The Corn Laws--Their Character and Policy--Origin of the
Anti-Corn-Law Movement--Adam Smith--Mr. Cobden--"Anti-Corn-Law
Parliament"--Mr. Villier's Motion in the House of Commons in
1839--Formation of the League--Power of the Landlords--Lord John
Russell's Motion in 1841--General Election of that Year--Mr. Cobden
Returned to Parliament--Peel in Power--His Modification of the Corn
Laws--Great Activity and Steady Progress of the League during the
Years 1842, '3, '4, and '5--Session of 1846--Sir Robert Peel and
the Duke of Wellington--Repeal of the Corn Laws.
A pleasant little story is told of Queen Victoria and the corn laws.
During the second year of her sovereignty, and while yet a maiden, she
was one day skipping the rope as a relaxation from the pressure of
official duties. Lord Melbourne, the Premier, was superintending the
royal amusement. She suddenly stopped, and, turning to him with a
thoughtful look, (the cares of State no doubt clouding her brow,) said,
"My Lord, what are these corn laws, which my people are making so much
noise about?" Said the courtly Premier, in reply, "Please your Majesty,
they are the laws that regulate the consumption of the staff of life in
your Majesty's dominions." "Indeed," rejoined the Queen, "have any of
the staff officers of my Life Guards got the consumption? Poor fellows!"
Her Majesty then resumed the skipping of the rope.
Perhaps some American maidens are as ignorant of what the British corn
laws were as Queen Victoria.
Lord Stanley came within a few hundred years of the truth, when he said
that the principle of landlord protection had existed in England for
eight centuries. In 1774, the corn laws received the impress which they
retained till their repeal in 1846. They were revised in 1791, in 1804,
in 1815, and in 1828. The revisions of 1815 and 1828 produced the system
more generally known as _the_ corn laws. The object of the system was to
afford as complete a monopoly in breadstuffs to the home agriculturists
as possible, and yet allow the introduction of foreign grain whenever a
bad harvest, or other causes, produced a scarcity of food. At every
revision, down to that of 1828, the duties were made more and more
protective. The price to which wheat (for instance) must rise ere it
could come in from abroad, at a nominal duty, was fixed in 1774 at
48_s._ per quarter; in 1791, at 54_s._; in 1804, at 66_s._; and in 1815,
at 80_s._--the quarter being 8 bushels. The liberal policy of Mr.
Huskisson slightly prevailed in 1828, and the maximum price was fixed at
73_s._
The system was a compromise between protection and starvation, the
umpire being a "_sliding scale_" of duties. By this scale, the duties
fell as the prices rose, and rose as the prices fell. The act of 1828
had 20 or 30 degrees in its scale, three or four of which are given as
illustrations. When the average price of wheat in the kingdom was 52_s._
per quarter, the duty on foreign wheat was 34_s._ 8_d._ When the price
reached 60_s._, the duty fell to 26_s._ 8_d._ When the price rose to
70_s._, the duty sunk to 10_s._ 8_d._ When the price attained 73_s._ and
upward, the duty went down to 1_s._ The price which regulated the duty
was ascertained as follows: The prices of grain (wheat, for instance) on
Saturday of each week, at 150 of the principal markets in the kingdom,
were ascertained by returns to the Exchequer, and these were averaged.
To this average were added the averages of the five preceding weeks, and
then "the general average" of the whole six was struck, and this, on
each Thursday, was proclaimed by the Government as the price for the
regulation of the duty for one week. Wheat, flour, &c., from abroad,
might be stored or "bonded," without paying duties, to await a favorable
turn of the market, then to be entered or reexported at pleasure.
The act of 1828, after being modified in 1842, was totally repealed in
1846--the totality to take effect in February, 1849. During the seven
years immediately preceding the repeal, matter sufficient to fill a
thousand quarto volumes was printed in Great Britain on the Corn Laws. I
shall not touch this mass, but confine myself to a notice of the
movement typified by the name of Richard Cobden.
