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

THE LIVERPOOL BTANI)ARD

IWe have long deplored—every humane man has
yrd are compelled to postpone until next week a report of the long. deplored—the substitution, which has been
me, ling of the Foreign Aid Society, and several other com- going on extensively for years past, of female for
muDicazions.
male labour in factories. Sir James Graham
proposes—beneficently (I) proposes—that no female
shall, under any circumstances, be permitted to
work for more than twelve hours continuously.
The young mother of an infant in the cradle, whose
confederates isunemployed husband is tending it at home, if he is
By a reference to our Irish news, it will be seen not at the beer-house or the dram-shop, shall not
that the trial of O'Connell and his'be
permitted to withdraw the maternal breast and
at length drawing to a close, if even it has not al-
On the maternal care, for more than twelve hotHe in
ready done so at the time at which we
of the day. Excfeding humanity
of a Conservative
Saturday evening the jury returned a verdict
guilty upon the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, anti fov
ernment ! The mother, whose child is, or should
eleventh counts, the purport of which will be found
de, attending the factory school, must remain at her
detailed in the report of the proceedings, which is toil Cutil seven o'clock in summer and eight o'clock
in winter, and leave that child to the guiding of his
admitted by the organs of the traversers themselves
to be equal in its consequences, to a verdict of own inclina, _ons, or of the vicious companions
guilty upon the whole. The return, however, was
whom he may :wet in the streets. Rare philan-
decidedthrophy of a Chrisfian legislature We trust that
by Justice Crampton to be informal, owing •
English fathers and English mothers will not per-
uponto the jury not having said guilty, or not guilty,
mit, in this age, the recognition by parliament of
the remaining counts ; and the jury were sent
such an atrocity. The women of the manufacturing
back to fill up this omission. Owing to the late
hour (nearly midnight) at which they retired for this districts must be dragged from this slavery. It is
purpose, it was considered best to adjourn the court revolting and barbarous.
H we must have women toiling in ou'r factories,
over Sunday; and, nine o'clock yesterday morn-
give them, at least, some remission of that toil
ing was finally fixed upon for receiving their coin-
which the constitution of man is alone fitted' to
plete finding. There is no probability that anything
endure. Give, to the daughters of England and the
can arise from this course being pursued, to alter
the effect of the decision to which the jury have al-
mothers of England, protection from the avarice
ready come.
which would doom them to the body's and the
soul's ruin, to save a farthing in the cost of a bun-
We hope to be able to give the complete verdict,
with anything of importance which has transpired die of yarn or a piece of calico. Give them the
protection of that restriction of their hours of labour
in Dublin up to a late hour yesterday, in an early
which will alone tempt the greedy mill-owner to
Second Edition, which our subscribers will be fur-
take the husband and the father from their present
nished with gratis, on application at our office,
state of compulsory idleness, and restore the
daughter, the wife, and the mother to their
houses and their domestic purity and usefulness.
England requires this from Sir Robert Peel's Go-
vernment; and to her repeatedly urged demands
the measure before us is an INSULT.
Now, indeed, is wanted amongst us the presence
of the factory people's friend—the lately-prisoned
Oastler ! Thank Heaven, his dungeon is: unbarred
His voice, impressing upon the hearts of the British
people, already opened to the cause of their suffer-
ing working classes, the iniquities of the-system of
our manufacturing districts, will seal the fate of
these iniquitous and mocking provisions. of Sir
James Graham's measure.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Eb; Etberpool &tan Dan.

TUESDAY FEB. 13, 1314.

Government has at length made a move—we trust
only the first of a series—to wrest the suffering
working classes of England from the domination of
tyrant capital. On Tuesday last Sir James Graham
moved for leave to bring in a bill " to amend the
act for regulating the employment of children in
factories," the chief provisions of which we shall
briefly place before our readers, preliminary to a few
observations which we feel bound to offer upon
them.

