Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 69, No. 425, March, 1851

Perhaps, however, we are attaching too much importance to this statement by Sir James Graham. So far as we can see, he now stands alone, a solitary believer in agricultural prosperity, whilst every one else has admitted the distress, though differing as to the nature of the remedy, or even denying the propriety of administering a remedy at all. From what is passing in England, we should imagine that the distress among the agricultural classes there is of unexampled severity. We read in the Times of 17th February – the last number which has reached us – a curious account of the South Nottinghamshire election, which has resulted in the return of Mr Barrow. As one paragraph bears directly upon the point which we are now discussing, and as it, moreover, contains a wholesome warning to such landlords throughout the country as have chosen to stand aloof from the tenantry during this momentous struggle, we shall here extract it.

"The result astonishes everybody, even here; and that, in the most aristocratic county of England, with the landlords almost to a man banded together in support of their nominee, – a scion of one of the largest landed proprietors in the county should be defeated by a plain country gentleman, a retired solicitor, with scarcely an acre of his own in the county, appears truly marvellous. It can only be accounted for by the fact of the losses of the occupiers during the last two years rendering them indifferent as to whether they be expelled from their homesteads or not; even though Mr Barrow has for many years presided at and taken part in their farmers' clubs and other meetings, and Lord Newark has never been seen by one elector in a thousand until this contest."

Assuming this account to be true – for we have no other knowledge of the case – we rejoice that the electors of Nottinghamshire have acted so independent a part, and returned to Parliament a gentleman who has made their grievances and condition his especial study. Such men are wanted at the present time, and it is to such we look for the firm vindication of the rights of an injured tenantry. But what degree of agricultural prosperity is implied by the previous statement?

Of course it is very easy for Sir James Graham, holding such views, to descant on the impolicy of any return to protection. If no injury has been inflicted upon any one, and if all interests are prospering, there certainly can exist no conceivable motives for a change. For, not to mention the obvious difficulties which lie in the way of a reversal of the present commercial system, what chance should we have of persuading any one to join us in such a mad crusade, if there indeed exist no grievances of a weighty and intolerable character? According to Sir James Graham, the landlord is receiving the same rent as before, the tenant is equally comfortable, the labourer much more comfortable than he was under the system of protection – grant all this, and no censure, no reproach, can be severe enough to stigmatise our conduct. Unfortunately for his theory, the Knight of Netherby has to contend against something more stubborn than arguments. Before he can establish his conclusions, he will in the first place demonstrate that 38s., the present average price of the quarter of wheat, is equal to 56s., the former remunerative rate. Next, he must explain and make clear to the comprehension of the farmer, how all public and private taxes, imposts, and obligations, can be discharged by the same amount of produce as formerly, that produce having fallen upwards of thirty-five per cent in value. And lastly, rising to economics, he must show us how the home trade can be improved by the depression of the principal customer. When these points are satisfactorily disposed of, we promise to give in; for why should we prolong a contest, to our own great discomfort, for no substantial reason?

But we must now allude to a passage in the speech of Sir James Graham, far too serious to be passed over without indignant commentary. Irish iteration may of late years have somewhat blunted the nicer sensibility of the ear of the House of Commons, once painfully acute to the remotest whisper of sedition; but we certainly never expected to see the time when such language as the following, from the lips of a Privy Counsellor, should be allowed to pass without rebuke: —

"Now, I will not venture to make any prediction with respect to the price of corn in future; but this, sir, I say, that, be the price what it may, the time has arrived when it must be left to its natural level; and that for any Government or for any Legislature artificially, and by power of law, to enhance it, – I say the day is past. And why do I say so? I say there is not a ploughboy who treads the heaviest clay in England, who does not feel practically his condition improved within the last three years – and he knows the reason why. I tell you there is not a shepherd on the most distant and barren hill of Scotland, who does not now have daily a cheaper and a larger mess of porridge than he ever had before – and he also knows the reason why. I tell you, again, there is not a weaver in the humblest cottage in Lancashire who has not fuller and cheaper meals, without any fall in his wages, than he had before – and he knows the reason why. Now I must tell you the whole truth. The time has arrived when the truth fully must be spoken. There is not a soldier who returns to England from abroad, that does not practically feel that his daily pay is augmented, that he has a cheaper, larger, and a better mess, and that he enjoys greater comforts, – and he also knows the reason. Now, sir, I entreat my honourable friends who sit below me to be on their guard. You may canvass the country – you may endanger property – you may shake our institutions to the foundation, (hear, hear, from Lord John Russell, and cheers from the Government benches); but I am persuaded that there is no power in England which can permanently enhance by force of law the price of bread. Now, that is my honest and firm conviction. The peace of this country, my own possessions, are as dear to me as any honourable gentleman who sits on the benches below me; but I feel that we have arrived at the period when it is necessary to speak the truth, and I have spoken it without reservation."

