The Repeal of the Corn Laws
John Bright
[A speech delivered at Covent Garden Theatre, 19
December, 1845]
DURING the last month, I have visited, as one of a deputation from
the Council of the League, many towns in this country. I have been
present at meetings in Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire,
Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Gloucestershire, Staffordshire,
Somersetshire, and now in Middlesex; and I am forced to the conclusion
that the agitation now in progress throughout this kingdom is of no
common or trivial character. Notwithstanding the hope that my friend
(Cobden) who has just addressed you has expressed, that it may not
become a war of classes, I am not sure that it has not already become
such, and I doubt whether it can have any other character. I believe
this to be a movement of the commercial and industrious classes
against the lords and great proprietors of the soil.
Within the last fifty years trade has done much for the people of
England. Our population has greatly increased; our villages have
become towns, and our small towns large cities. The contemned class of
manufacturers and traders has assumed another and a very different
position, and the great proprietors of the soil now find that there
are other men and interests to be consulted in this kingdom besides
those of whom they have taken such great care through the legislation
which they have controlled. In the varying fortunes of this contest we
have already seen one feeble and attenuated Administration overthrown,
and now we see another, which every man thought powerful and robust,
prostrate in the dust. It is worth while that the people, and that
statesmen, should regard this result, and learn from it a lesson. What
was it that brought the Whig Government down in 1841, and what is it
that has brought down Sir Robert Peel now? Have not we good grounds
for asserting that the corn law makes it impossible for any party
longer to govern England during its continuance? No statesman dare now
take office upon the understanding that he is to maintain the system
which the Protectionists have asserted to be a fundamental principle
in the Constitution of the kingdom.
We have heard that the Whig Government left the country in great
distress, and its financial affairs in much embarrassment. But no one
has ever pointed out the particular acts of that Government which made
the revenue deficient. It was not the taking off of taxes
injudiciouslyit was not a more than ordinarily extravagant
expenditure of the public funds which produced that effect; but it was
the collapse of the national industryit was the failure of the
sources whence flow the prosperity of our trade, a calamity which
arose from deficient harvests, those deficient harvests being
destructive to our trade and industry, because the corn law denied to
us the power of repairing the mischief by means of foreign supplies.
Great landed proprietors may fancy that trade is of small importance;
but of this we are at present assured, that no Government can maintain
its popularity or keep up its power so long as we have deficient
harvests and restrictions on the importation of foreign food.
Under such a state of things, how is social order to be preserved?
When prices are high the revenue invariably declines, and higher taxes
must be imposed; general discontent prevails, because there is general
suffering; and the Government, whatever be its party name, or however
numerous may be its supporters in either House of Parliament, must,
under these circumstances, first become unpopular, and then, finally,
become extinct. We are now brought to this conclusion, that the
continuous government of this country by any administration is totally
incompatible with the maintenance of the corn laws. Lord John Russell
acknowledges it, and Sir Robert Peel, by his sudden retirement from
office, has given his testimony to the fact. But there are men who
deny it; such men, for example, as Sir John Tyrrell and Mr. Bramston,
the latter celebrated, I believe, as the leader in the great lard
debate. These men, down in Essex, speak of Sir Robert Peel in the most
opprobrious language. They say they are glad that the 'organized
hypocrisy' is at an end, that they are delighted that 'the reign of
humbug is over,' that they are astounded at the perfidy and treachery
of the men whom they lifted into office. It is neither perfidy nor
treachery of which they have to complain. Sir Robert Peel cannot, any
more than other men, do impossibilities; and it is an impossibility to
govern this country with the corn law in existence. Sir John Tyrrell,
and the like of him, do not shrink from the heavy responsibility of
attempting this impossible task; but Sir Robert Peel does not shrink
from it. Sir Robert Peel is in a very different position from that
which they occupy. The country has a hold upon him; he is responsible,
and as Prime Minister he knows that he must be held responsible. But,
further, he is responsible also to posterity, and no man more than Sir
Robert Peel wishes to stand well upon the page of his country's
history. But as for the squires, the country has no hold upon them; it
expects nothing from them, and will make them responsible or nothing.
