It has been the fashion of late, for those gentlemen, to talk as if the British farmers were infinitely behind the rest of the world in activity and intelligence. It has been insinuated, that they are unworthy occupants of an exceedingly fertile soil, the capabilities of which they have not tested, through indolence and prejudice. Some such accusation is implied, in all the late stimulating exhortations to increased exertion; and Lord Kinnaird does not hesitate to tell us so, almost in as many words. These are, no doubt, recent discoveries, for it is not long since we were told, by the very same parties, that the superior agricultural skill of our farmers was such as to set foreign competition at defiance! That was one of the principal arguments employed for effecting the repeal of the corn laws; but now, when the results have proved totally contrary to anticipation, it is convenient to turn round, and accuse the farmer of a total want of those very qualities which were assigned as reasons for the change. The obvious fallacy in the first proposition, does not make the inconsistency of the second a whit less monstrous. No wonder if the insult should be bitterly felt by the agriculturist.
We are perhaps too apt, at the present moment, to allow the former promises of the Free-traders to slip out of memory. If we were to search through the abandoned rubbish of the League, we should find ample evidence of the gross fraud which was passed upon the country by the leaders of that nefarious faction. On the 19th December last, we find Mr Cobden, at Leeds, speaking as follows:—"I have always contemplated a transition state in this country, when there would be pinching and suffering in the agricultural class in passing from a vicious system to a sound one; for you cannot be restored from bad health to good without going through a process of languor and suffering. I have always looked forward to that time." If this statement be true—if Mr Cobden did "always contemplate" such a state of matters—it would not be difficult to convict him of something worse than hypocrisy. Three days later, at the memorable meeting held at Huntingdon, Mr G. Day, one of the speakers, made the following pithy remarks:—"He would refer, however, to the magnificent promises which had been held out by Mr Cobden as certain to be realised by free trade, and to do so he was free to refer to his letters. 'First, with regard to the landlord, I do not mean to say that the landlords will not get as good rents with free trade as they have now with monopoly: No doubt they will get on a great deal better with free trade. The landlord has nothing to fear.' Again, he said, 'The landlords will have the same rents with free trade as they have at present.' In speaking of the tenant-farmers he said, 'The tenant-farmer will under free trade be an independent man. I say that the farmer has nothing to fear from competition.' With regard to the poor, what did this gentleman say? 'There would be no complaining poor in our streets, no income-tax, no property-tax, no poor-rates, but all classes would be benefited by the adoption of free trade.' These were the promises made to them by a free-trader—the leader of them; and in the Bread-Tax Circular, No. 146, page 255, they would find what he had read to them—Mr Cobden's own words."
Does Mr Cobden admit that he wrote this circular? If he does, perhaps he will be good enough to explain how he reconciles the views contained in it with his new assertion that he always contemplated a transition state of suffering for the agricultural class? We recommend him, for his own sake, to clear this matter up. Rash averments may be pardoned; but deliberate double-dealing, never.
"It is cruel," writes one of our correspondents, a practical farmer of great experience, "that the advocates of the measure, in their exultation, should pretend not to see that the facts of the case have revealed a much more alarming aspect to their opponents than they anticipated; and that even the danger to themselves, from this cause, does not bring conviction of the falsity of their views. They affect to blame the farmer for ignorance, want of skill and enterprise—forgetting that, not long since, he was wont to be held up as a pattern of all that was superior in agricultural advancement, and that our island stands conspicuous among foreigners for its garden cultivation. Still, we are told, it is want of energy, and of a free application of capital, which prevents the British farmers from successfully competing with the Continent: as if overwhelming supplies of foreign corn, and, consequently, a greatly reduced price, were not sufficient reasons to oblige the agriculturist to modify the enterprise, and curtail the expenditure for which he had hitherto been so distinguished. Such unjust reflections may serve to raise up and maintain a feeling of prejudice against the farmer, and to bring him into obnoxious comparison with other arts, where science has fortunately been more successfully applied; but it is not to be expected, that a hopeless rivalry, and a low price, are to have the effect of stimulating to efforts and outlay, beyond what was induced by protection and a remunerating return.
