[1] See Marin Mersenne, _L'Harmonie universelle_ (Paris, 1636-1637),
bk. v., pp. 273-274.
[2] See Eisel's (Anon.) _Musicus [Greek: Autodidaktos], oder der sich
selbst informirende Musicus_ (Erfurt, 1738), p. 93 and table vi.
[3] Sebastian Virdung, _Musica getutscht und auszgezogen_ (Basel,
1511).
[4] Michael Praetorius, _Syntag. Music._, vol. ii. _De Organographia_
(Wolfenbuttel, 1618), pp. 25 and 41, pls. 8 and 13.
[5] See Mersenne, _loc. cit._
[6] See Ad. MS. 30342, Brit. Museum, fol. 145. A tract in French
containing pen and ink sketches of musical instruments, which dates
from the 17th or perhaps the 18th century, and was formerly in the
possession of the Jesuit college in Paris. Here the _pedalle_ is the
bass pommer, or _hautbois_, and the sackbut is indicated as second
bass or _basse-contre_. As also in Mersenne, the cornets are curved.
[7] See Moritz Furstenau, _Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters am
Hofe zu Dresden_ (Dresden, 1861-1862), p. 28.
[8] See Michel Brenet, "Deux comptes de la Chapelle Musique des rois
de France," _Sammelband der Intern. Mus. Ges._, vi. 1 (Leipzig,
1904), pp. 20, 21, 29; and _Archives nationales_ (Paris), Z. Ia. 486.
[9] _Das neu-eroffnete Orchester_ (Hamburg, 1713), p. 253.
[10] _Der vollkommene Kapellmeister_ (Hamburg, 1739).
[11] See Mersenne, _op. cit._, bk. v., p. 274.
[12] Part of book iii. in MS. Harleian, 2034, fol. 207b. Brit.
Museum.
[13] _Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica_ (Venice, 1600), pp.
4, 5, 6 and 12b.
[14] Grafl. Schonborn Bibl. Pommersfelden, Cod. 2776, reproduced in
E. Buhle's _Die musikalischen Instrumente in den
Miniatur-Handschriften des Mittelalters_, part i. (Leipzig, 1903) pl.
6 and p. 24, where other references will be found.
[15] Royal Roll, 14 B. v. 13th century. See also Augustus
Hughes-Hughes, _Catalogue of MS. Music in the British Museum_, part
iii.
[16] See "Triumphzug des Kaisers Maximilians I.," _Beilage zum 1 sten
Bd. d. Jahrbuch der Samml. des Allerhochsten Kaiserhauses_ (Vienna,
1883), part i. p. 26, and letterpress, Bd. i. pp. 154-181.
[17] See Victor Mahillon, _Elements d'acoustique musicale et
instrumentale_ (Brussels, 1874), pp. 96, 97, &c., with diagrams, and
Friedrich Zamminer, _Die Musik und die musikalischen Instrumente_,
&c. (Giessen, 1855), p. 310, &c., with diagrams.
[18] For a fuller description of this system see Capt. C. R. Day,
_Descriptive Catalogue of Musical Instruments_ (London, 1891), p.
207, No. 406.
[19] Id., pp. 192-193.
CORNETO TARQUINIA (anc. _Tarquinii_), a town of Italy, in the province
of Rome, 62 m. N.W. by rail from the town of Rome, 490 ft. above
sea-level. Pop. (1901) 5273. Corneto probably arose after the ancient
town had been destroyed by the Saracens. In the 10th century it began to
acquire importance, and for some time was an independent commune. It is
picturesquely situated, and commands a fine view. It possesses medieval
fortifications, and no less than twenty-five towers are still standing
in various parts of the town, which thus has a remarkably medieval
appearance. The castle on the N. contains the Romanesque church of S.
Maria in Castello, begun in 1121, with a fine portal of 1143, a
_ciborium_ of 1168 and a pulpit of 1209, both in "cosmatesque" work: the
pavement in marble mosaic also is fine. There are several other
Romanesque and Gothic churches in the town more or less restored. The
oldest parts of the Palazzo Comunale date from about 1000. The Gothic
Palazzo Vitelleschi (1439) contains remarkably rich windows. The
municipal museum (which is to be transferred to this palace) and the
Palazzo Bruschi, contain fine collections of Etruscan antiquities from
the tombs of Tarquinii. Four miles to the S.W. is the Porto Clementino
(perhaps the ancient _Graviscae_, the port of Tarquinii), with
government saltworks, in which convicts are employed.
See L. Dasti, _Notizie storiche archeologiche di Tarquinia e Corneto_
(Rome, 1878); for the cemeteries, _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1906, 1907.
CORNICE (Fr. _corniche_, Ital. _cornice_), in architecture, the
projection at the top of a wall, which is provided to throw off the rain
water from the roof, beyond the face of the building. As employed in
classic architecture it forms the upper part of the entablature of an
order, and is there subdivided into bed mould, corona and cymatium. The
term is also generally applied to any moulding projection which crowns
the feature to which it is attached; thus doors and windows, internally
as well as externally, have each their cornice, and the same applies to
pieces of furniture (see also MASONRY).
