The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-08-22 00:00:00

TIII LIVERPOOL STANDARI.

THE STATE OF BRADFORD, I CONSEQUENCE
OF THE PRESENT FREE-TRADE SYSTEM.

An able article appears in the Leeds Intelligeneer of
Saturday, which clearly proves the evils of the present
system of freekrade, particularly as affecting the woollen
manufactures of Bradford. The writer reminds his read-
ers of his account of an interview between a deputation
from that town and Sir George Grey, in June, and another
between the same gentlemen and Mr. Miller, at the Poor
law Board, and Mr. Labouchere, of the Board of Trade.
The deputation set forth the existing distress not only
amongst the operatives, but amongst all classes in the
town—the chief seat of the worsted manufactures of this

country—and showed that the distress had been much in-
creased if not occasioned by the adoption of free trade by
this country, while France, Belgium, and Germany gave
a bounty of 10 per cent. to their manufacturers, on all
goods made and exported by them.
It was contended by the deputation, that so long as
this country opened its ports for the admission duty free,
or at nominal duties. of the manufactures of the conti-
nental states, and these states in addition to a heavy im-
port duty on British manufactures, gave an export bounty
on their own, our manufacturing districts would never
prosper to any great degree. •
The deputation was received with the usual " courtesy,"
but this appears to have been nearly all. From a parlia-
mentary return just published, in compliance with a mo-
tion of Lord G. Bantinck, it appears that the represen-
tations of these experienced merchants and manufacturers,
who have had long experience in the home and foreign
trade were not attended with much success. The paper,
or return Cc isists of " Copies of Correspondence between
the Woolen Manufacturers of Bradford, on the subject of
their present distress, and remonstrating against the Free
Importation qf French and other Foreign Merinos into
this country, and the Board of Trade."
The first letter is from Wm. Rand, addressed to Mr.
Labouchere. The following are extracts :

" The facts of the case are aiese :—The French Government
imposes a duty of 22 per cent. on the importation of English
wool. and grants a bounty of 10 per cent. on the value of
merinos, &c., exported." _ _

"Froth the very best means of information in our power, we
are quite satisfied that the value of these goods imported an-
nually is from £200.000 to .e 2-10,000."

He goes on to state that the Board of Tradq had inti-
mated that that which was called a bounty was " a draw-
back," and he contends that this is a mistake, for the
goods in question are made of French wool and not En-
glish as assumed, so that it cannot be defended as a draw-
back. He also says :

"The British manufacturer asks for no protection ; he is
willing to meet the French manufacturer on a fair and equal
footing; but he is not willing to meet the French government;
and I cannot but express the opinion that it is the duty of the
English government to take care that he does not."

To this the Board of Trade reply :
" That my Lords of the Privy Council are of opinion that
you are under some misapprehension as to the operation of
that bounty, which professes, and which really appears to be,
no greater than the amount of import duty chargeable in
France upon the quantity of wool used in the production of the
goods. Under which impression, it would not be consistent
with propriety to advise the forwarding of any representations
on the subject to the French government in compliance with
the wish implied in your letter."
_ _ .

Another long letter appears from Mr. Rand, distinctly
showing by figures and facts that the ground taken by the
Bradford manufactarers is correct. He says, towards the
conclusion—

" If we are to import freely under all circumstances, regard-
less of the effects upon home producers, and making no stipu-
lations on their behalf for the export of their productions on
terms equally advantageous, we shall not be doing them com-
mon justice ; if in this way, and by a limited currency also,
there is a determination to bring down prices to the very low-
est possible point, we shall see how the fixed engagements of
this country will be discharged, the public taxes alone being
60 millions."

Another letter from Mr. W. Walker, one of the depu-
tation, to Mr. Labouchere, states that

" French and other merinos, woollens, woollen yarns, B,rc.,
have for some time past been extensively imported to this
country free of duty; and, aided by a larger bounty from the
French and other. governments, the destruction of a highly
valuable trade having been the result, and the consequence an
unparalleled degree of destitution and pauperism, along with
the throwing out of use much machinery, and the steam power
and buildings provided fur the same, I take the liberty to in-
quire whether it is the intention of her Majesty's government
to take any steps for causing such bounties to cease, or to re-
impose the whole or part of the duty of 15 per cent., which
existed two years ago on all such articles of foreign manufac-
ture ? "

In reply to this, Mr. Labouchere merely refers to his
reply to Mr. Rand. The Intelligencer, in some con-
cluding remarks, says :
"Leaving our readers to draw their own inferences from the
correspondence, we call attention to the significant fact, that
Mr. Rand, who seconded the nomination of Mr. Cobden, the
" great leader of free trade," for the representation of the West
Riding, acknowledges that he is not an advocate of that un-
conditional free trade which seems to meet with the support of
the preSent Whig government. Many of those who hoped to
achieve the victory of the Anti-Corn-Law League are now ready
to avow, in the language of Mr. Rand, I can not consider
that free trade which unrestrictedly admits imports irrespective
of our own productions being exported in like manner. I
believe such a policy (at all events as applicable to articles on
which much labour has been expended, and which we make in
such abundance at home as to be in the habit of exporting),
is pregnant with serious consequences, depressing the home
prodiver most severely and unfarly."

