Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:31:20.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. The Anti-League and the Corn Law Crisis of 18461

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Mary Lawson-Tancred
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The repeal of the corn laws in 1846 has generally been regarded as the result of a clash between the old agricultural order and the rising industrial and commercial classes of the era. Whether or not this view is altogether correct, it is certain that there was another side to the story that deserves a closer scrutiny than it has hitherto received—namely that of the difficulties which took place within the ranks of the agriculturists of the Conservative party. The outcome involved an event that was just as interesting and perhaps more important than the fate of the corn laws. In bringing about the downfall of Sir Robert Peel, it radically altered the fortunes of Benjamin Disraeli, who could never have found any considerable place in Peel's Conservative party. On the disruption of that party, he was able to make himself indispensable in the building of a new one and thus ensure for himself a destiny that it had seemed might well elude him. How closely he concerned himself with the early stages of the agricultural intrigue that ended in the downfall of Peel it is not intended here to inquire. Suffice it to remember that he had been involved in agricultural conspiracies long before 1846 and had doubtless been for some time aware of the possibilities of the kind of rupture which eventually occurred. At all events he always seems to have kept a very calculating eye on the differences that sprang up between Peel and his agricultural following.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 1960 , pp. 162 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 I am grateful to Dr G. Kitson Clark for many long discussions about the agricultural point of view on the corn law question.

3 See Monypenny, W. F. and Buckle, G. E., Life of Benjamin Disraeli Earl of Beaconsfield (1910), I, p. 263.Google Scholar

4 For one example of this view see M.H. 5. 1. 43: 4, 1.

5 See, e.g., remarks in the editorial article M.P. 5. 1. 44.

6 T. 4. 12. 45, editorial.

7 B. Disraeli, Lord George Bentinck. A Political Biography, referred to in footnotes hereafter as G.B. The page references are to the 1905 edition.

8 Standard, 9. 2. 46: 2, 1.

9 G.B. 50.

10 See John Morley, , Life of William Ewart Gladstone (1903), I, 268.Google Scholar

11 It should not be supposed that this control was absolute. The question, as it involved the tenants' vote, is discussed in Gash, N., Politics in the Age of Peel. (1953), 177–84. The expression of public opinion by means of meetings was also subject to landlord control, though to what extent is a question that needs further investigation. Meetings on matters of public import could not easily be suppressed (though they doubtless were, on occasion) but there is evidence to suggest that they could be delayed and unwelcome resolutions to be put to them toned down or even stopped.Google Scholar

12 The part played by associations for the purposes of organizing meetings and petitioning Parliament is described in Sir Thomas Erskine May's Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III, 1760—1860 (1860—3). See references to ‘Association’ and ‘Petitioning’ in the index.

13 F. R. Bonham, who held the strings of the existing Conservative electoral organization, remained loyal to Peel. (See N. Gash, op. cit. 417.) Thus it was essential for the Protectionists to have their own organization.

14 The Mark Lane Express for April, May and June 1842 and 1843 is one source of evidence, mainly in letters to the editor, for this discontent.

15 On a proposed amendment of W. Miles to the Tariff of 1842 (Hansard, LXIII, 671) and on the third reading of the Canada Corn Bill 1843 (Hansard, LXIX, 1576).

16 The series of drastic slumps that had occurred in the price of wheat since 1828 may be seen in the table of prices given in Prothero, R. E., English Farming, Past and Present (1912).Google Scholar

17 For an account of the rising population figures, see Clapham, J. H., An Economic History of Modern Britain: The Early Railway Age 1820–1850 (Cambridge, 1926), chap. II.Google Scholar

18 Ibid. chap. ix.

19 The early Journals of the Royal Agricultural Society of England give an idea of the optimism of the agricultural improvers of that date.

20 M.H. 13. 12. 42: 4, I; M.P. 13. I2. 42: 2, 3; M.P. 19. 12. 42: 2, 3; T. 9. 12. 42: 4, 2.

21 For an account of this campaign see McCord, N., The Anti-Corn-Law League 1838—1846 (1958), 143.Google Scholar

22 Speech of G. Wilson (M.C. 13. 4. 43: 2, 1).

23 E.g. speech of T. Maydwell at Reigate (M.H. 18. 1. 44: 6, 2). Pamphlet of G. Day mentioned in M.P. 18. 2. 44: 3.

24 He was soon to be joined by John Bright who was returned for Durham in July 1843.

25 Speech of John Ellman at Steyning (M.H. 30. 1. 44: 3, 1).

26 A meeting was held at the Saracen's Head in Chelmsford on 12 Dec. (M.P. 13. 12. 43: 6, 3); see also M.P. 16. 12. 43: 3, 5 and 23. 12. 43: 5, 4.

