The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-04-06 00:00:00

States. (Hear, hear.) The effect of such measures as
these is to give an unfair advantage to the American
merchant and shipowner over the English importer and
shipowner. The American shipowner obtains the profit
of the long voyage, of which the English shipowner is de-
prived ; and the American merchant has two markets for
his produce, whilst the English merchant has only one. I
think also it is unfair and unwise to allow Spanish and
French vessels to bring imports into this country on the
same terms as British ships, whilst reciprocal advantages
are not given to British ships in the ports of these court.
tries or in their colonies. The effect of that is manifest
to you. Whilst the Spanish vessel is now getting four
guineas direct from Liverpool to the Spanish colonies,
the British vessel can scarcely get a guinea • and while
the French vessel can take a cargo of New Orleans cotton
from New Orleans to Liverpool, a British vessel is not
allowed to take a cargo of cotton from New Orleans to
Havre. An instance of that occurred lately at New
Orleans, where a British and French captain both found
themselves with their ships in search of cargoes. The
British captain had a charter offered him to Havre, which
in his ignorance, supposing what was fair for one was fair
for another, he was negotiating for. A. cargo was offered
to the French captain from New Orleans to a British
port. The English captain found he was prohibited from
taking a cargo from New Orleans to Havre, and in the
meantime the cargo from New Orleans to England was
gone. The Yankee captain took the cargo from New
Orleans to Havre, and the British captain was left with-
out a cargo at all. (Hear, hear.) Now, gentlemen, if
we are to have freedom of trade, let us have it not on a
one-sided system like this—let us have legitimate freedom
of trade, and not the bastard that is attempted to be im-
posed on us as real freedom of trade. (Loud cheers.)
I think that reciprocity ought to govern nations as it does

individuals in dealing with each other, and that a system
which gives advantages only to the foreigner and not to
the British shipowner, is not a system which an enlight-
ened policy would lead us to pursue. At the same time
it has been said by my friend (Mr. Mackenzie) no one
wishes to revert to the exclusive system of the old times.
It is one thing to oppose changes, be they good or bad,
and another thing, when these changes have been made,
to attempt to revert to the old system. Although I think
that the great changes that have been made in the navi-
gation laws, and the laws relating to shipping and com-
merce, and the extent to which they have been carried,
have been ill-considered and unwise—(cheers)—and that
they ought in some measure to be modified, it is impossi-
ble, without a parliamentary investigation, to say in which
way the remedy ought to be tried, and to what extent
relief ought to be afforded. That must be matter for
parliamentary investigation s but 1 think you will agree
with me that something is due to the British shipowners,
end that they are grossly injured by the present state of
things. (Hear, hear, and cheers.). Now, gentlemen,
with respect to the much-vexed question of the corn
law s you will all recollect that in the year 1841 we had
Lord John Russell advocating a duty on corn of Bs. per
quarter. In 1845 that nobleman advocated a fixed duty
of 6s: per quarter, and I must confess that I for one think
it would have been wise if the recommendation of that
nobleman had been adhered to by the legislature. I think
it is a great mistake to suppose that the difference be-
tween 69. and Is. would have fallen materially on the
consumers of this country. (Cheers.) Looking at the
effect of the increased reduction of duties on other articles,
I do not find that the whole of the effect, or anything like
the whole of the effect, falls upon the consumer. My
belief is, that the greater part of that increased duty would
have been paid, in the general course of years, by the
foreign producer. (Hear, hear.) But, gentlemen, it
seemed good to the legislature, upon the recommendation
of Sir Robert Peel, in 1846, to reduce the duty to Is. per
quarter ; and that, gentlemen, having been done, I shall
be opposed to any reimposition of any increased duty,
except it were called for by the general voice of the
country—(cheers)—except, gentlemen, it meet with your
sanction, I am for no increase of the present duty upon
corn. I think that to lay an increased duty upon corn,
except with the almost unanimous voice of the country,
would be unwise, and would be altogether improper. (A
voice, " Three cheers.") My Lord John Russell thought
proper, in the speech which he advised her Majesty to
make in the beginning of last session of Parliament, to
advert to the distress of agriculture—(hear, hear)—and
having so advised her Majesty to allude to that distress
in her speech in Parliament, it was expected by the
country, and I think naturally expected—(hear, hear, and
cheers)—that some measure would have been brought
before Parliament by Lord John Russell to relieve that
distress ; but no measure whatever was brought forward
up to the time when he gave up the Government, by Lord
John Russell, to alleviate that distress which he thought
proper to advise her Majesty to allude to in her speech in
Parliament. If, gentlemen, you should return me as one
of your representatives in Parliament, I should feel it my
duty to give my best consideration to any measures which
her Majesty's Government thought proper to bring for-
ward for the relief of that distress. (Applause.) It has
been said, gentlemen, that'the country has been eminently
prosperous, under what r must say is miscalled freedom of
trade, and I will admit that there has been great apparent
prosperity—great prosperity, if you will—in the manu-
facturing districts, and amongst the large population de-
pending upon them, and at this prosperity I greatly re-
joice;. but great as the manufacturing interest of this.
country is, it is not the only interest in this country—
(hear, hear,)—and I would ask whether the agricultural
interest has been prosperous—whether the shipping inte-
rest has been prosperous—whether the colonial interest
has been prosperous ? (Hear, hear.) I look around me
and see gentlemen connected with the colonial interest,
and I think it will be admitted by all, that every gentle--
man connected with the colonial interest has suffered most
severely, and many families- have been absolutely ruined,
without any fault of their own, by precipitate or careless
legislation.. Hear, hear.) Has the importer, the Liver-
pool merchant, has he been prosperous under this system ?
I believe in no period has Liverpool ever lost so much
money as within the last 15 months. I believe more
money has gone out of Liverpool during those 15 months
than has ever been known since Liverpool was a port. But,
great and important as are the questions regarding the
commerce and navigation of the country—great as is the
question of the corn law—L would mention that there are
still higher and more important considerations to be de-
cided by the issue of the pending election. This has al-
ready been alluded to by my friend Mr. Mackenzie ; but
when my Lord John Russell ceased to be a member of the
Government, instead of giving that fair and reasonable al-
liance to Lord Derby which he ought to have done, his
first step was to call Sir James Graham, Mr. Cobden, and
Mr. Bright to his councils, for the purpose of organizing
an opposition, and, since he could not carry on the Go-
vernment himself, to render all Government impossible in
this country. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen, I look at the
coalition between Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham,
and Mr. Cobden—when II review the opinions of Sir
James Graham in Parliament, and when I look at the
tendency of all Mr. Cobden's acts, to pull down and de-
stroy all those institutions in the country which we most
venerate,—l say I look at the coalition with those gentle-
men with the greatest regret, and I look to the possibility
of those gentlemen forming part of the Government of
this country as fraught with the greatest peril to every in-
stitution of the country. (Hear, hear.) But, gentlemen,
I say what you will be called upon to decide is, whether
you will send members to Parliament to support such a
Government, or whether you will send members to Par-
liament to support Lord Derby—(cheers)—the Protestant
Consitution, and the civil and religious liberties of this
country. Gentlemen, if you should do me the honour to
send me as one of your representatives to Parliament—
(shouts of "we will")-1 can only hope to perform the
dotes of that office with any degree of satisfaction to my-
self or of usefulness to you in dependence upon that Su-
preme Being who rules over all of us—(applause) ;-and,
gentlemen, I pray that the same Being may direct our
minds to pass those laws that will be most useful—disre-
garding temporary matters—to the permanent interest of
this great port and of the magnificent empire of which it
forms apart. (Cheers.) So guided, gentlemen, there is
no fear for the result, that in the day of trial England will
find that the electors of Liverpool will do their duty.
(Mr. Turner then sat down amidst loud and long con-
tinued cheering.)

