CORN LAWS, regulations of the grain trade and breadstuffs, a former system of legis lation in England, part of the general economic policy of the country, laying duties on importa tions of various kinds of grain; affecting the internal corn trade and speculative dealings; the assize of bread; the export of corn; the conflict between arable and pasture land; and the dan gers of rural depopulation. The system of corn laws thus covered a much wider field than is indicated by import duties, these being but part of a much wider system dealing with allied questions of more importance, and which under changing circumstances are of recurrent in terest. 'The corn laws originated in the reign of Edward III, and ended only with the repeal of the import duties in 1846, their repeal being only part of a great movement in the direction of free trade. As affecting the interests of the consumer, the earliest corn laws were intended to prevent the exaction of monopoly prices and to check speculation. Export of corn was reg ulated to secure cheapness and plenty at home; the bounty was defended on the same ground,• the duties on imports were remitted or released in dear years, and sometimes bounties were given on imports. Up to 1815 the corn laws had little effect on prices, but after that year they increased to some extent the average price, and ncreased fluctuations beyond what would otherwise have been the case. The producers interested in the corn laws were the landowners, the farmers and the laborers. In the Tudor period direct legislation was attempted to re strict sheep farming and to promote corn growing. From the 17th century the belief was general that the best sign of national progress was a rise in rent, and it was supposed that anything that raised rent increased prog ress. These views were held by unbiased, impartial writers. Corn laws that raised rents were also supposed to benefit the nation. At the close of the 18th century the interests of landlords and consumers began to be opposed and the divergence increased till the repeal. The farmers suffered from the greater fluctua tions, but there was great progress in agricul ture owing to other causes. Wages were low, and especially during the Napoleonic wars, while rents rose greatly, real wages fell. The low wages can only be partly ascribed to the effect of the corn laws. Studied from the point of view of the interests of the state and of general public policy, the early corn laws in volved the same idea as the usury laws. The governmental power in regulating foreign trade in corn gave rise to constitutional struggle. Exports were encouraged to promote the mer cantile marine and in that way naval power. The revenue from the import duties was con sidered of secondary importance till just before the repeal. Stress was laid on the advantages of a large rural population and of national independence as regards food supplies. The duties were essentially protective and must be regarded as part of a wider system. The repeal was only part of the general movement toward greater freedom of trade, which began with the petition of the merchants in 1820, and was not completed till 1860. Preferences were granted by the British colonies, also as part of the general policy. At the time of the repeal there was much exaggeration as to the past effects of the corn laws on prices, and also as regards the monopolistic spirit of the land owners. Although the landowners had been the
dominant political class for centuries, the greater part of the corn laws hadeen u designed in the interest of the nation as under stood at the time. In the 19th century the only part of the system that remained effective was the protective import duties; they had become hurtful to the consumer and trade in general, and if retained would have done still more harm. The whole history of the corn laws is a good example of the negative argument for free trade. Protection to agriculture could only be restored by reverting to old ideas which would now be still more difficult of accomplish ment, as conditions have become so much more complex. The best means of securing a suffi cient and steady supply of breadstuffs has always been a subject of great diversity of opinion, and the practice of governments has varied much at different times. The theory urged by Adam Smith, and now adopted in Great Britain and generally followed in the United States, is that the government should do absolutely nothing in the matter, on the ground that farmers and merchants, if un checked, will always form correct views of their own interest, and that their interest will co incide with that of the community. This theory is supported by a large view of the facts. In ancient times famines were much more frequent than they are now, because commerce was more restricted, less regular and extensive, and sub ject to more frequent obstructions. A free com munication between different countries, by which the abundance of the one may be brought to supply the want of the other, has proved the best security against the want of necessaries and even of comforts and luxuries.
The Athenians had laws prohibiting the ex portation of corn and requiring merchants who loaded their vessels with it in foreign ports to bring their cargoes to Athens. The public pro vision and distribution of corn was an import ant branch of administration at Rome, and very intimately connected with the public tran quillity. The regulation of the supply of corn and the trade in the article have been a fruitful subject of legislation in modern Europe. But it is to be observed that the public solicitude and current of legislation take this direction only in populous countries, or at least those In which the population presses hard upon the means of domestic production of breadstuffs; for countries of which the staple export is corn need to take no measures for securing a supply. In agricultural countries the object of solicitude is to supply the want of arts and manufactures, as in populous and highly improved countries it is to supply the want of food.
But the laws directed to this object have been very various, and some of them contradic tory; for as in Athens so in England, at one period the laws prohibited the exportation of corn; whereas at another period, and for a very long one in the latter country, a bounty was given on the exportation; and both these laws had the same object, namely, the adequate and steady supply of the article. (See CORNER; Fiux TRADE). Consult Nicholson J. S., 'History of the English Corn Laws) (London 1904) • Mc Carthy, The Epoch of Reform —1830-50' (London 1882) ; Platt, (History'of the British Corn Laws) (London 1845) • (British Statutes) (16 vols., London 1882-1906) ' • Hensard, (Par liamentary Debates' (London 1815-46).