Corn Laws

TheCorn Lawsweretariffsand othertrade restrictionson imported food andcornenforced in theUnited Kingdombetween 1815 and 1846. The wordcorninBritish Englishdenoted all cereal grains, includingwheat,oatsandbarley.The laws were designed to keep corn prices high to favour domestic farmers, and represented Britishmercantilism.The Corn Laws blocked the import of cheap corn, initially by simply forbidding importation below a set price, and later by imposing steep import duties, making it too expensive to import it from abroad, even when food supplies were short. The House of Commons passed the corn law bill on 10 March 1815, the House of Lords on 20 March and the bill received royal assent on 23 March 1815.
The Corn Laws enhanced the profits and political power associated withland ownership. The laws raisedfood pricesand the costs of living for the British public, and hampered the growth of other British economic sectors, such as manufacturing, by reducing the disposable income of the British public.
The laws became the focus of opposition from urban groups who had far less political power than rural areas. The first two years of theGreat Famine in Irelandof 1845–1852 forced a resolution because of the urgent need for new food supplies. The Prime Minister,Sir Robert Peel, aConservative, achieved repeal in 1846 with the support of theWhigsin Parliament, overcoming the opposition of most of his own party.
Economic historians see the repeal of the Corn Laws as a decisive shift towardsfree tradein Britain.According to one 2021 study, the repeal of the Corn Laws benefitted the bottom 90% of income earners in the United Kingdom economically, while causing income losses for the top 10% of income earners.
As a staple of life, as well as an important commodity of trade, corn and its traffic was long the subject of debate and of government regulation – the Tudors legislating against speculating in corn, and the Stuarts introducing import and export controls.Import had been regulated as early as 1670;and in 1689 traders were providedbountiesfor exportingrye,maltandwheat(all classified as corn at the time, the same commodities being taxed when imported into England).In 1773, theCorn Act 1772(13 Geo. 3. c. 43), "An act to regulate the importation and exportation of corn" repealed Elizabethan controls on grain speculation; but also shut off exports and allowed imports when the price was above 48shillingsperquarter(thus compromising to allow for interests of producers and consumers alike).The issue however remained one of public debate (by figures such asEdmund Burke) into the 1790s;and amendments to the 1773 act, favouring agricultural producers, were made in both 1791 and 1804.
In 1813, aHouse of Commonscommittee recommended excluding foreign-grown corn until the price of domestically grown corn exceeded 80 shillingsper quarter (8bushels),or the equivalent in 2004 prices of around £1,102 pertonneof wheat.The political economistThomas Malthusbelieved this to be afair price, and that it would be dangerous for Britain to rely on imported corn because lower prices would reduce labourers'wages, and manufacturers would lose out due to the decrease of purchasing power of landlords and farmers.
With the advent of peace when theNapoleonic Warsended in 1815, corn prices decreased, and theTorygovernment ofLord Liverpoolpassed theImportation Act 1815(55 Geo. 3. c. 26) (officiallyAn Act to amend the Laws now in force for regulating the Importation of Corn)to keep bread prices high. This resulted in serious rioting in London.
In 1816, theYear Without a Summer(caused by the1815 eruption of Mount Tamborain Indonesia) caused famine by disastrously reducing crop yields. Reduced standard of living and food shortages due to poor harvests led to riots.But the ceiling price of 80 shillings a quarter for domestic grain was so high that, between 1815 and 1848, it was never reached.David Ricardo, however, espousedfree tradeso that Britain could use its capital and population to itscomparative advantage.
In 1820, the Merchants' Petition, written byThomas Tooke, was presented to the House of Commons. The petition demanded free trade and an end to protective tariffs. The Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, who claimed to be in favour of free trade, blocked the petition. He argued, speciously, that complicated restrictions made it difficult to repeal protectionist laws. He added, though, that he believed Britain's economic dominance grew in spite of, not because of, the protectionist system.In 1821, thePresident of the Board of Trade,William Huskisson, composed a Commons committee report which recommended a return to the "practically free" trade of the pre-1815 years.
