History of the Anti-Corn Law League/Chapter5

by Archibald Prentice

CHAPTER V.

ORIGIN OF THE LEAGUE.

With the prospect of a wet autumn, and a deficient harvest, or wheat inferior in quality, requiring an admixture of foreign-grown, not admissable but at heavy duties, it seemed likely that a lecturer would find audiences. There was a certain Dr. Birnie, who, about the end of July, announced a lecture on the Corn Laws in the Bolton Theatre. There was a good attendance, and the lecturer was well received but he had provided himself with a great bundle of papers, and he could not readily find those to which he wished to refer. When he did find them he read them badly, his connecting observations were not understandable, and, the meeting expressing its impatience, he came to a complete stand still. In one of the boxes sat several gentlemen with Mr. Abraham Walter Paulton, Mr.a young medical student Thomas Thomasson said: "Do Paulton get on the stage and say something, and don't let such a meeting be lost." The young man rushed round to the stage, and asked the meeting to hear him for a few minutes. The people had come to hear, and they called "hear, hear," and "go on." He did go on for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, and created a wish that he should be heard more at length; and it was arranged that he should deliver a lecture there on Monday, August 6th. The theatre on that night was crowded, and the young lecturer not only showed that he had carefully studied the question, but that he had, in his earnestness and energy, and mastery of appropriate language, and combination of argument, with appeals to high moral principle, the power of deeply interesting an audience.

Dr. Bowring was to pass through Manchester, on the 10th September, on his way from Liverpool to Blackburn, where a public dinner was to be given in his honour. He had recently returned from a mission to promote more free commercial intercourse with some of the European powers, and with the Viceroy of Egypt; and I, thinking that the relation of his experience would be useful at a time when men began to talk one with another about the absurdity as well as the iniquity of the corn monopoly,sent out a hundred circulars, saying that some friends of free trade would meet him at the York Hotel on the evening of that day. About sixty responded to the very hasty invitation. I was called upon to take the chair, and Philip Thomson the vice-chair. Mr. Dr. Bowring being introduced to the meeting, was received with great enthusiasm. After alluding to the desolation he had witnessed, the result of the long war between Turkey and Egypt, and to the prospects that would be opened out by a more general recognition of the principles of peace, he said:—

