UNIVERSITY C T ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-ChAViPAIGN BOOKSTAQKS The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/pamphletspublishOOpott PAMPHLETS PUBLISHED AT VARIOUS PERIODS From 1831 to 1855 : BY EDMUND POTTER. MANCHESTER : JOHNSON AND EAWSON, PRINTERS, 89, MARKET STREET. 1855. m\ ; Commerce.' % 0 Y Tin 0 ^ E UX n h a rn LETTER TO LORD ALTHORP. cT > 5 > 2 . LECTURE ON CALICO PRINTING. r" LETTER TO ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE EXHIBITION. THE STRIKE : A LETTER TO THE WORK- ING CLASSES. LETTER TO REV. CHAS. RICHSON. PRACTICAL OPINIONS AGAINST PART- NERSHIP WITH LIMITED LIABILITY. h REPLY TO THE SPEECH OF THE RIGHT HON. E. P. BOUVERIE. PREFACE. The following Pamphlets are collected, not from a feeling that they are of much value, but as a means of reference to facts and opinions, some of them now of rather a distant date. Perhaps the Author may refer with some feelings of pride to the “ Letter to Lord Althorp,” as having been, he believes, the immediate means of procuring the Repeal of the Duty on Printed Calicoes, in 1831. Many of the arguments and facts then adduced had not been previously collected, and were admitted, by the frank and honest Chancellor of the Exchequer, as beyond reply. At a period later by upwards of twenty years, the Author, supported by some of the friends who had been associated with him in opposition to the Duty on printed Calicoes, in 1831, appealed to Mr. Glad- stone, on similar grounds, against the continuance of the duty on soap, and he has reason to believe that the facts and opinions then offered, after a most 11 . patient hearing and candid examination by Mr. Gladstone, had some effect on his decision. The “ Lecture on Calico Printing ” is perhaps in- teresting, as recording the rapid changes produced by the removal of the duty on printed Calicoes. The later pamphlets on Limited Liability refer to a subject which the Author thinks has, as yet, hardly been fairly considered, and were published chiefly with a view of provoking a fairer discussion. Perhaps those who may feel the deepest interest in these imperfect essays, are those of the Author’s family circle, who have, from time to time, shared his opinions and feelings on the different subjects dis- cussed, smoothed his disappointments, encouraged his hopes, and borne patiently the absences which public duty entails upon those who undertake it. Dinting Lodge, Glossop, October , 1855. A LETTER TO THE RT. HON. LORD ALTHORP, CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, &c. &c. ON THE SUBJECT OF THE DUTY ON PRINTED COTTONS. BY A CALICO PRINTER. SECOND EDITION. LONDON: PUBLISHED BY JAMES RIDGWAY, No. 169, PICCADILLY; AND BY T, FORREST, MARKET-STREET, MANCHESTER. s l n ■ - ■ : c \ i'i . . *.i . ■- . : i • 1 . ■ . ■ .. •• ,,, , ; i • ■ - 5 . • i V . » 5 , - ' i ” r ' • - • - ■ «• . > „ * T I A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD ALTHORPE, &c. My Lord, IT is reported in the newspapers* of the 14 th of December last, that on the pre- vious evening your Lordship said in the House of Commons, “ It was not by retrenchment alone the Government intended to relieve the Country, but also by looking at the financial state of the Country, and the manner in which taxes pressed on the industry of the people, and by reducing those taxes which, by their excessive amount, reduced themselves — and he believed that the revenue would be increased, and relief afforded to the people, not by laying on new taxes, but by altering those which pressed heavily on indus- try.” These, my Lord, are views and statements in the soundness and justice of which every one must most fully concur. No one can, for a moment, suspect your Lordship of a wish to exer- cise the important powers you possess as Chancellor of the Exchequer, otherwise than for the very best of purposes ; nor doubt that, in the remission of * Courier Newspaper, 14th December, 1830. 4 any taxes, you will take first tlie one “ pressing heaviest on the industry of the people, and by its excessive amount reducing itself.” Nor can it be questioned that this will be one of the most effectual means of relieving, as well as prevent- ing for the future, the distresses of the country. Suffering, my Lord, with many others under the pressure of a duty which, I believe, will be found to be the one most oppressive and injurious; and which, if repealed, would confer a greater proportionate benefit than the removal of any other tax, I venture to trespass upon your Lord- ship’s patience for a few moments, in the confi- dent hope that an explanation of the evil (though extremely imperfect) will cause its removal. I am the more tempted to take this step, from being aware of the very slight knowledge the House of Commons and the Country at large have of the real nature of the duty on printed •cottons. With these views, my Lord, allow me first briefly to direct your Lordship’s attention to the other taxes generally considered as having the strongest claims for a repeal; and to endeavour, in so doing, to shew the greater comparative claims of the print duty. I avail myself of the report of the very able speech of C. P. Thomson, Esq., in the House of Commons, on the 26th of March, 1830, on the subject of taxation. I take first the tax on timber; the nett revenue 5 from which is about £1,550,000. I do not mean to deny that there is great evil connected with this tax; but there is none existing to such an extent as to place its claim for an entire repeal first. The tax on hemp next presents itself ; it is limited in effect and amount, but has every claim for repeal in its course. The soap duty was stated in 1828 to be (nett) £1,210,754., and soap is admitted to be a fit object for taxation. I quote the speech I have referred to. “ The duty on hard soap (and the revenue on “ soft soap is next to nothing) is three pence per “ per lb. or 110 to 130 per cent, or in some cases “ even more. This is a large sum, and I must fairly “ own that I do not think it at all an unfit object “ of revenue. But it is clear that the duty is far “ too high to answer the purpose, and the regula- “ tions for collecting it lead to frauds of the gross- “ est description. There is no duty in Ireland, “ and it is notorious that a large quantity of soap “ is smuggled back again from that country into “ England. I know of two houses who avail “ themselves of some of the existing regulations “ to carry on an extensive business entirely with “ the capital of the government. I will shortly “ explain how. There is a drawback on the ex- “ portation of soap to Ireland, which is paid im- “ mediately, whilst the duty is not required until “ the expiration of six weeks from the manufac- 6 “ture of the soap. Two houses in Liverpool “exporting their soap to Ireland, immediately “ after it is made, receive the drawback, which ex- “ ceeds in amount the value of the soap, and “ which they have not to pay in the shape of duty “ for nearly five weeks, during which time there- “ fore they hold in their hands the capital of the “ government, and actually trade with it. But “ there is no end to the various frauds which arise “ under this system.” Contrast, my Lord, the comparatively small amount of evil, as here stated to exist, with the heavier weight borne by the print trade, and which I shall presently exhibit; and this duty will certainly not call for a repeal in preference to the duty on printed cottons. The only tax at all presenting claims bearing any comparison with those of the calico printers, is the one on sea-borne coals. I again avail myself of the words of Mr. Thomson. “ The next article to which I shall allude, is “ that of sea-borne coals, the nett duty on which “ in 1828 amounted to £833,072. It is quite “ impossible to justify the continuation of this “ tax for one hour. Since its imposition, circum- “ stances have entirely changed; and whoever will “ refer to the debates which took place so often “ upon this subject, will find that the grounds on “ which it was defended are completely different “ from those of the present day. At the various 7 “ periods at which this duty was imposed, — for “ instance, during the early periods of the Avar, — “coals were principally used for fuel; and al- “ though the tax fell heavily on individuals, and “ affected their comforts, it did not operate on the “ manufactures of the country. But now, when “ that article has become so important in this re- “ spect, is it politic, is it just, to compel manufac- “ turers to establish themselves in inland parts, “ where they can obtain coals at a cheap rate, and “ to prevent them from fixing their works on the coast or in the capital? On what principle of “ equity or of justice can you call on the manufac- “ turer of Norwich or of London to pay a duty “ on an article from which you exempt his neigh- “ hour at Manchester or at Paisley? Whoever “ will inquire but briefly into this subject, will see “ the injurious effects of this duty. In the glass “ manufacture, for example, it has completely “ driven the manufacturer of the metropolis from “ the coarser to the finer kind of goods. Under “ the general use of steam power, which prevails “ more or less through every branch of industry, “ it must seriously injure almost every manufac- “ turer who comes within its operation. It is, I “ maintain, utterly indefensible; and I should “ propose its removal with as little delay as “ may be.” Truly, my Lord, “ it is impossible to justify the continuance of this tax for a single hour;” but 8 will not the arguments so strong in themselves, and so powerfully urged, apply with a trebled force against the continuance for a single hour of the duty on printed cottons. The duty on coal is doubtless a hardship on the consumer, and a greater one than the tax I appeal against, but there is this distinction in the taxes. The individual must consume coals when taxed, though he may not do it so extensively. This is pretty nearly the extent of the evil as regards the coal owner. Not so with respect to the printer — a thousand manufactures, all tax free , and equally suitable, are open to the consumer. If he has not the prints at a depressed, perhaps a sacrificed value, to conceal the tax, he does not •purchase, but substitutes other goods. This power of substitution, my Lord, is the heaviest, and the distinguishing grievance, as regards the print duty, beyond all others. The duty on glass, with all its restrictions, penalties, and absurdities, (and they are numerous,) can have no claims for a repeal in comparison with the tax on printed cottons. The duty on paper next presents itself: from its nature it can hardly be brought into compari- son with the duty on prints. Here too, the maker has no untaxed competitor to contend with; the evil is general, and its existence is to be lamented as “ a tax upon science, upon knowledge, on the diffusion of education, and of useful information.” 9 I will not, my Lord, carry these imperfect comparisons further. Tea, sugar, tobacco, spirits, and wine, and many other things, I would submit, are fair objects for taxation — to what extent it is no part of the present question to determine — but none of these possess a claim for repeal, that can bear a comparison with the print duty. I proceed, my Lord, to give Mr. Thomson’s opinion on the subject of this tax: — “I now turn 44 to the last tax of this description, on which I “ shall think it necessary to dwell. The subject has “ already been partially brought before the house 44 during the last session, by my hon. friend the 44 member for Montrose, in moving for some returns 44 of which I shall avail myself: I mean the tax on 44 printed calicoes. It is matter of surprise to me, “ that this most impolitic impost should have been “ allowed to continue, especially when it was de- 44 dared by the committee of 1818 to be ‘ partial “ ‘ and oppressive, and that its repeal was most desi- “ 4 rable;’ who, indeed, can examine it and not feel 44 the truth of this observation? Is it credible 44 that in order to raise a nett revenue of £599,669. 44 agrosstax should be imposed of £2,019,737? and 44 yet this was the return according to the paper on 44 your table for 1828. And these figures are still 44 far from shewing the real cost of the collection of 44 this tax ; — that must be taken upon the gross 44 produce ; and supposing the rate of the collection 44 for the excise to be five per cent., which is less 10 “ than it really is, you have a cost of 20 per cent, on “ the nett produce of this tax, for charges. In addi- “ tion to this, from all the inquiry I have been able “ to make, the increased cost to the manufacturer “ is fully five per cent, upon the whole quantity “ made; so that you have thus two sums, each of “ £100,000. levied on the public, for the sake of “ exacting a duty of £600,000. But the revenue “ is again in this case far from being the measure “ of the injury you inflict. The inequality of “ the tax constitutes its chief objection. The duty “ is levied upon the square yard at 3|d. per “ yard. Thus the piece of calico which sells for “ 6d., duty paid, contributes equally with that “ which is worth 5s. per yard. You levy an oner- “ ous and oppressive tax of 100 or 150 per cent. “ upon the poor, who are the purchasers of inferior “ cottons; whilst the rich, who buy only the finest “ kinds, pay but 10 or 15 per cent.” No tax appears to me to have such prepon- derating claims for an immediate repeal, as the duty on printed cottons. I do not fear your Lordship’s entire acquiescence with me in these views, after you have borne with me through statements which, though feebly urged, possess a treble force to any I have seen, or can conceive capable of being urged in support of the repeal of any other duty. This tax was reported by a Com- mittee of the House of Commons in 1818, when its evil effects were not one-third of the extent 11 they now are, as “ partial and oppressive, and desir- able to be repealed.” It is impolitic, from its continuance tending to make it unprofitable ; its cost of collection enormous, as regards any other tax; its very operation holding out a temptation to fraud, which its burthen forces many printers to accept, as the best means of supporting their trade under unnatural competition. It is, like all other taxes, burthensome on the consumer — it is more ruinous than any other to the producer — it is palsying and restrictive in effect, absurd and ridi- culous in its enactments, a disgrace to the statute book, and I believe, my Lord, the only remaining tax on wearing apparel, and the manufactures of the British loom; and lastly, it fetters and restricts the very trade, of all others, most deserv- ing the fostering care and protection of Govern- ment. These, my Lord, are startling assertions, — I only ask for a calm perusal of the statements in proof, and I do not doubt the result will be the removal of a tax, which your Lordship would scarcely wish to see becoming profitless, from having consumed and crushed down its means of sustenance and support. The print duty was originally imposed in the year 1712 for the protection of the then infant silk trade ; and, as a tax upon a trade encouraging foreign manufactures, rather than our own. The material for printing upon was then either of conti- 12 nental or Indian manufacture. Now, my Lord, it is the staple manufacture of this country. The duty was then a protection, and perhaps a fair one* small in amount, held out no temptation to fraud, and its effects were so nominal, that it was a griev- ance scarcely worth petitioning against; it gave an appearance of advantage to our own manufactures, and encouraged the use of English goods in pre- ference