The Napoleonic was showed the importance of the British island being able to support itself during periods when it could not rely on its European neighbours for food. The Corn Laws protected the security of Britain because it allowed Britain to continue to survive under long intense periods of isolation. Liverpool introduced this law partly as a security net after the problems that Britain had faced in the Napoleonic war. If Britain ever faced a determined maritime blockade then Britain would have starved to a considerably worse extent than it suffered in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of the Corn Laws.
In the increased period of radical feelings that followed the end of the Loyalist safety net that had stood the war governments so well. The British Government and Lord Liverpool were well aware of the fragmentation of the French aristocracy that had led to there downfall in 1789. Liverpool was well aware that he had a choice to make between the aristocracy and the working class to stabilise the country. His background, the cabinet and his Party that was going through a period of Ultra-Toryism always meant that the party seemed to be siding with the Landowners and aristocracy. This sturdy combination, which had done so well under Pitt in fending of revolutionary actions, needed to be secured for yet another anti-radical campaign that would arise with the end of the Loyalist safety net. This Act provided the creation of an unbreakable social and political front that Liverpool desired to provide the stability government desired.
The huge majority of landowners who were in the houses of commons and Lords meant that Lord Liverpool really had little choice in the course of his actions. The make up of the Government of England and the electorate made sure that this law was more than the temporary measure it was designed to be. To many on the outside this rightly looked like a attempt by the agriculturally based land owners to secure their incomes while leaving the poor and the emerging industrialist out in the cold. This Act was a sure vote winner for Liverpool and strengthened the already strong bonds between the landowners and government. Therefore in this sense that Corn Laws were not justified.
The landed classes provided justification for not allowing universal male suffrage was that they educated few were the only people responsible enough to look after the needs of the country and all areas of society. The working classes realised due to the Corn Laws, especially in urban centres, that they were being underrepresented and this created the politicisation of the masses.
Liverpool set the ball rolling with the corn actions that led to the most serious challenge to the then current English democratic process. In purely a morality sense the corn laws extended period in operation led to many of the under represented Widespread hunger caused by the Corn Laws combined with a general nose dive in the economy which was exasperated by the unique short term financial and economic circumstances that were present at the end of the Napoleonic wars led to many of the working class joining the 'bread line'. Social relief was sketchy at best and was organised on a parish-by-parish basis. The huge increase in the number of people on or hovering near the bread line lead to an increased period of sustained social unrest. The food shortage provided the catalyst for large campaign meetings to be held on a scale never seen before in the new urban centres that politicised the masses. This created unreasonable demands and a situation in which Lord Liverpool and his Government could not really sensibly talk let alone negotiate with these parties.
The Corn Laws were one of a trio of legislative measures that infuriated and fed the flames of civil-unrest. In a matter of two years the working class had seen the price of their stable food almost double, an end to the means tested taxing know as the Income Tax and the creation of the Poaching laws which cut off yet another food staple for the working class poor. I think the Corn Laws were unjustified at this point in time because they formed part of a triple punch to the guts of Britain working class poor.
The Corn Laws were a serious setback for the industrialists and the forward-looking economists in Britain. Britain was beginning to emerge as the 'workhouse of the world'. The increased cost of food and subsequently living meant that the public as a whole had less disposable income to spend on the new manufactured products that were beginning to emerge on the market. The Corn Laws also had an undesirable effect on international trade. Foreign countries responded in turn by levying taxes on British manufactured products in response. The result was what today would be called a trade war. Through this Act the manufacturing trade suffered immensely through a loss in both national and international trade. The benefit of hindsight allows us to see the lack economic sense in such a law that hampered that shift from agriculture to manufacturing. Although this may be easier for us to say because we have experienced the changing means of production from a manufacturing to a service based industry such a huge topographical and social shift had never happened before. Liverpool and his old fashioned inward looking government would not have had the benefit of this hindsight. They didn't know that Britain's heyday as the workshop of the world was on the horizon. Instead they saw a worrying social situation around them and pressured by their counterparts were forced to take action.
But the morality of such an action taken in what today would be called a recession or depression is highly questionable and is in my eyes the greatest reason why the Corn Laws were not justified. Parliament as the greatest social organ in a democracy that should have represented the rights of all was in my eyes mistaken in letting their citizens starve for a slim chance of economic recovery in a single sector of the country's economy-agriculture. The British Government had decided to choke one group of citizens, the urban based working classes, to create a wealthier group of large land owners-ironically the largest group of MP's. In my eyes protecting no part of the economy would have been the best idea. No economic area would flourish but neither would any industry be choked. A free market mentality would be painful but would result in more efficient techniques in manufacturing and agriculture. All the Corn Laws seemed to do was underline the injustices that were allowed to happen because of the lack of universal suffrage. It also highlighted how inward looking and self centred the Ultra-Tory's were as well as highlighting urban electoral under representation.
