The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS

In the notice of operations which we gave in our Tuesday's
paper as having seen performed at the Eye and Ear In-
firmary, we stated that two infants, suffering from puru-
lent ophthalmia, had been operated on, and sight immedi-
ately restored. We should have said one infant was born
blind, from cataract in both eyes ; the other had cataract
resulting from an attack of purulent ophthalmia when only
three days old. Both infants were operated on for cataract,
with perfect success in bsth cases.
With reference to a question from a correspondent signing
his letter " M. A.," respecting Mr. Grantham's remarks
on the friction of six-wheeled engines, we have made some
enquiries, and may observe, that, although the arguments
raised by M. A. as to the friction of bearings are correct
as a general principle, still, the additional weight of the
extra wheels themselves must, in all fairness, be taken into
the account as additional sources of friction. We, how-
ever, agree with Mr. Grantham, that the advantages to he
derived from six wheels more than counteract the objection
.of extra friction.
We are compelled, by a pressure of advertisements at a late
hour, to postpone till our next publication reviews of seve-
ral new publications, amongst which are the Church of
England Quarterly Review, the Churchman, the Liverpool
Policeman, &c.

Ebt 71,thrrpool iPtanbarb.

FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 22, 1842

On Monday last the Income Tax Bill, brought on by
Sir Robert Peel, in accordance with a resolution af-
firmed by a majority of 106 members of the House of
Commons, was opposed on its first reading by that
homoeopathic drop of faction, Lord John Russell; and
at every future stage of the bill, we are assured that the
same fruitless and factious obstruction is to be offered
to its progress. The principle of the measure has al-
ready been sufficiently affirmed in both Houses of Par-
liament. Agitation against it has been tried in vain
throughout the country ; and the feeling in its favour
has been shewn to he overpowering. The most un-
scrupulous partizan cannot point even to a dawning
hope that opposition can be ultimately successful. The
commerce, the agriculture, and the industry of the na-
tion, alike, pray for its speedy settlement, as the only
course which can raise them from their present state of
prostration and suffering. Yet these unprincipled par-
liamentary gladiators—these reckless and venal hunters
after place and pay—are resolved, in defiance of the
declared will of parliament and of the people, to pro-
tract its suffering, and to trample upon and mock at

its prostrated energies.
The following announcement, which we extract from
the columns of a Liverpool contemporary, is an exam-
ple of the kind of difficulty created by the factious
course of Lord John and his fellow-obstructives :

" The sale of Costa Rica coffee, advertised by Bushby,
Son, and Foster, for the 26th instant, is postponed for the
present, on account of the uncertainty as to the duties."

A solitary instance this, in which the obstruction in
question is paralizing the commerce of this large com-
munity—damming up the channels through which its
fertilizing capital ordinarily flows—throwing idle, in
the very midst of the season when activity ought to
prevail, our industrious population, our mercantile
navy, our vast commercial establishments, and bewil-
dering alike, with the uncertainty which it creates, the
importer, the merchant, the manufacturer, and the
shopkeeper. A hundred similar instances occur daily
unnoted; and yet a reformed parliament, or at the
least a liberal minority of that parliament, composed of
sticklers for the absolute sovereignty of the will of the
constituent body, hears the remonstrances of the coun-
try—witnesses its complicated and intense suffering—
and remains obstinately, daringly, and wickedly un-

heeding !

How long, we ask, shall such a state of things be
endured with patience ? In the name of this great
commercial community—by all the wretchedness which
we see around us—we implore of the legislature—we
implore of this shameless and dishonest faction—to
put an end, at once, to this destroying uncertainty !

The progressive substitution of infant and female
for male adult labour in the factories of Great Britain,
is a subject which, at the present moment, is well worthy
of the serious attention of the statesman. By a return
which is before us, it appears that out of a total num-
ber of 424,209 factory labourers employed in the five
most important branches of our manufactures 197,239
persons, or nearly one half, are under the age of 43
years. Of the entire number, only 159,709, or about
two-fifths, are above the age of 21. Of those em-
ployed under 13 years of age, amounting to 33,449,
16,844 are males, and 16,605 females. Of those from
13 to 18, 65,792 are males, and 97,998 are females.
From 18 to 21 the number of males are only 18,608,
whilst the females are 48,653 ! Of those above 21, the
males are 78,144, and the females 81,565. Most of
the latter of course must be mothers, with families,
who are thus subjected to this unhealthy occupation ;
whilst their male partners, in too many cases, live upon
the proceeds of their labour, either perforce or by
choice !
The above numbers apply to cotton, woollen,
worsted, flax, and silk factories. In cotton factories
alone, the total number of both sexes employed are
259,962, of which 111,058 are under 18 years of age,
and 155,091 under 21 years of age. Of the 259,962
persons employed, 146,401, or nearly three-fifths, are
females. In the worsted, flax, and silk factories, the
proportion of females to males exceeds two to one. In
worsted factories, alone, the proportion is even greater.
The return from which the above numbers are
quoted is not a very recent one, and if we could have
authentic data as to the state of things at the present
moment, we believe they would show that, along with
progressive improvements which have been making in
machinery, this substitution of infant and female for
male adult labour has rapidly increased. The male
adult labourer is being gradually excluded from the
factories of Great Britain, and his place at the loom or
the spinning frame occupied by children or by women.
Surely then a system, of which these are the ten-
dencies and results, is not one upon which any nation
can rely for the employment of a population driven
from the healthy occupations of agriculture to swell

the masses which throng the labour market of our
large manufacturing towns.

