下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- The repeal of the corn laws，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了谷物法的废除。英国谷物法的对象包括小麦、蚕豆等在内的一般粮食。工业革命时期，英国变为粮食输入国，谷物管制变为限制进口。拿破仑战争之后英国便颁布了限制进口的谷物法，但该法案引起极大争议，除土地所有者支持外，工业资产阶级和工人强烈反对。政府多次下调关税仍不能使民众满意，最终谷物法被废除。该法的废除体现了国际政治经济学的社会联盟理论，即国际经济政策和国内政治分化的相互作用原理。
The British grain law covers general crops, including wheat and broad beans. Britain has a long history of grain trade regulation. Although Britain had abundant grain before the 18th century, its grain trade policy was to encourage exports and restrict imports due to the prevalence of mercantilism. With the development of the industrial revolution in Britain, steam engine increased productivity. The population of Britain increased sharply but the arable land was limited. The acceleration of urbanization leads to the flow of labor force to cities. Britain became an importer of grain, and grain control became a restriction on imports. After the Napoleonic wars, England enacted grain laws restricting imports.
The corn act banned imports of grain when the price of a quart in Britain was below eighty shillings. The amendment of the corn act of 1822 to allow imports of grain at a price between 70 and 80 shillings per quart, when the average domestic price was only 44 shillings, was of no practical significance.
This bill caused great controversy. Apart from the support of landowners, the industrial bourgeoisie and workers strongly opposed it. In 1846, both houses of parliament passed prime minister peel's proposal to repeal the corn law. The corn laws were officially repealed. The repeal of the law reflects the social union theory of international political economy, that is, the interaction principle between international economic policy and domestic political differentiation. Among them, the abundance and mobility of domestic factors determine the form of domestic political differentiation and struggle.
According to the "inverted second image", international economic links affect domestic structures, and international trade has an income distribution effect on domestic interest groups.
According to the theory of factor endowment: from the most basic factor of a country, the owners of abundant factors will benefit from free trade, while the owners of scarce factors will suffer. And vice versa.
According to the specific factor model, free trade will reduce the real income of the import competition sector, and the real income level of the export-oriented sector will be relatively increased.
The former believes that this distribution effect is reflected in the formation of domestic class alliances based on mobile factors while the latter believes that industry alliances based on specific factors will be formed. Hicks put forward the concept of factor mobility, combined the two theoretical models, and improved the theory of social union.
He argues that the effectiveness of both models depends on the mobility of domestic factors. "A high degree of factor flow is more likely to form class-based political alliances, while a low degree of factor flow is more likely to form industry-based alliances."
The response of domestic structure to the international economy depends on the abundance and mobility of domestic factors. Since the industrial revolution, grain has been cheap and milk expensive, much arable land has been turned into pasture land, and machinery has driven industrial development and population growth. Britain became the strongest economic power at that time, with abundant capital, abundant labor force and scarce land. It follows that British Labour and capital owners will support free trade while landowners oppose it.
In addition, we will discuss the mobility of domestic factors at that time, which is mainly measured by inter-industry wage and profit margin differences, years of work, enterprise r&d income and human resource turnover.
In short, in the 19th century, wage and profit margin differences between different industries in the UK were reduced and human resource mobility was improved.
At this time, the British industrial revolution was basically completed, and new technologies such as steam were easily applied in different industries, saving labor. The advent of production lines has increased the demand for unskilled Labour, making it easier for industrial workers to move between industries. Technological innovation has reduced the productivity gap in the labor force, thus reducing the wage gap, and technological popularization has reduced the profit gap between domestic industries. The smaller the wage and profit difference between industries, the lower the cost of inter-industry factor transfer and the higher the liquidity. In addition, urbanization accelerated in Britain. By 1830, the population of urban and rural areas was roughly equal, and people were no longer fixed by arable land. The emergence of steam engine makes the transportation system get a qualitative development and reduces the cost of factor flow.
