The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

266 THE RESULTS OF FREE TRADE. Jusr twelve years ago, the Free-Trade party, after having been signally defeated in an appeal to the country at the general election of 1841, received such an accession of strength by the sudden adhesion of Sir ROBERT PEEL and his friends, as enabled it to accomplish its main object —the destruction of the Corn Laws—followed, soon after, by the dissolution of the Cabinet, and the remis sion of the Conservative party to the Opposition benches. In most cases such signal success would have consolidated and rendered permanent the victorious party ; while the defeated section would gra dually have crumbled away, or have melted into union with some branch of the majority. Strange to say, the reverse has been the case in this instance. The Conservative or Pro- teotionist party has remained united, while the triumphant Liberals have continually fallen out among themselves. Four times in the course of the last seven years has Lord DERBY been appealed to, to form a Government, and twice has he found it impossible to decline the call. Strange to say, too, at the last general elec tion, a year ago, the peculiar objects of dislike to the people seemed to be, the leading actors in the destruction of the Corn Laws. The Manchester party, who bytheir Anti-Corn-Law League had frightened Sir R. PEEL—and PEEL'S own immediate followers, who, by their secession, had given the League its ultimate triumph—these were everywhere rejected. Scarcely half a dozen of either section escaped defeat ; while of the stubborn, obstinate Pro tectionists, more than two hundred obtained re-election without difficulty. We have never yet seen any satisfactory ex planation of this very strange fact. Here was a great and important change effected, which was alleged to be altogether for the people's advantage. Yet, when it has come into full •peration, and that operation begins to be understood, the people turn with peculiar anger upon its leading advocates, and, wher ever it is possible, eject them from their seats in the popular branch of the Legislature. How is this to be accounted for? It has usually been regarded as a mere freak, or fit of caprice, or else set down to the ac count of the Chinese war. But the Chinese war is insufficient to bear the blame, for the followers of PEEL and the partisans of the League, were not all found in opposition to the Chinese war. We believe that the expulsion of the greater part of the Peelites, and of the Free-Trade party, was in reality a silent, in articulate verdict, delivered by the bulk of the electors of England, who thereby declared that, in their opinion, the whole Free-trade movement of 1842-1845 had been a delusion and a fraud. The masses can often find their way, almost in the dark, to a clear and strong conviction of this kind, even when they would be puzzled to assign any definite or intelli' gible reason for what they are doing. But if they had thoroughly investigated the matter, and had gone into the most searching inquiry as to every point of the case, their final con clusion could have been no other than that at which they by bap-hazard arrived. The whole history of popular delusions furnishes no more signal or astounding instance of a vast poli tical trade being carried on for several years, to the great personal profit of many indivi duals, and yet proving in the end nothing better than a hollow pretence and a fraud, Of this the evidence is now becoming, after the lapse of years, absolutely full and complete. Passing over for the present a variety of minor pleas for abolishing Protection and throwing the corn ,trade open, every one's re collection will confirm what we say, when we set down these three main grounds as the reasons advanced for abolishing the Corn Laws: Free Trade, it was alleged, would 1. Give us cheaper food. 2. Augment our continental trade. 3. Benefit the working classes, and dimi nish pauperism. These three principal pleas, we repeat, con ituted the strength of the case of the League. THE PRESS, MARCH 20, 1858. Dressed up in a variety of forms, we met with them at every turn, and many good men, like Mr. BAPTIST NOEL, were captivated and seduced by them. " More than' ten years have elapsed since the Cpl Laws were swept away, and we tee now at liberty to ask wkether the abolition of Protection has made bread cheaper—has in creased our foreign trade—or diminished pall perm ? 1. Had it reduced the price of BREAD? None of us can easily forget that this argu• ment formed at once the banner and the ral lying-cry of the Free-traders. " The big loaf" of Free Trade was paraded at every election side by side with the little loaf of Protection ; and the working-classes were taught by scores of hired orators that the Protectionists were depriving their children of half their food, merely to swell the rents of " a bloated aris tocracy." The cry of " Down with Protection" told, and the Corn Laws were abolished. Let us now see what has been the practical result. In the year 1845, at the close of which Sir ROBERT PEEL succumbed, and resolved to abandon Protection, the annual average of wheat was 50s. 10d. per quarter For the year 1857, which has just closed, the average was 582. 