It is much to be regretted that Sir James Graham did not choose to speak the truth at an earlier stage of his career. Since the clatter of the muskets of Pride's detachment of soldiery was heard in the House of Commons, no more insolent sound has jarred on the ear of that popular assembly than this suggestive harangue. We pass over the declamatory passages about the ploughboy and the shepherd without comment, as mere bombast; but Sir James Graham ought to know, and if he does not he should be made to know, that such language as he used with respect to the British army is not more offensive than it is greatly dangerous to the State. Are gentlemen of the House of Commons, acting upon their own honest convictions of what is best for the interests of the State, and deputed by constituencies to represent their feelings and opinions, to be threatened by a Privy-counsellor and Ex-minister with the attack of a Prætorian guard? Anything so monstrous – so unpardonable as this, it has never been our lot to comment upon. Not only the dignity of the law, but the liberty of the subject, and the prerogative of the Crown, are here passed over as matters of no account; and a presumption is directly reared – that the soldier is a political functionary, and may exercise his judgment as to what side he should adopt, or what course he should pursue, in the event of any legislative enactment whatever! Grant but that, and we are indeed on the verge of anarchy. Now, we entreat our readers and the public to weigh well the meaning of this language, considering the quarter from which it came. It is no trifling matter. Those sentences were not the rapid conceptions of an orator in the heat of debate. Their context shows that they were prepared, studied, and committed to memory, with a serious intent and purpose; and the sooner we understand their entire significance the better. This gentleman, Sir James Graham, after having assumed all the postures of the weathercock – after having looked, in the maturity of his years, all winds of political doctrine in the face – finds himself at last in the position of a Cabinet Minister, pledged to his constituents to uphold a certain line of commercial policy. The head of the Cabinet, equally, or even more, deeply pledged, wavers, turns round, belies his former profession, and carries his colleague along with him. Having carefully ascertained that a considerable number of the representatives of the people, though pledged directly or indirectly to an opposite course, are ready to obey their orders; and being thus certain of a majority, these statesmen refuse an appeal to the country, and proceed to obtain the sanction of the law for certain measures diametrically opposite to the opinions which they formerly professed. They are so far successful, that the measures are carried, but the Cabinet shortly afterwards falls, in consequence of the treachery of its members. A new Parliament is summoned, and the members of that Parliament are bound, not more by pledges than by evident considerations of the public welfare, to give a fair trial to the working of the new commercial system. The Cabinet, and the majority of the members of Parliament, believe in the excellence of that system: the minority do not. Time rolls on, and the system develops itself. No attempt is made to impede it: it is left as free as the metal is to run into the mould. But in the course of its progress it crushes and breaks down various of those interests which were always considered the most important in the British commonwealth; and a cry is heard, that to persevere is to ensure destruction. Still no attempt is made towards a retrograde movement. The experiment was asked for – demanded – let it be seen in its true colours. The cry, however, is not altogether without its effect. The majority is weakened – the minority materially increased. Beyond the walls of Parliament the ferment increases daily. The anticipations and the prophecies of the supporters of the new system prove to be not only inaccurate, but so wholly contrary to the real result that no one can venture to defend them. The small party rapidly swells into importance, because it has public opinion with it. Almost each casual election is given in its favour. And at last the leader of that minority comes forward and, without requiring a total change of system, requests that Parliament should at last take into consideration the unjust, peculiar, and unequal burden of taxation, which the most suffering interest is still compelled to bear, notwithstanding that it has been deprived of that position which alone could justify the imposition of peculiar burdens. Whereupon this quondam Minister and adviser of the Crown, avoiding the question before him, and practically denying that meed of justice which his former colleague, the head and front of the whole offending, had directly admitted to be due, stands up in his place, and warns the opposite party to desist from the course which they are pursuing; not because their case is hopeless, for he acknowledges their power and the extent of their support; but because he foresees a rebellion looming in the distance, with the soldiery arrayed against them! We say deliberately, that such language as this is eminently and grossly mischievous. It presupposes, what we certainly never expect to see in this country, the masses of the nation and the army drawn out, not against the House of Commons, or the House of Lords, or the Sovereign individually, but against all these three estates in the exercise of their undoubted functions. The Protectionists do not propose to imitate the example of Sir James Graham and his friends, by perverting the House of Commons against the will of the constituencies. Even were that in their power, they would abstain from doing so, for the nation has already suffered by far too much from the consequences of such a total abandonment of principle. The success of the country party depends solely upon the will of the constituencies. Nothing shall be done illegally – nothing deceitfully. When an appeal shall be made to the electoral body of these kingdoms, they will have it in their power to decide, whether the nation is to persevere in a system which has already proved so disastrous to many interests, or whether British industry is to be again protected to the extent, at all events, of its burdens. And if the constituencies decide in our favour, and the two other estates of the realm act in accordance with the opinion of the House of Commons, what is it that we have to fear? Not certainly the dark hints and insinuations of Sir James Graham. When the two Houses of the legislature are divided in opinion, and when neither of them will yield, or, when the Sovereign authority is broadly opposed to the declared will of the Commons, it is perfectly possible that a most serious and lamentable struggle may ensue. But so long as the three great estates act together in harmony and concord, there is no power in the land that can set their councils at defiance. Therefore, when Sir James Graham sketches his imaginary league of ploughboy, shepherd, weaver, and soldier, against the resolutions of the Imperial Parliament, he is contemplating an anomaly which never has occurred, and which never can occur in Great Britain. Why or wherefore should we accept his affectionate entreaty, and be on our guard? How are we to convulse the country – endanger property – or shake our institutions to the foundations? Are we plotting? Are we conspiring? Do we destroy the law? Are we doing anything, or do we propose to do anything, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? And if not, why are these big words thrown at our heads? We may be quite wrong in our anticipations. The country may not accord us its support. The electors may determine that henceforward and for ever Free Trade shall remain the sole and dominant system. If so, we shall submit, as is our bounden duty. We shall rear up no phantom armies, such as are said at times to be seen skirting the hills of Cumberland, to oppose to the levies of Sir James Graham; but whilst we are acting constitutionally and openly, let us hear no more of such language, which is somewhat worse than offensive.

