From Lancashire, December 22. The end of the existing Corn 
Laws is rapidly approaching. The people are in a real fury about 
the “corn tax”, and no matter what the Tories do, they cannot 
withstand the pressure of the exasperated masses. Sir Robert Peel 
has prorogued Parliament until February 2—six weeks for the 
opposition to fan the anger still more. When the new session 
opens, Peel will have to state his position on the sliding-scale* at 
the very outset; it is generally believed that he has at least begun 
to waver in his attitude towards it. If he decides to drop it, the 
more extreme Tories will undoubtedly resign from the govern- 
ment and make room for the moderate Whigs, and then the 
Peel-Russell coalition will have come into being. In any case, the 
aristocracy will defend itself stubbornly, and I, for my part, do not 
think it can be induced to agree voluntarily to the free import of 
corn. The English nobility allowed the Reform Bill and Catholic 
emancipation to go through, but the effort that this cost it would 
be nothing compared with that which abolition of the Corn Laws 
would entail.'* What is a weakening of the aristocracy’s influence 
at parliamentary elections compared with a 30 per cent reduction 
in the property of the whole English nobility? And if even the two 
above-mentioned Bills have evoked such struggles, if the Reform 
Bill was passed only with the aid of popular risings and stones 
thrown at the windows of the aristocracy, cannot the nobility be 

relied upon to test whether the people has enough courage and 
strength to ensure that its will is carried out? The summer 
disturbances certainly showed the nobility how ineffectual the 
English people is when it revolts.* I am firmly convinced that this 
time the aristocracy will remain adamant until the knife is at its 
throat. There can be no doubt, however, that the people will not 
go on much longer paying the aristocracy a penny (10 Prussian 
pfennigs) on every pound of bread it eats. The Anti-Corn Law 
League” has seen to that. Its activity has been tremendous; I 
intend to write a more detailed report about it.” Suffice it to say 
that one of the most important results due partly to the Corn 
Laws, partly to the League, is the freeing of the tenant farmers 
from the moral influence of their aristocratic landlords. Up to 
now, no one has been so indifferent to political issues as the 
English tenant farmers, i. e., the entire agricultural section of the 
nation. As a matter of course, the landlord was a Tory and evicted 
every tenant who voted against the Tories at the parliamentary 
elections. The result was that the 252 Members of Parliament 
which the agricultural districts in the United Kingdom have to 
elect were, as a rule, almost all Tories. Now, however, due to the 
effect of the Corn Laws and the publications of the League, 
distributed in hundreds of thousands of copies, the tenant farmer 
has been awakened to political consciousness. He has realised that 
his interests are not identical with those of the landlord, but are 
directly opposed to them, and that to no one have the Corn Laws 
been more unfavourable than to himself. Hence a considerable 
change has taken place among tenant farmers. The majority of 
them are now Whigs, and since the landlords may now find it 
difficult to exert a decisive influence on the tenant farmers’ vote at 
the elections, the 252 seats held by the Tories will probably soon 
pass to the same number of Whigs. Even if this change-over only 
affected half the seats, it would already alter the character of the 
House of Commons considerably, since as a result the Whigs 
would be assured of a majority there for good. And that is bound 
to happen. Particularly if the Corn Laws were repealed, for then 
the tenant farmer would become completely independent of the 
landlord, because tenancy agreements would have to be concluded 
under quite new conditions after the repeal. The aristocracy 
thought that it had achieved a remarkably clever stroke of business 
by passing the Corn Laws; but the money it has obtained as a 

result by no means outweighs the disadvantage which these laws 
have caused it. And this disadvantage lies precisely in the fact that 
from now on the aristocracy is no longer the representative of 
agriculture, but of its own selfish interests.