4d. We fins, therefore, no" cheap bread" here, but an absolute rise of prices. But this, it will be said, was merely a single year ; and it is not fair to judge by a single instance, which may be influenced by the cha racter of one harvest. Let us take, then, a whole period, say of six years, and test the matter that way. The six years preceding the repeal of the Corn Laws were these, and we give the average price of wheat in each year:— s. d. In 1840 1841 1842 „ 1843 „ 1844 „1845 6 )340 1 Average Now let us contrast with these the last six years, and their average price of wheat, which —WaB— d. s. In 1852 „ 1803 „ 1804 - 72 to „ 1855 „ 1858 „ 1857 6) 366 7 Avenge So that for the six years before the repeal of the protective laws, the average of wheat was 565. Bd. per quarter, and during the last six years the average has been Ole. Id. ! Where wheat was 7d. per loaf under Protection, it has been raised to 7fd. under Free Trude! Yet re member how small was the Protectionist loaf in the League processions, and how large was the Free-trade loaf depicted in the representa tions of what was to come ! 2. Has Free Trade augmented our continental trade ? We say " continental," for the gold-mines of California and Australia must not be placed to the credit of Free Trade. They would have been discovered, and our exports to America and Australia would have been vastly aug mented, as they have been, whether the advocates of " Free Trade " had triumphed, or had been defeated. The allegation always was, on the part Of the Free-traders, that the people of the Con tinent, on all sides, were holding out their hands to us, eager to take our manufactures, if we would only take their corn in exchange. Thia representation was so constantly made, and repeated in prose and verse, and even in pictures, that many good men, and especially Mr. BAPTIST NOEL, cordially believed it, and felt quite sure that the opening of our ports to Polish corn, duty free, would be followed by immense augmentations of our exports to Germany. Again we ask, How stands the fact ? What has the experience of the last dozen years taught us ? Our trade and commerce are always growing. An increase of some kind, in every ten years, we are sure to find. Between 1834 and 1814 per cent. ‘t the ad. opened In 1844 St 1854 Now, bearing in mind, as we have just said, that a natural growth is always going on, and that that growth, in the previous ten years, was forty per cent, we may plainly and safely say that in these ten years, from 1844 to 1854, the opening of our ports had produced no Ovect whatever in augmenting the continental demand for our manufactures. Tho second promise, or prediction, then, of the benefits to accrue from Free Trade has been no more realised than the first. 3. Has Free Trade diminished Pauperism! If there had been the least realisation of the two former predictions, this third promise would have been fulfilled also. If bread had been greatly reduced in price—if the demand for our manufactures had been augmented— both of these causes must have operated to diminish pauperism. But as these promises both remained unfulfilled, it could be no matter of surprise that the reign of Free Trade produced no beneficial fruit in the re duction of Pauperism. The amount expended in the relief of the poor, in the ten years pre ceding, and the ten years following, the abroga tion of the Corn Laws, is given in the Annual Reports of the Poor-law Commissioners as follows : From 1838 to 1815, gross amount £48,788,097 From 1148 to 1856, gross amount 53,594,087 Average of the ten years of Protection 4,876,809 Average of the ten years of Free Trade 5,359,408 Thus, instead of a diminution in the Pau perism of England under the operation of Free Trade, we find an immediate and per manent increase of some eleven or twelve per cent. Nay, probably of more, for the expen diture on the poor was— In 1836 £4,717,630 " 1866 Thus we find, under each of these three heads, that all the promises of the Free-traders have proved delusive ; and that no one of the benefits which they predicted, was realised, Bread was not cheaper; trade, so far as the Continent was concerned, was not augmented ; pauperism was not diminished. The masses, indeed, the electors at large, had not, probably, gone through these calcula tions, or ascertained fully the real facts of the ease. But they knew the general bearings of the question. TheY knew, without any books to teach them, that the "large loaf" which they were promised had never appeared. They knew that the French and Hamburgh mer chants had not crowded our ports with their ships, seeking for British goods; and they knew, well enough, that the poor-rates were not one farthing lower, but in many oases several pence higher, since the repeal of the Corn Laws. And hence we can easily under stand how it happened, that when a Peelite pre sented himself at the last election, or when one of the Council of the League stood on the hustings, and boasted of his zeal for Free Trade, the cries often arose, " Down with him !" " You're a humbug !" " No shams r— and the poll, when cast up, showed the Free trader placed at the bottom. Practically, however, what is the result at which we aim? Do we advance these things to suggest the expediency of a return to the Protective system? Far from it. Nay, we will not for a moment conceal our conscious ness that the facts which we have brought to light " cut both ways." The Leaguers pro mised us great results from the abrogation of the Corn Laws. Chiefly, they promised us bread at a far lower price. The farmer heard the cry for " cheap bread " raised on all sides, and he was filled with terror. " Cheap bread " for others," he said, " means no bread at all " for me." Universally, and most naturally, the agriculturists took the alarm. They believed a good part of what the League our exports were augmented forty per cent. Bearing this in mind, let u s look the ad. vance ^ieh took plans niter we had opened our ports to &rein Corn- Tltsi eaports of Vfrritisk produce and manu- factures. to the various 00untries of Europe _sir., Sweden, . Norway. Denmark, Russia, Prussia, Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy —were-- in 1844 X20,82.5.590 .0 a