Our contemporary the London Times remarks of Sir
Robert Peel's corn bill—
" The debate in the House of Lords on 'Monday night sug-
gests a recurrence to that now somewhat trite topic—the new
corn bill. Never, certainly was there a subject on which
such a variety of contradictory facts were asserted, and when
asserted put to such a variety of purposes. Supporters of
the bill tell us that it will bring down the price of food, and,
therefore, the consuming population are to demand it ; sup-
porters of the bill tell us it will not bring down the price of
food, and, therefore, the farmers are not to oppose it. Op-
ponents of the bill tell us it trill bring down the price of food,
and, therefore, the farmers are to withstand it to the death :
opponents of the bill tell us that it will not bring down the
price of food, and, therefore, it is not worth having
porters and opponents of the bill, each for their respective
purposes, tell us that it will encourage foreign countries to
grow corn for our supply. Supporters and opponents of the
bill tell us, each again for their respective purposes, that it
will so raise the price of corn in the foreign markets as to
make the change neither formidable to the farmer nor bene-
ficial to the consumer. What is a plain man to make out of
this concordia discors, this agreement to differ on facts and
applications by which he finds himself stunned and bewil-
dered?"

If he had made use of his ordinary judgment, the
Times would have, perhaps, arrived atjthe obvious con-
clusion that a bill, thus opposed by the ultra of both
parties in the House of Commons and throughout the
country, must contain a tolerably fair settlement of the
question at issue. The corn law measure of Sir Ro-
bert Peel, we must conclude, is a moderate and just
measure, which ought to content all moderate and just

We refer with considerable disappointment to the
report in our columns this day by which it will be seen
that the directors of the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway have decided at length upon the adoption of
the proposed junction with the Leeds and Manchester
Railway by way of Hunt's Bank, thus reversing their
previously expressed determination in favour of the
southern junction at Store-street. By this decision the
Liverpool board affirms the proposition to unite their
undertaking with one only of the lines to the south and
south-east of Manchester. By this decision the lines
to Sheffield and to Stockport, Macclesfield, &c., are
virtually disconnected from the Liverpool line, and left
to seek, for their merchandise traffic, a water commu-
nication from their terminus in Store-street to and from
Liverpool, their port of import and export. By this de-
cision the passenger traffic of the Liverpool line is, we
are afraid permanently, shut out from the best commu-
nication with the centre of the town of Manchester,
and coerced into the adoption of a terminus little bet-
ter than their present one,—a terminus from the
neighbourhood of which the business of the town is
rapidly removing itself, and•which possesses only one
recommendation that we can perceive, namely, that it
will advance the value of the unsaleable and unoccu-
pied property at Hunt's Bank, owned by that hot.
headed advocate of this junction and salaried director
of the Leeds Company, Mr. Gill.
We repeat that we are grieved by this decision. We
are confident that it has been come to upon totally in-
defensible grounds. The majority of the Liverpool
board have been entrapped, if not bullied, out of the
exercise of that calm judgment with which they have
ever hitherto conducted the important undertaking
committed to their charge. With respect to the feel-
ing of the town of Manchester they are entirely de-
ceived; and we cannot, therefore, but entreat of them
to pause before they commit themselves to the hasty
course which, on Wednesday, was decided upon.

On Tuesday we shall return to this subject, and we
pledge ourselves to prove every position which we have
here advanced. At present, both our space and the
demands upon our time forbid our going at length into
the subject.

If we entertained a spite against any scat smart, we
could not pray for a severer infliction upon him than
the advocacy of the Liverpool limes; and, if we want-
ed to advance the reputation of any public man, give
us, above all other things, the blundering hostility of
that journal ! Upon this principle, we are delighted to
observe, upon every occasion when either of our ex-
cellent representatives addresses the House of Com-
mons, the heels of our contemporary elevated in an
abortive attempt to kick ; and the constituency of Li-
verpool, we are sure, turn with an infinitely increased
delight to the speeches of the honourable members in
question after enduring the senseless bray of their
feeble traducer.

