History of the Anti-Corn Law League/Chapter12
CHAPTER XII.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1841.
Thrice over had the League declared that it would support no candidate for a seat in Parliament who would not pledge himself to vote for a total repeal of the Corn Law. "Thrice the brinded cat hath mewed," said scoffing unbelievers. The whig administration had declared in favour of a moderate fixed duty. Would there be no favour shown to them or their adherents—no preference given to them, going so far on the right road, over the thoroughly obstructive? But there was no promise of a moderate fixed duty, no declaration that ministers would give earnest battle for a moderate fixed duty, not even an avowal of the meaning of moderate. Mr. Labouchere was in favour,he said, of eight shillings, but was willing to make it higher as a compromise. The moderate fixed duty might be twelve shillings might be sixteen shillings for anything that the Leaguers knew. Were all their labour of instruction—all their declaration of a principle incapable of modification—to be thrown away for this miserable consummation? The cry was raised, "you will let the tories in;" the entreaty was resorted to, "relax your rule in our favour;" and cunnin gofficials, thinking that what had been would be, said " their bark is worse than their bite has ever been." The time came to try the sincerity of the Leaguers—to try whether party predilection or principle would prevail. Mr. Finch, one of the members for Walsall, having signified his intention to retire from Parliament, the two parties in the borough—for there, as in most boroughs, there were only two parties organized—soon found a candidate each. The tories invited Mr. Gladstone, the son of Mr. John Gladstone, of Liverpool, a young gentleman fresh from the university. The liberals invited a young man, a cornet in the Guards, who had the merit of being brother to Lord Lyttelton, and nephew to Earl Spencer. The Council of the League, acting on their thrice affirmed resolution, resolved to send a deputation to Walsall to invite the electors, and especially the members of the Anti-Corn-Law Association there, to put the pledge of total repeal to both the candidates, and Mr. Wm. Rawson and myself were appointed to that duty, and to take with us Mr. Acland, one of our lecturers, whose ready eloquence and electioneering experience might be found useful to aid either of the candidates who would declare in favour of free trade in corn. We arrived in Walsall just in time to attend a meeting at which, for the first time, Mr. Lyttelton addressed the electors. His speech was that of a very young man who had been schooled to utter a few common-places, of a seemingly liberal tone, without a single definite declaration of principle. At the close of his address, Mr. Acland told him in an under tone that a deputation was there from the League, for the purpose of ascertaining the opinions of the candidates as to the total repeal of the Corn Law, and said they would not press him for an immediate answer, as the question was one which ought to receive a very deliberate consideration; and he, therefore, suggested that the answer should be reserved until the next day. Mr. Bolton, of Wolverhampton, the law agent for the candidate, not trusting his principal to reply, loudly asked if the League would not prefer Mr. Lyttelton, who was a liberal, and friendly to revision of the Corn Laws, to Mr. Gladstone, who was a tory and a supporter of protection? Mr. Acland said: "Do you ask me publicly before the electors?" Mr. Bolton said he did. Mr. Acland said he could only answer for himself; but there were two respectable members of the Council of the League who could answer for that body. He went on to state the avowed principles of the League, and to show the benefits it anticipated from free trade in corn, his remarks being received with marked applause from an audience which had been silent during the delivery of Mr. Lyttelton's school-boy address. "Do not," said he in conclusion,"take my exposition of the principles of the League. Mr. Prentice and Mr. Rawson can state them authoritatively, and Mr. Lyttelton will be able then to tell you whether he agrees with them." I felt that we had no right to address a meeting expressly called to hear Mr. Lyttelton, but the invitation, or rather challenge, had come from his own agent, with his assent, and I accepted it. I stated the original constitution of the League, which was to obtain total repeal, and referred to the resolution of the delegates in London, that they would not give their support to any candidate, whatever his politics might be, who was not in favour of repeal. I said that as a reformer myself, I should be glad if Mr. Lyttelton, a professed liberal, declared his opinion to be in accordance with that resolution, that we might recommend him to the members of the Anti-Corn-Law Association in the borough ; but if he did not, the League would certainly give the electors an opportunity of recording their votes in favour of a repealer, without any regard to the political opinions of the candidates then in the field. I concluded by saying that if the electors wished to hear, more authoritatively, the principles of the League, they would perhaps hear Mr. Rawson, its treasurer, and one of its earliest members. By this time Mr. Lyttelton and his law agent seemed to repent their public invitation to answer the question of the latter, and Mr. Rawson being called for expressed his unwillingness to appear as opposing any man professing liberal opinions,and his hope that Mr. Lyttelton would declare in favour of repeal, and thus allow him to aid in his election; but that if he could not, and if the electors of Walsall could not find a suitable candidate in their own town, or their own neighbourhood, there were abundance of men of talent and high principle who would be glad to give them their services in procuring a repeal of laws which were rapidly reducing the borough, and the country, and its industrious population, to utter ruin. Mr. Rawson's short address was received with a warmth of applause which showed that he had an audience of decided opponents of monopoly; and the meeting separated without a single remark from Mr. Lyttelton, his law-agent, or any of his friends.
