The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-02-08 00:00:00

relative values of the ti

calculation that t
average of

weight of each piece, on an
ds length, was 51b. 12oz. In 1845
cotton exports to China were 4,437,094 pieces,
led at 6s. 6d. per piece ; which would give a
d value of the plain colicoes, shipped to China,
In 1846 the number of yards,
lation, will represent 2,945,161
lued by Mr. Burn at 6s. 9d.
nt of £994,142. In

019 yards

value at

's. 4d. per piec
?ort of 2,251,1",

a gross ex-

ill give us

amount

£847,288. We have, therefore, a falling off, in
this one article of plain cottons, of £994,142 from
1845 to 1846; and also a further decline of £96,850
in 1847. In other words had the trade continued
as in 1845 China would have taken of our goods,
up to the end of 1847, £4,326,165. Yet, notwith-
standing an advance in the price of cotton and
yarn, and consequently of manufacture, our ex-
ports
to China in„ 1845-6 and 7 amounted to only

£243,405, or

'o millions sterfinej

Now taking these plain Calicoes to average five
pounds twelve ounces each piece in weight;
allowing also 1. oz. per lb for loss in spinning—
in all each piece containing 621bs. of cotton,—we
have the following result. A piece of plain cotton
in the average of the three years was thus made

up, as to its value, viz

Cotton for the

three years

Overage cost of Upland
slbs. at sd. per lb.;

waste in spinning, 16z. per lb., or goz, per piece.
The outlay therefore would be about 61d. per lb.
for the raw material of our plain cottons exported
to India and China, the remainder of the price
being composed of profits of machinery, wages,
&c. ; or, the cost would be 2s. Md. per piece for
the raw material, the remainder of the price being
labour, 4-c.; and as we have shipped during the

year 1847
in 1"

2,251,126 pieces against -z,

).945,161 pieces

3, and 4,437,094 pieces in 1845, the loss to
the manufacturer and the operative will stand in
something like this proportion: _ _

Am-ount of labour and profit lost on de-

ed shipments ai

piece on

in round numbers, 4s. per

*difference of 1,472,933 y&

£294,586

from the profits of British industry

during the past two years, in this one item of our
manufactured exports to China, in addition to
what has been already lost of this trade by the
of our Indian Markets. And it is
little wonder that a sei

.uinous decline

itive people like the Chinese
refuse to take our goods, and even prefer buying
them at second-hand from the American shippers,
as has been the case during the past year, when we
find our own imports from China retrograding
during the past year, as the following statement
will chew.

Liverpo

PORTS FROM CHIN
1847.
Lb

All other English ports

Glasgow
All other Scotch ports
Dublin
Belfast
Cork

All other Irish ports

26,094,190

712,181

243,153
2,744,855
1,562,347
2,014,118

923,704
3,461,985

26,094,769
5,793,490

776,275

244,030
2,442,030
1,465,370
2,037,893

801,640
3,777,002

896,400 1,122,926
630,376 633,002
1,382,204 1,366,150

On all grounds, it appears perfectly clear to us
that this question of a reduction of the duty on
Tea is one, with respect to which a wise ministry
would yield, and submit to follow the popular will.
•We know not, however, whether we can expect any
such graceful concession from the administration of
Lord John Russell. He has on many past occa-
sions only proposed such concessions when politi-
cally in extremis ; or when he has stood upon his
order, or upon his previously-declared opinions, he
has only done so to see a political opponent come
forward to pass the identical measures from which
he has himself recoiled. His lordship ought not
to make such a mistake on this great tea-drinking

questio

n we remarked last week upon the state-
ment of the accounts of the working of the Albert
Dock warehouses, as given by Mr. Henderson in
the Council, our object was to elicit some informa-
tion more satisfactory thpn the conflicting opinions
which appeared to prevail, as to the profitable
character of that establishment. We had only Mr.
Henderson's figures, and his remarks respecting
them, to go upon ; and we do not see how, from
those figures, any other conclusion could be come
to than that which we formed, viz.—that the ware-
houses were not remunerative to the Dock Estate.
We have now another statement before us, furnished
in accordance with a motion of the Dock Commit-
tee, apparently with a view to remove the im-
pression conveyed by Mr. Henderson's statement;
and intended to shew, whether satisfactorily or not
our readers must determine, that the warehouses in
question are paying a per tentage of eight per cent.
upon the cost of their construction. We give the
document in full :

TEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS ON

COUNT OF RENT
Dr.—Cash.