Between 1815 and 1846, the variation coefficient between the weekly wage of manual workers and that of skilled workers was not high, indicating that the wage difference between workers was not large and the degree of human resource flow was high.
To sum up, land is scarce in Britain, labor and capital are abundant, and various factors flow to a high degree. According to the cited theory, it is concluded that social differentiation in Britain should be based on class alliance based on labor and capital to fight for free trade, and landowners support the grain law. The domestic struggle to repeal the corn laws in Britain in the 19th century roughly coincided with this reasoning.
After the corn laws were enacted, landowners strongly defended them, while manufacturers demanded reforms because the corn laws seriously damaged the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie.
Britain was the leading exporter of industrial goods, while other countries exported agricultural products. If Britain does not repeal the corn laws, then other countries will inevitably impose high tariffs on British industrial products, and the sales of British industrial products will be blocked. If grain were freely traded, prices would fall and workers would have more purchasing power to buy industrial goods. In addition, the repeal of the law can also reduce the cost of raw materials for industrial production.
However, abolishing the grain law would hit British agriculture, because the influx of foreign grain would lead to a sharp drop in food prices and lower land rent, which would lead to the decline of British agriculture. This will seriously damage the interests of the land aristocracy and farmers.
Some manufacturers in 1838 established the alliance of the corn laws, Richard cobb is one of the representative. The class alliance was supported by the Labour force. The union of the two classes constituted the main body for abolishing the corn laws. Its capital comes from industrial and commercial bourgeoisie.
The anti-corn law union became the most important group to repeal the act. Its main activities included:
In 1832, the landlord demanded that "everyone who owned property worth 40 shillings" should have the right to vote to strengthen his class. But the coalition helped townspeople buy property and vote, increased the number of working people, turned the middle class into an important political force and changed the structure of parliament, leading to the emergence of new political parties -- conservatives and liberals -- that were important reasons for the repeal of the corn laws.
In 1837, the union sent its own representatives to campaign for parliament and put the repeal of the corn laws into public debate. Between 1843 and 1844, the union was heavily involved in municipal elections and in campaigns to educate voters about free trade. In addition, through the election, members of the coalition entered parliament and were able to directly promote the anti-corn law to the house. These lawmakers held hearings on the repeal of the corn law, causing concern in parliament and public opinion.
A series of conferences were organized in covent garden. The economist was founded to explain the harm of corn laws to the middle class, working class and enlightened aristocracy, which led to more people's opposition to corn laws. Cobb even claimed under the religious banner that "the corn laws are against the will of god."
All in all, the anti-grain law activities of the alliance took a "bottom-up" route: first, they affected the masses, then they entered the election, and finally they worked together to influence the rulers on the stage of parliament, which was of the nature of a quasi-political party.
In the process of abolishing the law, great changes took place in the British political parties. Around 1833, the Tory party and the whig party were renamed the conservative party and the liberal party.
From the perspective of the historical development of Britain, the changes of political parties conform to the trend. Around 1830, the industrial revolution was basically completed, and the social class structure of Britain changed, forming two classes -- industrial bourgeoisie and proletariat, which inevitably led to changes in the British parliament.
At this time, the tories not only represented the land aristocracy, but also began to absorb the conservative forces of the financial aristocracy and big businessmen. The land aristocracy was also divided. Some of the land aristocracy began to operate mines and build roads, which were gradually separated from the single agricultural operation. Therefore, the reformed conservative party developed from a simple landowner to a party with land aristocracy as the core and other classes.
The liberals still represent the interests of the financial and business classes, and are centered on free trade factory owners.
What led directly to the rebranding of the two major parties was parliamentary reform, which increased the political influence of the middle class and the working class. To win them over, the tories changed and began to embody the interests of some businessmen and workers.
Therefore, although the conservative party still took the land aristocracy as the core, some representatives of the industrial and commercial classes emerged. This made the conservative party in the process of abolishing the law appeared a serious split, reached the peak after peel came to power. But this division is exactly the result of class struggle, which perfectly reflects the prosperity of the British class alliance and the struggle between the land aristocracy and workers and capitalists.
