A Comparison of the Charist and Anti-Corn Law Leage Movements
The Anti Corn Law League had one clearly defined objective, to repeal
the Corn Laws. They were founded in 1839, after the formation of the
Anti-Corn Law Association in 1836, and the defeat of an anti-Corn Law
motion in Parliament in 1839. They had strong, logical arguments as to
why the Corn Laws had to be repealed. As a man of reason, Peel would
have accepted some of the arguments. It has been alleged, in fact,
that even without the Anti-Corn Law League, the Corn Laws may have
been repealed anyway. One of their strongest arguments why the Corn
Laws needed to be repealed was that a policy of free trade or
laissez-faire was better for the economy. They said that in an open
market, prices would fall, and this would be in the interests of the
consumer. Peel’s support for a free trade economy was demonstrated in
his budgets of 1842 and 1845. The Anti-Corn Law League (ACLL) also
argued that by repealing the Corn Laws, the artificially high price of
corn would fall to it’s natural level. This would be beneficial for
the whole of society. This argument would have struck a chord with
Peel, because he felt that his duty as Prime Minister was too all the
people and not just the wealthy landowners. The ACLL said that by
reducing the price of corn, bread prices would also fall. Bread was
the staple food of the nineteenth century diet for many people, and so
this would be in the interests of the workers. As they would have more
disposable income, they would be more inclined to buy manufactures,
and this would stimulate trade. This in turn would increase the number
of jobs, and therefore...
... middle of paper ...
...t. The Chartists were not as well
organised and their leadership was not as effective. The ACLL had a
large membership mainly made up middle classes, and from the Tamworth
Manifesto, it is known that Peel was keen on winning middle class
support for the existing system. The Chartists had a membership made
up of working class people. Peel was less conceding towards them, and
although he recognised his duty as Prime Minister extended to all
people, he was sure that it was the job of the aristocrats to govern.
The rational arguments of the ACLL were well received by Peel, who
accepted the underlying policy of free trade. Peel did not however,
see the need for fundamental, and potentially damaging change, to the
finest system in existence in the world, and so whilst the Corn Laws
were repealed, the Charter was not adopted.