TheImportation Act 1822(3 Geo. 4. c. 60) decreed that corn could be imported when the price of domestically harvested corn rose to 80/– (£4) per quarter but that the import of corn would again be prohibited when the price fell to 70/– per quarter. After this act was passed, the corn price never rose to 80/– until 1828. In 1827, the landlords rejected Huskisson's proposals for a sliding scale, and during the next year Huskisson and the newPrime Minister, theDuke of Wellington, devised a new sliding scale for theImportation of Corn Act 1828(9 Geo. 4. c. 60) whereby, when domestic corn was 52/– (£2/12/–)per quarter or less, the duty would be 34/8 (£1/14/8),and when the price increased to 73/– (£3/13/–),the duty decreased to one shilling.
TheWhiggovernments, in power for most of the years between 1830 and 1841, decided not to repeal the Corn Laws. However the Liberal Whig MPCharles Pelham Villiersproposed motions for repeal in the House of Commons every year from 1837 to 1845. In 1842, the majority against repeal was 303; by 1845 this had fallen to 132. Although he had spoken against repeal until 1845,Robert Peelvoted in favour in 1846. In 1853, when Villiers was made aPrivy Counsellor,The Timesstated that "it was Mr Charles Villiers who practically originated the Free Trade movement".
In 1838, Villiers spoke at a meeting of 5,000 "working-class men" in Manchester. In 1840, under Villiers' direction, the Committee on Import Duties published ablue bookexamining the effects of the Corn Laws. Tens of thousands of copies were printed in pamphlet form by theAnti-Corn Law League, founded in 1838. The report was quoted in the major newspapers, reprinted in America, and published in an abridged form byThe Spectator.
In the1841 election, SirRobert Peelbecame Prime Minister andRichard Cobden, a major proponent of free trade, was elected for the first time. Peel had studied the works ofAdam Smith,David HumeandDavid Ricardo, and proclaimed in 1839: "I have read all that has been written by the gravest authorities on political economy on the subject of rent, wages, taxes, tithes."He voted against repeal each year from 1837 to 1845. In 1842, in response to the Blue book published by Villiers' 1840 Committee on Import Duties, Peel offered a concession by modifying the sliding scale. He reduced the maximum duty to 20/– if the price were to fall to 51/– or less. In 1842,Peel's fellow-ConservativeMonckton Milnessaid, at the time of this concession, that Villiers was "the solitaryRobinson Crusoesitting on the rock of Corn Law repeal".
According to historianAsa Briggs, the Anti-Corn Law League was a large, nationwide middle-class moral crusade with a Utopian vision; its leading advocateRichard Cobdenpromised that repeal would settle four great problems simultaneously:
The landlords claimed that manufacturers like Cobden wanted cheap food so that they could reduce wages and thus maximise their profits, an opinion shared by socialistChartists.Karl Marxsaid: "The campaign for the abolition of the Corn Laws had begun and the workers' help was needed. The advocates of repeal therefore promised, not only a Big Loaf (which was to be doubled in size) but also the passing of the Ten Hours Bill" (to reduce working hours). In 1876,Thomas Carlylecommented onJohn Bright, co-founder of the League along with Cobden: "as for that party, Bright, Cobden and Co., 'Cheap and Nasty' was their watchword. It was folly to suppose good things were to be had cheap. The nation had been deluded."
The Anti-Corn Law League was agitating peacefully for repeal. They funded writers likeWilliam Cooke Taylorto travel the manufacturing regions of northern England to research their cause.Taylor published a number of books as an Anti-Corn Law propagandist, most notably,The Natural History of Society(1841),Notes of a tour in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire(1842), andFactories and the Factory System(1844). Cobden and the rest of the Anti-Corn Law League believed that cheap food meant greater real wages and Cobden praised a speech by a working man who said:
The magazineThe Economistwas founded in September 1843 by politicianJames Wilsonwith help from the Anti-Corn Law League; his son-in-lawWalter Bagehotlater became its editor.
In February 1844, theDuke of Richmondinitiated theCentral Agricultural Protection Society(CAPS, commonly known as the "Anti-League") to campaign in favour of the Corn Laws.
In 1844, the agitation subsided as there were fruitful harvests. The situation changed in late 1845 with poor harvests and theGreat Faminein Ireland; Britain experienced scarcity and Ireland starvation.Nevertheless, Ireland continued toexport substantial quantities of foodto Great Britain despite its domestic privations. The problem in Ireland was not lack of food, but the price of it, which was beyond the reach of the poor.Peel argued inCabinetthat tariffs on grain should be rescinded byOrder in CounciluntilParliamentassembled to repeal the Corn Laws. His colleagues resisted this. On 22 November 1845 theWhigLeader of the OppositionLord John Russellannounced in an open letter to the electors in theCity of Londonhis support for immediate Corn Law repeal and called upon the government to take urgent action to avert famine.