Our contemporary, on Tuesday last, falls athwart
the senior member for this borough because his lord-
ship had expressed a doubt that the fixed duty of Bs.
upon the importation of foreign wheat, proposed by
Lord John Russell, could be depended upon as a source
of revenue. When the harvest of Great Britain was a
plentiful one, Lord Sandon maintained that no revenue
from an Bs. duty would accrue; when it was a defici-
ent one, it could not be collected. Both these posi-
tions, says the Liverpool Times, are absurd and mons-
trous. Be it so ! Then is Lord John Russell, our
contemporary's chosen philosopher, a charlatan and a
false prophet. With the most abundant harvest, the
Times maintains, the prices of English grain would
not be reduced to within 15s. or 20s. of the continen-
tal prices. An Bs. duty, Lord John maintained, was
a protection to the British farmer ! Again, it is ab-
surd, argues the Times, that in dear seasons an Bs. duty
would be inoperative. In such seasons, however, Lord
John maintains that the duty must, perforce, be remit-
ted by an order in Council.

" Strange that such difference should be
'Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee !"

With respect to sugar, too, our contemporary assures
us that his lordship is equally in the wrong. "An
immense importation would take place if the discrimi-
nating duty was reduced to 12s. a cwt., as proposed in
the budget of last year." This may he so, and we
dare say it is ; yet we sympathise, nevertheless, with
the noble statesman who is cursed with so indiscreet an
advocate. If we mistake not, Lord John Russell, in
bringing forward his notable budget, calculated upon
a saving of ls. 6d. per cwt., only, in the price of this ar-
ticle of sugar ; and it is cruel of the Times thus to tear
his lordship's laboured sophistries into " very tatters."
But, with respect to the income tax—oh, John Tay-
lor, above all other men do we pity thee ! It was bad
enough that John Taylor opposed this cruel tax; but
John Taylor and the Liverpool Times together will do
more than all the thunders of all the "forcible feehies"
who rave and rant against it to satisfy the world that,
thanks to Whiggery,

" To this complexion we must come at last !"

We received yesterday the following paragraph,
which we were requested to insert in the STANDARD
this morning :
" At a meeting of the Commissioners of Taxes, held on
Wednesday, Mr. J. F. Anderson, solicitor, of this town, was
appointed their clerk for the year ending sth April, 1843."
We know not, who Mr. J. F. Anderson is, or what
are his claims upon the commissioners, beyond the
circumstance that he has within the past few days
washed his hands of any connection with the gentle-
man who recently held the situation, and that he is a
comparative stranger to the town and to its interests.
We must, however, confess that we do not at all ap-
prove of the way in which, if we are rightly informed,
the appointment, which must soon become a valuable
one, has been conferred.

It was only on Wednesday that the vacancy was
created. On the same day Mr. Anderson was ap-
pointed to fill it, that gentleman being the only appli-
cant, and having only on the previous day advertised
the cessation of his connection with the party dispos-
sessed of it. Surely there is here some hole-and-cor-
ner practice. How came it that, in a community con-
taining some scores of respectable professional men,
quite capable of efficiently performing its duties, an
office worth some hundreds a year was conferred upon
the first aspirant who was lucky enough to arrive at
the knowledge of its being in the market ? How came
that lucky individual to possess such timely knowledge
of the opportunity that was opened to him ? What
were his especial claims ? In what consists his espe-
cial fitness ? All; these inquiries suggest themselves,
and must be answered ; and we greatly fear that to the
gentlemen in whose hands the appointment rested it
will be a matter of some trifling difficulty to answer
them satisfactorily.
We believe it is a fact that in conservative hands,
mainly, this appointment rested. We do not, however,
on that account argue that a Conservative should have

been selected to fill it. We know not, in fact, whether
Mr. Anderson may not he a Conservative. Plainly,
however, his selection has been one of personal favour
on the part of the majority of the commissioners. No
public competition has been invited; and if personal
claims alone are to decide such appointments, surely,
when the power rests thus in Conservatives to reward

devotion and services to the Conservative cause, some
gentleman might have been found who had some ser-
vices in behalf of that cause to plead for him. Upon
every ground we are of opinion that, in the conferring

of such an appointment, every publicity—every oppor-
tunity of examining comparative fitness and desert—
ought to be afforded. We dislike every description of
favouritism in matters where the public interest is con-
cerned. And even where an appointment, as we ima-
gine this to be, is strictly within the power of Conser-
vatives to influence, it is perfectly suicidal policy, not
to mention its ingratitude, if the claims of old and tried
friends are wantonly overlooked.

Such a policy—we would impress this fact upon the
body to which we belong—must, sooner or later, act
with seriously prejudicial effect upon Conservative in-
terests. We think we can plainly discern, in the case
under our notice, evidence of that sensitive dread of
the imputation of illiberality and favouritism from Ra-
dical lips which has on several recent occasions driven
members of the Conservative party to incur the just
imputation from their own friends of having rushed
into the opposite extreme and truckled for favour to
their opponents. The praise of disinterestedness so
lavishly conferred upon them by those who, in their
secret souls, laugh at them for their weakness, may be
pleasing enough to such conservatives ; but the direct
tendency of the course, by which it is earned must be
to disgust every true supporter of Conservative inte-
rests, when to have toiled through good report and
evil in their behalf is, of itself, a virtual exclusion from
every favour which, in its day of prosperity, Conser-
vatism has to bestow. This system must be amended.