OCR Specification focus:
‘the Anti-Corn Law League, the Corn Laws, Peel and the reasons for their repeal, the debate over the Corn Laws and Peel’s fall from power.’
The Corn Laws and their eventual repeal in 1846 reveal the tensions between aristocratic interests, economic modernisation, and popular political agitation in early nineteenth-century Britain.
The Corn Laws: Origins and Purpose
The Corn Laws, introduced in 1815, were tariffs and restrictions on imported grain (referred to as “corn” in contemporary usage).
Title page of the 1815 Corn Law (“An Act to amend the Laws now in force for regulating the Importation of Corn”). This Parliament document introduces the post-Napoleonic protectionist regime that kept grain prices high. It provides a precise visual reference for the legislation your notes describe. Source
Corn Laws: A series of tariffs and trade restrictions imposed on foreign grain imports to protect British landowners’ profits by keeping domestic grain prices artificially high.
These laws were designed to benefit the landowning aristocracy, who dominated Parliament, by ensuring agricultural produce remained profitable after the Napoleonic Wars. However, they caused hardship for the urban working classes and industrialists, as higher grain prices meant higher bread prices, limiting real wages and raising living costs.
The Anti-Corn Law League
Formation and Aims
The Anti-Corn Law League, founded in 1838, became one of the most effective pressure groups of the period. It was spearheaded by industrialists and reformers such as Richard Cobden and John Bright, who were determined to campaign for free trade.
The League’s main aims included:
The complete repeal of the Corn Laws.
Lowering food prices for the working classes.
Encouraging free trade as a means to boost industry and commerce.
Methods of the League
The League pioneered modern pressure group tactics, including:
Mass public meetings to rally support and attract press attention.
Pamphlets, newspapers, and posters to spread their message nationwide.
Fundraising to support parliamentary candidates who pledged to support repeal.
Appeals to the moral case for repeal, arguing that high bread prices starved the poor.
The League’s rhetoric combined economic liberalism with social justice, making it both a humanitarian and pragmatic movement.
Earthenware plate, c. 1838–1846, printed with the League’s motto “OUR BREAD UNTAXED OUR COMMERCE FREE.” Such domestic objects spread free-trade arguments into everyday life and reinforced League identity. Extra detail on production (Sunderland/Staffordshire) appears on the source page and exceeds syllabus needs. Source
Peel’s Position and Policies
Peel’s Initial Stance
As leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister from 1841, Sir Robert Peel had originally supported the Corn Laws, reflecting the interests of the Conservative landowning base. However, Peel was also an economic reformer, influenced by classical economic theories of free trade.
Shifts in Policy
By the early 1840s, Peel had already enacted a series of tariff reforms and reintroduced income tax to broaden government revenue. This freed him to reduce duties on a wide range of imports, reflecting his growing commitment to economic liberalisation. Yet, the Corn Laws remained highly contentious, symbolising the division between protectionism and free trade.
Reasons for Repeal
The Irish Famine
The Irish Potato Famine of 1845–1846 was a pivotal event.
Bridget O’Donnel and children (Illustrated London News, 22 Dec. 1849). This widely reproduced image conveys the human impact of the famine that made maintaining grain import restrictions indefensible. Although drawn in late 1849, it illustrates conditions that began during the 1845–1846 crisis discussed in your notes. Source
The potato blight devastated Ireland, leaving millions facing starvation. The famine made it morally and politically impossible to maintain restrictions on grain imports, as food shortages were acute and immediate. Peel argued that repeal was necessary to allow cheap grain imports into Britain and Ireland.
Economic Arguments
Peel was persuaded by arguments that free trade in grain would:
Stabilise prices.
Support industrial growth by lowering food costs and therefore wage demands.
Reduce class tensions by making basic subsistence affordable.
Political Pressures
The Anti-Corn Law League exerted sustained pressure through nationwide campaigning.
Growing discontent among the urban working classes made unrest a real possibility if prices remained high.
Industrialists pressed for reform, linking free trade with prosperity and employment.
