Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

causes were milder or severer, followed every war on that continent within the last century? And this too, whether the nation selected for the example was or was not one of the belligerents. To go no further back, how was it after the peace of 1763? How after that of 1783? How after that of 1801? Finally and emphatically, how was it after the final pacification in 1815, the very moment when our own calamities be gan? Take England herself, not only the beau ideal, but the great exemplar of what Protective Systems can accomplish, and how was it with her?

In the latter part of the year 1815, and close of 1816, the British shipping, that which had been engaged in commerce, fell away eight hundred and twenty-six thousand tons! In March, 1817, out of the number of three thousand three hundred and sixty persons who had been engaged in four of the principal clothing towns in Yorkshire, there were only seven hundred and fifty-seven in full, and one thousand four hundred and thirty-nine in partial employ, while one thousand one hundred and sixty-four were entirely idle; only two in nine had full work! At Birmingham, the principal town in the iron trade, from a population of eightyfour thousand souls, twenty-seven thousand received parish relief! Then as to cotton manufacture. At the time we speak of, there were in Lancashire alone, and the borders of the adjoining counties, above half a million of persons who derived their support from cotton weaving alone: and their wages were four and a halfpence a day, enough barely to purchase half a pound of oatmeal daily, which, with a little salt and water, constituted their whole food. To alleviate the sufferings of this immense multitude, one third larger than the entire population of the city of New York, some efforts were made. But when it was found that to distribute only a slender increase of nourish ment, an addition of a little milk or beer, or a morsel of meat, to the oatmeal and water, a weekly sum of no less than ninety thousand dollars would be needed, even charity retired from the scene in despair and horror. Of course, the poor rates amazingly increased. One instance must answer. A single farm of two hundred acres, in

Coventry, paid nearly two thousand dollars for that purpose alone. TEN DOLLARS AN ACRE, to the poor, and all the other imposts besides!*

No other collapse in the immense machinery of trade and manufactures ever before caused the like far-spread ruin. Those of 1763, 1783, and 1801, it was admitted alike by ministry and opposition, were high prosperity in the comparison. Even our own great struggle, the seven years' war of the revolution, an enemy in the heart of the land, farms neglected, dwellings burned, people in debt, soldiery unpaid, produced nothing like it; nothing, though the money of the Old Congress became worthless, though all credit was gone, and commerce had been swept off the ocean, and the Confederacy, then the last shelter of our hopes, was tumbling in ruin over our heads. Nothing in the records of modern civilisation resembles that immense wretchedness of 1816, 1817, and 1818, pervading a whole kingdom, and wringing the hearts of fifteen millions of people. Compared with the deep gloom of it, the embarrassments which befell ourselves at the same time and from the same causes, were less than the shadows of a transient cloud.

So far, then, from these restrictions on trade and these protective tariffs being a preventive or remedy for such calamities, they only aggravate their violence. The whole system, with its wheels within wheels, and other complicated machinery, is artificial, and upheld only by a vigilant and unceasing struggle with nature, and the slightest de rangement anywhere sends stoppage and ruin everywhere; and the wider the system, the broader and deeper the ruin. Take the case of ourselves, not as we were then, but as we are now, inured in some degree to tariffs, protected to our heart's content. And then, what if Europe should again become the theatre of such a series of desperate and convulsive struggles as finally closed in 1815? What if the Autocrat, suppose, should attempt the same universal dominion which Napoleon attempted before, and all the nations be drawn again into the raging vortex of war, and the factorship of the world be once more thrown on the United States? Who is there, that is ignorant

• Mr. Brougham's speech on Manufacturing Distress; 1817.

enough-not of political economy, not of the laws by which all trade is regulated, but of the nature of the American people, to suppose that no gains would be attempted, no speculations begin, no overtrading ensue? Would not every plough plunge deeper, every shuttle fly swifter, every slave toil harder, and every vessel be heavier laden? Who supposes that one single energy of nature or art would be left unexerted? And when, at length, by another Waterloo, or whatever other conflict, peace should be made in an hour, for it is the end, and not the length of the fight which brings the peace, and the nations go to rest, and grow their own corn, and man their own vessels, and resuscitate their own commerce, then, having no more use for our productions, or our services, would they not dismiss us again, as they dismissed us before; and as we, were the case ours, should dismiss them? And would no revulsion ensue? -no stagnation? no stoppage of factories? no barns remain full of unthreshed grain? no vessels rot at the wharves? The man who doubts it, may well be reaching out his pulse, and showing his tongue to the first physician he finds, and be ready for the razor in his hair, and plenty of refrigerants on his skull thereafter. Such a state of things, no restrictions, no home markets, no precautions of Government could prevent. The elements of it are in man, in his love of gain and greediness after it, and in his ignorance of what may lie hidden at an hour's distance in the future. And nothing but a wall, too high to be scaled, too hard to be pierced, drawn all round the nation, and closing up all intercourse with mankind, could avert the catastrophe. And without the wall, the more artificial the frame-work of trade and manufactures, the more widespread would be the disasters.

