CHAPTER IV.

REPEAL OF THE CORN AND NAVIGATION LAWS.

The Anti-Corn Law League.-Sir Robert Peel's Policy.-A New Cabinet.The Recall, and the Abolition of the Corn Laws.-State of Ireland, and the Potato Crop.-The Potato Disease.-Price of Wheat.-Emigration.Repeal of the Navigation Law.

THE Anti-Corn Law agitation was one of those movements which, being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to benefit one class of society. It was well known that the League wanted to outset an economic fallacy, and that they wished to relieve the people from a great burden. And as time elapsed and the soundness of the principles propounded by the League at their public meetings was more and more appreciated, their triumph became certain, and her Majesty's Government itself began to see that it was no longer possible to treat the agitation either by a silent passiveness or by expressed contempt. The economic theorists had the mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the newspaper press, and were eagerly read. And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the

days of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all further resistance would be absolutely dangerous.

A cabinet council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5 Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling, and opening the ports for the admission of all species of grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law; and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a modification of the existing law, including the admission at a nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his measures, and he decided upon resigning office.

He

His resolution to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel recommended. proposed a temporary protection for three years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that time ranging from 48. when the price of wheat should be 50s. per quarter and upward, and 108. when the price should be under 488. per quarter, providing, however, that after that period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 18. per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was received in a very different manner by the political parties in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the speeches he had made in

defence of the corn laws. And as to his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his right to do so. Mr. Colquhoun 'wondered that Sir Robert could say, "I have changed my opinion, and there is an end of it." But there was not an end of it. His right hon. friend must not forget the laws by which the words of men of genius-whether orators or poets--are bound up with them. His right hon. friend's words could not thus pass away. They were winged shafts that pierced many minds. They remained after the occasion which produced them passed away. His right hon. friend must remember that the words which he had used adhered to the memory, moulded men's sentiments, guided public opinion. He must recollect that the armour of proof which he had laid aside, and the lance which he had wielded, and with which he had pierced many an encumbered opponent, remained weighty and entire. Greatly did he wish that his right hon. friend were again on this side to wield them-that he were here to lead their ranks and guide them by his prowess. But if not, they retained at least his arms, these lay at their feet, strewed all around them, an arsenal of power.' Petulant remonstrances like these were of course of little avail. Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Cobden were ready to meet every challenge and to refute every argument with their unanswerable logic of facts. And when the Opposition endeavoured to throw all the responsibility of a measure of such a character on the prime minister, Mr. Cobden besought them to turn from the will of one individual to those laws economic and divine which seemed to impose the duty of laying wide open the door for the importation of food. Oh, then, divest the future prime minister of this country of that odious task of having to reconcile rival interests; divest the office, if ever you would have a sagacious man in power as prime minister, divest it of the responsibility of having to find food for the people! May you never find a prime minister again to undertake that awful responsibility! That responsibility belongs to the law of Nature: as Burke said, it belongs to God alone to regulate the supply of the food of nations. . . . We have set an example to the world in all ages; we have given them the representative system. The very rules and regulations of this House have been taken as the model for every representative assembly throughout the whole civilised world; and having besides given them the example of a free press and civil and religious freedom, and every institution that belongs to freedom and civilisation, we are now about giving a still greater example; we are going to set the example of making industry free-to set the example of giving the whole world every advantage of clime and latitude and situation, relying ourselves on the freedom of our industry. Yes, we are going to teach the world that other lesson. Don't think there is anything selfish in this, or anything at all discordant with Chris

...

9

tian principles. I can prove that we advocate nothing but what is agreeable to the highest behests of Christianity. To buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. What is the meaning of the maxim? It means that you take the article which you have in the greatest abundance, and with it obtain from others that of which they have the most to spare, so giving to mankind the means of enjoying the fullest abundance of earth's goods, and in doing so carrying out to the fullest extent the Christian doctrine of "Do ye to all men as ye would they should do unto you." The passing of the measure was, however, more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights' duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240 against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to have expired.' Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider the straitened resources of the country as regards the first article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in Ireland.