"It is impossible to estimate the amount of human misery created by the Corn Laws, or the amount of human pleasure overthrown by them. In every part of the world I have found the plague-spot. Some years ago I was sent to agitate—for our government is sometimes engaged in the work of honourable agitation—France in the interest of free trade; and so strong was the excitement that the south of France menaced the north of France with a separation, unless the commercial code was modified. It was modified to some extent, and I have had the pleasure of seeing the exports of France trebled in consequence of the change. (Loud cheers.) But when I went into Normandy and Brittany, what said the Normans and the Britans? Why, said they, corn, and then we'll see whether anybody can prevent the importation of your manufactures into France.' (Cheers.) 'We are millions,' said they, 'willing to clothe ourselves in the garments you send us, and you have millions of hungry mouths to take our corn.' The same language is held by every nation in trade. We talk, and with some good reason, about the evils inflicted by some of the minor German states who have consented to increase the duties upon British manufactures. They have been following the advice of certain honourable gentlemen who have ever that most mischievous word 'reciprocity' upon their lips, for no word has done so much damage to commerce as that word. Why every man who buys, sells reciprocity; and everyman who sells, buys reciprocity; and if one government had courage to government and overthrow reciprocity' in the intercourse of nation and nation, it would do a noble deed. I wish my right honourable friend, your representative, would consider this his high and noble mission—(cheers )—and that he would obliterate from the statute-book every statute by which governments have pretended to teach merchants how to trade, and manufacturers how to work. Gentlemen, but what did Prussia say? No doubt the object of Prussia was political rather than commercial, for she managed so that she got a great many little states in her power, and influenced their commercial interests while she interfered with their political position. I believe that Prussia made a great mistake, because she not powerful enough to overpower the smaller states, and the smaller states being a 'bundle of sticks' which Prussia had unwittingly tied fast together, they were enabled to dictate terms to Prussia herself. But the Prussian Union say, 'We do not wish to legislate against the introduction of your manufactures—take our corn and our timber and we will take your manufactures:' and many said to me, 'We hold this union as a means of forcing you to change your legislation.' (Hear, hear.) If I could, or if I had any influence with the Prussian ministry, I would say, Take goods from England, and no doubt the English people will have good prices for them, for I do not think it likely our merchants will long sell their goods unless they can obtain their value.' And I believe the great secret of the mode of changing the legislation of every country is to change your own; admit what you want, buy what you want upon the cheapest terms, and be sure that those who sell it to you will be paid. Now, a very serious state of things has come on in consequence of the existence of these Corn Laws. Nobody can estimate the amount of capital withdrawn from agriculture, in order to be applied to manufactures in consequence of our not taking from other nations the commodities with which they would buy our goods. The other day coming down the Danube, an Hungarian nobleman told me that they had quite ceased to think of producing corn for the English market, and they were turning their capital to manufacturing, as they could not sell their corn. (Hear, hear.) There was abundance of corn in the country, but not sufficient clothing for the use of the people, and so the Austrian government was led to encourage commerce, to discourage English manufactures, and to manufacture for themselves. (Hear, hear.) And this is a state of things which Corn-Law legislation is bringing about in all directions. (Hear, hear.) I have heard it said, and it seems to have had some influence upon the labouring people, that the introduction of foreign corn is the inevitable way to lower wages. I say, that, if there be any certain means of raising wages, it is by the admission of foreign corn. (Cheers.) What are the two countries that have had the wisdom to avoid Corn-Law legislation? They are Holland and Switzerland; in which wages are higher than in any country in Europe! (Hear, hear.) And that is invariably the case. Wages are almost always raised where the greatest demand for labour is introduced; and the demand for labour is always introduced with the introduction of a foreign competition in corn. Switzerland, it is true, was, two generations ago, in a state of extreme wretchedness and misery, with emigrations of immense masses of her population taking place every six or eight years, and with the population reduced to the verge of starvation, a great portion of the country being composed of desolate mountains, of uncultivated tracts, and the people in a state of sad ignorance. What has occurred there? The people have attained more political ideas, and have applied them to the attainment of political knowledge; that political knowledge has given them a sound commercial legislation, and now the rate of wages in Switzerland is far higher than the rate in any other country in Europe; and with regard to the price of commodities, between thirty and forty per cent, higher than the rate of wages here. (Hear.) I have seen more than one instance of an artisan in Switzerland—where commodities are universally low, in consequence of free trade which is universally adopted—getting from ten to fourteen shillings per day by hand labour.(Cheers.)Holland—a country if ever there was one which could he, as the Duke of Wellington said in the House of Lords, reduced to the humiliating necessity of depending upon foreign lands for a supply of food, which he made an argument for the Corn Laws—Holland depends upon every country. When was she ever short? I venture to say that no granaries in any country were ever so well filled. Every body there knows the rate of wages, because they know with every slight alteration in price they can estimate what the loaf of bread will cost them and their families. But now, when the Corn Laws are about to be overwhelmed—because I do not believe that, in the state of public opinion, they can stand we shall find that we shall not get one-twentieth of the benefits of national interchange we should have had,if there had been no Corn Law at all. My belief is that if this country imported one or two millions of quarters of wheat from foreign lands, the consumption would increase to that extent, for it is astonishing how much consumption increases where the price of corn is low, and where trade is healthy and prosperous. There are many districts in which the increase of consumption is only one-fifth: but were it one-tenth it would make an increase of two millions of quarters, and the introduction of two millions of quarters of corn would be the export of between four and five millions of manufactures in order to accomplish the payment. My friend (the chairman) referred to some circumstances which took place in Egypt. It is almost repeating myself and him to advert to the subject again, but the facts are so interesting that I must be excused for doing so. Egypt, it is well known to you, has been for between 3000 and 4000 years the the granary of the world. It was the granary of the world in the time and from the time of Pharoah to the present day. Even when its population was between seven and eight millions (and it is now, perhaps, not more than two millions), it produced not only sufficient for its own consumption, but its overflowing harvests were diffused to every place throughout the Mediterranean, and their super-abundance supplied food for more than Egyptian mouths. The Pasha, who is a very intelligent and a very remarkable man, and a man capable of reasoning, and a man, more than any Turk I ever met with, alive to the great interests of the country, had been interfering with the introduction of corn, and put a heavy duty on, under the belief that his all productive country never could want corn. But it happened there, as it will happen anywhere, that any interference with production is an embarrassment to production, and that capital, finding itself embarrassed and annoyed by each interference, applies itself to other channels; and when I was in Egypt the people were absolutely menaced with a famine, and in Cairo corn could scarcely be had for love or for money, or even with the despotic orders of the Pasha in hand. I did speak to the Pasha upon the subject, and I told him that he was deluded by those about him, and like other monarchs surrounded by mere flatterers, who rather told him that which was not true than that which was. I told him how the country was menaced with nothing less than starvation, and that, if the system were continued, he would probably see his army in a state of revolt, for it was true in Africa as well as England, that no revolt was so terrible as that of the belly. He did, after a long debate, and after fighting very heroically in the Chandos style, give way, and said he thought it was better to let corn come in and go out of the ports without any duty whatever. I ventured to assure him he would soon see the beneficial consequences. I had reason to say so, for it was then at 180 piastres, but after this it fell down to seventy. Corn thenceforward came in and went out to all quarters, and I left Egypt exporting instead of importing corn; and, as I believe the folly of interference will not again be committed, I have no doubt Egypt will become the land of plenty, which she had been for ages. (Cheers.)"

