RICHARD COBDEN 1804-1865 Richard Cobden was a man whom the English people loved, and who is held in affectionate remembrance by Americans, both on account of his labors for the welfare of humanity, and because, during the Civil War, he supported the cause of the North. He was born in Sussex in 1804, and died in London in 1865; and it was said by the man who knew him best that his was "the manliest and gentlest spirit that ever tenanted or quitted a human breast." When a man of pure character and single ability devotes his entire life to advocating a measure of enlightened reform and philanthropy, the odds are in his favor; and Cobden, in his support of free trade, and of the repeal of the Corn Laws, seems not only to have reaped the natural reward of his persistent exertions, but to have been favored by Providence. His youth made him acquainted with the evils of poverty brought about by errors of political economy; and his young manhood was passed in a situation where he could personally examine the state of English industries, and the condition and needs of the working people. By the time his investigation had enabled him to formulate a policy by which the pressure of hard times could be relieved, he had accumulated, by the calico-printing industry, a fortune sufficient to support him while engaged in the work of impressing his views upon Parliament and the people; and for seven years he applied himself to this duty with such surprising energy, faith, and ability, that the end was victory. He instituted a vast propaganda, involving a house-tohouse visitation throughout England, distributing pamphlets which presented the cause of free trade in such simple terms that anyone could understand them; and supplemented by open-air speeches, in which the multitude was instructed how they might act in order to obtain the repeal of the existing injurious laws. Not less than one hundred and forty thousand pounds was expended in this work in the course of only two years; but the results warranted the outlay; and when all was ready, a bad agricultural season created such distress in the country and so powerful a feeling in favor of Cobden's measures, that Parliament was unable to withstand the pressure, and on June 26, 1846, the Reform Bill was passed. Since then free trade has been the policy of England. Cobden entered Parliament in 1841, and at once made his mark there by a speech on his chosen theme. In 1854 he visited the United States, and in 1859 he again entered Parliament. His style of address was plain, simple, and direct, backed by an obvious honesty of purpose, and great keenness and persuasiveness of argument. He was able to move the great mass of the people, and to stimulate them to action, in a way that no contemporary could rival. His speech, "On the Effects of Protection," delivered in the House on March 13, 1845, is one of the ablest and most characteristic speeches of his career. S ON THE EFFECTS OF PROTECTION Delivered in the House of Commons, March 13, 1845 IR: I am relieved upon the present occasion from any necessity for apologizing to the other side of the House for the motion which I am about to submit. It will be in the recollection of honorable members that a fortnight before putting this notice upon the book I expressed a hope that the matter would be taken up by some honorable member opposite. I do not think, therefore, that in reply to any observations I may have to make upon the question, I shall hear, as I did last year, an observation that the quarter from which this motion came was suspicious. I may also add, sir, that I have so framed my motion as to include in it the objects embraced in both the amendments which are made to it. I therefore conclude, that having included the honorable gentlemen's amendments [Mr. Stafford O'Brien and Mr. Wodehouse], they will not now feel it necessary to press them. Sir, the object of this motion is to appoint a select committee to inquire into the present condition of the agricultural interests; and, at the same time, to ascertain how the laws regulating the importation of agricultural produce have affected the agriculturists of this country. As regards the distress among farmers, I presume we cannot go to a higher authority than those honorable gentlemen who profess to be the farmers' friends and protectors. I find it stated by those honorable gentlemen who recently paid their respects to the Prime Minister that the agriculturists are in a state of great embarrassment and distress. I find that one gentleman from Norfolk [Mr. Hudson] stated that the farmers in the county are paying their rents, but paying them out of capital, and not profits. I find Mr. Turner of Upton, in Devonshire, stating that one-half of the smaller farmers in that county are insolvent, and that the others are rapidly falling into the same condition; that the farmers with larger holdings are quitting their farms with a view of saving the rest of their property; and that, unless some remedial measures be adopted by this House, they will be utterly ruined. The accounts which I have given you of those districts are such as I have had from many other sources. I put it to honorable gentlemen opposite whether the condition of the farmers in Suffolk, Wiltshire, and Hampshire, is better than that which I have described in Norfolk and Devonshire? I put it to county members, whether-taking the whole of the south of England, from the confines of Nottinghamshire to the Land's Endwhether, as a rule, the farmers are not now in a state of the greatest embarrassment? There may be exceptions; but I put it to them whether, as a rule, that is not their condition in all parts? Then, sir, according to every precedent in this House, this is a fit and proper time to bring forward the motion of which I have given notice. I venture to state that had his grace of Buckingham possessed a seat in this House, he would have done now what he did when he was Lord Chandos-have moved this resolution which I am now about to move. The distress of the farmers being admitted, the next question which arises is, What is its cause? I feel a greater necessity to bring forward this motion for a committee of inquiry, because I find great discrepancies of opinion among honorable gentlemen opposite as to what is the cause of the distress among the farmers. In the first place there is a discrepancy as to the generality or locality of the existing distress. I find the right honorable baronet at the head of the Government [Sir Robert Peel] saying that the distress is local; and he moreover says it does not arise from the legislation of this House. The honorable member for Dorsetshire declares, on the other hand, that the distress is general, and that it does not arise from legislation. I am at a loss to understand what this protection to agriculture means, because I find such contradictory accounts given in this House by the promoters of that system. For instance, nine months ago, when my honorable friend, the member for Wolverhampton [Mr. Villiers], brought forward his motion for the abolition of the Corn Laws, the right honorable gentleman, then the President of the Board of Trade, in replying to him, said that the present Corn Law had been most successful in its operations. He took great credit to the government for the steadiness of price that was obtained under that law. I will read you the quotation, because we find these statements so often controverted. He said: "Was there any man who had supported the law in the year 1842 who could honestly say that he had been disappointed in its workings? Could anyone point out a promise or a prediction hazarded in the course of the protracted debates upon the measure, which promise or prediction had been subsequently falsified?" Now, recollect that the right honorable gentleman was speaking when wheat was fifty-six shillings per quarter, and that wheat is now forty-five shillings. The right honorable baronet at the head of the Government now says: "My legislation has had nothing to do with wheat at forty-five shillings a quarter "; but how are we to get over the difficulty that the responsible member of Government at the head of the Board of Trade, only nine months ago, claimed merit for the Government having kept up the price of wheat at fifty-six shillings? These discrepancies themselves between the Government and its supporters, render it more and more necessary that this question of protection should be inquired into. I ask, What does it mean? The price of wheat is forty-five shillings this day. I have been speaking to the highest authority in England upon this point-one who is often quoted by this House-within the last week, and he tells me, that with another favorable harvest, he thinks it very likely that wheat will be thirty-five shillings a quarter. What does this legislation mean, or what does it purport to be, if you are to have prices fluctuating from fifty-six shillings down to thirtyfive shillings a quarter, and probably lower? Can you prevent it by the legislation of this House? That is the question. There is a great delusion spread abroad amongst the farmers; and it is the duty of this House to have that delusion dissipated by inquiring into the matter. Now, there are these very different opinions on the other side of the House; but there are members upon this side representing very important interests, who think that farmers are suffering because they have this legislative protection. There is all this difference of opinion. Now, is not that a fit and proper |