Next morning the cause of the silence of those who had previously been his supporters soon became obvious. He had been invited on the belief that he was a corn-law repealer, and several of the most active even on his committee, amongst whom was Mr. Joseph Hickin, afterwards secretary to the League, declared to him and to us, that they could not vote for him unless he unequivocally pledged himself to vote for total repeal. Our deputation, having been joined by Mr. William Walker, Mr. Kettle, and Mr. George Wynn, of Wolverhampton, went out amongst the influential electors, and ascertained, beyond a doubt, that there was a sufficient number of corn-law repealers to dictate their own terms to the liberal candidate. In the meantime a placard had been put forth calling on the electors to withhold their promises until they heard an address from Mr. Acland, in the evening, by which time it was expected that explicit answers would be given by the candidates to the question which had now been put to each of them by the deputation.
In the afternoon we received the answers of the candidates. Mr. Gladstone trusted that he would not be considered wanting in courtesy to us as gentlemen, being strangers in Walsall, in declining to enter upon the subject of the Corn Law. We knew what that meant as much as if he had entered upon the subject. Mr. Lyttelton said "I will vote for the total repeal of the Corn Laws when I have ascertained that the interests of the country require it, and therefore shall not object to vote for an immediate inquiry into the effects of these laws." We told the electors around us that they had better try to find some one who had already ascertained that the interests of the country required repeal, and it seemed that a number of them had spoken to him in the same strain, for, just before the time when Mr. Acland had to address the meeting that had been advertised, the deputation were requested to meet Mr. Lyttelton's committee, which met in the same inn, and they were informed that he would not stand against the feelings in favour of the total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws, and that, being unwilling to divide the reformers in the borough, he would at once retire. The announcement was made by Mr. Acland to the next meeting of the electors, amidst great cheering, and great satisfaction was expressed that the field was now open to a thorough repealer. Mr. Rawson addressed the meeting very effectively, and I explained to it that the operations at Walsall were in perfect accordance with the plan of the League, which would everywhere strive to give electors an opportunity of recording their votes in favour of a repealer, and I earnestly recommended them to select a townsman, or near neighbour, whose interests were identified with their own. Before the meeting was over there was originated a requisition to Mr. Charles Forster, a townsman, and signed by most of the electors present, including some of those who had been the most active and influential of Mr. Lyttelton's supporters.
On Wednesday morning the requisition was presented to Mr. Forster. He agreed to stand, an active canvass on his behalf was commenced, and the free traders and reformers felt confident that he would be returned. The hall was again filled in the evening to hear the address of the candidate, but at nine o'clock the gentlemen who were to have accompanied him arrived and stated that Mr. Forster's father, a conservative, had positively forbidden him to stand, and that Mr. Forster, to avoid the misery and dissension that might arise in the family, had earnestly requested that his name should be withdrawn. This naturally caused deep disappointment; but the spirit of the repealers soon rallied, and it was resolved that an earnest request should be forwarded to the Council of the League to find a candidate from amongst their number. I arrived in Manchester early next morning, a meeting was instantly convened, and it was resolved that, although none of the members should be proposed to the electors, Mr. J. B. Smith should be requested to proceed to Walsall to confer with them, and, when they had made their choice, to do all in his power to aid them in returning an opponent of the bread tax.
