The Anti-Corn Law League

The section explores the Corn Laws and the role of the anti-Corn Laws league. Between 1803 and 1815, Britain was engaged in the Napoleonic Wars against France, a conflict that severely disrupted trade. During this period, France, one of Britain’s major trading partners, was unable to export goods, including wheat, to Britain. When the war ended, British landowners and farmers became concerned that cheaper French wheat would flood into Britain, driving down prices and reducing their profits. To protect domestic farming interests, the British government passed the Corn Laws in 1815. These laws restricted the import of foreign wheat whenever domestic prices fell below a certain level, keeping the price of wheat, and consequently bread, artificially high. While the Corn Laws protected the interests of landowners and farmers, they sparked widespread resentment and led to a campaign for free trade that lasted for decades.

Why were the Corn Laws Unpopular?

The Corn Laws were unpopular for a number of reasons, with different groups within British society opposing them for varying reasons.

The Poor

For the working poor, the Corn Laws were deeply problematic because they caused the price of bread – a staple food for many – to rise. As bread became more expensive, the poor found it increasingly difficult to feed their families. Many working-class families spent the majority of their income on food, so higher bread prices worsened their already difficult living conditions.

Factory Owners and Employers

Factory owners and employers were also opposed to the Corn Laws, but for slightly different reasons. They had to pay their workers higher wages to compensate for the increased cost of living caused by expensive bread. Additionally, they argued that if bread were cheaper, workers would have more disposable income, which they could spend on goods produced in the factories. This would benefit business owners, who would see greater demand for their products.

Business Owners and Advocates of Free Trade

Many business owners believed in free trade, which would allow foreign countries to sell their wheat in Britain. This would not only help to reduce the cost of bread but also encourage other countries to use the money they earned from selling wheat in Britain to buy British industrial goods. Free trade was viewed as a fairer system, fostering better international relations and greater wealth for Britain, which, as the hub of a vast empire, relied heavily on global trade.

The Organisation of the Anti-Corn Law League

The movement to repeal the Corn Laws gained significant momentum in the 1830s. The Anti-Corn Law Association was founded by factory owners in Nottingham, who were some of the first to organise opposition to the laws. The campaign spread rapidly across the country as other towns and cities formed their own groups to fight for the repeal of the Corn Laws.

In 1838, the Anti-Corn Law League was established to coordinate the various regional efforts and unify the campaign. The League was:

• Well-organised and committed to non-violent methods of protest.
• Focused on using parliamentary elections to raise awareness of the issue and elect supporters of the League into Parliament.

Key Figures: John Bright and Richard Cobden

Two of the most prominent figures in the Anti-Corn Law League were John Bright and Richard Cobden, both of whom were elected as Members of Parliament (MPs). They became the public face of the movement, touring the country to give speeches and organising events to raise awareness about the negative effects of the Corn Laws. They also sent out pamphlets to explain their arguments to voters, aiming to mobilise public support for the cause.

Sir Robert Peel’s Reaction to the Anti-Corn Law League

Initially, Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, a member of the Conservative Party, was sympathetic to the idea of repealing the Corn Laws. He recognised the economic harm they caused and was in favour of free trade. However, Peel faced considerable opposition from within his own party. Many of his Conservative colleagues were landowners who benefited from the high wheat prices generated by the Corn Laws. As a result, Peel was reluctant to act, fearing that he would alienate these powerful figures within his party and appear weak in the face of external pressure.

Despite his personal belief in free trade, Peel hesitated to push for repeal because of the political cost it would incur. This indecision left him in a difficult position, torn between his own principles and the need to maintain party unity.

The Irish Famine and the Case for Repeal

In the early 1840s, a devastating potato blight struck Ireland, destroying the potato crop, which was a staple food for the Irish poor. The blight had affected other countries, but the Irish population was particularly reliant on potatoes for sustenance. Due to the restrictions imposed by the Corn Laws, there was no surplus of wheat available to help alleviate the famine in Ireland. The resulting Irish Potato Famine caused widespread starvation, leading to the death of approximately one million people and forcing millions more to flee the country.

The famine in Ireland provided a powerful argument for repealing the Corn Laws. Critics of the Corn Laws argued that Britain’s restrictive trade policies had contributed to the scale of the disaster in Ireland by preventing the importation of necessary grain. The Irish Famine became a symbol of the need for reform, pushing the issue of free trade to the forefront of political debate.

The Repeal of the Corn Laws

By the mid-1840s, Britain was facing a combination of crop failures, high bread prices, and the threat of social unrest, including the possibility of riots over food prices. These factors put immense pressure on the government to take action. The final push came when it became apparent that the Irish Famine, along with Britain’s own food shortages, was threatening the stability of the nation.

In 1846, Sir Robert Peel, facing immense pressure, decided to repeal the Corn Laws. The decision was controversial and met with fierce opposition from his own Conservative Party. Many landowners felt betrayed by Peel’s actions, as the repeal threatened their financial interests. As a result, Peel was forced to resign as Prime Minister on the same day that the Corn Laws were repealed. The decision to repeal the laws marked a significant moment in British history, as it signified a move towards free trade and a recognition of the economic realities faced by ordinary people.

Legacy of the Anti-Corn Law League

The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was a major victory for the Anti-Corn Law League and its supporters, particularly for the advocates of free trade like Richard Cobden and John Bright. The campaign helped to establish a strong tradition of political organisation and activism in Britain, paving the way for future social and political movements. The success of the Anti-Corn Law League demonstrated the power of organised, peaceful protest and the effectiveness of using parliamentary elections to achieve political change.

In the long term, the repeal of the Corn Laws is seen as a pivotal moment in the development of liberal economic policies in Britain, which would have a lasting influence on the country’s economic and political landscape.