The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-07-10 00:00:00

his own clothes, but he takes them from the tailor. Let
us take two individuals living in the same town. Take a
tailor and a shoemaker. Supposing the shoemaker deter-
mines to levy from the tailor a certain amount of goods
which is represented by 10s. What are the 103. ? They
merely represent hours of labour. Instead of 103. call
them hours of labour. The labour of an hour is worth
Is. The tailor can make goods which are worth 10s. ;
the shoemakee cah make certain goods which are worth
10s. But each of them could buy the same goods in a
neighbouring town for 7s. You say they live in the same
town and they are to deal together. If the shoemaker
pays 10s. for that which he might obtain for 75., and if
the tailor pays 10s. for that which he might obtain for 75.,
is there not positively a loss of 6s. by that transaction ?
(Cheers.) If the shillings represented hours, is there not
a loss of six hours' labour? (Cheers.' Would it not be
manifestly for the interest of the parties to appropriate
seven hours of labour to buy from the stranger that for
which they are giving 10s., or 10 hours' labour; and
would they not do it ?"

The tailor does not make his own shoes, of
course; but what should we think of him if he
bought his own coat, paid for it with his goose
and sleeve hoard, and then proceeded to sell his
bedstead to r.ret them back again ? We should
think the tailor a fool ; and yet that is precisely
what we are doing with our free trade and Sir
Robert's restricted currency. Again, take the case
of the two parties. The tailor makes a waistcoat
for ten shillings, and the shoemaker a pair of boots
for ten shillings, and they exchange. It makes no
matter here whether the articles are worth ten
shillings each, or ten pounds each. You exchange
a given quantity of labour, which we are glad to
see Sir Robert adept as the true standard of value.
But suppose the tailor buys his boots at the next
town for seven shillings, how is the shoemaker to
pay the tailor for his waistcoat? Suppose each
goes to the shop which can undersell his neigh-
bour, has not each taken seven shillings out of his
stock of money ? Sir Robert says, however,
" Would it not be manifestly for the interest of the
parties to appropriate seven hours of labour to buy
from the stranger that for which they are giving
ten shillings or ten hours labour; and would they
not do it ?" What they could labour at it puzzles
us to imagine, when each was being undersold in
the cheap town. Each would first have to find
somebody to buy his overdear article. Neither at
present can make a ten shilling article in less than
ten hours; and Sir Robert has not given us the
process by which either can make the same article
in seven hours. Apply the same test to the cur-
rency part of the question. Both these tradesmen
take their money to the next town. How are they
to get it back again, if the next town will not buy
their commodities ? Obviously they must come
down to the next town's price. They must take
less for their labour, or part with their capital. Sir
Robert says:—
" But it is said that under a system which is not pro-
tective all the currency of the country would be taken
away. Don't you believe that the town will retain all the
currency which answers to its purpose, that no inconve-
nient abstraction of currency is necessary, but that the
interest of each party will be promoted by purchasing in
the cheapest markt (Wear, hear) the articles for which
they have a demand ?"

How such a town is to retain its currency under
such circumstances it is rather difficult to conceive.
Apply the test, however, to the case of the agri-
culturist. He cannot grow so cheaply as the com-
munity can buy elsewhere. Obviously he cannot
go himself tothe cheap market, for he has no other
occupation to which he can divert his labour, to
provid himself with the money required. He is
completely in a fix, from which even Sir Robert
will find difficulty in telling him how to extricate
himself.

One passage of this laboured effort shows an
extraordinary confusion of mind on a subject, upon
which we should have expected from him clearly
stated views.

