EBENEZER ELLIOTT
(1781 - 1849)

This unpublished letter was discovered in 2006 by a Huddersfield man, Len Armstrong.

The tone of the letter makes it a very interesting letter. The text of the letter appears below. Afterwards there is a fairly extensive commentary on the contents of the letter.

- Sheffield 1st May 1841 -

Dear Child,                                                                             

You force me, in reply to your letter of this date, to instruct an "adult baby," and use a term of your own.

No one who understands the subject, advocates freetrade that food may be cheap, (for cheapness is relative) but that it may be plentiful, and always obtainable, in exchange for the productions of manufacturing industry. The most wretched population that the world ever saw, is that of Ireland; but is food cheap there? On the contrary, it is, at least, twice as dear as in Poland; but the poorest Polish serf lives luxuriously, in comparison with him, "who lodges with the gentleman that pays the rent."

It may be true, though I do not believe it, that the productive classes here pay in government taxes £18 out of every £36; but if it is true, do you really think, that their doing so is a good reason why they should pay the remaining £18 in a tax levied on them by the landed annuitants? And can you believe, Child, that by suffering them to rob us, we shall get rid of their "throat-cutting police," as you, perhaps, justly term it?

If my God Almighty is not the God of the Universe, yours, I suppose, must be the God of the Cornlaws; or why do you phisicall (sic) force folks - while you pretend to oppose all meetings that are not called to obtain the charter - support all meetings called to advocate the food monopoly?

I am of opinion that the Anti-Cornlaw League has spent in exhibitions some money which would have been infinitely better employed in paying lecturers (sic) and opposing your pro-cornlaw men at elections; but I have, I fear, to correct an opinion of the commercial class, to believe that the league ever possessed 'immense sums of money." If I have not contributed to the funds of the league, it has been because I could not afford to do so; but as I never did contribute a single farthing, I have no right to ask what has become of their funds. With your Tory-Fund the case is quite different; for that fund has been wrung from the productive classes by your phisicil (sic) force folks. I do not, however, enquire what has become of it, because I am perfectly aware, that you tories will apply it to the worst purpose possible, if you know what that is; but if certain laws are destined to rid us of certain vermin, you are not applying it to the worst purpose, when you apply it to the support of the monopoly.

As I never knowingly use two terms to express my meaning, when one will do - excuse me if I cannot see that "a tory fund" is less a tory fund; for being called a "whig-fund." I divide politicians into two classes, monopolists and freetraders, and know no other distinction. The monopolist is a “a theif (sic) and a murderer," for he wishes to get what is not his own, by any means, except good ones, and always preferring the worst; but the freetrader is an honest man, for he necessarily offers an equivalent for whatever he proposes to receive.

I do not understand your allusion to Joint Stock Bank Managers. I never was a Manager in any bank; and certainly some banks have been badly managed; but I suppose, Child, you are aware that the public never yet lost a penny by any Joint Stock Bank of free competition. By banks of limited responsibility, (chartered nuisances like the Bank of England and the Bank of the United States) the public have sometimes lost immensely - and the partners ought never to gain.

As you think some of my terms are rather strong, I will, one day give you a Set-off to them, in a rather extensive tory, alias chartist and chartist, alias tory vocabulary, collected from some hundred of speeches, delivered at "Protection of Agriculture" dinners - and other similar physical force and Revolutionary meetings.

Although believing that your tory firm, and all the sleeping partners, will awake by and bye, with a shriek like that of the crew of a ship, aroused at the moment of going down! I yet would fain hope that you will live to learn the A B C of true Chartism, before your hair is quite grey.

            In the meantime I remain,

   Old Baby,

  Your willing instructor

                               Ebenezer Elliott

Notes on the Letter to Otley

Ebenezer's letter to Otley is of great interest to those who like to study the life & works of the Corn Law Rhymer.    

The first line shows that Otley had written to Elliott previously. The unusual tone of the bard's reply with its "Dear Child" and "adult baby" prompts the view that Otley's letter itself must have been couched in playful tones. Elliott's surviving letters are mostly serious reflecting the character of the man. In this letter, we see Elliott playing up the senior role of teacher to a young pupil.

Another point of interest is that the letter was written in Sheffield. Elliott had moved from Sheffield to Hargate Hill in January 1841, so it is odd he should compose a letter of May 1841 in Sheffield. The fragment of autobiography dated 1841 was also written in Sheffield as were several letters of this period. The reason Elliott was still spending so much time in Sheffield was that he was trying to resolve problems with the iron & steel business which his son, Benjamin, had taken over in 1840. Even as late as 1842 the Corn Law Rhymer confessed he was still having trouble disengaging from the struggling family business.

Note that the letter does not offer a full Sheffield address for Otley to use. Very likely, Elliott did not know how long he was going to be staying with family in Sheffield & expected his correspondence to be conducted to his Hargate Hill home. (It is just possible that Elliott was staying at his Upperthorpe home which he rented, though he probably would baulk at the cost of running two properties!).

A letter from Otley to the Poet of the Poor exits. This was written five months earlier on January 6^th 1841. The manuscript is housed in the Brotherton Collection of Leeds University. There had been some discussion between the two men: Otley had asked the poet to chair a Chartist meeting. Elliott had refused as he was now disenchanted with the Chartist strategies.