The history of Voluntary Associations does not furnish a triumph so
signal as that achieved by the Anti-Corn-Law League. In seven years it
revolutionized the mind of the most intelligent nation of Europe, bent
to its will the proudest legislative assembly in the world, prostrated
an aristocracy more powerful than the oligarchies of antiquity, and
overthrew a system rooted to the earth by the steady growth and
fostering culture of centuries. It may not be uninteresting to trace the
rise and progress of such an Association.
From the days of Adam Smith downward, a school of political economists
have contended that free trade is the high commercial road to national
wealth. This was a favorite doctrine with the brilliant _coterie_, whose
opinions were reflected by the Edinburgh Review, and it mingled in the
discussions upon "national distress," with which Parliament so
frequently resounded from the breaking out of the French revolution to
the passage of the Reform bill. But the landlords proved too strong for
the schoolmen. The beginning of 1837 saw a fearful commercial collapse
in England, which was aggravated by a deficient harvest in the ensuing
summer. The summer of 1838 brought in its train another deficient
harvest, which plunged the country deeper into suffering and gloom. Many
sagacious minds regarded the corn laws as a fruitful source of these
disasters. In September, Dr. Bowring and Colonel Thompson, two
distinguished Benthamites, started the Anti-Corn-Law crusade, by
forming, in a small meeting at Manchester, an Anti-Corn-Law Association.
Shortly after, a large assembly of the merchants and manufacturers of
that town, in which Mr. Cobden bore a leading part, resolved to aid the
Association with L3,000. In December, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce
adopted a petition to Parliament, praying for an immediate and total
repeal of the laws. Thus encouraged, the Association convened a meeting
of delegates from all parts of the kingdom, at Manchester, in January,
1839. This body empowered the Association to assemble a meeting of
deputies in London at the opening of the approaching session of
Parliament. They met in February, and petitioned the House of Commons
for leave to present evidence at its bar in regard to the injurious
effects of the corn laws, and selected Mr. Villiers to bring forward a
motion to that end. It was negatived with contempt, and the delegates
separated. A month elapsed, and they again met at Brown's Hotel, in
Palace Yard--the Protectionists, in derision, giving them the name of
"The Anti-Corn-Law Parliament"--a name which they at once adopted, and
which they ultimately taught the landlords to fear, if not respect.
Their organ, Mr. Villiers, moved that the Commons take into
consideration the act regulating the importation of foreign corn. He
spoke in defense of his motion amidst coughings and hootings, when a
large majority of members, shouting, "Divide! divide!" rushed into the
lobbies, silencing for the moment the demand for cheap bread. They had
yet to learn the character of the men they were dealing with.
On motion of Mr. Cobden, the Palace-Yard Convention now organized "THE
NATIONAL ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE," with a Central Council, to be located at
Manchester. In that hour, the landlords of Great Britain insolently
boasted of their ability to cope with all the other property-holders of
the kingdom combined. There was cause for their boasting. Their
possessions were vast, their union was perfect, their power hitherto
irresistible. During a period of fifty-five years, the number of
land-owners in the realm had fearfully diminished. In 1774, when Mr.
Burke's corn law was enacted, the estimated number was 240,000 in
England proper. In 1839, 40,000[10] persons, acting together, with the
unity and efficiency of a close corporation, owned the agricultural soil
of England. With this monopoly, the League joined issue. Richard Cobden,
in the name of Free Trade, threw his gauntlet in the face of Protection,
and challenged the feudalists to trial by battle before the people of
the three kingdoms. The struggle was one of the severest, the victory
one of the completest, of the present century.
[10] Our lamented countryman, Mr. Colman, estimated the number at
30,000. I think the text is quite low enough. And an enterprise is now
started for the purchase of small freeholds by landless men, which, if
vigorously prosecuted, will do much to break up the land-monopoly of
England.
The leading principles maintained by the League were, that the corn laws
were not beneficial to the whole body of agriculturists, but only to a
privileged few; that they depressed other branches of industry; caused
frequent and ruinous fluctuations in the market value of breadstuffs,
greatly enhanced the price at all times, and, therefore, were injurious
to the community generally, and especially to the laboring poor. The
promulgation of these principles excited a discussion of the broader
question of the relative merits of Protection and Free Trade in their
widest aspects.