CORNIFICIUS, the author of a work on rhetorical figures, and perhaps of
a general treatise (_ars_, [Greek: techne]) on the art of rhetoric
(Quintilian, _Instit._, iii. 1. 21, ix. 3. 89). He has been identified
with the author of the four books of _Rhetorica_ dedicated to a certain
Q. Herennius and generally known under the title of _Auctor ad
Herennium_. The chief argument in favour of this identity is the fact
that many passages quoted by Quintilian from Cornificius are reproduced
in the _Rhetorica_. Jerome, Priscian and others attributed the work to
Cicero (whose _De inventione_ was called _Rhetorica prima_, the _Auctor
ad Herennium_, _Rhetorica secunda_), while the claims of L. Aelius
Stilo, M. Antonius Gnipho, and Ateius Praetextatus to the authorship
have been supported by modern scholars. But it seems improbable that the
question of authorship will ever be satisfactorily settled. Internal
indications point to the date of compositions as 86-82 B.C., the period
of Marian domination in Rome. The unknown author, as may be inferred
from the treatise itself, did not write to make money, but to oblige his
relative and friend Herennius, for whose instruction he promises to
supply other works on grammar, military matters and political
administration. He expresses his contempt for the ordinary school
rhetorician, the hair-splitting dialecticians and their "sense of
inability to speak, since they dare not even pronounce their own name
for fear of expressing themselves ambiguously." Finally, he admits that
rhetoric is not the highest accomplishment, and that philosophy is far
more deserving of attention. Politically, it is evident that he was a
staunch supporter of the popular party.
The first and second books of the _Rhetorica_ treat of _inventio_ and
forensic rhetoric; the third, of _dispositio_, _pronuntiatio_,
_memoria_, deliberative and demonstrative rhetoric; the fourth, of
_elocutio_. The chief aims of the author are conciseness and clearness
(_breviter et dilucide scribere_). In accordance with this, he ignores
all rhetorical subtleties, the useless and irrelevant matter introduced
by the Greeks to make the art appear more difficult of acquisition;
where possible, he uses Roman terminology for technical terms, and
supplies his own examples of the various rhetorical figures. The work as
a whole is considered very valuable. The question of the relation of
Cicero's _De inventione_ to the _Rhetorica_ has been much discussed.
Three views were held: that the Auctor copied from Cicero; that they
were independent of each other, parallelisms being due to their having
been taught by the same rhetorician at Rome; that Cicero made extracts
from the _Rhetorica_, as well as from other authorities, in his usual
eclectic fashion. The latest editor, F. Marx, puts forward the theory
that Cicero and the Auctor have not produced original works, but have
merely given the substance of two [Greek: technai] (both emanating from
the Rhodian school); that neither used the [Greek: technai] directly,
but reproduced the revised version of the rhetoricians whose school they
attended, the introductions alone being their own work; that the
lectures on which the Ciceronian treatise was based were delivered
before the lectures attended by the Auctor.
The best modern editions are by C. L. Kayser (1860), in the Tauchnitz,
and W. Friedrich (1889), in the Teubner edition of Cicero's works, and
separately by F. Marx (1894); see also _De scholiis Rhetorices ad
Herennium_, by M. Wisen (1905). Full references to authorities will be
found in the articles by Brzoska in Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencyclopadie_
(1901); M. Schanz, _Geschichte der romischen Litt._, i. (2nd ed., pp.
387-394); and Teuffel-Schwabe, _Hist. of Roman Lit._ (Eng. trans., p.
162); see also Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, bk. iv. ch. 13.
CORNING, ERASTUS (1794-1872), American capitalist, was born in Norwich,
Connecticut, on the 14th of December 1794. In 1807 he became a clerk in
a hardware store at Troy, New York, but in 1814 he removed to Albany,
where he eventually became the owner of extensive ironworks, obtained a
controlling interest in various banking institutions, and accumulated a
large fortune. He was prominently connected with the early history of
railway development in New York, became president of the Utica &
Schenectady line, and was the principal factor in the extension and
consolidation of the various independent lines that formed the New York
Central system, of which he was president from 1853 to 1865. He was also
interested in the building of the Michigan Central and the Chicago,
Burlington & Quincy railways, and was president of the company which
constructed the Sault Sainte Marie ship canal, providing a navigable
waterway between Lakes Huron and Superior. He was prominent in politics
as a Democrat, and, after serving as mayor of Albany from 1834 to 1837,
and as state senator from 1842 to 1845, he was a representative in
Congress in 1857-1859 and in 1861-1863, being re-elected for a third
term in 1862, but resigning before the opening of the session. In 1861
he was a delegate to the Peace Congress, but when the Civil War actually
began he loyally supported the Lincoln administration. He was a delegate
to the New York constitutional convention of 1867, and was for many
years vice-chancellor of the board of regents of the University of the
State of New York. He died at Albany, New York, on the 9th of April
1872.
CORNING, a city of Steuben county, New York, U.S.A., in the S. part of
the state, on the Chemung river, 10 m. W.N.W. of Elmira. Pop. (1890)
8550; (1900) 11,061, of whom 1410 were foreign-born; (1910) 13,730.
Corning is served by the Erie, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, and
the New York Central & Hudson River railways. Among the principal
buildings and institutions are a fine city hall, a Federal building, a
county court house, the Corning hospital, a free public library and St
Mary's orphan asylum (Roman Catholic). Corning is one of the principal
markets in New York state for tobacco, which is extensively produced in
the surrounding country. The principal industry is the making of cut and
flint glass, and, of the several extensive plants devoted to this
industry, that of the Corning Glass Works is one of the largest in the
world. The city also has railway car shops and foundries, and among its
manufactures are pressed brick, tile and terra-cotta, papier-mache and
lumber. The total value of the factory products in 1905 was $3,083,515,
35.7% more than in 1900. There were settlers on the site of Corning as
early as 1789, but it was not until 1848 that it was incorporated as a
village under its present name, given in honour of Erastus Corning, the
railway builder. Corning was chartered as a city in 1890.
