Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

one body may often think it its interest to supply the community from abroad with a commodity, from the production of which, here, another body draws its subsistence. The merchants may think it their interest to import foreign silks to the ruin of our silk manufacturers, or foreign corn, to the ruin of our agriculturists. They may import foreign manufactures and corn until they render a large part of our labour unsaleable, and greatly depress the price of the remainder. A body of only a few thousands may bring that into the market from abroad, which will render ten millions unable to sell the commodities from which they draw their bread, except at ruinously losing prices. To prevent this was the object of the old system. It prohibited one body from buying what would ruin another: it prohibited the nation, as a whole, from buying what it did not need-from buying what, practically, it could neither consume nor sell again-from destroying its own market and injuring and ruining itself. These were the only restrictions that it imposed.

The new system is, of course, directly the reverse, and these are the only restrictions that it removes. Corn and manufactures are almost the only things that, as a nation, we have to sell; and its object is to enable us to buy corn and manufactures which we actually do not need, which, in reality, we can neither consume nor sell again, and which must ruin our market as sellers.

As a nation, we draw a considerable part of our subsistence from the sale of silks, we have of these a profusion, and we want to sell them, and not to buy others. Yet, by means of this system, we are about to buy immense quantities of silks of other nations, and we are told that this will greatly increase the sale of our own silks. How will this miraculous increase of sale be obtained? The French manufacturers are to take commoditics of us in exchange for their silks; and this is to cause such an increase of trade as will take off not only all their silks, but an additional quantity of our own. That any Minister, any man of common sense-any cobbler, should believe this, is amazing.

Suppose a Frenchman bring a thousand pounds' worth of silks, and even take manufactures, for instance, wool

lens, in exchange, does any man imagine, that those whom the manufacturing, &c. of the woollens should from first to last employ, would be enabled, by the sale of this one thousand pounds' worth, to consume one thousand guineas' worth of silks? Can any man believe, that if this country could sell to France cottons and woollens of the value of five millions, in return for silks of the same value, it could consume not only all these silks, but an additional quantity of our own? If we must believe it, we must of necessity believe, that the more an article abounds, the greater will be the demand for it; and that the demand would be destroyed by scarcity-we must believe, that if, by any magical process, we could instantly double the number of our own silk-manufacturers, they would then be unable to supply the nation-we must believe, that if our suffering merchants and manufacturers would only double their stocks, demand would immediately remove their embarrassments.

The truth is, that if this nation should thus buy foreign silks of the value of five millions, and if the sale of the cottons and woollens should be a clear addition to its general sale of these articles, it would not be able to add a quarter of a million to its consumption of silks. The rest would render an equal portion of our own unsaleable, and glut the market. But, in reality, the sale of these cottons and woollens would rather diminish than augment our consumption of silks; we have at present more silks than we can consume, and therefore the wages of labour and capital gained by the foreign manufacturers would be lost by our own. Of course, the general sales of the country, notwithstanding the sale of the cottons and woollens, would at the best continue the same, and the consumption of silks would not be increased. Full five millions' worth of our own silks would be rendered unsaleable, or, at any rate, our manufacturers would lose all the wages of labour and capital that the manufacturing of five millions' worth of silk would yield. The bargain would in reality be this-we should buy five millions' worth of foreign silks with five millions' worth of cottons and woollens, and in conse quence we should be compelled virtually to destroy nearly four millions'

worth of our own silks. We should do like the spirit-merchant who should buy a gallon of Hollands with a gal lon of brandy, and who in consequence would be compelled to pour nearly a gallon of his own Hollands, of equal value, into the street. The transaction, at the best, would cause us a dead loss of nearly four millions, but from the great glut which it would create, it would likely enough cause one of perhaps ten millions.

It is asserted, that if our manufacturers be thrown out of employment by our buying silks abroad, such buying will sufficiently increase other trades to employ them. This is false, for such buying will not increase other trades in the least. If other trades do not buy of our silk manufacturers, the latter cannot buy of them. Other trades will lose even more business amidst our own manufacturers, than they will gain amidst the foreign ones, and therefore their business will be decreased rather than increased. If our buying of other nations throw the whole of our own manufacturers out of employment, it will not enable other trades as a whole to employ a single additional workman, or pound of capital. The foreign manufacturers may at the first-we believe they will do no such thing-keep other trades at their present point, but they will merely buy of them what would otherwise have been bought by our own manufacturers. Other trades cannot possibly increase their business, unless it can be proved that our own manufacturers must always buy to the same amount of other trades, whether they have employment or not. If the latter be thrown out of employment, they must, so far as regards other trades, remain constantly out of employment. If they could force themselves into other trades, they would displace in them capital and labour equal to the amount of their own.