The fruits of this system to England we have already seen; and when we revolve the uses which, in our distress, we made of her example, it is natural to inquire what remedy she proposed to herself for her own calamities? While we were seeking to alleviate our embarrassments on the homœopathic principle of embarrassing ourselves more, what did she do? Did she tie on new restrictions? or had she tried restrictions till she was

VOL. XII.-NO. LVII.

40

satisfied? And is it true, that we never thought of imitating her example, till she began, by experience, to find that example unworthy of imitation even by herself? Yet such is the fact. The great truths of Political Economy, first demonstrated by Adam Smith, had overcome the sneers of the ignorant and grovelling, and taken their place throughout the kingdom, among the well-grounded convictions of the wise and intelligent. Even Mr. Pitt, more conservative in his temper than most of his contemporaries, was unable to withhold his assent, and sent dismay into the hearts of the monopolists and protected, by citing, in Parliament, "The Wealth of Nations," as a work of conclusive authority. The doctrines of that noble science, no man, capable of steady reflection and willing to exercise his capacity, ever doubted. Accordingly, as soon as examined and understood, they received assent; but though assented to, they were still violated; just as men believe the truths of religion and yet keep sinning on. The great doctrines themselves were spoken boldly, grew familiar to the ear, often appeared in parliamentary debates, but all men stopped short at the precise line where the practice of them should have begun. The prejudices of a five centuries' growth, the conservative horror at innovation, the mighty interests interwoven with the entire existing order of manufactures, trade, and agriculture, formed a barrier which simple truth, unbacked by anything save evidence and proof, was not of power to force. But in 1816, truth received a mighty ally in the awful collapse we have attempted to describe; and in 1817 the conflict, in good earnest, began. And in that fight, far away to the utmost van, was seen the lofty frame, and heard the pealing voice of one whose name and memory mankind are long to cherish; the same by whose "Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge," science has been spread, and learning made cheap, and the neglected called to memory, and the poor instructed, and startled monarchs warned of a greater than the schoolmaster's approach,-the approach of political truth sown broadcast in the popular mind, and shooting up strong with all the popular might. But the ministry met the shock as best they could. Free Trade was, undoubt

edly, a thing very good-but the country was not ready. And really, there was a difference between theory and practice. And in the former, truth might be very true in the abstract, but in the latter, it was certainly a lie in the concrete; and the Treasury benches applauded, and the protected classes shouted. But the distress was not cured, nor the millions fed; and some small imposts for the army and navy were remitted, and the stern conflict was adjourned, not ended. For the next year, and the next, it was renewed. And strange to say, at the very hour when Mr. Clay was delivering his first oration in favor of restriction, and sneering at theorizers and speculatists, and vaunting himself upon the support and uniform agree ment of all practical men, at that very hour, all the practical men of any note, in London, the merchants and traders, the governor, several former governors, and the most intelligent of the directors of the Bank of England, were petitioning Parliament for free trade! The first signer of that celebrated petition was Mr. Thornton, distinguished for his practical skill, whose great work on the currency alone brought England, after twenty-five years' suspension, back to specie payments, who had himself been the governor, and then was a leading director in the bank, who had been many years a member of Parliament, and a most prominent member in everything relating to commerce, and who possessed all the knowledge of trade which close observation, a clear understanding, and long and diligent practice could bestow.

But to what speculatist, cloistered in some college, remote from all life, trade being a mystery, ledgers gibberish, and merchandize a thing like the phoenix, often heard of, never seen-to what theorizer, specially ignorant of everything about manufactures, save only what Adam Smith had taught, was this petition entrusted for presentation to Parliament? That theorizer, that speculatist, was Mr. Alexander Baring, "the Prince of Merchants," as on a late occasion in this city he was called, the fame of whose House had spread wherever commercial fame could go, and whose enterprise had penetrated all lands where commercial enterprise could enter.