The appearance of Russell's letter spurred Peel and the free-traders in his cabinet to press ahead with repeal measures over the objections of their protectionist colleagues.On 4 December 1845, an announcement appeared inThe Timesthat the government had decided to recall Parliament in January 1846 to repeal the Corn Laws.Lord Stanleyresigned from the Cabinet in protest. It quickly became clear to Peel that he would not be able to bring most of his own party with him in support of repeal and so on 11 December he resigned as Prime Minister in frustration. TheQueensent for Russell to form a government but, with the Whigs a minority in the Commons, he struggled to assemble the necessary support. Russell offered Cobden the post ofVice-President of the Board of Tradebut he refused, preferring to remain an advocate of free trade outside the government.On 21 December Russell informed the Queen that he was unable to accept office. Later that same day Peel agreed to carry on as Prime Minister but, with the majority of his own party opposing his proposals, he was now dependent on the backing of the Whigs to carry repeal.
After Parliament was recalled the CAPS started a campaign of resistance. In the ruralcountiesthe CAPS was practically supplanting the local Conservative associations and in many areas the independentfree holdingfarmers were resisting the most fiercely.
In 1845 and 1846, the first two years ofGreat Faminein Ireland, there was a disastrous fall in food supplies. Prime Minister Peel called for repeal despite the opposition of most of his Conservative Party. The Anti-Corn Law League played a minor role in the passage of legislation—it had paved the way through its agitation but was now on the sidelines.On 27 January 1846, Peel gave his government's plan. He said that the Corn Laws would be abolished on 1 February 1849 after three years of gradual reductions of the tariff, leaving only a 1 shilling duty per quarter.Benjamin DisraeliandLord George Bentinckemerged as the most forceful opponents of repeal in parliamentary debates, arguing that repeal would weaken landowners socially and politically and therefore destroy the "territorial constitution" of Britain by empowering commercial interests.
On thethird readingof Peel's Bill of Repeal on 15 May,Members of Parliament(MPs) voted 327 votes to 229 (a majority of 98) to repeal the Corn Laws. On 25 June the Duke of Wellington persuaded theHouse of Lordsto pass it, and it became theImportation Act 1846(9 & 10 Vict.c. 22). On that same night Peel'sIrish Coercion Billwas defeated in the Commons by 292 to 219 by "a combination of Whigs,Radicals, and Tory protectionists."Peel subsequently resigned as Prime Minister. In his resignation speech he attributed the success of repeal to Cobden:
As a result, the Conservative Party divided and the Whigs formed a government with Russell as PM. Those Conservatives who were loyal to Peel were known as thePeelitesand included theEarl of AberdeenandWilliam Ewart Gladstone. In 1859, the Peelites merged with the Whigs and the Radicals to form theLiberal Party. Disraeli became overall Conservative leader in 1868, although, when Prime Minister, he did not attempt to reintroduce protectionism.
Scholars have advanced several explanations to resolve the puzzle of why Peel made the seemingly irrational decision to sacrifice his government to repeal the Corn Laws, a policy which he had long opposed.  Lusztig (1995) argues that his actions were sensible when considered in the context of his concern for preserving aristocratic government and a limited franchise in the face of threats from popular unrest. Peel was concerned primarily with preserving the institutions of government, and he considered reform as an occasional necessary evil to preclude the possibility of much more radical or tumultuous actions. He acted to check the expansion of democracy by ameliorating conditions which could provoke democratic agitation. He also took care to ensure that the concessions would represent no threat to the British constitution.
According toDartmouth Collegeeconomic historianDouglas Irwin, Peel was influenced by economic ideas in his shift from protectionism to free trade in agriculture: "Economic ideas, and not the pressure of interests, were central to Peel's conversion to favor repeal of the Corn Laws."
