Now, let's look at the Corn Laws debates as they occurred in Great Britain
throughout the early to mid 19th century.
Remember, once again, when British writers use the word corn during this period,
what they really mean is grain.
In England there had been grain regulations, taxes, and tariffs since medieval times,
but for many of the centuries from medieval times
up through the early 19th century
these taxes and regulations, while far from efficient,
they were relatively benign
because often they simply weren't so binding
relative to where market prices were standing at the time.
But then, when we get to 1814,
grain prices are falling quite rapidly with the end of the Napoleonic Wars,
and all of a sudden there are debates over revising the Corn Laws
because the landlords in England want protection from
the falling grain prices.
There is then a policy debate between free traders versus protectionists.
And in this debate we find economists on both sides.
Perhaps the most able defender of some version of the Corn Laws
was the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus.
And Malthus wrote two pamphlets where he laid out some reasons
why perhaps Great Britain should not have free trade in grain.
His first reason was national security.
He was afraid of this food supply of Great Britain
being grown in other countries.
The second reason he gave had to do with political economy.
Malthus was afraid that if you had too many workers in manufacturing
this actually would lead to a lot of labor unrest,
and it would not be good for peace and stability.
Malthus also believed that if the Corn Laws were removed,
there would be a sudden fall in grain prices,
and this could prove destabilizing.
All of these points were written up in one of his pamphlets published in 1814,
and that was called
"Observations on the Effects of the Corn Laws."
In this pamphlet, Malthus ultimately takes an "I'm not quite sure" perspective
on what Great Britain should do,
but, ultimately, he was to come down against complete liberalization.
By the time 1850 rolls around,
Malthus has produced a second pamphlet,
the grounds of an opinion on the policy of restricting
the importation of foreign corn.
And here, he is turning more against free trade,
and he argues that the Corn Laws, properly applied, can mean
a greater stability of price for Great Britain.
And he thought that some version of the Corn Laws would be better
for both consumers than would be free trade.
In 1815, indeed, a corn law does pass.
This raises the tariffs on grain,
and it is backed by the Tory government of Lord Liverpool
and, of course, supported by large numbers of British land holders.
Very few modern economists think that the Corn Laws were a good idea at all,
and using modern statistical techniques,
we can get a general sense of just how much the Corn Laws matter.
So, Tony Ward has an interesting piece online about the Corn Laws,
and he estimates that, without the corn laws,
the price of grain would have been 9% lower
and the consumption of grain would have been 1% higher,
and, by most economic standards, this would have been a better outcome.
David Ricardo, an other British economist, was a strong defender of free trade,
and, in 1822, he comes along with his pamphlet,
"On Protection to Agriculture,"
which argues a classic, what you would have to call, Ricardian case for free trade.
You can view our videos on Ricardo for more background,
but for Ricardo an essential benefit of freer trade
is that it postpones the resort to inferior lands
which otherwise will drive down rates of return
and hasten a move to much slower economic growth.
Ricardo understood very well that the Corn Laws raised grain prices
and distorted the allocation of capital.
He argued against the tariff,
and he had a very clear argument based on his theory of comparative advantage
as resulting from trade why the Corn Laws were most likely a very bad idea.
Overall, it's the free trade arguments of the British classical economists
which proved more persuasive,
and in 1838 we see the organization of a group called the Anti-Corn Law League.
Two of the leaders of that group were Richard Cobden and John Bright.
They were not economists in the formal sense,
but they were very influenced by economic arguments,
and they argued with a very strong, almost messianic kind of zeal
that Great Britain really needed to move to free trade.
Pictured here in the photo is Manchester
which was one of the centers of the British free trade movement.
In 1846,
there was finally repeal of the Corn Laws by the government of Sir Robert Peel.
Great Britain made a significant step toward freer trade.
Often this milestone is viewed as one of the major instances
when the classical economists really did change the world for the better.
So, what happened in the latter part of the 19th century
after the Corn Laws were repealed?
Well, there's a significant uptick in the ability of foreign nations
to grow and transport grain to Great Britain,
most of all the United States but also Russia.
This is due to more efficient railroads and more effective means of water transport.
So, during this period in England, we see grain prices falling,
and grain imports rising significantly,
and there's a lot of evidence that moving to free trade and grain
was a very good policy idea.
For further investigation of this topic,
well, for one thing we recommend a lot of our videos.
See our videos on the theory of comparative advantage,
on Robert Torrens, some of our videos on Adam Smith;
those would be Book 3, Chapters 4 and 5,
and, also, the video on digression on the corn trade
for a lot of background information, as well as Smith's views on these topics.
See also our video on the Irish question for the role of the Corn Laws
in the debate over the Irish famine.
There's an excellent book by Douglas Irwin.
It's a history of free trade theories and debates,
and that is called "Against the Tide."
Finally, for general factual background on the Corn Laws,
one very good place to go is the book by Donald Barnes called
"A History of the English Corn Laws."