After adverting to the improvement which would take place in countries desolated by war, were the principles of free trade recognised, Dr. Bowring exclaimed:"Why, England, if only she pleased, might become the universal benefactor! Ask the Duke of Wellington, and the other advocates of the Corn Laws, as to what would be the consequences of a war? Do you believe that war would be possible when we had universal trade? Who quarrels with his benefactor? Or if he quarrel, does he not ere long seek to heal the breach? Who would seek to quarrel with those who were perpetually communicating to them benefits and blessings? Gentlemen, I hope the time is coming when the warrior will not be looked to as the defender of England, but the peace maker. The happy state of things will come, in which we shall look on the victories of commerce, and the victories of peace, as far more glorious than any that have been gathered in fields where blood has been poured out like water."

Mr. George Hadfield said that although the Corn Law had been passed against the will of the people, most strongly manifested, it was extraordinary that from that time to the present there had not been one simultaneous popular effort made to overturn it. We seemed, therefore, to have degenerated, and with all our talk of the advance of political science, seemed to have been going down the hill instead of up it. Well might Lord Chandos say that the farmer was beginning to be at peace on this question. He was sorry to see men trying to set reformers at variance on other questions in order to keep them back from looking at this.The repeal of the Corn Laws would probably amount to six times the good that would attend the repeal of the new Poor Law. The profit to the country would probably be six times the amount paid to the poor altogether. The aristocracy had joined the outcry against the new Poor Law, and talked about the rights of the poor merely by way of throwing as they thought a tub to the whale, and drawing the attention of the people from looking at heavier grievances. And should this continue? Should not this great town exert its powers and say at once, "We will not have our trade shackled by your laws, made—not for the farmer as was pretended, not for the benefit of the country at large,—but exclusively to maintain high rents?" It was time to unite heart and hand on this question, and challenge the whole country to put their shoulder to the wheel, and get rid of a system alike offensive to the laws of God and man. This incitement to action was followed by loud cheering.

I then proposed the health of Colonel Thompson, whose writings in favour of reform had done much to procure an amendment of the representative system, and who, in addition to the instruction so well given in his Corn Law Catechism, "was then engaged in exposing every new landlord fallacy. The toast was received with loud applause. The next I gave was, "The health and happiness of the poor hand-loom weavers, who have set the example of petitioning for the repeal of the Corn Laws." I said, "I could not but regret that the merchants and manufacturers of Manchester should have been so long supine under a system which threatened to deprive us of a great portion of our commerce, and that their Chamber of Commerce had been so long inert under it. However, an example had been set them by the HAND-LOOM WEAVERS, during the late inquiry into their condition, when a number of them met, and came to the conclusion that whatever might be attempted for their relief (and amongst the systems proposed was the constitution of a board of masters and men to settle disputes about prices, as in France), no benefit could reach them without a repeal of the Corn Laws. These men, who were so reduced that they could not buy the paper for a petition without assistance, had sent up a petition for the repeal of the Corn Laws, bearing 22,000 signatures. I could not help thinking that it was degrading to the merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen of a town like this, that the poor hand-loom weavers should have to set them this example."