Mr. JOHN BUAMLEY.MOORE next presented himself,
and was received with several hearty rounds of cheering.
He said he had felt it to be a duty which he owed to him-
self and to the town to come before them, and state why,
having on the last election taken a prominent part in
procuring the return of Mr. Cardwell, he now abandoned
him. In doing this, he would address himself to three
propositions. First, that gentleman came forward as a
supporter of our Protestant establishments; the next was
upon his general views of commerce ; the third was the
repeal of the Navigation Laws. After reading a passage
from the address of Mr. Cardwell, in which he expressed
his sincere attachment to our Protestant Church Estab-
lishment as " the great bulwark, not only of civil and
religious liberty, but of all the Protestant institutions of
the country," the speaker asked what had been the con-
duct of Mr. Cardwell last session, when a bill was brought
into parliament to put down the insulting aggression of
the Pope upon the prerogative of the Queen? On its
being first introduced, he voted in its favour. When it
came to the second reading, he said that it was not
stringent enough, and that he should vote against it ; and
when it came before the house with an amendment moved
by Mr. Walpole, making it more stringent, he did not
vote at all. He struck his colours, and ran away.
(Hisses.) With respect to the general commerce of the
country, his friend Mr. Turner's remarks would save him
much trouble ; but he could not resist the opportunity
afforded him of correcting a recent statement made by
Mr. Cardwell. On the 19th of March, that gentleman
made a speech in parliament with a view of proving the
great prosperity of the country. In one part of that
speech, he endeavoured to show, by figures, that under
our old commerciaal system the consumption of cotton in
America had risen from 300,000 to 550,000 bales in ten
years preceding 1845, when the duty on cotton was
removed ; and that since that year, and the revision of
our tariff in 1846, the decline in American consumption
of cotton, and the substitution for it of British manufac-
tures, had certainly increased. This declining consump-
tion of cotton since 1845, he (Mr. Bramley-Moore) most
distinctly denied. In the year 1845, the American mann-
fact urers consumed 389 ,000 bales ; in 1846. 422,000; in 1847,
427,000; in 1818, 53100; in 1849,518.000 ; in 1850,487,000;
in 1851, 404,000. The decrease in 1851 was accounted for
by that year being one of great speculation and high
prices, when the Americans were able to make more
profit by sending their cotton to Europe than in manu-
facturing it, as all their manufactures consist of heavy
goods. To show that there had been no real decrease, he
referred to a circular received by the last packet, two days
ago, which showed that for six months ending the Ist of
March last, America consumed 342,000 bales of cotton ;
and for the corresponding period of the year prate
only 165,000 bales ; making the enormous increas

177,000 bat

n manufactures, t
And he prod

but the reverse

tion of import

produc