JAMES
SILK BUCKINGHAM AND THE CORN LAW RHYMER:
An
Attempt at Fund Raising for Sheffield’s MP
This
article is based on a letter Elliott wrote to the
press and a notice which appeared in the press. Both were concerned
about the
plight of James Silk Buckingham.
Buckingham
(1786-1855) was a contemporary of Elliott and
had similar aims to the Corn Law Rhymer. He was a prolific writer and
traveller,
visiting and writing about Palestine, Assyria, Mesopotamia, the USA and
his
time with the Arabs.
After
a few very adventurous years, Buckingham settled in
India and established the Calcutta Journal in 1818. The newspaper
strongly
opposed the East India Company and its monopoly and drew attention to
corruption in the Company. In the end, Buckingham was forced out of
India and lost out
financially. Back in England, he set up the Oriental Herald and
Colonial Review
in 1824 and in 1828 he established a journal, the Athenaeum.
From
1832-7, Buckingham was MP for Sheffield. As a MP, he saw the importance
of education and
introduced a bill (which failed) to help set up public libraries. He
called for
an end to flogging and demanded the abolition of the press gang. Like
Elliott,
Buckingham campaigned for free trade and repeal of the Corn Laws. So it
is easy to see that the Corn Law
Rhymer would be an admirer of his MP.
When Buckingham finished his spell in Sheffield, he went off to the
States for
nearly four years.
(The
letter below by Elliott was found in the Sheffield
Iris newspaper for March 1st 1836).
TO THE BRITISH PUBLIC
Sheffield, Feb. 27 th, 1836.
Fellow countrymen, - in the Sun of Tuesday last, which
brought us the shameful intelligence that the just and recognised
claims of Mr Buckingham
for compensation from the East India
Company,
had been negatived by a reformed House of Commons, the Editor, while he
does
himself honour by expressing his surprise at this decision, consoles us
with
the assurances that these claims, being founded in justice, must
ultimately be
allowed. Assuredly they will; but not until we obtain triennial
parliaments,
the ballot, and household suffrage; for the doings of the Aristocracy
in the
colonies are of such frightful extent, that if a precedent for
compensation
were established, government would be overwhelmed with similar claims,
the
record of which, 500 folio volumes would be insufficient to contain!
This
horrible reason, why such a precedent should be established is, I fear,
the
true reason why Mr Buckingham has been defeated. Yet how so, if our
radical
friend, Mr Roebuck, opposed him?
The Tories, I have often thought must be clever fellows, because
they have invented a new name for rascality; I know not whether the
member for Bath
means to do as much for Whiggism, but I already suspect he will have no
occasion.
Perhaps, Mr Roebuck, is aware that the claims of oppressed talent and
honesty,
though often delayed, have been known to pay good interest. If the
merchants of
this country have scarcely a clearer right to the debts receivable than
Mr
Buckingham has to compensation from the East India Company to his
children, if
not to him, their bread will be restored, or justice is dead in heaven.
But
what is to become of him, in the meantime? He is no longer young; he
has a
family; and, plundered as he has been of his hard earned means of
living, how
is he to live? The cost of bringing his claims before Parliament the
session,
cannot be less than 500 pounds! Why did not Hobhouse permit the humble
and
reformed Commons to decide upon them last year? Is it not enough to
deny Mr
Buckingham justice, without inflicting on his honourable poverty
ruinous
expenses? Or is Sir John determined that we shall never forget the
Honourable
Company?
No matter. The people of England will not consent to be
deprived of Mr Buckingham’s services in Parliament. If 200 petitions
have been
sent in favour of his claims, there is public virtue enough in the
nation to
subscribe a sum of money for the purchase of an annuity sufficiently
large, (and
it need not be large,) to lift him above the sneers of the enemies of
Free Trade
and the People, in or out of parliament.
