The Anti-Corn-Law League modelled themselves on the Irish Catholic Association led by Daniel O’Connell. Between 1841 and 1845 the League grew into a strong political force. Creating discontent, they resorted to encouraging factory-owning ACLL members to cut wages and lower working hours. They published pamphlets, printed the League’s own popular journal – the Anti Corn Law Circular, sent out packs to every enfranchised man on the issue of repeal, held lectures run by academics, threw bazaars where one could purchase their merchandise and even produced labeled clothes. By taking advantage of the rise in new communication; the use the railways and Penny Post, they were able to spread their message on a greater scale, reaching rural England. They managed to build up large funds, which culminated in the ability to pay the deposits of candidates for election, and in 1844 they purchase property to allow members a vote. In a demagogic fashion the League said that supporters of the Corn Laws were “murderers.” The language of both Cobden and Bright was dominated by Biblical metaphors, thus by using religious and humanitarian grounds could they manipulate the minds of followers and attract greater sympathy to the cause. Popular slogans such as “Give us this day our daily bread” challenged the government’s moral conscience and Peel’s paternalist style of politics would soon be receptive to their cause, in his endeavours to improve the ‘condition of England.’ Whilst continuously producing propaganda, Bright and Cobden, elected to Parliament could ensure the issues of bread tax and the agricultural elite could be put questions forward. This effective organisation made raising awareness possible, communicating their message in all social spectrums. Without adopting an antagonistic approach whereby violence and heavy disruption of Britain would have wreaked havoc, the League’s method of educated debate served them as staunch opponents.
As an opposition group, the League threatened Peel's political future. Peel’s background was of the textile mills, therefore he would have been partial to free trade. However, as leader of the Conservatives, in theory, he was obliged to uphold Conservative values i.e. maintaining the Corn Laws. His personal belief was that Britain's stagnant economy was due to their protectionist stance. As a result he needed an excuse for repeal. If he had given in to the demands of a pressure group in the form of the ACLL, not only committing treason to his party, he would have appeared weak and ineffectual.
From1840 to 1842, failed harvests meant that basic foodstuffs were in short supply and consequently more expensive. Protective tax on wheat made it more expensive, jeopardous to the poorer population. The potato crop in Ireland had failed in 1845 causing widespread famine. Europe itself was facing similar problems of poor harvests so already there was a general pressure on the government to reconsider its protectionist stance of the 1815 Corn Laws, which was obstructing the way for cheap bread. Protecting English farmers also provided greater revenue for the government, causing resentment amongst those affected seeing the government adopt the laissez faire method when it suited them.
In the 1842 Budget he tackled the problem of the Corn Laws by implementing a reduced sliding scale. When domestic wheat cost 73/- per quarter, the duty would only be 1/-. Other measures included the introduction of Income Tax, reduction of tariffs. This sort of legislation gained approval in parliament from all parties but Peel’s own. By 1844 Peel’s increasing unpopularity amongst his own back-bench MPs stemmed from failure to consult them on matters of policy and proposition. It was becoming clear that the Tory wing of his party was reluctant to give him the support he demanded and only a Vote of Confidence was keeping him in power. The League capitalised on this situation, mustering further support inside Parliament despite new groups such as the Anti-League in 1844, led by the Dukes of Buckingham and Richmond who had left the Whigs and joined the Conservatives because they suspected Whig policy on the Corn Laws: this was partly responsible for the 1841 Conservative victory. Agricultural M.P.s were afraid of upsetting their constituents. In 1845 the beginning of the Irish Potato Famine gave Peel the excuse he needed. Due to the inability to repeal the Corn Laws on purely economic grounds without committing ultimate treason to his party, the crisis in Ireland together with the poor harvests in Britain served as a plausible excuse. Lord John Russell, the leader of the Whigs, already had issued the Edinburgh Letter which encouraged Peel to propose the legislation pledging the support of the Whigs which wold have seen a reduction over three years. The gradual reduction would create less risk of the failure of the Bill as the ACLL called for total and immediate repeal and Peel could not be seen to be giving in to extra-parliamentary pressure.
On 15 May 1846 112 Conservatives, several Whigs and free traders passed the repeal of the Corn Laws. It was said that “the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 whereby restrictive tariffs were removed from British agriculture and the price of bread reduced, was the result of a long and widespread agitation fostered by Anti-Corn Law leagues in all parts of the country. The repeal was marked by the sale of innumerable emblems, among them crude statuettes of the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel as well as commemorative china inscribed with words of thanksgiving." — Nicolas Bentley. The Anti Corn Law League did succeed in bringing the issue to the forefront of politics and subjecting Peel to extra parliamentary pressure despite his declared rejection of this idea. They had the means and organisation to start a revolution and it was the right condition in England to create the uprising. Peel knew along with the social climate changing beneath him, the only way to stablise Britain was to go with the general consensus even if it meant turning his back on his party, something he was now accustomed to. Looking out for the country’s interests rather than agricultural elite’s profits, the League placed the issue of repeal right in front of him and it was up to Peel to take the final step. The devastating famine in Ireland allowed Peel to save himself from party humiliation as he could demonstrated his ‘humanitarian attitude’ which would coincide with the need to repeal in England. The Anti Corn Law League, did as much as it could to push for repeal ad it showed the social discontent and I believe that they were half responsible for repeal of the Corn Laws.