The League entered so vigorously into the contest, that, by the close of
the year 1839, upward of one hundred important towns had formed kindred
associations. In 1840, Manchester, which bore so conspicuous a part in
originating the movement, commenced the series of large Free-Trade
meetings, which made that town so famous in the corn-law struggle. In
January, a public dinner was spread for the friends of the League, under
a huge pavilion, at which 4,000 persons sat down. The next day, 5,000
operatives were feasted. In February, at the opening of the Royal
Parliament, the "Anti-Corn Law Parliament" met in London. Mr. Villiers
renewed the motion of the previous year, and was defeated. In March, the
Palace-Yard Parliament again assembled; Mr. Villiers again brought
forward his motion, and was again defeated. The delegates returned home
to arouse their constituents. The cry for "cheap bread" reverberated
through the summer from Pentland Frith to Eddystone Light--from the
Giant's Causeway to the Cove of Cork. Palace Yard again swarmed with
delegates in November, and the persevering Villiers again moved, spoke,
and was defeated. But the warm agitations of the League were gradually
ripening public opinion. Whigism was tottering to its fall. It cast
about for a crutch. Early in the session of 1841, Lord John Russell,
foreseeing the necessity of a dissolution of Parliament or a dissolution
of the Ministry, resolved on the former; and, wishing for "a cry" with
which to rally the country, gave notice of his motion for the
abandonment of the sliding scale, and for a fixed duty of 8_s._ per
quarter on imported wheat. He made an able speech, closed the doors of
St. Stephen's, and opened the campaign for a new House of Commons.
The Tories swept the kingdom, the Whigs falling between the "totality"
of the Leaguers and the "finality" of the Protectionists. Lord John
faced the New Parliament, his motion was defeated, and Sir Robert Peel,
after an exclusion of eleven years, returned to power. But, though the
landlords gave the Queen a sliding-scale House of Commons, the
operatives of Stockport gave the People "a fixed fact" in the person of
Richard Cobden. And now, said the feudalists, Cobden will find his
level. He may sway a turbulent mob of unwashed Manchester artisans, but
he will not dare to brave the starred and gartered aristocracy of
England. Little did they dream, in this hour of their exultation, that
in four years and a half the Manchester calico-printer would convert the
Premier to his views, who, carrying over half the Tories to the League,
would give victory to its standard, generously saying, as he retired
with grace and dignity from the field, "Not to the Tory party nor to the
Whig party, not to myself nor to the noble Lord at the head of the
Opposition, is this change to be attributed; but the People of this
country are indebted for this great measure of relief to the rare
combination of elements which center in the mind and heart of Richard
Cobden."
To return from this digression. The session of 1842 was opened at a
period of unexampled distress in the manufacturing districts. Sir Robert
Peel proposed a modification of the corn laws, which considerably
reduced the duties. Mr. Villiers met the Government with a motion that
the laws ought immediately to cease and determine. During the debate,
Sir Robert announced that he would not pledge himself to a permanent
maintenance of the sliding scale, and he distinctly abandoned the
principle of protection as mere protection. This foreshadowed the events
of 1846. Cobden's lucid speeches in defense of the motion won him a high
place in the House. Villiers was defeated by a large majority, and the
Government measure adopted.
Near the close of the year, the League proposed to raise L50,000, and
deputed Messrs. Cobden, Bright, Col. Thompson, and others, to traverse
the country and address the people. The great Free-Trade Hall was built
at Manchester, and at its consecration, in January, 1843, it was
announced that L44,000 had been raised. An attack was next made on
London. After filling first the Crown and Anchor, and then Freemasons'
Hall, the League was invited by Mr. Macready to occupy Drury-Lane
Theater. Night after night, that spacious building was more densely
packed, and rung with louder cheers, than in the days when Edmund Kean
burst upon the metropolis, and carried it with a whirlwind of
excitement, Thus far, the meetings of the League had been held in towns
and cities. Mr. Cobden now challenged the Monopolists to meet the Free
Traders on their chosen ground. He attended open meetings of
agriculturists in thirty-two counties, encountered the advocates of
protection, and with the aid of his associates, defeated them on a show
of hands in every case but one.