to foreign productions. The per centage, at that time, might amount to about two and a half per cent. Now it will be fifty per cent., on the average value of the goods. In ever y respect, then, my Lord, the tax varies from the original intention of the act by which it was imposed. The trade was then very limited ; and the annoyance and restriction naturally attendant on the surveillance of the excise, were little felt. It will be seen that the in- crease of these grievances has kept pace with the additional weight of the tax. The duty is charged on the superficial square yard, without any reference to its value. — It was originally three pence per yard ; but in the year 1806, I believe, was raised to three pence halfpenny, its present rate. The very method of charge shews the un- fitness of the article for taxation, and yet the present mode is the only one at all practicable. The duty, as named, is charged on the superficial square yard. To calculate it, the excise officer 13 has the material to be printed upon laid before him, and he takes first the width by placing the measure across the piece. Now, my Lord, should he be disposed to exercise the full extent of his authority, he stretches the cloth (naturally of ligh t and elastic fabric, and made more so from the state in which it generally comes before him) and the very difference between his stretching it in a good or a bad humour, may make a variation of ten or fifteen per cent, in the charge. Here, then, exists a loop hole, and a temptation to fraud, — without there being a possibility of detection — nay, even without there being any grounds for suspecting it. These variations do exist to the extent I have named ; and it is the fact, though it will hardly be credited that the difference in the char- ges made to two establishments, printing the same quantity and quality of goods, frequently amounts to sums varying from £500. to £5000. per annum. The next point to which I would press your Lordship’s attention, is the injustice as respects the rate of charge. It is superficial, without any regard to value, or to the expense of work on the material. Thus it happens, that the low priced print for the use of the labouring classes, is taxed from 80 per cent, downwards, till the finer goods, for the wear of the higher ranks, escape with a duty of not more than 5 per cent. This, my lord, I humbly conceive is an injustice and an absurdity, without a parallel in any other tax. 14 The next evil connected with the tax, is the inducement to fraud. The repeal of other taxes has been yielded to this argument: none ever existed affording a greater inducement. I have stated, that the duty frequently amounts to 80 per cent, on the value of the goods. It is the practice of the merchant, in many instances, to find the cloth, which he gives out to the printer, who returns it, perhaps in three or six days, and is paid, immediately if he chooses it, the amount of the charge for printing, including duty; the duty being no less than 5s., out of the 7s. he may have to receivers the price of printing. Now, my Lord he is not called upon to pay this amount of duty to the excise, till on the average five or six weeks after the goods leave his premises. The result is, that 5-7ths of the funds passing through his hands, and forming his capital, are the property of go- vernment. I will not pretend to state what amount individuals may and continually do hold in this way, but will only observe, that as much as £16,000. or £18,000. has been paid at once for duty, by individual houses, and that equal sums might, by a proper management, be regularly retained in hand. In Mr. Thomson’s speech, he alludes to the drawbacks on soap when exported, forming a capital for the manufacturer. The evil exists to a ten times greater degree in the print trade. Quantities of prints may be had to almost any ^extent, at an hour’s notice, may be shipped in 36 15 hours afterwards, the amount of the drawbacks advanced immediately by the broker to the pur- chaser, on the credit of the certificate, and the individual placed in possession of an ample capital with which to carry on a forced and unnatural trade, for weeks before he is called upon to pay for his goods. Here then, my Lord, is an expense and a loss to Government; and one which falls with double force upon the capitalist in the trade, by his having to support an unfair competition. He cannot, of course, print to a profit against such competitors, and is obliged to confine him- self to the better goods. On those he has the duty to pay before he receives it; the duty in the former case making the false and the real capital equally available and valuable. If the duty were removed, this would not be the case; the capi- talist would then print all descriptions of goods, none without a profit, and a fair competition would render the trade healthy and valuable. But bad as these evils are, and strange as it is that they should have been allowed to exist so long in a commercial nation like our own, they bear no comparison with the restrictions and frauds the duty occasions. To take the restrictions first: — only for one moment, my Lord, consider those actually ne- cessary in a trade so tempting to fraud; and then re- flect that the excise officers have powers to exercise 16 at discretion, incompatible with every idea of justice and commercial policy. If the printer commits an error, or if the excise officer, in a careless or a drunken fit, makes a mistake which he does not afterwards choose to avow, the result may be, that he seizes a lot of goods; and the Board of Excise, or the Court of Exchequer, decides the case. The bare mention of such names, my Lord, is sufficient to deter almost any printer from grumbling, and to recon- cile him to any moderate imposition or loss. Again, should any circumstance occur to cause a trifling disagreement between the officer and the printer, the former has the power (and one which he does not scruple to exercise) of charging the duties to the utmost extent; and this very difference of his charge, in consequence of good temper or bad, may amount to a large portion of the prin- ter’s profits for the year, if persevered in. Further, my Lord, to prevent fraud, profitable rapidity of production in the trade is fettered. The printer has only the opportunity, probably, of sending his goods from his works at certain hours, liable at all times , to be fixed more to suit the convenience of the officer than himself; or should the officer fail in his attendance (no un- frequent occurrence), the operations of many hands are suspended for hours, to the serious loss of production, capital, and labour. Again: goods intended for shipping imme- 17 diately on being finished, are not allowed to be forwarded from the works direct to the port, but must be sent, by a probably circuitous route, to such places as the excise choose to attend at, to take off the excise marks, and give certificates to obtain the drawbacks. Thus accrue loss of time, additional carriage, and many other expences, the very lowest estimated amount of which, added to the loss occasioned by the necessary em- ployment, in large concerns, of a number of addi- tional servants to assist the excise officers in measuring the goods, making them ready for stamping, &c., and including the waste in every piece of cloth printed, in consequence of the space occupied by the frame marks, stamp, &c., altogether, taken on the authority of those best able to judge, will not, as Mr. Thomson correctly observes, be less than five per cent, on the value of the goods. In this way, my Lord, indepen- dently of the duty, the restrictions of the excise create a tax on the manufacture of printed cottons, amounting to five per cent., and which no other branch of the cotton, silk, or woollen trades, is subject to. This impost remains, after the return of the duty in drawbacks, a tax on the English printer, (the Irish printer is, of course, free from this as well as the duty,) and constitutes a protection to his opponents, in exporting all other British manufactures, and a bonus to the foreign printer, with whom he is now unable to compete in many B 18 markets, in any description of goods requiring much manual labour in their production. Were there no other ground for complaint, this minor point, as it may seem in comparison with others, would be in itself, in these days of limited profit, sufficient to check the fair extension of the print trade. It is needless to dwell on these points : your Lordship muts be aware that the security requisite for the protection of government, in the manage- ment of the receipt of such a sum as £1,942,918. 