The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

borne towards their own persons or confidence in the the detailed working of our commercial system, it is
sincerity of their professions ; and although it is true quite beyond the power of the merchant or broker ad-
that they may, as it is threatened, " close their mills vancing to protect himself against; for it is enacted
and turn their populations into the streets" in the hope I by the same clause, that "he shall only acquire the
of wringing from their violence the objects of which same interest as the agent himself possessed." It is
they are in search, we are confident, however, that they ohvioustly impossible that the London or Liverpool
will not resort to a proceeding so diabolical—although, I merchant, receiving consignments of foreign produce,
on other grounds, some of them are quite capable of which are drawn against by the shipper himself, in
it—for the simple reason that, whilst it would probably nine caws out of ten an agent only, can tell what lien
plunge a great portion of their duped dependents into i that shipper may have against the owner; and yet he
the clutches of the law, it would, with equal certainty, must either refuse acceptance of the bills drawn in
lead not a few of themselves into the London Gazette. the ordinary course, or run the risk of advancing be-

We have hitherto given our contemporary of Mon-
day the credit of exercising a little more discernment
a 0 fairness, in remarking upon men and measures,
than the mass of his brethren of the Liberal press.
In his publication of Monday, however, whilst express-
ing his condemnation of the policy of Sir Robert
Peel, the Albion seems to have exerted himself to ap-
pear as absurd and as stilted as the rest of his frater-
nity. That statesman, remarks our contemporary,
"has proved himself to be exactly a man of the stature
at which we ever rated him." Mark the magnificence
of that WE "He has fully justified the notion that
he is no master statesman fit to preside over the desti-
nies of a mighty empire, but a mere journeyman,
ready for any kind of johwork for the faction whose
convenient tool he is." What a mistaken notion the
world has hitherto entertained with respect to Sir Ro-
bert Peel's "stature" and capabilities ! The Liverpool
Albion thinks him "a mere journeyman." We would
give something for his opinion of the Liverpool Al-
bion. Looked at through the same diminisher which
has brought down the first statesman of the age to the
" stature " of " a mere journeyman," the Albion, if
visible at all, would, we should imagine, be a very
small 'prentice indeed !
But what, it may be: asked, has Sir Robert done to
leSsen himself in the eyes of this great magician ?
Why, he has let slip the fairest opportunity ever pre-
sented to a minister of distinguishing himself as the
prince of apostates and the most unprincipled of pre-
tenders. He has not proposed a 'Whig settlement of

the corn question. But—most grievous sin of all !
he has not appreciated correctly the amazing virtue of
the "liberal party" ! Had Sir Robert Peel been wil-

ling, after good Whig example, to turn his back upon
and despise the power which has so lately placed in his

hands the administration of the government, we are
assured by our contemporary that " the liberal party,
true to their principles whether in place or out of it,
were prepared, laying aside all political hostility, with
heart and soul to help" him in so excellent a stultifica-

Lion of himself. Beautiful disinterestedness ! Con-
summate patriotism ! Really we scarcely know whe-
ther most to laugh at the notion of a " liberal party,

true to their principles whether in place or out of it" (!
or to wonder what kind of a settlement of the corn
laWs that would be which this " liberal party" would
aid him to carry. Will the Albion tell us ? Or, will
he tell us who compose the liberal party ? Upon either
of these matters it would be a treat, to all mankind to be
enlightened.

Our contemporary of yesterday, under the heading
" American flour and provisions," furnishes us with
the following unproved assertions and unauthorized
deductions—the staple, by the way, of anti-corn-law
diatribes :

We have been favoured with an extract from a circular
addressed to the Liverpool Anti-Monopoly Association, by
Messrs. F. de Lizardi and Co., dated New Orleans Jan. 17,
18-12. It shows how admirably the soil of the valley of the
Mississippi is adapted for the growth of the food of man,
and what supplies of flour and provisions might be drawn
from New Orleans alone for the subsistence of our people,
thousands of whom are now famishing for want of the bare
necessaries of life. Nor would it be necessary to export
one farthing in money to pay for this flour and these provi-
sions. The farmers of the United States would gladly
receive British manufactures in' return for the produce of
their farms. Thus a most extensive and rapidly increasing
market would be opened to our cottons and our woollens,
our cutlery and our hardware, giving employment and good
wages to artisans, as well as supplying them with bread at a
lower price than they could ever hope to buy it while our
own agriculturists enjoy the monopoly of the home market.
We fear that the corn-laws, with Sir Robert Peel's latest
" improvements," willeffectually seal the Mississippi, so far
as the export of flour and provisions is concerned, and cut
us off from all supplies from that quarter, while, even under
a moderate fixed duty, not to speak of a system of free
trade, an extensive import from the New World would take
place.

