Free Trade and the Irish Famine; J.P. Finneran

475 Free Trade and the Irish Famine by John E Finneran I n the mid-19th century, the political life of Great Britain was torn by a great debate on the principles of protection and free trade. The debate, with its triumph for the free trade cause, remains equally relevant today, for it shows that protection, whatever its theoretical merits, is ruinous in human terms. The corner stone of the free trade victory was the repeal of the corn laws by the Tory government of Sir Robert Peel in 1846. The Toriesand the Com Laws The Tory party had had -an ambivalent history toward protection and free trade. On the one hand, the Tories under William Pitt the Younger had favored free trade. With the onset of the Napoleonic wars, however, this policy was inter rupted. When peace was established, the price of wheat and other grains, with their supply from abroad augmented by the increase in commerce that followed with the peace, went into a steep decline. Heeding the requests of landowners, who constituted the main pillar of Tory support, the Tory government passed the corn law of 1815,the first of a series of such laws that effectivelyexclud ed foreign grains from the domestic market. (It should be noted that the term "corn" in this con text does not refer exclusively to maize, but to grains generally, and to wheat especially.) When the issue of free trade versus protection came to a head, it would split the Tory party asun der. Indeed, Peel himself reflected his party's dual heritage. At first a strong supporter of protection, Mr. Finneran recently received his B.A. in history and in international relations from Tufts University.

Peel became ambiguous, and finally came to favor free trade. Punch magazine satirized Peel's attempt to bridge both wings of his party by a cartoon which showed him as a rider standing astride two horses at once. Punch commented: "The world has been lately astonished by the very rapid act of horse manship performed by SIR R. PEEL on his two celebrated chargers, Protection and Free Trade. Protection is a very heavy charger, but Free Trade is a light and active filly, always going ahead with great speed and energy. The great merit of PEEL consists in the skill he has exhibited in giving the rein, now to one, and now to the other, with won derful dexterity; now tightening the bridle, and now relaxing it; and, indeed, playing fast and loose with wonderful dexterity. Though he evidently has greater control over Free Trade, he controls Pro tection with remarkable adroitness. Altogether, his performance is among the most wonderful efforts of modern horsemanship."l In economic terms, the case against protection is simple enough: It benefits the few at the expense of the many. The protected domestic interest ben efits from the fact that foreign products are exclud ed or can only compete at a significant disadvan tage. Less competition means the domestic interest can raise the price and lessen the quality of its product, leaving domestic consumers (that is, the vast majority of the population) with the choice of paying more for an inferior product or doing without. In the case of basic food products like grain, of course, this is a Hobson's choice,since everyone must eat.

It is no surprise, then, that the corn laws were from the outset vigorously supported by landown476 THE FREEMAN • DECEMBER 1991 ers, who grew domestic grain, and vigorously opposed by non-landowners, who had to pay more for their bread, and by classical liberal theorists. The case against protection had been made elo quently by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations as far back as 1776, but the depression of 1838 to 1842 caused a new generation of free trade pro ponents to rise to the fore. An Anti-Corn Law League was founded and expressed its views through meetings, petitions, pamphlets, and speakers. Two great orators, Richard Cobden and John Bright, contributed mightily toward enlisting popular sympathy in the free trade cause. It appears that Peel himself was moving in his own mind slowly but inexorably toward support for repeal of the corn laws in the early 1840s.But any lingering resistance he felt toward repeal were swept away decisively by new and calamitous events in Ireland.

The IrishFamine In August 1845, the potato crop in Ireland failed, beginning the frightful Irish Famine of 1845 to 1848. In the devastating hunger that followed, Ireland's pre-famine population of 8 million was reduced by death and emigration to 6~ million within three years. In addition, in the summer of 1847, 3 million were kept alive solely through charity and public jobs.2 A peacetime famine on such a scale had been unseen in Europe for centuries, and with good rea son: Improved distribution systems meant that the effects of local crop failures could be mitigated by food brought from afar. Without the perverse effects of protection coupled with a land system that kept the Irish peasants cash poor and there fore unduly dependent for survival on their per sonal potato crops, the same should have been true for the Irish famine. Indeed, even as Irishmen were starving, Ireland's abundant wheat and maize harvests were being shipped to England. The effect of the corn laws was thus the following: Despite an abundance of food, both in Great Britain and abroad, the artificially high price of grain placed bread beyond the economic reach of cash-poor Irish deprived through the potato crop failure of their major source of income.

