Have you made your rent fairly from your land?”
-"No. I have not done that upon the average; many
years I have lost a great deal of money."-"It has been
a losing occupation ? "—" Yes; with many others besides
myself, to a very great extent." ||
"What is the general state of the farming interest of
the county?"—"I consider that the Farmers are very
* 7,388-9. Mr. Richard Peyton, Land Agent in Essex, Surrey,
Sussex, Kent.
+ 3,127. Mr. William Simpson, Farmer and Land Valuer, of
Loversall, near Doncaster.
12,531-2. Mr. William Smith, Farmer, of Swarlston Lows, Derby.
12,778-9. Mr. George Smallpiece, Farmer and Landowner, of
Cobham, Surrey.
|| 10,507-8. Mr. J. Hallard, Farmer, of Worcester.
D 2
36
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
Excessive
burden of
Poor Rates.
much impoverished, and the labourers are unemployed,
except where the Landlords exert themselves to make
substantial improvements.
""
"Has that long been the condition of the Farmer?"
"It has been gradually arising and increasing."
"Do you consider that Farmers generally have lost
their capital ?"-"Very much so." *
"The condition of the Farmers-is that better,
stationary, or worse?"-"It is not better, and certainly
worse than in 1818." †
"Has the capital of the Farmers in the district you
speak of been greatly diminished of late years?"-"Yes,
greatly diminished.”
"Have a great number of them been ruined entirely?
"A great many."
Similar evidence could be indefinitely multiplied. The
witnesses, from whatever part of the country they come,
testify to the same state of things, that the condition of
the Farmers—to say nothing of the agricultural labourers
-has been for years steadily deteriorating. The causes
specified as at work to produce this result-all, it must
be remembered, subject to the operation of productive
restrictions upon importation of food and goods-were
manifold. The sum and substance of them, however,
was that the outgoings of the Farmer, notably his Rent,
were too high, and, despite the promise of the Corn Laws,
prices were too low and the demand for his produce too
slack. The poverty of the labourers in the agricultural
districts, the relief of which fell upon the Farmers'
shoulders, was appalling. "The farmers suffer now, you
say, with their present Rent?"—"They merely make
observations upon it, but those observations apply more
to the increased Poor Rates, because in those parts
(Sussex) the Poor Rates are exceedingly high-from 15s.
to 20s. in the £.”—“Do you state that 15s. in the £is
the average Poor Rate of this land in Sussex that you
have been speaking of?"—" Perhaps it may not be the
average, because we have nineteen parishes there; but I
*8,297-8,304, Mr. J. B. Turner, of Leominster, Farmer and
Landowner.
+ 2,141. Mr. R. Wright, of Norwich, Land Agent.
6,508-9. Mr. William Taylor, Farmer, of Gillingham, Kent.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOurer.
37
>>
"No.
should think it would be very nearly that, say from 13s.
to 155.; certainly in many cases it is 19s. ; there is nothing
lower than IIS. I should say the average might be from
13s. to 15s.”—" Upon two-thirds of the Rent?"
In many cases the assessment is higher than the Rent;
and this happens in a great many cases." "Has it
happened to you to hear that the crimes of poaching,
robbery, and so on, have been on the increase in the
agricultural districts of late years?"—"Yes, I think that
is the case. "What do you consider to have been the
cause?" "Want of employment, and want of means on
the part of the Farmers to employ them." *
""
"Are there more paupers than there used to be?".
"Yes, a great many more." †
tion of the
labourers.
extorted by
incendiar-
is.
"Has the custom of giving able-bodied men relief Despera-
from the Poor Rates grown up within the last three or
four years?" "Very much so." "Have you had any Wages
fires in your neighbourhood?"—"Yes, in the neighbour.
hood, but not in the district that I manage."—"Do you
think that the relief which is given out of the Poor Rates,
or the wages, which you say are higher than the Farmers
can pay, are paid under intimidation, in any degree, or
voluntarily ? "_____66 They have been paid under intimida-
tion.' "Does that observation apply to the payment out
of the Rate?"-"Not out of the Rate: the men were
paid by the Farmer more money for the same work per-
formed, in consequence of the intimidation arising out
of the fear of fires.". "Has that fear which has extorted
this higher payment arisen within the last three years?
Yes, since the almost general discontent in the
labouring population showed itself." t
"If the wages of labour have not fallen to the
effective labourer, and the Farmer be forced to maintain
the non-effective one by his contribution to the Rate,
does not that go far to explain the diminution of his
capital and his distress?"—"To a certain degree it may,
for while he employs his full portion of labour, he has to
contribute to the surplus he does not want." §
11,869, &c. Mr. E. Driver, Land Agent, Sussex.
+ 5,329.
Mr. John Neve, Land Agent, of Tenterden, Kent.
9.542-52. Mr. John Cooper, Land Agent, Pottersbury, North-
amptonshire.
$935-6. Mr. Richard Webb, Land Agent and Farmer, Wiltshire.
38
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
The
Farmers'
distress,
1822-33.
"Are the Poor Rates much increased of late years?"
"I think they must have increased, within the last five
or six years, one-fourth.'
This steady increase of the Poor Rate was not the
sole measure of the pressure upon the Farmer of the
starving rural population. In the vain endeavour to
check this swelling item of expenditure, the Farmers all
over the country voluntarily imposed upon themselves
"Labour Rates," by which the able-bodied poor of a
parish were distributed amongst them for employment.
The effect of this was that the Farmer made work for
surplus labour instead of supporting it in absolute idle-
ness, and, after all, since the wages thus paid for an in-
adequate equivalent were naturally insufficient to sustain
life, they were necessarily supplemented from the
parochial funds. The employment found by the Farmer
was an unremunerative expenditure which every year sub-
tracted from his declining capital. "You do not think
that wages have fallen in proportion to the price of pro-
duce where labourers are employed ? ”—“No.”—“Is that
state of things likely to continue ?"-"It must continue,
for there is no remedy: if I do not pay them they must
be paid out of the Poor Rates: they must be sustained."
"Is that not breaking down the capital of the Farmer?
"Certainly."+
>>
"Do you think Farmers are paying wages in propor-
tion to the profits they gain?"—
"No. I think they are
out of proportion to the profits."-"Do you think they
are paying them out of capital ?"-"I think they are."‡
"Can Farmers go on paying these wages?"-" They
cannot go on; they must be using their property.".
"What will be the end of that ?"—"Ruin."§ On the
other hand, it was no less "ruin " if the Farmers refused
these so-called wages. The evidence is overwhelming
that the Farmer, by these alms, purchased the safety of
his family and his property. "You think a further re-
duction of wages would be inconsistent with the peace of
the district?"—"Yes."||
5,681-2. Mr. John Crampe, Farmer, of Garlinge, Isle of Thanet.
† 2,980. Mr William Simpson, of Loversall, Doncaster, Farm and
Land Valuer. 5,202-3. Mr. J. Neve, Land Agent, Tenterden, Kent.
§ 6,388-9. Mr. W. Taylor, Farmer, of Gillingham, Kent.
9,907. Mr. C. Osborn, of Havant, Hants.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
39
wages
"To what do you ascribe the rise of wages within the Rise of
last few years?"—"In several instances in consequence extorted
of intimidation. There was a strong recommendation by incen-
from the magistrates of our county.' "What was that diarism.
recommendation in consequence of?”—“In my opinion,
from intimidation.”*
"There have been a good many fires in Kent?"—“ I
know an instance in the county of Kent in which a man
reduced the wages of his labourers, and his premises.
were burnt down in consequence. The wages are kept
up in many instances in consequence of intimidation."†
Even the high prices promised by the Corn Law
would have been insufficient to meet such demands as
these. But, in point of fact, the operation of the law for
protecting the Farmers' interest, passed in 1829, had
been no less prejudicial than the measure which it re-
pealed. In 1829 the Farmer had been still unconvinced
by the failure of 1815. He had not learned to see the
fact lucidly stated by Mr. Oliver, Farmer, of Midlothian,
in 1833, that "the Corn Law is the Landlord's matter
alone. Where it is settled under an erroneous impression,
when the scale is regulated under the expectation that it
will secure 70s. a quarter and it realises only 65s.,
Farmers sustain a heavy loss, and matters are not ad-
justed, perhaps, until the Tenant has become em-
barrassed, and has lost part of his capital. It seems a
matter of perfect indifference to the Farmer whether he
sells at 6os., with a Rent adjusted to that price, or at
120s., with a correspondingly high Rent."‡
The Corn Law of 1829 led the Farmer to believe
that 64s. would be the normal price of wheat. The in-
evitable consequence was a readjustment of Rent to that
price. Unfortunately for the Farmer, prices were beyond
the control of the Corn Law. The prices of wheat for
ten years after the Act of 1829 were :-
1830.
1832. 1833. 1834. 1835. 1836.
1831.
S. d. s. d. S. d. S.
64 3 66 4
d.
s. d. s. d. s. d.
58 8 52 11 46 2
39 4 48 6
S.
1837.
1838. 1839.
d. s. d. s. d.
55 10 64 7 70 8
During the first four years the price of corn had
* 982,6. Mr. R. Webb, Land Agent and Farmer, Wiltshire.
† 7,308,9. Mr, R. Peyton, Land Agent, suprà.
‡ 2,841.
The Corn
Law of
1829 a
delusion
and a snare.
40
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
responsible
for the
Farmers'
distress.
Protection exceeded the expected minimum by 3d. in 1830 and 2s. 4d.
in 1831, but had fallen below it by 5s. 4d. in 1832 and
IIS. Id. in 1833, and at this latter price was still only at
the commencement of its decline. On the first five years,
then, taken together, the Farmer had been the loser, by
It enhanced the fall of prices alone, of 135. for every quarter of corn
raised by him. The excessive height of Rents thus artifici
ally produced by a law which professed to be for his
benefit is testified to by witness after witness as the main
cause of the prevalent insolvency.
Rents.
"Do you think there is an understanding in the
country that the present Corn Law tends to keep up
prices?""They did expect in the year 1828--29 it
would have that effect."*
"The Committee understand you to say that the
Farmers generally upon the good land are paying from
10--15 per cent. too high Rent: how is it that there is
no distress except among the tenants of bad lands?”—
"Those Farmers are enabled to bear that loss, but they
cannot support it: they have some capital, and they are
paying most of those Rents out of their capital. The
small Farmers, and those who are living upon and have
poor lands, are in very great distress and unable to pay
the Rent at this moment."t
"If the prices realised permanently remain ranging
from 50s. to 54s., and the landlords hold them to their
engagements, can the tenants go on without insolvency?"
I conceive not without a loss of profits or capital, or
perhaps insolvency, taking the aggregate of the farms."‡
"Rents have not fallen so fast as prices.§ "Speaking of
the circle round Doncaster, can the Rents now generally
paid be maintained if the present prices continue?".-
Certainly not; they are much higher than the present
prices.' "How much higher should you say they are
than the present scale for paying Rents?""I should
think some 20 per cent."||
"To what extent should you say that Rents were now
* 2,912. Mr. Oliver, suprà.
+6,232,5. Mr. J. Lee, of Malpas, Cheshire.
‡
11,435 Mr. D. Low, Professor of Agriculture, Edinburgh.
§ 5,018. Mr. J.W. Peters, Farmer, of South Petherton, Somersetshire.
|| 2,950, I. Mr. W. Simpson, Farmer and Land Valuer, of Lover-
sall, near Doncaster.
FOR THE FARMER AND LAbourer.
4I
too high generally in Worcestershire, with regard to the
present scale of prices?"—"From 10 to 20 per cent."*
"The Farmers are disposed to take a Rent which is
improvident."+
:
""
"You state that the Tenants have become destitute Farmers'
distress,
of capital can you assign the cause?"-"I suppose 1822-33.
their want of remunerating price for their produce.
"You state that a great many of them are in arrear ?”.
"Yes."-"Suppose the Landlords were to be hard-
hearted and to call in those arrears, what would be the
condition of the Tenants ?"—"They would half of them
come upon the Poor Rate, I believe." The effect
upon the land of the fruitless struggle to pay exorbitant
Rents it is not difficult to imagine. The Farmers clung
desperately to the hope that at least at some future time
the law designed for their protection would bring them
succour. Meanwhile they redoubled their efforts to
retain their holdings. Despite restrictive covenants,
payment, with their dwindling capitals, could only be
maintained by scourging the land. "If Rents are not re-
duced in proportion to the prices, Farmers will be apt to
over-crop the land to enable them to discharge their
engagements, until it will not pay even for a diminished
quantity of labour, when it will be thrown out of cultiva-
tion in a deteriorated state."§ This had, in fact, been
happening for some time past.
"The land throughout the Kingdom is going back in
cultivation. I think that the Farmers on all the cold
clay lands have been paying their Rents for these several
years more from hard cropping and capital."||
"The state of agriculture in Hampshire and West
Sussex is within the last fifteen years decidedly worse."¶
"What is the state of cultivation in the counties of
Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Bucks,
Berks, and Herts, compared with what it was twenty
years ago?”—“It is very much worse.
??**
1,755. Mr. W. Woodward, Farmer, of Worcester.
† 3,340.
Mr. E. Coode, Land Agent, of St. Austell, Cornwall.
4,858-60. Mr. Peters, suprà.
2,853. Mr. Oliver, suprà.
168. Mr. A. Murray, Land Agent.
9,804. Mr. C. Osborn, suprà.
139,317. Mr. W. Downes, Land Agent.
Retrogres-
sion of
agriculture.
42
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
"In 1792 the farms were in good condition, but they
have been falling off ever since that time." *
"Since the passing of the last Corn Bill, which was
in 1828, has the agriculture of these eighteen counties
been going back since that?""I think the distress
they feel has increased since the period of 1828."†
The evidence of this deterioration of agriculture was,
of course, the diminution of produce, a diminution
which still further aggravated the Farmers' difficulties.
"In what particular has the state of agriculture in North-
amptonshire gone back?"—" In its produce. The gross
produce has, I think, diminished."‡
''
"The gross produce in South Wales has very much
diminished, and the Tenants are very much reduced in
circumstances." §
"I think the gross produce is decreasing, because,
generally speaking, the whole lands in that neighbourhood
(Somersetshire) have been neglected very much through
the Farmers wanting capital." ||
"The produce has diminished."T
When the land would bear no longer, and the
Tenant, overwhelmed with Rent and Rates, was at last
sold up, the area of cultivation naturally contracted.
"Do you know any large districts of land thrown out of
cultivation within the last ten years, which have returned
to grass or down?"-"I know a great deal of land which
has got into that situation at different places.”**
"I think that throwing a certain quantity of land
out of cultivation is inevitable.”† †
"Has any portion of land gone entirely out of
cultivation ?”___"A good deal of the very poor land in
Sussex." ††
The Corn Law, in short, was, at least as far as some
of the Landlords were concerned, no more of a benefit to
12,541. Mr. W. Smith, Farmer, of Swarlston Lows, near Derby.
+11,669. Mr. E. Driver, Land Surveyor.
+ 9,506. Mr. J. Cooper, Land Agent and Farmer, of Pottersbury,
Northants.
126. Mr. A. Murray, suprà.
4,738. Mr. Peters, suprà.
11,109. Mr. Harvey Wyatt, of Stafford, Land Agent.
**275.
Mr. A. Murray, suprà.
†† 3,253. Mr. T. Oliver, suprà.
$ 7,243.
Mr. R. Peyton, suprà.
FOR
43
THE FARMER AND LAabourer.
Farmers'
the class which had been instrumental in passing it than Increase of
it had proved to the Farmers themselves. It was no distress,
matter for astonishment, therefore, when Landlords were 1833-36.
uncertain of receiving their Rents, and Farmers were
crushed by insolvency, that the distress of the traders in
the agricultural districts was also a source of trouble.
The internal trade of the country was in a state of
paralysis. Such is a picture of agriculture, drawn, not
by the imagination of Mr. Cobden or Mr. Bright, but by
the experiences of Protectionist Farmers before a Pro-
tectionist Committee, after five years' trial of a new and
comparatively moderate duty upon corn which was to
remedy the defects of the more restrictive measure of
1815.
If the distress in agriculture was severe in 1833 the
operation of the existing Corn Law of 1828 had not
served to relieve it after a further trial of three years.
On the contrary, despite the intention of Protection to
secure remunerative prices, there had in fact been a
steady decline in wheat since the year 1831. In the
interval between 1833 and 1836 it is certain that, if we
are to believe the evidence brought before Parliament,
a number of once well-to-do Farmers must have been
brought upon the Poor Rate, and their places taken by
fresh Tenants with the same delusive expectations. It 1836.
will be seen, from the statements of the witnesses before Progressive
the Committees of 1835, that where the Tenantry had Farmers.
contrived to maintain their existence under the pressure Another
of exaggerated Rents and amidst ever disappointed hopes,
the struggle had become, year by year, one of increasing Inquiry.
difficulty. The new Poor Law had alleviated the local
burdens. Yet it appeared "from the concurrent testi-
mony of many witnesses, examined before the Agricultural
Committee, that in various parts of England the Farmer's
capital is gradually sinking."* For example: "I do not
think the condition of the Farmers generally in the
county of Sussex is better than it was three or four years
*
•
Remarks on the Present State of Agriculture," by C. Shaw-
Lefevre, Esq., M.P. (afterwards Lord Eversley), 1836. Mr. Lefevre
was Chairman of the Commons' Committee, and his remarks embodied
the Report which he had drawn up for that Committee, but to which
the Committee failed to agree. Neither the Lords' nor the Commons'
Committees reported.
distress of
Parlia-
mentary
44
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
1836. Acute
distress of
Farmers.
Another
Parlia-
mentary
Inquiry.
General
insolvency
of the
Farmers.
ago; in fact, I think the Farmer's condition is de
teriorated; his capital is less."*
66
Comparing the present time with twenty years ago,
which is the best for the Farmer?"-" Twenty years ago,
considerably."+
"Do you consider that the failures in the last three
years have exceeded those in any former three years
since you have resided there ? "- "No doubt of it. I
consider that the Farmer is 30 per cent. worse than in
1818."
