22 DECEMBER 1838, Page 13

BIRMINGHAM NOTIONS ON THE CORN QUESTION.

Ax elaborate apology for the heresy, which we censured with some freedom a fortnight since, is put forth in the Birmingham Journal of the lath. We are not sure, from his manner, whether the writer is altogether in earnest ; but passing that doubt, we have no objec- tion to ventilate the subject once more, not for controversy, but for truth.

Besides explaining some occurrences at the meeting, not pre- viously reported, and not material to the argument, the apologist endeavours to make out, that the advantage to the public from a free corn-trade would be such less than we suppose—the loss to the landed interest much greater ; and this, as we understand the con- clusion to be drawn from such premises, to magnify the difficulties of any attempt to obtain Corn-law Repeal.

In support of his case, the writer furnishes no new data, but be "doubts" and argues upon ours; and, in particular, contends— That the "entire external trade of the country" being "fifty millions, in round numbers," and the greatest importation of wheat in any one year only " five millions of quarters," the importance of a free trade in wheat to the general commerce of the country is greatly exaggerated in our paper of the Sth instant ; that the benefit to the landowner from the increase of lade towns, would be small in amount and of distant attainment, while the owners of land in re- mote districts would not be benefited at all. That a " fall in wages" must be anticipated " as a natural consequence" of the importation of foreign corn ; otherwise there is no reason for expecting that the British manufacturer will be better able than at present to compete with the foreigner ; that unless we are prepared to offer goods as cheap as they may be procured elsewhere, " it is of small use to open our ports to the corn of foreigners ;" that a " fall of wages" must occur " in order that any part of the anticipated benefit of a free importation of wheat may be realized ;" and that this "fall of wages" would deprive the labouring population of the power of purchasing animal food, or other articles instead of bread. That a plan of relief which allows the agriculturist to retain his mono Commons shall be radically changed ;" and that and pormfid combinatifin ran be entered' into .1i,e the at fitillment ty' L ',- versa? Sql.rage, than ,fiu. the repeat q' the roro-hr res."

There arc other points, ndnor. and not new. in the Bin,iih ghmm 'paper ; but they are comprelicialed ilk tilt abilAt• suutntary, given chiefly in the WriteeS OWII mulls. Exp./ch.. Ifinihush.m—let us now test the Valli(' of the apology by which the "1111..11 Of Birminghant seek to justify their refusal to join other Liberals in a movement against the Corn-laws at the present time. Han individual merchant were confined tin- nine ycars out of cvery ten to a limited market, whose bounds welt conshh•rahly extended in sonic one year of the tell. he would Wit take the business of the single season as the averass, of what he might expect to transact were he always prepared to supply the enlarged market, and his decennial customers converted into annual purchasers. He would calculate that his transactions must grow with the grow th in num- bers of his correspondents, and that regularity of supply would be- get a constant and increasing demand. But they who estimate England's tbreign commerce under a free system by its present amount, or what it has been in any one year with the pals open. commit a blunder similar to that of the merchant who should ima- gine that regularity mid certainty of supply and demand had no in- fluence on the amount Of Sides and purchases—um wants and nueans to satisfy them. Instead rat' referring to the actual atm-tont of exports and imports under the prohibitory regulations, which hamper titreign commerce. it would be desirable for the aptilogfsts of Corn-laws to consider what might reasonably be expected to result t'rom the admission of wheat free of duty. On the one hand may be seen. capital, machinery. and labour, which may be multiplied in an incalculable degree. On the other, capacity to Inake returns tin' British products. which may be increased in perhaps an equal ratio. But. admitting that such speculations are necessarily vague, in regard to the extent of the increase in commerce,—the lamer of COnSIMiptilt/I on both sides being regulated by the numbers. industry, and other circumstances of the intcrtrading people,—it is absolutely certain that the more there is produced in the mass, the more there will be fbr each indi- vidual to enjoy. With the disposition and the power in England to produce manufactures of various kinds, with the corresponding in- clination and ability in other countries to raise wheat and other products, the want of which makes the life evenof industrious arti- sans one of privation and hardship, it is beyond a question that the quantity in tutu might be prodigiously augmented, and a large ad- dition made to the enjoyment of each and all. But wages, it is said, would decline ; and what would be the use of plenty to him whose means of purchasing were reduced as the supply of desirable things was increased ?—Wages would not fall in the same proportion as the necessaries of life. 11-age - do not rise or fall with the price of provisions, but with the demand for labour on the one hand, and the competition for employment on the other. Bread now costs almost twice as much as it did in 1835-6, and wages are not higher. ily abolishing the Corn-laws, two excellent things would be attained for the bulk of the people—a steady and increasing demand for labour, and a reduction in the cost of necessaries. With the wages of labour cheapened relatively to other countries, but raised in reference to the expense of living in England, there would be little danger of foreigners supplanting our great staple manufitetures, when Corn-laws did not compel them, at great loss, to make for themselves articles in exchange for which their only means of' payment were refused in England. By admitting wheat from abroad, the means of obtaining other foreign articles would be secured. Take away from the landowner his monopoly, and a clamour would arise from the agricultural in- terest for a reduction of the duties on other necessaries and luxu- ries. Besides, the money saved in the price of bread would set at liberty a sum, large in the aggregate, for the purchase of many things desired by, but beyond the reach of; the bulk of the com- munity.