The Tyrrells and the Bramstons are lost amid the herd of squires, and
nobody can lay hold of them to make them atone for national calamites.
And if the country has no hold upon them, certainly posterity has
none. No man who records the history of this period will ever write
long paragraphs about the Tyrrells and the Bramstons. All that
posterity will know of these, and of such as these, will be
communicated to them upon a marble tablet in some obscure parish
church.
This contest has now been waged for seven years; it was a serious one
when commenced, but it is a far more serious one now. Since the time
when we first came to London to ask the attention of Parliament to the
question of the corn law, two millions of human beings have been added
to the population of the United Kingdom. The table is here as before;
the food is spread in about the same quantity as before; but two
millions of fresh guests have arrived, and that circumstance makes the
question a serious one, both for the Government and for us. These two
millions are so many arguments for the Anti-Corn-law Leagueso
many emphatic condemnations of the policy of this iniquitous law. I
see them now in my mind's eye ranged before me, old men and young
children, all looking to the Government for bread; some endeavouring
to resist the stroke of famine, clamorous and turbulent, but still
arguing with us; some dying mute and uncomplaining. Multitudes have
died of hunger in the United Kingdom since we first asked the
Government to repeal the corn law, and although the great and powerful
may not regard those who suffer mutely and die in silence, yet the
recording angel will note down their patient endurance and the heavy
guilt of those by whom they have been sacrificed.
We have had a succession of skirmishes; we now approach the final
conflict. It may be worth while to inquire who and what are the
combatants in this great battle? Looking in the columns of the
newspapers, and attending, as I have attended, hundreds of meetings
held to support the principles of Free Trade, we must conclude, that
on the face of it the struggle is that of the many against the few. It
is a struggle between the numbers, wealth, comforts, the all in fact,
of the middle and industrious classes, and the wealth, the union, and
sordidness of a large section of the aristocracy of this empire; and
we have to decidefor it may be that this meeting itself may to
no little extent be the arbiter in this great contestwe have to
decide now in this great struggle, whether in this land in which we
live, we will longer bear the wicked legislation to which we have been
subjected, or whether we will make one effort to right the vessel, to
keep her in her true course, and, if possible, to bring her safely to
a secure haven. Our object, as the people, can only be, that we should
have good and impartial government for everybody. As the whole people,
we can by no possibility have the smallest interest in any partial or
unjust legislation; we do not wish to sacrifice any right of the
richest or most powerful class, but we are resolved that that class
shall not sacrifice the rights of a whole people.
We have had landlord rule longer, far longer than the life of the
oldest man in this vast assembly, and I would ask you to look at the
results of that rule, and then decide whether it be not necessary to
interpose some check to the extravagance of such legislation. The
landowners have had unlimited sway in Parliament and in the provinces.
Abroad, the history of our country is the history of war and rapine:
at home, of debt, taxes, and rapine too. In all the great contests in
which we have been engaged we have found that this ruling class have
taken all the honours, while the people have taken all the scars. No
sooner was the country freed from the horrible contest which was so
long carried on with the powers of Europe, than this law, by their
partial legislation, was enactedfar more hostile to British
interests than any combination of foreign powers has ever proved. We
find them legislating corruptly: they pray daily that in their
legislation they may discard all private ends and partial affections,
and after prayers they sit down to make a law for the purpose of
extorting from all the consumers of food a higher price than it is
worth, that the extra price may find its way into the pockets of the
proprietors of land, these proprietors being the very men by whom this
infamous law is sustained.