See C. H. M'Master, _History of the Settlement of Steuben County_
(Bath, N.Y., 1853).
CORN LAWS. In England, legislation on corn was early applied both to
home and foreign trade in this essential produce. Roads were so bad, and
the chain of home trade so feeble, that there was often scarcity of
grain in one part, and plenty in another part of the same kingdom.
Export by sea or river to some foreign market was in many cases more
easy than the carriage of corn from one market to another within the
country. The frequency of local dearths, and the diversity and
fluctuation of prices, were thus extreme. It was out of this general
situation that the first corn laws arose, and they appear to have been
wholly directed towards lowering the price of corn. Exportation was
prohibited, and home merchandise in grain was in no repute or
toleration. As long as the rent of land, including the extensive domains
of the crown, was paid in kind, the sovereign, the barons and other
landholders had little interest in the price of corn different from that
of other classes of people, the only demand for corn being for
consumption and not for resale or export. But as rents of land came to
be paid in money, the interest of the farmer to be distinguished by a
remove from that of the landowner, the difference between town and
country to be developed, and the business of society to be more complex,
the ruling powers of the state were likely to be actuated by other
views; and hence the force which corn legislation afterward assumed in
favour of what was deemed the agricultural interest. But during four
centuries after the Conquest the corn law of England simply was that
export of corn was prohibited, save in years of extreme plenty under
forms of state licence, and that producers carried their surplus grain
into the nearest market town, and sold it there for what it would bring
among those who wanted it to consume; and the same rule prevailed in the
principal countries of the continent of Europe. This policy, though, as
one may argue from its long continuance, probably not felt to be acutely
oppressive, was of no avail in removing the evils against which it was
directed. On the contrary it prolonged and aggravated them. The
prohibition of export discouraged agricultural improvement, and in so
much diminished the security and liberality even of domestic supply;
while the intolerance of any home dealing or merchandise in corn
prevented the growth of a commercial and financial interest strong
enough to improve the means of transport by which the plenty of one part
of the same country could have come to the aid of the scarcity in
another.
English corn laws, 1436-1603.
Apart from this general feudal germ of legislation on corn, the history
of the British corn laws may be said to have begun with the statute in
the reign of Henry VI. (1436), by which exportation was permitted
without state licence, when the price of wheat or other corn fell below
certain prices. The reason given in the preamble of the statute was that
the previous state of the law had compelled farmers to sell their corn
at low prices, which was no doubt true, but which also showed the
important turn of the tide that had set in. J. R. M'Culloch, in an
elaborate article in the _Commercial Dictionary_, says that the
fluctuation of the prices of corn in that age was so great, and beyond
all present conception, that "it is not easy to determine whether the
exportation price of 6s. 8d. for wheat" [12s. 10d. in present money per
quarter] "was above or below the medium price." But while the medium
price of the kingdom must be held to be unascertainable in a remote
time, when the medium price in any principal market town of England did
not agree with that of another for any year or series of years, one may
readily perceive that the cultivators of the wheat lands in the
south-eastern counties of England, for example, who could frequently
have sold their produce in that age to Dutch merchants to better
advantage than in their own market towns, or even in London, but were
prohibited to export abroad, and yet had no means of distributing their
supplies at home so as to realize the highest medium price in England,
must have felt aggrieved, and that their barons and knights of the shire
would have a common interest in making a strong effort to rectify the
injustice in parliament. This object appears to have been in some
measure accomplished by this statute, and twenty-seven years afterwards
(1463) a decided step was taken towards securing to agriculturists a
monopoly of the home market by a statute prohibitory of importation from
abroad. Foreign import was to be permitted only at and above the point
of prices where the export of domestic produce was prohibited. The
landed interest had now adopted the idea of sustaining and equalizing
the value of corn, and promoting their own industry and gains, which for
four centuries, under various modifications of plan, and great changes
of social and political condition, were to maintain a firm place in the
legislation and policy of England. But there were many reasons why this
idea, when carried into practice, should not have the results
anticipated from it.
The import of grain from abroad, even in times of dearth and high prices
at home, could not be considerable as long as the policy of neighbouring
countries was to prohibit export; nor could the export of native corn,
even with the Dutch and other European ports open to such supplies, be
effective save in limited maritime districts, as long as the internal
corn trade was suppressed, not only by want of roads, but by legal
interdict. The regulation of liberty of export and import by rates of
price, moreover, had the same practical objection as the various
sliding-scales, bounties, and other legislative expedients down to 1846,
viz. that they failed, probably more in that age than in later times, to
create a permanent market, and aimed only at a casual trade. When
foreign supplies were needed, they were often not to be found; and when
there was an excess of corn in the country a profitable outlet was both
difficult and uncertain. It would appear, indeed, that during the Wars
of the Roses the statutes of Henry VI. and Edward IV. had become
obsolete; for a law regulating export prices in identical terms of the
law of 1436 was re-enacted in the reign of Philip and Mary (1554). In
the preceding reign of Edward VI., as well as in the succeeding long
reign of Elizabeth, there were unceasing complaints of the decay of
tillage, the dearth of corn, and the privations of the labouring
classes; and these complaints were met by the same kind of measures--by
statutes encouraging tillage, forbidding the enlargement of farms,
imposing severer restrictions on storing and buying and selling of
grain, and by renewed attempts to regulate export and import according
to prices. In 1562 the price at which export might take place was raised
to 10s. per quarter for wheat, and 6s. 8d. for barley and malt. This
only lasted a few years, and in 1570 the export of wheat and barley was
permitted from particular districts on payment of a duty of 1s. 8d. per
quarter, although still liable to prohibition by the government or local
authority, while it was entirely prohibited under the old regulations
from other districts. Only at the close of Elizabeth's reign (1603) did
a spark of new light appear in a further statute, which removed the
futile provisions in favour of tillage and against enlargement of
pastoral farms, and rested the whole policy for promoting an equable
supply of corn, while encouraging agriculture, on an allowed export of
wheat and other grain at a duty of 2s. and 1s. 4d. when the price of
wheat was not more than 20s., and of barley and malt 12s. per quarter.
