The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-08 00:00:00

TUESDAY MORNING,

IL-iRCH 8, 1842

We were favoured on Friday with a copy of the
Guiana Times of the 19th January, from which we
are happy to learn that the labourers on several estates
had returned to their vrork, upon the terms proposed
by the planting body, and that a considerably improved
feeling existed throughout the colony. Whilst on this
subject we did propose to have offered a few remarks
upon the unfounded assertions put forward against the
West India interest, generally, and against ourselves,
as journalists, in the last publication of the Liverpool
Mercury. The animus of the editor of that paper,
however, towards our colonists, is too well known for
any statement of his to have any great weight; and so
far as his attack upon ourselve
easily afford to pass it by with contempt

is concerned, we can

As our contemporary, the Manchester Guardian, ap-
pears disposed, now, to argue the question which is
between us in a more becoming tone, we are perfectly
ready, and indeed happy, to go into it fully. We have
never shrunk from an examination of the practical
bearing of our present protective laws upon the ma-
nufacturing system. On the contrary, there is no-
thing which we have deprecated more, in the course
pursued by the organs of the free trade party, than
their unremitting endeavours to divert the public mind
from such an examination to the contemplation of ab-
stract generalities only ; and to treat that as a question
of justice, of right, of religion, even, which can only
be viewed, with any real propriety, as one of a purely
economical nature. Before entering, however, into the
inquiry, to which we are challenged by the Guardian,
we must set ourselves right with respect to two or

three points upon which our contemporary misinter-
prets us. \Ve have never " abused the manufacturers
as cheats." We have no feeling of hostility to the
manufacturers, as a body of men, although we can see,
as can any candid men, much to blame in the conduct
and practices of individual members, and, indeed, en-
tire classes of that body ; and our object in calling at-
tention to these practices is not that of drawing down
odium upon the heads of those from whom they ema-
nate, but of showing how directly they stand in the

way of the restoration of the manufacturing interest to

a state of permanent prosperity.
Our contemporary treats, with something like ridi-
cule, the idea that the. inundation of foreign markets
with fabrics of inferior description is prejudicial to the
sale of those of better quality. "If the cheapest and
best cotton goods," he argues, " are of English ma-
nufacture, the buyers abroad will prefer them to any
others, and will go to the parties from whom they are
to be obtained. And, in point of fact, it is utterly un-
true that any such prejudice exists as that to which
the STANDARD alludes." In part, this is correct.
The foreign consumer will generally prefer the best
qualities of British goods (not being printed cal►coes)
to those of other countries ; and, in some instances,
he is able to "go to the parties from whom they are
to be obtained." But in too many cases he has no
means of ascertaining, except from actual experience,
the genuine and honest fabric from the trashy and
fraudulent imitation. Is the Guardian not aware of
the extent to which the practice of attaching false la-
bels to manufactured goods is carried on ? Is be aware
of the extent to which even the names of honest ma-
nufacturers are forged by the exporter ? Is he not
awarl that three-fourths of our shipments to some
markets are marked with false measurements? If he
is ignorant, of these and other practices, which we
cannot believe, we would recommend him to spend a
few hours upon the premises of some of the packers
and makers-up of Manchester; and he will then, per-
haps, be able to perceive how it is that the foreign
consumer views the name and the goods of the British
manufacturer with an eye of jealous suspicion, and is
justified in the preference which he gives to the goods
of other countries whose manufacturers are compara-
tively free from such practices. There can be no
question that the very existence, in any market, of a
fraudulent imitation of any particular commodity is
prejudicial to its sale at a remunerating price.
Again, the Guardian remarks,—

" The only fine and high-priced cotton goods of foreign
manufacture, that command a preference over English goods
of the same denomination, are, as we have already stated, the
finest French and Swiss prints ; and this preference is ac-
corded, not on account of any superior soundness of the
fabric—for the best English prints are on a decidedly better
cloth—but entirely from the superior beauty of the designs—
an advantage for which they may perhaps be indebted to our
present unsatisfactory law respecting the copyright of de-
signs, but which has no connection, direct or indirect, with a
want of honesty on the part of the manufacturers."