"What is the state of the Farmer? "The condi-
tion of the Farmer I consider to be bordering on ruin;
he is not so well off as he was in 1833."§
"Comparing the condition of the Farmers in your
neighbourhood at present with their condition in 1833,
should you say that they are much worse than they were
then?""No doubt of it; they are declining year after
year; and my belief is that there are a great number
upon the precipice now that nothing can save."||
"Do you think the Tenants, generally speaking, are
in a very deplorable state?"-"Generally speaking, they
are."
"If they were hard pushed for arrears what would
be the consequence ? "_"I should say, taking the Farmers
as a body, they are an insolvent set-there are many
exceptions."¶
"Are the Farmers richer or poorer than they were in
1833?"-"I should say poorer.' "And do you not
think that since that time there has been any reduction in
the wages of labour or Rent or in the amount of trades-
men's bills adequate to the prices ?"-" Certainly not."-
"What would be their situation were the Landlord to
distrain ?”—“ They might go to the Parish and work
upon the roads."-" Are the Committee to understand
that they would have nothing to fall back upon?
"I suppose there are fifty around me that would have
nothing if all arrears were paid up.
**
"'**
13, 123. Mr. Thomas Boniface, Farmer, near Littlehampton.
+3,518. Mr. T. Bowyer, of Buckden, Hunts.
$7,794,6. Mr. Handley, Corn Merchant, Spalding, Lincolnshire.
$5,619. Mr. Cooper, Farmer, of Blythburgh, Suffolk.
**
8.567. Mr. W. Umbers, Farmer, of Leamington, Warwickshire.
5,764. Mr. Cooper, suprà.
1,840-1, 1,805-6. Mr. J. Cortis, Farmer, of Amersham, Bucks.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
45
"Is there much distress among the Farmers in
Glamorganshire?" "Very much the capital of the
Tenantry has been disappearing in the last ten, twelve, or
fifteen years. Many have become insolvent, and I could.
enumerate several others whose losses have been very
great. I should say nearly £45,000 have been sunk by
five-and-twenty Farmers within ten miles of me in the
period I have stated."*
"C
Evidence of
Farmers at
Taking the period since the last Committee sat in 1836.
1833, what do you consider the comparative state of the
farming interest now and at that time? Decidedly the Parlia-
and progressively worse."†
(6
""
((
Farming is in a very depressed state now: in a
much more depressed state than I recollect it to have
been before."‡
"You have been asked a question with respect to
the situation of the Tenants, and your answer was that
many of them were almost beggared, and could not pay
their Rents. Now supposing the Landlords as a body
were to endeavour to compel the payment of Rents,
what would be the situation of a great part of the
Tenants of this country ?"-"That they would have the
land on their own hands.". "Do you think, then, that
the Tenants of this country to a great extent hold their
farms upon sufferance only, and at the mercy of the
Landlords ? "—"Yes, I do. One-half of the Tenantry in
the district is insolvent."§
"I consider the whole agricultural body insolvent."||
"The Farmers are so badly distressed that I know
perfectly well that, taking them as a body, they can-
not exist from the profits of their farms, or per-
form their engagements to their Landlords and other
creditors."¶
very
mentary
Inquiry.
The
Farmers
The Farmers on arable farms are in a state of
great depression. The prices have been such that they distress,
cannot pay anything like the former Rents, or anything 1833-36.
4,273-4. Mr. E. David, Farmer, near Cardiff.
5,327. Mr. C. Koward, Farmer, York, E. Riding.
15,572. Mr. Spooner, Banker and Farmer.
1,652-5. Mr. J. Rolfe, Farmer, of Beaconsfield, Bucks.
Lords' Committee, 1,615, Mr. J. B. Bernard.
Lords' Committee, 771, Mr. J. J. Allnatt, of Wallingford, Berks,
Land Agent.
46
WHAT PROTECTION Does
like the Rents they are now engaged probably to pay." *
"I believe Farmers have been losing for almost the last
twenty years." +
"When do you consider the distress to have begun?”.
“In 1815.”‡
وو
"As a banker of Birmingham, can you give an
opinion of the state of the Farmers round the country?
“A vast number are insolvent. They are all insolvent
as it affects their farms, unless they have private
property." §
Notwithstanding this intolerable pressure upon the
Farmer, now so long continued, wages had not declined
in proportion to prices. Perhaps, on the whole, the
situation of the agricultural labourer had been improved.
This favourable change was not universal.
"Should you
66
say that the condition of the labourer is worse or better
than it was in 1833?”—“I consider the condition of the
labouring poor in our district (Suffolk) to be worse,
generally speaking." It was natural that this should be
so, since the Farmer had been for years supporting them
out of his capital. The same evidence on this point is
given as had been given before the Committee of 1833..
Taking the present wages of the labourers, do you
think that they are paid out of the profits of the
Farmer ?"“No.”- "Do you think they are paid out of
his capital?"-Certainly." ¶ The condition of the
labourers, according to one witness, had long been
desperate," and the Farmer had, as before, the choice
of gradual impoverishment or the sudden ruin of incen-
diarism. "If the labourer is now depending for his
wages, not upon the profits of the Farmer, but upon his
capital, do you think that is a state of things likely to
continue?"" No. It appears to me that it will not
continue; it would not have continued in the state we
now find it if it had not been for the riots of 1830, in our
county. If it had not been for those riots, wages would
66
* Lords' Committee, 4,851, Mr. B. S. Escott.
+ Lords' Committee, 1,555, Mr. R. Peyton, Land Agent, of London.
Lords' Committee, 920, Mr. Leurin, Farmer, of Wickham Market,
Suffolk.
§ Lords' Committee, 4,338-9, Mr. R. Spooner.
| 5,637. Mr. Cooper, suprà.
T14,847-8. Mr. J. Freeland, Farmer, of Chichester.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
47
condition
have been lower at this time than they are. At that time Desperate
there was a considerable rise of wages, and they have of the
never reduced themselves in proportion to the fall in labourers.
the price of wheat."-"The rise that took place was Wages
extorted by
from intimidation in consequence of the fires?"—" Un- intimida-
doubtedly.”—“ And the fires were in consequence of tion.
a disposition on the part of the Tenantry to reduce the
wages corresponding with the reduction in prices ? ”—
"Yes.'
"With respect to the labourers, we are paying 50 per
cent. more for labour than we ought to do, as a sort of
premium of insurance to prevent our farms being burnt
down. In the village near me we had thirteen fires in
one year and a half.”—“To what do you attribute
those?""To the desperate state of the labouring
class." +
"You spoke of certain calamitous circumstances
which you think have enhanced unnaturally the price of
wages; what do you allude to?" "I mean the pre-
valence of fires and the threatening attitude assumed by
the labourers, in the Southern districts of England more
particularly."—"Does it follow that if the present rate
of agricultural prices continue, ultimately wages must
descend to a lower level?"—" Undoubtedly."-" Will
that be an easy process, or will it be accompanied
whenever it takes place with further insubordination
among the labourers ? "—" With desperate and alarming
excesses on the part of the labouring population.” ‡
(6
"Can you keep up this rate of wages at the present
prices ? ”—“No.”-
?" “No.”—“Then you must lower ? ". Yes, but
the Farmers are fearful of lowering."
"What are they
afraid of?”—“They are afraid that the labourers will
set fire to their premises or annoy them in going
about." §
"Have you had many fires in your neighbourhood
lately?”—“We had one last Friday week; that is one
great reason why we cannot reduce labour.' "Should
*
13, 172-4. Mr. T. Boniface, suprà.
>>
+ 2,351-4. Mr. W. Thurnall, Farmer, of Duxford, Cambs.
6,189-92. Mr. H. Burgess, Secretary to the Committee of
Country Bankers.
§ Lords' Committee, 2,971-3. Mr. J. Carter, Farmer, of Hunstan-
ton, Norfolk.
48
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
The
Farmers'
distress,
1833-36.
""
">
you otherwise have reduced your labour?"—"I should,
certainly."-
"__“Can you go on paying the present wages?
"No.".
"You would decrease them but for the fear of
fires?' "I think we should do so, certainly, from the
necessity of the case."* The only alleviation of the
Farmers' load was derived from the Poor Law Amend-
ment Act, the working of which had in a very short time
sensibly diminished pauperism, so that the Poor Rates
no longer amounted, as they did in at least one parish in
Sussex, to 20s. in the £.† On the other hand, cultiva-
agriculture. tion was still deteriorating, as it was in 1833, and from
the same causes. "Should you say that the cultivation
of Buckinghamshire has fallen off within these last eight
or ten years?"—"I should say so, in the neighbourhood
in which I live."‡
Retrogres-
sion of
"Is the state of agriculture within your district better
or worse than it was when you became a Farmer?".
"Worse; when I first became a Farmer it was much
better than it is now."§
"You stated that the Farmers in your neighbourhood
were in a deplorable situation. Do you think that the
cultivation of the land has gone back in your neighbour-
hood?"- ((
Certainly, in many instances; I do not say
universally." || "Speaking generally (of Warwickshire)
the land is deteriorating in cultivation." T
"There is a greater quantity of land retrograding
than improving."**
"It has been by persisting in the high Rents that the
farms have been worked out of condition." † †
"Have tenants in your part of the country what is
called scourged the land, that is, by over-cropping or
working it out?"-"In many instances they have, to a
"Has not the ruin of the estate in
very great extent."
been the means of keeping them up in the way
that
way
* Lords' Committee, 93-96. Mr. Waring, Farmer, of Chelsfield,
Kent.
† 13,156-8. Mr. Boniface, suprà.
358. Mr. Brickwell, Farmer, of Leckhampstead, Bucks.
3,685. Mr. H. Morson, Farmer, of Denham, Herts.
2,395. Mr. Thurnall, suprà.
8,454. Mr. W. Umbers, suprà.
** 5,189. Mr. J. Scott, Corn Merchant, of Liverpool.
++ 12.409.
Mr. C. C. Parker, Farmer, of Woodham Mortimer,
Essex.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
49
they have kept up?" "Yes."-" And so saved them-
selves from ruin?""They have done everything they
could to prop up a bad concern for a year or two, and
have sunk at last."* Even scourging did not save
the Farmer's capital, which was ultimately the source
from which the Rents were paid-Rents forced up by the
illusory hopes held out by the Corn Laws. "What is
the condition of the Farmers in your district?"—" There
is a Landlord, who owns several parishes, and who has
exacted extravagantly large Rents; he naturally makes
his Tenants poor; he perhaps does not take more than
25. or 3s. an acre more than it is worth, but even that
will deter men of capital and experience from taking the
land; he is always making distresses and in hot water
with his Tenants." t
"What did you find to be the condition of the
Farmers in 1832 from all the returns made to you?"
"That at that time no less than half the average Rent
of the Kingdom was paid out of capital instead of out of
profits." +
"Do you think Farmers have any means of paying
Rent out of the profits made on their lands ? ”—“No,
nor have they had for some time."§
"Do you think the Farmers have been paying the
expenses of their farms out of capital, and not out of the
produce of the farm?"-"Yes, I should say so, in
almost all cases.". "Are they getting worse each year?”
"Yes." Il
>>
"How are Rents paid in the North?
"In my
opinion they are much better paid than they ought to be;
because a great deal of Rent must come out of the
Tenant's capital; and besides, I understand from trades-
men of agricultural towns that Farmers leave their bills
unpaid in order to scrape together the Rent."¶
* Lords' Committee, 1,822-4. Mr. H. Wilson, Farmer, of Allexton,
Leicestershire.
† 12,813. Mr. Crowther, Farmer, of Evesham.
Lords' Committee, 1,573. Mr. J. B. Bernard, of Sidmouth,
Statistician.
§ Lords' Committee, 2,435.
morganshire.
Lords' Committee, 800-1.
Lords' Committee, 3,573.
Riding.
E
Mr. Bradley, Land Agent, of Gla-
Mr. J. Allnatt, of Wallingford, Berks.
Mr. Cayley, M.P. for Yorks, N.
Rent paid
out of
capital.
50
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
1836.
"The Farmers have been paying their Rents out of
their capital. The capital of most is reduced, and of
some entirely gone."-"Is the number of those whose
capital is entirely gone considerable ?"—" It is.”*
"I believe the Farmers have been paying Rents out
of the capital they employ. It has been my case."+
"Do you think the Tenants of your neighbourhood
possess as much capital as they did in 1820?”—“No.”
"They have been losing capital rather than gaining
it ? "Yes."t
"
"Do you believe that many Farmers are now paying
their Rent from their capital instead of their profits ?".
"I am quite convinced that in many instances it has
been paid out of capital, and where they had not
capital it has been paid out of their stock on their farms.
and where they had nothing to depend on but their
produce the land has gone out of condition and the Rent
is in arrear."§
"Taking the whole of the Farmers of Lothian, do
you think they are possessed of as much capital as they
were twenty years ago?"—"No; the Tenantry of the
country have been very greatly changed since the con-
clusion of the war (1815); there was a complete change
in their circumstances; from being generally in comfortable
circumstances the great majority of them were soon reduced
the result of to little better than a state of bankruptcy, with the high
money Rents they had contracted."||
The
Farmers'
distresses
Protection.
enhanced
Rents.
"Have the Farmers who hold their farms at money
Protection Rents suffered ?"—"Yes; they suffer much at present,
and they complain much." "These money Rents were
fixed under the operation of the old Corn Law (1815)?”
"Yes; under the expectation that the prices upon
wheat would be maintained at something like what the
Corn Law proposed."T
"You were making a good deal of money from 1801-
* Lords' Committee, 4,211-2. Mr. Comfort, Solicitor, of Rochford,
Essex.
† 3,236. Mr. R. Babbs, of Bradville, Essex.
shire.
11,683-4. Mr. R. H. Stares, Farmer, of Droxford, Hants.
1,389. Mr. Rolfe, Farmer, of Beaconsfield, Bucks.
9,932. Mr. R. Hope, Farmer, of Fenton Barns, Haddington-
¶ 9,659. Mr. R. Hope, suprà.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
51
1814, were you not ?"—" Not so much as the rise in the
value of land indicated."—" If you had started farming
in 1820 with £3,000 capital, how much more than
£3,000 would you have had at present, do you think?
-I believe that every one that started farming in 1820
with £3,000 capital at money Rent, as it was generally
paid them, is hardly solvent at the present day."* As in
1833 and previous years, then, the Farmers' difficulties.
were, at bottom, a question of Rent, of Rent unnaturally
enhanced by the Corn Laws. As Mr. Hope put it, "I.
am sure, if it had not been for the Corn Law, Farmers
would not have given so high a Rent. In 1814 I took a
new lease for twenty-one years of the farm I at present
occupy, and have agreed to pay £1,710 for it, under the
expectation that prices would keep up to something near
8os. a quarter; but we soon found we were under a
delusion about it."+" Can you suggest anything that
the Legislature can do ?"-"Nothing."-"And you think
it is a question mainly of Rent between the Landlord and
the Tenant?"—" Certainly it is.”‡
"The consequence of the Rents being kept up too
high has been that the land has been overcropped?"
"Yes; when I have conversed with the Farmers this
appears to be the conclusion they have come to, that
they have paid their Landlords what they ought to have
paid to the Labourers; if they had paid it to the Labourers
they would have had value for their money, whereas
they paid it to the Landlord, and, of course, received
nothing back, and they have so much less to lay out
upon their farms."§
"You think that the Rents are too high for present
prices?""Certainly."||
"The Corn Law induced men to offer more than has
been well realised by the price of corn, because it was
generally expected from the Corn Laws that prices would
be kept up to something like what they promised; that the
import of foreign corn would be restricted, and by that
9,783-7. Mr. R. Hope, suprà.
† 9,772. Mr. R. Hope, suprà.
13,506-7. Mr. J. Church, of Dumfries.
12,664. Mr. J. Fison, Corn Merchant, of Thetford, Norfolk,
11,380. Mr. J. Hancock, Dorsetshire.
E 2
52
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
1836-42.
Why
Protection
enhanced
Rents.
""
means keep up the price of the home growth to 70s. or
so. "Is it the operation of the law, or some other
cause, that has made the price of wheat so low, in your
opinion ?"—"I think the law has had nothing to do in
bringing down the price of wheat. I think it is the
favourable seasons and the abundant crops."-
"Then
how has the Corn Law disappointed your expectations?"
"Because it led those that took farms at money
Rents to give a much higher Rent than they would have
done."*
"I am the only remaining Farmer in the parish
where I was brought up; except myself, there is not a
Farmer, nor the son of a Farmer, remaining within the
parish."
"What is the reason of their all having gone
away?”—“The money Rents that were exacted of them;
they all conceived that they were to have 80s. a quarter,
and their calculations were made upon that.
It soon
appeared that that could not be realised, and they were
not converted, and ruin has been the consequence."+
Notwithstanding the distress which, as has been seen,
had been prolonged ever since the Corn Law of 1815,
persons inclined to agricultural pursuits continued to
embark their capital in agriculture. They were "not
converted," save by ruin, for the Corn Laws, like an
ignis fatuus, still held out to them the hope, at least in
years of scarcity, of excessive profits. Competition was
thus stimulated for the holdings which had, after years of
struggle, drained the outgoing Tenant of his capital.
"The present duty gives the Farmers an expectation
that something is to come to their relief that can never
arrive, and on that account it holds up the value of land
fictitiously."‡ "It is an extraordinary fact that even
during these low prices the competition for farms has
continued. The Farmers cannot turn themselves to
other occupations."§ "Landlords do not like to let leases
at the present prices: they do not think that wheat can
remain in its present very low state." "The competition
9.738-41. Mr. R. Hope, suprà.
+10,113-4. Mr. A. Howden, Farmer, of East Lothian.