The import of corn appears to have been much lost sight of from the
period of the statute of 1463. The internal state of England, as well
as the policy of other countries of Europe, was unfavourable to any
regular import of grain, though many parts of the kingdom were often
suffering from dearth of corn. It is obvious that this legislation,
carried over more than a century and a half, failed of its purpose, and
that it neither promoted agriculture nor increased the supply of bread.
So great a variance and conflict between the intention of statutes and
the actual course of affairs might be deemed inexplicable, but for an
explanation which a close economic study of the circumstances of the
times affords.
Besides the general reasons of the failure already indicated, there were
three special causes in active operation, which, though not seen at the
period, have become distinct enough since. (1) A comparatively free
export of wool had been permitted in England from time immemorial. It
was subject neither to conditions of price nor to duties in the times
under consideration, was easier of transport and much less liable to
damage than corn, and, under the extending manufactures of France and
the Low Countries, was sure of a foreign as well as a domestic market.
Here was one description of rural produce on which there was the least
embargo, and on which some reliance could be placed that it would in all
circumstances bring a fair value; while corn, the prime rural produce,
was subject as a commodity of merchandise to every difficulty,
internally and externally, which meddling legislation and popular
prejudice could impose. The numerous statutes enjoining tillage and
discouraging pastoral farms--or in other words requiring that
agriculturists should turn from what was profitable to what was
unprofitable--had consequently no substantial effect, save in the many
individual instances in which the effect may have been injurious. (2)
The value of the standard money of the kingdom had been undergoing great
depreciation from two opposite quarters at once. The pound sterling of
England was reduced in weight of pure metal from L1: 18: 9 in 1436, the
date of the first of the corn statutes, to 4s. 7-3/4d. in 1551, as far as
can be estimated in present money, and to L1: 0: 6-3/4 under the
restoration of the coinage in the following year. At the same time the
greater abundance of silver, which now began to be experienced in Europe
from the discovery of the South American mines, was steadily reducing
the intrinsic value of the metal. Hence a general rise of prices
remarked by Hume and other historians; and hence also it followed that a
price of corn fixed for export or import at one period became always at
another period more or less restrictive of export than had been
designed. (3) The wages of labour would have followed the advance in the
prices of commodities had wages been left free, but they were kept down
by statute to the three or four pence per day at which they stood when
the pound sterling contained one-fourth more silver, and silver itself
was much more valuable. This was a refinement of cruelty. The feudal
system was breaking up; a wage-earning population was rapidly increasing
both in the farms and in the towns; but the spirit of feudalism
remained, and the iron collar of serfdom was riveted round the necks of
the labourers by these statutes many generations after they had become
nominally freemen.[1] The result was chronic privation and discontent
among the common people, by which all the conditions of agriculture and
trade in corn were further straitened and barbarized; and an age, in
some high respects among the most brilliant in the annals of England,
was marked by an enormous increase of pauperism, and by the introduction
of the merciful but wasteful remedy of the Poor Laws.
1660-1773.
The corn legislation of Elizabeth remained without change during the
reign of James, the civil wars and the Commonwealth. But on the
restoration of Charles II. in 1660, the question was resumed, and an act
was passed of a more prohibitory character. Export and import of corn,
while nominally permitted, were alike subjected to heavy duties--the
need of the exchequer being the paramount consideration, while the
agriculturists were no doubt pleased with the complete command secured
to them in the home market. This act was followed by such high prices of
corn, and so little advantage to the revenue, that parliament in 1663
reduced the duties on import to 9% _ad valorem_, while at the same time
raising the price at which export ceased to 48s., and reducing the duty
on export from 20s. to 5s. 4d. per quarter. In a few years this was
found to be too much free-trade for the agricultural liking, and in 1670
prohibitory duties were re-imposed on import when the home price was
under 53s. 4d., and a duty of 8s. between that price and 80s., with the
usual make-weight in favour of home supply, that export should be
prohibited when the price was 53s. 4d. and upwards. But complaints of
the decline of agriculture continued to be as rife under this act as
under the others, till on the accession of William and Mary, the landed
interest, taking advantage of the Revolution as they had taken advantage
of the Restoration to promote their own interests, took the new and
surprising step of enacting a bounty on the export of grain. This evil
continued to affect the corn laws of the kingdom, varied, on one
occasion at least, with the further complication of bounties on import,
until the 19th century. The duties on export being abolished, while the
heavy duties on import were maintained, this is probably the most
one-sided form which the British corn laws ever assumed, but it was
attended with none of the advantages anticipated. The prices of corn
fell, instead of rising. There had occurred at the period of the
Revolution a depreciation of the money of the realm, analogous in one
respect to that which marked the first era of the corn statutes
(1436-1551), and forming one of the greatest difficulties which the
government of William had to encounter. The coin of the realm was
greatly debased, and as rapidly as the mint sent out money of standard
weight and purity, it was melted down, and disappeared from the
circulation. The influx of silver from South America to Europe had spent
its action on prices before the middle of the century; the precious
metals had again hardened in value; and for forty years before the
Revolution the price of corn had been steadily falling in money price.