SOUTHERN DIVISION=LIVERPOOL

(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL anti Mr. Justice ERLE
Sheriff—Sir Thos. George HEsierrit, Bart.)

The commission for these assizes waKapened on Wed-
nesday evening, by Mr Justice Cressw& On Thursday,
Mr. Justice Cresswell and Mr. Justice Erie proceeded, at
ten o'clock, to St. George's Church, where prayers were
read by the Rev. P. B. Hesketh. Mr. Justice Cresswell
entered the Crown Court at a quarter-past eleven, o'clock,
and the following gentlemen were sworn on the-

GRAND JURY.
Yairres Heywood, Esq., M.P., Weaste House, foreman
Weld Blundell, Esq., Blundell Hall.
Thomas Ridgway Bridson, Esq., Bolton.
Colin' Campbell, Esq., Liverpool.
Adam Gladstone, Esq., Liverpool.
Lawrence Heyworth, Esq., Liverpool.
Adam Hodgson, Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Berry Horsfull, Esq., Liverpool.
William Ford Hutton, Esq., Hutton-park.
Christopher Morris, Esq., Orrell Mount.
Edmund Molyneirx, Esq., Liverpool.
Robert Neilson, Esq., Halewood.
William Nichol, Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Shaw, Esq., Liverpool.
Spencer James Steers, Esq.., Halewood.
John Steward, Esq., Liverpool.
William Gerard Walmsley, Esq., Platt Bridge.
John Woodcock, Esq., The Elms.

M. Justice CRESSWELL, in addressing the Grand Jury,
directed them as to several cases which would be brought un-
der their notice, and concluded with the following remarks on
the present disturbed state of the country. He said :—A riot,
in law, was a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three
persons or more assembling together of their own authority
with an intent mutually to assist one another against any one
who shall oppose them in the execution of some enterprise of a
private nature, and afterwards actually executing the same in
a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people,
whether the act intended were of itself lawful or unlawful. If
they should find there was an assemblage of people in military
array, with arms and banners, it could hardly be said that a
meeting of that sort aas not calculated to excite terror, and if
they proceeded to any act, that made it a riot. It was not ne-
cessary that any personal violence should be inflicted to make
it a riot. Any meeting assembled under such circumstances,
as. accarding to the opinion of rational and firm men, were
likely to produce danger to the tranquillity and peace of the
neighbourhood, was an unlawful assembly; and, in viewing
this question, the jury should take into consideration the way
in which the meeting was held, the hour at which they met,
and the language used by the persons assembled, and by those
who addressed them. The difference between a riot and an
unlawful assembly was this :—lf the parties assembled in a
tumultuous manner, and actually executed their purpose with
violence, that was a riot ; but if they merely met for a purpose
which, if executed, would make them rioters, and, having
done nothing, they separated without carrying this purpose
into effect, then it was an unlawful assembly. It was possible
that the Grand Jury might have charges of drilling brought
before them. By the 6th of Geo. 111., and Ist Geo. IV., all
meetings or assemblages of persons for the purpose of drilling
themselves or for the purpose of practising military exercise,
without lawful authority, were misdemeanours. Besides these
cases they might possibly have some of seditious speeches.
Persons claimed the privilege of discussing grievances and
talking over public proceedings. This they. had no doubt a
right to do, but they must do it under certain limitations. If
they found a large assembly of persons brought together, not
for the purpose of discussion, but for the purpose of resistance
to the law, and of exciting dissatisfaction and, discontent,
speeches of that sort were seditious, and tended to disturb the
peace of the town. There was one case, not in the calendar, in
which a party was committed for a conspiracy. It was called
a treasonable conspiracy, by which he supposed was meant a
conspiracy for the purpose of inciting others to engage in a
transaction which a short time since would have been called
treason. He directed their attention to a recent Act of Parlia-
ment, in which the law of treason was somewhat modified.
The law now was. " That if any person whatsoever, after the
passing of this act, shall, within the United Kingdom, or with-
out, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or
depose our most gracious Lady the Queen, her heirs or suc-
cessors, from the style, honour, and regal name of the Imperial
Crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's
dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty,
her heirs or successors, within any part of the United Kingdom,
in order, by force or constraint, to compel her or them to
change her or their measures or counsels, or in order to put
any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or over-
awe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or
stir any foreigners or strangers with force to invade the United.
Kingdom or any of her Majesty's dominions or countries un-
der the obeisance of her Majesty, her heirs or successors, and
such compassings, imaginations, devices, or inventions, or any
of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any
writing, or by open and advised speaking, or by any overt act
or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and
being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the
Court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or
her natural life, or for any term not less than seven years, or
to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or
without hard labour, as the Court shall direct." If the jury
should find many persons meeting together from time to time,
addressing each other on the subject of arming, and speaking
with praise of the transactions in Ireland, which were notorious
to every one, and urging the people to provide themselves with
arms, and actually providing arms from time to time. there
would be little doubt that such a conspiracy would be-for an
illegal purpose, because these arms were to be used in opposi-
tion to the military L.rce of the Queen, and in such a case that
would be felony.