In their other legislation we find great inequality. For example,
they deal very leniently with high gaming on the turf, and very
severely with chuck-farthing and pitch and toss. We find them enacting
a merciless code for the preservation of wild animals and vermin kept
for their own sport; and, as if to make this law still more odious, we
find them entrusting its administration, for the most part, to
sporting gentlemen and game preservers. We find throughout England and
Wales, that the proportion of one in eleven of our whole population
consists of paupers; and that in the south and south-western counties
of England, where squiredom has never been much interfered with, the
pauperism is as one to seven of the whole population. We find,
moreover, that in Scotland there is an amount of suffering no less,
perhaps, though not so accurately set down in figures. We find the
cottages of the peasantry pulled down in thousands of cases, that the
population on the landed estates may be thinned, and the unfortunate
wretches driven into the towns to procure a precarious support, or
beyond the ocean, to find a refuge in a foreign land. But in that
country across the Channel, whence we now hear the wail of
lamentation, where trade is almost unknown, where landowners are
predominant and omnipotent, we find not one in seven, but at least
half the population reduced to a state which may be termed a condition
of pauperism.
The men who write for Protectionist newspapers sometimes heap their
scorn upon the inhabitants of the American republic. New York is that
State of the Union in which there is the most pauperism, for to that
State the stream of emigration from this country and from Ireland
flows; and yet in that State, the most pauperized in the whole
republic, there is only one pauper to every 184 of the population. It
is true that they have not an hereditary peerage to trust to. They
know nothing there of a House of Lords, seventy or eighty members of
which deposit their legislative power in the hands of one old man. It
is not a wise thing for the hereditary peerage and the Protectionist
party to direct the attention of the people of this country to the
condition of the American republic. We do not expect perfection either
in the New World or in the Old; all we ask is, that when an abuse is
pointed out, it may be fairly and openly inquired into, and, if it be
proved to be an abuse, honestly abated.
I am always fearful of entering upon the question of the condition of
that portion of our working population amongst whom these squires and
lords principally live; but I find that those newspapers which stand
in a very ambiguous character before the public, which sometimes are,
and sometimes are not, the organs of the Government, but are always
organs which play a tune that jars upon the nerves of the peopleI
find those papers are now endeavouring to play the old game of raising
hostile feelings in the manufacturing districts between the employers
and the employed. Let them write; bread has risen too much within the
last six months, and within the last two months trade has suffered too
sad a reverse, for their writing to have any effect now. There is the
most cordial, complete, and, I believe I may add, lasting union
amongst all classes in the manufacturing districts in reference to
this cause. But how stands the case in the rural districts? Can the
Protectionists call a meeting in any town or village in the kingdom,
giving a week's notice of their intention to call their tenants
together, and imagine that they will have a vote in favour of
Protection?
They sometimes think we are hard upon the aristocracy. They think
that the vast population of Lancashire and Yorkshire are democratic
and turbulent. But there are no elements there, except that of great
numbers, which are to be compared in their dangerous character with
the elements of disaffection and insubordination which exist round
about the halls and castles of this proud and arrogant aristocracy.
You have seen in the papers, within the last fortnight, that the foul
and frightful crime of incendiarism has again appeared. It always
shows itself when we have had for some short time a high price of
bread. The corn law is as great a robbery of the man who follows the
plough as it is of him who minds the loom, with this difference, that
the man who follows the plough is, of the two, nearest the earth, and
it takes less power to press him into it. Mr. Benett, one of the
Members for Wiltshire, at an agricultural meeting held not long since,
made a very long speech, in which he said some remarkable thingsthe
most remarkable being, that if he had again to come into the world,
and had the option of choosing the particular rank or class in society
to which he would belong, after reviewing, I believe, a period of
about seventy years, he confessed that he would choose to be an
agricultural labourer. Now, this sentiment is certainly of a very
novel character; and it is one worth examining, coming, as it did,
from a man who had at one time, I am told, a property of eight or ten
thousand a year in land.
Now, what is the condition of this agricultural labourer, for whom
they tell us Protection is necessary? He lives in a parish whose
owner, it may be, has deeply mortgaged it. The estate is let to
farmers without capital, whose land grows almost as much rushes as
wheat. The bad cultivation of the land provides scarcely any
employment for the labourers, who become more and more numerous in the
parish; the competition which there is amongst these labourers for the
little employment to be had, bringing down the wages to the very
lowest point at which their lives can be kept in them. They are
heart-broken, spirit-broken, despairing men. They have been accustomed
to this from their youth, and they see nothing in the future which
affords a single ray of hope. We have attended meetings in those
districts, and have been received with the utmost enthusiasm by these
round-frocked labourers. They would have carried us from the carriage
which we had travelled in, to the hustings; and if a silly squire or a
foolish farmer attempted any disturbance or improper interference,
these round-frocked men were all around us in an instant, ready to
defend us; and I have seen them hustle many a powerful man from the
field in which the meeting was being held.