We observe from the report, that these passages in the speech of Sir James Graham were cheered emphatically by the Premier. Indeed, in his own address to the House, he touched upon similar topics: "I should be most grieved if I thought the great mass of the people of this country were induced, by the restoration of laws which enhance the price of food, to consider that, by imitating the example of the democracies on the Continent, they could gain any advantage which they could not now obtain, or increase the prosperity they are deriving from the ancient institutions of this country." We cannot of course presume to say that we distinctly apprehend the meaning of this complicated sentence, which we now put upon record for the benefit of future students of composition; but it sounds very like a hint of civil insurrection. Now, we take leave to say, once for all, that such hints and inuendoes are excessively indecorous and improper when emanating from any Minister of the Crown; and that Lord John Russell, in particular, considering his antecedents, is a vast deal too fond of indulging in this sort of dubious talk. His business and his duty is to inculcate respect for the laws, not to contemplate their infraction. If he entertains, as he professes to do, a deep regard for the Constitution, he should cautiously abstain from hinting that there is a power beyond the Constitution which may possibly be called in to control it. Certainly we are not inclined to submit ourselves to this sort of despotism, or to be deterred from doing our duty, and expressing our opinions, by vague threats of future consequences. There is another passage in Lord John Russell's speech which is open to peculiar animadversion. He, the champion of popular opinion, deprecates any appeal to the country on the subject of import duties, on account of the damage which might thereby arise to trade! Does the noble lord think that the great body of the British agriculturists now under the pressure of the screw, and with the prospect of ruin before them, will be deterred from prosecuting their demand for what they conceive to be their just rights, by any such considerations as these? Are the yeomanry to suffer themselves to be crushed and expatriated without a murmur, simply for the sake of putting the manufacturers to no temporary or extra inconvenience? The Premier may depend upon it that he will never save himself in an emergency by putting forward such worthless and shallow arguments. Why, if he, like Sir James Graham, recognises the great and growing power of the country party, can he shut his eyes to the fact, that that power is simply the embodiment of public opinion, without which to back him, Mr Disraeli's speeches and motions would be as innocuous as the sheet lightning of a summer's evening?

There are several other points arising out of this memorable debate, to which we intended to refer had our limits permitted. We cannot, however, avoid noticing the prosperity terms of the Royal Speech delivered at the opening of the Session.