The price of wheat during the two decades after 1850 averaged 52 shillings a quarter.Llewellyn Woodwardargued that the high duty of corn mattered little because when British agriculture suffered from bad harvests, this was also true for foreign harvests and so the price of imported corn without the duty would not have been lower.However, the threat to British agriculture came about twenty-five years after repeal due to the development of cheaper shipping (both sail and steam), faster and thus cheaper transport by rail and steamboat, and the modernisation of agricultural machinery. Theprairiefarms of North America were thus able to export vast quantities of cheap grain, as were peasant farms in theRussian Empirewith simpler methods but cheaper labour. Every wheat-growing country decided to increase tariffs in reaction to this, except Britain and Belgium.
In 1877, the price of British-grown wheat averaged 56/9a quarter and for the rest of the 19th century it never reached within 10 shillings of that figure. In 1878 the price fell to 46/5.In 1886, the wheat price decreased to 31/–a quarter. By 1885, wheat-growing land declined by a million acres (4,000 km, 281⁄2% of the previous amount) and the barley area had dwindled greatly also. Britain's dependence on imported grain during the 1830s was 2%; during the 1860s it was 24%; during the 1880s it was 45% (for wheat alone during the 1880s it was 65%).The 1881censusshowed a decline of 92,250 in agricultural labourers in the ten years since 1871, with an increase of 53,496 urban labourers. Many of these had previously been farm workers who migrated to the cities to find employment,despite agricultural labourers' wages being higher than those of Europe.Agriculture's contribution to the national income was about 17% in 1871; by 1911 it was less than 7%.
Robert Ensorwrote that these years witnessed the ruin of British agriculture, "which till then had almost as conspicuously led the world, [and which] was thrown overboard in a storm like an unwanted cargo" due to "the sudden and overwhelming invasion ... by American prairie-wheat in the late seventies."Previously, agriculture had employed more people in Britain than any other industry and until 1880 it "retained a kind of headship", with its technology far ahead of mostEuropean farming, its cattle breeds superior, its cropping the most scientific and its yields the highest, with high wages leading to higher standard of living for agricultural workers than in comparable European countries.However, after 1877 wages declined and "farmers themselves sank into ever increasing embarrassments; bankruptcies and auctions followed each other; the countryside lost its most respected figures", with those who tended the land with greatest pride and conscience suffering most as the only chance of survival came in lowering standards."For twenty years," Ensor claimed, "the only chance for any young or enterprising person on the countryside was to get out of it."The decline of agriculture also led to a fall in rural rents, especially in areas with arable land. Consequently, landowners, who until 1880 had been the richest class in the nation, were dethroned from this position. After they lost their economic leadership, the loss of their political leadership followed.
The Prime Minister at the time, Disraeli, had once been a staunch upholder of the Corn Laws and had predicted ruin for agriculture if they were repealed.However, unlike most other European governments, his government did not revive tariffs on imported cereals to save their farms and farmers.Despite calls from landowners to reintroduce the Corn Laws, Disraeli responded by saying that the issue was settled and that protection was impracticable.Ensor said that the difference between Britain and the Continent was due to the latter having conscription; rural men were thought to be the best suited as soldiers. But for Britain, with no conscript army, this did not apply.He also said that Britain staked its future on continuing to be "the workshop of the world" as the leading manufacturing nation.Robert Blakesaid that Disraeli was dissuaded from reviving protection due to the urban working class enjoying cheap imported food at a time of industrial depression and rising unemployment. Enfranchised by Disraeli in 1867, working men's votes were crucial in a general election and he did not want to antagonise them.
Although proficient farmers on good lands did well, farmers with mediocre skills or marginal lands were at a disadvantage. Many moved to the cities, and unprecedented numbers emigrated. Many emigrants were small under-capitalised grain farmers who were squeezed out by low prices and inability to increase production or adapt to the more complex challenge of raising livestock.
Similar patterns developed in Ireland, where cereal production was labour-intensive. The reduction of grain prices reduced the demand for agricultural labour in Ireland, and reduced the output of barley, oats, and wheat. These changes occurred at the same time that emigration was reducing the labour supply and increasing wage rates to levels too great for arable farmers to sustain.
Britain's reliance on imported food led to the danger of it being starved into submission during wartime. In 1914 Britain was dependent on imports for four-fifths of its wheat and 40% of its meat.During theFirst World War, the Germans in theirU-boat campaignattempted to take advantage of this by sinking ships importing food into Britain, but they were eventually defeated.During theSecond World Warin theBattle of the Atlantic, Germany tried again to starve Britain into surrender, but again was unsuccessful.