10,945. Mr. J. Ellis, Farmer, of Leicester.
$8,158. Mr. G. Calthrop, Corn Merchant, of Spalding, Lincoln-
shire.
|| 11,408. Mr. J. Hancock, suprà.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
53
for farms has kept up the Rents?" ." Yes."* + Thus
was generation after generation of Farmers sacrificed-
not simply through their own imprudence, but through
the illusions spread by a law which, while it was
potent to injure, could not but be powerless to protect
them.
It was the necessary consequence of these disasters
to the Farmer that those who were dependent upon his
custom were no less involved in difficulty. It has been
seen that the Landlord's Rent first enforced its claim
upon him. Little, indeed, then remained for the trades-
man. "In what state generally are the tradesmen in the
towns surrounded by agricultural districts?" "Many of
them have been bankrupt, and the complaints of those
who remain have been loud for some years that the
Farmers, their best customers, are gone." "The trades-
men are in a most deplorable state. I can speak to that
most positively."§ The same distress existed in this
class throughout the country, and in its turn reacted
seriously upon the Farmers, whose customers these
tradesmen were, by lowering the demand, and therefore
the price of meat and dairy produce.
Neither the Committee of the Lords nor of the
Commons could agree upon a Report. The supporters
of the Corn Laws were unable to controvert the evidence
of the injury inflicted on the Farmer, and the advocates
of repeal as yet very inferior in numbers and influence.
Matters went on unchanged.|| Between 1838 and 1841
"
* Lords' Committee, 5, 100, Mr. Blamire, M.P. for East Cumberland.
† A parallel effect is produced in countries of peasant proprietorship
through the enhanced value which Protection to agriculture imparts to
land. The Moniteur des Intérêts Matériels in a recent number says:-
The mortgages upon peasant owners in most parts of Europe are
excessive. The dette hypothécaire of Prussia has increased these
twenty-six years from 65 to 85 per cent. of the value of the land. In
Brandenburg it exceeds its value by 50 per cent. In Austria the mort-
gages were, in 1858, £112,000,000; they are now over £500,000,000;
those of France in 1876, £840,000,000. Half of the real estate of that
country, and two-thirds of that of Belgium, really belong to the mort-
gagees, and Russia is not a whit behind the others." (From a letter in
the Mark Lane Express, Nov. 8, 1886.)
Lords' Committee, 3,387, Mr. Cayley, M.P., suprà.
2,373. Mr. Thurnall, suprà.
It is a significant fact, and one which in itself creates a strong
à priori presumption against Protection to agriculture, that inquiry
followed inquiry into agricultural distress during the thirty years of
54
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
1842.
General
distress.
trade was normally prosperous. Exports fluctuated be-
tween fifty millions in the former year and fifty-one
and a half millions in 1841; the prodigious expansion
of commercial wealth which followed upon the establish-
ment of Free Trade being in those days unknown. In
1838 wheat began to show an upward tendency, which
was continued in 1839, the average for which year was
70s. 8d. Rents immediately rose again and continued
to do so for two years. The Farmers, whom the con-
tinued distress of twenty-five years had taught to refuse
leases at the Rents asked, were called upon to pay an
additional 10 to 30 per cent. for their holdings. There
was nothing to justify this. A far higher advance in the
price of wheat would not have recouped their losses; and
meat had for years remained at about the same level.
But there was the specious hope of a scarcity and of a
fortune to be realised in a single season which the Corn
Law dangled before their eyes, and not the less before
those of the Land Agent.
*
Rents may, through extortion on the one side and
imprudence on the other, be pushed up to an excessive
height, even when calculated upon the steady rise of
produce in consequence of a natural expansion of de-
mand. This has been the cause of heightened Rentals
during the Free Trade period, and, subject to some quali-
fications, the Tenant must, in such case, be left to the
guardianship of his own interests; but when Rents
are built upon the airy basis of a law which promises
what it cannot perform, the State is responsible as having
departed from its position of neutrality, and excited
fallacious hopes which serve but to put the Farmer
and his fortunes at the mercy of the owners of the soil.
No sooner, then, were the Rents readjusted to the
Landlords' advantage than prices began to decline
afresh, and in 1843 wheat had fallen to 50s. Id. Beasts
were 34 per cent. and mutton 25 per cent. lower than in
Protection. Since the application of Free Trade to agriculture, on the
other hand, but two, those of 1881 and 1893, chiefly in consequence of a
cycle of seasons unprecedentedly adverse, have been thought necessary.
* See letter in Morning Chronicle, June 22, 1840. See Appendix B.
There was no uniform system of official statistics by which the general
rise of Rent between the last century and the abolition of the Corn Laws
could be accurately measured.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
55
does for the
1836, the year of inquiry into the distress, and the year
1844 witnessed a still further decline. The condition of
the Farmers' customers, the manufacturing population,
was appalling. In the days of Protection to manufactures
progress was so slow that the export trade in the year of
depression, 1842, was smaller than in 1835, one of the
prosperous years of the preceding decade, and even
than that of the years 1809, 1810, and 1815. But
population was not stationary; in the best times it
pressed hard upon the means of subsistence; the savings
of workmen were infinitesimal as compared to those at
the present day, and a paralysis of trade brought instant
starvation. In 1842 “there seemed to be no class that
was not threatened with ruin." The Speech from the
Throne in February recommended to the consideration
of Parliament "the state of the laws which affect the
importation of corn and other articles, the produce of
foreign countries." It also mentioned "with deep regret 1842. What
the continued distress in the manufacturing districts of Protection
the country." There was a growing deficiency in the artisan.
revenue. The difference between the annual income
and expenditure had increased from a deficiency of
£1,593,000 in 1840 to no less than £3,977,000 in 1842.
But details of public insolvency are less affecting than
those which depict the abysses of personal distress. In
Carlisle the Committee of Inquiry reported that a fourth
of the population was in a state of starvation-actually
certain to die of famine unless relieved by extraordinary
exertions. In the woollen districts of Wiltshire the
allowance to the independent labourer was not two-thirds
of the minimum in the workhouse; and the large existing
population consumed only a fourth of the meat and
bread required by the much smaller population of 1820.
In Stockport more than half the master spinners had failed
before the close of 1842; dwelling-houses to the number
of 3,000 were shut up, and the occupiers of many
hundreds more were unable to pay Rates at all. "Five
thousand persons were walking the streets in compulsory
idleness; and the Burnley Guardians wrote to the Secre-
tary of State that the distress was far beyond their
management
Provision dealers were subject to
incursions from a wolfish man prowling for food for his
56
WHAT PROTECTION DOEs
and for the
labourer.
children, or from a half-frantic woman with a dying baby
at her breast, or from parties of ten or a dozen desperate
wretches, who were levying contributions along the street.
The linendraper told how new clothes had become out
of the question among his customers, and they bought
only remnants and patches to mend the old ones. The
baker was more and more surprised at the number of
people who bought halfpennyworths of bread.
A pro-
vision-dealer used to throw away outside scraps of bacon,
but now respectable customers of twenty years' standing
bought them in pennyworths, to moisten their potatoes.
These shopkeepers contemplated nothing but ruin from
the impoverished condition of their customers. While
Rates were increasing beyond all precedent, their trade
was only one-half, or one-third, or even one-tenth, what it
had been three years before.
At Leeds the
At
pauper stone-heap amounted to 150,000 tons; and the
Guardians offered the paupers 6s. per week for doing
nothing, rather than 7s. 6d. a week for stone-breaking.
The millwrights and other trades were offering a premium
upon emigration, to induce their hands to go away.
Hinckley one-third of the inhabitants were paupers; more
than a fifth of the houses stood empty; and there was
not work enough in the place to employ properly one-
third of the weavers. In Dorsetshire, a man and his
wife had for wages 2s. 6d. per week and three loaves,
and the ablest labourers had 6s. or 7s. ""* "In the summer
of 1839," writes the well known Mr. Baptist Noel,†
(6 several poor persons with whom I conversed in Devon-
shire assured me that the whole of a poor man's wages,
at that time, would scarcely produce dry bread for a
family of four or five children. In various agricultural
counties, if I am rightly informed, the labourers and their
children can scarcely ever touch meat." Protection,
therefore, while it had secured for the Farmer a monopoly
of produce, had left his customers without the means to
purchase it.
Since sufficient testimony has been accumulated
from the reluctant admissions of Protectionist Farmers
* Martineau's "History of the Peace." Book VI., chap. v.
"A Plea for the Poor." By the Hon, and Rev. B. W. Noel.
1841.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
57
1842. The
distress of
the artisan
brings dis-
tress to the
Farmer.
themselves as to the reality of their distress, and from an
impartial historian as to the desperate circumstances of
their customers, the case against Protection need not be
rested upon the assertions of an acknowledged opponent
like Mr. Cobden. But some instructive observations
addressed by that gentleman to Farmers serve to impress
the manner in which the welfare of the Farmer is linked
with that of the consumer: "I find that in Dundee, in
Leeds, in Kendal, in Carlisle, in Birmingham, and in
Manchester, the falling-off in the consumption of butcher's
meat has been one-third as compared with what it was five
years ago. How is it possible that this great falling-off
in the consumption should take place without causing a
diminution in the price of the article? We who are apt
to cultivate our connections, to nurse our customers, to
wish them well, and to be anxious for their prosperity,
should take a very different view of the thing.
If we
find that our customers are declining, and that they have
no longer the means to purchase, we know that we, as
sellers, must suffer in consequence." In addressing the
Farmers of Hereford, in 1843, Mr. Cobden said: “A
reverend friend of mine in Stockport took some pains to
ascertain what the falling-off in the consumption of cattle
was between 1835 and 1842; and in the former year, in
the three months of July, August, and September, there
were sold 814 head of cattle in the borough of Stockport;
whilst in the corresponding three months of 1842 only
194 head were sold, being about one-third of the quantity
which was consumed in the same period of 1835. Now, Condition
there was this falling-off to the amount of 600 head of of the
cattle in three months at Stockport; the same melancholy Farmers'
fact was also observable in Manchester and other
manufacturing towns. If all this diminution was going
on in the consumption, it does not require much philosophy
to see that it would not be long before you would be
compelled to take a less price for your cattle; for as your
customers diminish in number you will get a less price
for what you have to divide among them." This was
the secondary, but very effectual manner in which the
Protectionist system devoured the Farmer's fortunes. It
was not merely that it raised his Rent and Rates; it
hampered him in the discharge of those outgoings by
1842-44.
customers.
58
WHAT PROTECTION Does
Practical
examples of
Farmers
from
6
impairing the means of his customers, and thereby com-
pelling him to sell his meat at any price he could get
for it. "I will ask the Farmers," said Mr. Cobden, in
March, 1843, “another question, and that is a home-
thrust; it is a question about which, as the son of a
Farmer myself, I may be presumed to possess some
knowledge. I ask them, have you, as a class, since the
year 1815, done as well, made as much money, and
realised as much profit on a given amount of capital, as
the retail trades-the grocer, the linen-draper, the tailor,
in the nearest market-town? Why, when such a question
is put, the Farmer throws up his eyes in anger that
he should be called upon to solve such a question.
Why, make as much ?' he says. 'No; we never did;
if we can live and send our children to school, and make
both ends meet, that is all we expect,' and as to settle-
ments with their Landlords, and payments of money,
why, the generality of them have endless accounts with
Mr. Redtape, the steward, and indeed they are never
settled. The arrears, it is true, are sometimes paid up in
dear years, and then they run on again until another
period of high prices enables them once again to clear
them off. The Farmer of this country is on precisely
the same footing with regard to the Landlords as the
Fellah population of Egypt is with Mehemet Ali. I
went once, when in Egypt, into the fields with my gun,
and I asked a Farmer how he settled his accounts with
the Pasha. 'Do you have any settlements?" I asked
'how are the accounts arranged?' 'Oh, sir,' said he, 'the
accounts are as long as your gun! We have no settle-
ment of accounts; he takes all the produce and leaves
us just enough to live upon.' And so it is with the
Farmers."
A correspondent of the Scotsman in 1844 gives the
the benefits following practical examples of the operation of Protection
derived by upon Tenants: Whatever advantage the Landlords may
derive from the Corn Laws, it may be truly said that the
Tenants have got no benefit from them, as I shall proceed
to show from an examination of the result of farming
on the estates of two large Landowners in this county,
the rental of which may be from £8,000 to £10,000
per annum. The first estate to which I shall allude is
Protection.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
59
Gilmerton, belonging to Sir David Kinloch, and consisting
of six farms, besides one home farm, with grass parks, &c.
Within the last thirty or thirty-five years three Tenants
have left this property without being ruined (names given);
ruined and left their farms seven Tenants within thirty-
five years (names of farms given). The other estate
belongs to Mr. Hope, of Luffness, now Under-Secretary
for the Colonies, and consists of five farms, with grass
parks, &c. There have left this property, during the
same time, without being ruined, two Tenants (names
given). Leases were renewed to three old Tenants
(names given). Ruined and left their farms during the
same period five Tenants (names of farms given). Now,
of the five Tenants on both estates who have left their
farms without being ruined, it is well known that four of 1836-44.
them succeeded to large sums of money by the death of Practical
relations, which rendered them quite independent of the benefits
examples of
their farms (names given); and hence only one Tenant derived by
of those depending entirely on farming has left these estates agricultur-
for upwards of thirty years without being ruined.
Such Protection.
has been the working of the Corn Laws."
ists from
Condition
The report of a Times Commissioner on the condi- 1842,
tion of the Welsh Farmers and labourers, which appeared of Farmers
in the Times of December 2, 1843, amply confirms this and
description of the Farmers' situation.
"The small Labourers.
Farmer here breakfasts on oatmeal and water boiled,
called 'duffery' or 'flummery,' or on a few mashed
potatoes left from the previous night's supper. He dines
on potatoes and buttermilk, with sometimes a little white
Welsh cheese and barley-bread, and, as an occasional
treat, has a salt herring. Fresh meat is never seen on
the Farmer's table. He sups on mashed potatoes. His
butter he never tastes; he sells it to pay his Rent. The
pigs he feeds are sold to pay his Rent. As for beef or
mutton, they are quite out of the question-they never
form the Farmer's food. Is not this a 'muzzling of the
ox which treadeth out the corn?' The condition of the
labourer, from inability in the Farmer to give him con-
stant employment, is deplorable. They live entirely on
potatoes, and have seldom enough of them, having only
one meal a day. Being half-starved they are constantly
upon the Parish. They live in mud cottages, with only
60
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
one room for sleeping, cooking, and living-different
ages and sexes herding together. Their cottages have
no windows, but a hole through the mud wall to admit
the air and light, into which a bundle of rags or turf is
thrust at night to stop it up. The thinly-thatched roofs.
are seldom drop-dry, and the mud floor becomes conse-
quently damp and wet and dirty almost as soon as the
road; and to complete the wretched picture, huddled in
a corner are the rags and straw of which their beds are
composed."
There is no more authoritative and comprehensive
summary of the condition to which Protection to agri-
culture and Protection to manufactures had reduced
Farmers and Traders alike than a resolution passed almost
unanimously by the Common Council of the City of
London on December 8, 1842, "Resolved: That the
continuous and increasing depression of the manufac
turing, commercial, and agricultural interests of this
country, and the widespread distress of the working
classes are most alarming:-Manufacturers without a
market, and shipping without freight ;* capital without
investment, trade without profit, and Farmers struggling
under a system of high Rents, with prices falling as the
"
Compare with this record of the consequences actually arising
from restrictions upon importation the prediction of Adam Smith as to
the effect of free trade in corn. 'If importation was at all times free,
our farmers and country gentlemen would probably, one year with
another, get less money for their corn than they do at present, when
importation is at most times in effect prohibited; but the money which
they got would be of more value, would buy more goods of all other
kinds, and would employ more labour. Their real wealth, their real
revenue, therefore, would be the same as at present, though it might be
expressed by a smaller quantity of silver; and they would neither be
disabled nor discouraged from cultivating corn as much as they do at
present. On the contrary, as the rise in the real value of silver, in con-
sequence of lowering the money price of corn, lowers somewhat the
money price of all other commodities, it gives the industry of the
country where it takes place some advantage in all foreign markets, and
thereby tends to encourage and increase that industry" "Wealth of
Nations," bk. iv., ch. v.: Digression concerning the Corn Trade and
Corn Laws. The only part of this prediction which has not been
proved true is the assumption that the amount of corn cultivation
would remain constant; but this is based upon the further implied
assumption that the capacity of the corn-exporting countries would
also remain proportional to the existing production at home. The
economical discovery of America has, to a great extent, invalidated
what was in Adam Smith's time a probable conjecture.
FOR THE FARMER AND LAbourer.
61
means of consumption by the people fail; a working
population rapidly increasing, and a daily decreasing de-
mand for its labour; union houses overflowing as work-
shops are deserted; Corn Laws to restrain importation
and inducing a starving people to regard the laws of
their country with a deep sense of their injustice. These
facts call for the immediate application of adequate re-
medies. That this Court anxiously appeals to the First
Minister of the Crown to give practical effect to his
declarations in favour of Free Trade, by bringing forward
at the earliest possible period in the ensuing Session of
Parliament such measures for securing the unrestricted
supply of goods and the employment of the people as
may effectually remove a condition of depression and
distress too widely prevailing, and too rapidly in-
creasing, to consist with the safety of the community
and the preservation of our social and political insti-
tutions."
scale of
1842.
In conformity with the expressions of the Speech The sliding
from the Throne Sir R. Peel, in the Session of 1842, in-
troduced the last of the Corn Laws. The urgency of
the distress necessitated a repudiation on the part of the
Government of the delusive promises with which the
Farmers had been flattered by the measure of 1829.
