The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-12-27 00:00:00

Efir Etberpool &tantrarb.

TUESDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 27, 1842.

The Leaguers go on swimmingly; and if we maY
venture to believe that amusing personage, Mr•
Richard Cobden, their promised fifty thousand pounds
is almost as safe as if it was already in their hands•
Nay, we are assured, by the same authority, that if he,
Cobden, and his fellow-agitators, could " divide and
subdivide themselves," or be in fifty places at once,
" they might receive £200,000 or £300,000, as well as

£50,000 !" The Stockport M.P. out-Daniels Daniel,
hollow; but let us proceed to the revelation, with
which, on Thursday last, he accompanied the above
absurdities. We have been asking, and other men
have been asking—" to what purposes are these vast
sums of money to be devoted ?" Let Richard Cobden
answer for himself. " When he got into the House of
Commons again he knew the tactics that would be
pursued. There would be a great outcry against the
League. Did the meeting think that he would con-
descend (!) to answer the attacks from such quarters?
If they did he would answer them in this way. 6lt is
all very well to quarrel with them ; but unless you
mind your votes the League will substitute better ?Theo
for you at the next election.' THIS WAS THE BUST
NESS OF THE LEAGUE." ! And this, of course—to
supply better men at the next election—is the purposed
destination of the 50, 200 or 300 thousand pounds,
which the body in question is squeezing out Of the
various he, or she, gulls who are daily enrolling them-
selves amongst its members.
Thanks, Mr. Cobden, fur your candour; and now,
if you please, we will proceed to notice another portion
of your Thursday's developments. 6"rhe meeting
saw"— (what a discerning meeting !)—" how the
League were advancing in their discussions. The
sliding scale had been given up by all intelligent people"
—how complimentary to people so unfortunately-obtuse
as ourselves !—" and now they had come to the pre-
sent discussion with their friends, who had gone with
them thus far, and who only hesitated to advance a
step further from a fixed duty to a total repeal."
Really, Mr. Richard Cobden, we feel inclined to demur
a little to this conclusion. At all events, not so fast !
—for we have a few little conditions to stipulate for
before we lay down our arms; and these we will at
once proceed to detail. Perhaps they may be worth
the consideration of those friends, who " have gone
with you," as far as a fixed duty, and are now urged
to go further. In particular, we would recommend
them to the consideration of the " intelligent" working
classes.

We perfectly remember that at the outset of this
agitation—that not later than two sessions of Parlia-
ment ago—it was expressly agreed that, upon the boon
of a free trade in corn having been conceded to the

manufacturing community, that community was pre-
pared to submit to the withdrawal of all legislative
protection von manufactured commodities. This was
distinctly admitted in the House of Commons, by no
less influential authorities than the members for the
borough of Manchester--Messrs. Philips and Gibson.
The silks, the cottons, the linens, the hosiery, the lace,
the shoes, boots, watches, docks, gloves, hats, &c. of
Europe, were to be admitted free of duty into the
British markets, to compete there with the productions
of the native manufacturer. Somehow or other, how-
ever, as the Leaguers get nearer, or fancy they get
nearer, to their grand desideratum—a free trade—they
find it convenient to forget the stipulation, that that
free trade was not to be one-sided. May we tale the
liberty of reminding them, and their friends amongst
the working classes, of this important feature in the
proposed arrangement ? May we ask Mr. Cobden
and his allies if they are prepared to stand by " their
bond," and to recognise it as undeniably just that, if
one leading interest is to be deprived of its existing
protection—if the British agriculturist is to be subjected
to a competition with the foreign grower—in order
that the manufacturer may have a cheap foreign loaf,
the latter should submit to a similar competition with
the foreigner, to allow the agriculturist the cheap com-
modities of other countries ? " Give and take" is fair
play the world over ; and the free-trader cannot,

therefore, consistently say " No" to such an arrange-

ment.

We can readily surmise what will be the answer of
so very flippant a personage as Mr. Richard Cobden.
However averse that gentleman may be to the intro-
duction of such a topic in the present stage of the
anti-corn-law agitation, the member for Stockport will
be prepared to say at once---" Oh, by all means ! D°'
away with all protection. The cotton trade wants no
protection. Give us but a cheap loaf and free trader
and we are ready to open our markets and compete
with all the world !" And the cotton trade can do
so; and a few other trades can do so; but many trades
cannot do so, and these trades, as a matter of course,
must be given over to the cheap foreign artizan. But
how, we ask, is the cotton trade—we leave the others
for the present to ruminate upon its effect upon their
condition—to be the better enabled to sustain compe-
tition with the foreigner from the possession of a cheap
loaf ? Why stipulate for this as the sine qua* non which
is to induce it to submit to the withdrawal of protec-
tion ? Does flour enter into the composition of cotton
goods to any greater extent than that to which it 1:
used in the composition of those " cheap and nasty"
fabrics with which the foreign buyer is swindled, and
the reputation of the British trader lowered in every
market throughout the globe ? Does the steam-engine
consume corn ? What, then, has cheap bread to do
with the question ? It has this. It will enable the
manufacturer to screw down the price of labour! Tt
will enable him to produce cheaper ! It will enable
him, in a word, to COMPETE, in price, with the
foreigner in the markets of Great Britain, or in their
own!

Surely the conclusion is inevitable. CHEAP LABOUR
is the result which the League party looks for to ac-
company the boon (?) Of CHEAP BREAD ! Let ti°t
our working fellow-countrymen be gulled with pro-
fessions; but rather exercise upon this matter their
deliberate judgment and common sense. If the mas-
ter shoemaker, glover, hatter, hosier, and other de-
partments of native industry, cannot at present corn'
pete with the foreigner, how is the circumstance that
their workmen have a cheap loaf to enable them to do
so, unless those workmen will content themselves with
lower wages—will make a pair of shoes, or gloves, a
hat, or a pair of stockings, for less money ? All the
sophistries of all the philosophers (.9 who composp the
Anti-Monopoly Association of Liverpool cannot dispose
of this stubborn and inevitable conclusion !
Our cotton trade, and perhaps a few other giant
trades, may possibly exist under such a competition. as
that with which they will be assailed by the foreign