If, therefore, we should buy all our silks abroad, the case at the first would stand thus:-Other trades might be able to employ about their present amount of capital and labour, but the whole capital and labour of the silk trade would be deprived of employment altogether. If we assume, that in average times the half-million of souls whom the trade employs, masters and servants, old and young, re

ceive fifteen shillings each per week on the average, from the sale of labour, or the profits of capital, they would lose about twenty millions annually. The nation as a whole would receive annually about twenty millions less from the sale of its labour, and the employment of its capital. These five hundred thousand souls would be perfectly useless; if they should not emigrate, the greater part would have to be supported by poorrates drawn from the other trades; and this, with the depression of wages which they would cause, would soon greatly reduce the other trades, and throw numbers in them out of employment.

This is applicable to the part as well as the whole. If a portion of the silk manufacturers be thrown out of employment, the same consequences must follow in proportion. It is equally applicable to every other trade, in which our own manufacturers can plentifully supply us. In proportion as foreign manufactures may be brought into this country, in the same proportion must our own manufacturers be thrown permanently out of employment. It is inevitable. The individual who divides his business between two tailors, does not thereby wear more clothes; and the nation that divides its business between its own and foreign manufacturers, does not thereby consume more manufactures, or employ a greater portion of manufacturing capital and labour. We buy our sugar of various islands, but we do not from this sell more goods, or buy more sugar than we should, were we to buy solely of one, provided this one could fully supply us at the same price. If any one of these islands can only sell sugar to ourselves, the loss of our business would ruin it, and deprive it of the ability to buy of us. The loss of a part of our business would injure it in proportion. If the importing of foreign silks will multiply silk manufacturers in this country, how does it happenthat our exports of manufactures do not multiply manufacturers in the countries to which we send them? How does it happen that our woollens do not fill America with woollen manufacturers? How does it happen that our cottons have not filled India with cotton manufacturers? How does it happen, that if two shoemakers settle

in a village which has previously been only able to employ one, they do not enable it to employ three shoemakers? If our merchants were at this moment to import on speculation, large quantities of raw cotton, timber, wine, and tallow, what would be said of them? Lord Liverpool would shake with horror over their "mad speculations." Yet at this very instant, Lord Liverpool, Mr Canning, Mr Huskisson, and, for anything that we know to the contrary, the rest of the ministers, aided by Parliament, are actually engaged in that maddest of all "mad speculations," the bringing of an immense quantity of foreign silks and gloves into the market, when the silk and glove trades are crushed under overstocks, which are perfectly unsaleable! While they are declaiming against others for causing a temporary glut, they are labouring to subject whole trades to the ruin of an eternal glut! We dare not trust ourselves to comment on these things; but in the name of our suffering country-in the name of our starving countrymen, who are compelled to filch refuse-potatoes and grains from the very swine-we protest against the system of frenzy, confiscation, and iniquity, from which they have originated.

But then we are told that the foreigner can sell silks cheaper than the Englishman-that we ought to buy where we can buy the cheapest-that we ought to buy of foreign producers, if they can take lower prices than our own. The doctrine is worthy of the pitiful drivellers who promulgate it. It places on the same level everything that we may buy, everything that we may buy with, and all of whom we may buy. For a part of the nation to buy of other countries raw cotton, tea, and such other articles as the whole needs, is precisely the same thing as for it to buy corn, silks, and such other articles, as would ruin, first half the nation, and then the whole! It is just as advantageous for us to buy cheap labour abroad, that our own may be without a market, or to sell our own at a high price! It is as beneficial for the mechanic to buy bread at a penny per pound with a little money that he may have saved, and thereby keep himself idle, as it is for him to buy it at twopence per pound with his‍la

bour! Can the doctrine need further refutation?