Sir Robert Peel's Bill adhered to the sliding scale in
preference to a fixed duty such as had been proposed by
Lord John Russell in May, 1841. It proposed to afford
relief to the consumer and to decrease the Protection
granted to the home grower. But though it materially
abated duties which were ostensibly prohibitory, it yet
retained a substantial monopoly. When wheat was at
50s., for instance, the existing duty of 36s. 8d. was re-
laxed to 20s., a change which, it is obvious, would carry
no practical consequences. Even at 70s. there was a
duty of 5s., though this was less than half the duty up
to that time leviable.
Little as such a measure relieved the consumer, it
could effect still less for the Farmer. It was intended
to keep wheat steady at about 56s., but in 1843 wheat
had declined to 50s. 1d., a fall in five years of 29 per
cent., and in two years of 22 per cent. Yet rents were
still fixed at starvation prices. The abundant harvest
62
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
1842.
Wheat
practically
protected
as before.
stimulated trade, and supplied the wants of the famished
population, but only served to add to the inextricable
embarrassments of the Farmers.
In 1844 wheat was still low, and the Farmers conse-
quently yet less able to struggle under their burdens than
in the year preceding. With the fortunes of the Farmers
sank the lot of their labourers. Wages were cut down
again to 5s., 6s., or 7s. a week, and destitution wrung
the country districts. In the county of Suffolk, for
the quarter ending Lady Day, 1843, out of a popula-
tion of 314,722 persons there were 39,489 receiving
parish relief, being 13 per cent., or more than one in
eight in the whole population. In the county of Essex,
out of a population of 320,818 there were 44,694 re-
ceiving relief, or 14 per cent., or about one in seven of
the whole population. In the county of Norfolk, out of
a population of 343,277 there were 37,666 receiving
relief, or 11 per cent., or about one in nine of the whole
inhabitants of the county.
With the increase in the Rentals the reward of the
labourer had declined till, measured in food, it was below
the standard of the previous century.* The agricultural
poor were sinking to sustenance upon potatoes, that sure
criterion of a country's misery. Mr. King, a surgeon of
Calne, Wilts, wrote: "If women and boys who labour in
the fields suffer in health at all, it is not from the work they
perform, but from the want of food"; and the wife of a farm
labourer described the general condition of her class in
saying, "We never know what it is to get enough to eat
of bread there is never enough. The children
are always asking for more at every meal." Even if
matters stopped short of starvation, the Farmers, who,
from feelings of humanity and to lighten the Poor Rates,
were obliged to find employment for two pairs of hands
enfeebled by famine to do the work of one, could not
but be sensible of an aggravation of their burdens. But
there was worse behind. The labourers, ignorant of the
*At the rate per acre for reaping wheat "the peasant in (Arthur)
Young's time got a little more than one-tenth of the price of a quarter of
wheat for his labour, and the fourteenth century peasant about two-thirds
of the value of the whole produce." 'Six Centuries of Work and
Wages," by J. Thorold Rogers, vol. i., p. 234. See, further, vol. ii,, p. 427.
FOR THE FARMER AND LAbourer.
63
real causes of their misery, vented that irritation with
which hunger goads the brain in acts of savage fury upon
their employers' property. Incendiarism once more
played the part in rural economy which it had filled in
1833 and 1836. The one class in the country for which
the most effective Protection was maintained was the
class whose fortunes were most signally and most con-
tinuously unprosperous.
another
In 1845 wheat fell again to 50s. 10d. Mr. Cobden, 1845-
on the 13th of March, moved for a Select Committee Motion for
"to inquire into the causes and extent of the alleged Parliamen-
existing agricultural distress, and into the effect of legis- tary inquiry
into agri-
lative Protection upon the interests of Landowners, cultural
Tenants, and Farm Labourers." This was refused by distress.
the Conservative majority. Lord John Russell attacked
Protection on the 26th of May with the direct resolution
"That the present Corn Law tends to check improve-
ments in agriculture, produces uncertainty in all farming
speculations, and holds out to the owners and occupiers
of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to
secure." This resolution was negatived, not by argument,
but by votes, for it was based upon the patent and un-
questionable fact that now, when the Farmers “had a
Protection of 40 per cent., they were still in a state of
difficulty and distress."
Many of the Farmers had by this time learnt, through
bitter experience, that the Corn Laws, if they were a
Protection to the Landlords, meant to themselves ruin.
In April, 1845, the Brighton Herald states, " in illustration
of the state of the farming interest in this neighbourhood
at the present time, that there is almost an uninterrupted
series of farms reaching from Washington to Worthing-
a distance of eight miles-now to be let or about to be
let." As Mr. Hope, of Fenton Barns, at this time pithily
put it :-" Corn Law Rents, at Free Trade prices, are at
the bottom of the Farmers' distress." Sir Robert Peel's
conversion but put the seal upon the change now matured
in public opinion, and the failure of the potato crop in
Ireland, which necessitated an instant relaxation of re-
strictive duties, furnished occasion for the measure of
1846, by which the duties on imported cattle were re-
moved, and after three years' nominal duty corn was to
1846.
Repeal of
the Corn
Laws.
64
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
What a Five
Shilling
duty on
Com would
do for the
Farmer.
Who
gains by
Protection?
be admitted entirely free.* So far as the Farmers were
concerned, the untaxed admission of butter and cheese
in 1860 completed the adoption of Free Trade. It is a
significant commentary upon the operation of the Corn
Law that the immediate effect of its abolition was a fall
in Rents, and even eleven years afterwards, in 1857,
though the population and wealth of the country had in
the interim made giant strides, the gross annual value of
lands was returned at a decrease of £50,000.
In the light of nearly half a century's experience the
effect of an import duty upon corn for the " protection
of agriculture" can now be estimated. And first as re-
gards the Farmers. During the fourteen years that the
Corn Law of 1815 was in practical operation (1815 to
1829) wheat averaged 66s. 8d. a quarter. Rent was
fixed on the basis of wheat at 8os. a quarter. Therefore
the competition fostered by the Corn Law kept Rent at
20 per cent. above its natural limit. During the twelve
years that the Corn Law of 1829 was in operation (1829
to 1841) wheat averaged 58s. 4d. a quarter. Rent was
fixed on the basis of wheat at 64s. a quarter. Therefore
the competition fostered by the Corn Law kept Rent at
10 per cent. above its natural limit. It is, accordingly, a
probable inference that the imposition of a 5s. duty on
wheat would raise Rent by an amount which could only
be compensated by an increased selling price of more
than 5s. 6d., a loss of 10 per cent. on his wheat to the
Farmer.t
Upon this basis a pertinent illustration may be
founded. The total area of Great Britain may be roughly
put at 56,800,000 acres, the wheat area being rather more
than 2,300,000. The wheat area, therefore, now forms less
than one-twenty-fifth of the whole. But as the object of
a protective measure, whether it take the form of duty or
bounty, is the extension of wheat-growing, we may anti-
cipate that, if the proposed Act is effective, the propor-
tion of wheat acreage to the whole will revert to the
* It is noteworthy that the second reading of the Bill for the Repeal
of the Corn Laws was moved in the House of Lords by the Earl of
Ripon, who had himself been the introducer of the Corn Law Bill of
1815 into the House of Commons.
† Cp. Appendix D.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
65
proportion under the milder Corn Laws. There do not
appear to be in existence any returns of the acreage
under wheat during the last decade of Protection; but
in Porter's "Progress of the Nation" (ed. 1847) is to be
found an estimate of the average number of persons fed
upon home-grown wheat in Great Britain (taking the
yearly consumption at 8 bushels per head) as 17,077,469,
between 1841 and 1844. At 24 bushels to the acre, this
represents an acreage of 5,692,489, or about one-tenth
of the whole. To appreciate the effect of a reversion
to Protection upon Landlords' fortunes, let us apply
these figures to the case of a distinguished Protectionist
family. The Lowthers hold some 74,000 acres, at an
average of 39s. per acre. If it be assumed that on
these estates the wheat acreage is in average proportion
to the rest, there are now 2,960 acres of wheat land.
In the event of a reversion to the former proportion the
wheat area will be 7,400 acres, i.e., two and a half times
as much. Estimating the produce of this at three quarters
an acre, the Lowther family will gain by a 5s. duty on
corn £6,105 per annum upon their wheat acreage alone.
Of this sum £5,550 would be represented by the 5s.
drawn from the pockets of the consumer; £555 would
represent the additional 6d. which, as has been shown, by
the enhancement of Rent and the inspiration of fallacious
hopes, would be wrung from the credulous Farmer.*
Nor must the Farmer forget that the price of foreign How a Five
corn and of the cakes used for stock-feeding is raised for Shilling
duty would
him as well as for the non-agricultural consumer.
If a amerce the
Corn Law should raise the price of wheat in England 5s. Farmer.
a quarter, the rise per bushel is 7d. Take the con-
sumption of wheat in a Farmer's family as 1 bushels a
week. The proposed Corn Law will cost each such family
Iod. a week. The annual excess of cost to the Farmer
and every member of the community whose rate of
consumption is the same, due to the Corn Law, will be
43s. 4d. But that expense to the Farmer, it may be
* In France, where protective duties have recently been increased in
favour of agriculture, the same phenomena are now recurring. "Landed
proprietors assert that their tenants have become very irregular in the
payment of their rents, and that some do not pay at all without being
forced by legal process to do so." Consular Reports, 1886, for consular
district of Brest.
F
66
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
answered, is compensated by the enhanced price of his
produce. No doubt, if his holding be a favourable soil
for wheat. Yet, even in this case, there is another way
in which a Corn Law bears directly against the Farmer.
Taking the estimated ordinary average of three and a
half quarters to the acre, 7,766,500 quarters of wheat are
annually produced in Great Britain on the wheat acreage
of 2,219,000. If the produce be reckoned at nine times
the seed, it follows that 862,933 quarters of wheat are
annually sown. If a Corn Law add 5s. a quarter to the
price of wheat and double the wheat acreage, the seed
sown will be 1,725,866 quarters, and the excess of price
of the quarters of seed thus sown will amount to £431,466.
A considerable sum must be added for seed oats and
barley; but if this addition be taken at only one-third, the
total will be £575,288 per annum, constituting a charge
which falls exclusively upon the corn growers.
Thus
the advantage which the Farmer derives from high prices.
does not extend to the whole produce. His gain lies in
the difference between the quantity sown and the quantity
produced. If after sowing three bushels he reaps twenty-
seven bushels, his gain is the price of twenty-four bushels.
Unproductive soils, therefore, such as yield but twenty-
one bushels for three bushels of seed, are those most un-
favourably affected by a Corn Law.
It has been said that the gain of the Farmer derived
from protective duties on corn lies in the excess of the
quantity produced over the quantity sown. But this
assumes, for the sake of a general principle, that the
Farmer sells the whole of his produce, which, in practice,
is not the case. It is evident that in reality the Farmer
derives no advantage from the artificial value given to
his produce by Protection so far as that part of the
produce is concerned which is consumed in the main-
tenance of the men and animals employed in cultivation.
Now it is a characteristic of Protection that, like a slave-
power,† it must be perpetually seeking an extension of its
area, and certainly there is no good reason why, if its
* Agricultural Produce Statistics for Great Britain, 1891. The
actual acreage for 1892 was 2,219,839. As this is likely to fall, I have
taken the round figure of 2,219,000.
† See "The Slave Power: An Attempt to explain the Real Issues
involved in the American Contest." By the late Professor Cairnes.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
67
save
Protection
common
enactment is advantageous, the advantages should be Agricultural
confined to corn. Thus on the 2nd May, 1887, the a system of
Mark Lane Express, a Protectionist paper, published mutual
a leading article demanding "Protection pure and plunder and
simple." "Unless," it said, we can get a duty on loss.
wheat and on meat and on all agricultural produce
imported from abroad, there will be no relief to British
agriculture." The general system of Protection which
was in force before the abolition of the Corn Laws must,
therefore, be applied to all kinds of produce, if the
agricultural interest as a whole is to derive benefit. Why
should Cheshire and Gloucestershire be taxed for the
corn-growing counties? Accordingly bacon, hops, and
butter must receive that "moderate" Protection to which
they, in their turn, are justly entitled. But what will be
the effect of this upon the Farmers? Precisely what it
was in the days of the Corn Laws: through the various
protective duties they will devour one another without
enriching themselves. The farmers of light lands in
Norfolk sold no protected produce of their own
wheat and barley. They fattened bullocks which they
bought in the pasture districts, and the effect of the
restrictions upon foreign cattle was that they were them-
selves compelled to pay a higher price for this, their raw
material. The oats with which they fed their horses
were bought of the oat growers of the Lincolnshire Fens,
and for every bushel of these the protective duties
exacted from them an extra payment. The cheese con-
sumed by themselves and their labourers cost them an
additional 10s. per cwt., the amount of the protective
duty, and this was a fine exacted by Cheshire, Derby-
shire, Gloucestershire, Wilts, and Somersetshire. The
Southern counties were enabled to tax them an addi-
tional ios. per cwt. for clover seed and between £3 and
£4 a cwt. for their consumption of hops. The average.
rate of duty per quarter actually paid during the con-
tinuance of the Corn Law of 1828 (1829-41) was, for
wheat, 5s. 7d.; for barley, 4s. 8d.; oats, 6s. 6d. ; peas,
5s. 1od.; beans, 6s. 11d. Accepting these as the effective
protecting duties, the following would be the amount
paid, under the sliding scale of 1842, by the cultivator of
400 acres of light land in East Norfolk, in the shape of
F 2
68
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
1842. How protecting duties on agricultural produce consumed by
himself, his labourers and cattle.*
Farmers
were plun-
dered by
Protection. Seed Corn.
Wheat
Barley
Bushels.
2금
​3/1/1
Acres. Qrs. Protective Duty.
× 100 31 at 5s. 6d.
Clover, red (12 lbs.)
Do. White (8 lbs.)
X100 43 at 4s. 8d.
× 100=1200 lbs.
£ s. d.
8 II 10
...
...
IO 4 2
× 100= 800 lbs.
Trefoil (8 lbs.)
Rye Grass (bushel) x 100=
× 100
=2000 lbs. say 17
800 lbs. say 7
cwt. at 10s.
8 17 6
cwt. at 5s.
I 15 9
50 bus.
12
cwt. at IOS.
6 5 0
35 14 3
6
...
O
Horse keep (12 horses, I riding horse, at 91 qrs. of oats
weekly), at 6s. 6d. a qr.
Oilcake for sheep and cattle
...
Tradesmen's bills (10 per cent. on £100)
Sundries (agricultural dinners, &c.)
...
...
Labourers' food (flour, cheese, and bacon, five labourers
per 100 acres)
Labourers' beer (malt and hop duties)
...
...
...
29 II
80 o
IO O
2
...
47 13 4
4 13 2
Total increased cost of cultivation arising from
protective duties
Deduct enhanced value of produce sold :-
Wheat 4 qrs. ×
100 acres
100 acres = 400 qrs. at 5s. 6d....
Barley 5 qrs. × 100 acres = 500 qrs. at 4s. 8d....
Difference, being the Farmer's gain from Protection
209 12
3
IIO оо
116 13 4
226 13 4
17 I I
But this gain of £17 Is. Id. is only apparent, for it
leaves out the question of Rent, on which the influence of
Protection has already been seen, and the enhancement
of the household expenses of the Farmer's family. Let
it be assumed that under the sliding scale Rent was
calculated on the moderate expectation only of 56s. a
quarter. The price realised in fact averaged 50s. a
quarter: therefore if the Rent of the 400 acres be taken
at £500 the Farmer would be paying too high a Rent
by £54. If his household expenditure be taken at
£400 a year, at least 10 per cent. (£40) may be
* See "An Attempt to estimate the Effects of Protecting Duties on
the Profits of Agriculture." By John Morton and Joshua Trimmer,
London, 1854.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
69
assigned to the enhancement of prices under Protection.
The sum then stands as follows:
Total increased cost of cultivation arising from pro-
tective duties (suprà)
...
Increased Rents arising from protective duties
Increased housekeeping and general expenses arising
from protective duties
Total increased cost to Farmer arising out
of Protection to Agriculture
Deduct enhanced value of produce sold
(suprà)
...
...
TOTAL LOSS TO FARMER ON 400 ACRES THROUGH A
MODERATE PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE...
£ s. d.
209 12 3
54 O O
40 0 0
دی
303 12
226 13 4
76 18 11
Nor, indeed, was this his whole loss. The being
precluded from purchasing low-priced corn instead of
artificial manures, and therefore from fattening more
stock than his farm could carry under the protective
system, might be calculated as entailing upon him an
additional loss of £200. But, be the loss small or great,
under no circumstances could the protective duties on
agricultural produce be remunerative in the example
taken. What is true of Norfolk would be equally true
of similar soils in Sussex, Surrey, Berks, Wilts, Hants,
and Dorsetshire. It will be sufficient to supplement this
estimate, substantiated as to its conclusions by the
evidence already accumulated, with an account of actual
experience.
The following is the recapitulation of a detailed
account published by Mr. C. H. Lattimore, Farmer, of
Wheathamstead, Herts, in the Mark Lane Express,
December 1845:—
"Account of Corn crops grown upon and sold off Wheatham-
steadplace Farm in 1844, consisting of 250 acres arable and 21 of
grass land. Total, 271 acres.
RECAPITULATION,
Taking the mean estimate of the consumption of the
Norfolk labourer which gives the extra cost of Pro-
tection upon his food at £2 7s. 8d. per annum, it
will amount to:-
то
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
...
£ s. ៩.
42 18
4 15
6 10 O
For 18 labourers, not boarded, at £2 7s. 8d.
Allow 2 labourers extra for harvest work, at £2 7s. 8d.
Ditto 10 per cent. on tradesmen's bills (£65)
Ditto 10 per cent. on household expenses (say £300) 30
Ditto for Rents, Rates, and Tithes increased by Pro-
tection, say
..L
O
4
ос
20 O O
Cost of Protection duties on cattle food (details given) 204 17 3
Total cost of protective duties
Deduct enhanced value of produce...