Mr. James Howie, a man always prompt for action, said that what had just fallen from the chairman reminded him that we had here no Anti-Corn-Law Association. He believed that if the devil himself had contrived a system for the destruction of the human race, he could not have framed a code of laws more adapted for the purpose than the insolent aristocracy had done. He should propose that the present company at once form themselves into such an association, and though few in number, be the rolling stone that should gather strength in its progress. Mr. Howie's proposition was well received, and I requested all who were favourable to its object, to meet at the same place on the following Monday evening.

The health of Mr. Paulton was then given, with commendation of his lectures at Bolton of Mark Philip, M.P. for the borough; of Earl Fitzwilliam, as an opponent of the Corn Laws; and of Mr. Brotherton, M.P. for Salford, to which his brother-in-law, Mr. Wm. Harvey, responded.

M. Frederic Bastiat, in his "Cobden et la Ligue," published in 1845, says: "Seven men united themselves at Manchester, in the month of October, 1838; and with that manly determination which characterizes the Anglo-Saxon race, they resolved to overturn every monopoly by legal means, and accomplish without disturbance, without effusion of blood, with the power only of opinion, a revolution as profound, perhaps more profound, than that which our fathers worked to effect in 1789." There is no reason why the names of those seven men, possessing "cette virile determination qui characterise la race Anglo-Saxonne," should not be known. The first meeting to form the Association was held at the York Hotel, on Monday, September 24th, and was attended by the following persons: Edward Baxter, W. A. Cunningham, Andrew Dalziel, James Howie, James Leslie, Archibald Prentice, and Philip Thomson. At this meeting the failure of former associations was attributed to the want of a popular foundation, and it was resolved that the subscriptions should be only five shillings, in order that all classes should be included as members. Some apprehension was expressed that persons not disposed to demand the total repeal of the Corn Laws might join the association, and destroy its hold on public confidence by asking for a half-measure, to which the reply was that the very name the Anti-Corn-Law Association, which meant an association against any corn law, would be a guarantee against any future change of its purpose. The meeting had just closed when Mr. William Rawson, afterwards treasurer for the League, arrived, having come hastily from Liverpool on purpose to be present, and found two or three members with whom he conversed on the object of the Association.

The second meeting was held on the Monday following, and was attended by W. A. Cunningham, Andrew Dalziel, James Howie, James Leslie, Archibald Prentice, William Rawson, and Philip Thomson.

Subscriptions had been obtained since the previous meeting from about fifty persons, and the small committee felt assured that their still feeble association would not expire until its great object should be accomplished. In my paper of October 6th, I said:—"We believe that what might be thought to be apathy on the part of the merchants and manufacturers of Manchester upon the subject of the Corn Laws, has arisen from there being no organization for the expression of their opinions. They have expected that the Chamber of Commerce would commence the movement, but that self-constituted body, having satisfied itself with a single petition in seven years, seems to have fallen into another seven years' sleep. The necessity of a new association has forced itself upon the attention of many of the most influential friends of free trade, and we are glad to say that at their meeting, on Thursday evening, the names of nearly one hundred members were enrolled. They meet again next Thursday, and we trust that those who are already members will each bring a list with him of the names of half-a-dozen friends, so as to make the association at once formidable from its numbers and local influence."

In my paper of October 18th I find the following advertisement, announcing the formation of a committee, which contained the names of a number of gentlemen, many of whom became from that day prominent members of the association, and of the subsequently formed League.

ANTI-CORN-LAW ASSOCIATION.

PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE.