8s. 6d., and the repayment out of it of £1,390,534. 9s. 4d. annually, must require restrictions on the part of the excise quite incompatible with commercial freedom, and that the difference between their ex- isting or not must be a projit. These restrictions could not exist without a cause : that cause, my Lord, may be found in the temptation to, nay the necessity for fraud, on the part of many printers. The temptation is manifest, when the duty forms so large a portion of the receipts as 5-7ths. What proportion must it bear to the profit, perhaps amounting to 5 per cent, on the remaining Q-lths? Thus, my Lord, if a printer can get passed without duty a single piece, he gains 5s. (suppos- ing the printing and duty to be 7s., (and take the profit to be five per cent, on the whole amount, 7s.) or 4d. ; and we find that the reward of dis- honesty is fifteen — it may even be thirty — times as 19 much as could be expected for fair trading . This temptation exists chiefly amongst the printers of that description of goods of which it is commonly remarked, “No honest man can print to a profit.” It exists in a business more depressed than any other, and in the only trade, in British manufactured piece goods, which is thrown out of the pale of competition by an in- vidious and oppressive duty. The amount of the temptation is not more striking than the facility afforded of its being made available. Two excise officers are generally employed on each print ground, or in many cases they have two establishments to attend to : one takes the entire charge of the books, and the control of the amount to be ultimately charged to the printer. These men have probably not larger salaries than £100. to £120. per annum ; and yet they might, by the slightest complicity with a dishonest printer, (and with little chance of detection) take a profit or share out of sums vary- ing from £1000. to £100,000. per annum : or, my Lord, inattention or carelessness on their part affords a similar opportunity for fraud to the printer alone. During the last ten years no less a sum than eighteen millions has been paid by the printer as duty, out of which twelve millions have been re- turned in drawbacks. I have described the facili- 20 ties for fraud — and these are the funds which have been liable to it. I cannot, my Lord, give cases where such things have occurred : the public papers, it is rather remarkable, bear no record, or scarcely any, of prosecutions for fraud on this branch of the excise. It will hardly be supposed, however, that they have not existed. The only other in- ference is, that they have been compromised. In these remarks, my Lord, I do not mean to impute to excise officers any thing which will not attach to human nature generally. I have no vulgar prejudices against them exclusive of their office ; and they cannot expect to be considered as less open to temptation than the rest of mankind. Looking at the duty in a financial point of view, there cannot be a more extravagant and hurtful method of raising a tax. You levy a sum annually of about two millions, to retain only a nett apparent profit to the revenue of about £364,000. This, too, collected through the hateful and insulting channels I have alluded to. The following statement may perhaps serve to shew what must be the cost of collection of this tax: — The gross produce in the average of five years, ending 5tli January, 1830 £1,924,000 Deduct drawbacks on same average.... £1,3 75, 000 Nett receipt £549,000 21 Deduct proportion arising from papers and oilcloths, printed, and included in the foregoing, say after charges off — suppose £50,000 Probable nett amount on printed calicoes £499,000 Deduct expences of collection, 5^ per cent. on gross receipt. ..£101,000 Suppose 2^ on drawback £34,000 £135,000 Probable actual surplus on an average of five years £364,000 I have estimated the loss to the country occa- sioned by the restrictive absurdities connected with the tax to be 5 per cent. ; take this on the amount of the supposed value of the goods, nett £4,000,000., and we have £200,000. to deduct from the sum as stated above.* If the reduction * Of the loss by delay, extra carriage, &c. in consequence of printers not being allowed to forward goods intended for shipping direct from their works to the ports, it is impossible to form an accurate calculation; neither are there any satisfactory data for estimating the annual cost to the trade of the additional number of servants necessarily employed for the sole purpose of facili- tating the business of the excise officers; but since the paragraph in the text was written, it has occurred to me to make the following statement, which will per- haps shew rather forcibly how easily the loss of such a sum as £200,000. per annum may be accounted for, by the constant operation of what, regarded care- lessly or separately, would probably be considered as mere trifles: — It is the custom of the excise to place figures on both ends of each piece before it is printed, whereby to charge the duty. These figures take up, on the average, 4^ inches at each end, or 9 inches of cloth in each piece. When the goods are exported, the exciseman tears off this length, and takes possession of it as a voucher that the prints have been shipped. These rags, or tabs, as they are technically called, are afterwards, l believe, the perquisite of the officers. The 22 in the amount remaining for the country trade be again equal to last year’s falling off, £100,000. more will have to be deducted, which will leave an apparent, though a questionable profit of £64,000. as the fruits of a tax on the most valu- able branch of the cotton trade. Surely, my Lord, this must be a part of our financial system requiring to be looked at. The next prominent injustice connected with the duty on this trade is that even all printed goods are not taxed. Silks and woollens have lately been exempted. The luxuries have been relieved, whilst the necessaries remain taxed; the result has been increase on one hand, and depression on the other. Printed silks have become a flourishing trade, and silk handkerchiefs have comparatively annihilated cotton ones for the home consumption. Such injustice cannot long remain. The productive energy of the country can never be aided by depressing one branch of trade, and giving an unnatural im- petus to another. Ultimately , the protection must be removed, perhaps to recover the one cost and loss to the country may be estimated by the following calculation; — The number of pieces of prints exported annually is 6,000,000, the average value of which per yard is about 4d. If then, we take 6,000,000 quarter yards, or so many pence, we have an amount of no less than £25,000.; add to this the loss on the 2,000,000 pieces retained for home consumption (which are more valuable goods). For though the ends of these are not torn off’, they remain just so much spoilt cloth, and utterly useless except as old rags, and cause an additional loss at least of one-third more, making the annual waste (for such it is), from the tabs alone, to the country, £33,333. 