...
309 о 7
96 16 23
TOTAL LOSS TO FARMER ON 271 ACRES THROUGH
A MODERATE PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE 212 4 4
Thus it appears that the loss upon 271 acres of land in one year
from Protection amounted to the sum of £212 4s. 41d., or 15s. 8d.
per acre.
I anticipate that it will be said to show an unusual con-
sumption of cattle food upon 271 acres of land; still it is a correct
statement of facts, and upon the system of stock-feeding pursued
upon this farm the purchases for stock and cattle food, taking an
average of years, have considerably exceeded the amount realised
from the sales of corn produced from the farm."
The teaching of such figures as these was lucidly
summed up by Mr. Cobden in the debate of the 13th of
March, 1845, upon the effects of Corn Laws upon agri-
culturists. "I contend," he said, "that by this protective
system the Farmers throughout the country are more
injured than any other class in the community. I would
take, for instance, the article of clover seed.
I
believe clover seed is to be excluded from the schedule
of free importation. Now, I ask, for whose benefit is
this exception made? I ask the hon. gentleman the
Member for North Northamptonshire whether those
whom he represents, the Farmers of that district of the
country, are, in a large majority of instances, sellers of
clover seed? I will undertake to say they are not. How
many counties in England are there which are benefited
by the Protection of clover seed? I will take the whole
of Scotland. If there be any Scotch Members present,
I ask them whether they do not in their country import
the clover seed from England? They do not grow it.
I undertake to say that there are not ten counties in
the United Kingdom which are interested in the exporta-
tion of clover seed out of their own borders. Neither
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
71
have they any of this article in Ireland. But yet we have
clover seed excluded from the Farmers, although they
are not interested as a body in its Protection at all.
Again, take the article of beans. There are lands in
Essex where they can grow them alternate years with
wheat. I find that beans come from that district to Mark
Lane; and I believe also that in some parts of Lincoln-
shire and Cambridgeshire they do the same: but how is
it with the poor lands of Surrey, or the poor downlands
of Wiltshire? Take the whole of the counties. How
many of them are there which are exporters of beans, or
send them to market? You are taxing the whole of the
Farmers who do not sell their beans for the pretended
benefit of a few counties or districts of counties where
they do. Mark you, where they can grow beans on the
stronger and better soils, it is not in one case out of ten
that they grow them for the market. They may grow
them for their own use; but when they do not cultivate
beans, send them to market, and turn them into money,
those Farmers can have no interest whatever in keeping
up the money price of that which they never sell. Take
the article of oats. How many Farmers are there who
ever have oats down on the credit side of their books, as
an item upon which they rely for the payment of their
Rents? The Farmers may, and do generally, grow oats
for feeding their own horses; but it is an exception to
this rule, and a rare exception too, where the Farmer
depends upon the sale of his oats to meet his expenses.
Take the article of hops. You have a Protection upon
them for the benefit of the growers in Kent, Sussex, and
Surrey; yet the cultivators of hops are taxed for the Pro-
tection of others in articles which they do not themselves
produce. Take the article of cheese. Not one Farmer
in ten in the country makes his own cheese, and yet they
and their servants are large consumers of it. But what
are the counties which have the Protection in this article?
Cheshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, part of Derbyshire,
and Leicestershire. Here are some four or five dairy
counties having an interest in the Protection of cheese;
but recollect that those counties are peculiarly hardly
taxed in beans and oats, because in these counties,
where they are chiefly dairy farms, they are most in want
72
WHAT PROTECTION Does
of artificial food for their cattle.
Take the whole
of the hilly district, and the down county of Wiltshire;
the whole of that expanse of downs in the South of
England; take the Cheviots, where the flockmasters
reside; the Grampians in Scotland; and take the whole
of Wales. They are not benefited in the slightest degree
by the Protection on these articles; but, on the contrary,
you are taxing the very things they want. They require
provender as abundantly and cheaply as they can get it;
allowing a free importation of food for cattle is the only
way in which those counties can improve the breed of
their lean stocks, and the only manner in which they can
ever bring their land up to anything like a proper state
of fertility. I will go further, and say that Farmers with
this soil, I mean the stock Farmers, which you will find
in Hertfordshire and Surrey, Farmers with large capitals,
arable Farmers, I say those men are deeply interested in
having a free importation of food for their cattle, because
they have their poor land. This land of its own self does
not contain the means of its increased fertility; and the
only way is the bringing in of an additional quantity of
food from elsewhere, that they can bring up their farms
to a proper state of cultivation. I have been favoured
with an estimate made by a very experienced, clever
Farmer in Wiltshire-probably hon. gentlemen will bear
me out when I say a man of great intelligence and skill,
and entitled to every consideration in this House-I
refer to Mr. Nathaniel Atherton, Kington, Wilts. That
gentleman estimates that upon 400 acres of land he could
increase his profits to the amount of £280, paying the
same Rent as at present, provided there was a free im-
portation of foreign grain of all kinds. He would buy
500 quarters of oats at 15s., or the same amount in beans
or peas at 14s., or 15s. a sack, to be fed on the land or in
the yard, by which he would grow 160 additional
quarters of wheat, and 230 quarters of barley, and gain
an increased profit of £300 upon his sheep and cattle.
His plan embraces the employment of an additional
capital of £1,000, and he would pay £150 a year more
for labour.
I think I could give you from every
county the names of some of the first-rate Farmers who
are as ardent Free Traders as I am."
FOR THE FARMER AND Labourer.
73
decrease of
crime and
since Free
Trade.
The gigantic growth of pauperism under the Corn Notable
Laws of 1815 and 1829 has already been noticed. With
pauperism hand-in-hand went crime, and, as has been pauperism
seen, the Farmer was practically forced at times to pay a
blackmail to preserve his property from the criminal depre-
dations of the starving poor. Since the abolition of the
Corn Laws in 1846, though the population of the United
Kingdom has grown from 28,co0,000 to 35,000,000, the
number of convictions for crime has positively declined
from 40,000 in 1847 to 14,000 at the present time,
whereas "the dear corn years, from 1809 to 1818,
swelled the list of crimes from 5,350 in 1809 to 14,254
in 1818, and so changed the habits of the people that in
1828 the criminals were 16,744, and in 1829, 18,675."
In the promotion of indigence it is hopeless to endeavour
to distinguish the respective agencies of Protection and
of the old Poor Law, prior to 1834, which stimulated
the evil it was enacted to mitigate. All that is certain is
that the dimensions of pauperism, yearly swelling, were
threatening the speedy exhaustion of the Ratepayer. In
the case of pauperism as of crime, the statistics which
begin with the year 1849 show not merely a relative, but
an astonishing absolute, decline from 201,000 able-bodied
paupers in England and Wales to 110,000 in 1886.
the decade 1840-50, in which Protection came to an end,
there was one pauper to every twenty-one inhabitants;
in 1886 but one to every thirty-three. The fact, to which
attention is sometimes called, that the expenditure upon
paupers has, nevertheless, increased is conclusive evidence
of the higher standard of comfort which has, since the
introduction of Free Trade, extended to all classes and
found its way even into the workhouse wards. The
appalling distresses of the agricultural labourer in 1843
are now, happily, unknown, though it is true that much
may yet be done to improve his lot. So long as he
remained in the miserable plight of which we read in
the years of Protection, it was impossible materially to
alleviate the condition of the dependent recipients of
public charity. The increase of comfort to this class is
the gauge of the greater well-being of the class imme-
diately above them.
In
Even if it were possible that the Farmers could be so
74
WHAT PROTECTION Does
How
Protection
affects
the agii-
cultural
labourer.
blind to the real issues as to support a Protective move-
ment, it is incredible that the agricultural labourers should
not have learnt wisdom from the terrible experience of
the past. It has been suggested of late by the leaders of
the Protectionist movement that, though Protection to
agriculture would increase the price of bread, this would
be more than compensated to artisans by the increased
demand which a contracted market would ensure. This
astounding paradox is even less specious than that which
was currently put forward by the advocates of monopoly,
who assured the agricultural labourer that high prices
enabled the Farmer to give more than proportionately
high wages.* A comparison of agricultural labourers'
* The foundation of this fallacy is the historic fact that a lasting
dearness of corn tends to bring with it a corresponding rise in wages.
In his "Six Centuries of Work and Wages” (vol. i., p. 62) Mr. Thorold
Rogers observes of the years 1315-21: "Then famine prevailed, the
people perished for lack of food, and the most conclusive proof of
famine is afforded, for wages obtained a real and permanent rise, owing
to a scarcity of hands prolonged for a considerable time, and there-
upon effecting a lasting increase of wages; for temporary dearth rather
depresses wages. It needs a considerable reduction in the number of
those who seek employment to bring about a real increase of wages,
and this state of things must last till the increased rate becomes familiar
or customa y." In the transient or fitful dearness produced by Corn
Laws, therefore, wages are directly depressed. The increased cost of
the means of subsistence enforces limits upon the expenditure of that
numerous class with whom the margin remaining after the supply of the
necessaries of life had previously been but narrow. Economy is
practised in the purchase of clothes and household furniture. Servants
are dismissed. Thus, at the same time, there takes place a contraction
of direct employment, and a contraction of demand for commodities.
And while the supply of labour is stimulated, recruits are added to it
from the ranks of those who have hitherto held themselves just above
the wage-earning class. Wages are steadily pushed downwards,
while the strain on the efforts of those employed to earn a minimum of
subsistence becomes proportionately great. The inquiries into the
distresses of the weavers show that in 1790, with wheat at 56s. a quarter,
the wage for weaving a yard of muslin was 15d.; in 1812, with wheat at
120s. a quarter, only 6d. This was not the effect of the competition of
machinery, the application of steam power to weaving dating from 1814,
after which time distress gradually reached a climax. But, confining
ourselves to the period before steam-power looms, the effect of the Corn
Laws upon the lot of the poor is illustrated by a table showing the fall
of wages in the weaving industry, and the weavers' diminished command
of the necessaries of life in the three septennial periods between 1797
and 1818. It is to be noted that the weavers' calling is one which
requires no outlay, and is easily learnt, as well by persons of an active
as of a sedentary habit and by comparatively young children. Hence
it is peculiarly responsive to the overcrowding of the labour market
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
75
wages during the years of Protection (1821 to 1840) with
those obtaining during the years of Free Trade (1878 to
1887) is conclusive refutation of this fallacy. During
the former years wages averaged less than 10s. a week,
and wheat 58s. a quarter; during the latter years wages
averaged 14s. a week, and wheat only 39s. 10d. a quarter.*
If under the Corn Laws this extra 5s. went in Rent, the
arising from Corn Laws. The table referred to gives the following
figures:-
First Seven Years-From 1797 to 1804.
100 lbs. Flour.
142 lbs. Oatmeal.
826 lbs. Potatoes.
55 lbs. Butcher's Meat.
4) 1,123
281 General Average.
Wages for weaving one piece, 24 yds.
of 6-4ths Bolton cambric, 120
shots per inch (say one week's
work for a weaver) 26s. 8d.
Second Seven Years--From 1804 to 1811.
79 lbs. Flour.
115 lbs, Oatmeal,
720 lbs. Potatoes.
38 lbs. Butcher's Meat.
4)952
238 General Average,
Wages in this period for the same, 205.
Decline in money 25 per cent.
Decline in second seven years, as com-
pared with first, 16 per cent. in
the command the weaver had over
the necessaries of life,
Third Seven Years-From 1811 to 1818.
60 lbs, Flour.
79 lbs. Oatmeal.
360 lbs. Potatoes.
26 lbs. Butcher's Meat.
4)525
131 General Average.
From Mr. Needham's table.
Weavers, 1834-35," p. 10.
See
Wages in this period for the same
14s. 7d. Decline in money 27 per
cent. compared with second period
and 45 per cent, as compared with
first period.
Decline in third seven years, as com-
pared with second seven years,
45 per cent,, and as compared with
first seven years 55 per cent,
"Analysis of Evidence on Hand-loom
* In France agriculture enjoys considerable protection, yet the
Paris correspondent of the Leeds Mercury writes: "I observe a
paragraph in the Gironde which states that 'several wealthy landed
proprietors in the Médoc have just reduced the wages of their labourers
from 2f. 50c. to 1f. 75c. for the men, and from 1f. to 75c. for the
women. The unfortunate people who have not accepted the reduction
have been summarily dismissed.'
In English money, therefore,
the agricultural labourer of the Médoc will henceforth receive for his
labours-that, it must be remembered, endure from sunrise to sunset-
the liberal sum of 9s. 11d. a week, if he works seven days a week, and
never has a moment, not even on the Sunday, to call his own; or 8s. 6d.
a week if he has his Sabbath, and even then he has no half-day holiday
on the Saturday.”—Mark Lane Express, May 31, 1886.
76
WHAT PROtection Does
Farmer derived little benefit from it, since the consump-
tion by a Landlord's family of agricultural produce is
comparatively limited.* Dispersed among the families
of the agricultural labourers, on the other hand, it both
increased the demand for meat, and at the same time
enriched those traders upon whose welfare the Farmer is,
as has been shown, dependent.
"When the policy of
Protection to agriculture finally disappeared in 1848,"
says Mr. Caird, "the great bulk of the people had ceased
to know anything of butcher's meat, except as an occa-
sional Sunday luxury." The increased cheapness of
wheat which has sprung from Free Trade has been
the main cause of the greater consumption of meat,
and the consequent rise in its price.† With wheat
reduced to 4s. a bushel instead of 6s., the weekly
* "In consequence of the high price of corn, a change takes place in
the division of income, which cannot remain without influence upon the
usual demand for commodities. It is true that through this latter circum-
stance the corn producers gain just as much as the consumers of corn have
lost, but it is very doubtful whether the former carry their surplus-demand
precisely to those commodities from which the latter, in consequence of
their diminished capacity of expenditure, have withdrawn." W. Ros-
cher, Ueber Kornhandel und Theuerungspolitik," Stuttgart, 1852.
† Corn is the first necessary of life, and accordingly, when its supply is
deficient, the greatest endeavours are made by the poor to maintain their
accustomed consumption. This can only be done, if at all, by a
diminution of the consumption of articles of secondary necessity, such as
meat. The effect upon these, therefore, is to lower their price in
sympathy with the diminution of demand; the effect upon corn, on the
other hand, is to raise its price more than in proportion to the
deficiency. Tooke, in illustration of this law, which had been first
noticed by Gregory King a century earlier, mentions that in the
harvests of 1795-96 there was a deficit of one-eighth of the average
yield. Prices, however, instead of rising only 12 to 13 per cent., rose
from 48s. 11d. to 75s. 8d., or 54'6 per cent. Tooke notes cases in
which the prices of corn in England rose 100 to 200 per cent. when the
harvest had only fallen one-sixth to one-third below the average, and
importation from abroad had aided in mitigation of the effect of the
deficit. Thus the price of corn is very far from varying, as might have
been supposed, in inverse ratio to the supply. This tendency to excessive
appreciation, and the corresponding tendency of articles of secondary
necessity to fall in price, are both accentuated by Corn Laws. When,
as under Free Trade, corn is abundant, as it is impossible to increase its
consumption beyond a restricted limit, the consumer naturally applies
his surplus, in the first instance, to the purchase of other farm produce.
What remains over is expended upon further necessaries or luxuries,
and thus, by affording occasion for employment, cheap corn raises wages.
On the other hand, the co-existence of dear corn and cheap meat is a
symptom of destitution which has more than once appeared in the history
of England. See "Six Centuries of Work and Wages," by Thorold
Rogers, vol. ii,, p. 423.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABbourer.
77
expenditure of the labourer upon wheat is 2s. 8d.
instead of 4s. This leaves Is. 4d. in his pocket at the
end of the week, or 70s. at the end of the year, which
otherwise must have been expended on wheat. The first
luxury upon which this surplus is laid out is, naturally, an
improved diet. If is. of the surplus were so employed,
and meat were at 6d. a lb., a weekly addition of 2 lb.
of meat at once takes place. This addition in seven
labourers' families makes a difference of a stone of meat
a week. Three hundred and fifty families, therefore, in
a population of less than 2,000 persons, will consume an
ox of 50 stone weight a week, and 52 such oxen in a year.
Such are simply the plain consequences of a fall of 2s. in
a bushel of wheat.
The imposition of a duty upon wheat involves to the
agricultural labourer the converse of all this.
"A 55.
duty," say the Protectionists, "would not raise the 4 lb.
loaf more than from a farthing to a halfpenny, and this
would be to a working man's family about 5½d. a week.”
Perhaps so; but 51d. a week is £1 3s. 10d. a year, an
appreciable percentage of the expenditure of the labourer,
but not of the expenditure of the Landlord, into whose
pocket the labourer's mite would find its way. The tax Protection
is, therefore, manifestly inequitable, since it presses hardest only begins
upon those least able to bear it.* But the tax upon Shilling
wheat is not the whole of the tax
would have upon his shoulders.
at the Five
which the labourer duty.
By the Fair Trade
Suppose that, as some of the "Fair Traders" anticipate, a 5s.
duty should impose a food-tax of 6d. per week on every large family.
If the income of such a family did not exceed 155. a week—or, roughly,
£40 a year-this would amount to a tax of 26s. a year, or ten and a half
days' labour. Yet how lightly would such a tax affect the well-to-do !
Its exactions would be in inverse proportion to the means of the tax-
payer, a principle of taxation not hitherto generally received as either
just or rational. In point of fact a 5s. duty would, according to a
practical baker, the manager of the Woolwich Royal Arsenal Co-opera-
tive Society, be equivalent to a tax of a halfpenny on the quartern loaf.
In a normal household of six persons in the East End of London the
consumption of bread averages thirty-five half-quartern loaves a week.
A rise of a halfpenny in the quartern would therefore represent a tax of
more than 8d. a week or 345. 8d. a year. See St. James's Gazette, Jan.
14, 1893.