This movement on the part of the League, although in perfect consistency with its original constitution, and its reiterated resolution as to the course which its members would pursue at elections threw the whole ministerial press into the wildest hysterics. Not one word had that press to say against a movement of that body at Sudbury, where a tory member had been unseated. On the contrary, there was great rejoicing at the extinction of a tory vote, and great praise of the vigour by which it was effected. But when the movement drove, or appeared to drive, from the field a whig candidate, closely related to the whig Lords Althorp, Lyttelton, and Hatherton, and consequently enjoying the sympathies of the whig aristocracy, the clamour was both loud and deep, and the League, and more especially Mr. Rawson and myself, were loaded with unmeasured abuse from the Morning Chronicle and the Globe, down to the Manchester Guardian and a host of provincial whig journals, which, professing to love free trade very much, loved whiggism much more. In the Manchester Guardian, of the 2nd of January, I find the following passage, in reference to what is called the escapade at Walsall, and copy it as a specimen of the sort of stuff which, in all ages, men of mere expediency throw in the way of an assertion of principle:—
The obvious object of all this was to create a schism in the League, now beginning to exercise a power which might be very dangerous to men in office, to whom "certain dogmas called principles" are not often acceptable. If a portion of that body could be induced to declare for ministers and their "moderate" fixed duty, while another portion called "impracticables" demanded total repeal, the Association would be broken up or rendered powerless. The League, however, adhered to its declared constitution and justified the proceedings of its deputation to Walsall. On the 4th January Mr. John Ballantyne, its secretary, was directed to write to the Morning Chronicle, that in putting to Mr. Lyttelton the test of immediate repeal, "the Council had but fulfilled its duty, in carrying into effect the unanimous resolution of the delegates, three times reiterated in London and Manchester, and adopted as the fundamental object of the League," and to say that it "would continue in the same course which had hitherto been followed with such satisfactory results." Numerous anti-corn-law associations separately testified their approbation of the course pursued by the League, and in about ten days addresses to the electors of Walsall, recommending the election of a thoroughly free-trade candidate were voted at meetings held at Rochdale, Kendal, Carlisle, Mitcham, Nantwich, Stourbridge, Bolton, Chorley, Great Torrington, Loughborough, Macclesfield, Uxbridge, Longtown, Stalybridge, Edinburgh, Bridgenorth, Sunderland, Bradford (Wilts), Kidderminster, Leek, Congleton, and Liverpool and thus a movement which, to those who disliked the "dogmas called principles," seemed to promise the dissolution of the League, or to render it powerless, was the means of establishing it more firmly in the confidence of the public, as giving an assurance that it would not abate one jot or tittle from its declared purpose, whatever temptations a temporarizing expediency might offer.
Mr. Smith, finding that the electors were unable to find any local candidate likely to be successful, yielded to their urgent solicitations to come forward himself, and, until the time of election, Walsall was a school in which he, Richard Cobden, and other free traders taught the principles which they had undertaken to teach to the nation. Amongst their opponents was Mr. Forster, the father of the gentleman who would have been candidate and member but for the exercise of parental authority. He was a banker, and exercised all the influence which his position gave him to procure the return of Mr. Gladstone; while the whig Hatherton and Lyttelton families held aloof from the contest, the liberalism of Mr. Smith not being sufficient recommendation to overcome their distaste to his ultra notions concerning the landowners'monopoly. At the close of the poll, on the 30th of January, the numbers stood:-
| For Mr. Gladstone, | 363 |
| For Mr. Smith, | 336 |
Mr. Smith polled twenty more votes than had carried Mr. Finch at the previous election. At the previous registration, the tories had put seventy additional voters on the list, by paying their rates for them. The majority, however, had not been gained after Mr. Smith came into the field, but from the pledges obtained by Mr. Gladstone when he had no better opponent than a young cornet of the guards, who was totally unable to give expression even to the opinions which his friends advised him to state. It was Mr. Lyttelton who gave the triumph to Mr. Gladstone. When he retired he had received only 162 pledges, while his opponent had received 250. At seven in the evening of the election day, Mr. Smith addressed an immense assemblage, not with the despondency of a rejected candidate, but with the triumphant tones of one who felt that he had contended for a great principle, which was certain, ultimately, to prevail. His speech produced a powerful sensation, and when he took leave of his auditory, a great portion of them were in tears.
Ministers might have taken a useful lesson from Walsall. They might have told their supporters that they could no longer rely on whig aristocratic influence, but must give to the electors, in addition, some principle to contend for.They might have said, "Send us a supporter, by all means, but find one who will carry the electors with him. These anti-corn-law men are everywhere, and should not be put at defiance." But they chose to sit "between two stools;" they roused the fiercest opposition by their proposed modification of the Corn Laws, without gaining any confidence or support from the free traders. They enraged their foes, and did not conciliate those who were disposed to be their friends. I did not hesitate to prognosticate their fate:—
"They have alienated all the decided reformers by their uncalled for declaration of finality; they have alienated the dissenters by refusing to rescue them from the exactions of a dominant church; they have alienated the great majority of all who are in trade, be they employers or employed, by the avowal of the premier, that he thinks men must be 'mad' who demand permission to exchange their surplus manufactures for the surplus produce of other lands; they have alienated the friends of peace by unnecessary and unjust interference in the affairs of other nations; they have alienated the friends of economy by a profuse expenditure, which calls for the imposition of new taxes. On whom can they fall back in the event of a general election? To what principle can they appeal in the frequent single elections occasioned by the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds by members tired out with attending debates in a house which talks and does nothing? The cry of 'Keep out the tories,' has had its day, and is no longer available. The people are no longer to be brought to the aid of men who will do nothing for them. If, therefore, ministers do not bring forward measures of substantial reform—not trifling modifications of existing evils, but measures calculated to promote the comfort and happiness of millions—the people will leave them to settle disputes with their opponents as they best may; and if, then, the tories come in, the whigs will only have themselves to blame." Four months afterwards "they appealed to the people," and the people left them to settle with their opponents as they best could and an additional affirmation was given of the truth of the old proverb concerning the two stools. The events of that year, 1841, were pregnant of instruction, but ministers saw little in them to disturb their self-complacent possession of office.