When criticized for advancing free trade mea sures that overreacted to events in Ireland, Peel exclaimed: "You may think I have taken too great precautions against Irish famine; you are mis taken. Events will prove that the precautions are not unnecessary. But even if it were not so, the motive is to rescue a whole population from the possibility of calamity and disease; and I shall, under these circumstances, be easy under such an accusation. "3 The OregonDispute A fortunate by-product of Peel's free trade measures was their effects on relations with the United States. Free trade, in classicalliberal theo ry, is conducive to peace. "Free trade," Richard Cobden asked rhetorically, "What is it? Why, breaking down the barriers that separate nations; those barriers behind which nestle the feelings of pride, revenge, hatred, and jealousy which every now and then break their bonds and deluge whole countries with blood; those feelings which nourish the poison of war and conquest, which assert that without conquest we can have no trade, which fos ter that lust for conquest and dominion which sends forth your warrior chiefs to sanction devas tation through other lands."4 In the case of the Oregon dispute of the 1840s, the theory conformed with reality. America and Great Britain at this time stood on the brink of war over ownership of the Oregon Territory (the pre sent-day states of Oregon and Washington and part of the Canadian province of British Columbia). James K. Polk had been elected to the White House in 1844under the slogan "54 0 40' or Fight!"-a claim to the entire Oregon Territory for the United States. While it would be an exag geration to state that Peel's free trade policyof this time was the sole factor that averted war (certainly America's simultaneous dispute with Mexico which would ultimately degenerate into the Mex ican War was at least as important in causing the U.S. to seek a compromise), Peel's policies did, at least, contribute toward creating an atmosphere that was more conducive to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Hence Punch wrote: "The English Premier has taken the happiest method of dealing with the American President. POLK fires off inflamma tory messages,whilePEEL returns the attack with Free-Trade measures. The latter will, we have every hope, prove irresistible, and POLK will not be able to make a successfulstand against the very FREE TRADE AND THE IRISH FAMINE 477 felicitous mode of warfare adopted by our Free Trade Minister. It is not likely that the American people will be misguided enough to continue a hostility, which will be so directly opposed to their own interests .... America may, if it pleases, pelt us with its corn, while we return the compliment by pitching into the United States some of our manu factured articles. This will be much better for both parties than an exchange of lead, whether in the form of swan or grape, or packed in cannister."5 The End of the Peel Ministry Once he had decided on repeal of the corn laws, Peel had to convince a parliamentary majority which proved to be no easy task. In December 1845, Peel tried to effect emergency reductions in tariffs through orders in council, executive orders requiring a cabinet majority but no parliamentary vote, but failed to gain a majority in his own cabi net and was forced to resign. The Whig leader, Lord John Russell, was unable to form a cabinet, and Queen Victoria had to call Peel back. Peel was able to form a new ministry with the addition of William Gladstone, the future Liberal prime min ister, as colonial secretary.

The new Peel ministry's attempts to repeal the corn laws were met in the Tory party with vigorous opposition led by Gladstone's future nemesis, Benjamin Disraeli, until then a little-known mem ber of Parliament. Finally, after a great deal of agi tation, on June 25, 1846, the corn laws were repealed with the support of Whig and Irish mem bers of Parliament. 6 But the old Tory party was irreparably split. Indeed, on the very night that the corn laws were repealed, Peel's government lost a vote of confidence on its larger Irish policy, and Peel's political life came to an end. Only four years later, in 1850, he died following an accident suf fered while riding a horse through Green Park. Winston Churchill summed up Peel's career as follows: "He was not a man of broad and ranging modes of thought, but he understood better than any of his contemporaries the needs of the country, and he had the outstanding courage to change his views in order to meet them. It is true that he split his party, but there are greater crimes than that."7 Peel's own epitaph of his political career, deliv ered the night of his government's fall, deserves to be quoted at length: "I shall, I fear, leave office with a name severely censured by many honorable men who, on public principle, deeply regret the severance of party tieswho deeply regret that severance, not from any interested or personal motives, but because they believe fidelity to party, the existence of a great party, and the maintenance of a great party, to be powerful instruments of good government. I shall surrender power, se verely censured, I fear, by many honorable men, who, from no interested motives, have adhered to the principles of protection, because they looked upon them as important to the welfare and inter ests of the country. I shall leave a name execrated, I know, by every monopolist [Peel's speech, reports Punch, was here interrupted by "Loud cheers and laughter"] who, professing honorable opinions, would maintain protection for his own benefit. But it may be that I shall sometimes be remembered with expressions of goodwill, in those places which are the abodes of men whose lot it is to labor and earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow; in such places, perhaps, my name may be remembered with expressions of goodwill, when they who inhabit them recruit their exhaust ed strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because no longer leavened with a sense of injustice."8 D 1. Punch, vol. 10, January 1846-June1846,p. 104.

2. Figures from Edmund Curtis, A History of Ireland (London: Methuen & Co., 1968),p. 368. 3. Punch, "Introduction" to vol. 10,p. 3. (In fact,the pagesto the Introduction are unnumbered.) 4. Richard Cobden,Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, vol. I (London: 1870) p. 79, cited in MichaelHoward, War and the Lib eral Conscience (New Brunswick,New Jersey: Rutgers University Press,1986),pp. 42-43. 5. Punch, p. 155. 6. Technically,the corn lawswere not repealed at this date. Maize wasallowedto enter tarifffree,and tariffsfor other grainsweredras ticallyreduced (the dutyon wheat,for example,was reduced to one fourth of its previouslevel).The billpassedat thistime scheduledan abolitionof graintariffs(exceptfor a "mere nominalduty ... for the purpose of procuring statisticalreturns of the quantity imported") for February 1849. An amendment to repeal the corn laws outright was defeated by a margin of 187 votes. See Punch, "Introduction,"

pp.2-3. 7. WinstonChurchill,A History of the English-Speaking People, vol. 4, "The Great Democracies"(NewYork: Dodd, Mead,and Co., 1965),p. 62. 8. Punch, "Introduction," p. 3.