TORRENS, McCULLOCH AND DISRAELI
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1977.tb00403.x |
| Author | D. P. O'Brien |
| Date | 01 February 1977 |
| Published date | 01 February 1977 |
Scottish
Journal
of
Political
Economy,
Vol.
24,
No.
1,
February
I977
TORRENS,
McCULLOCH
AND
DISRAELI
D.
P.
O’BRIEN
“Reciprocity is,
no
doubt, the return
of
the Protection cry,
in
a disguised form.”
-Lord
Overstone. (OBrien
1971
111
p. 1458).
I
One aspect of the work of Robert Torrens and of
J.
R.
McCulloch that has
so
far gone unrecorded and unrecognised, even in Lord Robbins’ masterly
Robert Torrens
(Robbins 1958) and in the present author’s
J.
R.
McCulloch,
(O’Brien 1970) has been their role as advisers to Benjamin Disraeli. Examina-
tion of their association with Disraeli reveals, in the case
of
McCuUoch,
a significant degree of involvement in the Budget of 1852; and also an attitude
towards reciprocity in trade negotiations with France which McCulloch
would have found extremely embarrassing had it become publicly known in
1860, at the time
of
the Cobden-Chevalier treaty. But the case of Torrens is
perhaps the most acutely interesting. For here we find nothing less than an
attempt entirely to re-orientate the Tory party’s protectionism
on
to lines
which had been laid down
in
Torrens’ great Letters
11,
111,
IX
(Postscript),
and
X
of
The
Budget
(Torrens 1844) this involving, once Disraeli had begun
to take the bait, a full and superb statement of Torrens’ theory of commercial
policy, and a spirited defence of the
re-introduction
of
a duty
on
Corn imports
which goes far further than anything in Torrens’ published writings1
It is not only economists who have failed to recognise all this. Torrens is
not mentioned at all in either the great Monypenny and Buckle biography of
Disraeli (Moneypenny and Buckle
1910-20)
or
in the recent (and widely
acclaimed) work by Lord Blake (Blake 1966); while McCulloch appears in
the former work really only in connection with the Sinking FundZ and in the
latter in connection with possible patr~nage.~
I1
MCCULLOCH AND DISRAELI
McCulloch’s involvement with Disraeli sheds new light
on
his political
allegiance. Elsewhere
I
have attempted to show that McCulloch was not a
Whig (as he had previously been classified by a number of writers) but a
political eclectic (O’Brien
1970
pp.
100-103);
and his dealings with Disraeli
provide striking confirmation
of
this. For though McCulloch recognised
There is a very
full
analysis
of
the argument in
The
Budget
in Robbins (1958, chapter
7
and pp. 310-322).
Lord
Robbins’s superb book must always be
the
starting point
for
any
discussion
of
Torrens’s thought.
Monypenny and Buckle (1910-20), vol.
3,
p. 220.
Blake (1966),
p.
323. Disraeli suggested
McCulloch
as successor to
G.
R.
Porter at the
I
1
Board
of
Trade should
his
first choice,
Sir
Emerson Tennent, decline the position.
2
D.
P.
O’BRIEN
that there were differences between himself and Disraeli, and retained his
independen~e,~ he did in fact place himself at Disraeli’s disposal as an
economic cons~ltant;~ and he sided with the latter when he was the subject
of
a highly abusive
Edinburgh
Review
article.6 He sent Disraeli his publications7
which, the Hughenden Library copies show, Disraeli did read when looking
for
political material.
In turn he used Disraeli to protect the Stationery Office against attack in
Parliament;8 and he obtained public praise in the House of Commons for
his professional
achievement^.^
In
addition to this he asked his contact
to
obtain
for
him statistical material-something for
which
he had often used
his political and parliamentary associates before.1°
His advice
to
Disraeli covered
two
main aspects
of
policy; taxation, and
trade policy. Firstly, McCulloch was a source of advice
on
tax matters
especially when Disraeli, hampered by an almost total lack of financial
Thus in sending Disraeli a new edition of his version of the
Wealth
of
Nations,
McCulloch
recognised that Disraeli would not approve of some of the notes (McCulloch to Disraeli,
14 Feb. 1850, Hughenden papers B/XXI/M/12); in and thanking Disraeli for a flattering
reference to him in Parliament he expressed regret at having to differ from
so
many of
Disraeli’s views (McCulloch to Disraeli,
15
Feb. 1851, Hughenden papers B/XXI/M/l4).