+ Protection can counterbalance the benefits of the most favourable
conditions of soil and climate. A Consular Report issued in June,
1887, describes the agricultural labourer of Vera Cruz: " Comparing
the condition of the agricultural labourer of this State with that of his
English colleagues, it may be said that the two are equal as regards
78
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
+
What a Five
Shilling
duty costs
the country.
system, which aims at supplanting Free Trade, clothing,
furniture, every necessary of life, would be enhanced in
price, and the labourer reduced to the state of abject
destitution under which he groaned sixty years ago. It
has been shown by Dr. Farr, on a comparison of years
when wheat was at 6os. a quarter with years when it was
at 45s. a quarter, that a rise of 2s. a bushel is followed
by an increase of 3 per cent. in the bills of mortality.
The agricultural labourer would indeed be insane to
support a movement which offers him death, indigence,
or the workhouse.
*
If a 5s. duty on wheat would bring no benefit to the
Farmer, and direct injury to the labourer, how would it
operate with regard to the general consumer? It has
been pointed out that "a change in the supply of a
necessary of life is capable of producing effects on price
much greater than in proportion to the extent of the
change."+ Assume, however, that the sole effect is to
raise the price of wheat 5s. a quarter. The amount of
wheat grown in the United Kingdom in 1891 was some
9,340,000 quarters; the amount of wheat imported from
abroad was roughly 20,600,000 quarters.‡
When a country grows less wheat than it consumes,
the price must rise above the level of other markets to
the point which will pay freight and charges necessary to
bring the quantity required. The addition of an import
duty is simply an addition to those charges. Until,
therefore, the price rises to such a height as will pay the
whole expense of bringing wheat from other markets, and
the duty as well, wheat will not be imported. But as
that must necessarily take place in this country, it follows
food, but as regards housing and clothing the Vera Cruzan cannot but
be commiserated. The high tariff levies on him a tax of about 70 per
cent. on all he spends for clothing or other luxuries, except indeed
tobacco, while the English labourer, under Free Trade, can clothe
himself and his family at fair and natural prices.'
* Mulhall's "Progress of the World," London, 1880; p. 134.
+ See note on page 87.
The
This is at the low estimate of 60 lbs. of wheat to a bushel, or
480 lbs. to a quarter, and 45 lbs. of flour to 60 lbs. of wheat.
Mark Lane Express (Jan. 17, 1887) gives reasons for preferring this to
the Board of Trade estimate of not quite 61 lbs. of wheat to a bushel, and
49
lbs. of flour to their bushel of wheat. Other authorities consider that
the basis should be 62 lbs, or even 63 lbs. to a bushel.
FOR THE FARMER AND Labourer.
79
that the total tax exacted from the consumer would be
£7,485,000, of which only £2,335,000 can be pre-
tended to benefit agriculture. It is sometimes alleged
that it is the foreigner who pays the duty on the imported
wheat.* If the foreigner lower his prices until, with the
5s. import duty added, they remain at their present level,
he may be amerced, but the British grower will derive
no advantage. In fact, however, it is the home con-
sumer who pays, not merely, as is unquestionable, for
the advance caused by import duties in home-grown
corn, but for the duty upon foreign corn as well. Sup-
pose a contract for the delivery of 1,000 quarters of
wheat in the Mersey from America at 35s. a quarter.
The wheat arrives in the docks, and the English merchant
pays the American consignor £1,750. When the wheat
"
* It was said by a Protectionist landlord, Lord Stanley of Alderley,
in the autumn of 1887, that the Corn Law of March, 1887, had not raised
the price of wheat in France. Immediately after harvest, no doubt, the
price of wheat was low in France, owing to the competition artificially
promoted by the Corn Law among the farmers, which compelled the
weakest to realise at any price. But M. Guyot points out on p. 24 of
"The French Corn Laws," that the 5 franc duty, which added
2 francs to the previous duty, established a difference of very nearly
7 francs between the London and the Paris market price, and a
difference of 9 fr. 25 c. between Paris and New York" on the 100 kilo-
grammes (I cwt. 3 qrs. 24 lb.). (See further on this the note to p. 40).
Moreover, the French have checked a rise in the price of bread in many
parts by resort to the practice known in England as late as this century
under the name of the "Assize of Bread." The mayors in France are
enforcing their right to assess the price of bread. However, it is
impossible to force bakers to ruin themselves and become bankrupt
with a light heart in order to secure rents to landowners. Bakers
submit, diminish the quantity of flour, use more water, and bake the
bread less well.
In a commune of the Department of the
Cher the bakers have struck work, bread is wanting. The rows and
disturbances of the good old days are revived. Mayors have been seen
to point out officially bakers to the hatred of the population, and to
declare them responsible for the price of bread. To them it is that the
consumer pays directly. He does not see the trader in corn, still less.
the landowner. It is, therefore, easy to make the baker the scapegoat.
The average price of the French loaf of 2 kilos. (4 lb. 6½ oz.) has, in
fact, been raised about a penny." M. Guyot on "The French Corn
Laws," pp. 27, 28.
"
In February, 1893, the municipal authorities of Marseilles, unable
to persuade the bakers to accept the official assize of bread, occu-
pied the bakeries with the military and police, and aided by the
Government depôts, themselves undertook the supply of the city. The
issue of the struggle was the capitulation of the bakers, probably with
the intention of finding compensation in the manner indicated by M.
Guyot.
80
WHAT PROTECTION Does
The
Farmer's
well-being
associated
with the
of the
Labourer.
is landed, the 5s. per quarter duty, amounting to £250,
is paid to the Government officers by the English mer-
chant, who then sells it to the miller for £2,000 with a
percentage for profits. Thus the 5s. duty is paid by the
consumer, and the tax so imposed upon him is obnoxious
to the two most serious objections which can be raised to
any tax first, that the taxpayer is mulcted in an infinitely
greater amount than the public treasury receives; and,
secondly, that an uncertainty attaches to the impost,
which in no two consecutive years will represent the
same proportion of the value of the article taxed.
How
greatly the removal of the duty has, concurrently with
other Free Trade measures, induced consumption of
farm produce, is matter of common knowledge. The
average prices of meat during the last decade of the
well-being Protective period (1836-46) were lower than in the ten
years 1868–78. Yet the labouring classes can more than
keep up with the increase. In December, 1883, Mr.
Giffen, in his address to the Statistical Society on
"The
Progress of the Working Classes in the last Half-Century,"
confirms the estimate of Sir James Caird ("Landed
Interest," p. 65), that the wages of the agricultural classes.
have risen 60 per cent. since the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Although a slight decline has set in since 1883, there
has been a further compensating fall in the general prices
of commodities. Since the repeal of the Corn Laws
there has been a very substantial fall in the prices of all
the prime articles of the Labourer's consumption,
excepting meat; and "twenty-five years ago," says Mr.
Caird, "the agricultural population could rarely afford
to eat butcher's meat more than once a week. Some of
them now have it every day." The consumption per
head of other articles of food, the produce of the Farmer,
has even more largely increased. For the year 1840,
when Protection was the accepted doctrine of the country,
as compared with the year 1885, the difference stands as
follows:-
The Landed Interest and the Supply of Food," London, 1878.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABourer.
81
IMPORTED ARTICLES RETAINED FOR HOME
CONSUMPTION.
CONSUMPTION PER HEAD (UNITED KINGDOM).
Bacon, lbs
Butter
Cheese
""
...
1840.
O'I
...
1892.
13 II
I'05
6'14
0'92
5.86*
in 1851.
But a few lines of description are more eloquent than
figures. At the close of the Protective period, and in
the first years of the new system, Mr. Caird was
despatched by the Times to take a survey of the agricul- The
tural situation. He thus describes the state of things in Labourer
the Southern counties—a state of things, it must be re-
membered, much ameliorated since the days of the old
Poor Law, and even since the then recent revelations
of agricultural destitution of 1843-44. "Six shillings
a week," he says, "was the wage given for ordinary
Labourers by the most extensive Farmer in South Wilts,
who holds nearly 5,000 acres of land, great part of which
is his own property; 7s., however, is the more common
rate, and out of that the Labourer has to pay is. a week
for the rent of his cottage. If prices continue low, it is
said that even these wages must be reduced. Where a
man's family can earn something at outdoor work, this
pittance is eked out a little ; but in cases where there is a
numerous young family, great pinching must be endured.
We were curious to know how the money was econo-
mised, and heard from a Labourer the following account
of a day's diet. After doing up his horses he takes
breakfast, which is made of flour with a little butter and
water 'from the tea-kettle' poured over it. He takes
with him to the field a piece of bread and (if he has not
a young family and can afford it) cheese, to eat at mid-
day. He returns home in the afternoon to a few
potatoes, and possibly a little bacon, although only those
who are better off can afford this. The supper very
commonly consists of bread and water. The appearance
of the Labourers showed, as might be expected from such
meagre diet, a want of that vigour and activity which
**
* The figures are taken from the official Statistical Abstract for
the United Kingdom," 1840 and 1892.
G
82
WHAT PROTECTION Does
The real
object of
the Fair
Trade
marks the well-fed plough men of the Northern and
Midland counties."*
The British Farmer must reflect that the cry of Pro-
tection to Agriculture is but the echo of the far louder
clamour for Protection. to Manufactures. The manu-
movement. facturers who now seek Protection are necessarily not
less hostile than in 1840 to legislation which would tend
to raise wages without raising their profits. But, finding
the Protectionist party in the country weak, they have
endeavoured to recruit its numbers by adding to their
demand for an (C
adequate" import duty upon manu-
factured imports, a "moderate" duty on American corn.
The Farmer will do well to notice this significant
selection of qualifying adjectives. And while the Fair
Traders "wink," as Mr. Gladstone put it, "with one eye
at the counties, they wink with the other at the towns,'
for at the same moment that they angle for the Farmers'
votes by proposing the duty on American corn, they
advocate systematic legislation, the object of which shall
be eventually to strike a bargain with our Colonies by
admitting colonial corn duty free in return for the aboli-
tion of colonial tariffs in favour of our manufactures. The
first effect of this legislation will be, it is said, that America
will reduce its Tariffs, and British manufacturers will in-
crease their exports in return for American commodities.
>>
Let the Farmer consider for a moment the conse-
quences of this, the earliest anticipated effect of the Fair
**** English Agriculture," London, 1851. According to M. Dubost,
former Director of the School of Agriculture at Grignon, every French-
man ought to have at least 700 grammes (about 1½ lb.) of wheaten bread
a day. Between 1881-86 it is computed from the returns of produce
and imports that the amount daily consumed in France was 608
grammes, a deficit of 90 grammes. As this is a calculation of averages,
it follows that the amount for individuals of the poorer classes must be
considerably less than 600 grammes. Soldiers, for instance, receive
1,000 grammes a day each man, besides 300 grammes of meat and 130
grammes of vegetables. But as for the agricultural labourer and small
farmer, in many places there are only one or two meals of pork per
week, and very rarely any butcher's meat. M. Hervé-Mangon, in
a paper read before the Academy of Sciences in 1874, remarked: "It
is unfair to reproach the country labourer with the little energy shown
in his work and with his excessive slowness. In fact, the average
work done in our country districts is in proportion to the average
nourishment, and the daily labour, taken as a whole, cannot be
increased except by ameliorating the food." M. Guyot on "The
French Corn Laws," pp. 19, 20.
""
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
83
Farmer's
interest to
support it?
Trade movement, and, indeed, its immediate object. The Is it the
high Tariff of the United States, by its exclusion of our
manufactures, operates as a protection to the British and a
tax upon the American Farmer. For example: The
United States imposes a duty of 75c. upon coal. This
practically excludes our coal from America. But the
effect of this is that steamers carrying wheat from
America to the Tyne are forced to make the return
journey in ballast. Thus, since the cost of the return
journey is not borne by return freight, it has to be borne
by the outgoing cargo, the wheat. "Take two steamers
of a thousand tons register, and with carrying capacity of
10,000 quarters of grain, bound from the Tyne, one for
Odessa, the other for New York. The voyages are
about equal in length. The Odessa-bound vessel takes
out ninety-five keels* of coal at say, £14 per keel—
£1,330-and brings home 10,000 quarters of wheat at
4s. 6d. per quarter-£2,250-making a total from both
cargoes of £3,580. The American-bound vessel leaves
the Tyne in ballast, for owing to the 75c. duty upon coal,
merchants cannot afford to handle it. The rules for
loading in force at American ports reduce the carrying
* A "keel" of coals is twenty-one tons.
+ This is an example of the impediments in the way of commerce, and
the consequent loss of employment to the working classes caused by a
Protective Tariff. A similar result followed the imposition of the
German Corn Duties in 1885. Notwithstanding Prince Bismarck's threat
to suppress the reports of all Chambers of Commerce adverse to his
protective system, the Mannheim Chamber of Commerce, at the
beginning of 1885, ventured to draw up a statement of its experience of
the new Corn Laws. Business, it reported, had suffered a heavy blow.
"The North German, Wetterau, and Hesse wheat formerly exported to
Belgium, and the Mecklenburg and Holstein grain formerly sent to
England, simply found a market in South Germany in consequence of
the advanced duties or foreign grain. Thus, while the effect was
clearly in the direction of limiting the choice of grain for consumers,
Germany lost an export trade, and the German railways and merchants
a business which will unquestionably find its way into other channels.
The South German millers, moreover, found that they could replace the
foreign by the extremely poor native grain to only a limited extent.
The export trade to Switzerland declined, while Hungary sent the
produce of her rich harvests over the Arlberg line to that market, and
South Russia sent her grain also to Switzerland, vid Genoa and
Marseilles, instead of through Mannheim." "Mannheim," concludes
the report, "is hereby precluded from maintaining any longer her
position as the chief emporium of foreign wheat, and is thus even
absolutely compelled to surrender more and more her trade to the
Mediterranean port of Genoa,”—Mark Lane Express, Jan. 25 and
July 5, 1886.
G 2
84
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
The Fair
Traders
will throw
power of the steamer mentioned to 9,000 quarters; and
to make her total earnings those of the Odessa vessel, a
freight of 8s. a quarter must be obtained-9,000 by 8s.,
£3,600."* If, therefore, the effect of the 5s. duty on
wheat recommended by the Fair Traders should be, as
they expect, the reduction of the American Tariff,
the Farmer American wheat would be poured into this country at a
overboard, cheaper rate than it is at present in return for the in-
creased export of our manufactures. Even if the British
Farmer could contrive to secure to himself the 5s. duty,
which it has been shown he could not do, he might well
pause before lending his aid to a movement which could
not fail, if successful, to bring about this result. Nay,
more, he must upon reflection feel assured that if the
American Government were to justify the expectation of
the Fair Traders and to propose a bargain reducing their
Tariff in return for an abolition of the 5s. duty, the
Farmers' interest, supposing it to be a real one, would
not be allowed for a moment to stand in the way. The
Farmer is therefore exhorted to join in an enterprise
which, if unsuccessful in its assault upon foreign Tariffs,
will, at any rate, leave him sadilled with enhanced Rents,
and which, if successful, will abandon him to sustain
that burden as best he can, in face of the fiercer competi-
tion of the United States and the Colonies conjoined.
Nor is this the whole of the weight with which the Fair
Trader would load the British Farmer. Fair Trade is,
and few of its advocates pretend to dispute the fact,
Protection. It begins with demands which it terms.
"adequate" and "moderate," but unless it fails to
follow the rule of Protectionism in every country where
it has obtained ascendancy, it will perpetually seek to
heighten the Protective Tariff. Even in the United
Practical Questions for Producer and Consumer in England and
America. By Major Jones, U.S. Consul, Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1880.
† Of the "adequacy" the protected manufacturer always assumes
to be the judge. A writer in the Country Gentleman (Albany, N.Y.)
tells a story of a New Jersey fire-brick manufacturer, who came before
the Congressional Committee indignant at his wrongs. The duty was
only 50 per cent., but "the trade," so he informed the Committee,
said his bricks were so bad they would rather pay the tax and buy
a good foreign article." He demanded, for his protection and his right,
that the Committee should make the duty 150 per cent.; then the trade
would have to buy of him, and after that he assured the Committee he
would try to furnish a better quality.
"
FOR THE FARMER AND LAbourer.
85
States, though there were duties exceeding 70 per cent.
ad valorem, the Protectionists demanded and obtained
further enhancements by the M'Kinley Tariff. But
what would high Tariffs at home mean to the British
Farmer? They would mean that he would be called
upon to pay literally half as much again for every imple-
ment which he uses, for the stuffs he consumes, for the
slender luxuries he enjoys. Of this plunder the manu-
facturers would appropriate by far the largest share.*
They would be able to persuade the artisans dependent
upon them that Protection had in some degree raised
their wages, while they would be silent as to the less
obvious fact that it had disproportionately heightened
the cost of living; and the strength of the combined
No part of the Canadian people were more grievously deceived by
the men now in power than those Farmers who believed that the prices
of their grain, butter, wool, cheese, cattle sheep, and garden fruit, would
be raised by the imposition of duties on American cattle and farm
products, that their home markets would be greatly increased, and that
they would be rendered independent of the fluctuations of prices in other
countries. They have continued to clear forest land, to drain and
fertilise what they had cleared, to erect new buildings, and to improve
and increase their stock of cattle. They find, notwithstanding all the
fine promises made, and notwithstanding all their unremitting efforts to
improve their condition, that their farms are of less value by millions,
and that although they produce more, the amount they realise for what
they sell is less by millions than it was five or six years ago." Ontario
Globe, quoted by the Mark Lane Express, April 26, 1886, which adds:
One estimate puts the depreciation at 20,000,000 dollars. Of course
the tariff has raised the cost of clothing, implements, and other
necessaries."
The same cry is heard from the United States. Mr. Bookwalter, of
Springfield, Ohio, puts the case succinctly in an interview with a repre-
sentative of the Pall Mall Gazette. See Mark Lane Express, Sept.