"It has been customary to bring the farmer's position into contrast with that of the manufacturer, who is said to fear no foreign competition. But is the comparison a just one? The British manufacturer possesses every advantage and appliance to render his productions superior, and, consequently, also cheaper. Britain is the great mart of all the chief staples of new produce. Her machinery is the best—her fuel is the cheapest. On the other hand, the farmer here is deficient in raw material. He labours an obstinate soil, for the use of which he pays high; while his climate—the main element to give security and save expense—is far inferior to that of his rival."
Our friend might have gone further; for, if we enter into the comparison, we shall find that the British farmer has taken more advantage of his natural position than the British manufacturer. The true way of arriving at a just conclusion upon this point is, by contrasting, in the first instance, the natural advantages enjoyed by either class.
The motive power of the British manufacturer is derived from coal, of which he has an unlimited supply: the motive power of the British farmer is, except to a very small extent, dependent upon animals, which is infinitely more expensive and tedious; requiring more work with less command of power. The manufacturer can try any experiment he pleases, either in the construction of his machinery or in the texture of his fabric, in the course of a few days or weeks, and adopt or reject it as best suits his purpose: the farmer cannot attempt any experiment upon his crops without waiting a whole year for the result; nor any upon his live stock in less than two or three years. In the mean time, his expenses and rent go on as usual. The British manufacturer is not dependent on the climate: the British farmer is altogether so dependent; the climate of this country being proverbially uncertain and changeable, and very often ungenial. We apprehend, therefore, that, as to natural advantages, the home manufacturer stands on a far more advantageous footing than the home agriculturist.
Let us next contrast the state of the two classes abroad. The foreign manufacturer has few natural advantages. He does not possess the command of coal for his motive power, but is compelled to erect his factory on the bank of some stream, without regard, otherwise, to the convenience of the locality. Iron for machinery is far more expensive abroad than here; in fact, most of the Continental machinery is directly exported from Britain. On the other hand, the foreign farmer has all the advantages of an equable, rich soil, and of a good and steady climate.
Now, then, let us see how far the British manufacturer, with all his natural advantages, has surpassed his foreign rival. Does he make a better article than the foreigner? Can he beat the German linen, the Russian duck, the Swiss calico, the Saxon or Austrian broad-cloth, the porcelains of Dresden and Sèvres, or the silks, stained papers, and prints of France? If not, where is his superiority? As to designs, it is notorious that he is infinitely behind the Continent. No doubt he sends ship-loads of flimsy textures, with flaring colours and incongruous patterns, to semi-barbarous countries; and he can deluge the markets of the world with cheap goods, so furbished and tricked out that they sell from appearance only. But what hold has he of the Continent? He cannot compete with the manufacturers there in point of quality: if he could make a better article, no Zollvereins or combinations would be able to keep him out. These remarks apply to the bulk of our manufactures, which are made for foreign export; and these, in point of quality, are precisely what we have described them. There are undoubtedly high class manufacturers here, especially in the woollen and linen trades, who supply the home market with high class goods. But how do they stand? They are protected from foreign competition. It is in their favour that the highest import duties remain; and, were those restrictions removed to-morrow, they would be undersold in the British market. If any one thinks we are wrong in this matter, we shall be glad to hear him explain why the duties remain? It cannot be for revenue, since, if the British manufacturer can beat his foreign rival, without reciprocity, in the foreign market, it would be an absurdity to suppose the tables turned, and the foreign manufacturer paying duty solely for the sake of offering us a worse article in Britain. If not for revenue, why are the duties continued by statesmen who have declared for free trade? The answer is clear. These are protective duties; and they are continued for this reason, that, with all his natural advantages, the British manufacturer is not able to set Continental competition at defiance.
Lastly, let us look to the British farmer, in so far as energy and enterprise are concerned, in contrast with his rival. Here no detailed statement is necessary. In spite of all natural disadvantages, the soil of Britain is better tilled than that of any other country. We ask with a natural pride, greater perhaps on account of adverse circumstances, whether the husbandry of the Lothians or of the Border counties can be matched anywhere out of Britain? Where, on the surface of the globe, are the agriculturists who have approached our tenantry in the free outlay of capital, ready intelligence, persevering enterprise, and high professional skill? And yet these men, admittedly at the head of their craft, are to be told, forsooth, that they have been indolent and ignorant; and that retired tradesmen and shopkeepers would make far better farmers than they!