The liberty of exporting wool had also now been cut down before the
English manufactures were able to take up the home supply, and
agriculturists were consequently forced to extend their tillage. When
the current coin of the kingdom became wholly debased by clipping and
other knaveries, there ensued both irregularity and inflation of nominal
prices, and the producers and consumers of corn found themselves equally
ill at ease. The farmers complained that the home-market for their
produce was unremunerative and unsatisfactory; the masses of the people
complained with no less reason that the money wages of labour could not
purchase them the usual necessaries of life. Macaulay, in his _History
of England_, says of this period, with little exaggeration, that "the
price of the necessaries of life, of shoes, of ale, of oatmeal, rose
fast. The labourer found that the bit of metal which, when he received
it, was called a shilling, would hardly, when he purchased a pot of beer
or a loaf of rye bread, go as far as sixpence." The state of agriculture
could not be prosperous under these conditions. But when the government
of William surmounted this difficulty of the coinage, as they did
surmount it, under the guidance of Sir Isaac Newton, with remarkable
statesmanship, it necessarily followed that prices, so far from rising,
declined, because, for one reason, they were now denominated in a solid
metallic value. The rise of prices of corn attending the first years of
the export bounty was consequently of very brief duration. The average
price of wheat in the Winchester market, which in the ten years
1600-1699 was L2: 10s., fell in the ten years 1716-1725 to L1: 5: 4, and
in the ten years 1746-1755 to L1: 1: 2-3/4. The system of corn law
established in the reign of William and Mary was probably the most
perfect to be conceived for advancing the agricultural interest of any
country. Every stroke of the legislature seemed complete to this end.
Yet it wholly failed of its purpose. The price of wheat again rose in
1750-1760 and 1760-1770 to L1: 19: 3-1/4 and L2: 11: 3-3/4, but many causes
had meanwhile been at work, as invariably happens in such economic
developments, the operation of which no statutes could embrace, either
to control or to prevent. Between the reign of William and Mary and that
of George III., the question of bounty on export of grain had, in the
general progress of the country, fallen into the background, while that
of the heavy embargoes on import had come to the front. Therefore it is
that Burke's Act of 1773, as a deliberate attempt to bring the corn laws
into some degree of reason and order, is worthy of special mention. This
statute permitted the import of foreign wheat at a nominal duty of 6d.
when the home price was 48s. per quarter, and it stopped both the
liberty to export and the bounty on export together when the home price
was 44s. per quarter. The one blemish of this statute was the stopping
export and cutting off bounty on export at the same point of price.
Few questions have been more discussed or more differently interpreted
than the elaborate system of corn laws dating from the reign of William
and Mary. So careful an observer as Malthus was of opinion that the
bounty on export had enlarged the area of subsistence. That it had large
operation is sufficiently attested by the fact that, in the years from
1740 to 1751, bounties were paid out of the exchequer to the amount of
L1,515,000, and in 1749 alone they amounted to L324,000. But the trade
thus forced was of no permanence, and the British exports of corn, which
reached a maximum of 1,667,778 quarters in 1749-1750, had fallen to
600,000 quarters in 1760 and continued to decrease.
1791-1846.
Burke's Act lasted long enough to introduce a regular import of foreign
grain, varying with the abundance or scarcity of the home harvest, yet
establishing in the end a systematic preponderance of imports over
exports. The period, moreover, was marked by great agricultural
improvements, by extensive reclamation of waste lands, and by an
increased home produce of wheat, in the twenty years from 1773 to 1793,
of nearly 2,000,000 quarters. Nor had the course of prices been
unsatisfactory. The average price of British wheat in the twenty years
was L2: 6: 3, and in only three years of the twenty was the price a
fraction under L2. But the ideas in favour of greater freedom of trade,
of which the act of 1773 was an indication, and of which another
memorable example was given in Pitt's commercial treaty with France,
were overwhelmed in the extraordinary excitement caused by the French
Revolution, and all the old corn law policy was destined to have a
sudden revival. The landowners and farmers complained that an import of
foreign grain at a nominal duty of 6d., when the price of wheat was only
48s., deprived them of the ascending scale of prices when it seemed due;
and on this instigation an act was passed in 1791, whereby the price at
which importation could proceed at the nominal duty of 6d. was raised to
54s., with a duty of 2s. 6d. from 54s. to 50s., and at 50s. and under
50s. a prohibitory duty of 24s. 3d. The bounty on export was maintained
by this act, but exportation was allowed without bounty till the price
reached 46s.; and the permission accorded by the statute of 1773 to
import foreign corn at any price, to be reexported duty free, was
modified by a warehouse duty of 2s. 6d. in addition to the duties on
import payable at the time of sale, when the corn, instead of being
re-exported, happened to be sold for home consumption. The legislative
vigilance in this statute to prevent foreign bread from reaching the
home consumer is remarkable. There were deficient home harvests for some
years after 1791, particularly in 1795 and 1797, and parliament was
forced to the new expedient of granting high bounties on importation. At
this period the country was involved in a great war; all the customary
commercial relations were violently disturbed; freight, insurance and
other charges on import and export were multiplied fivefold; heavier and
heavier taxes were imposed; and the capital resources of the kingdom
were poured with a prodigality without precedent into the war channels.