After the reform, more middle class and coalition members entered parliament, and the fight for free trade emerged in parliament. The liberals support the anti-corn bill coalition, and the conservatives, still dominated by the land aristocracy, are generally opposed to the free-trade bill. Between 1815 and 1846, when the repeal of the corn laws was highly partisan, the vote showed a high average party cohesion index: 78.6 in 1834 and 84.1 in 1842, compared with 67.9 and 58.4 for other votes in parliament during the same period.
Free traders urged parliament to investigate import tariffs in 1840. The liberals want a flat rate to replace the regulatory tax. But the conservatives argued that the country's sugar must be protected against sugar producing countries that used slaves. This gave the conservative position a moral advantage, defeating the liberal government's proposals and winning the 1841 election that formed peel's cabinet. That was the struggle between the two parties when peel came to power.
But peel himself had invested in the cotton industry, and was described by the anti-grain law union as "bleeding merchant blood". Maintaining the corn laws also hurt his private interests.
Peel first amended the grain act in 1942, lowering import taxes on grains and thereby lowering prices. In 1844, import duties on goods continued to be cut. In 1845, the suspension of import duties on grain was proposed, but was not approved by parliament. This was when the leader of the liberal party issued his famous "Edinburgh letter" calling for the immediate repeal of the corn laws. This prompted peel to formally introduce a bill to repeal the corn laws to the house of Commons. 1946 a parliamentary debate began over whether to repeal the corn laws. Peel gave five long speeches in the heat of the debate. In June 1846 bills were finally passed in both houses of parliament.
Peel's firm stand on free trade has split the conservative party. There are pro-peel industrialists and anti-reform landowners. They were divided over whether to repeal the corn laws, which accused peel of being a traitor to the conservatives, even as a majority of peel's supporters were ostracised and gradually defected to the liberals. Peel himself resigned as prime minister. Nearly a third of conservatives voted in favor of the bill, leaving the party's cohesion at 45.1. The liberal party, on the other hand, is highly consistent, with a cohesion of 96.4.
Peel's personal interest is not enough to justify his repeal. He also knew that his insistence on free trade would inevitably lead to a split in the party, and he would be accused of being a "traitor within the party".
Social union theory alone does not adequately explain the repeal of the corn laws. This theory has its own defects: it pays too much attention to social differentiation and ignores the autonomy of the state in dealing with the relationship between the state and society. According to the theory of nationalism of schoccheffer, the state is a set of administrative and military organizations headed by executive authority and harmonized by executive authority. Countries can set and pursue their own goals and achieve their own will. This is a good complement to peel's behavior.
As the head of a country, peel is more likely to act on behalf of the overall national interest rather than on behalf of partisanship. In a speech to parliament, he said: "unless the corn law is consistent not only with agricultural prosperity and the interests of landowners, but also with the interests of the nation as a whole, it is virtually over."
Abolishing the grain law was an objective requirement for the economic development of the UK at that time. At that time, the UK was rich in coal and iron resources, abundant capital and advanced science and technology, and the productive forces had made great progress. It was equipped with the conditions for the transformation from protection trade to free trade. History has shown that only after the transition from protection trade to free trade did the British economy take off and enter the "Victorian" era.
Domestic conditions also necessitated the repeal of the corn laws. From 1838 to 1842, due to natural conditions, British agriculture generally failed, resulting in a large-scale famine. The city's economy is in a slump, and a fifth of Birmingham's people live on welfare. The potato blight of 1845 left four million people in poverty. This threatened social stability and was a direct reason for peel's determination to repeal the corn laws.
Peel was not subject to the fierce struggle between parties and interest groups at that time, but had a certain degree of autonomy.
Through the investigation of the degree of factor flow in Britain in the first half of the 19th century and the abolition of the grain law, it is found that this case is roughly consistent with the social union theory, and the nationalist theory also complements the social union theory, which better explains the reason why prime minister peel sticks to free trade.
想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
