Keeping the Corn Laws and the Rotten Boroughs

[Makemakean]

If there were two big issues in Britain in the early 19th century that really occupied the public mind (barring the obvious issue of deciding whether the British Empire should be tremendously huge or if it should be merely colossally huge) then they were the proposed electoral reforms to do away with the boundaries that had existed since Medieval times and whether to keep or abolish the Corn Laws. The latter one was particularly explosive, since they ensured that wealth and economic prosperity of landowners at the cost of the urban proletariat, who found themselves paying much higher prices for food.

Now, we all know how things went. Earl Grey got rid of Old Sarum's two MPs and all those rotten boroughs with the Reform Act, while Sir Robert Peel split his own party in order to abolish the Corn Laws. The Tories suffered immensely and it would take the political genii of Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury to save the political machine known as the Conservative Party.

What I wonder is, how long can one postpone the Reform Act, and how long can one keep the Corn Laws in place?

I assume that one necessary precondition is the butterflying away of Sir Robert Peel and having his leadership of the Conservative Party exchanged with that of some staunchly protectionist landowner.

What more is needed, and for how long can this order be kept in place? Would it be possible to keep it going as far as, say, the 1870s-90s?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well the Reform Act had already been postponed since the Commonwealth where the idea was first raised. It was obvious in the 1640s as much as it was two centuries later, so in a sense keeping the status quo could have gone on longer, because it was already well past the time when people first wondered why the Hell the system continued to exist.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If canada is much bigger, and more important, there may a more successful move to consider canadian grain as 'british'. Of course, getting production high enough and transport cheap enough to make a difference is a problem.

 

[Makemakean]

If canada is much bigger, and more important, there may a more successful move to consider canadian grain as 'british'. Of course, getting production high enough and transport cheap enough to make a difference is a problem.

So, you believe that if the Corn Laws are simply modified to allow for more import from colonial possessions, then you could have them remain in place... for at least a few decades longer? That pragmatism can successfully curb outright abolition?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

What I wonder is, how long can one postpone the Reform Act, and how long can one keep the Corn Laws in place?

Well, OTL Reform passed the Lords because they saw that if it wasn't passed, there would be revolutionary violence.

So I don't think it could be postponed very long, in any TL similar to OTL.

Alternately - assume the Duke of Cumberland somehow succeeds to the throne, and leads a brutally authoritarian government that suppresses all this "radical" and "reform" talk...

As to the Corn Laws - suppose that the Great Famine is put off a generation or so. By that time there has already been a substantial amount of Irish emigration, thanks to the growth of steamships; when the Famine hits the remaining surplus Irish population departs quickly. There is no food crisis.

However, the UK was starting to exceed its domestic food supply, so the Corn Laws have to come down eventually, even if the potato crop never fails.

 

[Tripwire]

However, the UK was starting to exceed its domestic food supply, so the Corn Laws have to come down eventually, even if the potato crop never fails.

Even if there wasn't starvation and threats of revolutionary violence, wasn't economic theory moving away from the old "imports are bad" mercantalist thinking anyway? Unfortunately I don't know enough about British tariffs to know at what time they all started tumbling down, but they must have at some point in the century.

 

[Makemakean]

Even if there wasn't starvation and threats of revolutionary violence, wasn't economic theory moving away from the old "imports are bad" mercantalist thinking anyway? Unfortunately I don't know enough about British tariffs to know at what time they all started tumbling down, but they must have at some point in the century.

Interestingly, I read that many Chartists were skeptical of getting rid of the Corn Laws. Their argument for it was that if you cut the price of food, then the manufacturers would soon enough have an excuse to cut the wages of the workers, and that as such, there was an intrinsic value to having high prices for food, since it made higher wages a political necessity.

When you actually study 19th century British politics, Benjamin Disraeli's famous idea of an alliance of the working-class and the upper-class against the liberal middle-class eventually stops striking one as crazy populism and becomes far more understandable. Not that you are persuaded to support it, of course, but you begin to understand why one would think that, seeing similar currents of thought were already going on at the time. According to Marx' Das Kapital (a book I really should read in its entirety soon):

The years 1846-7 are epoch-making in the economic history of England. The Repeal of the Corn Laws, and of the duties on cotton and other raw material; Free-trade proclaimed as the guiding star of legislation; in a word, the arrival of the millennium. On the other hand, in the same years, the Chartist movement and the 10 hours' agitation reached their highest point. They found allies in the Tories panting for revenge. Despite the fanatical opposition of the army of perjured Free-tradersm with Bright and Cobden at their head, the Ten Hours' Bill, struggled for so long, went through parliament.

The chapter is actually quite remarkable, demonstrating how quite a number of bills regulating work time and child labour went through Parliament thanks more or less solely to Tory landowners motivated by little more than a desire to annoy Whig manufacturers.

Well, OTL Reform passed the Lords because they saw that if it wasn't passed, there would be revolutionary violence.

So I don't think it could be postponed very long, in any TL similar to OTL.

A British Revolution of 1848? (Well, an analogue of 1848, might very well be some other year).

Alternately - assume the Duke of Cumberland somehow succeeds to the throne, and leads a brutally authoritarian government that suppresses all this "radical" and "reform" talk...

Well, as you speculated before, wouldn't this really just increase the risks of revolutionary action?

