Why Were the Corn Laws Repealed in 1846? Essay Example
1. MOTIVATION AND OUTLINE
Although the repeal of the Corn Laws is one of the most studied questions in 19th century tariff politics, its historical interpretations are still disputable today. The repeal of the Corn Laws is historically relevant because of “its alleged significance as an indication of the waning of aristocratic domination of British politics” (McKeown 1989: 353).
Historiography has to solve the following empirical puzzle: in 1846 Charles Villiers (a leading member of the Anti-Corn Law League in parliament) proposed total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws, just as he had in preceding years. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated. Yet, only a few weeks later, Peel laid his motion for repeal before the House. By 16 May, Peel’s version of repeal had passed its third reading (Brawley 2006: 467).
Sir Robert Peel counted on more than 300 votes for passage of repeal in 1846, implying a winning margin of 90 votes (McKeown 1989: 356). However, this shift in political support began as soon as 1842. Moreover, from the beginning of their implementation the Corn Laws were not without controversy in the Tory Party itself (section 5).
After having sketched the historical debate (section 2), as well as the implementation of the Corn Laws with the Importation Act 1815 (section 3), this essay analyses in how far external shocks (4), theoretical development (5) or interest groups (6) contributed most to the policy reform in 1846. Another possible cause of the repeal might be found in the different understanding of the adjustment process of repeal, changing the interests of landowners (7).
Finally, this essay concludes that several long term developments, the increasing fear of a new Irish Famine as well as the changing nature of landowners’ interests can explain why the Corn Laws were repealed. Furthermore, Peel as a person plays a role insofar as he was open to new evidence and can be considered as an undogmatic politician: a typical representative of
Although the repeal of the Corn Laws is one of the most studied questions in 19th century tariff politics, its historical interpretations are still disputable today. The repeal of the Corn Laws is historically relevant because of “its alleged significance as an indication of the waning of aristocratic domination of British politics” (McKeown 1989: 353).
Historiography has to solve the following empirical puzzle: in 1846 Charles Villiers (a leading member of the Anti-Corn Law League in parliament) proposed total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws, just as he had in preceding years. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated. Yet, only a few weeks later, Peel laid his motion for repeal before the House. By 16 May, Peel’s version of repeal had passed its third reading (Brawley 2006: 467).
Sir Robert Peel counted on more than 300 votes for passage of repeal in 1846, implying a winning margin of 90 votes (McKeown 1989: 356). However, this shift in political support began as soon as 1842. Moreover, from the beginning of their implementation the Corn Laws were not without controversy in the Tory Party itself (section 5).
After having sketched the historical debate (section 2), as well as the implementation of the Corn Laws with the Importation Act 1815 (section 3), this essay analyses in how far external shocks (4), theoretical development (5) or interest groups (6) contributed most to the policy reform in 1846. Another possible cause of the repeal might be found in the different understanding of the adjustment process of repeal, changing the interests of landowners (7).
Finally, this essay concludes that several long term developments, the increasing fear of a new Irish Famine as well as the changing nature of landowners’ interests can explain why the Corn Laws were repealed. Furthermore, Peel as a person plays a role insofar as he was open to new evidence and can be considered as an undogmatic politician: a typical representative of