A SUCCINCT HISTORY OF THE CORN LAWS. In the following sketch of this important subject, we shall give a history of the successive regulations under which the trade in corn has been placed by our legislature, at different periods. In the 13th century we find the prices of wheat had become an object of attention, and in a statute entitled "Judicium Pillorie," about 1266, Henry III., directions were given to the authorities of towns to "inquire the price of wheat, that is, to wit, how a quarter of the best wheat was sold the last market day." In 1360, the exportation of f corn was prohibited by Statute 34 Edw. III., c. 20. In 1393, corn might be exported by the king's subjects "to what parts that please them," except to the king's enemies. In those early times sufficient grain was grown in England to admit of exportation. In 1436, the exportation of wheat was allowed without the king's licence, when the price per quarter at the place of shipment was 6s. 8d. About 1460 the first symptom of a Corn Law occurs for the protection of the home grower from the effects of an over supply of foreign grain. The importation from other countries gave rise to complaints, which were followed by a statute passed in 1463, by which it was enacted, that wheat should not be imported unless the price at the place of import exceeded 6s. 8d. per quarter. Up to this time the importation of corn had not been prohibited, or subject to restriction. The commercial policy, at this period, was directed to the object of preserving as much food as possible in the country; hence in 1533 it was forbidden to export corn and provisions without the king's license. In 1554 another act was passed, which restored the freedom of export so long as wheat should not exceed 6s. 8d. per quartr; when above 6s. 8d., exportation was to cease; and when it was under that price, it could not be exported to any fore country, or to Scotland, without a licence, under penalty forfeiting double the value of the cargo, as well as the vessel. Besides imprisonment of the master and mariners of the vessel for one year. In 1562 it was enacted, that wheat might be exported when the average price was 10s. per quarter. as introduced: when the price of In 1660, a new scale of duties w wheat was under 44s. per quarte when the price was above 44s..T, the export duty was 5s. 6d., and the duty rose to 6s. 8d. Exportation B was permitted free whenever the price did no 460 In 1772, an act was passed relating to the internal corn tra · , several ancient restrictions in old statutes were removed, on the ground that," by preventing a free trade in corn, &c., they have a tendency to discourage the growth, and enhance the price of the same, which statutes, put into execution, would bring great distress on the inhabitants of many parts of the kingdom." In 1791, the act authorised a bounty of 5s. per quarter to be paid when wheat was under 44s., and when above 66s. exportation was to cease. The new scale of import duties was:-for wheat under 50s. per quarter, the "high duty" of 24s. 3d.; at 50s., but under 54s., the first "low duty" of 2s. 6d. ; at, or above 54s., the "second low duty" of 6d. was payable. The protecting price was thus raised from 48s. to 54s. the quarter. From 1791 to 1804, forms a very eventful period in the history of the Corn Laws. Under the comparatively free system established by the act of 1791, the excess of imports had been comparatively trifling; but under an act expressly constructed to prevent importation as much as possible, the excess of imports in the thirteen years from 1791 to 1803, amounted to 6,458,901 quarters of wheat and wheat flour. The seasons operated against the acts of the legislature, and the dependence on foreign supplies was never so great as at the very period when hopes had been entertained that the produce of the home grower would prove ample for the wants of the country. In 1804, Parliament appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the principle and operation of the Corn Regulation Act of 1791, and to determine whether the scale which it fixed for the regulation of imports and exports was now applicable. Their report was:-"It appears to your Committee that the price of corn from 1791 to the harvest of 1803, has been very irregular; but on an average, increased in a great degree by the years of scarcity, has in general yielded a fair profit to the grower. The casual high prices, however, have had the effect of stimulating industry, and bringing into culture large tracts of waste lands, which, combined with the two last productive seasons, has occasioned such a depression in the value of grain, as it is feared will greatly tend to the discouragement of agriculture, unless maintained by the support of Parliament." At the recommendation of the Committee, the following scale was submitted and adopted by Parliament:-On wheat under 63s. per quarter, the "high duty" of 24s. 3d. was payable; at 63s. and under 66s., the "first low duty; " and at or above 66s., the "second low duty," which amounted only to 6d. The free import, or nominal duty price, was thus raised from 54s. (at which it stood in the act of 1791) to 66s., an increase of 12s. The bounty of 5s. on exportation was to be paid when the average price was at or under 48s.; and when the average rose to 54s., exportation to be prohibited. After a act the price rose from 49s. 6d. to 86s. 2d. per gh prices stimulated cultivation, and from 1804 the number of inclosure bills which received the as 1084, being considerably more than for any other period. or two of low prices of agricultural produce again brought a close another period in the history of the Corn Laws. Wheat, which had been sold as high as 180s. the quarter (for select parcels) in 1812, fell to 73s. 6d., after the abundant harvest of 1813; and after that of 1814, which was rather favourable than otherwise, the average price was reduced to 53s. 7d. the quarter. This fall in prices and the cessation of hostilities led to the reconsideration of the whole question of the Corn Law. During the present period an important change was made in the mode of striking the average prices of corn and grain. The twelve maritime districts of England, and the four similar districts of Scotland, ceased to be regarded as sixteen separate sections, each of which was regulated by the prices prevalent within its separate limits: but for England, the averages, taken as before, were computed for the whole of the twelve districts at once, and the average price obtained from the computation regulated importation and exportation at sea-ports situate in any part of the country; and for Scotland the same plan was pursued. The six weeks' averages, struck quarterly, regulated the import-duty, and the weekly average the exports. In 1806 was passed "An Act to permit the free 'nterchange of every Species of Grain between Great Britain and Irland.”* land had been previously treated as a colony, but this act placed her on an equality with other parts of the kingdom, and, for oats, has rendered Ireland the granary of England. The Corn Law of 1815 originated in the desire to preserve, during a state of peace, the high rents and prices which had existed during the war. The war had been a period of scarcity, arising from various causes, and the real effect of this measure was to perpetuate the high prices and high rents by an artificial scarcity. On the 10th of June, 1814, a Committee of the House of Lords on the corn-trade was appointed, which made a brief report on the 27th, when the Committee was instructed to examine witnesses in support of allegations contained in petitions presented to the House on the subject. The principal feature of the second report was the recommendation of the Committee that so long as the average price of wheat was under 80s. the ports should be completely closed against supplies from other countries. The prohibitive price suggested by the agricultural witnesses examined by the Committee varied from 72s. to 96s. Out of sixteen witnesses belonging to this class, only four were in favour of the free importation price being below 80s. per quarter. This second report was presented on the 25th of July; but the attempt to give so complete a monopoly as would have been established by carrying out the recommendations of the Lords' Committee was so resolutely opposed by the country that the bill which * 46 Geo. III., c. 97. had been brought in for the purpose, was abandoned. An act was however passed, repealing the bounty on exportation,* which had been allowed under various circumstances since 1688, though, from 1792, the high prices which prevailed in the home market rendered it inoperative. By the new act exportation might take place at any time without reference to prevailing prices. The average price of wheat for the year 1814 was about 34s. per quarter lower than the average of the preceding year, though the harvest had not been an abundant one. In the month of February, 1815, the average price was under 60s., and before harvest it might rise to 66s., when the ports would be open and prices again be depressed, and it was thought to a very low point, in consequence of the obstacles to free intercourse with the Continent being removed. Early in the session of 1815, therefore, a bill was brought in, giving effect to the recommendation of the Committee of the previous year, and fixing 80s. as the lowest point at which importation could take place. The measure produced great excitement throughout the country, particularly in the manufacturing districts and in all the large towns. In the House of Commons, at an early period, a division took place in favour of 72s. being substituted for 80s., with the following result:-For the motion 35; against it 154, -majority 119. On the 3rd of March an attempt was made to throw out the bill:-For the motion 56; against it 218; majority 162. On the 6th of March the vicinity of the