All subsequent references to correspondence are to the Hughenden Papers which
I
was
enabled to work at through the kindness of the staff
of
the National Trust which now
occupies Hughenden Manor.
McCulloch
to
Disraeli, 24 Dec.
1851,
B/XXI/M/20; 25 Feb. 1852, B/XXI/M/21;
2 Oct. 1852, B/XXI/M/25; 14 Oct. 1852, B/XXI/M/26.
[Abraham Haywardl
Edinburgh
Review,
vol. xcvii (1853) pp. 42M61. The article
asked “How did a gentleman of Jewish extraction, whose previous career was inextricably
associated with reminiscences very little calculated
to
inspire esteem or confidence, manage
to become finance minister of the greatest commercial country, and official leader of the
greatest, wisest, and most important representative assembly, in the world?’
(p.
442).
Eight pages later this answer was proferred: “Our
own
solution of his many Protean
transformations
is,
that he never had any political principles or fixed convictions whatever”
(p. 430). McCulloch’s disgust at this is expressed in
a
letter of 17 Apr. 1853, B/XXI/M/27.
’
McCulloch to Disraeli, 14 Mar. 1848, B/XXI/M/9, sending his
Succession to Property;
14 Feb. 1850, B/XXI/M/l2, sending his
Wealth
of
Nations;
26 Mar. 1850, B/XXI/M/13,
sending
Commercial Dictionary Supplement;
15 Feb. and 16 May 1851, B/XXI/M/l4,
15,
sending the two volumes of the
Geographical Dictionary;
31 Jan. 1851, B/XXI/M/28,
Commercial Dictionary;
19 Dec. 1859, B/XXI/M/29
ibid.;
6 Feb. 1860, B/XXI/M/30,
article
on
Taxation (1st edn.), written for eighth edition of
Encyclopaedia Britannico;
31 Mar. 1863, sending third edition of
Treatise
on
Taxation.
The last letter mentions that
McCulloch had marked some passages in the book to draw them to Disraeli’s attention.
Unfortunately, the Hughenden Library contains the first two editions (with marking,
apparently by Disraeli) but not the third.
*
Mowatt, the M.P. for Penryn and Falmouth attempted to obtain an inquiry into the
Stationery
Office.
The circumstances, which related to the allocation of printing contracts,
are set out
in
Parliamentary Papers,
1851, vol. xxxi (127) pp. 461-470. McCulloch asked for
help
to
block this on several occasions-McCulloch to Disraeli 2 June, 4 June and 20 July
1851, B/XXI/M/l7, 18, 19. Mowatt did not obtain his inquiry.
Hansard,
8 Mar. 1849, vol. 103, cols. 42443 Disraeli’s speech-“Local Taxation-
Burdens on Land” (ref. to McCulloch at 447);
11
Feb. 1851, vol. 114, cols. 398400
(Disraeli quoted the first edition
of
McCulloch
Treatise
on the need for a measure of agri-
cultural protection to offset the effect of tithes); 14 June 1852, vol. 122, col. 692 (Disraeli
referred to McCulloch, Torrens and
J.
S.
Mill as supporting a fixed duty on corn). McCulloch
was suitably grateful-McCulloch
to
Disraeli 9 Mar. 1849, 15 Feb. 1851,
15
June 1852,
B/XXI/M/11, 14, 22.
lo
McCulloch to Disraeli, 12 Aug. 1852, B/XXI/M/23, requesting
an
account of the
gold and silver coined at the Mint 1815-51. On McCulloch’s use
of
his associates in such
matters see O’Brien (1970), pp. 91-96.
To continue reading
Request your trial