15, 1884. "To all the people directly or indirectly engaged in the land
the Protective Tariff is a sheer spoliation. The Farmer has to pay dearer
for everything that he buys, in order that a mere handful of manufac-
turers may be able to make a profit. Are you aware that our Protective
Tariff costs the Farmer almost as much money as the whole of the sum
he receives from his exports? That is to say, our duties tax the Farmer
600,000,000 dollars per annum, which is as near as may be the total
sum he receives for his exports. Now, the net average profits of the
industries specially protected by the tariff, taking one year with another,
do not average more than about 350,000,000 dollars a year. In other
words, it would be into the Farmer's pocket, if he were allowed to
pension off the whole of the protected manufacturers, and give them
350,000,000 dollars a year in exchange, simply for the liberty to buy
what he wants in the cheapest market. See, further, the Western
Farmer in America," by A. Mongredien, London, 1880. It is to the
revolt of the Farmer that the repeal of the M'Kinley Tariff will be
largely due.
"
86
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
What
Bounties
will do
for the
Farmer.
History of
Bounties
on Wheat.
forces of a successful Protectionism would disclose to the
Farmer, wishful to retrace his steps, the extent of his
folly and his disaster.
Among the many failures which have paved the road
of advance in economic wisdom has been the system of
In
Bounties, now long since discarded in this country.
the last and at the beginning of the present century there
existed bounties on flax culture, on the herring and
whale fisheries, and on the exportation of wheat. The
last dated from 1689. "The Government of King
William," says Adam Smith,* "was not then fully settled.
It was in no condition to refuse anything to the country
gentleman from whom it was at that very time soliciting
the first establishment of the annual land-tax." An Act
was passed allowing a Bounty of 5s. per quarter on all
British-grown wheat exported when the home price did
not exceed 48s. a quarter. This Act was modified in
1773, so that the Bounty was not payable after the
average exceeded 44s. a quarter, and in 1815 the Bounty
was repealed. In point of fact no Bounty could have
been claimed in any year after 1792, when the average
price for the whole year was only 41s. 9d.†
It was the operation of this Bounty on export, and
thus indirectly on production, which furnished Adam
Smith and Ricardo with matter for their chapters on
the inefficiency and mischief of the system. It inflicted,
as Adam Smith shows, two different and cumulative
taxes upon the people, for it first raised the price of the
principal necessary of life, and, secondly, it taxed them
directly for the purpose of levying the Bounty.
A proposal has been made by eminent members
of the Conservative Party, which is not only obnoxious
to the objections advanced by Adam Smith and
Ricardo to the indirect encouragement of production
by means of Bounties on exportation, but which exhibits
original demerits of its own. In a speech delivered at
Lincoln on the 9th November, 1886, Mr. Chaplin, after
* "Wealth of Nations," Book I., ch. xi. Digression concerning the
variations in the value of silver, &c.
+ Porter's "Progress of the Nation," ed. 1847, p. 147, note.
Ricardo's "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," ch.
xx., xxi,
FOR THE FARMER AND Labourer.
87
a prefatory remark that it would be easy to double the
wheat production of this country, formulated a proposal
to effect that end. He suggested that the proceeds of a
duty upon foreign manufactured articles should be
"directed to the encouragement of the wheat-growing
interests of the country." Since that time the idea of a
Bounty on home production, levied from a Protective
Tariff generally put at 10 per cent. ad valorem, has been
received with favour in every Chamber of Agriculture in
the kingdom.
Now, in the first place, such a Bounty would be, like
the old Bounties on exportation, a double tax.
The con-
sumers of the commodities of which the price had been
advanced through the operation of the tariff would be
mulcted in their character of consumers. It is not to be
forgotten that the advance in price could not be confined
to the commodities manufactured abroad, but would
necessarily extend to similar articles produced at home.
The consumers would, in fact, be co-extensive with the
community. The list of imported manufactures will
show at once the searching severity of the burdens which
would be thrust upon them. They would have to pay
one-tenth additional price for brimstone, bristles, candles,
caoutchouc, china, porcelain and earthenware, clocks,
confectionery, drugs, dyeing and tanning stuffs, flax, tow,
hemp, jute, glass, gutta-percha, leather, gloves, wrought
copper and iron, zinc articles, oil, oil-seed cake, paper,
petroleum, paper-making materials, saltpetre, spirits,
sugar, manufactured tobacco, watches, wooden articles,
woollen and worsted yarn, dried yeast, &c. &c. And be-
sides the general advance of prices from which they would
suffer, the public would also have to find the Bounty in
their capacity of taxpayers.
Under the Protectionist
scheme a tariff supplies an easy method of raising public
revenue.* If part of the revenue thus raised is applied
to bounties the deficiency must be made good.
It may be said that the above argument rests upon
the assumption that the imposition of a tariff for the pur-
pose of encouraging a particular form of agricultural
production is only contemplated as part of a more
* But as to its effect upon the revenue see preface, p. viii.
The burden
imposed by
Bounties.
88
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
Mr. Chap-
lin's pro-
posal.
general scheme.
But that is the most favourable stand-
point from which to criticise Mr. Chaplin's proposal.
Protectionist champions, with a wariness learnt from re-
peated defeats, and with the fear of the electorate before
their eyes, are careful beyond all things of coming to
close quarters with fact, or of filling out the unsubstantial
outlines of their panaceas. If the suggestion is that the
tariff should be raised for the sole purpose of application
to the protection of wheat-growing, the case is worse.
Mr. Chaplin does not commit himself to any details as
to the rate at which the tariff should be fixed, but it is
the general view of Protectionists that 10 per cent. is
a minimum; and Fair Traders, whose principle is the
neutralisation of the tariffs of foreign countries, must, of
course, go a great deal further. Let us, however, suppose
a tariff at the rate of 10 per cent. ad valorem upon all
manufactured articles imported into the United Kingdom.
In the year 1891 the value of all articles imported was
£435,441,264. As Protectionists are always in diffi-
culties when called upon to distinguish raw materials from
manufactured articles, let us select most favourably to
their argument by taking out of the total list of imports
such as appear prima facie to be nothing more than raw
material, and assuming these to be exempted from the
tariff. Such articles are as follows, the values being taken
in round numbers :-
Articles.
Animals
...
Bacon and Hams
Beef
*Bones
...
...
Corn, Flour, &c.
Raw Cotton
Indigo
Dye Woods
Eggs
*Feathers
Fish
...
Fruit
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
Values.
£9,200,000
9,400,000
4,400,000
500,000
62,000, coo
46,000,000
1,000,000
400,000
3,500,000
...
...
...
950,000
2,800,000
8,000,000
Carried forward
148,150,000
* These are examples of the impossibility of an accurate distinction
between manufactured and unmanufactured articles, which the Pro-
tectionists imagine so easy. The finished product of one industry is
often the raw material of another.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABOURER.
89
TOTAL LIST OF IMPORTS (continued.)
Articles.
Brought forward ...
Guano
*Gum
Hair
*Hides
+Hops
*Lard
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Values.
£148,150,000
130,000
1,000,000
880,000
2,400,000
980,000
1,700,000
Meat
3,500,000
...
...
...
4,000,000
...
2,400,000
2,000,000
...
3,700,000
Copper Ore...
Iron Ore
*Lead (Pig and Sheet)
...
...
...
...
Silver Ore
...
*Tin
*Zinc
Nuts
Onions
Pork
:
:
...
...
...
...
...
...
Potatoes
...
Poultry
Rice
*Rosin
Seeds
Raw Silk
:
*Skins and Furs
*Spices
Tea
*Teeth
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
1
...
Tobacco (unmanufactured)
2,500,000
1,300,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
2,000,000
700,000
2,800,000
400,000
7,000,000
1,600,000
3,890,000
1,000,000
10,700,000
540,000
...
...
...
2,100,000
Wine...
*Wood
•
*Wool and Woollen Rags
...
Total
5,900,000
14,900,000
28,700,000
258,970,000
If, then, from the total value of imports, viz., in round
figures £435,400,000, there is deducted the value of
the above unmanufactured articles, the residue will be
£176,430,000 worth of manufactures on which the pro-
posed 10 per cent. ad valorem duty is to be placed. Now,
the existing wheat area of the United Kingdom is,
roundly, 2,390,000 acres.‡ The 10 per cent. duty,
amounting to £17,643,000, distributed among the
† It must be remembered, however, that Lord Salisbury in his
speech at Hastings on May 18, 1892, endorsed the suggestion of a duty
on hops.
1891. Stat. Abstr., 1892, p. 173.
90
WHAT PROTECTION DOes
Who would
gain by
Bounties
on wheat?
2,390,000 wheat-growing acres will amount to a Bounty
of £7 an acre, or, taking three quarters to the acre,
of more than 45s. a quarter. No doubt Mr. Chaplin's
anticipations would be verified and the wheat area very
speedily doubled. Even then the Bounty would remain
at the comfortable sum of £3 10s. per acre, or 22s. 6d.
a quarter, a tax on the public which would add many
millions to the Landlords' Rents.
Is the proposed Bounty to be upon acreage or yield?
This point, again, has been left in a convenient haze.
There are analogous precedents in the statute book
for both, for by the 23 Geo. II. c. 24, S. 11, the
Herring Fishery Bounty was upon the tonnage of
the vessels; while by the 26 Geo. II. c. 23, s. 6,
it was upon the barrel of fish caught. If extension
of wheat area be the object, it would plainly be best
attained by a Bounty on the acreage sown. Then the
phenomena of the time of the Corn Laws would recur.
Old pastures would be broken up, down and heath land
would be ploughed, and the taxpayers would very soon
realise the truth of Adam Smith's observation that
"Bounties upon production have been found by experi-
ence more liable to frauds than those upon exportation."
The character of the cultivation would certainly be inferior,
since in the face of free import of foodstuffs the Farmer of
poor soil could not grow wheat to pay, and the Bounty
being according to acreage ostensibly sown, his efforts
would be directed to securing the State's liberality with as
little expense to himself as possible. It would be found
true, too, of the Farmers that "the usual effect of such
Bounties is to encourage rash undertakers to adventure
in a business which they do not understand, and what they
lose by their own negligence and ignorance more than
compensates all that they can gain by the utmost
liberality of Government." The Bounty would profit one
class only-the Landlords. Let us proceed to consider
the more probable alternative, viz., that the proposed
Bounty is to be a Bounty upon actual production.
Assuming for the moment that the Farmers will be
the gainers, it follows that those Farmers will benefit
most whose lands are already best suited for wheat,
e.g., the Farmers of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire.
FOR THE FARMER AND LABourer.
91
In other words, the greatest amount of assistance will
be granted precisely to that class which is best equipped
for competition. To be duly effective the Bounty
should be discriminatingly adjusted-an impossible under-
taking.
What would be the effect of such a Bounty upon
prices, Farmers' Profits, and Landlords' Rents?
of Bounties
on Profits
It was laid down by Ricardo, upon the assumption
that England was a self-sustaining country, that the effect
of a Bounty upon production would be to lower the price
of corn by a sum equal to the Bounty paid. This would
not be the consequence to-day. Our home-grown wheat
is estimated at nine million quarters, our imported at
twenty and a half million.* Let us, for simplicity, take
the relation as one to two. Now, it is currently asserted
by the more moderate of the Protectionists that wheat
cannot be grown here under 40s. a quarter, that is, of
course, at anything like the present Rents. But the
average price of home-grown wheat in 1892 was 30s. 4d.†
A Bounty of 9s. 8d. a quarter is therefore needed, at a low
estimate, to enable wheat to continue to be grown here.
Suppose such a Bounty enacted. At first the com- The effect
petition of supply would, in all probability, be such as
still further to depress the price of foreign wheat. Let us and Rents.
suppose that it falls to 29s. 4d. a quarter. The price of
English wheat then would no longer, as in the state of
things contemplated by Ricardo, fall by the amount of
the Bounty, i.e., from 30s. 4d. to 20s. 8d.; it would
simply fall, since there cannot be two prices for the same
article in the same market, to the lowest figure at which
foreign wheat can come, i.e., to 29s. 4d. a quarter.
Though the Bounty has caused a fall of Is. a quarter in
the value of his produce, yet the English Farmer is ex
hypothesi paid by it 9s. 8d. a quarter over and above the
market price, and thus receives 8s. 8d. a quarter to the
good. But, just as in the case of import duties, this will
fall to the Landlord through the competition of the
Farmers among themselves. If, on the other hand, the
importation of foreign wheat diminishes, in consequence
of a contraction of the wheat-growing area of foreign
* See above, p. 89.
† Mark Lane Express, January 2nd, 1893.
92
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
countries following upon the fall in the price of English
wheat, then the price of English wheat will rise. Let us
suppose that it rises to 40s. 4d. Then, as before, the
Farmer at home who had been accustomed to produce at
30s. 4d., and who has actually been selling at 29s. 4d.,
will expect to pocket the whole Bounty plus 10s., the
difference between 30s. 4d. at which he was before pro-
ducing, and 40s. 4d. at which he can now sell. This
19s. 8d. a quarter, however, will, as before, be presently
intercepted by the Landlord in addition to the additional
percentage* which measures the extravagance of the
Farmer's hopes.
It was seen in the passage to which reference has
just been made that the fixed duties of 1815 and 1829
maintained Rents at 20 per cent. and 10 per cent.
respectively above their natural limits, i.e., above the
limits justified by the prices actually received by the
Farmer. During the operation of the Sliding Scale
between 1843 and 1846 Rents were fixed on the antici-
pation that the normal price would be 56s. ; but the price
actually realised during those years averaged 51s. 8d.,
therefore the Sliding Scale had the effect of keeping
Rents at 8 per cent. above their natural limits. In its
effects upon Rents it is evident that a Bounty upon acre-
age would operate just as a fixed import duty, while a
and Rents. Bounty on production would act like a Sliding Scale. A
Bounty upon acreage would be as strong a stimulus to
Rents as was in the time of the earlier Corn Law the
practical prohibition which prevailed. Whatever the
season, whatever the amount of importations, whatever
the yield, the Farmer would reckon upon his Bounty, as
his predecessor, no less deluded, reckoned upon being
able to appropriate enhanced prices.
The effect
of Bounties
on Profits
The positions in which the Landlords and Farmers
would respectively find themselves at the end of a few
years may be illustrated by the following figures, which,
while they cannot profess to be exact as statistics, for the
official estimate of Farmers' Profits in England and
Wales as equal to one-half the full annual value of the
lands is admittedly untrue to fact, yet show accurately
*
p. 64 suprà.
FOR THE FARMER AND LAabourer.
93
enough the effect of the proposed Bounties. For the
sake of convenience, I take England and Wales only.
The following, according to the official statistical abstract,
is the relative income of Landlords and Farmers for
1891 :-
Landlords' Rents (Schedule B)
Farmers' Profits
...
...
£41,804, 179
20,902,039
Let us now suppose a Bounty upon wheat acreage
equivalent to 5s. a quarter import duty, i.e., a Bounty (at
three quarters an acre) of 15s. an acre.
On the assump-
tion that the wheat acreage will revert to its former
proportion of one-tenth of the whole and stand at
5,692,489 acres,* and that Rents will, as before, rise 20
per cent. above the natural limit, the account will stand
thus:-
Landlords' Rents
Farmers' Profits
£47,351,419
20,048,216.
Suppose, on the other hand, that a Bounty is enacted
upon actual production, and that the effect upon Rents
of such a Bounty will be, for reasons already given,
similar to those of a Sliding Scale, viz., to raise Rents
8 per cent. above the natural limit, then the account
stands:
Landlords' Rents
Farmers' Profits
...
...
...
£46,839,095
20,560,540
The effect in the first case will be the loss to the
Farmers of £853,873 and a gain to the Landlords of
£5,547,240 per annum. In the second case these sums
will be represented by £341,549 for Farmers' losses,
and £5,034,916 for Landlords' gains per annum respect-
ively. If this be the effect of a 5s. Bounty, that of the
* See p. 65 suprà.
†The argument may perhaps be stated more clearly as follows:-
On 5,692,489 acres (p. 65) 155. per acre is
20% on this is
8%
is
£4,269 367 (a)
£853,873 (6)
£341,549 (c)
Adding to the Landlords' Rents for 1891-
Firstly (a) and (b),
Secondly (a) and (c),
and deducting from the Farmers' Profits
Firstly (b) and secondly (c),
we have at 20%-Landlords' Rents £47,351,419
Farmers' Profits £20,048,216;
94
WHAT PROTECTION DOES
The lessons
of experi-
ence.
desired 9s. Bounty would be, of course, to impart to
Rents a far more vigorous stimulus.
Nor are these calculations imaginary. This has been
the actual experience of the Bounty system abroad.
Both beet-growers and beet-manufacturers have been
for years complaining that they are on the verge of ruin.
It is found, as always, that the advantages promised
produce a competition so fierce among the manufacturers
that their profits tend to fall below the ordinary rate.
As for the beet-growers, where they are Tenants they find
Rents rise so exorbitantly as to leave them no margin to
live upon. And though the dealings of English Landlords
towards Tenants have been traditionally more considerate
than the relations between the same classes abroad, yet
the history of the Corn Laws shows that even here Land-
lords cannot resist the double temptation which the
promises of the Legislature and the hopes of the Tenants
throw in their way.
The following heads summarise the propositions which
it has been the object of these pages to establish :-
1. A duty on corn will raise Rents beyond the pro-
portion of the rise of prices. Not one penny of it would
find its way to relieve the Farmer of Local Taxation.
2. A duty on Corn must in common justice to the
non-corn-growing Farmers be accompanied by like duties
on all agricultural produce. The Farmers will be thus
taxing one another to an amount for which the
general enhancement of prices will not afford com-
pensation.
3. The expectation of steady remunerative prices to
follow the imposition of a duty on corn has never been
realised in the past. When prices decline after the im-
position of a duty the difficulties of the Farmer are
doubled.