We will not dwell upon the gratuitous promise here
held out, that the American farmers " would gladly
receive British manufactures in return for the produce
of their farms," for it would, in our humble judgment,
be much more " germane to the matter" if our con-
temporary could have assured us that the government
of the United' States would permit this barter—which,
however, he knows they will not—by relaxing, one iota,
their almost prohibitory tariff. We must, however,
deny that the operation of Sir Robert Peel's tariff " will
effectually seal the Mississippi, so far as corn and flour
is concerned, and cut us off from all supplies from
that quarter ;" and we shall substantiate our denial by
the data furnished us from Messrs. De Lizardi, as
quoted by our contemporary.
These gentlemen state the price of superfine Ame-
rican flour at New Orleans as " dull at 5 dollars 75
cents per barrel, or 225. 6d. per 196 lbs." Let us add
then to this price the freight from New Orleans, which

is 3s. 9d. to 45., and we find the price on board in Li-
verpool 265. 3d. to 265. 6d. Something must be added
for charges—say ls.—and the account will stand thus:
Cost in New Orleans per barrel 225. 6d.

Freight, say
Charges in Liverpool

4s. Od.
is. od.

275. 6d

Duty per Sir Robert Peel's scale upon
average of this week

Gs. 8d

345. 2d.
Latest price for best American flour in Liverpool, 36s

leaving for commmission or importers' profit, at pre
sent prices, ls. 10d. per barrel-

yond the amount advanced by the foreign agent, and of
being called upon to pay over again the amount of that
excess to the original owner.
It is plain that some material alteration must be
made in this law; and we really cannot see that any
thing effectual can be done, short of the course recently
recommended by the merchantile associations of Li-
verpool, and impressed by their deputation upon the
attention of Government. It is undoubtedly desirable,
and it seems to have been the anxious care of the legis-
lature, that the interest of the owners of goods should
be protected against the malversations of agents. But
it must be borne in mind that, by the existing law, the
agent is placed upon the same footing as owners with
respect to actual sales ; and when we know that the
system of making advances upon deposits has now
become the general course of trade, and is essential to
the healthy course of commercial operations, we are
satisfied that the only proper course for the legislature
to pursue is to give to advances made to agents the
same protection which is afforded to those made to the
owners.

A very brief examination of the law which regulates
transactions between principal and factor cannot fail to
convince those, even, who are the least acquainted with
the intricacies of commercial matters, that a change is
imperatively called for. The act of 6, Geo. 4, c. 94,
was undoubtedly an important amendment of the then
existing law, which held that a person advancing money
to an agent, upon the security of goods entrusted to
him, could not retain them fo' his advance, all hough
he had no means of knowing ale fact of agency. But
whilst legalizing advances in the case of an agent,
known or not known to be so, this act imposed a re-
striction which, in practice, has neutralized almost all
the beneficial results which it was doubtless intended
to effect.

The objections to this act, in practice, are principally
those which arise out of the 2d, 3d, and sth sections;
and the mode of their operation has for some time been
felt as a very serious drawback upon the safety of com-
mercial transactions. By the 2d section it is enacted,
that " Any person entrusted with a bill of lading,
India. warrant, dock warrant, warehouse-keepers! cer-
tificate, wharfingers' certificate, warrant, or order for
delivery of goods, shall he deemed the owner of the
goods, so as to make valid any sale or pledge thereof,
for advances made upon the faith of such documents,
without notice that he is not the owner." By this
clause it was evidently intended to protect merchants
and other parties in making advances upon bills of
lading of goods consigned to them, or similar docu-
ment s of title pledged with them, with a bona fide
intension. And yet it is doubtful whether, in accord-
ance with decisions of law, in cases where advances
have been made upon an advice of a consignment and
before the arrival of the bill of lading, which is the
ordinary course of business, such advances would not
be barred by the third section, and treated as an ante-
cedent debt, which the arrival of the bill of lading in
due course would not secure. It has been held also—
so closely has this clause been construed and the
facilities it was intended to confer narrowed—that an
adva:s.ce made on a Saturday upon a promise to deposit
documents of title to goods on a Monday, which were
actually deposited accordingly, was not within the pro-
tection of the act, because the advance was not made
" upon the faith of the documents," but only upon a
promise of the documents, and before they were really
pledged, and that it was therefore defeated by the third
section, which enacts that " no person shall acquire
security upon goods from an agent for an antecedent
debt beyond the agent's own lien."

Thte sth section enacts that "any person may take
goods, or any document, in pledge for an agent, though
known to be such." But .the application of this direct
permission is immediately narrowed by a proviso, which
it mast be evident to every one who is acquainted with