The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-30 00:00:00

DUTY ON RAW COTTON.

On Tuesday last, at the instance of Mr. Dennistoun,
M.P., a deputation from the council of the borough of
Manchester—including the mayor, several aldermen, and
the town-clerk—and another from the associated spinners
of Lancashire, another from Scotland, &c., accompanied
by Mr. Mark Phillips; M.P., Lord Francis Everton,
M.P., Mr Milner Gibson, M.P., Mr. J. Wilson Patten,
M.P., Mr. Joseph Brotherton, M.P., Mr. Thos. Houlds-
worth, M.P., Mr. Richard Cobden, M.P., Mr. Richard
Walker, M.P., Itr. John Ireland Blackburne, M.P., and
others, had a long interview with Sir R. Peel, to urge on
the government the repeal of the duty on cotton.
Mr. Dennistoun, M.P. for Glasgow, drew the attention
of the premier to an elaborate statement' of the bearings
of the cotton duty, which had been drawn up and circula-
ted by his constituents, sheaving, amongst other things,
that our export trade in cotton goods was 86 per cent. of
the whole manufacture.
Mr. Thomas Ashton stated that the tax bore very hea-
vily upon the trade; that it could not be otherwise when
a concern like his own paid £4,000 a year upon the cotton
he consumed ; and, as a large portion of cotton was
again exported, it was felt to he a serious impediment to
cur successful competition with foreigners, especially the
Americans, who were meeting us now almost everywhere.
Mr. H. Ashworth said the tax was a du'y upon indus-
try, and bore heavily upon the operative class in the cot-
ton trade, who worked five days every week for the foreign
market, and in competition with the labourers of other
countries who paid no such tax ; therefore, by the repeal
of this tax, some £600,000 or £700,000 a year would at
once be. added to the fund from which our profits and
wages were derived. With regard to the manner in which
so large a sum would ultimately be divided, be could ap-
peal to all who had studied such subjects, whether every
increase of the funds for the payment of profits and wages
did not eventually, either directly or indirectly, find its
way to the working class ; and it mattered not whether
this was done by extending employments or increasing the
wages of those already en.ployeJ, the working class would
ever get the full benefit of it. The remission of the tax
would afford a wide and.saltitary field for employment.
Mr. Peter Dixon. of Carlisle, corroborated these views,
and said, that if the cotton duty were remitted, he intend-
ed at once to raise the wages of al his hand-loom weavers.
Mr. M. Phillips, M.P. adverted to the fact, that this
tax affected the working class the most seriously, not only
because the tax affected his earnings, but because his
clothing, being chiefly cotton, paid heavily to the tax,
whilst the lady who wore a light drtss, paid very little.
Sir R. Peel said, he did nor, know in what way others
might be ready to view this question ; possibly some in-
quire whether the repeal of this duty would aid, rather
than otherwise, the advantages of America, and confer
only a questionable benefit upon this country. It was
well known that we were dependent on the States for a
large portion of the supplies of our cotton, and it became
a consideration in what way the price there would be
affected by the repeal of the duty here.
Mr. Phillips and Mr. Ewart entered into a conversation
with the premier, on the advantages to this country of re-
peal of the duty, in making Liverpool a mart for the cot-
ton of Europe, and thus aiding our shipping and mercan-
tile interest.
Sir-R. Peel remarked, that they would not expect from
him any definite answer on the subject; that a revenue
must be provided, and the income tax was a tax whiclithe
country would have to consider, &c., concluding with a
promise to submit the subject to the consideration of his
colleagues.
Mr. H. Ashworth said the question was not the price
the American planter got for his cotton, for he could
charge all alike, not excepting his own home manufac-
tures.

The deputation complained, that after having manufac-
tured the cotton, they had charges to pay which no other
manufacturers did pay, namely, 5-16ths of a penny perlb.
of cotton duty, and 2-16ths of a penny more for the duty
upon the waste of cotton in process of manufacture, and
these two sums of 7-16ths formed a large item in the cost
of production, and was a great burthen and disadvantage
to a body of men whose industry was restricted by time
bills, and who had recently been disposyssed by parlia-
ment of the advantages which they possessed in superior-
ity of machinery—an advantage which they had acquired
by long experience and persevering industry.—The depu-
tations then retired. •
We may add, that they_ were received, and treated
throughout the interview, with the greatest courtesy and
kindness of manner by the premier.
The above is condensed from the columns of the Man-
chester Guardian, which paper adds, that the memorial
to Sir U. Peel on the subject, which was unanimously
agreed to at a meeting of merchants, spinners, and manu-
facturers, on the same day that the interview took place,
was transmitted that evening to Sir U. Peel, and would
tend to confirm the statements and opinions expressed by
the members of the deputations.

CORRESPONDENCE.