It is proposed, in the outset, that the term " child"
should be defined to apply to children between the

ages of 9 and 13, instead of 8 and 13, the age pro-
vided for under the existing act; and that no such
child should be employed for a longer.time than six
hours and a-half each day—such six and a-half hours
to be either in the morning or the afternoon. The
term " young persons" is to apply, as under the
existing act, to persons between the ages of 13 and
ls years ; and, so far as relates to this class of
workpeople, no material alteration is proposed, be-
yond the extension of the present restrictive clauses
to silk mills, which have hitherto not been under
regulation as to the hours of labour. The time at
which it is proposed that such "young persons"
should work, is from half-past five o'clock in the
morning to seven o'clock in the evening, during the
summer months, and from half-past six o'elock„
a. m., until eight o'clock, p.m., in the winter; thus
making thirteen hours and a half per day, of whir
.1

one hour and a half would be allowed for "xr

.eals

and rest !"

The comments, in our last, upon Mr. Alderman
Evans' apppeal to the public in opposition to the
proposed plans of dock extension, appear to have
flurried that gentleman, if we may judge-from the
tone of the reply, with which he has, favoured
us in the 11( rercury of Friday last. We shall not
imitate hire L. Passion should never enter into the
discussion , of such questions as the one which we
have now iin hand, and whilst we propose bele to
elamir ie the facts and figures put forward by Mr.
Evar
.s, we sV4II deal with his ill temper in another
Pl° r.e_

In fairqess to the Alderman, and to enable our
readers the better to understand the question at
issue, we give his letter entire.

DOCK EXTENSION.

To the MERCHANTS and TRADERS of LIVERPO9L.

---
It is neither my taste nor my necessity, in defence of
my statements as to dock accounts, to bandy scurrilities
with " editors" who assume, in the way of trade, the re-
sponsibility of articles which, from the knowledge they
evince of details, are, if not penned, probably prompted
by some member of the Dock Committee, an advocate of
those measures which I oppose.
The scurrilous epithets applied to my letter in the
Albion by a mercenary scribe, or his recondite prompter,
being the expected consequence of my advocacy of the
public interests, can give me no concern. The state-
ments which I have given of dock finances are, with one
exception, (a correction I felt justified in making,) based
upon the printed and written documents furnished to me
from the Dock-office. The correction consisted of sums
to the amount of about £14,000, which, after close inves-
tigation, appeared to me, and to another gentleman of
the committee particularly skilled in dock accounts, to
have been incorrectly placed to the debit of " New
Works," instead of being, as this should have been,
placed to the account of " Repairs, &c." For this trans-
fer I consider I have the virtual authority of the surveyor,
in his declaration to me that the lowest allowance that
shot ld be made for " Repairs and Casualties" was
£35,000 per annum. This so far exceeds the sum
£25,828, stated in the dock accounts, under the head of
" Repairs." as to show the latter to be a manifest error.
A more extended classification, and a more accurate
distribution of disbursements under the respective heads,
is wanted for the purpose of ascertaining the real surplus
or deficit of dock revenue. If a sum is placed errone-
ously to the account of " New Works," it does not enter
into the statement of annual expenditure, and so far im-
pairs the correctness of the statements, making the ba-
lance, or, in this instance, the surplus income, appear to
be larger than it truly is.
I will not again go into the details of my former state-
ments. They were drawn out with the intention of being
correct, and I believe they will be found, in any case, a
sufficient approximation to facts to support the general
tenor of all that I have urged in respect to the impro-
priety and danger of accomplishing the projected new
works.
We are told that only a portion of these new works is
to be constructed "at once," "some of them not at all."
I know of co authority for this dictum, or this mode of
carrying out or partially evading the act which goes to
the full extent of the surveyor's project, and which act,
once got, may, and probably will, be forced by interested
parties into full operation.
The promise of not laying out the whole sum to be
raised is truly seductive, but it unfortunately happens that
the quantity of land to be purchased north and south will,
in limine, dispose of a large portion of the contemplated,
to be borrowed, capital. _ . .

The agreement with the Leeds canal will doubtless
make some small abatement of the estimates, but the spare
unmade land at the extreme north, which had escaped my
memory, may well be set off against remote future con-
tingencies.

I freely admit that the Albert Dock warehouses, when
permitted to be built, will produce a far greater return
than interest of money expended in their construction,
but for the Albert or other new docks no claim for addi-
tional revenue can be allowed, unless the trade of the port
increases to the extent of the work they do, otherwise new
docks will only take business from the older ones. In
this case, the expense of new as well as old docks will fall
upon an income which can be kept up only by very much
increased dock rates. But whether trade increases or not,
I am well assured that unless warehouses be constructed
to a considerable extent round the docks on this side, not
only new but old trade will find other domiciles than the
open docks of Liverpool.