As a nation, we buy of other nations with commodities; and we must therefore look, not only at the price of what we buy, but at the profit we make on what we give in exchange. When we buy with manufactures, we buy with that which has previously enabled us to sell much labour, &c. that we otherwise should not have sold; when we buy with raw produce, we buy with that which is perhaps brought and carried away in foreign ships, and which merely leaves us the merchant's per centage. If we make a purchase of £10,000 abroad, and pay with manufactures, these perhaps have enabled us to pay duties, and sell labour, &c. to the amount of £5000; if we pay with raw produce, this perhaps has only enabled us to sell the labour of capital to the value of £500. When we buy our silks of our own manufacturers, we pay for them with heavily-taxed commodities and manufactures, with high-priced coru, labour, &c.; when we buy them of the French ones, we pay for them with raw produce. It would be far the cheapest for us, as a nation, to buy of the former, even though they should charge double the prices of the latter.

If we should buy French silks with raw produce, and import them duty free, how would this operate? It would disable our manufacturers for paying taxes and buying of the other part of the community. This other part would have its taxes raised; it would sell less labour and commodities; it would, in appearance, buy silks a little cheaper, but, in reality, it would buy them much dearer. If we should buy them with manufactures, and raise them by duty to the price of our own, this could only make them cheaper in appearance, by keeping the market constantly glutted, and destroying the consumption of our manufactures. It would, in reality, raise very greatly the price of silks. The benefit derived from the manufactures given in exchange would be, as we have already said, nothing. A million's worth of foreign silks in the year would keep the market, profusely supplied as it already is, constantly glutted; and if this should reduce the consumption of our manufacturers three shillings per week each-it would reduce it much

more, their whole consumption would be reduced about four millions. The loss in revenue alone would be nearly equal to the value of the manufac tures exported. To burn these manufactures would be far less injurious to us as a nation, than to buy foreign silks with them.

The merchants and manufacturers may buy corn much cheaper abroad than at home; but if they buy the foreign corn, they must very greatly reduce the consumption of our own corn-growers. They will sell far less of goods and labour; their prices will be greatly reduced, and their cheap foreign corn will be, in reality, infinitely dearer to them than the dear corn of England.

A nation, like an individual, must buy where it can buy the cheapest; but then it must only buy what it needs as a whole, and it must buy on the grand principle of barter ; it must look at the profit gained by what it gives in exchange, as well as at the price of what it buys. Wheat is cheap to the labourer at ten guineas the quarter, if he can buy it with labour at the rate of ten guineas per week; it is dear to him at twenty shillings the quarter, if he can only buy it with labour at the rate of twentypence per week. For a nation like this to buy of other nations, solely because their prices are lower than its own, corn, manufactured silks, cottons, woollens, &c.-articles which it has in abundance, and from the sale of which it draws its subsistence,-is precisely the same thing, as for a labourer to throw himself out of employment by hiring another in his stead, solely because the other will take lower wages than himself. In both cases, ruin and starvation must follow.

So much for the benefit to be gained by the purchasing of cheap foreign manufactures. But then it is argued that such purchasing will compel those nations to buy our own manufactures, which now exclude the latter from their market. This is abundantly refuted by the fact, that, notwithstanding our immense exports of manufactures, we have never found it necessary to take foreign manufactures in exchange. In reality, such purchasing will diminish, and not increase, our exports of manufactures. In proportion as foreigners may supply us with silks, cottons, &c., in the same proportion must VOL. XIX.

the home-sales of our own manufactures be reduced; in proportion as this home-trade may be reduced, in the same proportion must our manufacturers reduce their purchases of the raw article, and their export of manufactures to buy it with. In the same proportion in which our home trade may pass into the hands of foreign manufacturers, in the same proportion must our foreign trade pass into their hands.

How, then, will the operation of the new system amidst the traders affect the Agriculturists? In proportion as we may buy manufactures abroad, we shall retrograde to the point from which agriculture started. If we buy the whole of our manufactures of other countries, our manufacturers must be useless, and agriculture must be ruined. If we buy half, half the manu facturers must be deprived of employment; if they remain in the country, they must form a destructive burden to the rest, and the Agriculturists; if they emigrate, a vast portion of our land must be thrown out of cultivation. In the same degree in which we may buy manufactures abroad, in the same degree must our manufacturers be permanently deprived of employment, and reduced in number,and in the same degree must the consumption and price of agricultural produce be diminished. The Agriculturists, therefore, have. as much interest in opposing a free trade in ́manufactures as the manufacturers. It is far more beneficial to them to buy dear manufactures, with dear corn and cattle, than cheap ones with cheap corn and cattle.