Richard Otley was a Sheffield man who was both a poet & a Chartist. Elliott was known to be an admirer of Otley's poetry but as we shall see not of his politics. Otley lived at Ecclesall where he earned his living as a newsagent. He was a prominent figure in Sheffield's circle of radical Chartists. In 1847 he was one of a group of Chartists who were elected to the local council. Otley represented Ecclesall but was disqualified fairly soon after his election.

          Since Elliott always answered letters promptly, it is clear that the "Dear Child" letter was not a response to the Otley letter of January 6^th 1841; this would indicate a regular exchange of correspondence. After all, both men were poets & Chartists: so they had much in common. As both were Sheffield men, it is virtually certain they were well acquainted with each other before Elliott started to sever his Sheffield activities. Note that by the time of this correspondence, the Poet of the Poor was a lapsed Chartist.

          Elliott begins his letter by discussing the price of food & the aims of free trade; a subject which dominated his thinking. In fact, he sometimes referred to himself as "The Bard of Free Trade." Note the references to Poland & Ireland: Elliott often showed an interest in conditions abroad to support his arguments. This reveals a commendable international outlook. Yet with free trade and monopoly his view is  blunt: "the freetrader is an honest man," he says while he who sides with the  monopolist is "a theif (sic) and a murderer."

          Although Elliott still supported the aims of the Charter, he was opposed to the radicals who were now dominating the movement. They had dropped the demand for Corn Law repeal:  this was a dreadful mistake in Elliott's opinion. Those who no longer struggled against the Corn Laws were therefore lumped with the monopolists & were enemies of the bard. These misguided people were also advocating force in pursuit of the aims of the Charter. The Corn Law Rhymer was always against violence or aggression. When he addresses Otley as "you phisicall (sic) force folks," we know that Otley was among the radicals in Sheffield Chartist circles. This is one of the reasons for Elliott's dismissive attitude to Otley & his beliefs.

          Elliott suggests that the Chartists were even disrupting those meetings promoting Corn Law repeal. By so doing, they were really acting "to advocate the food monopoly." In letters to John Watkins in 1839 & 1840, Elliott claimed that the physical force Chartists were "tools of the aristocracy" and that the leaders of the movement had accepted bribes to turn them against Corn Law repeal.

          As we have seen earlier, the two men had much in common but there was a gulf between their politics. This may help in explaining the tone of the Rhymer's letter to Otley.

          A significant finding about Elliott manifests itself when he discusses the finance of the Anti-Corn Law League. The poet lets slip that he "never did contribute a single farthing" to the League; this means that the Rhymer was never a paid-up member. Considering Elliott's strident advocacy for repeal of the Corn Laws, this is quite a revelation.

          The Anti-Corn Law League was founded in 1839 in Manchester where it had begun life as the Anti-Corn Law Association in 1838. The Corn Law Rhymer (the nickname is significant here) had always played a leading role in the various campaigns for repeal. As early as 1830 he had set up the Sheffield Mechanics Anti-Bread Tax Society. In 1834 he helped establish an anti-corn law society in Sheffield and he was on the committee which founded the unsuccessful London Anti-Corn Law Society in 1836.

          By the time the Anti-Corn Law League appeared in 1839, Elliott was trying to step back from politics; for instance he resigned in 1839 both from the Chartists & from the Sheffield Working Men's Association. There were perhaps three reasons for the Bard of Universal Peace withdrawing from politics:-

a)                    His family kept telling him he was spending too much time at meetings instead of at work.

b)                    His business was struggling in the harsh times & he was wondering about retiring

c)                     His health was not at all good: his doctor was soon to insist on the poet leading a quiet & untroubled life.

          Elliott's statement that Anti-Corn Law League would have made better uses of its resources by paying their lecturers is an indirect allusion to Abraham Walter Paulton, since Elliott once boasted "I had the honour to instruct and send forth the first Anti-Corn-law lecturer, Mr Paulton, now I believe, sub-editor of "The League." Paulton went on to become editor of "The League," which was the newspaper of the Anti-Corn Law League. Naturally, the newspaper was a target for Elliott whose poem "Monopoly the Bane of England" appeared in its columns in 1844. Again, as in the letter to Otley, the poem shows the Rhymer's violent dislike of monopolists. (Incidentally, Paulton persuaded Elliott to write to Colonel Thomas Perronet Thompson who was a very influential writer for the Anti-Corn Law League in the 1840s. Elliott revered Thompson as a godlike figure & had done so from 1827 when Thompson's "Catechism On The Corn Laws" had been published).

          The references Elliott makes in his letter about banking are with hindsight quite amusing. In 1838 he had closed his account with Parker & Shore's bank since the bard objected to Parker's tactics during his successful campaign to become MP for Sheffield. In 1843 Parker & Shore's bank went bust with many folk losing out. This was just two years after Elliott had loudly declared "that the public never yet lost a penny by any Joint Stock Bank."

          There is another letter in existence written by the Corn Law Rhymer to Richard Otley. It is dated October 16^th 1848 & is to be found in the Brotherton Collection. Written in his last years, the letter shows that Elliott still maintained his belief in ordinary people (for instance, his "People's Anthem" had just been published) and that he still disliked the behaviour of the Chartists. As well as condemning the Chartist movement, the letter criticised a satire which Otley had written - and which Elliott believed was an attack on himself & other moderates.

Keith Morris,  February 2007

To return to Ebenezer Research Foundry, please strike the anvil