EYRE EVANS.

In its main points, then, the Alderman adheres to
his statement of last week, in which he sheared a
deficit of £70,000 per annum, as the result of the
execution of the plans at present before the Dock
Committee, provided that the revenue of the Dock
Estate remains at its present amount. We must
see, therefore, by what kind of logic and arithmetic
he has arrived at that statement. Here are his
original figures :

" The interest on £1,798,000, the present debt,
as it stands
Interest upon £475,000, to be still raised for
Albert Dock
Interest upon cost of land and proposed new
docks, £1,300,000
Lighthouse, telegraph, lifeboats, &c.
Management, police, dock-gatemen, &c., for the
old docks and Albert Dock
Lamps and miscellaneous expenses for existing
Docks and Albert Dock 12,893
Annual repairs and casualties on existing docks
and Albert Dock
Proportion of repairs, casualties, and other ex-
penses which accompany dock extension, on
proposed new docks ...........

18,904

£288,093

Deduct interest on Albert Dock ware-
houses ............................ Z 12,000
Balance of rents to be acquired from
yards, &c., north and south, less
£7,000 to be lost on Messrs. E. Chal-
loner and Duncan's yards ....... l,BOO

14,000

£274,093

" If to this," he continues, " we add any expense which
may, however absurdly, be imposed for disposing of the
mud taken from the docks, we may, possibly, have an
annual outlay of somewhere about £290,000 ; from which
deduct the present revenue of £216,000, and a deficit ap-
pears of above £70,000 per annum, which, unless trade
increases, must be provided for by increased dock-rates.
For the present we pass by the question whether

a man, anxious only after the truth, had a right to
drag into an account of the resources of the Dock
Estate the whole of the first three items, amounting
to £144,719, when no less than £88,899 of that sum
is interest upon the supposed cost of new works, for
which he does not give the estate credit for a shilling
of revenue. Deduct the whole of these items, however,
from his amountof £288,093; and we have the cost of
working the docks put down at £143,374 per annum.
Now what was the cost of working our existing
docks last year ? It was £81,520 ; and the assump-
tion, therefore, is, that to work the proposed new
docks will cost an additional sum of no less than
£61,854 I
Of itself this is astounding enough; but let us
look at the details. In the first place we have put
down under the head of " Lighthouse, telegraph,
lifeboats, &c., the sum of £15,000.". The sum which
covered these items last year was £14,700, of which
£5,500 was paid for the new iron light-ship. The
present average expense under this head may, there-
fore, fairly be calculated at £lO,OOO. Again we have
" Management, police, &c." for existing docks, and
Albert Dock, put down at £31,685. Last year it
was £29,057. The Albert Dock, therefore, is to
cost us £2,600 additional under this head; and yet
such additional cost of the Alderman's pet scheme
is held out as an argument against the construction
of the proposed new docks. Further, we have the
" Annual repairs and casualties," on existing docks
and Albert Dock, put down at £44,796. Last year
it was only £25,828 ; and we are to conclude, there-
fore, that the Albert Dock is to involve us in an in-
creased expenditure of £19;1300 for repairs I
But the estimate for repairs this year is, the
Alderman tells us- now, " a manifest error." it may
be. We should imagine, however, that it isnot very
likely to be so, notwithstanding the discovered
£14,00k3 by himself and the gentleman "particularly
skilled in dock accounts." Parties—and especially
engineers and surveyors—engaged in.the construction
of new works are not ordinarily in the habit of in-
creasing their apparent cost, at the risk of running
beyond their estimates, by debiting them with the'
repairs of old works. An error ou the other side
would be a credible occurrence.
But the most outrageous supposition in this- state-
ment is that the repairs, &c., of the new-docks pro-
posed will amount to an annual sum of. £39,000.
Yes, £39,000 for the repairs of new docks, contain-
ing a water space of less than 50 acres, if the whole
of the plans were carried out; whilst the old docks,.
with a water space of more than 90 acres,_ are re-
paired for £26,000. Really,. Mr. Evans,. you will
find few sane people who wilt gulp down. so mani-
fest an absurdity I
But now, let us ask Mr. Evans how it is that,. in
this statement, he has no difficulty in giving us the
amount of increased expense& incurred by the for-
mation of the Albert Dock and warehouses, and yet
only credits that portion of the estate with a return
of 12,000. For his contemplation and that of the
public, we will present him with his own account of
this, his pet speculation.:
We have, then, first—
Interest on present new debt applied to
Albert Dock and works, £421,940, per

annum
nterest on money to be borrowed, per

annum 18,904

Additional police, &c., for Albert Dock,

per annum
Increase in annual repairs, taking as our
basis the Alderman's own calculation of
£35,000 as the amount now expended ..

