The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-12-24 00:00:00

infirmity we have often noticed as characterising the
proceedings of the oratorical amongst our neigh-
bours of Manchester. Wind them up for any pub-
lic occasion; and, like ill-regulated specimens of
clock-work, they run themselves down, after having
proved, not only what they set about proving, but
just as much beyond the question, or to the con-
trary of their chosen position, as the durance of their
wind or the length of their chain will permit.
A striking instance of this infirmity is before us,
in the proceedings of a " borough meeting," held in
Manchester on Tuesday last, for the purpose of pro-
moting the repeal of the tax on cotton wool. \‘' e
have again and again expressed our own sense of
the impolicy of that tax. We have urged it at a
time when the manufacturers and spinners of Man-
chester were not only indifferent with respect to the
advantages which its repeal was to confer upon
themselves and the public, but when they obstinately
set their faces against any measures directly calcu-
lated to alleviate the distress and depression, under
which the commerce of the country laboured ; and
when, in the hope of coercing the legislature to grant
their favourite specific—a repeal of the Corn-laws—
they welcomed, with absolute rapture, every fresh
development of that distress. We raised our voice
at a time when the town of Manchester was for 24
hours in the possession of an excited mob, and
when, nevertheless, not a merchant nor a manufac-
turer in Manchester even mooted this very ques-
tion, which we now find is one of the most vital
questions for the legislature to deal with in their be-
half. We claim, therefore, for ourselves the merit
of consistency and forethought, as well as of a sin-
cere desire to procure the boon, now agitated for, of
a repeal of the cotton duty; and we cannot, there-
fore, be accused of a desire to impede the success of
such a movement when we state our thorough con-
viction that nothing is more calculated to produce
such a result, and to injure in the public estimation
the standing of the cotton manufacturers of Great
Britain in the eyes of Parliament and of the country,
than spouting such as that which formed the staple
of the proceedings of the meeting under notice.
Undoubtedly a strong case would have been made
out by the speakers in favour of the repeal of the
tax in question, had the speakers chosen to limit
themselves to that object. Mr. R. H. Greg sheaved
that it presented a serious hindrance to the attempts
of the British manufacturer to compete with the fo-
reigner, in his own or in neutral markets. The
American manufacturer, he chewed, possessed, by
the saving enjoyed by him in freight, insurance, and
duty, an advantage over the British manufacturer in
the production of coarse fabrics, of " from 25 to 30
per cent ;" and has already dispossessed us of the
greater portion of our trade in these articles with
the Indian, the South American, the Chinese, and
even the Canadian markets. Unfortunately the
statement is true in the main, although a little ex-
aggerated. American domestics and heavy cottons
do occupy largely the space in foreign markets once
filled up by British goods, but we cannot admit that
such circumstance is altogether attributable to their
superior cheapness, and are rather more inclined to
impute it to the superior reputation of the American
manufacturer for producing an honest article. The
cost of the raw material is certainly less in the Uni-
ted States than in this country; but when we bear in
mind the greater cheapness of production in Great
Britain, the alleged advantage of the American ma-
nufacturer appears to us a little over-estimated at
"25t0 30 per cent." Nor is it easy to reconcile
this and the rest of Mr. Greg's statements and
authorities with the following extract from a letter
produced by him, dated "New England, 15th Nov.
1844.

" Upon this basis, it is clear that we can undersell you
in yarn. You will ask, if such is the case, why have we
not gone into that branch ? We answer, first, that while
cloth pvys 15. 20, and 25 per cent., it has not been
thought expedient to make yarn."
Manufacturers who realise extravagant profits
like the above ought not to be such very dangerous
competitors with our own. The attempt made here
to prove too much rather inclines us to doubt the
correctness of the remaining positions of the
speaker.

- Admitting, however, the views of Mr. Greg and
others to be correct, what is the conclusion to which
they bring us ? Why that no mere repeal of the
cotton duties c m restore to us this particular branch
of manufactures, of whose loss we complain. Take
away the impost of ten per cent., which the cotton
duty forms, the American manufacturer will still,
according to Mr. Greg's own shewing, have an ad-
vantage over us, in the manufacture of heavy fabrics,
of 15 to 20 per cent., a circumstance which might
induce a statesman to go the length of refusing al-
together the boon required, when the beneficial
result must be so inconsiderable compared with the
sacrifice of revenue to. be made, and when there are
so many claimants of similar favours, each of whom
can make out quite as good a case.