6s. 8d. 23 from a state of almost total extinction; its removal must weaken the hitherto protected trade far more than any strength it has conferred, and a double evil will be thus entailed. But, my Lord, the measure of the injustice of this tax is not even yet complete — all printed cotton goods are not now taxed. Ingenuity, tempted by the bonus of 30 to 50 per cent., has found a means of evading the tax. I allude to the use of the article called printed yarns. These yarns or threads are printed before weaving; and consequently they cannot be taxed on the square yard. If an attempt were made to tax the goods in the piece, after being woven, it would check the trade at once, and extinguish a business giving employment to some thousands of hands, and only add a still stronger argument to the many for the repeal of the duty on printed cottons. Perhaps the following extract from a pamphlet entitled Remarks on the Injurious effects of the Duty on Printed Cottons , published by Whitaker and Co., last year, may more clearly explain the injustice of this part of the case: — “We pass on to notice one of the very “ strongest arguments for the repeal of this tax, “ one, forced into existence by retaining the duty, “ and which must daily strengthen by the encou- “ ragement held out to another branch of manu- “ facture, at the expense of the print consumer: “ we allude to the article of printed ginghams 24 “ which are allowed to be produced without pay- “ ing any duty. It may here be perhaps necessary “ to explain, to those not fully understanding the “ distinction, what is meant by a printed ging- “ ham, and whence arises the cause of exemption. “ The difference between a gingham and a print “ is merely this, that the first is made of coloured “ and uncoloured threads, the pattern and colours “ being put in when the piece is in the loom; “ whereas, in the print, they are put on after the “ fabric is woven, which may, in point of fact, be “ identically the same ? Any number of colours, “ any variety of pattern capable of being pro- “ duced in the loom, may be introduced without “ being subject to a duty; on the other hand, in “ the print, the smallest object, even the size of “ a pin’s head in a yard, subjects each square yard “ to the charge of threepence halfpenny. With “ this premium held out to the gingham manu- “ facturer, was it not natural every exertion “ should be made to realize a sale, encouraged “ and protected by such a bounty? After putting “ in threads of one entire colour, threads with two “ colours were introduced by means of tying up “ particular lengths, and preserving them white, “ whilst dying, by which means, when woven, “ an effect was obtained approaching nearly to “ that produced by printing on the pieces. Im- “ proving on this idea, printing on the thread “ was attempted with great success, and consi- 25 « derable elegance and beauty of effect have been “ produced. Hitherto, the figures have been “ limited to a particular style, from the necessity “ of their being formed on one thread only. This “ variation and novelty in our manufactures has « increased rapidly, and has been introduced in “ silk as well as cotton goods. Every effort which “ ingenuity can suggest (aided by the bonus of “ the duty) is now making to improve the means “ of producing the figure, with more regularity “ and neatness; much has been done, and much “ more may be expected. We wovdd not wish to “ be understood as wanting to check the fair “ reward of ingenuity and talent, but much less “ would we ever consent that so unfair a preference “ should pass unnoticed, even though it might “ arise from the impossibility of taxing an article, “ of which the real value, or even quantity, never “ could be calculated by the excise, except on the “ word of the manufacturer. The duty, in this “ instance, forces the production of the pattern “ by the most complicated means, merely by tax- “ ing the simpler method. The circumstance that “ no attempt is made to charge a duty on these “ goods, which are, in point of fact, printed, is a “ tacit avowal of the unfitness of prints for tax- “ ation.” I will now proceed, my Lord, to shew some of the effects of the duty, as regards production and the power of competition. 26 The printer alone has been taxed. The ma- nufacture of all other piece goods, silks, woollens, and cottons, has been free, and it has been increasing . Amj effect produced in the loom, any attempt at pattern has been permitted, provided it was not printed on after the material was woven. Thus every manufacture has had its protecting bonus from the competition of the printer. Nay more: when the ingenuity and energy of the printer has led him to produce any thing that the manu- facturer of fancy fabrics in the loom could imitate, he has been copied by the latter, and has had to yield to a competion, which the injustice of the duty disabled him from contending against. This could not be otherwise than an increasing evil; but the benefit on the one trade has been by no means equivalent to the loss on the other. Protection scarcely ever ultimately yields the benefits that fair competition and demand pro- duce. So it has been in this case. The fancy manufacturer has hitherto reaped little benefit from his competition. When the lessened capital of a decreasing trade shall have been taken out of the field, he may do so; and it remains for you, my Lord, to say, if the one is to flourish and the other decay. It must be evident that the printer can no more compete with other manufacturers, whilst alone so taxed, than could two horses drag a load against four having only the same burden to contend with: for a while they might perhaps 27 apparently do it, — ultimately exhausted, their energy and internal strength would yield to the only fairly weighted powers of the four. The print trade may be compared to the illustration just given. It has been sinking under a pressure it did not at first exhibit its inability to bear. Lessened profits were the first consequence; increased production, to keep up in quantity what was lost in rate of profit, was resorted to. This, as we shall see, has been ineffectual ; and the strongest signs of decay begin to exhibit them- selves. Inferiority of production, caused by a want of remuneration which is necessarily fatal to a trade depending on taste and novelty for its demand — add to this, waste of capital and ruinous deprecia- tion of stock ; and the state of the print trade may be supposed, but the picture cannot be realised except by those who are unfortunately suffering under such unmerited injustice. Another serious evil caused by the duty, and which must operate seriously against the consump- tion of prints, is to be found in the fact, that any party purchasing them — the merchant, the shopkeeper, or even the female in the streets, with the printed gown on her back, (if proof could be carried so far) — is liable not only to the amount of the duty on the quantity she is possessed of, but that the entire garment is liable to seizure towards paying any amount of duty the printer thereof may owe to the excise. Cases of great and unmerited 28 hardship lately occurring, arising from this and other equally obnoxious laws, cannot but be familiar to your lordship.* To shew that the efforts to substitute quan- tity of product for scarcity of profit have been ineffectual, I adduce the following extract from the pamphlet already quoted: — “ W e next refer to the home consumption ; “ and it appears, as might be expected, whilst “ weighted and crushed with such a tax, that it “ has been sinking under the pressure, and “ exhibits a decrease of no less amount than “ £402,028. 