We do not hesitate to say that this is not the fact.
In some descriptions of heavy cotton goods, we are
not able to compete with the manufacturers of the
United States in neutral markets, owing to the supe-
rior reputation of their fabrics for durability. The
finer descriptions of plain cottons of Swiss and French
manufacture are preferred also to British. The printed
goods of these countries are esteemed before ours, not
"entirely for the superior beauty of the designs," hut,
in part; for the superior beauty and permanence of the
colours, and from a confidence, on the part of the
buyer, that the market to which they are brought will
not be immediately deluged with a supply of the same
patterns, in colours which a shower will wash out, and
printed upon a fabric which is neither cotton cloth nor
plaster, but a happy mixture of the two.
Let us come, now, to the case proposed for our so-
lution by the Guardian:—
" An English and a French calico printer both employ
workmen of the same description. Owing to the low price
of the necessaries of life, the French block-printer can main-
tain himself and his family in comfort for a given amount,
say 12s. per week ; the English workman cannot command
the same amount of necessaries and comforts for less than
18s. per week ; and, assuming that the rate of wages in the
two countries is in proportion to these two sums, the condi-
tion of the workmen will be the same in the two countries.
Now, suppose that a French and an English employer of
these workmen are engaged in printing the finest muslins for
the American market ; that they are both printing the same
pattern, in the same colours ; and that on each piece an
amount of labour is expended in each country, varying from
two days' to twelve days' work of one man—bow are these
goods likely to turn out in the American market?
" In the first place, let us take the goods on which only
two days' labour is expended. With respect to these it is
obvious, that, from the superior capital and machinery of
our spinners and manufacturers, the English printer is likely
to have an advantage, in the greater cheapness of the cloth
on which his workmen are employed, which may probably
compensate him for the higher wages paid to his own work-
men : he saves, say three shillings in the purchase of the
piece of muslin ; and he pays two shillings more in wages ;
so that his outlay is one shilling less than that of his French
competitor. But how will the balance stand with respect to
the goods on which eight* days' labour is expended ? The
English printer saves, as before, three shillings in the pur-
chase of his cloth ; but he pays 245. in wages for the same
work for which his competitor pays only 165., thus giving to
the latter an advantage of ss. on each piece which he pro-

* Qy. 12 days to agree.with the calculation below

thou, W 6 AA the stittar of the Livorpaol Standard, how,
Kollar those elrownstanota, the English winter lc to support
a competition with the Frenchman in the American or any
other foreign market, equally open to both? It is clear that
with respect to the very finest and most costly descriptions
of printed goods—to all those on which a large amount of
manual labour is expended—labour which is high-priced in
the one country and low-priced in the other—the English-
man must eventually be beaten out of the market.

" It is perfectly idle for the Standard to allege, as he does,
that the English manufacturer desires to reduce the wages of
his labourers ; for it is quite clear, that, under such a com-
petition, the money price of labour will be reduced, whether
the manufacturer wishes it or not. The advantages of supe-
rior capital and machinery, or the superior energy and indus-
try of the workmen, may, fora while, maintain the struggle,
as they now keep it up ; but these advantages are yearly di-
minishing: every year some fabric or other, requiring a
large amount of manual labour, ceases to be numbered
amongst our exports ; and, every year, yarns, crude metals,
and other commodities, in which there is comparatively little
manual, and much machine, labour, constitute a larger and
larger proportion of those exports.
" We ask the editor of the Standard to tell us how, under
such circumstances, English manufacturers can keep up the
money wages of their workmen. Let him go fully into the
subject (which no writer in favour of the corn-law has yet
ventured to do), and tell us by what means other than a
reduction in the price of food, the real wages of the labourer
—his command over the necessaries and comforts of life—
can possibly be secured to him. We hope he will favour us,
in his next publication, with his views on this important
subject."

In fairness to our contemporary we have quoted
this passage at length ; and we beg to call to it the
earnest attention of our readers, as containing the only
intelligible and straightforward statement of the ques-
tion, as between the advocates of restriction and of free
trade in corn. The position stated is certainly an ex-
treme one ; for it is not in those descriptions of printed
gdods which require twelve days' work for the produc-
tion of a piece that the competition of the French and
Swiss manufacturers is seriously felt in foreign mar-
kets ; and the effect of the greater cost of British la-
bour is therefore exaggerated. On that account, how-
ever, the position is more striking, and the better cal-
culated for the elucidation of the principle contended
for on both sides.