The consequence was that the price of corn, as of all other commodities,
rose greatly: and the Bank of England having stopped paying in specie
in 1797, this raised nominal prices still more under the liberal use of
bank paper in loans and discounts, and the difference that began to be
established in the actual value of Bank of England notes and their legal
par in bullion.
The average price of British wheat rose to L5: 19: 6 in 1801. So unusual
a value must have led to a large extension of the area under wheat, and
to much corn-growing on land that after great outlay was ill prepared
for it. In the following years there were agricultural complaints; and
in 1804, though in 1803 the average price of wheat had been as high as
L2: 18: 10, an act was passed, so much more severe than any previous
statute, that its object would appear to have been to keep the price of
corn somewhere approaching the high range of 1801. A prohibitory duty of
24s. 3d. was imposed on the import of foreign wheat when the home price
was 63s. or less; and the price at which the bounty was paid on export
was lowered to 40s., while the price at which export might proceed
without bounty was raised to 54s. Judging from the prices that ruled
during the remaining period of the French wars, this statute would
appear to have been effective for its end, though, under all the varied
action of the times on a rise of prices, it would be difficult to assign
its proper place in the general effect. The average price of wheat rose
to L4: 9: 9 in 1805, and the bank paper price in 1812 was as high even
as L6: 6: 6. The bullion prices from 1809 to 1813 ranged from 86s. 6d.
to 100s. 3d. But it was foreseen that when the wars ended a serious
reaction would ensue, and that the rents of land, and the general
condition of agriculture, under the warlike, protective and monetary
stimulation they had received, would be imperilled. In the brief peace
of 1814 the average bullion price of British wheat fell to 55s. 8d. All
the means of select committees of inquiry on agricultural distress, and
new modifications of the corn laws, were again brought into requisition.
The first idea broached in parliament was to raise the duties on foreign
imports, as well as the prices at which they were to be leviable, and to
abolish the bounty on export, while permitting freedom of export
whatever the home price might be. The latter part of the scheme was
passed into law in the session of 1814; but the irritation of the
manufacturing districts against the new scale of import duties was too
great to be resisted. In the subsequent session an act was passed, after
much opposition, fixing 80s. (14s. more than during the wars) as the
price at which import of wheat was to become free of duty.
This act of 1815 was intended to keep the price of wheat in the British
markets at about 80s. per quarter; but the era of war and great
expenditure of money raised by public loans had ended, the ports of the
continent were again open to some measure of trade and to the equalizing
effect of trade upon prices, the Bank of England and other banks of
issue had to begin the uphill course of a resumption of specie payments,
the nation had to begin to feel the whole naked weight of the war debt,
and the idea of the protectors of a high price of corn was proved by the
event to be an utter hallucination. The corn statutes of the next twenty
years, though occupying an enormous amount of time and attention in the
Houses of Parliament, may be briefly treated, for they are simply a
record of the impotence of legislation to maintain the price of a
commodity at a high point when all the natural economic causes in
operation are opposed to it. In 1822 a statute was passed reducing the
limit of prices at which importation could proceed to 70s. for wheat,
35s. for barley, 25s. for oats; but behind the apparent relaxation was a
new scale of import duties, by which foreign grain was subjected to
heavy three-month duties up to a price of 85s.,--17s. when wheat was
70s., 12s. when between 70s. and 80s., and 10s. when 85s., showing the
grasping spirit of the would-be monopolizers of the home supply of corn,
and their reluctance to believe in a lower range of value for corn as
for all other commodities. This act never operated, for the reason that,
with the exception in some few instances of barley, prices never were so
high as its projectors had contemplated. The corn trade had passed
rapidly beyond reach of the statutes by which it was to be so painfully
controlled; and as there were occasional seasons of scarcity,
particularly in oats, the king in council was authorized for several
years to override the statutes, and do whatever the public interests
might require.
In 1827 Canning introduced a new system of duties, under which there
would have been a fixed duty of 1s. per quarter when the price of wheat
was at or above 70s., and an increased duty of 2s. for every shilling
the price fell below 69s.; but though Canning's resolutions were adopted
by a large majority in the House of Commons, his death and the
consequent change of ministers involved the failure of his scheme of
corn duties. In the following year Charles Grant introduced another
scale of import duties on corn, by which the duty was to be 23s. when
the price was 64s., 16s. 8d. when the price was 69s., and only 1s. when
the price was 73s. or above 73s. per quarter; and this became law the
same year. This sliding scale was more objectionable, as a basis of
foreign corn trade, than that of Canning, though not following so
closely shilling by shilling the variation of prices, because of the
abrupt leaps it made in the amount of duties leviable. For example, a
merchant who ordered a shipment of foreign wheat when the home price was
70s. and rising to 73s., instead of having a duty of 1s. to pay, should
on a backward drop of the home price to 69s. have 16s. 8d. of duty to
pay. The result was to introduce wide and incalculable elements of
speculation into all transactions in foreign corn. The prices during
most part of this period were under the range at which import was
practically prohibited. The average price of British wheat was 96s. 11d.
in 1817, but from that point there was in succeeding years a rapid and
progressive decline, varied only by the results of the domestic
harvests, till in 1835 the average price of wheat was 39s. 4d., of
barley 29s. 11d. and oats 22s. The import of foreign grain in these
years consisted principally of a speculative trade, under a privilege of
warehousing accorded in the statute of 1773, and extended in subsequent
acts, by which the grain might be sold for home consumption on payment
of the duties, or re-exported free, as suited the interest of the
holders.