13s. lfd. in the last five years in “ comparison with the five previous ones, or a “ diminution in demand of about 300,000 pieces “ per annum. “We discover that this, too, has occurred “ during a period, when the population may be “ supposed to have increased nearly a million, “ and the reduction in prints has been fully more “ than that of any other description of goods, “ from a variety of causes, of which the most “ powerful, and perhaps the only one we need “ quote, is the difficulty the trade has encountered “ in forcing this taxed production into consump- “ tion in competition with untaxed goods. Again: “ we find this decrease happening at the very “ time when double, if not treble, the capital “ had just been sunk, in expectation that the * See Cases in the appendix. 29 “ demand for prints would, like all other descrip- “ tions of good s, keep pace with the improvement “ in manufacture, and reduction in price. We “ need not point out the lessened profits which “ have ensued, and the loss which has occurred “ to the print trade generally of this nature only. “ It may be safely asserted, that there is now “ double the amount of capital there was em- “ ployed in the trade seven years ago, that the “ works are of above double the extent, and that “ consequently, taken throughout, they cannot “ be half as much employed.” It may be quoted against this argument, that the foreign trade has extended itself. “ On referring to the amount of duty paid “ in the last ten years, 1820 to 1829 inclusive, we “ find the increase on the whole amount paid in “ the last five years above the five previous ones “ to be £747,694. 19s. lOd. Referring again to “ the amount of drawbacks in the same period, “ we discover a much larger increase, namely, “ £1,149,723. 13s. 2|d., or about an increase of “ 920,000 pieces per annum, in our export de- “ mand.” This, I admit, my Lord, shews an apparent benefit ; but it may be shown, without much trouble, to have been directly the reverse. The pressure on the goods produced for home con- sumption has forced the surplus supply into the export trade. This additional quantity has pro- 30 duced a reduction in price, and a competition which has caused prints to be more sacrificed in all parts of the world than any other description of British manufacture. Or again: so long as there exists the present plan of providing a capital by obtaining drawbacks upon inferior goods (one half the price being so returned) no diminution will take place in the quantity of 'pieces exported, though the profit may be reduced to the mere value of this accommodation. The value in labour on these goods, will undergo a proportionate reduction — or while fraud exists, and its existence cannot be doubted , every induce- ment will be held out for shipping quantity , with- out any reference to value, as the best and readiest means of profit. It may be, and has been urged, that the print trade has a power possessed by none else, of pro- ducing variety and novelty to a great extent, and that therefore it is the better able to bear a tax ; or it is said the consumer has always been accustomed to pay the tax, and has done so without its having had any effect on his purchases. This ar- gument, my Lord, is general, but it is fallacious. I would merely ask its supporters, if an increas- ing duty was ever known to produce any other effect, than a reduction in consumption? This point admitted, (and its truth cannot be ques- tioned) I would ask, if a lessened consumption take place in the use of a necessary article, how 31 much more likely is it to occur in that of a com- modity, for which a thousand cheaper (from being tax free) and equally useful substitutes are to be found? Again, the printer may be told he was aware of the existence of the tax, before he invested his capital in this trade, in buildings and machinery, not saleable except perhaps at a loss of 60 per cent. True, my Lord, but he could not suppose, after the opinion of the committee of the House of Commons in 1818, when the pressure did not on the average exceed 15 per cent., that the tax -.would continue. Still less, could he foresee that reduction in the value of the manufactures for printing on, which has increased this tax upon him to an average of 50 per cent. He took the risk, my Lord, it is true ; but he could never suppose that any government would for a moment hesitate to relieve him, when it might be done, not by the loss of the amount of the tax, but by a change in taxation, which would remedy the evil, and do an act of mere justice and sound policy. Your Lordship may urge, that this is not so unpopular or oppressive a tax, or that clamour and agitation would have been employed to obtain its repeal. One of the few arguments against the repeal of the duty, is founded on the hitherto apparent apathy of the printers themselves on the subject. A simple explanation will remove this almost solitary 32 objection to an act of justice. The print trade is a fancy trade ; and, as it is with character, so it is with fashion, a single word will blast its reputa- tion, and turn the tide of popular feeling against it. Whenever the slightest rumour of the chance of a repeal of this duty has gone abroad, the sales for home consumption have nearly ceased, till the minister has stated the impossibility of parting with the tax. Thus the printer has lost not only the profits for the time being, but large sums by depreciation of stock, and generally closed his unsuccessful appeals for justice, by an endeavour to gain the confidence of his customer in the assurance that there was no chance of the consumer being able to purchase prints at a reduction of 30 or 50 per cent, to be caused by the removal of the duty. I assure you, my Lord, that if the printers carry on their present attempt through the spring months, with a view to obtain the just support of a popular appeal, the trade must sacrifice a sum, which has been estimated by those best capable of judging, at not less than £150,000. This, in itself, my Lord, is a hardship which may be added to the many others connected with this tax, that the trade has to bear; it cannot appeal to the minister, or apply to parliament, for its just claims, without bringing upon itself a visi- tation harassing to all and ruinous to many. You woidd not wish that the pressure now 33 existing should increase , till necessity forced an appeal that must be yielded to. Believe me, my Lord, the course pursued with respect to this tax must shortly produce such an appeal. I say pur- sued with respect to this tax , because I consider its continuance as oppressive , and equivalent to the imposition of a new one. What argument could sanction an increasing duty on coals, sugar, or soap? And yet, my Lord, the duty on printed calicoes is an increasing one — the increase caused by its own oppressiveness, and acting on produc- tion and capital just as increasing duties would on any other commodity. Again, my Lord, does there exist any other tax having a direct tendency to repress the exer- cise of all taste and talent, by fettering it with a duty? Art may be freely exerted — genius and talent may trace the line of beauty, and seek a fair reward for so doing, in any way except in printing on cotton or linen. In short, every thing that contributes to the luxuries and comforts of life, and the more so by its being elegant and useful, may be freely produced in every other trade without paying a duty. The silk manufacturer may produce what forms he likes on the rich and glossy velvet, or the damask silk; but the printer, possessing more facility, and having materials more capable of receiving an impression, and depending almost solely on external beauty for his power of pro- c 34 ducing an appearance to catch the eye, and meet the taste, is restricted by the fettering hand of taxation. My Lord, I believe no such bar- barous, such rude and absurd policy exists in any country but one, and Turkey presents the parallel