We have now an opportunity of refuting the assertion so
scornfully made by an honourable gentleman in the honourable and
reformed
house, that we are always ready to petition, and never to pay. Surely the representatives of commercial
constituencies
– the Hindleys, the Struts, the Ewarts, the Thornleys, the Schofields,
the Brothertons,
the Hutts, the Potters, the Bentinck’s, the Listers, the Baineses, et
cetera, will
support subscriptions in their respective boroughs, to secure a decent
competence to a man who has lost 50,000 pounds, with all that it might
have made,
and spent two-thirds of a most active
life in fighting for mankind their great bills of commercial liberty: -
a man who
has done more for free trade, than any other man now living: - a man
who has
been the suffering instrument of God, in giving to India an unfettered
press
and who has opened for us a new market in the east, 10 years at least,
before
we could have obtained it without his assistance.
Oh, that it depended upon the Navy to decide whether Mr
Buckingham should have an independent crust in the evening of his
troubled day!
There is not a British seaman in any part of the world, where our
bannered
cross is flying, who would not gladly give a month’s pay to the
Sailor’s
Friend, the great, the eloquent, the down-trodden, yet still
unconquered and
victorious advocate for the abolition of flogging and impressment.
The people of Sheffield have at this moment, before their
eyes – in one of those deadly strikes, of which the corn monopoly is
the
fruitful parent - a powerful reason for concluding that we have not one
friend
too many in the House of Commons. When I was a lad, there were neither
strikes
nor unions. If a man left his master in those days, they parted with
breaking
hearts. But we had then no anti-profit laws; merchants and
manufacturers could
afford to stock goods; and when the orders came, they were executed out
of
stock. But we have now a law, which, restricting food, while it cannot
restrict
numbers, causes every additional child to subtract something from the
national
rate of profit; so that no merchant or manufacturer can now afford to
keep
goods in stock, for there is not five per cent gross profit on them,
consequently, when the orders come, the orders are all to make; and, as time is an ingredient in the production of
all useful things, strikes and unions, in the present state of the law,
are
inevitable, whether they succeed or not.
And will the artisans, the manufacturers, the merchant of commercial Sheffield, will the electors of Nottingham, by refusing to aid such men as Mr Buckingham, when trampled upon by the enemies of free trade and the nation, give effectual support to laws which declare “that trade shall quit our shores!” – Laws which, converting the principle of population into a curse, compel the workman to say to the IP widow, “Thy son shall not work!” To the orphan, “Thou shalt not be bound apprentice!” To the virgin, “Thou shalt not marry!” To the master, “Your orders shall be executed in Germany!” Surely they will not aid the rancour of party vileness, by the sting of popular desertion, and giving Mr Buckingham’s sufferings the consecration of ingratitude, make them sacred to injustice, a monument forever of the deeds which monopolists are capable of perpetuating at home or abroad, and their advocates of defending in that honourable assembly, which is said to represent, (not the palaced paupers) but the self supported men of Great Britain. What is the loss of workmen's wages and merchant's profits, what the destruction of our cotton or file trades, compared with the ultimate consequences of those laws, which, if they continue, will drive all trade from this country, and produce a catastrophe such has never yet has been witnessed under heaven, a volcano of horror, a Niagara of blood? If the workmen of England wish for good and steady wages;- if the masters do not intend to remove their capitals to other lands:- if the wealthy wish to live in peace, and peaceable to die in their beds :- they will take good care that the services of such men as Mr Buckingham in Parliament, shall not be thrown away for a crust of bread. Fellow Countrymen, I am he who never yet told you a falsehood.
EBENEZER
ELLIOTT
The
letter is typical Elliott. Forthright, confident and a tad too
discursive, but you
have to admit that the poet’s heart was in a good place. Interesting
last line,
too.
PUBLIC
MEETING ON THE REJECTION OF MR BUCKINGHAM ‘S CLAIMS
(This
notice about a public
meeting was also found in the Sheffield Iris newspaper for March 1st
1836).