Elkanah Armitage, Cromford Court.
John Bright, Rochdale.
Robert Bunting, Ardwick Green.
James Chapman, York-street.
W. R. Callender, Mosley-street.
J. C. Dyer, Burnage.
Walter Clarke, Duke-street.
John Dracup, Chapel-street, Salford.
Peter Eckersley, St. Mary's Gate.
J. G. Frost, Water-street.
George Hadfield, Fountain-street.
Thomas Harbottle, Norfolk-street.
Andrew Hall, Brown-street.
Jas. Hampson,Great Ancoats-street.
Thomas Hopkins, Broughton Lane.
James Howie, King street.
Wm. Harvey, New Cannon-street.
T. H. Williams, Greenheys.
Alexander Henry, Portland-street.
James Kershaw, High-street.
Thomas Lockett, Richmond Hill.
Thos. Mollineux, Ancoats Crescent.
James Murray, Ancoats Hall.
Robert Nicholson, Market-street.
James Chapman, York-street.
Aaron Nodal, Downing-street.
Robert Philips, jun., Church-street.
Thomas Potter, George-street.
Archibald Prentice, Ducie Place.
S. P. Robinson, Tipping's Court.
Jonathan Rawson, Cromford Court.
W. Rawson, New Brown-street.
Absalom Watkin, High-street.
George Wilson, Shudehill.
Henry Wilson, Walton's Buildings.
Richard Wilson, Market Place.
C. J. S. Walker, Longford.
Henry Wadkin, Short-street

John Benjamin Smith, Treasurer.

The association now felt itself strong enough to commence operations, and I was deputed to proceed to Bolton, and endeavour to persuade Mr. Paulton to favour us with a lecture or two in Manchester. He readily consented, and his first lecture was announced to take place hi the Corn Exchange. Next week, there was an announcement of the addition of the following names to the Provisional Committee:—

James Ashworth, High-street.
Andrew Bannerman, Market street.
Jno. Brewer, Newmarket Buildings.
Matthew Binns, Cannon-street.
James Carlton, New High-street.
Richard Cobden, Mosley-street.
Edmund Dodgshon, York-street, Cheetham.
Edward Evans, Market-street, (Nicholson and Evans.)
John Henry Fuller, 24, Bridgewater Place.
Jeremiah Garnett, Guardian office, Market-street.
J. S. Grafton, Mosley-street.
Edward Hall, New Brown-street.
Joseph Heron, Princess-street.
James Hudson.
John Hyde, Oxford Road.
William Lockett, Richmond street.
William Labrey, Market Place.
John Mallon, Oldham-street.
Henry Marsland, Fountain-street.
William Neild, Friday-street.
John Naylor, Piccadily.
John Ogden, Marsden-street.
John Shuttleworth, New Market Buildings.
Robert Stuart, Pall Mall.
Charles Tysoe, New Cannon-street.
John Edward Taylor, Market-street.
John Whitlow, Market Place.
John Wilkinson, Shakspere-street, Ardwick.
—— Whitehouse, Fountain- street.
Samuel Watts, New Brown-street.
William Woodcock, 26, Pall Mall.

On calling on Mr. Robert Stuart for his name and his name and his five-shilling subscription, he said "You will soon need more than such sums—put me down for ten pounds." I have had the curiosity to see to what amount the individuals named as forming the Provisional Committee at that early stage of the movement, subsequently subscribed to the £250,000 League Fund, and I find that they had contributed £10,600, besides having been large subscribers during the previous seven years' arduous contest. Mr. Stuart was right when he said we should need higher than five-shilling subscriptions. But the small sums brought number, an element to success, and permitted constant additions of earnest workers, doing work which could not have been bought in the ordinary labour market.