case. I have asserted the print trade to be one most deserving the fostering care of Government. To prove this assertion, will be to secure for it, my Lord, surely an equal freedom. Independently of the print duty, I believe the printer is still paying a greater amount of indirect duty than any other branch of our manufacture in wearing apparel. For instance, the probable average weight of cotton in each piece he prints upon is 4 lbs., the import duty on cotton (6 per cent.) is about |d. per lb.; this duty on each piece is conse- quently 2d. He pays an average duty of 10 per cent, on all drugs he consumes, the average amount of which may be taken at 2d. on each piece. The printer is by far the heaviest consumer of imported drugs, producing a revenue to the government of about £104,000. per annum. Contrast this with the duties arising from the silk and woollen trades. The import duty on raw silk is only one penny per lb.; and a piece of eight times the average value of a piece of print, consumes only about 5lbs.; the duties on the drugs for dying it, from so small quantity being requisite for dying and 35 finishing so slight a material, produce a mere nominal sum to the revenue. The duty on foreign wools is only one penny per lb., and wools imported from British posses- sions are free. These duties then (those on silk and wool) in reference to the respective value of the com- modities, are not l-5th part so heavy as those on cotton. Thus, my Lord, as far as regards a direct profit to the revenue, which might be relied on, the weight laid on the print trade is most im- politic and indefensible. It were almost needless to remark that the best policy for a nation desiring the import of foreign produce, and depending upon the pro- bable consumption of such imports for the foreign demand for her manufactures, would be decidedly to encourage such trades as consumed most exten- sively. Again, my Lord: the print trade claims the fostering care of a wise government, from its requiring the greatest quantity of labour, and from its capability of increasing a demand for it. In silk, silk and cotton, light fancy cotton goods (not printed), and in woollen goods, the wages form a comparatively small part of the value of the commodity. It is far otherwise in reference to the value of a print. A piece of print, costing twenty shillings. 36 (duty included) may frequently liave paid (in its different processes, from the raw material to the finished article) eight shillings, and probably never less than six shillings, in wages alone. It may be stated, that to improve a print, (costing a little above the present average price for home consumption, seventeen shillings and six- pence, duty paid, to make it more tasty, shewy, and costly, four-fifths of the additional expense bestowed upon it, will be in labour alone. Now, my Lord, I firmly believe that there is scarcely any other staple manufacture, in which a corres- ponding quantity of labour could be used by th e producer. Every other fabric owes so little (in comparison) to superficial appearance, and so much more to value or cost of material. Nearly the whole of the beauty, the taste, and the variety of the print must be shewn on, and be owing to the surface; and consequently labour and labour alone must give nearly the whole of the increased value. In short, my Lord, were the duty repealed, the amount given up, and the loss to the country caused by the additional expense of the excise restrictions, to cease, two sums, together amounting to £ 750 , 000 . per annum would probably, nay, almost without a doubt, be expended by the printer in labour, to increase the value of his pro- ductions. Such an increase of novelty and taste would again create a demand not to be calculated 37 by any returns which could be made, taking the present state of the trade as a guide. The nominal value of the print duty to the revenue may be about £364,000. per annum. Whether the extra consumption of exciseable articles by a population receiving additional wages annually, to such a probable amount as I have named (£750,000), would not, with the increased duties from drugs, more than repay the lesser sum given up, I leave to your Lordship to determine; in the firm conviction that your Lordship’s deci- sion will repeal the duty on printed cottons. Again, my Lord, it is not merely the em- ployment of so many hands numerically, but the employment of them in a trade which would not be then a decaying one — but one into which new vigour had been infused, and which was capable, if inducement could be offered, and which it would then have the means of creating — of afford- ing employment to any extent, and of paying such wages as valuable and ingenious labour would deserve — wages, such as none but a fancy trade, and that too of considerable extent, could afford. I ask, my Lord, can the policy of the pre- sent government ever be other than to give equal justice to a trade possessing a power of extension which would create a great demand for labour, and form one of the best and only means of relieving the agricultural districts of a superabundant po- pulation? 88 I have endeavoured, my Lord, to prove that this is, indeed, a tax pressing heavily on industry. I will trespass briefly on your Lordship’s time, to shew how many hands are now dependent on the print trade for subsistence. The real value of the trade, in this respect, is not generally esti- mated as it ought to be. It has been calculated with great care and attention by those best able to judge, that there are not less than 230,770 individuals now em- ployed in, and dependent upon, the print trade for subsistence — receiving in weekly wages £46,154., or an annual amount of £2,400,000.; a sum, my Lord, I believe to he far more than is paid by any other manufacture in the British empire. In the depression which has taken place in the value of prints, and which is preceding rapidly from causes I have stated, it must be evident to your Lordship, that, as labour forms the greatest part of the cost of a print (without duty), the greatest reduction and pressure must have been, and will be, on that item. How much greater must the pressure be on the labour when one- third the cost of the commodity is a duty yielding to no pressure; but the very reverse, increasing with the additional weight it places on the trade? Feebly as these statements have been urged, I should hope, added to your Lordship’s better information, they will be effective, and that the 39 result will be the immediate repeal of the duty on printed cottons, which will, in every point of view, to quote your Lordship’s own words, be “ a relief to the country, by looking at its financial state, and the manner in which taxes press upon the industry of the people.” Again it would be “ reducing those taxes, which, by their excessive amount reduced themselves,” and “ the revenue would be increased, and relief afforded to the people, not by laying on new taxes, but by altering those which press heavily on industry.” These words, my Lord, are a sufficient pledge that the claims I urge will not be neglected or forgotten, and that a tax possessing every evil quality, and not one redeeming point, will not any longer remain a disgrace to the statute book, and an un- equalled cost and burden on the country. I have the honour to remain, your Lordship’s most obedient, humble servant. A CALICO PRINTER. Manchester, Dec. 31st, 1830. 00 TO co ' 00 TO 00 00 TO “7 1826 00 TO Ot H- * 00 TO _ ^ 00 TO ___ 00 00 TO TO GO TO 1 820 p p P p p H-» H- h— — ~ Ot Oo CO -7 TO *7 o CO TO p CO co b CO p Ot TO CD V TO Ot © 00 co «<7 00 -4 “A _ O b CO o? o> -7 CO V CO oo c b oo V* CO ~7 t— i 00 Q> l "~ > OO CO ~7 00 “7 TO oo HOP “A <1 toll- !