As to the Corn Laws - suppose that the Great Famine is put off a generation or so. By that time there has already been a substantial amount of Irish emigration, thanks to the growth of steamships; when the Famine hits the remaining surplus Irish population departs quickly. There is no food crisis.

However, the UK was starting to exceed its domestic food supply, so the Corn Laws have to come down eventually, even if the potato crop never fails.

Only problem here is, that I was taught that the massive waves of emigration from Ireland was caused by the Great Famine. Consequently, if you were to postpone the Great Famine, it seems like you would also postpone the great waves of emigration. Whatever emigration caused solely by advances in nautical technology - the growth of steamships you mentioned - ought to be much less significant.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

So, you believe that if the Corn Laws are simply modified to allow for more import from colonial possessions, then you could have them remain in place... for at least a few decades longer? That pragmatism can successfully curb outright abolition?

Quite possibly. A larger supply of grain will keep prices lower than ttl, which reduces the pressure for repeal. Then the gradual replacement of english production by canadian allows a slow modification of the laws until its basically just part of an imperial tariff wall.

Youd need a bigger canada AND earlier steamships to get the cost down, so its not very likely. Oh, and an earlier st laurence seaway eqivalent.

Otl, canadian grain was excluded because there was fear that too much 'canadian' grain would be relabelled us grain. A goodly chunk was at the time, so it was a legitimate fear.

Rotten boroghs have to go, though.

 

[Makemakean]

Quite possibly. A larger supply of grain will keep prices lower than ttl, which reduces the pressure for repeal. Then the gradual replacement of english production by canadian allows a slow modification of the laws until its basically just part of an imperial tariff wall.

I like your way of thinking. It would almost seem logical for a more pragmatic protectionist Tory to go for such an approach. If it's either going from a strictly British to an imperial tariff wall in a delicate, conservative fashion and risking the Whigs and Radicals getting away with Protection all together, then I think an intelligent enough Tory leader would recognize that it is better to simply go through with the inevitable while you're still in power. That way, it can be done on your conditions.

Youd need a bigger canada AND earlier steamships to get the cost down, so its not very likely. Oh, and an earlier st laurence seaway eqivalent.

Otl, canadian grain was excluded because there was fear that too much 'canadian' grain would be relabelled us grain. A goodly chunk was at the time, so it was a legitimate fear.

What if I give the British Río de la Plata as early as 1806-07? That could then provide an alternate source of grain. Additionally, in the beginning, when grain is needed the most, perhaps the people in charge would be willing to close their eyes every once in a while, waiting with strict crackdowns on contraband once Canada has expanded and British North American grain is available in greater quantities?

Rotten boroghs have to go, though.

Well, eventually of course they have to go, but I am curious as to how long I could keep them in place.

How would that work?

 

[Pesterfield]

How many rotton boroughs were there, and how many of them were used by colonies to get represenation in Parliament?

I know at least the Caribbean colonies did it.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

A British Revolution of 1848? (Well, an analogue of 1848, might very well be some other year).

It would be 1832. Conditions were clearly proto-revolutionary.

Well, as you speculated before, wouldn't this really just increase the risks of revolutionary action?

Eventually, perhaps, but a ruthless and efficient regime can keep the lid nailed on for a long time.

Only problem here is, that I was taught that the massive waves of emigration from Ireland was caused by the Great Famine.

In general, yes, but Ireland was desperately poor and overcrowded anyway. There would have been an increase in emigration in 1845-1850, even without the Famine.

Consequently, if you were to postpone the Great Famine, it seems like you would also postpone the great waves of emigration.

The great waves, yes. My suggestion is that instead of a massive "great wave", the process ramps up slower over time.

Whatever emigration caused solely by advances in nautical technology - the growth of steamships you mentioned - ought to be much less significant.

More than you might think. Advances in transportation saw huge increases in migration from countries where there was no Great Famine and indeed no famine at all. And Ireland was ripe for a lot of emigration.

 

[Tripwire]

Eventually, perhaps, but a ruthless and efficient regime can keep the lid nailed on for a long time.

Until it explodes in one huge bang, that is. Which Duke of Cumberland were you talking about earlier?

How many rotton boroughs were there, and how many of them were used by colonies to get represenation in Parliament?

I know at least the Caribbean colonies did it.

With public opinion increasingly against slavery, I don't think rotten boroughs controlled by Sugar Lords are going to be tolerated much longer than OTL, and I don't think any of the other colonies have that sort of money to throw around.

 

[Makemakean]

Until it explodes in one huge bang, that is. Which Duke of Cumberland were you talking about earlier?

I think he's talking about the ultra-Tory son of George III, who later on, thanks to Salic Law, became king of Hanover as Ernst Augustus I.

With public opinion increasingly against slavery, I don't think rotten boroughs controlled by Sugar Lords are going to be tolerated much longer than OTL, and I don't think any of the other colonies have that sort of money to throw around.

Pictures rotten boroughs being controlled by armies upon armies of clones of Alan Sugar.

 

[Tripwire]

Pictures rotten boroughs being controlled by armies upon armies of clones of Alan Sugar.

Now, I don't know anything about Lord Sugar, but I imagine that would be equally unpalatable.

(aside: I used the phrase because I was recently skimming through a book of the same name)