MR. COLVILLE AND THE OWNERS OF COT-
TAGE PROPERTY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
Sir,—Conceiving that a few remarks by way of animad-
version upon the principle and results of the measure
proposed by the member for South Derbyshire would not
be opposed to the design of your esteemed publication,
and also that
some, I
lowing few
winlaerioelsmu
wouldtmlmeasure
indeed,
ai
si yourgsbuler requestttel
inclose
jarumrs
tato: amount
ngot
d:on, f
thesagacityersunconstitutional.oofw ne ev
er
str eyogfuci re er dt
descrip-
tion )nuefo t
next.ab a unattendedia
vour sinee with f
ortbe benefitor.
discovera
at
m tenements"easmeasure
r e tt Trifling,
of house property would beunconstitutional, inasmuch
as the poor rate is not a tax upon property but a rate upon
the person according to his ability to pay ; but a proposal
to rate only one class of owners, to the exemption of all
others, is not only unconstitutional but unjust, because
partial. Such a measure would establish an invidious
distinction between classes, and thereby furnish legitimate
grounds of complaint to many. Singular and far-fetched,
indeed, must be the argument by which a measure of this
character could be sustained: it is a crotchet which ho-
nest, plain-dealing men cannot comprehend. They natu-
rally inquire why it is that the established laws of assess-
ments should be in part subverted, or, if an alteration be
necessary, why it is that so large a portion of houseowners
should be exempted from the impost. It has, however,
been alleged that cottage landlords obtain a greater rate
of interest upon their capital than do the owners of larger
property; but whi acquainted with cottage property can
give credence to that assertion ? Does the capitalist be-
lieve it? If cottage property be so pre-eminently lucrative
"Why is it, 1 would ask, that he cannot be induced to em-
bark in the profitable trade ? If the assertion be true,
upon what principle can the sanity of the monied man be
ma;ntained in this money-making age—an age in Which
everything that is respectable and virtuous is associated
with cash?—but, granting the truth of the allegation, is
there between it and the rating of the cottage-owner only
the least sequence? Suppose it were not only alleged but
proved that the business of a pawnbroker was more pro-
fitable than many others I could name, would any one out
of bedlam suppose for a moment that the pawnbroker
should, therefore, bear a greater burden of taxation—or,
in other words, that he should be imposed upon merely
because he can afford ? Would such an apology have jus-
tified Mr. Richard Turpin—" True it is" (he might have
said) " I have plundered many, but only those who could
afford it." It is also stated that the rating of the owners,
instead of the occupiers, would reduce the rates generally;
but the reasonable deduction from this assertion, even
assuming that it is true, is, rate all owners indiscriminately!
But, peradventure it will be said that the rates are col-
lected from the occupiers of large property, while they
cannot b e extracted from the tenants of cottages : this
reminds me of Paul and Onesiinus, if the allusion be not
considered profane. So, then, the owner of cottage pro-
perty is to be rated because the tenant capnot pay. The
landlord is to be converted into an honorary tax collector,
and to be responsible, not for the payment by the tenant,
but for their due payment by himself. Now, if Mr. Col-
ville be a considerate man, I shall certainly expect to bear
of him through the papers ere long, astonishing the Com-
mons' House with a legislative motion to the following
effect :—Mr, Speaker, Sir ! It is notorious that the income
tax is at and after the rate of sevenpence in the pound ;
't is also known to this honourable house that this tax
does not affect incomes that are under £150; the conse-
quence to the public is, that the rate is sevenpence; Sir,
I have discovered that if all incomes, from the highest
down to that of the metropolitan postboy, were levied
upon, the tax would thereby be materially reduced. It
may, however, be objected that a tax upon the small in-
comes would be difficult to collect; but, Sir, that objec-
tion could easily be obviated. I would propose that the
employers be rated instead of the owners." This would
certainly be consistent, however ridiculous it might ap-
pear : it would be the legitimate application of the prin-
ciple involved in the "certain clauses," for the introduc-
tion of which into the government poor law bill Mr.
Colville has already given notice. Political depravity,
like the first departure from moral rectitude, is a sloping
declivity along which men glide with ease, but stop or
return with difficulty. The first deviation from principle
is frequently the prelude to a long and uninterrupted ca-
reer of delinquencies : it is upon these grounds chiefly that
Mr. Colville's measure should be opposed by all. Legis-
lators would thereby learns salutary lesson upon political
consistency, alas 1 much disregarded these times.
Having, I trust laid bare the principle of Mr. Colville's
proposed measure, I shall in my next proceed to an en-
quiry into its efects upon cottage owners and cottage
builders, and upon building societies.
ILLANDATUS.
Liverpool, 27th April, 1844.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STAN-
DARD, AND THE ORANGEMEN
OF LIVERPOOL.

SlR,—Will you have the goodness to insert, in your
widely-circulated journal of Tuesday next, a copy of the
original address from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
Common Council of the city of London, to the Prince of
Orange, in November, 1688, which was presented by a
deputation of four aldermen and eight commoners, after
a meeting of the Lords spiritual and temporal at Guild-
hall, who signed a declaration to assist his Highness to
obtain a free parliament to disarm papists, to secure all
jesuits and Romish priests, and to be ready to do all that
should be required of them on that occasion? Here is
the beginning of Orangeism, and an example for our
Protestant Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of
Liverpool ; and may the same sacred fire be kindled in
all their Protestant hearts, to maintain with unflinching
integrity the religion, laws, and liberties of Protestant
Britain!