On Thursday evening, October 25th, Mr. Paul ton delivered his first lecture to one of the largest audiences ever assembled in the Corn Exchange, every ticket of admission to the lecture room having been eagerly sought for and obtained by the public some hours previous to its commencement, and many applicants were necessarily disappointed. About seven o'clock the Committee of the Anti Corn-Law Association took their seats on the platform, and J. B. Smith, Esq., having been called upon to preside, in introducing Mr. Paulton, said he would take the opportunity of stating the objects for which the association had been established: "It had been established on the same righteous principle as the Anti-Slavery Society. The object of that society was to obtain the free right for the negroes to possess their own flesh and blood—the object of this was to obtain the free right of the people to exchange their labour for as much food as could be got for it; that we might no longer be obliged by law to buy our food at one shop, and that the dearest in the world, but be at liberty to go to that at which it can be obtained cheapest. It was an object in which men of all political opinions might unite without compromising those principles, and it was a fundamental rule of the association that no party politics should be mixed up in the discussion of the question. It might seem to be a work of supererogation to prove that a man had a right to a big loaf, but when we saw the nobles of the land, the majority of our senators, and men of wealth and education contending that the indulgence of "an appetite for big loaves was fraught with consequences no less serious than the ruin of the landowner, the farmer, the labourer, and ultimately of the nation, it was then that lectures like these became necessary to show the absurdity and fallacy of such assertions. Mr. Paulton was a big-loaf man, but if any of the little-loaf men, or any of the noble lords who occasionally came amongst us on visits of humanity, to inquire into the condition of the poor factory children, or the wretchedness of the hand-loom weaver, would favour us with a lecture to make us sensible of the benefits we derive from little loaves, as friends of free discussion as well as free trade, he thought he could promise them from the meeting a fair and patient hearing." The lecture occupied more than two hours in the delivery, but there was not the slightest appearance of weariness on the part of the audience, and Mr. Paulton retired amidst loud and long-continued cheers.

The second and concluding lecture of Mr. Paulton took place at the Corn Exchange, on Thursday evening, November 1st, to a still more crowded audience than before. Mr. J. B. Smith, in again introducing Mr. Paulton, said it was gratifying to notice the increasing interest which was manifesting itself on this question, as shown by the application of other towns soliciting his services to give lectures there on the Corn Laws. The committee were endeavouring to effect an arrangement with him for this purpose, and hoped to obtain his powerful aid in thus spreading the knowledge he was able to impart on this question. He reminded the audience that these lectures were given gratuitously, and said it was gratifying to observe that Mr. Paulton was actuated by no mercenary motives. Mr. Paulton again excited the enthusiasm of his auditors. At the conclusion of his lecture he quoted the following lines which have been frequently used by other speakers since:

"For what were all these landed patriots born?
To hunt, and vote, and raise the price of corn.
Safe in their barns, these Sabine tillers sent
Their brethren out to battle. Why? For Rent!
Year after year they voted cent, per cent.;
Blood, sweat, and tear-wrung millions. Why? For rent!
They roared, they dined, they drank, they swore, they meant

To die for England. Why then live? For rent!
And will they not repay the treasure lent?
No! down with everything, and up with rent
Their good, ill, health, wealth, joy, or discontent.
Being, end, aim, religion—rent, rent, rent!"

In my paper of the 10th of November, I had again occasion to congratulate the public on the rapid progress of the new agitation:—" The movement against the Corn Laws is likely to be the most formidable ever made. The apathy for which we have blamed the population of large towns has not existed, for all that has been wanted has been concentration of opinion, and this will be obtained by associations such as the one of which Manchester has set the example. There needs but a spark to ignite the mass of smouldering discontent. To supply this, let lectures be delivered everywhere, bringing into one view all the mischiefs that are occasioned by the starvation-creating laws, and the certain ruin of our manufacturers and work-people, by the refusal to receive agricultural produce in exchange for the produce of their capital and labour. The landlord papers in the metropolis have taken alarm, and are abusing Mr. Paulton in good set terms for the boldness with which he denounces the robbery. We rejoice to think that he will soon deserve a larger share of their abuse. On Monday the 26th and Wednesday the 28th instant, he will lecture in the Birmingham Town Hall, a magnificent building, capable of containing from 4,000 to 5,000 persons, and we have no doubt that it will be filled on each occasion. In the mean time invitations pour in upon the eloquent lecturer from the large towns in our neighbourhood, and he has been pressingly requested not to omit the agricultural towns in Norfolk, where the opinion is fast spreading, that the Corn Laws are injurious rather than beneficial to the farmers, the farm-labourers, and all with whom they expend their money."

---