Another speaker, however, Mr. Robert Gardner,
throws far more light than Mr. Greg has done upon
the nature and motives of the present movement for
a repeal of this tax, so far as the manufacturing
interest is concerned. The demand for a repeal of
the cotton duties is only a portion of an attempt to
get rid of every tax which, however remotely, stands
between that interest and its ambition to absorb the
trade of the whole world. Repeal this duty, then,
and what next ? It will be, by the admission of
these gentlemen themselves, insufficient to enable
them to undersell the American manufacturers ; and
the further steps, to insure such a consummation,
cannot be better described than in the words of Mr.
Gardner himself. "If," said the speaker, "English
manufacturers were not able to compete with their
rivals in foreign markets, they put their wits to a
stretch to ascertain how they could reduce the cost
of production,"—(mark the admission reader and
its bearing upon the League's outcry for a repeal of
the Corn-laws !)—" and as the spinner and the
weaver were perhaps the least capable of protecting
themselves, the reduction would probably first come
upon them."—(Candid, indeed, most philanthropic
free-trader !) "If the reduction in wages did not
enable the manufacturers to meet their competitors
in foreign markets, the neat reduction must come
upon manufacturers' profits,"—(aye, there's the sore
point !) " and then the next upon the wear and tear
and the interest of machinery. ' But to avoid the
dire necessity of a reduction in " manufacturers'
profits" or " interest of machinery;" we must be
asked to repeal the Corn-laws, take the duty off tea,
coffee, sugar, every thing which can be imported in
exchange for cotton goods, and the reduced cost of
which will aid in the attainment of that great object
for which Mr. Gardner tells us that manufacturers
" put their wits to stretch," viz., '6 cheapness of
production!"

We are not at all inclined to under-estimate the
value to this country of the cotton manufacture.
We have already expressed ourselves in favour of a
repeal of the duty on the raw material. But we
cannot, whilst contending for this concession, admit
the validity of the claim put forward by the manu-
facturer, that whenever, and by whatever circum-
stances, he ceases to be able to meet competition in
foreign markets, he is entitled to the aid of the
legislature, and the whole system of our revenue
laws is to be broken in upon for his benefit. What
is such a demand but a demand for protection—in
a modified shape, it. is true, but still, substantially,
protection ? And under what circumstances is this
demand now made ? It is admitted, on all hands,
that the cotton trade was never more prosperous
than at the present moment—that never was money
being more rapidly amassed by the manufacturers
than it has been during the past twelve months. A
new world has just been opened to their enterprise;
and, to enable them to supply it, new mills and new
machinery are springing up in every manufacturing
town, village, and hamlet. And yet, because these
men, who are absolutely gorging themselves with
wealth, cannot grasp the wealth of the whole earth
at once—because other nations are able to enjoy a
pitiful fraction of its commerce—we are to pander
to their avarice, although it may lead us to peril the
national honour itself. We cannot recognise the
propriety of such a claim. We cannot believe that
it is consistent with the justice of the Almighty
Disposer of all things, that this nation should be
the workshop of the whole world, and monopolise
its supply with manufactured fabrics, any more
than it is in accordance with that benign wisdom
which has given to every land the climate and fer-
tility, the soil and the minerals, the herbs and fruits,
most suited for the necessities of its inhabitants,
that one portion of the earth should he a productive
garden and the remainder left a wilderness. This
may be unfashionable and unphilosophical doctrine,
but it is not the less likely to be true on that ac-
count.

Pudsey Dawson, Esq. of Hornby Castle, is to be the
high sheriff for this county for the year ensuing.

The Rev. Wray R. Hunt, A. 8., has been licensed by
the Bishop of Chester to the ministry of St. Saviour's in
this town with the sanction of the rectors, on the unani-
mous call of the congregation.