" I say that the wider you extend your principle of
protection, the greater injury you will inflict on the na-
tional wealth and on the interests of the people. (Cheers.)
Surely the capital of the country is a fund from which
the industry of the country must be maintained. Surely
the industry of the country must be promoted in propor-
tion to the capital which can be employed in its manufac=
tures. Surely the augmentation of capital, as our popu-
lation increases, must depend on the saving of annual
revenue. (Cheers.) If you choose to give for certain
articles produced at home more than you can purchase
that article for if it is to be brought from abroad, is it not
a diminution of your annual revenue? (Cheers.)"
What is meant by maintaining the industry of a
country upon its capital, or by the augmentation
of capital by the saving of annual " revenue," is
not very clear. We presume, however, that the
industry is to be employed by the devotion of
capital to the spread of manufactures; and, if so,
why not to the promotion of its native agriculture,
its shipping, colonial and other interests ? Have
we added to the national capital by the sacrifice of
our sugar colonies, or the blows which we have
dealt upon every branch of industry ? What is
meant by the expression "annual revenue" we are
at a loss to know. If, however, it mean the yearly
addition to the national stock, we deny Sir Robert's
assumption entirely. Particular classes may com-
plain of injury from being compelled to employ
British labour, and to consume British products,
instead of being allowed to resort to the cheap
markets of the foreigner; but it is obvious that the
more we grow and produce at home, and the more
we sell to, and the less we buy from, the foreigner,
the snore rapid will be the growth of the national
wealth.

OUR attention has been drawn to a paragraph in
last Saturday's Chronicle, reflecting injuriously
upon a most respected townsman, Mr. R. W.
Preston, in his capacity as Chairman of the Floral
Committee for the coming fete in the Prince's
Park. The writer of the article in question in-
dulges in the grossest misrepresentation, as can be
proved by every member of the committee. Mr.
Preston is one of the most efficient men who could
possibly have been chosen for chairman, and to no
member of the committee is greater credit due for in-
defatigable exertion and a devotion of his valuable
time to the furtherance of the charitable objects of
the fete. We are certain that our contemporary
will be the first to regret having given insertion to
the paragraph when we tell him that it has been
most hurtful to Mr. Preston's feelings, and has
nearly caused to the charity the loss of his very
valuable services.
The kind of source from which our contemporary
has derived his information may be inferred from
the following lines :
" It is proposed that no prizes be given to the gardeners
by whose extra exertions this part of the affair has to be
got up."
We should, on such an occasion as the present,
have had no objection to such a course being
adopted ; and greatly suspect that the objection
has not come from the gardeners themselves, than
whom a more respectable and intelligent body of
men does not exist, but rather from some of that
class of gentlemen who grow fruit and flowers
more for St. John's Market that for their own
tables, and ask the public to contribute, by giving
prizes, to the remuneration of their gardeners, for
these extra exertions by which they themselves
profit. It is not the fact, however, that "no
prizes are to be given," as the following decision
of the committee sufficiently proves :
" The Floral Committee have determined that three
tents shall be provided for the floral exhibition; the first
and largest for the general exhibition, the second for the
sale of plants, bouquets, &c„ and the third for the show
of plants for competition. The plants are to be exhibited
in three classes :—namely, first class, orchideze ; second,
stove atid greenhouse; third, miscellaneous. The follow-
ing are the other resolutions of the committee :
"That a prize of £4 be given for the best collection of
six plants in class one ; and a prize of £2 for the best
collection of four plants in the same class. That a prize
of £4 be given for the best collection of ten plants in class
two ; and of £2 for the best collection of six plants in
the same class. That a prize of £4 be given for the best
collection of eighteen plants in class three ; and of £2 for
the best collection of ten plants in the same class.' "
It is really a pity that parties so ill acquainted,
as our contemporary's informant appears to have
been, of the proceedings of the Floral Committee,
should be allowed to take an occasion like this, in
which men of all parties are working harmoniously
together for a most worthy object, to introduce dis-
cord and indulge in ill-feeling; and, we repeat, we
are satisfied that our contemporary has been mis-
led on this subject.

We remember, a few years ago, a very striking
illustration of the danger to a nation, from its
being dependant upon an extrinsic source for fond,
being given from Holy Writ, in one of those splen-
did speeches delivered by the Rev. Dr. M`Neile
during the progress of the Anti-Corn Law agita-
tion. The argument was taken from the following
verse, the 20th of the 12th chapter of the Acts of
the Apostles. "And Herod was mightily di§pleased
with them of Tyre and Sidon : but they came with
one accord to him, and having made Blastus the
king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace, be-
cause their country was nourished by the king's
country."
These great marts of commerce, whose fleets and