We will now look at the fruits which a free trade in corn must yield to the merchants and manufacturers.

Our Agriculturists, we believe, when wheat is at three pounds per quarter, buy annually merchandise and manufactures to the value of nearly two hundred millions. Some corn-farmers depend largely on the sale of wheat, and others sell very little of it, but depend chiefly on other things. We think - we may assume, that on the average, each receives three times as much from the sale of sheep, and other live stock, barley, oats, and black corn, wool, poultry, butter, &c. as from the sale of wheat. It is estimated, that each member of the community, on the average, consumes a quarter of wheat 2 P

in the year; and if we take those who do not belong to the agricultural body at eleven millions, their purchases of wheat alone must amount to thirtythree millions annually. Four times this amount will give one hundred and thirty-two millions as the annual sales of the corn-farmers. To this must be added the sales from the grazing farms of Britain and Ireland, from the pasture and garden-land round the towns, and the sums received by the cottagers for their vegetables, fruit, &c. If we assume, that on the average each of the eleven millions consumed flour, shambles meat, poultry, butter, eggs, vegetables, and home-produced leather, woollens, tallow, &c. for which the Agriculturist receives seven shillings weekly, this brings the sales of the Agriculturists to about two hundred millions annually. It must be remembered, too, that the latter rebuy and consume a vast portion of their wool, hides, tallow, &c. after these are manufactured. We know that we are greatly above other estimates, but we think we are not far from the truth.

This is the lever which puts the merchants and manufacturers in motion; without it, they could not exist. The Agriculturists buy annually of them about two hundred millions' worth of merchandise and manufactures, and this enables them to trade with other nations, to employ each other, to buy of, and sell to, each other, and to consume, not only agricultural produce, but merchandise and manufactures likewise.

Upon the sale of agricultural produce, about half our population depends, and of course it is infinitely the most important of what, as a nation, we have to sell. We have abundance for our own consumption, and if we buy foreign corn, we must thereby render an equal portion of our own unsaleable and worthless. Yet, some of the traders are clamouring for permission to buy their corn of other nations. If our Agriculturists could not sufficiently supply them, and if their foreign purchases would enable them to consume all our own corn, and all the foreign corn that they might buy, the clamour would not be unreasonable. They do not, however, assert that they could consume more corn; they say that they want to buy abroad to make our own corn cheaper, and to

be enabled to sell more manufactures to other countries. Let us see how far the opening of our corn-market would satisfy their expectations.

We cannot export corn, and in consequence, if we get a superabundance into the country, it must remain with us. If at this moment, when we have as much wheat of our own as we can consume, we were to buy two millions of quarters of foreign wheat, at two pounds per quarter, what would follow? The foreign wheat would supply two millions of our population for a year. Granting that it would be paid for with manufactures, would the four millions' worth of manufactures given in payment, enable us to employ an additional two millions of population, to consume the additional two millions of quarters of wheat? No! it would not enable us to employ an additional fifty thousand. Our manufacturers could supply nearly the whole of the manufactures with their present workmen. The wheat, or an equal quantity of English wheat, would lie in the market perfectly useless; it could not be consumed here, and it could not be sent abroad for sale.

If we buy corn abroad, when we have as much of our own as we can consume, it must inevitably cause a glut in the market. A glut in corn is infinitely more injurious than one in other things. A glut in merchandise and manufactures is soon got rid of, by a partial suspension of importing, or manufacturing; but a glut in corn must last for two or three years, if not removed by a bad harvest. The worse prices are, the more corn the farmer endeavours to raise; and ruin requires the time we have stated to render part of the land waste, and injure the fertility of the remainder. Every one knows that a glut in any article renders the price of it ruinous to the seller. If corn be sunk to a losing price, it sinks the price of all the produce of land, for it compels the farmer to force sales in everything that he has to sell. Previously to 1819, we bought not quite four millions of quarters of foreign corn, and this reduced the farmer's prices more than a third, and plunged agriculture into distress, which endured several years. If we should buy, in two years, foreign corn to the value of six millions, this would sink the price of our whole agricultural produce at least one-fourth, for

« AnteriorContinuar »