At the close of the preceding year, an agitation bearing upon Parliamentary boroughs had been commenced. In furtherance of this movement a numerous meeting was held on the 2nd of January, in the New Temperance Hall, Bolton, and more than eight hundred of the persons attending, including many ladies, had taken tea together. Mr. James Arrowsmith, the mayor, presided, and amongst the guests at the principal table were Mr. P. Ainsworth, one of the members for the borough (the other was a protectionist), Mr. John Brooks, Mr. J. C. Dyer and his son and Mr. Kawson, jun., of Manchester, Mr. Lawrence Heyworth, of Liverpool, and Mr. and Mrs. E. Ashworth, Mr. H. Ashworth, Mr. Robert Heywood, Mr. Jos. Ainsworth, Mr. C. J. Darbishire, Mr. Thomas Thomasson, the Rev. Mr. Fraser, and the Rev. Mr. Jones, of Bolton. Mr. John Brooks, the first speaker, made effective use of the Prayer Book:—"Being a member of the church he read his prayers as well as the bishops who voted for dear bread, and in his prayer book he found amongst others a prayer which every clergyman must repeat with his lips, if it did not come from his heart, this prayer: 'Oh God, whose gift it is that the rain doth fall, heavenly Father, and the earth is fruitful, behold, we beseech thee, the afflictions of thy people, and grant that the scarcity and dearth which we now justly suffer for our iniquity, may through thy goodness be more mercifully turned into cheapness and plenty.' Here were the bishops and clergy praying for cheapness and plenty, and then, out of the church, turning their prayers into mockery, by upholding the men who were the cause of scarcity and dearth."
Mr. Ainsworth said the country could have no better security for the preservation of peace than by adopting free trade. Mr. Edmund Ashworth gave a deplorable account of the state of Bolton. A number of gentlemen who had visited the working classes there had found 300 families, consisting of 1,400 individuals, whose whole income did not amount to more than £130 per week, or, deducting rents £105 11s., which was only equal to 15¼d. per head. per week. Out of 3,200 houses in the parish they found 409 empty; that of the houses occupied 1,000 were found tenanted by families who had only 18d. per week to live upon, 1,200 whose income was under 2s., and nearly 1,300 whose income was under 2s. 6d. per head per week. Of these poor people 1,601 had only 500 beds among them, 582 of them sleeping three in a bed, 185 five in a bed, 78 six in a bed, 42 seven in a bed. In one place eight had only one between them, and 23 were wholly without a bed to rest upon! Mr. Dyer commented with deep indignation on the indifference of the law-makers to such distress, and Mr. H. Ashworth, Mr. C. J. Darbishire, Mr. L. Heyworth, and Mr. Thomasson proved by their speeches that they were fully competent to take a part in the great work of educating the people which had been recently originated.
On the 18th of February a meeting was held of the Manchester Anti-Corn-Law Association, which continued to keep up its separate organization, in the large room, Newall's Buildings. The chairman, Mr. J. B. Smith, after speaking of the necessity of taking urgent means to obtain their object, called upon Mr. George Wilson to read the annual report. That gentleman had not much appeared before the public during the agitation, but as a member of the executive council, and very frequently its chairman, had already rendered most effective service by his excellent administrative faculties, his capacity for arrangement and organization, his ready tact in moments of difficulty, his conciliatory manners, and the cheerful devotion of his time to the business of that committee. Having stated the proceedings of the preceding year, and that £40 remained of the £4,000 which had been subscribed, he congratulated the meeting on the prospect of a considerable number of ministers of religion joining the movement. Mr. Thomas Bazley, who had recently been boroughreeve of Salford, spoke hopefully of the effect to be produced by the energy of the Association. "In every concern," he said, "I hear of fewer hands employed, and in every direction I hear of wages being reduced. Where then do we find the boasted advantages of the high price of food?" Amongst other resolutions moved was one by Mr. W. Rawson, that a copy of the Anti-Corn-Law Circular be sent to every clergyman in Manchester and Salford. I spoke at some length in seconding the motion, and stated that in Scotland the churches and chapels had been thrown open to Mr. Paulton, and that in my short excursions into Cheshire three places of worship had been at my service; there was good ground for hope when the question was no longer regarded as one of mere profit to particular classes, but as one of high religious and moral feeling among the people generally. Mr. Cobden, after attributing the failure of former movements against the Corn Law to the fear of "embarrassing the government," said:—
Mr. Acland, thus appealed to, declared his conviction that it was only by standing on the rock of justice that he could continue to beat off their opponents ; no man that ever lived could prove that it was just to tax the food of the hungry ; and he felt that so long as they stood on this principle, they rested on a basis that admitted the rights of all, rich and poor, the natural right of man to live by his honest industry, and to spend his wages in the market from whence he could have the best return. The following gentlemen were appointed the council of the Association for the ensuing year
President: J. B. Smith, Esq.