27 M.P. 23. 12. 43: 6, 2.

28 See, for instance, accounts of meetings at Chelmsford (M.P. 23. 12. 43:5,4), at Chichester (M.P. 4. 1. 44: 3, 5) and at Lichfield (M.H. 7. 1. 44: 7, 4).

29 Chelmsford meeting (M.P. 23. 12. 43: 5, 4).

30 In his article dealing with the failure of the Anti-League to prevent the repeal of the corn laws (Economic History Review, vol. xvII, no. 2, 1947), Mr G. L. Mosse maintains that it was the tenant farmers who led the Anti-League, that they were continually hindered by ‘the reluctance of the landed gentry to imitate the radical methods of political action exemplified by the Anti-Corn-Law League’ and that this led to tension within the societies. This is an inaccurate picture. The Anti-League was led by the Duke of Richmond and a group of M.P.'s. They certainly disapproved of the methods of the League, but the farmers, with very few exceptions, were equally disapproving. Tension was due to the reluctance of Conservative politicians to take any action against Sir Robert Peel prior to 1846. The Anti-League is given no more than the briefest mention in any other work dealing with the history of the time.

31 See editorials M.H. 26. 1. 44: 4, 3 and 29. 1. 44: 4, 3.

32 See M.P. 27. 7. 46: 5, 1.

33 See, e.g., a letter from the Duke of Northumberland (M.P. 20. 2. 44: 5, 5).

34 M.H. 24. 1. 44: 6, 3. See also ibid 25. 1. 44: 6, 3 (speech of Lord Brooke in Warwickshire); 31. 1. 44: 5, 6 (speech of J. S. Pakington at Droitwich); 9. I.44: 3, 4 (speech of R. A. Christopher in Lincolnshire).

35 The Essex Society took counsel's opinion on the legality of the whole movement.

36 For a list of those who attended a meeting of the society on 17 Feb. see M.H. 19. 2. 44: 4.

37 M.H. 21. 2. 44: 6, 2.

38 Many of the fanners criticized Peel at Anti-League meetings. Most dissatisfied M.P.'s and landowners were, at any rate in 1844, more cautious; but, as time went on, a few of them indulged in criticism that was open and even defiant.

39 M.P. 20. 12. 45: 3, 4.

40 Speech at Steyning (M.H. 30. 1. 44: 3, 6).

41 Hansard, I Feb. 1843, LXXII, 101. Sir Robert Peel's words were ‘I say therefore now, as I said last year, though I should not, in the part of the Government, think it consistent with my public duty to conciliate support by an engagement to adhere, under all circumstances, to a particular law respecting the imposition of duties—yet I can with equal truth say, I have not contemplated and do not contemplate, an alteration in the present corn law’.

42 Rules of the local societies. See M.P. 8. I. 44: 5, 4 for the Essex rules on which those of the other counties were modelled.

43 See, e.g., the following speeches: R. J. Eaton and I. P. Allix at Newmarket (M.H. 1. 2. 44: 6, 1); Lord Henniker in Suffolk (M.H. 18. 2. 44: 6, 1); J. P. Plumptre in Kent (M.P. 22. 1. 44: 6, 5); E. Fellowes in Huntingdon (M.H. 29. 1. 44: 5, 6).

44 The Morning Post published the Essex rules for the benefit of other societies who were constantly asking for them (M.P. 8. I. 44: 5, 4).

45 Speech of Mr Barker at Chelmsford (M.H. 8. I. 44: 2, I).

46 Accounts of meetings in the Morning Post usually give a subscription list at the end.

47 M.H. 14. 12. 44: 3, 4; Io. 12. 45: 5, 6.

48 M.P. 18. II. 45: 4, 1.

49 M.P. 10. 12. 45: 5. 3.

50 Rutland (John Bull, 27. 12. 45, p. 836); Sussex (M.P. 1. 1. 46: 3, 1); Northamptonshire (M.P. 1. 1. 46: 2, 1); Warwickshire (T. 30. 12. 45: 3, 3).