It is a very remarkable circumstance, that the trade and manufactures of Great Britain, however much they may have been depressed at different periods of the previous year, are always marvellously resuscitated towards the opening of the Session. Thus, in December 1849, the cotton trade was, according to the confession of the Free-Trade organs, in a very bad condition. Less business than formerly had been done during the year; and even the Economist questioned "whether 'the power of purchase,' on the part of the British community, is nearly equal to what it was in 1845." In February thereafter, under the medical treatment of Ministers, all kinds of manufactures received an amazing fillip. Mr Labouchere almost wept for joy at the amazing prosperity of the shipowners, who, ungrateful villains as they were, instantly and unanimously repudiated the soft impeachment. This year there has been the same burst of sunshine precisely at the same season. Everything is couleur de rose. We were exceedingly delighted to hear it. In our ignorance we had been led to believe that the iron trade was nearly in a state of stagnation, and the cotton-mills not remarkably remunerative; but it appeared that we were wrong. However, a day or two afterwards, in turning over the Times, we lighted upon a paragraph which did not appear to us indicative of a high degree of prosperity in one important branch of manufactures. It is as follows: —

"State of Trade. Manchester, Feb. 13. – The continued decline of cotton places our spinners and manufacturers in a very awkward and critical position. The market appears to have lost all confidence, for the present, in the maintenance of prices, and heaviness and gloom are its prevailing characteristics. There has scarcely been business enough to-day to determine what rates would be acceded to; but there can be no doubt that, for any considerable order, a modification of price equal to 3d. per piece on cloth on the nominal rates, or of 4½d. to 6d. on the prices of Thursday last, would be accepted. The decline on yarn is to a proportionate extent."

Messrs Littledale's circular of 20th February is not much more cheerful in its tone. It opens thus: – "The dulness which has pervaded our different produce markets since the opening of the year still continues, but with little change in prices during the last fortnight." As regards the article of silk, we are told that —

"Since the commencement of the month, several parcels of China raw silk have changed hands at rather lower prices than in December last. The manufacturers, finding a great falling off in the sale of their goods, have shown but little disposition to purchase. This, with the announcement of the public sales which are now in progress, has caused great dulness throughout the manufacturing districts. East India and China piece-goods – the demand for which has suddenly diminished; and prices for all sorts are lower, except good and fine Corahs (which for some months past have been very scarce.) These have sold at previous rates; but all other descriptions have been unsaleable."

This is at best but April prosperity – gloom and brightness, intermingled sunshine and showers.

In a very few days we shall learn how Ministers are to meet the opposition which the absurd and incoherent financial statement of Sir Charles Wood has provoked. We have seen bad budgets before, but this is incomparably the worst that was ever devised. The obnoxious and unjust Income Tax is to be renewed, solely for the purpose of bolstering up Free Trade, and the removal of the Window Duties is to be nearly neutralised by the imposition of a house tax! The "happy family," it must be owned, have an especial talent for making themselves universally unpopular.

The result of the division on Mr Disraeli's motion cannot fail to be very cheering to those who look for the advent of better times, and more enlightened legislation. It marks the progress which has been made, even in the present Parliament, from which we had so little to expect; and it will be our own fault if the advantage is not pursued. We would earnestly recommend to the serious perusal and consideration of all, but more especially the landlords of Great Britain, the emphatic peroration of Mr Disraeli in his admirable reply: – "I hope honourable gentlemen will not be frightened by threats, from whatever quarter they may come. I hope there is still so much spirit in gentlemen of the United Kingdom, that they will not be daunted even by the mystical reference of the First Minister, or the more authoritative, more decided threats that may reach them from any other quarter. I hope honourable gentlemen, if they believe they are doing their duty by supporting this motion – and let no man support it who does not believe that he is doing his duty – will feel in future that their part is one of more activity in defending the interests of the tenantry of this country. This is mainly a farmers' question. No one has met my argument about rent, which showed the fallacy of that barbarous slang that has been too long prevalent. It is a farmers' question. Upon the farmers the pressure for years has been too severe; it is now increasing. From motives I call appreciate, and feelings of delicacy I can comprehend, the owners of the soil have not stood forward to vindicate, as they ought to have done, the interests of the tenantry. I hope that this is the commencement of a new era in that respect; and that no man, whether owner or occupier, will hereafter be ashamed or afraid of asking from an English Parliament that justice to which every English subject is entitled."