But, surely, that petition, drawn for such an object, and signed by such men, the now Lord Ashburton could never have presented without extremest disgust, and without pouring forth all-the phials of his experience and practice on the misguided signers and their aims? For, certainly, no practical man can ever speak in favor of Free Trade. But in favor of it he did speak, though; and in arguments drawn, not from Adam Smith, but from his own knowledge and observation, what his own eyes had seen, and practice taught, and spoke long and eloquently, and from his heart.

Then there must have been some mistake! The petition after all could not have been for Free Trade? Read the first six sentences of it, then; they form the Free Trader's perfect creed:

conducive to the wealth and prosperity of "That foreign commerce is eminently the country, by enabling it to import the commodities for the production of which the soil, climate, capital, and industry of other countries are best calculated, and to export in payment, those articles for which its own situation is better adapted.

"That freedom from restraint is calcu

lated to give the utmost useful extension to foreign trade, and the best direction to the capital and industry of the country.

"That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market, and selling in the dearest, which dealings, is strictly applicable, as the best regulates every merchant in his individual rule for the trade of the whole nation.

"That a policy, founded on these principles, would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyment among the inhabitants of each

state.

"That, unfortunately, a policy, the very reverse of this, has been and is more or less adopted and acted upon by the government of this and of every other country; each trying to exclude the productions of other countries, with the specious and well meant design of encouraging its own productions; thus inflicting on the bulk of its submitting to privations in the quantity or subjects, who are consumers, the necessity of quality of commodities; and thus rendering, what ought to be the source of mutual bene fits, and of harmony among states, a constantly recurring occasion of jealousy and hostility.

"That the prevailing prejudices in favor of the protective or restrictive system may be traced to the erroneous supposition, that every importation of foreign

commodities occasions a diminution or discouragement of our own productions to the same extent; whereas, it may be clearly shown, that although the particular description of production which could not stand against unrestrained foreign competition, would be discouraged, yet, as no importation could be continued for any length of time without a corresponding exportation, direct or indirect, there would be an encouragement for the purpose of that exportation, of some other productions, to which our situation might be better suited; thus affording at least an equal, and probably a greater, and certainly a more beneficial employment to our own capital and labor."

How the framers and signers of this petition, Mr. Thornton and Mr. Baring, among the rest, must have shrunk in their shoes, when the next arrival from America brought them Mr. Clay's opinion of the visionary speculations of theoretical writers. Indeed, no man that we ever read or heard of is so well authorized as Mr. Clay to sneer at theorizers in trade. Bred to the Bar; admitted at twenty; "keeping company with sheriffs and jurors," in the then wilds of Kentucky, till twenty-six; then removed to the Legislature, first of the State, and afterwards, of the nation, at a time when all minds were engrossed with the stirring events then passing in Europe, and every energy of our councils was needed to run clear of the vortex; next, when all European trade was broken up, sent Minister to Ghent to settle the question of impressment; thence, returning, after the peace, to find all business disturbed and all men too much excited and too eager for immediate change, to admit of excessively cool deliberation or prudent forecast it was by an experience thus varied, and by a practice thus early begun and long continued, that the distinguished western Senator felt authorized, in a spirit wholly remote from tragedy, to assume the air, as well of practical wisdom, as of the deeply initiated into the sacred mysteries of trade and production!

But to return to the progress of liberal principles in England. Though trade gained little freedom by these discussions, yet men began to more than believe the doctrine; they wished it applied. They learned to look prejudice full in the eye, and were encouraged

[ocr errors]

when it shrunk from the gaze. Innovation began to appear less horrid. And those who were interested under the restrictive system, ventured to inquire whether they were really as deeply interested as they had thought, and and heard the discussions with some were not exactly clear about the fact; patience, as men doubting are apt to do; and at last began to be considerably sure, though they might be mistaken, that protection of every branch, save specially their own, was, on the whole, rather hurtful,-but on the protection of their own, the salvation of the kingdom depended,- -no doubt of it.