The year 1844 was opened with a proposal to raise L100,000, and to
distribute ten millions of anti-corn-law tracts. Free Trade Hall gave a
lead to the country, by subscribing L20,000 at a single meeting. In
March, Mr. Cobden attacked the landlords in their farmyards. He moved
the Commons for a committee to inquire into the effects of protective
duties upon tenant farmers and agricultural laborers. His speech on that
occasion, one of the ablest he ever delivered, gave a new aspect to the
controversy, and a fresh impulse to the national intellect. And more
than all, as was afterward acknowledged, that speech sunk into the soul
of Sir Robert Peel, and prepared the _finale_ of the corn laws. During
the session, Sir Robert carried through a bill reducing the duties on
several important articles; but he did not touch corn. The "pressure
from without" was becoming, month by month, more difficult to be
resisted. As fast as vacancies in Parliament occurred, they were filled
by the candidates of the League. Early in 1845, Sir Robert proposed
sweeping financial reforms, repealing the duties on four hundred and
fifty articles, reducing the duty on the important article of sugar, and
otherwise modifying the tariff. The corn laws still remained inviolate,
but the landlords began to be alarmed. The panic was not diminished when
the League placed its choicest orators on the stage of Covent Garden.
For weeks, that theater was crowded from pit to dome, with audiences
more earnest and enthusiastic than the muse of Shakspeare or the wit of
Sheridan could command. Distinguished Parliamentarians, and even Earls
and Barons, were swept into the throng, and mingled their voices in the
chorus for "cheap bread," with Cobden, Bright, Fox, and Thompson. The
ladies crowned the _fete_ by opening a splendid Free-Trade bazaar in
the theater, crowding its doors for three weeks with wealth and beauty,
and adding L15,000 to the treasury of the League. Ere the autumnal
months had passed away, it became evident that Sir Robert Peel's
Government must soon grant repeal or yield the ghost. A new election was
anticipated. "Registration" almost silenced the shout for "Repeal."
Effective measures were taken to place the name of every Free-Trade
voter on the lists. The close of the year 1845 saw the League busy in
raising a fund of L250,000, and marshalling one hundred thousand new
electors for the contest.
The session of 1846 opened. The result is known. Sir Robert Peel and the
Duke of Wellington--the same men who, seventeen years before,
emancipated the Catholics--repealed the corn laws. There could be no
higher evidence of the ability and tact of Sir Robert, than that on both
these memorable occasions he won the support of the most inflexible of
men, without whose aid neither of those measures could have passed the
House of Peers. Such acts pour a flood of redeeming sunshine upon the
characters of both these men.
The corn laws are dead. The principle of protection has received its
death-blow in England. By mingling the question of corn-law repeal with
that of protection generally, the discussions of seven years carried the
mind of Britain forward a quarter of a century in the direction of Free
Trade in all its departments. Nobody hopes for a permanent revival of
the old order of things, except two or three superannuated ladies in the
House of Peers, and half a dozen young Hotspurs in the House of Commons.
If the good effected by this great measure has not realized all the
promises of its advocates, it has falsified most of the evil predicted
by its opponents--being but another proof that public sagacity, warned
by the preliminary agitation, foresees changes in existing systems, and
gradually prepares to meet them, so that their actual advent heralds
neither all the blessings anticipated by their friends, nor all the
disasters prophesied by their enemies.[11]
[11] It is undoubtedly true that this corn-law contest had its origin in
the conflicting interests of two classes of monopolists, the
manufacturers and the landlords. But, the turn which the conflict
finally took made it a battle between Free Trade and Protection, and the
victory redounded to the advantage of the former. The monopoly of the
manufacturers will no doubt be overthrown in its turn. A great maritime
monopoly has already shared the fate of the landlord monopoly in the
recent repeal of the Navigation Laws.
A more particular notice of Mr. Cobden, and some other anti-corn-law
advocates, will be given in the next chapter.