The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-29 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Ma. EDITOR,—By giving the inclosed an insertion in your
Journal, you will oblige,

EVERTONIENSIS.

PARLIAMENTARY T.4LE.

Quid libet audendi semper fait aqua potestas
Sed non ut placidis coeant immitia ; non ut
Serpentes avibus geminentur, tigribus agni. •
HORACE DE ARTE POETICA

With tongue and tender care the matron Bear,
•Forms for th' admiring ‘Mrld her bantling dear;
But our men-matrons of the modem school,
Spurn this direct, and work the inverse rule I
In Stephen's chambers they too me the tongue,
Not to shape wrong to right, but right to wrong;
Lick fair:to foul, the good they turn to evil,
Give them an Angel babe : they'll make a D--11
• Vide Natural History of this animal.

THE PETITION OF SHIPOWNERS TRADING FROM

LIVERPOOL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sin,—This petition was presented to the house of Commons,
by Mr. Ewart, on Wednesday last, and has been since copied
into the public papers. It prays for relief from assumed causes
of depression and distress to our shipping, and is certainly, al-
together, an extraordinary production, drawn in a peculiar
manner, and constructed of remarkable materials.

The practical reader of this petition will soon be satisfied that
there is mere meant by it than will meet the eye of an ordinary
observer; that it has.been got up for another and more peculiar
object, to which the shipping interests are made the stepping-
stone; that is, to bolster up' the injurious claims, again put for-
ward in this new channel, that have been made; by the refiners
to use foreign sugars, and particularly those .of the Brazils,
which they were unfortunately permitted to do in 1830 and
1831, to the great injury of the revenue. Of this the government
are now fully satisfied.

As many of the assertions made in this petition are either un-
connected with the question, or unfounded in point of fact, I
shall proceed to examine them separately.
Two causes arc assigned, in the first clause, for this alleged
depression; the poundage paid by seamen to Greenwich Hos-
pital, and our system of manning the navy by the impress of
seamen during war. What these have to do with the question
I cannot discover. The small contribution to the Hospital is
for the support of the aged, infirm, and disabled, of their own
body, and is paid by the seamen, not by the owners. We are
now in the eighteenth year of peace and freedom from impress ;
how then is it possible any injury can be inflicted by a
cause that does not exist ? But, in truth, these are merely
thrown out as tubs to the whale, to cover other and deeper
objects.

The next clause complains of injury and want of employ-
ment, because certain productions of foreign countries and co-
lonies are not admitted for consumption here. The articles
referred to are not specified, but it is clear that they can only be
such as we receive abundant supplies of from our own colonies
and possessions in the East and West Indies. These supplies
are all brought by British vessels; in quantity, particularly of
sugar and coffee, they exceed our consumption, leaving an excess
for exportation; more is therefore not required; and if such of
foreign production were to be admitted, they must be substi-
tuted ; therefore, such a change could be of no advantage to
British shipowners, since whatever number of ships might be
employed in importing such foreign produce, a similar number
would be displaced and thrown out of employment, by so much
less in proportion being brought from our own colonies and
possessions. The result of such a measure Would therefore be
not to provide additional employment for British ships, but to
benefit the growers of foreign produce at the expense of our
own; a fact that must be evident to the most superficial ob-

server.

I consider the next clause to be framed for the object of de-
luding the ignorant and casual reader. This effect has already
been produced on the editor of the Morning Chronicle, who has
adopted the statements of the petition fur gospel, and, without
further inquiry, has become their advocate. This clause states
advantages said to be enjoyed by American and other shipping
over British, in trading between foreign ports; those named are,
commissions paid to foreign agents, and the risk of our vessels
having to leave their discharging ports in ballast. I beg to ask
these petitioners whether all foreign ships are not, in foreign
ports, subject in all respects to similar charges and commissions
that British arc liable, to? Take, for example, such as Ham-
burg, Amsterdam, Petersburg, and Trieste. And is not the
chance, in such instances, for British vessels procuring freight
for ports in the United Kingdom greater than that of foreigners
to procure such for the countries to which they belong? And
do not British vessels possess the advantage of going loaded
from home on their outward voyages ?—a facility and benefit
which few foreigners enjoy. So much for these assertions.
But the next chuse shows the cloven foot; it contains the
cream of the petition, and puts forth the true object to which
these petitioners appear to have lent themselves. It shows
pretty clearly who the parties are with whom this petition has
originated, for they do not hesitate to pray fur the admission,
for home consumption, of the sugar and cope of the Brazils; on
which it may be remarked, without calling in aid that protec-
tion which is so justly due and given to British colonial inter-
ests, that such produce is the fruits, not only of slave labour of
the worst possible character, over which we have neither influ-
ence nor control, such as we possess in our own colonies, but
of a trade iu slaves carried on legally, until within the last two
years, when it was outwardly abolished, though still known to
be the source of a continued illegal traffic.
1 know not who prepared, or with whom this remarkable pe-
tition originated, but to me it appears to carry the impression
of the pen of a certain pamphlet-writing Brazil merchant, who
is known not to be very particular about the selection of his
facts, or the accuracy of his statements. If so, he must have
had some Irish friend at his elbow; for, in his eagerness to
prpmote his object, he overshoots the mark, and asserts, in this
petition, that if this produce were allowed to be consumed here,
a great part thereof would afterwards be exported in British
vessels! flow it is first to be consumed, and afterwards ex-
ported, remains to be explained.
It was stated in a petition from the Brazil merchants, lately
presented to the House of Commons, that because the sugar of
that country was not admitted to be refined here, British ves-
sels sent out loaded with manufactured goods were at times
forced to return in ballast. I wish the parties had taken, or
would now take, the trouble to favour us with the name or
names of any British ship or ships that have returned from the
Brazils to the United Kingdom in ballast. Until this is done,
I must deny the truth of the assertion. It is true that it has
•happened that when crops were deficient, or the supply of ship-
ping overdone, a very few British vessels have gone from the
Brazils to the West Indies to seek for freight; so they have
done at times from the River Plate, and other quarters; and
so, under similar circumstances, ships have at times gone from
our West India colonies to North America for the same object;
which is also occasionally the case when there is an excess of
shipping in the ports of our possessions and colonies in the
East Indies, as well as in all foreign ports. But let us look to
I what the facts are as regards the trade with the Brazils, and the
shipping employed in it.

It is well known that the Brazils afford an extensive market
for the sale of British manufactures. These are all sent out in
British ships; the returns are made in cotton, sugar, and coffee.