—To amount received on account
of rent on goods, from 25th
September, inclusive
To amount outstanding

Septembei

accrued

Total amount out-
_ standing .

4,608 1 6

4,742 1

£6,968 12 4

roportion of con-
solidated and ma-
nagement rates..

1,859 18 1

£8,828 10

—To amount received on account
)f rent on goods, from 25th
1,567

December, 1847
To amount outstanding, accrued
25th December. 2,218 16 7

£3,785 18 11

Total amount out-

standing

£7,658 2 10

Contra.— Cr

,—By interest on bonded debt,
£471,754 2s. 3d., for 3 months,

at 41 per cent

By premium on policy of instil.-

3 months.

)r rates, water, gas, &

•eceivable

102 18 0

1,126 9

6,536 12 1
2,813 10 10

350 2 11

24th.—By interest on bonded debt, at

ion of premium on r

,nsuran ce

34 6 0

By portion of poor rate

s, water,

375 9 9

£3,785 18 11

Memorandum

mated rent on goods remaining

DecemberJB4l6Bsl6s-,
week, amounts to

Yearly rentO;rums.

£35,663 11 0 ann.
273 9 -4

Annual rent

235,937 0 4

R. P. AUSTIN,
Principal General Officer.
Albert Dock Warehouses, 31st January, 1848.
We must express our wish that the account now
furnished had been more explanatory and less
liable to the same objection as that which we com-
mented upon last week. Moreover, it is a pity that
the account, as furnished by the committee for the
half year, is, in our minds, quite irreconcileable
with the account now furnished for the last three
months of that half year. In the first item it will
he seen that the account gives, as the " amount
received on account of rent on goods from 25th
September inclusive " to 24th December, the
sum of £4,608 ls. 6d. ; and as " outstanding, ac-
crued since 24th Dec."—(the italics are not our own)
—a further sum of £4,742 is. 5d.; spewing the
total earnings for the quarter to have been £9,350
2s. 11d. Now, it will be remembered, that, in the
account against which we last week objected, it was
stated by Mr. Henderson, and not denied, that the
amount set down as "received and outstanding"
on the 25th December, included the receipts in
part of the outstanding debt and the remaining
portion of that debt itself. The present account,
undoubtedly, gives us the outstanding only as
" accrued since the 35th September "—as strictly
earned in the quarter. But with respect to the
amounts " received," there is nothing in the face
of the document to satisfy us that it does not in-
clude all payments during the quarter, whether of
previously outstanding debts, or of rent earned
during the quarter. Should it he the case that of
this £9,350, set down as the rent for the quarter,
any portion consists of monies paid for rent pre-
viously earned and left outstanding, it will make a
very material difference in the estimated balance of
profit. The same remarks apply to the statement
of accounts from 24th December to 24th January.
We are not assured that the sum of £1,567 2s. 4d.,
received during the month, does not include pay-
ments on account of debts left outstanding on the
24th December.

Signed

When we examine the details of the accounts
closely, we cannot but feel convinced that such a
mistake has been committed ; and that the sum
set down as received does include payments so
made. Thus we find that on the 24th December
there was a total amount for rent outstanding of
£6968 12s. 4d., and a further amount accrued in
January of £2,218 16s. 7d., making together
£9,187 Bs. 11d. Yet we have the total amount
outstanding given us on the 24th January, as only
£7,658 25, 10d, There must, therefore, evidently