51 M.P. 13. 12. 45: 5. 2.

52 M.P. 6. 12. 45: 4, 4.

53 M.P. 6. 12. 45: 4, 4.

54 G.B. 23.

55 See, e.g., the remarks of Sir John Tyrrell at the Essex meeting (M.P. 13. 12. 45: 5, 5)

56 Letter dated 24 Dec. M.P. 15. I. 46: 2, 3.

57 M.P. 15. 1. 46: 2, 1.

58 See, e.g., speech of Lord Sandon at Stafford (M.P. 3. 2. 46: 5, 6); letter of Hon. F. W. Charteris to his constituents (M.P. 5. 2. 46: 3, 5); speech of H. J. Baillie in the House of Commons (M.P. 11. 2. 46: 3, 1); letter of H. G. Sturt to his constituents (M.P. 7. 2. 46: 4, 6).

59 See Memoirs, Diaries and Correspondence of the Right Hon. John Wilson Croker, ed. Louis, J. Jennings (1884), III, 54.Google Scholar

60 Meeting of 9 Dec.

61 See his speech at Steyning (M.P. 1. 1. 46: 3, 3).

62 Speech at Stamford (M.P. 20. I. 46: 6, 3).

63 Speech at Northampton (M.P. 1. 1. 46: 2, 6).

64 E.g. Cambridgeshire County meeting in 1846 (Cambridge Chronicle, 14. 2. 46: 4, I); Somerset County meeting in 1844 (Hansard, LXIII, 781).

65 Speech at Dorchester (M.P. 12. 1. 46: 2, 5).

66 ‘Ministerial Resignations’ in Quarterly Review, LXXVII (1846), 304.

67 But the following did speak warmly in praise of Peel: H. R. Burroughs (M.P. 2. 10. 46: 3, 1); W. Ormsby Gore (M.P. 16. I. 46: 2, 4); G. G. Vernon Harcourt (M.P. 15. 1. 46: 2, 3); Hon. H. Clive (M.P. 16. 1. 46: 2, 2).

68 G.B. 22.

69 Speech at Oxford (M.P. 15. 1. 46: 2, 1).

70 Cambridge Chronicle, 14. 2. 46: 1, 1 (‘Election Matters’).

71 Editorial (M.P. 5. 1. 46: 4, 4).

72 G.B. 30.

73 A secretary had been appointed and rooms taken at 17 Old Bond Street in 1844 (see M.H. 23. 3. 44: 5, 4).

74 M.P. 7. 1. 46: 5, 2 and 13. 1. 46: 2, 5.

75 Editorial (M.P. 15. 1. 46: 4, 3).

76 Letter of A. E. Fuller, M.P., to Hastings meeting (M.P. 2. 2. 46: 6, 3).

77 T. 10. 2. 46: 5, 4.

78 Speech at Brighton (M.P. 6. 1. 46: 2, 6). The Duke was quoting Burke.

79 Resolution of the Sussex Society (M.P. 1. 1. 46: I, 3). The other societies were all carrying similar resolutions.

80 M.P. 13. 1. 46: 2, 5.

81 T. 18. 2. 46: 6, 4. Hildyard also had the advantage of the support of his opponent's father, the Duke of Newcastle.

82 It took place on 28 Jan.

83 G.B. 51.

84 Letters from A. E. Fuller (M.P. 2. 2. 46: 6,4) and Hon. W. Beresford (M.P. 7. 2. 46: 2,4).

85 M.P. 3. 2. 46: 1, 2.

86 M.P. 3. 2. 46: 1, 2.

87 Ibid.

88 M.P. 5. 2. 46: 1, 2.

89 Lord Ashley in Dorset (M.P. 3 2. 46: 6, 3); H. C. Sturt in Dorset (M.P. 7. 2. 46: 4, 6); Hon. F. Charteris in Gloucestershire (M.P. 5. 2. 46: 3, 4); Hon. R. Dawnay in Rutland (M.H. 4. 2. 46: 4, 2); Lord Hennikerin Suffolk (Cambridge Chronicle, 14. 2. 46: 1, 1).

90 Except in the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire where the free-trader Lord Morpeth was returned.

91 June 1846 (Hansard, LXXXVII, 1027).