Ireland has often grievously suffered from social and political wrongs, from absenteeism and repeal cries, from Protestant and Roman Catholic bigotry, from Orangeism and Ribbonism, from threatening notices and midday assassinations, but seldom has her cup of adversity been so brim-full as in 1845 and 1846 from the failure of the potato crop. Though comparatively of recent introduction, the first potato root having been imported by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1610, potatoes had for years constituted a large proportion of the food of the people of Ireland. A considerable acreage of land was devoted to that culture, and an acre of potatoes would feed more than double the number of individuals that can be fed from an acre of wheat. Such cultivation was, moreover, very attractive to small holders of land. It cost little labour. It entailed scarcely any expense, and little or no care was bestowed on it, since the people were quite satisfied with the coarsest and most prolific kind, called lumpers or horse potatoes. Nor was it the food of the people only in Ireland. Pigs and poultry shared the potatoes with the peasant's family, and often became the inmates of his cabin also. One great evil connected with potato culture is, that whilst the crop is precarious and uncertain, it cannot be stored up. The surplus of one abundant year is quite unfit to use in the next, and owing to its great bulk it cannot even be transported from place to place. Moreover, once the people become used to a description of food so extremely cheap, no retrenchment is possible, and when blight comes and the crop is destroyed there is no way of escaping the catastrophe of absolute starvation. This unfortunately was the case in 1822 and 1831. In those years public subscriptions were got up, king's letters 19 & 10 Vict. c. 22, suspended by 10 & 11 Vict. c. 1.

issued, balls and bazaars held, and public money granted. But in 1845 and 1846 the calamity was greater than any previously experienced.

The potato disease first manifested itself in 1845. The early crop, dug in September and October, which consists of one-sixth of the whole, nearly escaped; but the whole of the late crop, the people's crop, dug in December and January, was tainted before arriving at maturity. In that year there was a full average crop of wheat. Oats and barley were abundant, and turnips, carrots, and greens, including hay, were sufficient. Yet on the continent the rye crop failed, and the potato disease appeared in Belgium, Holland, France, and the west of Germany. On the whole the supply of grain was fair during the year 1845, and prices ruled molerately high. In 1846, however, the blight attacked the potatoes with even greater fury and suddenness in the month of July, and it attacked both the early crop and the people's crop, at the same time that the wheat crop proved under an average. Barley and oats were also deficient, and the rye crop again failed on the continent. In the previous year some counties in Ireland escaped the potato disease, but this year the whole country suffered alike. The loss was indeed very great. Probably 13,000,000l. was a low estimate, and from 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 quarters of grain at least would be required to replace it. As might be expected, the news of such a disaster had a fearful effect throughout the country, and the utter helplessness of many millions of people became a subject of the greatest anxiety.

As soon as the potato disease appeared in 1845, Government took the step of appointing Professors Kane, Lindley, and Playfair to enquire into the nature of the disease, and to suggest means for preserving the stock, but this was of little avail. Urged by necessity, the Government even stepped out of its province, and sent orders to the United States for the purchase of 100,000l. worth of Indian corn, established dépôts in different parts, and formed relief committees. But this was nothing compared with what became necessary to be done in 1846. Public works were then commenced on a large scale, giving employment to some five hundred thousand persons. The poor law was put in action with unparalleled vigour, so that in July 1847 as many as three millions of persons were actually receiving separate rations. A loan of 8,000,000l. was contracted by the Government, expressly to supply such wants, and every step was taken by two successive administrations, Sir Robert Peel's and Lord John Russell's, to alleviate the sufferings of the people. Nor was Nor was private benevolence lacking. The Society of Friends, always ready in acts of charity and love, was foremost in the good work. A British Association was formed for the relief of Ireland, including Jones Loyd (Lord Overstone), Thomas Baring, and Baron Rothschild. A Queen's letter was