9,796

£49,295,

This large sum, then, of £49,295 is to be the
annual cost of the Albert Dock and works, toward
which we are only to look for a revenue from them
of £12,0001 Yes this very fair and very honest
statement, which the Alderman boasts that he can
substantiate, represents the dock estate as a loser,
by his own favourite scheme, to the extent of MORE
THAN THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS PER
ANNUM! Surely, the most bitter opponent of this
scheme could never have put forth a statement so

damning.
We ourselves have certainly no fear that a result
so disastrous will attend the working of this dock
and its warehouses. We have some little confidence
in the Alderman's sagacity; and, when we remem-
ber that the estimated revenue to be derived from
this dock was laid before the committee on the bill
at £12,000 or £14,000 a year, and the revenue of
the warehouses at more than £40,000 per annum,
we cannot imagine it possible that such splendid
prospects can have altogether evaporated, without
Mr. Evans taking some steps to arrest the progress
of works so ruinous.

Mr. Evans says now that, " for the Albert or
other new docks, no claim for additional revenue
can be allowed, unless the trade of the port in-
creases to the extent of the work they do." Why,
of course. Any blue-coat boy could have told us
that. But the trade of the port will increase; has
gone on increasing for years past, and is increasing
still. It increased, for tonnage, goods, and lights,
by an amount of £21,751 Ss. 7d., or El 1 17s. 6d.
per cent. in one year. And yet it is doubtful—
is it ?—whether the Albert Dock, with its addition,
two years hence, of ten per cent. to our dock space,
can find any business except what it draws from
that of our existing docks. Another increase of
ten per cent. in our trade will absorb the additional
space afforded us by the Albert Dock, and leave our
other docks in their .present crowded state ; and that
increase, we venture to say, will occur long before
the completion of the Albert Dock !
But turn we now to the question, as it affects the
dock bond-holders, amongst whom Mr. Alderman
Evans is endeavouring to get up a panic. Let us
see what is the state of their property.

The earnings of the working docks
last year, as given by the Alder-
man himself, was £216,000 0 0
The expenditure of the working docks
(exclusive of new works and in-
terest on new debt) was, last year, 138,725 18 3

The excess, therefore, of revenue
over expenditure was
This is, therefore, the surplus which Mr. Evans says
we shall not only get rid of by the formation of our
proposed new docks, but create in its place a defi-
ciency of £70,000 per annum. Now, bearing in
mind the fact that the Canal Company have
agreed to execute a portion of the new works;
that the proposed mole at the entrance of the
north docks will not be wanted ; that the graving-
docks on the parliamentary plan will only be
wanted in part ; we are certainly warranted in
taking the whole expense of the new works at
£1,120,000, not £1,300,000 as estimated by Alder-
man Evans.

The interest, therefore, which will fall upon
the dock estate we put down at £44,800
To this add the interest upon half the new
debt, say £480,000, at four per cent. . . . 19,200

of land on the Harrington estate, which, added to
the difference between £77,000 and £64,000, will give
us 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 Ashton-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
158,600,000 lbs,,—being a difference of 130 per cent. in
favour of a lenient system y" 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 iecommend 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,
however ? Why—that " riuw MULLS WERE ON TH-F.
POINT OF BEING BIJILT IN LANCASHIBE!" 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 mere 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 manufaetarers ! "
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 Rank of Manchester ought to
make some restitution to the shareholders of that mis-
managed concern, before he ventures to, twit others with
dishonesty !
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-mightiaesseq, to reader it safe on,
the part of a journalist to whisper an unwelcome truth
in their ears.

And we have as the new fixed, charge upon
the estate ...................... £64,000
to be deducted from the present surplus revenue of
£77,000. But £5,000 will be derived from the rents