The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-18 00:00:00

PROGRESS.

PRIVATE.
Gloucester-sq., Paddington,
Uxbridge-road, by Shepherds'
Bush Bridge.
Chapter-street, Pimlico.
Eaton flews, West, ditto.
Harriet Mews, ditto
Chester Terrace, ditto.
Maida Hill West, Padding-
ton nor of Canal.

PROBABLE EFFECT OF A TOTAL

REPEAL OF THE CORN-LAW.

ARTICLE 1.-ON PRICE.

Although we contend for the repeal of the
Corn-law on the high ground of moral principle,
denying in tote the right of the Legislature to
make a law like this to alter the distribution of
wealth, and enrich the idle at the expense of the
industrious; and believing and declaring that
such a law begins in nasty theft, slinking and
creeping in the dark, and ends in wholesale
starvation, yet we have never, we believe, shown
any aversion to examine the effects of the law,
endeavouring to demonstrate that they have been
fully as injurious in an economical point of view
as the law is unrighteous in principle.
We do not, indeed, place much confidence in
the various calculations which have been pre-
sented to us of the prices at which wheat can be
grown abroad, and at which it would, under a
perfectly free trade, be sold in England ; and
we deny that such calculations, or that any
facts connected with the expense of cultivation
in other countries, and in this country, are proper
elements, imperfectly as they must necessarily
be known, and varying as they must necessarily
vary from year to year, of our legislation. Ne-
vertheless, separating, as far as we can, facts
from fiction, and just reasoning from mere fear-
born fancies, we are at all times willing calmly
to examine the existing effects of the law, and
to appreciate to the extent of our ability the
probable effects of totally and immediately re-
pealing it. There are, for example, many doubts

and differences of opinion as to what would be
the effects of the repeal ; and, therefore, we
think it worth while to form, if we can, a ra-

tional appreciation of them. Let:us look at them,
then, under the two-fold aspect, first of the im-
mediate, and secondly of the permanent effects.
At-present we are in the month of February,
and at least seven months must elapse before any
corn grown during this year can be imported.
The bulk of the last harvest is already appro-
priated, and probably as much of it nearly im-
ported as can be obtained. There is no reason to
suppose—as no foreign country grew any corn
expressly for us, or has any large storethat
there exists anywhere in the world a great quan-
tity which can be brought into our market.
What we have in store, and the produce of the
next harvest, of which the seed is already in the
ground—and which can only now be increased,
anywhere, in consequence of any alteration of
our law, by some extended growth of spring
corn, not likely to be very large—is all that will
be obtainable to supply the wants of our popula-
tion for the next nineteen months. The first
question, then, we propose for consideration, is,
what will be the immediate effect on prices of
the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-law?
That repeal would have little or no effect on
the quantity of corn which can be brought to
market for nineteen months. At present the
price is somewhere about 605., and the duty

somewhere about 265. The repeal of the law
would allow all the corn which is in bOnd to be
immediately entered for home consumption
without the payment of any duty; and it would
allow corn to be brought from all parts of the
world without paying any duty, but it would not
and could not augment the whole quantity of corn
now in existence a single grain. Not augmenting

the quantity, there would be no more immediately
to supply the wants of the people than there now
is. The bonded corn, the whole of which is
170,000 quarters of all kinds, would be brought in.
The owners of it will not, however, sell it with-
out getting for it as much as they could; and
though the law now appears, by levying a duty
of 265. on a quarter of wheat, to raise the price to
that extent, the owners of the bonded corn would
certainly not sell it for 345. The power ofbringing
it into the market, together with the power of im-
porting corn whenever wanted from all parts
of the world, wherever it can be grown cheapest,
the competition which would immediately take
place between the holders of this corn and of all
other corn, would undoubtedly lower the price to
a middle term proportionate to the small in-
creased supply and the great many mouths to
feed. To what degree the price would fall, no
man can say accurately,'though a corn-merchant
well versed with business might make a plausi-
ble guess ; but, inasmuch as the quantity of corn
could not be immediately augmented, it is our
opinion that the fall could not possibly exceed
10s., and perhaps might be about Gs., at once re-
ducing the price to about the average price of
the whole period since the present Corn-law came
into operation.

This conjecture, which was made weeks ago,
we find confirmed by the opinion of a respect-
able corn merchant, to whom we applied for in-
formation. He says that the first panic might
bring down the price, for four or six months only,
. _ _ _

to 525. or 565., and he thinks the permanent
price, on an average of years, would be about
what the average price has been since the pre-
sent law was passed, between 545. and 60s.

That the law does not, in fact, secure a perma-
nently higher average price than we should have
with free trade, is a curious circumstance, which
we shall hereafter endeavour to explain ; we
must content ourselves now with remarking, that
it is another proof of the impotency, as well as
the wickedness, of the law, and that the law is, as
we have before stated, a lie and a cheat.

There is, however, something to set off against

this presumed fall in prices. The manufacturers,
speculating on an increased demand for their
goods in consequence of the repeal, both from
the reduction of the price of food, and from
those countries which would supply us with corn
being then able to buy from our manufacturers,
would immediately employ more hands. The
merchants, too, would see other openings for
commerce, and would extend their dealings and
orders. There would be, coincident with the titll
in price, an increased demand for food. At pre-
sent our people are only half employed and half
fed, and the least stimulus to trade would give a
great extension to their demand for food. They
can consume a great deal more than they get,
and they would consume more if they could get it.
The manufacturers' demand for their services
would enable them to get food. Nor would there
be, as some persons suppose, any corresponding
diminution of demand for agricultural labour.
The farmers have, in the majority of cases, dis-
posed of their last year's harvest, and they have
prepared for the next year's harvest. Their
scheme of cultivation is laid down for several
months, and could not in many cases be altered,
except to a disadvantage. They would, till the
next harvest reduce their returns, if that should
be the case, continue to employ nearly as many
labourers through the summer as if the Corn-
law was not repealed. None of their obligations
would be • diminished, and they must keep up
their cultivation to provide for their Michaelmas
or Christmas payments. We conceive that the
increased demand for food occasioned by giving
to the starving people—who immediately need it,
while its quantity cannot be immediately in-
creased—the power to purchase it, would
in fact prevent any great fall in the price, and
would we believe, even neutralize the little fall
we have said would take place on the repeal.
But if there were no fall at all, or if the price,
after falling, had again, in consequence of the new
demand, a tendency to rise—as we believeit would
before the next harvest, and after the next har-
vest, unless that should be very abundant—the
agriculturists would have an increased demand
for labour, and there would be through every part
of the empire an increased demand for food. It
employing more labour were not to neutralize, and
even more than neutralize, the effects of the in-
creased supply, it would at least prevent any
immediate great fall, and would guard against
any future fall. Taking these circumstances into
consideration, we entertain a well-founded con-
viction that the total and immediate repeal of
the Corn-law could not possibly lower the price,
under the most unfavourable circumstances for
the farmer, more than 10s. this year, and most
probably would not lower it Gs. The subsequent
fitll or rise must depend on the harvest and the
extent of our trade.

We shall stop now, but we shall continue from
time to time, as we find an opportunity, to point
out the effects of the repeal of the Corn-law.