But, be the consequences on the wages of labour and foreign trade what they may, it is unquestionable that the necessity of feeding a growing population will, sooner or later, compel the " pre- dominant interest " to abolish the Corn-laws. '1'lle longer the period of abolition is postponed, the greater will be the quantity of external supplies wanted ; whilst it is doubtful whether the future increased population will be as well able to pay for it as the present. There is only one safety-valve—copious colonization. But this resource, though eagerly sought after by many' who enjoy and highly value the comforts and civilization of tlicir own country, is held up as a punishment to multitudes who might secure plenty, in exchange for want, by emigrating.

Seeing great advantage to the community at large from abolish- ing the Corn-laws, we have not shut our eyes to the case of the landowners. But nothing has been said to shake the calculations, which proved, that although so injurious to other classes. the Corn- laws were not essential to agricultural prosperity', and that the land no longer wanted for wheat (good wheat land would still be occupied) might be profitably used for other purposes. Following out the pnnciple on which free trade in wheat is demanded, the removal of restrictions on the importation of other kinds of grain and animal food may be urged ; but we regard this part of the question as of minor consequence, because there is no such scarcity of barley and the free admission of wheat, • the foreign cattle-dealer to compete with the British grazier : and That the repeal of the Corn-laws "cannot be urged with even a scm- I who thinks of supplanting the breed of horses fed on English oats blance of probable success," until "the composition of the House of and hay ? 1Vere the ditty on other kinds of grain removed, the English landowner would still supply the English market. and thus retain a On.nopoly of by lhr the larger amount of the produce of arable hind. poly of animal food, and of grain except wheat, is o narrow and oats or anitnal food as of bread. It is notorious that English malt isolated," and a violation of the principle sought to be established by liquor is exported to all parts of the world ; it would be difficult for

The addition to rents consequent on the increase of the urban population, would not he confined to a few towns. 'Remote dis- tricts might he very slightly benefited by such increase ; butt what

is the value of land Mere now—in the iii of Scotland, for instance ? it is certaiu that the prosperity of towns would raise the value of land in almost all parts of Great Britain. Take mi,/ Eng. lish county, and almost any Scotch one out of the Highlands, and draw circles of three or fiatr miles round every town sending Members to Parliament, and see how they would cut in upon one another. The increasing population of all these places would pay a higher rent for the laid in their vicinity, than is now Obtained fruom thrmers. And this process would gl) on rapidly in proportion to the progress of population ; which. again. chiefly depends upon the fiteility of acquiring the means of subsistence.

But apart from speculation. the question of abolishing the Corn- laws is betlire us in a practical slutpe. Men are not content with discussing it : fun• the time to act is at hand. Such appears the

general opinion of the Liberals. Only the Birmingham Charter-men sty— No : a repeal of the Corn-laws must fo//ors Universal Suf. frage ; Universal Suffrage is within reach ; therefore do not let the Corn-law question come in contact with our larger agit a t ion.- To test the practical prudence of the clews:L. recommended, let the op- posing flaws on the Corn-laws and Universal Suffrage be drawn up.

FOR UNIVERSAL t-.I•rea.otr..

A lin 'heti 'It Majority Of the

rum ATIOLTS•IITNI: TOL fORN-L.\\VS. I. t powerful minority of the Rime of Commons, including several members of the Government.

2. The Constituencies of the large towns a nil \tanuflctnringlistriets. 3. The Unentlonehised Masses. The Government must go with time Ilouse of Commons.

A glance shows that the means of resistance to Universal Suf- frage are much greater than to the abolition of the ('urn-laws : the opponents of the Corn-laws not only number all the advo- cates for Universal Suffrage, but such a proportion of the con- stituent body as can compel the Legislature and the Government to adopt any measure it may resolutely demand. The Bir- mingham Chartists avow hostility to the Corn-lvws : well, they must see that they are reinforec.l on that question by el,ses more influential in the Legislature than thensA‘Ives, w'hi'st they are op- posed by the same party on the Universal Suffrage quc stion. I Tow then is it possible to conclude that the latter can be the ost eas.13 carried ?

The two questions ought not to clash. We advise not the Char- tists to suspend their efforts to obtain the suffrage until the repeal of the Corn-laws is carried. They would he justified in opposing the latter if it interfered with the ultimate success of what they consider more important demands. But the reverse is the Met : the landlords' monopoly of food is one of the strongest outworks of aristocratical government. Few " men of Birmingham " will deny, that, to some extent at any rate. free trade in an article of universal consumption is a benefit ; and their resolution not to make exertions for the attainment of this good, because of their at- tachment to Universal Suffrage, is not like practical politicians and men of sense, such as we had deemed them to be, but like wild dreamers, possessed with most fantastic notions of the extent of their own power. evivr.as

1. The Comm.+ 2. l'he House of Lords. The Itott.e of ('ommon,:.

4. The 0)11,14th:11dt, in general.

FOR tmr.TAININm; rum; CORN-L1.w -

I. Tlio tintl.Ct Of 11.011b.

2. A present majority of the ITou,e of

Commons ; which the of the Constituencies ma■