CORN LAWS. A name given in England to the long series of statutes dating as far back as the reign of Edward M., and terminating only in the year 1846, which had for their object the regulation of the trade in grain. The tenor of these laws varied with the idea which was uppermost in the mind, of the legislators. At one time designed to secure a proper supply of grain, the exportation of grain was prohibited, or allowed only when a surplus of the home supply revealed itself in the low price for grain. Later the underlying principle was frankly the encouragement and support of the agricultural interests, resulting in the prohibition of the im portation of grain, or permitting it only when the price of grain was extremely high and im portation seemed unavoidable to prevent famine. At times, moreover. in the long and varied his tory of this legislation, resort was had to bounties as a means of encouraging and promot ing home production. The shifting of legislation attracted little comment and less agitation until the beginning of the nineteenth century. At that time the manufacturing interests grew restive under the restrictions which were placed upon the trade in grain, and early in the century some thing in the nature of a compromise was made by the adoption of a sliding scale in the duties on importation. The object of this device was to reduce the import duties in proportion as the price of grain increased, so that at famine prices grain might be imported duty free. By the act of IS2S, at the price of 62s. a quarter for wheat, the import duty was £1 4s. Sd. For every shilling less in the price, a shilling was added to the duty. hut when the price rose above this point the duty decreased by a larger ratio than the rise in price. At the price of 69s.. the duty was 15s. Sd., and at 73s. the duty sank to its minimum of Is. Such an arrange ment not only promoted speculative operations. but also prevented foreign countries from fur nishing grain habitually for the British market.
This legislation was obviously in the interest of the landowners, but as the tendency of Great Britain to be an importing rather than an virtually an attempt to aggramlizo the landed interest by pressure upon the food of the people. The manufacturing interests, which were now rapidly coming into power, devoted their ener gies to combating this principle, which increased the cost of living, and, through wages, the cost of manufacturing. But the public at large. though conscious that' the laws were some way improper, or at variance with the principles of political economy, did nut, till the very last, earnestly unite in calling for repeal. There was a powerful party who represented with won derful plausibility that these restrictive statutes were identified with the best interests of the country. Their arguments might thus be summed up: (1 ) Protection was necessary, in order to keep certain poor lands in cultivation. (2) It was desirable to cultivate as much land as pos sible in order to improve the country. (3) if
improvement by that means were checked. Eng land would be dependent on foreigners for a large portion of the food of the people. (4) Such dependence would be fraught with immense danger; in the event of war, supplies might be stopped. or the ports might be blockaded, the result being famine. disease, and civil war. (5) The advantage gained by protection enabled the landed proprietors and their tenants to encourage manufacture, and trade: so much that if the corn laws were abolished, half the country shop keepers would be ruined; that would be followed by the stoppage of many of the mills and facto ries, and no one would venture to say what be the final consequences. It cannot ho uninstructive to put on record that these argu ments exerci,ed a commanding influence over the laboring classes, the small town shopkeepers, almost all the members of the learned profes sions, and a considerable section of both Houses of Parliament. Yielding at length to the con tinued agitation, and recognizing that England's prosperity lay in the development of her manu factures rather than in the further encourage ment of agriculture, Sir Robert Peel, in 18-l6, at the time' of the Irish famine. effected the repeal of the Corn Law,. (See ANTI CORN-LAW LEAGUE I COBDEN, RICHARD. ) The area devoted to wheat cultivation in England is less to-day than it was fifty years ago, although the population has greatly increased. Modern methods of communication. however, have opened up new areas of supply, and the development of manufactures and commerce has amply com pensated for the loss in agricultural production.
The folowinp table shows the immediate effect of the repeal of the Corn Laws: exporting country had already become manifest it seemed clear that the effort to increase home production by the pressure on importation was Coincident ly with all increased import at ior of foodstuffs there was a notable expansion of foreign trade, as shown in the exports. In later years imports are measured in hundredweights. The increase in grain imports is shown in the following table: In the meantime the aggregate value of all British imports and exports has risen from i376000,00o in 1860 to £698,000,000 in 1880, and 1877.000,000 in 1900. The growing dependence of Great Britain upon foreign sources of supply for breadstuffs is reflected in the decline of the area sown in wheat. which in 1870 was reported as 3.773,663 acres, and as 1.845.042 acres in 1900. Russia and other European countries contribute to the British imports. as does also Oldie. but the principal sources whence imports are drawn are shown in the following statement : border conflicts in New York, and seems to have been present at the massacre of Wyoming. After wards, however, he became a steadfast friend of the whites, and, with Red Jacket, directed the affairs of his tribe for many years. His Indian name was Garyan-Wah-G'all.