If there be one view of this question which stimulates me to harder
work in this cause than another, it is the fearful sufferings which I
know to exist amongst the rural labourers in almost every part of this
kingdom. How can they be men under the circumstances in which they
live? During the period of their growing up to manhood, they are
employed at odd jobs about the farm or the farm-yard, for wages which
are merely those of little children in Lancashire. Every man who
marries is considered an enemy to the parish; every child who is born
into the world, instead of being a subject of rejoicing to its parents
and to the community, is considered as an intruder come to compete for
the little work and the small quantity of food which is left to the
population. And then comes toil, year after year, long years of
labour, with little remuneration; but perhaps at sixty or seventy, a
gift of £1 and a coat, or of £2, from the Agricultural
Society, because they have brought up a large family, and have not
committed that worst of all sins, taken money from the parochial
rates. One of their own poets has well expressed their condition:
'A blessèd prospect
To slave while there is strengthin age the workhouse,
A parish shell at last, and the little bell
Toll'd hastily for a pauper's funeral!'
But the crowning offence of the system of legislation under which we
have been living is, that a law has been enacted, in which it is
altogether unavoidable that these industrious and deserving men should
be brought down to so helpless and despairing a condition. By
withdrawing the stimulus of competition, the law prevents the good
cultivation of the land of our country, and therefore diminishes the
supply of food which we might derive from it. It prevents, at the same
time, the importation of foreign food from abroad, and it also
prevents the growth of supplies abroad, so that when we are forced to
go there for them they are not to be found. The law is, in fact, a law
of the most ingeniously malignant character. It is fenced about in
every possible way. The most demoniacal ingenuity could not have
invented a scheme more calculated to bring millions of the working
classes of this country to a state of pauperism, suffering,
discontent, and insubordination than the corn law which we are now
opposing.
And then a fat and sleek dean, a dignitary of the Church and a great
philosopher, recommends for the consumption of the peoplehe did
not read a paper about the supplies that were to be had in the great
valley of the Mississippi, but he said that there were Swede turnips
and mangel-wurzel;and the Hereditary Earl Marshal of England, as
if to out-herod Herod himself, recommends hot water and a pinch of
curry-powder. I was rejoiced, not for the sake of the Duke of Norfolk,
for I pitied him, but still I was in my heart rejoiced when I saw the
speech which he had made in Sussex. The people of England have not,
even under thirty years of corn law influence, been sunk so low as to
submit tamely to this insult and wrong. It is enough that a law should
have been passed to make your toil valueless, to make your skill and
labour unavailing to procure for you a fair supply of the common
necessaries of lifebut when to this grievous iniquity they add
the insult of telling you to go, like beasts that perish, to
mangel-wurzel, or to something which even the beasts themselves cannot
eat, then I believe the people of England will rise, and with one
voice proclaim the downfall of this odious system.
This law is the parent of many of those grievous fluctuations in
trade under which so much suffering is created in this commercial
kingdom. There is a period comingit may be as bad or worse than
the lastwhen many a man, now feeling himself independent and
comfortable in his circumstances, will find himself swept away by the
torrent, and his goodly ship made a complete wreck. Capital avails
almost nothing; fluctuations in trade we have, such as no prudence can
guard against. We are in despair one year, and in a state of great
excitement in the next. At one time ruin stares us in the face, at
another we fancy that we are getting rich in a moment. Not only is
trade sacrificed, but the moral character of the country is injured by
the violent fluctuations created by this law. And now have we a
scarcity coming or not? They say that to be forewarned is to be
fore-armed, and that a famine foretold never comes. And so this famine
could not have come if the moment we saw it to be coming we had had
power to relieve ourselves by supplies of food from abroad. The reason
why a famine foretold never comes is because, when it is foreseen and
foretold, men prepare for it, and thus it never comes. But here,
though it has been both foreseen and foretold, there is a law passed
by a paternal legislature, remaining on the statute-book, which says
to twenty-seven millions of people, 'Scramble for what there is, and
if the poorest and the weakest starve, foreign supplies shall not come
in for fear some injury should be done to the mortgaged landowners.'