Meanwhile, the conflict went on from year to year. At length, theory began to ripen into practice. On the 8th of March, 1824, just twenty-three days before Mr. Clay was curling his lip at theorizers, and quoting the English example in his second oration, a British Minister, a theorizing, unpractical, President of the Board of Trade, ended a speech, remarkable for its liberal views, with the following noble sentiment: "If I am accused leaning strongly to liberal principles in regard to trade; I at once plead guilty to the charge; but they are principles founded on experience, and sanctioned by the highest authorities. In my opinion, to be liberal in matters of commercial policy, IS TO REMOVE THE DIFFICULTIES AND JEALOUSIES WHICH HAVE HITHERTO PREVENTED A FREE IN

of

TERCOURSE BETWEEN DIFFERENT NATIONS, TO EXTEND TO EACH THE ADVAN

TAGE AND ENJOYMENTS OF THE OTHER, AND TO PROMOTE ARTS, SCIENCES AND CIVILISATION.”* And loud and sincere plaudits rang from the opposition as well as ministerial benches, and pealed along the galleries. And away went the prohibitions on the importation of manufactured silks for ever.

Gifted with nothing of what the world calls genius, and endowed with no eloquence beyond a plain statement of what he understood clearly, and could fully prove, and unhesitatingly believed, it was yet the lot of this gentleman to make the theories of Adam Smith the practice of Great Britain. His name has already become a synonym for whatever is cautious in statesmanship, and liberal in trade.

* On the Silk Trade, 8th March, 1824.

Lord Brougham, who had studied him well, and met him in many an encounter, though never in that for the freedom of trade, because there they ever stood shoulder to shoulder, champions in the same great cause, has thus sketched his character. The colors are a little remarkable, if we consider that the Great Original was one of those whom Mr. Clay calls speculatists

and theorizers:

"I verily think that if I were to search all England over, and ransack the whole volumes of our annals at any period, for a practical statesman, one who habitually discarded theory for practice, one who looked to every theory with suspicion, and adopted only those doctrines which were grounded upon the most incontestible results of experience; a pilot, who, in guiding the vessel of the State, proceeded with the lead-line ever in his hand, and ever sounding as he sailed; who never suffered her to stir until he knew the depth, the bottom, a-head, and all around, and left no current, tide, or breeze out of the account;if I were to name one whom I have known or heard of, or whom history has recorded, and to whom this description is eminently applicable, MR. HUSKISSON is the name I should at once pronounce."*

In the same class of liberal-minded men, Mr. Canning, Lord Liverpool, and other names almost of equal pride, were found. Indeed, so great has been the power of truth, and so clear the doctrines of Free Trade, that within the last fifteen years no statesman in England has had the hardihood to argue for Protection on principle. The ground has all changed. The system is admitted to be bad, but it is established. Their institutions are shaped to it, and any alteration will endanger, if not lay in ruins, the great social edifice.

But alterations must come, nay do come continually. It is now but the other year, when a British Ministry, hard pressed by their Conservative foes, dissolved the Parliament, ordered a new election, went down to the hustings, and staked their continuance in power upon the abolition of the Corn Laws, and other such liberalisations in trade. Fifteen years ago, such a measure, thus propounded, had put the three kingdoms all aghast with amazement

and horror. But now, though it was a step further than had been gone before, it was only a step, and the next step, too, in the national progress. And, though it produced much electioneering and the usual bribery, still it caused no astonishment, and hardly any surprise. It was an event in course. Fifteen years ago, a Ministry going to the People with such an issue, had not, at the opening of the next session, found, of their own faith, five members at their heels. And even now they were beaten, and, for every object of party discipline, and for every chance of continuance in place, beaten overwhelmingly. Nevertheless, there were millions and millions who had not voted, who owned no soil, thankful to find enough to be covered with at the last, whom the Protective and its kindred systems had ground to the earth,who were in best condition when the nation prospered and groaned loudest in its adversity, and therefore had no stake in the kingdom, and consequently had no right to vote. Towards the defeated Ministry these millions had a kindness, because it was for themselves that the great issue had been made, and by themselves would have been enjoyed the first fruits of the victory. These millions, therefore, held meetings, sometimes ten, sometimes thirty thousand in a place, and grew acquainted, and got faint glimmerings of their own numbers, and passed resolutions, and asked for bread, and hinted in their own rough way that they had some small cause for dissatisfaction.

When, therefore, the victors came into power, though within the Parliament House they could out-count their adversaries one or two hundred votes, yet those adversaries had, without the walls, friends who could not be outcounted, and who, if they once discovered the power that lay in their own arms and in their own just cause, would be likely to use it, perhaps indiscreetly. Sir Robert Peel, therefore, conservative as he was and pledged himself to be, deemed a little liberality not unmeet for his position. Public commotion being so near at hand, and liable to come any hour, he made ample concessions to Free Trade,

had

indeed, conceded all he could without passing the line between himself and

* On the Bill to Amend the Poor Laws, 1834.

« ForrigeFortsæt »