House of Commons was thronged by an excited multitude, and several members were stopped, some of them roughly handled, and they were questioned "by the mob as to the vote which they intended to give. Ultimately the military were called out, and, with the civil force, kept the streets clear. This evening the gallery of the House of Commons was closed. An attempt was made to render the bill more favourable by substituting 74s. instead of 80s. as the pivot price; and the motion was supported by 77 against 208, being a majority of 131. On the 8th of May, on bringing up the report, an amendment was moved, that the bill be read that day six months, when there voted 50 in its favour, and 168 against it; majority 118. A final attempt was made to substitute a lower rate than 80s., leaving it to the House to determine the exact price at which prohibition ceased: but only 78 voted for the motion, and 184 in favour of the measure as originally proposed. On the 10th of March, on the third reading, an amendment was moved, that the bill be thrown out, but it was only supported by 77 against 245; majority 168. On the 20th of March the bill passed the Lords by a majority of 107-128 contents, and 21 non-contents. The measure was opposed with great force and acuteness by several eminent statesmen of the day; and Lord Grenville drew up a protest embodying the views of the leaders of the minority. We give a copy of this historical document: "Protest. "1. Because we are adverse in principle to all new restraints on commerce. We think it certain that public prosperity is best pro *54 Geo. III., c. 69. moted by leaving uncontrolled the free current of national industry; and we wish, rather, by well-considered steps, to bring back our commercial legislation, to the straight and simple line of wisdom, than to increase the deviation, by subjecting additional and extensive branches of the public interest to fresh systems of artificial and injurious restriction. 66 2. Because we think that the great practical rule of leaving our commerce unfettered applies more peculiarly, and on still stronger grounds of justice, as well as of policy, to the corn-trade, than to any other. Irresistible, indeed, must be the necessity which could, in our judgment, authorise the legislature to tamper with the sustenance of the people, and to impede the free purchase and sale of that article on which depends the existence of so large a portion of the community. "3. Because we think that the expectations of ultimate benefit from this measure are founded on a delusive theory. We cannot persuade ourselves that this law will ever contribute to produce plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price. So long as it operates at all, its effects must be the opposite of these. Monopoly is the parent of scarcity, of dearness, and of uncertainty. To cut off any of the sources of supply can only tend to lessen its abundance; to close against ourselves the cheapest market for any commodity must enhance the price at which we purchase it; and to confine the consumer of corn to the produce of his own country is to refuse to ourselves the benefit of that provision which Providence itself has made for equalising to man the variations of season and of climate. "4. But, whatever may be the future consequences of this law, at some distant and uncertain period, we see, with pain, that those hopes must be purchased at the expense of a great and present evil. To compel the consumer to purchase corn dearer at home than it might be imported from abroad is the immediate practical effect of this law. In this way alone can it operate. Its present protection, its promised extension of agriculture, must result (if at all) from the profits which it creates by keeping up the price of corn to an artificial level. These future benefits are the consequences expected, but, as we confidently believe, erroneously expected, from giving a bounty to the grower of corn, by a tax levied on its consumer. "5. Because we think that the adoption of any permanent law for such a purpose required the fullest and most laborious investigation. Nor would it have been sufficient for our satisfaction could we have been convinced of the general policy of so hazardous an experiment. A still further inquiry would have been necessary to persuade us that the present moment was fit for its adoption. In such an inquiry we must have had the means of satisfying ourselves what its immediate operation will be, as connected with the various and pressing circumstances of public difficulty and distress with which the country is now surrounded; with the state of circulation and currency; of our agriculture and manufactures; of our internal and external commerce; and, above all, with the condition and reward of the industrious labouring classes of our community. On all these particulars, as they respect this question, we think that parliament is almost wholly uninformed; on all, we see reason for |
