Justification of the Corn Laws

1437 Words3 Pages

Justification of the Corn Laws

The Corn Law was a potentially dangerous bill introduced in 1815 after

three years of good harvests. It was instigated with the support of

Lord Liverpool the current Prime Minister who saw the Corn Laws as a

temporary measure to create stability in the agricultural sector in

the immediate post-war years. The Corn Laws were potentially

disastrous because they, along with the abolishment of Income tax and

the creation of the Game laws, were seen as a return by the

ultra-Tory's to a single-issue, single class government. That issue

being the wants and needs of the landed classes. I believe

that the Corn Laws led large groups of the urbanised population

to become unreasonably politicised in their demands to parliament.

The catalyst for these potentially revolutionary actions being the

starvation of the working classes - the Corn Laws.

Lord Liverpool's justification for the Corn Laws was the appalling

state of agriculture in England in the post war period. England faced

a unique set of financial and economic problems bought about by the

end of the war. The harvest of 1813, 14 and 15 were extremely good

leading to a fall in prices by almost half. The end of trade sanctions

after the end of the Napoleonic Wars flooded the British market with

cheaper corn that made British Corn uncompetitive. Agriculture still

exceeded manufacturing as the country's largest single economic

interest. Therefore the Corn Laws were justifiable in this sense

because they still supported the largest single category of labour

provider. But while choosing to secure one social group Liverpool and

his cabinet had provided immedia...

... middle of paper ...

...for a slim chance of economic recovery in a single sector of

the country's economy-agriculture. The British Government had decided

to choke one group of citizens, the urban based working classes, to

create a wealthier group of large land owners-ironically the largest

group of MP's. In my eyes protecting no part of the economy would have

been the best idea. No economic area would flourish but neither would

any industry be choked. A free market mentality would be painful but

would result in more efficient techniques in manufacturing and

agriculture. All the Corn Laws seemed to do was underline the

injustices that were allowed to happen because of the lack of

universal suffrage. It also highlighted how inward looking and self

centred the Ultra-Tory's were as well as highlighting urban electoral

under representation.

Open Document