At
a public meeting of the inhabitants of the Borough of
Sheffield, called by advertisement in the Sheffield Newspapers, held at
the
town hall, in Sheffield, on Monday, the 29th of February,
1836, for
the purpose of considering what steps ought to be taken, in consequence
of the
extraordinary Rejection of the Bill in favour of Mr Buckingham’s Claim
for Compensation
from the East India Company:-
W.M.
IBBOTSON, Esq. In the Chair:-
It
was UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED, -
Moved
by Mr. Wm. VICKERS,
Seconded
by Mr. EBENEZER
ELLIOTT,
1st:-
That this meeting have learned, with the
greatest surprise and regret, that this
Bill,
introduced by Mr Tulk into the House of Commons, to compel the East
India Company
to make Compensation to Mr Buckingham, our active and esteemed
Representative,
for the infliction of a cruel wrong by that Company as the Governors of
India,
has been lost in the House of Commons on the second reading,- though a
Select
Committee of that House, composed of men of all parties, had previously
decided
that Compensation ought to be made.
Moved
by Mr. Thompson,
Seconded
by Mr Linley,
2nd:-
That Mr. Buckingham, by his useful and
patriotic labours, both in and out of Parliament, in bringing about the
destruction of the East India Company Monopoly; in advocating Free
Trade, Temperance,
the Abolition of Slavery, Impressment of Seamen; and by his fearless,
consistent, and enlightened patriotism, is deserving, especially under
present
circumstances, of the support, protection, and lasting gratitude of his
fellow
countrymen.
Moved
by Mr H Vickers,
Seconded
by the Rev G. H. Rhodes,
3rd:-
That in order to give a substantial
proof of sympathy for his wrongs, thus suffered in his Country’s Cause,
a
Subscription be immediately commenced for the purpose of raising a Fund
to
purchase an Annuity, secured on the joint lives of Mr. and Mrs.
Buckingham, and
the life of the Survivor.
Moved
by Mr. Jas. Smith, of Sharrow,
Seconded
by M. C. F. Fairbank.
4th:-
That Messrs. Wm. Ibbotson, Edward
Vickers, Samuel Woodcock, William Vickers, Edward Gillbee, William Ash,
Ebenezer Elliott, Thomas Linley, G.P. Naylor, W Thompson, and the Rev.
G. H.Rhodes,
with power to add to their number, be a Committee for the purpose of
carrying
the preceding Resolutions into effect, and that they be requested to
form and
correspond with district Committees in the various Towns of the
Kingdom, to
obtain Subscriptions and to aid in carrying forward the object of this
Meeting.
Moved
by Mr. Roebuck,
Seconded
by Mr. A. Branson
5th:- That
Mr G. Naylor, be Treasurer, and that Messrs. Henry Vickers and Francis
Hoole,
be the Honorary Secretaries.
Moved
by Mr. E. Vickers,
Seconded
by Mr. G. P.
Naylor.
6th:-
That the Address now read is approved
and adopted, as the Address of this Meeting to the People of the United
Kingdom;
and that it be printed and circulated under the direction of the
Committee.
Wm.
Ibbotson, Chairman
7th:-
That the thanks of the Meeting be given to
the Chairman, for his services on this occasion.
Subscription Lists are left at the Offices of the Secretaries, and at the Iris and Independent Offices in Sheffield, at which places, as well as by the Treasurer (Geo. Naylor, Esq. Western Bank, Sheffield,) subscriptions will be received.
Wonder how much money the Sheffield fund raising appeal made? In the
context of this appeal for Buckingham, it is strange to note that in
1834 a select committe of the House of Commons had already awarded Buckingham a pension paid for by the East India Company.
There
is another article
on this site about Buckingham. Both Elliott and Buckingham made long
speeches at a
presentation of Sheffield cutlery given to the MP. Click here to read
the article.
To
return to the Ebenezer Research Foundry, click the
Anvil 
To
return to Ebenezer’s home page, please click here.