ABSTRACT

Had Peel’s government fallen a year earlier than it did, it would be remembered as a great free-trading government which held back, cautiously, on the Corn Laws. Furthermore, both Peel and Gladstone would have justified this. To both, corn was an untypical case when it came to weighing up the arguments for and against protection, and, to both, the special considerations regarding corn fell entirely into the protectionist scale of the balance. To Gladstone, nothing could be more important than maintaining a supply of corn uninterruptable by war, trade war or blockade-unless it was avoiding the disruption, distress and unemployment that would result from any sudden alteration in corn duties. Meanwhile Peel (though never Gladstone) subscribed with enthusiasm to the claim that landlords bore unique burdens and thus deserved a unique privilege.