The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-13 00:00:00

of land on the Harrington estate, which, added to
the daerence bek ween t 77,000 and £64,000, will give
Ili a clear surplus still of £18,000; a sum more
than adequate to meet the increased expense of
management, which Mr. Evans so exaggerates,
whilst the dock trustees will have at the north,
when the works there are finished, from 300,000 to
400,000 square yards of valuable land to dispose of.
. Grant, then, that for the six, or more, years which must
elapse before our new docks are finished, the trade
of Liverpool should stand still—a most improbable
supposition—and we have still a sufficient income
to meet all the demands upon us, without the bugbear
of increased dock rates, with which Alderman Evans
would fright the bond-holders of our dock estate,
and arrest the progress of improvement.

INCREASE OF THE COTTON TRADE OF

GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Charles Hindley, M.P. for Ashtcn-under-Lyne,
although a member of the league, has ever been acknow-
ledged as a sincere friend of the working classes; and
we have, therefore, pleasure in calling attention to some
statements made by him during the debate on the motion
for the introduction of a new factory bill. We are con-
tinually being told by the whig•radical party that any
legislative interference between the labourer and his em-
ployer would be injurious to commerce. Mr. Hindley,
however, has reminded us that whereas, in 1833, previous
to the factory bill of Lord Althorp (which, to some ex-
tent, protected the labourer), the annual exportation of
cotton was only 66,000,000 lbs.; it is at present
158,000,000 lbs.,—being a difference of 130 per cent. in
favour of a lenient system of treatment for the working
classes! In 1833, the annual consumption of cotton in
this country was 169,000,000 lbs., or greater by 66 per
cent. ! We tecommend these facts to the league and their
bantling, the Anti-monopoly Association of Liverpool.
Again, we are told by these bodies that there has been,
up to this time, no material alleviation of the condition
of our manufacturing interest. What says Mr. Hindley,
howeverP Why—that " NEW MIILLS WERE ON THE
POINT Or TIEING BUILT IN LANCASHIRE!" And yet,
in the face of this fact, with a deficient cotton crop, and
an assurance of an increase of trade sufficient to justify
the erection of more factories, we were told the other
day, by a fustian manufacturer,—a director of the
Bank of Manchester,—that the brokers of Liverpool,
in advancing the price of the raw material (cotton),
were "picking the pockets of the manufacturers!"
Surely the gentleman who uttered this piece of insolence
can never have read the letters of the Rev. Sydney
Smith; for, certainly, if an American—a member of the
repudiating state—ought, before entering honest society
in Great Britain, to offer his purse to one creditor of the
model republic, his coat to another, and his hat to a
third, a director of the Bank of Manchester ought to
make some restitution to the shareholders of that mis-
managed concern, before he ♦entures to twit others with
dishonesty r
We could say more on this subject; but our Man-
chester liberals, without having the decency of forbearing
to slander their neighbours, have become too fond of
directing the penalties of the law of libel against those
who offend their high-mightinesses, to render it safe on
the part of a journalist to whisper an unwelcome truth
in their ears.