Well, if this class of whom I have spoken have maintained this law
for thirty yearsif they continued it from 1838 to 1842be
assured that no feeling of mercy, no relenting, no sympathy for the
sufferings of the people, will weigh one atom in the scale in making
them give up the law now. They have no one to whom they can look for a
promise to maintain it; but we have some one to whom to look for a
promise to repeal it. But the promises of Lord John Russell, or any
other minister, are entirely conditional. He knows that he alone
cannot repeal the corn law. I had almost said that the over-turning of
the monarchy would be a trifle compared with the touching of the
pockets of the squires. Lord John Russell himself has said that it can
only be done by the unequivocal expression of the public will. How is
this expression to be made? By meetings such as this, and by the
meetings which myself and others have seen in all parts of the
kingdom; and also by preparations of the most active character for
that general election which, in all human probability, is near upon
us.
I believe you have heard that we had a meeting in Manchester the
other day, which was attended by more of the wealth and influence of
that district than I have ever seen assembled at a meeting of the same
numbers before. It was resolved on Tuesday to have a general meeting
of all those who are wishful to support the League in this great and
final struggle. It has been announced that the Council of the League
are calling upon their friends throughout the country to raise a fund
of £250,000 for the purpose of being ready in any emergency, and
for the sake of maintaining before the ranks of the Protectionists, at
least, as bold and resolute a character as we have maintained for the
past seven years. Now, that money will be subscribed as it is
required, and that large sum will be paid, and I can promise this
meeting and the country that it will be honestly and judiciously
applied to carry out the great national object for which the League
has been established. If the Protectionists like to defer the
settlement of this question till the warm weather comes, we will not
trouble our friends to tear themselves half to pieces in getting
within the walls of this theatre, but we will ask them to meet here,
in Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, Birmingham, and other towns,
in numbers so great, in unanimity so remarkable, and in resolution so
undaunted, that the aristocracy of this country, with all their pride
of ancestry and their boasted valour, will quail before the
demonstration that will then be made.
Two centuries ago the people of this country were engaged in a
fearful conflict with the Crown. A despotic and treacherous monarch
assumed to himself the right to levy taxes without the consent of
Parliament and the people. That assumption was resisted. This fair
island became a battle-field, the kingdom was convulsed, and an
ancient throne overturned. And, if our forefathers two hundred years
ago resisted that attemptif they refused to be the bondmen of a
king, shall we be the born thralls of an aristocracy like ours? Shall
we, who struck the lion down, shall we pay the wolf homage? or shall
we not, by a manly and united expression of public opinion, at once,
and for ever, put an end to this giant wrong?
Our cause is at least as good as theirs. We stand on higher
vantage-ground; we have large numbers at our back; we have more of
wealth, intelligence, union, and knowledge of the political rights and
the true interests of the country; and, what is more than all thiswe
have a weapon, a power, and machinery, which is a thousand times
better than that of force, were it employedI refer to the
registration, and especially to the 40s. freehold, for that is the
great constitutional weapon which we intend to wield, and by means of
which we are sure to conquer, our laurels being gained, not in bloody
fields, but upon the hustings and in the registration courts. Now, I
do hope, that if this law be repealed within the next six months, and
if it should then be necessary that this League should disperse, I do
trust that the people of England will bear in mind how great a panic
has been created among the monopolist rulers by this small weapon,
which we have discovered hid in the Reform Act, and in the
Constitution of the country. I would implore the middle and working
classes to regard it as the portal of their deliverance, as the strong
and irresistible weapon before which the domination of this hereditary
peerage must at length be laid in the dust.
|