Debate over the Corn Laws
Support for Retention
Landowners and rural Conservatives defended the Corn Laws as essential to protect agricultural profits and rural employment.
They argued that repeal would devastate farming and make Britain dependent on foreign imports.
Support for Repeal
The Whigs, Radicals, and many industrialists supported repeal as an economic necessity and moral duty.
Peel himself, swayed by the crisis in Ireland and economic liberalism, gradually moved into this camp.
The debate was deeply divisive, exposing the fracture lines between industrial and agrarian interests.
Peel’s Fall from Power
Political Consequences
In 1846, Peel successfully steered the repeal of the Corn Laws through Parliament, supported largely by Whigs and Radicals, but against the majority of his own Conservative Party.
This created a major split within the Conservative Party:
The Peelites followed Peel in embracing free trade and reform.
The Protectionists, led by figures like Lord Derby and Benjamin Disraeli, remained committed to landowners’ interests.
Resignation
Peel resigned in June 1846, shortly after repeal, following a defeat on another issue— the Irish Coercion Bill—but the deeper cause was the loss of party support. His decision on repeal alienated the Conservative base, leaving him reliant on opposition support.
Peelites: A faction of the Conservative Party that broke away after 1846, following Peel’s free trade and reformist policies, eventually merging with the Whigs to form the Liberal Party.
Legacy
Peel’s fall highlighted the limits of leadership when faced with divided party loyalty. Although he fell from power, his decision shaped the future of British politics and accelerated the movement towards free trade dominance in the mid-nineteenth century.
FAQ
Disraeli emerged as one of Peel’s fiercest critics. He accused Peel of betraying the Conservative Party by prioritising free trade over traditional landowning interests.
Disraeli’s speeches in Parliament framed Peel as a leader who had abandoned his supporters, and his attacks helped rally the Protectionists. Although Disraeli gained influence later, this episode established his reputation as a sharp political operator.
The repeal caused a long-lasting split between the Peelites and the Protectionists.
Peelites moved towards cooperation with Whigs and Radicals, eventually helping to form the Liberal Party.
Protectionists, led by Derby and Disraeli, clung to agricultural protectionism.
This division weakened the Conservatives for decades, leaving them out of power for much of the mid-19th century.
The League relied heavily on middle-class industrialists, merchants, and professionals, who stood to benefit from lower food prices and expanded free trade.
Urban middle classes also had the resources to fund campaigns, purchase League literature, and influence elections.
The working classes were sympathetic but less directly involved, as they lacked political representation until later reforms.
Opponents argued repeal would undermine Britain’s agricultural sector and rural stability. Their methods included:
Publishing pamphlets stressing the danger of dependence on foreign grain.
Organising landowner meetings to emphasise rural solidarity.
Lobbying Conservative MPs to resist Peel’s reforms.
These tactics reflected fears that free trade would impoverish landowners and destabilise the countryside.
Repeal marked a decisive shift towards free trade orthodoxy.
Tariffs on other goods were gradually reduced, reinforcing Britain’s role as the “workshop of the world.”
Britain embraced open markets, believing cheap imports would boost industry and exports.
This stance shaped British economic policy until the early 20th century, when protectionism briefly returned.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
In which year were the Corn Laws repealed, and which Prime Minister was responsible for their repeal?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying the correct year: 1846.
1 mark for identifying the correct Prime Minister: Sir Robert Peel.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two reasons why Sir Robert Peel decided to support the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.
Mark Scheme:
Up to 3 marks for each well-explained reason (maximum 6 marks).
Reasons may include:
The Irish Potato Famine (1845–46): 1 mark for identification, 2 marks for explanation of how famine and food shortages made repeal morally and politically necessary.
Economic arguments for free trade: 1 mark for identifying Peel’s belief in free trade, 2 marks for explanation of how free trade could stabilise prices, lower food costs, and encourage industrial growth.
Pressure from the Anti-Corn Law League: 1 mark for identifying their influence, 2 marks for explanation of how their campaigning created public and political momentum.
Maximum of 6 marks overall, even if more than two reasons are explained.