The act of 1822 admitted corn of the British possessions in North
America under a favoured scale of duties, and in 1825 a temporary act
was passed, allowing the import of wheat from these provinces at a fixed
duty of 5s. per quarter, irrespective of the home price, which, if
maintained, would have given some stability to the trade with Canada.
The idea of a fixed duty on all foreign grain, however, appears to have
grown in favour from about this period. It was included in the programme
of import duty reforms of the Whig government in 1841, and fell with its
propounders in the general election of that year. Sir Robert Peel, on
succeeding to office, and commencing his remarkable career as a
free-trade statesman, introduced and carried in 1842 a new sliding scale
of duties somewhat better adjusted to the current values. But public
opinion by this time was changing, and the prime minister, convinced, as
he confessed, by the arguments of Cobden and the Anti-Corn-Law League,
and stimulated into action by the failure of the potato crop in Ireland,
put an effectual end to the history of the corn laws by the famous act
of 1846. It was provided under this measure that the maximum duty on
foreign wheat was to be immediately reduced to 10s. per quarter when the
price was under 48s., to 5s. on barley when the price was under 26s.,
and to 4s. on oats when the price was under 18s., with lower duties as
prices rose above these figures; but the conclusive part of the
enactment was that in three years--on the 1st of February 1849--these
duties were to cease, and all foreign corn to be admitted at a duty of
1s. per quarter, and all foreign meal and flour at a duty of 4-1/2d. per
cwt.--the same nominal imposts which were conceded to grain and flour of
British possessions abroad from the date of the act. In 1869 even these
nominal duties were abolished by Robert Lowe in a Customs Duties Act. In
1902 a registration duty of 3d. per cwt. was imposed on imported corn,
and 5d. per cwt. on imported flour, in the expectation that such a duty
would broaden the basis of taxation. The duty was, however, repealed the
following year. But a low duty on imported foreign corn was made an
essential part of the tariff reform scheme advocated by Mr. J.
Chamberlain (q.v.) from 1903 onwards.
Spain.
Portugal.
France.
Belgium.
Netherlands.
Italy.
Germany.
Austria-Hungary.
_Foreign Corn Laws._--Freedom of export of corn from customs duties has
become the general rule of nearly all foreign countries. It is somewhat
curious that Spain saw the advantage to her wheat-producing provinces of
freedom of export of wheat as early as 1820, and three years afterwards
extended this freedom to all "fruits of the soil" in Spain. The import
duty on wheat, as on other grain, has varied from time to time. The
tariff of 1882 fixed the duty at 2s. 3-1/4d. per cwt.; a law of February
1895 raised the duty to 4s. 3-1/4d. per cwt., at which rate it remained
till 1898, when it was reduced to 2s. 5-1/4d., though in this same year,
that of the war with the United States, it was for some three months
suspended, owing to distress in the country. In 1899 it was raised to
3s. 3d., and by a law of March 1904 fixed at 6.00 pesetas per 100 kilos
(2s. 5-1/4d. per cwt.) as long as the average price of wheat in the
markets of Castile does not fall below 27.00 pesetas per 100 kilos (11s.
per cwt.). The duty on rye, oats, barley and maize is 1s. 9-1/2d. per
cwt. The duty on flour varied from 3s. 4-1/2d. per cwt. in 1882 to 7s.
0-1/2d. in 1895; by the law of March 1904 it was fixed at 4s. 0-3/4d.
per cwt. The duty on rice is 2s. 1-3/4d. per cwt. in the husk and 4s.
3-3/4d. not in the husk. In Portugal the import duty on wheat was fixed
by a law of May 1888 at 20 reis per kilo (4s. 7d. per cwt.). By a law of
July 1889, as amended by laws of August 1891 and July 1899, importation
is prohibited except in the event of the home-grown crop being
insufficient, and even then permission is confined to millers. The duty,
in the event of permission to import being accorded, is to be charged on
a sliding scale intended to keep the cost of wheat to the millers,
including the duty, at 60 reis (3-1/4d.) per kilo (2.2 lbs.). Maize is
subject to a duty of 4s. 1-1/2d. per cwt., and rye, oats and barley to
one of 3s. 8d. per cwt. By laws of July 1889 and August 1891 the
importation of flour was prohibited except in the event of a strike of
the mill-hands, and the duty was fixed at 6s. 2d. per cwt. Export and
import of grain in France were prohibited down to the period of the
repeal of the British corn laws, save when prices were below certain
limits in the one case and above certain other limits in the other. But
export of grain and flour from France has long been free of duty. On the
other hand, import duties have varied considerably. By a law of 1881,
the duty on wheat was fixed at 3d. per cwt.; this duty was raised in
1885 to 1s. 2-3/4d. per cwt. and again in 1887 to 2s. 0-1/2d. By a law
of 1894 the duty was fixed at 2s. 10-1/4d. per cwt. In 1898, owing to
the sudden rise in the price of corn occasioned by the war between Spain
and the United States, the duty was temporarily (the 4th of May to the
30th of June) suspended. By a law of 1873 free importation of rye,
barley, maize and oats was permitted, but by a law of 1885 a duty was
fixed at 7-1/4d. per cwt., and this was subsequently (1887) increased to
1s. 2-3/4d. In 1881 the duty on imported flour was as low as 5-3/4d. per
cwt., but this was increased successively by laws of 1885, 1887, 1891
and 1892, and in 1894 was fixed at 4s. 5-3/4d. per cwt. at the rate of
extraction of 70% and over; 5s. 5-3/4d. at 70 to 60%; and 6s. 6d. at 60%
and under. In Belgium both the export and import of wheat, rye, barley
and maize are free of duty; so also were oats and flour. Since 1895,
however, there has been a duty of 1s. 2-1/2d. on oats, and of 9-3/4d. on
flour. The policy of the Netherlands was, owing to the advantages
possessed by its ports, long favourable to the import and export of
grain. But for some years prior to 1845 there was a moderate sliding
scale of import duties, and this gave place, on the ravages of the
potato disease, to a low fixed duty; since 1877, however, the
importation of cereals and flour has been free. In Italy there are no
duties on the export of grain. The import duties show a progressive
increase. In 1878 the import duty on wheat was 6-3/4d. per cwt.; this
was increased to 1s. 2-3/4d. in 1888, and in 1894 to 3s. 0-1/2d. As in
Spain and France, there was a temporary reduction and suspension during
1898, on the Spanish-American war. The duty on rye, barley, oats and
maize was fixed by the tariff of 1878 at 5-1/2d. per cwt. By a decree of
1894 the duty on rye was raised to 1s. 10d.; that on barley, by a decree
of 1896, to 1s. 7-1/2d.; that on oats, by a decree of 1888, to 1s.