The claim, then, of the free trader, here put, is
clearly this :—To enable him to compete with the Swiss
and French manufacturers, the English manufacturer
must be enabled to reduce the wages of his workmen
from 18s. to 12s. ; and for this purpose he seeks for
the withdrawal of the existing protection upon native
agriculture. By lowering the price of food, be con-
tends, 12s. to the working man will afford equal com-
forts and necessaries to those which 18s. provide for
him under our present system. To him a cheap
loaf is to bring no additional comforts—no larger
quantity or better quality of food; and the amount
extorted, by the change, from the pockets of the agri-
cultural portion of the community—from the land-
owner, the farmer, and the labourer—overleaping the
manufacturing operative, is thus to be transferred ex-
clusively into the pockets of the manufacturer him-
self, the exporter, and the foreign consumer. This is
the irresistible conclusion of our contemporary's argu-
ment. Without such a reduction we cannot, as a ma-
nufacturing community, contend with other nations.
The denials so confidently uttered, that cheap food and
low wages are synonymous, are here thrown to the
winds ! Let us impress this fact upon the attention of
every working man. The day which witnesses the
prostration of the native agriculture of Great Britain,
will witness, as well, the reduction of the wages of the
British working man to the level of the continental la-
bourer !

To this point, indeed, we are told by the leading or-
gan of " the league," we are already progressing. The
advantages which we possess as manufacturers " are
yearly diminishing. Every year some fabric or other,
requiring a large amount of manual labour, ceases to
be numbered amongst our exports ; and every year,
yarns, crude metals, and other commodities, in which
there is comparatively little manual and much machine
labour, constitute a larger and larger proportion of
those exports." We admit all this. We admit that
such is the disastrous position of the manufacturing
interest of Great Britain. We cannot, in fabrics of
which labour constitutes the chief ingredient, compete
with foreign manufacturers, and yet sustain the exist-
ing interests of this country ; but we shall not, there-
fore, jump to the conclusion, that a repeal of the corn
laws is the necessary step to be resorted to. Our con-
temporary challenges us to point out any other step as
likely to be efficacious. e deny that this would be
so; and we say, moreover, that we are not satisfied
that the object to be gained is worth the sacrifice de-
manded.

We are perfectly sensible of the value of an export
trade in goods of which labour is a large component
part, and that, to some extent, a large reduction of
wages would produce such a trade. Its value, how-
ever, is sensibly reduced in our eyes by the very cir-
cumstance that so small a portion of benefit is to result
from it to the labouring classes. It is not indispensi-
ble to the welfare of Great Britain that we should be
able, in every article, to compete with the foreign ma-
nufacturer. We have already a large and valuable
home and colonial trade, in which the manual labour
of our working classes is well remunerated ; and we
have no desire, for the sake of an object of question-
able attainment—the monopoly of the market of the
world—to paralyze and ultimately destroy those which
we already possess.
At all eventE, before we venture upon so gigantic a
change as is involved in the repeal of our entire pro-
tective system—for all must go together l—we must be
satisfied that every other step to infuse prosperity into
our manufacturing system has been tried. This is not
the case at present. It is in the power of the Legisla-
ture to do much for the interests of our manufacturers
without the sacrifice of our native agriculture. Our
manufacturers themselves can do much to strengthen
their own position. Let that he done. Let us see a
state of things brought about, in which manufacturing
capital is not squandering its resources—eating up its
own strength—warring with the comforts and draining
the very life-blood of the labourer—amd then, and
then only, we may contemplate the policy of resting
the security, the peace, and the prosperity of the em-
pire upon the prosperity of the manufacturing interest.
At present, we say, in reply to our contemporary, that
if we cannot enjoy a foreign trade without the reduc-
tion of the conditi,on of the labourer to the continental
standard, we will not consent to destroy, by the pros-
tration of our native agriculture, the only market in
which the labourer is secure of an adequate remune-
ration for his toil. •

We will endeavour on an early occasion to direct
the attention of our (:onten3porary to a few measures
by which, irrespective of. a reduction of the price of
labour, the position of the manufacturer in foreign
markets is susceptible of amelioration. At present we
have tramsgressed our limits, and our contemporary
will perhaps say, (and with some truth, we confess,)
that we have scarcely touched his concluding chal-
lenge. The subject is, however, he will admit, a wide
one ; a) id can scarcely be discussed within the compass