Vice-President; C. J. S. Walker, Esq.
Treasurer:Mr. Alderman Kershaw.
Secretary:Mr. John Ballantyne.
COUNCIL:
The Mayor.
Sir Thomas Potter, late Mayor.
Joseph Adshead.
Elkanah Armitage.
James Ashworth.
Edmund Ashworth.
James Bake.
J. R. Barnes.
Thomas Bazley.
William Besley.
John Brewer.
John Brooks.
Robert Bunting.
Thomas Burgess.
W. R. Callender.
James Carlton.
Robert Chadwick.
James Chapman.
Walter Clarke.
Richard Cobden.
Matthew Curtis.
Andrew Dalziel.
S. D. Darbishiro.
J. C. Dyer.
James Eager, M.D.
James Edwards.
Edward Evans.
William Evans.
Richard T. Evans.
W. D. Fullalove.
J. H. Fuller.
John Gadsby.
William Goodier.
J. S. Grafton.
R. H. Greg, M.P.
H. H. Grounds.
Jeremiah Garnett.
George Hadfield.
Andrew Hall.
Edward Hall.
James Hampson.
Thomas Handley.
Thomas Harbottle.
George Hargreaves.
William Harvey.
Alexander Henry.
Edward Herford.
Joseph Heron.
John Higson.
Thomas Higson.
Henry Hilton.
Holland Hoole.
Thomas Hopkins.
George Horsfield.
James Howie.
James Hudson.
Isaac Hudson.
John Hyde.
William Labrey.
John Leatherbanow.
Samuel Lees.
William Lindon.
William Lockett.
F. Lowe.
Henry Mc.Connell.
John Macfarlane.
John Mallon.
Henry Marsland.
Samuel Marsland.
Thomas Molineux.
James Murray.
Joseph Nadin, jun.
John Naylor.
Robert Nicholson.
William Nicholson.
Aaron Nodal.
Philip Novelli.
John Ogden.
J. S. Ormerod.
R. Owen.
Benjamin Pearson.
William Perkins.
Robert N. Philips.
John Potter.
T. B. Potter.
Archibald Prentice.
Jonathan Rawson.
Henry Rawson.
William Rawson.
John Rawsthorne.
John Rostron.
John Shuttleworth.
S. H. Slack.
Robert Stuart.
Samuel Stocks.
Isaac Shimwell.
Abraham Smith.
John Standring.
James Thompson.
Charles Tysoe.
John Whitlow.
John Wilkinson.
Samuel Watts.
William Woodcock.
Absalom Watkin.
R. Webb.
George Wilson.
Richard Wilson.
W. B. Watkins.
T. H. Williams.
Henry Wadkin.
W. Wardleworth.
James Wigan.
P. F. Willert.
James Worthington.
This was a numerous committee but not more numerous than the movement required. It comprised not only men of the first station in our community, but a great many who, if they could not contribute largely to the funds of the Association, could contribute what was equally valuable, work—earnest, continuous, gratuitous work. The time was coming when, in addition to the staff of lecturers, there was to be a heavy staff of clerks, but never, perhaps, had there been any association where so large a portion of the labour to be performed was without other remuneration than the consciousness of discharging a duty. Occasionally circumstances arose that required instant attention and instant work, and, on these emergencies, it was not uncommon to see thirty or forty persons, for weeks together, coming at five or six o'clock in the morning, and labouring until midnight as closely and earnestly as if their own existence depended upon the swiftness of their pens; while the executive committee, which was also the executive committee of the League, meeting at ten in the morning, had their work often extended over the whole of the day. If, therefore, Manchester, by the vote of a congress of the various separate associations, had the honour of directing the movement, there fell to it the larger share of unremitting toil.