Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The Corn Laws Debate.. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4 page paper examines several of the questions associated with the Corn Laws and their repeal. Bibliography lists 7 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVCornLw.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
poor people starve to death. This paper examines several of the questions associated with the Corn Laws and their repeal. Background The Corn Laws may be said to have arisen
out of the desire of Britain to establish an economy based on "free trade," an "idealized market model" in which "trade of goods and services between countries flows unhindered by
government-imposed artificial costs" (Free trade, 2006). While this seems like it should work when considered solely from an intellectual viewpoint, in practice it has been revealed that the system favors
wealthier states and individuals, leading to its opposition by labor and anti-globalization forces (Free trade, 2006). However, in the early 1800s, Britain appears to have been in the midst of
a sort of free trade "frenzy," and the Corn Laws, which were in force from 1815 to 1846, were ostensibly passed in order to "protect British farmers and landowners against
competition from cheap foreign grain imports. These laws are often viewed as a cornerstone of British Mercantilism" (Corn laws, 2006). Arguments for and against Repeal The arguments about the Corn
Laws split the political parties of the time, and turned Robert Peel against a substantial section of his own party. The Corn Laws were most beneficial to the "landlords who
dominated parliament" (Irwin, 1989, p. 41). With the rise of the middle class, the Laws "came under attack from manufacturing interests, as they grew in economic and political influence, and
from prominent economists, as theoretical developments indicated their harmful effect on the economy" (Irwin, 1989, p. 41). Opponents of the Laws "commonly employed four arguments" against them: "that they were
allocatively inefficient in drawing resources away from manufactures, lowered the rate of profit relative to that under free trade, caused excessive fluctuations in grain prices, and stymied the mechanism of
...