4. The decline of prices has invariably followed the
imposition of a duty, being a result effected by the com-
petition of the Farmers among themselves artificially
stimulated by a duty.
we have at 8%-Landlords' Rents £46,839,095
Farmers' Profits 20,560,540.
The Landlords therefore gain £5,547,240, or £5,034,916, as the case.
may be, and the Farmers lose as before £853,873, or £341,549.
FOR THE FARMER AND Labourer.
95
5. A duty on corn tends to depress manufactures,*
and, in consequence, to deprive the Farmer of his
customers and lower the price of meat.
6. Depression in manufactures is followed by an in-
crease in the Poor Rates borne by the Farmer, occasioned
by the return to agricultural districts of labourers previously
employed in the towns. This competition of labour
depresses agricultural wages and unfavourably affects the
rural population generally.
7. The American Tariff which the Protectionist manu-
facturer seeks to reduce really affords a protection to the
British Farmer.†
8. If the Farmer is led by Protectionist manufacturers
to join in the cry of Fair Trade, the 5s. duty, which is
the price offered for his alliance, will infallibly be sacri-
ficed at the slightest pressure.
9. The result of a successful Protectionist movement
would, in any case, enhance the Farmer's and Labourer's
cost of living, and, as has been shown, leave less in their
pockets with which to defray the increased expense.
10. The effect upon Landlords' Rents and Farmers'
Profits of bounties on acreage or production equivalent
to five shillings a quarter import duty would be analogous
to the effects of the old and new Corn Laws respectively.
The Committee of the Farmers' Alliance has, there-
fore, done good service to the Farmer and Labourer by
recording the resolution that, "having carefully considered
the present cry for 'Reciprocity' or 'Fair Trade,' it desires
to express the opinion that any concerted action between
the Farmers of the Kingdom and those manufacturers who
are seeking to revive Protection would be most unwise on
the part of the Farmers. The Committee believe that if
*This is why even Protectionist economists are generally opposed
to duties on corn. Thus Friedrich List, in his National System of
Political Economy," says: "A nation which has already attained
manufacturing supremacy can only protect its own manufacturers and
merchants against retrogression and indolence by the free importation
of means of subsistence and raw materials, and by the competition of
foreign manufactured goods." (English edition; London, 1885).
The writer would not have it supposed that he attaches serious
importance to the maintenance of the price of Corn in England by this
artificial means. It is to be observed, however, that it differs from a
home protective duty in this, that it is too remote and uncertain to
furnish a basis upon which to raise rents. Remunerative prices are
after all, mainly a question of Rent.
96
WHAT PROTECTION DOes.
the Farmer
and
Labourer
prefer-
Protection
or Reform?
C
Which will it were possible by united effort to reverse the national
policy of Free Trade and to restore Protection, the first
interest to be sacrificed would be that of agriculture: that
if duties upon corn could be re-imposed, they would be
repealed at the first moment of difficulty, and this which-
ever party happened to be in power. The Committee
cannot, therefore, but look upon the agitation for Fair
Trade' as a delusion and a snare: a delusion, because
whilst there is not the remotest chance of the nation listen-
ing to any proposal to tax its food, duties on farm produce,
even if allowed, would not only be of no permanent benefit
to the Tenant Farmer, but would prove injurious to his
interest by raising the price of foreign corn, now so largely
required for stock-feeding; a snare, because the proposal
is an expedient for keeping up Rents, and for staving off
agricultural reforms, which are the only true remedies in
the hands of Parliament for restoring prosperity to the
farming interest."*
Such is the opinion of men well qualified to judge of
agricultural interests. It is not the place here to set
forth at length the nature of the reforms indicated.† At
least they may claim to follow paths marked out by
prudent and enterprising Landlords, and to have no
fellowship with disastrous and discredited systems. The
wise words of Edmund Burke may be taken as the motto
which indicates their principle: "A greater and more
ruinous mistake cannot be fallen into than that the trades
of agriculture and grazing can be conducted upon any
other than the common principles of commerce.”
* Resolution passed in 1887.
+ See
Agriculture and the Land Laws,' I. Ownership; 11.
Tenancy. By the Author. London, 1881.
97
APPENDIX A.
The following Table, published by Mr. Grey, of Dilston, in the Journal of
the Royal Agricultural Society, shows the rental of a portion of the Greenwich
Hospital Estates in Northumberland, exclusive of the mines and fishings,
1793-94 and 1814-15.
1793-94.
1814-15.
Increase per
cent.
£
£
Newton
Tarisclaws...
750
1,400
550
960
Chillingham Barns (part of it clay)
...
550
900
East Lilburn (turnip loam)
800
...
1,600
Wooperton (turnip loam)……
400
1,200
Fenton Demesne (part wet and strong)...
500
600
Fenton Townland ...
800
1,600

Doddington (South)
Doddington (North)
Horton (turnip loam)
730
1,500
...
1,200
2,000
...
650
1,800
£6,950 £15,560
Inc. 95 p.c.
H
98
APPENDIX B.
A TABLE OF THE LAND RENTAL OF THIRTY PARISHES IN SCOTLAND
IN 1791-6 AND IN 1832-40.
PARISH.
Rental in
1791-6.
Rental in
1832-40.
Increase
per cent,
£
£
Kinneller
Udney...
Newdeer
St. Fergus
King Edward...
Ochiltree
900
3,000
...
2,000
7,000
...
3,000
8,940
...
...
...
2,838
5,720
...
2,285
5,770
•
3,000
8,176
Ardrossan
Dalry
...
Dalrymple
Dunlop
...
...
...
2,970
7,800
6,350
17,712
...
...
1,570
5,192
...
...
3,000
7,864
Monkton and Presthick
2,000
4,509
Straitor
Girvan...
...
Ballantree
...
3,000
9,000
...
3,200
12,000
2,000
7,465
Stevenson
Old Cumnock
Kirkmichael
Inveravan
Swinton and Simfron
Merton
...
1,170
3,836
...
..
3,000
8,000
...
...
...
...
2,500
9,330
...
2,294
5,055
...
4,030
8,000
...
...
2,400
6,000

Eccles...
Polwarth
I1,000
20,000
...
1,000
1,730
Wamphray
Tundergarth
...
...
Cockburnspath and Old Cambus
Applegarth and Sibbaldbine
St. Mungo
Ruthwell
Cumbertrees
Dornock
4,500
8,000
1,900
4,000
2,500
6,680
...
1,800
3,000
...
1,800
4,000
...
1,600
4,527
...
2,800
8,000
...
...
1,760
8,300
£84,167
£213,606
Inc. 153 P.C.
"The rise of Rents in England has no doubt been equally great, but there are no
public sources from which the information can be obtained."
INDEX.
"Adequate" Duties, meaning of term, | Commons'
84 n.
Agricultural Conference (1892), xiii
Agricultural Distress (1815-21), 16-28;
(1833), 32-43; (1836-44), 59-63
Agriculture, Board of, its inquiries
1816, 10
in
on
Agriculture, Commons' Committee
(1814), 5; (1821), 17-28; (1833), 32-42;
(1836), xxxiv, 43-53
Agriculture, Lords' Committee on (1833),
43-53; (1836), xxix
Agricultural Depression and Currency,
xxiv, xxxiv
Allotments. 2
American Farmers injured by Protection,
85 n.
Artisans under Protection (1842), 55, 56
Assignats, Rapidity of their Depreciation,
XXX
Assize of Bread in the Middle Ages,
xvii; in Marseilles (1892), 79 n.
Bakers and Municipality of Marseilles,
79 n.
Balance Sheet of a Farmer (1819-20), 25;
(1845), 69, 70
Bank of England Notes, xxiv-xxxiv
Bank of England, Policy of, xxxi, xxxii
Bastiat, viii
Beet Growers in France, 94
Bimetallists, Agricultural, Arguments of,
xxiv-xxxiv
Bounties, Operation of, 86, 87, 90-93
Bounties on Wheat, History of, 86, 90
Bread, Price of in England and France,
30 n.
Bread, Price of, under Protection, xiv-
xxiii
Bullion Committee (1810), xxxi.
Bullion Committee (1819), xxviii
Burke on Scarcity, 1
Burke on the Application of Commercial
Principles to Agriculture, 96
Caird, Sir James, 76, 80, 86
Canadian Farmers injured by Protection,
85 n.
Cash Payments, resumption of, xxxiii
Chaplin, Mr., viii, 86, 87, 88, 90
Churchill, Lord R., viii, ix
Cobden, Richard, v, 57, 58, 63, 70
Cobden Club, xi, xxxvi
Committee on
Agriculture
(1814), 5; (1821), 17-28; (1833), 32-42;
(1836), xxxiv, 43-53
Conservatives, their adoption of Protec-
tion, ix, xiii
Consumer pays Protective Duties, 79
Co-operative Agricultural Distribution,
XXXV
Corn Laws (1804), 5; (1815), 12-28;
(1829), 29; (1842), 61
Corn Laws force up Rents, vi, 51-53
Corn Laws, Review of the, 64, 99, 100
Currency and Agricultural Prices xxiv-
xxxiv
Distress in 1804, 5; in 1814, 8, 10; in
1821, 17–24; in 1827, 30; in 1833, 33-
43; in 1836, 43-53; in 1842, 55, 60; in
1836, 44, 59; in 1845, 63
Distress, Law of, 1-3
Economist, The, xxiv n., xxx, xxxi n.
Enclosure Act, the General (1845), xxxiv
Everett, Mr., M.P., on Agricultural De-
pression and Currency, xxiv
F.'s, The Three, xxxv
Fair Trade League, x
Farmer not benefited by Monopoly (1815-
22), 26
Farmers' Balance Sheets (1819-20), 25;
(1845), 69, 70
Farmers' Failures, Statistics of, 1, 45
Farmers' Losses (1795-1816), 10, 11
Farmers' Losses (1792-1836), 41, 42, 50
Farming, High, xxxv
Fitzwilliam, Lord, xxxi, 14, 15, 16
Fluctuations of Prices under Corn Laws,
29
Free Trade in Corn, earliest change of
opinion as to (1822), 25-28
French Labourers underfed, 82 1.
French War, the Great, 4
German Corn Law (1885),
Law (1885), Injurious
Effects of, 83 n.
Gladstone's, Mr., Irish Land Act, xxxiv
Grenville, Lord, his Protest against the
Corn Law of 1815, 12-14
Guyot, M., on the French Corn Law and
Prices, 79 n.
Hardenberg, 3
104
INDEX.
Herring Fishery Bounties, 90
Holland, Commission on Land Tenure in,
XXXV
Hops, Lord Salisbury and Duties on, 89 n.
Incendiarism in 1816, 24
Incendiarism in 1833, 39; in 1836, 47
Kent, The Farmer of, 101, 102
King, Gregory, his Law, xxv, 76 n.
Labourer, The Agricultural in 1851, 81
Labourer, Deterioration of, 1815-22, 22
Labourer, Protection a Differential Tax on
the. 77
Landlords expect Higher Rents under
Protection, 12 n.
List, Friedrich, opposed to Protection to
Agriculture, 95 n.
London, Resolution of Common Council
of (1842), 60
Lowther, Rt. Hon. James, 3
Rents and Agricultural Distress (1804), 5;
(1814), 7; (1821), 19, 20; (1833), 40;
(1836), 49-53
Rents, How affected by Bounties, 91-94
Rents, Recent fall in, 1, 2
Rents, Rise in, after 1795, 19, 20, 97
Revenue, How affected by Protection,
viii, 87
Ricardo on Bounties, 86, 91; on the com.
parative productiveness of Agriculture
and Manufactures, 27 n.
Ripon, Lord (1846), 64 n.
Roscher on Agricultural Depression. 6, 76;
Rogers, Thorold, 74 12.
on the comparative productiveness of
Agriculture and Manufactures, 27 n.
Russell, Lord John, proposes a Fixed
Duty, (1841), 61
Salisbury, Lord, 89 n.
Scotland, Rise of Rents in (1795-1814), 11
Lowther Family, probable gains of, under Scottish farmers, xi
Protection, 64, 65
Sliding Scale carried by Sir R. Peel
(1842), 61
Malthus on Protection to Agriculture, Smith, Adam, on Bounties, 86, 90; on
27 n.
M'Kinley Tariff, xxiii, 85
Manufacturers, Protection of, the real
object, 82
Meat, Fall in price of, under Protection,
21; Rise in price of under Free Trade,
76
Napoleon, vii, 4
Oxford, Conservative Associations at, ix
Free Trade in Corn, 60; on the pro-
ductiveness of Agriculture, 27 n.
Stanley of Alderley, Lord. on Protection, x
Statistics of recent fall of Rents, 2; of rise
of Rents in Northumberland (1793-1815),
97; in Scotland (1791-1840), 98
Summary of propositions, 94, 95
Tariff, Difficulties of constructing a Pro-
tectionist, 88-90
Taxation no part of cost of Agricultural
production, 6 n.
Pauperism and the price of Wheat, 8, 9, 73 Tooke's "History of Prices," xxiv, xxv,
Peel, Sir Robert, vi, 61, 63
Physiocrats, The, 27 n.
Poor Rates and Agricultural Distress
(1814), 7-9; (1815-22); 22-24; (1832),
36 ; (1833), 36, 38
Prices, Effect of Protection on, xiv-xxiii
Prices, Tooke's History of, xxxiii, 76 n.
Prices, Violent fluctuations of, under Pro
tection, 29
Profits, How affected by Bounties, 91-94
Protection and Manufactures (1842), 55, 56
Protection and Peasant Proprietorship, 53
Protection a tax on the Farmer, 70
Protection, its effects on Farmers' Profits,
65-70
Protection, its effects on Wages, xiv-xv
Protectionist meetings, ix, x, xiii
Prussia, Peasant proprietors in, 3
xxviii n., xxxiii
United States, Retaliation upon recom-
mended, ix; their Tariff advantageous
to British farmers, 83
Villiers, Right Hon. C. P., 9
Wages, Agricultural, in France, 75 n.
Wages, how affected by Protection, xiv,
xv, xvi, 9 n., 74 n., 78 n.
Wages maintained by Intimidation (1822-
1833), 39; (1830), 46, 47
Wages paid out of Poor Rates (1833), 37
Weavers, Effect of Corn Laws on, 74, 75 n.
Welsh farmers in 1843, 59
Wirth on Commercial Crises, xxxiii
Printed by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06449 1825



WORKS PUBLISHED for the COBDEN CLUB
By Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.
Retaliation and Commercial Federation. By Sir T. H. FARRER,
Bart. Price 3d.
Industrial Freedom. By B. R. WISE. Price 5s.
Wages and Hours of Labour. By the Rt. Hon. Lord PLAYFAIR,
K.C.B. Price 3d.
Price 1s.
Price 3d.
Price 18.
Tenancy and Ownership. By JOHN WATSON, M.A.
Presentation of an Address to Mr. T. B. Potter, M.P.
The Sugar Convention. By Sir T. H. FARRER, Bart.
The Sugar Convention and Bili. By Sir T. H. FARRER, Bart. 6d.
The Sugar Convention from a Confectioner's Standpoint.
By GEORGE MATHIESON. Price 3d.
What Protection does for the Farmer and Labourer. By
I. S. LEADAM, M.A. Fifth Edition. Price Is.
The British Farmer and his Competitors. By W. E. BEAR. 18.
Local Government and Taxation in the United Kingdom.
With Contributions by the Hon. G. C. BRODRICK, C. T. D. ACLAND, M.P.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, &c. Edited by J. W. PROBYN. Cloth, 5s.
Free Trade versus Fair Trade. New Edition. By Sir T. H.
FARRER, Bart. Price 58.
Local Taxation, especially in English Cities and Towns.
By Professor J. E. THOROLD ROGERS. Price 3d.
The Old Poor Law and the New Socialism; or, Pauperism
and Taxation. By F. C. MONTAGUE, M.A. Price 6d,
Free Trade and English Commerce. By AUGUSTUS MON-
GREDIEN. Price 6d.
Popular Fallacies regarding Trade and Foreign Duties:
Being the "SOPHISMES ÉCONOMIQUES" of FRÉDÉRIC BASTIAT. Adapted to
the Present Time by E. R. PEARCE EDGCUMBE. 4th Edition, Revised. 6d.
Western Farmer of America. By AUGUSTUS MONGREDIEN. 3d,
The Transfer of Land by Registration under the Duplicate
Method operative in British Colonies. By Sir ROBERT TORRENS,
K.C.M.G. Price 6d.
The Secretary of State for India in Council. By WM. BIRK-
MYRE, M.P. Price 6d.
The Crown Colonies of Great Britain. An Inquiry into their
Political Economy, Fiscal Systems, and Trade. By C. S. SALMON. Price 18.
Displacement of Labour and Capital, A Neglected Chapter
in Political Economy. By Augustus MonGREDIEN. Price 3d.
Fair Trade Unmasked; or, Notes on the Minority Report of
the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade and Industry. By
GEORGE W. MEDLEY. Price 6d.
The A B C of Free Trade. By E. N. BUXTON. New and Re-
vised Edition. Price 3d.
The Caribbean Confederation. By C. S. SALMON. 18. 6d.
Cottage Gardens and Fruit Culture. By the Right Hon. W. E.
GLADSTONE, M.P. Price 1d.
Paddy Tax in Ceylon. By JOHN HELPS STAREY. Price 3d.
The Ceylon Starvation Question. By C. S. SALMON. Price 3d.
The Grain Tax in Ceylon. By C. S. SALMON. Price 3d.
The Tariffs of the United States. By the Rt. Hon. Lord
PLAYFAIR, K.C.B. Price 3d.
The Fiscal Federation of the Empire. By G. W. MEDLEY.
Price 2d.
CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited, Ludgate Hill, London.
PRINTED BY Cassell & CompaNY, LIMITED, La Belle SAUVAGE, LONDON, E.C.