Editing Corn Laws (section)

==Effects of repeal==
The price of wheat during the two decades after 1850 averaged 52 shillings a quarter.{{sfn|Woodward|1962|p=124}} [[Llewellyn Woodward]] argued that the high duty of corn mattered little because when British agriculture suffered from bad harvests, this was also true for foreign harvests and so the price of imported corn without the duty would not have been lower.{{sfn|Woodward|1962|pp=124–125}} However, the threat to British agriculture came about twenty-five years after repeal due to the development of cheaper shipping (both sail and steam), faster and thus cheaper transport by rail and steamboat, and the modernisation of agricultural machinery. The [[prairie]] farms of North America were thus able to export vast quantities of cheap grain, as were peasant farms in the [[Russian Empire]] with simpler methods but cheaper labour. Every wheat-growing country decided to increase tariffs in reaction to this, except Britain and Belgium.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|pages=115–116}}

In 1877, the price of British-grown wheat averaged 56/9{{efn|£2/16/9, about £{{inflation|UK|2.8375|1877}} in {{inflation-year|UK}}}} a quarter and for the rest of the 19th century it never reached within 10 shillings of that figure. In 1878 the price fell to 46/5.{{efn|£2/6/5, about £{{inflation|UK|2.320833333|1878}} in {{inflation-year|UK}}}} In 1886, the wheat price decreased to 31/–{{efn|£1/11/–, about £{{inflation|UK|1.55|1877}} in {{inflation-year|UK}}}} a quarter. By 1885, wheat-growing land declined by a million acres ({{convert|1|e6acre|km2|disp=out}}, 28{{frac|2}}% of the previous amount) and the barley area had dwindled greatly also. Britain's dependence on imported grain during the 1830s was 2%; during the 1860s it was 24%; during the 1880s it was 45% (for wheat alone during the 1880s it was 65%).{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=116}} The 1881 [[Census in the United Kingdom|census]] showed a decline of 92,250 in agricultural labourers in the ten years since 1871, with an increase of 53,496 urban labourers. Many of these had previously been farm workers who migrated to the cities to find employment,{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=117}} despite agricultural labourers' wages being higher than those of Europe.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=117}} Agriculture's contribution to the national income was about 17% in 1871; by 1911 it was less than 7%.<ref>E. J. Feuchtwanger, ''Democracy and Empire: Britain 1865–1914'' (London: Edward Arnold, 1985), p. 116.</ref>

[[Robert Ensor]] wrote that these years witnessed the ruin of British agriculture, "which till then had almost as conspicuously led the world, [and which] was thrown overboard in a storm like an unwanted cargo" due to "the sudden and overwhelming invasion&nbsp;... by American prairie-wheat in the late seventies."{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=115, 117}} Previously, agriculture had employed more people in Britain than any other industry and until 1880 it "retained a kind of headship", with its technology far ahead of most [[European farm system|European farming]], its cattle breeds superior, its cropping the most scientific and its yields the highest, with high wages leading to higher standard of living for agricultural workers than in comparable European countries.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=117}} However, after 1877 wages declined and "farmers themselves sank into ever increasing embarrassments; bankruptcies and auctions followed each other; the countryside lost its most respected figures", with those who tended the land with greatest pride and conscience suffering most as the only chance of survival came in lowering standards.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=118}} "For twenty years," Ensor claimed, "the only chance for any young or enterprising person on the countryside was to get out of it."{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=118}} The decline of agriculture also led to a fall in rural rents, especially in areas with arable land. Consequently, landowners, who until 1880 had been the richest class in the nation, were dethroned from this position. After they lost their economic leadership, the loss of their political leadership followed.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=119}}

The Prime Minister at the time, Disraeli, had once been a staunch upholder of the Corn Laws and had predicted ruin for agriculture if they were repealed.<ref>{{cite book |first1=William Flavelle |last1=Monypenny |first2=George Earle |last2=Buckle |title=The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield |volume=II: 1860–1881 |location=London |publisher=John Murray |year=1929 |page=1242}}</ref>{{sfn|Blake|1966|p=698}} However, unlike most other European governments, his government did not revive tariffs on imported cereals to save their farms and farmers.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=54}} Despite calls from landowners to reintroduce the Corn Laws, Disraeli responded by saying that the issue was settled and that protection was impracticable.{{sfn|Blake|1966|p=698}} Ensor said that the difference between Britain and the Continent was due to the latter having conscription; rural men were thought to be the best suited as soldiers. But for Britain, with no conscript army, this did not apply.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=54}} He also said that Britain staked its future on continuing to be "the workshop of the world" as the leading manufacturing nation.{{sfn|Ensor|1936|page=118}} [[Robert Blake, Baron Blake|Robert Blake]] said that Disraeli was dissuaded from reviving protection due to the urban working class enjoying cheap imported food at a time of industrial depression and rising unemployment. Enfranchised by Disraeli in 1867, working men's votes were crucial in a general election and he did not want to antagonise them.{{sfn|Blake|1966|pp=698–699}}

Although proficient farmers on good lands did well, farmers with mediocre skills or marginal lands were at a disadvantage. Many moved to the cities, and unprecedented numbers emigrated. Many emigrants were small under-capitalised grain farmers who were squeezed out by low prices and inability to increase production or adapt to the more complex challenge of raising livestock.<ref>{{cite journal |first=William E. |last=Van Vugt |title=Running from ruin?: the emigration of British farmers to the U.S.A. in the wake of the repeal of the Corn Laws |journal=[[Economic History Review]] |year=1988 |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=411–428 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-0289.1988.tb00473.x }}</ref>

Similar patterns developed in Ireland, where cereal production was labour-intensive. The reduction of grain prices reduced the demand for agricultural labour in Ireland, and reduced the output of barley, oats, and wheat. These changes occurred at the same time that emigration was reducing the labour supply and increasing wage rates to levels too great for arable farmers to sustain.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Kevin |last=O'Rourke |title=The repeal of the corn laws and Irish emigration |journal=Explorations in Economic History |year=1994 |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=120–138 |doi=10.1006/exeh.1994.1005 }}</ref>

Britain's reliance on imported food led to the danger of it being starved into submission during wartime. In 1914 Britain was dependent on imports for four-fifths of its wheat and 40% of its meat.<ref>{{cite book |first=Arthur |last=Marwick |title=The Deluge: British Society and the First World War |edition=2nd |location=London |publisher=Macmillan |year=1991 |page=58}}</ref> During the [[World War I|First World War]], the Germans in their [[Atlantic U-boat campaign of World War I|U-boat campaign]] attempted to take advantage of this by sinking ships importing food into Britain, but they were eventually defeated.<ref>{{cite book |first=Correlli |last=Barnett |title=Engage the Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy and the Second World War |location=London |publisher=Hodder & Stoughton |year=1992 |page=14}}</ref> During the [[World War II|Second World War]] in the [[Battle of the Atlantic]], Germany tried again to starve Britain into surrender, but again was unsuccessful.<ref>Barnett, pp. 575–576.</ref>