7-1/2d.; and that on maize, by a decree of 1896, to 3s. 0-1/2d. The duty
on flour, fixed at 1s. 1-1/2d., by the tariff of 1878, was raised to 2s.
5-1/4d. in 1888, to 3s. 6-1/2d. in 1888, and to 5s. in 1894. In
Germany, the duty on wheat and rye, as fixed by the tariff of 1879, was
6d. per cwt. In 1885 this was raised to 1s. 6-1/4d., and in 1888 to 2s.
6-1/2d. By treaty in 1892 this was decreased to 1s. 9-1/4d. On oats the
duty in 1879 was 6d. per cwt., increased to 9-1/4d. in 1885, and again,
in 1888, to 2s. 0-1/2d., but reduced to 1s. 5d. in 1892. On barley the
duty in 1879 was 3d., in 1885 9-1/4d., in 1888 1s. 1-3/4d., and in 1892
1s. 0-1/4d. On maize, 3d. in 1879, 6d. in 1885, 1s. 0-1/4d. in 1888, and
9-3/4d. in 1892. On flour, 1s. 0-1/4d. in 1879, 3s. 9-3/4d. in 1885, 5s.
4d. in 1888, and 3s. 8-1/2d. in 1892. The new German tariff of 1906
which formed the basis for the new German commercial treaties with
Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary, &c., and which was passed when the
influence of the agrarian party was predominant, increased still more
the import duties on cereals. Under this tariff there are two rates of
duties: (1). Those of the new "general" tariff as applied to imports
from all countries entitled to most favoured-nation treatment. (2).
"Conventional" tariff rates, conceded to other states as the result of
treaties. Under this tariff the "general" and "conventional" duties,
respectively, on wheat are 3s. 9-1/2d. and 2s. 9d.; on oats and rye, 3s.
6-1/2d. and 2s. 6-1/4d.; on "common baker's produce," 8s. 3d. and 5s.
2d. In Austria-Hungary the import duty on wheat and rye is, under the
tariff of 1887, 1s. 6-1/4d. per cwt.; on barley and oats, 9-1/4d.; on
maize, 6d., and on flour, 3s. 9-3/4d.
United States.
Russia.
India.
Australia, New Zealand, Canada.
South Africa.
The great countries, famous for a production of raw materials much
beyond their own means of consumption, are favourable, of course, to the
utmost freedom of export. The empire of China itself was never unwilling
to sell to foreigners tea for which there was no domestic use. The
United States promotes transit and export of grain, internally and
externally, with all the intelligence and resources of a civilized
people. Although the import duty on "breadstuffs" imposed by the United
States tariff is very high, and is, possibly, a useful protection
against the importation of "baker's products," yet it is to a certain
extent unnecessary for a country which must dispose of its surplus by
exportation. The same remark applies to Russia, whose exportation and
importation are alike free, though there is an import duty on wheat
flour of 2s. 11-1/2d. per cwt. In the British colonies probably the only
example of an export duty is that on rice in British India; it amounts
to 3 annas per maund (4d. per cwt.). The import of grain into India is
free. In Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and all mainly agricultural
countries, there is no export duty. In each of these countries, however,
there is an import duty; in the cases of Australia and New Zealand,
designed, to a certain extent, as a precaution against possible rivalry
on the part of the other. The Australian import duty is 1s. 6d. per
cental (100 lb av.), and the New Zealand 9d. per cental. The Canadian
import duties on grain are important only in the light of being a
species of retaliation against similar duties imposed by the United
States with the design of restricting inter-frontier exchange. The
Canadian import duty is, on barley, 30% _ad valorem_; on buckwheat, rye
and oats, 4.93d. per bushel, and on wheat, 5.92d. per bushel. The South
African production of cereal is still insufficient to meet the demand
for home consumption, and there is a considerable grain importation. The
import duty, which undoubtedly acts as an encouragement to home
agriculture, is 1s. per cental. (See also GRAIN TRADE.)
(R. SO.; T. A. I.)