>— Ml — Ot Hop Co O CO 00 V# co co oo p 1 — * p p K- ^ © TO TO Ot TO p o 00 o? o p 00 oo H- -*q P ^ b fn b c-rs 'k) b CO b to -1 ►£* 00 b? o CO co o o CO CO Co ^ l-l jHGp £ 4 — o •Hod ■HCtp ^|i— CO *ol^— oo o? TO Ci p oo o TO V. TO O0 p co 1— 1 CD Ot TO GO TO Ot CO o 00 N? 0 O co p TO Ot CO 00 co l—l 00 ^7 co 00 V C^ 00 TO ^7 'k co CO CO Ot 1— > TO 00 Ci co 00 00 cb oo o 00 00 CO 00 --7 CO 00 w J Ci co tol— iNCjP O' toll- 1— i l—i •Nh o 1—1 •HOP co »Hgp o 00 KOI*-— l—l TO p 00 co c^ t— 1 1 CO CD lo Ot 00 TO pi CO O O 1— 1 0 p 01 co co 1— t 00 *■-7 V* TO co Ot TO p ^7 Ot i— * i— i P CO TO -7 TO p 1o o Ot 118,58e ►— | o p c^ -7 co o 1^ 00 TO TO CO co Co *oi«— toll-. 00 p O co co wi TO co o p o O p Ot 00 TO o o o co GO CO ■<7 Of co TO 00 i— i (—1 O 00 00 ■<7 P p p p co -7 00 'b Ot -7 TO 1—* o CO 00 p b CO CQ CO *0 Ot 00 •NOP — I ►NOP TO ■Hop CO ■H- Ot Ot p co Ot -7 Vj CO o TO Vj Ot o oo 00 p co Ot p oo CO p GO p oo -7 1 — 1 00 00 oo -7 Ot co 1— * 00 00 b co 00 b TO *<7 b *<7 CO co 00 b CO o 00 Ot co -7 t— l co Ot i— * TO TO Ot Ot TO Ot o *oi»— ■ £ H Co co oo 00 00 •HCO Ot Ot O rf^lOP Or? O •Hop CO R’oo w cL GTq Or 5 T ?3 ^ O • S 3 B 03 EZ ct- H O *TJ a 3 o > s g o O O H o 3 S 3 „ a £f a n o a o H 00 fO IP. < 0 _ to 0O TO “7 70 _P TO . Ot TO Oo 00 (w TO STATEMENT OF THE PRINT DUTY SINCE 1820. APPENDIX, No. 1. ( From the Manchester Guardian of April 3, 1830.^ SHERIFFS INQUISITION. THE KING AGAINST THOMAS BURY. An inquisition was held on the 26th of March, 1 830, at the Manor Court Room, Manchester, before John Addison, Esq., as assessor, and the under- sheriff, and a respectable jury, in pursuance of a writ of extent to the sheriff, commanding him to take the body of Thomas Bury, of Clayton Mills, calico- printer, to make satisfaction to his majesty of the sum of <£3 959- 10s. l^d. for duties on printed calicoes, charged between the 22nd November and the 30th of January last ; and to seize his goods and chattels, and cause an inquisition to be taken thereof. Mr. Mayor, one of the solicitors of excise, from London, and Mr. E. Owen attended on behalf of the crown. This was the second extent that had issued for the same matter. An inquisition had been held under the former and the amount of the effects then seized at the printing works had been proved. These effects were, therefore, not a subject of the present inquiry. As many of Bury’s account books had been taken from the D 42 premises, and he was not to be found, the crown had no other means of obtaining information of the debts owing, than by summoning parties who were known to have done business with Bury since the 22nd November. A number of gentlemen were examined, most of whom proved their accounts were settled and paid before Bury\s stoppage. A considerable time was occupied in the examination of the accounts between Mr. George Oliver, commission-agent, and Bury. Mr. Grafton, of the firm of Messrs. Jones, Bannerman and Co., was ex- amined, and Mr. Hampson attended as his solicitor. It ap- peared from the examination of Mr. Grafton, that nothing was owing from them to Bury. Some time after Mr. Grafton and his solicitor had left the court, it appeared that I 69 pieces of of prints had been found at Mr. Lees’, a packer, by Mr. Couch, an export officer, which proved to be of Bury’s printing since the 22nd November, and not to have paid duty. Mr. Couch ordered him (Mr. Lees) to detain them, and Mr. Lees said all would be right ; but on Mr. Couch coming the next day, the pieces were gone, and the excise could not then trace them. Mr. Lees now stated they had been sent back to the warehouse of Messrs. Jones, Bannerman and Co., by a gen- tleman who had purchased them from Messrs. Jones and Co., and sent them to his place to pack. The assessor said Messrs. Jones and Co. must be liable for these goods. Another subject of inquiry was 745 pieces seized at the warehouse of Messrs. Reuss and Co., to whom they had been sold by Mr. Henry Brettargh, and which had been printed at Bury’s for Mr. Brettargh, since the 22d November, which the crown claimed under the statute of 7 and 8 Geo. 4, cap. 53, which makes all goods in respect whereof any excise duty is imposed, liable to the duties that during the time they are in possession of the person chargeable with the duties may become due, in whose hands soever the same shall afterwards come, or by what conveyance or title soever the same may be claimed. Mr. A. Kay, on behalf of Mr. Brettargh, called a witness 43 who proved that Mr. B. had duly paid Bury for printing those identical goods. Mr. Kay commented strongly on the hard- ship of the case, and contended that the pieces seized were only liable to be claimed by the excise for the amount of the duties on them, and not for the general amount of duties due from Bury. He said Mr. Brettargh had no objection to again pay the duty on these pieces, although he had before paid Bury. The assessor, however, charged the jury, that the pieces were liable to be seized for the full amount of duties owing from Bury at the time they were on the premises. Mr. T. M. Fisher, the sheriff's officer, proved that since the last extent, he had seized, besides Mr. Brettargh’s pieces, a horse and a cart belonging to Bury ; and that Mr. James Bury (his brother) had given up to the witness 120 copper rollers which he had belonging to Thomas Bury. Samuel Mellor, John Hope Lowndes, and Stanfield (apprentices to Bury), were examined as to carrying off Bury’s books at midnight ; the circumstances of which have been before fully stated, in reporting the proceedings before the magis- trates as to this transaction. Nothing new was elicited, except the fact that Mellor had given a sovereign to Horrocks, one of the watchmen employed by the excise, to connive at the parties going into the counting-house for the books. The jury found verdicts for the crown, for the sum of £348. 17s- 7d., due from Mr. Oliver to Bury; for the sum of £101. 8s., against Messrs. Jones, Bannerman, and Co., the value of the goods sent by Lees, the packer ; and also found the 745 pieces of Mr. Brettargh, and the horse and cart, and rollers were forfeited to the crown. — The inquisition occupied above thirteen hours. No. 2. We have given, in another part of our paper, a brief report of the proceedings on the inquiry before the Sheriff's Assessor, to ascertain the debts due and effects belonging to 44 the estate of Thomas Bury, calico-printer, late of Clayton Vale, near this town. Amongst other questions which came before the jury on the occasion, was one to which we have alluded on a former occasion, namely, the right of the Crown to retain 745 pieces of calico, which had been printed for hire by Bury, for Mr. Henry Brettargh, of this town, and subsequently seized by the Excise in the hands of Messrs. Reuss and Kling, to whom they had been sold by Mr. Bret- targh. It will be seen, that, although the goods in question had been regularly paid for by Mr. Brettargh, the seizure was affirmed under the act of the 7th and 8th George IV., c. 53, to which we were the first to call public attention, a few months ago. As we think it is desirable that the public should know exactly the footing on which they stand under the operation of the oppressive and iniquitous act of parliament above-mentioned, we will briefly recapitulate the leading facts of this most extraordinary case, and add a few observations which those facts appear to call for. At the latter end of November last (precisely the time at which we mentioned the nature of the act of parliament), Mr. Brettargh sent 745 pieces of calico to Mr. Bury's works to be printed, and received them back on the 4th of December. On the 5th of December he paid Bur y for the printing , includ- ing) °f course, the amount of the government duty . On the lgth of December the goods were sold by Mr. Brettargh to Messrs. Reuss and Kling, who paid him for them on the 19 th of January. On the 2d of March, three months after, the amount of duty and printing had been paid by Mr. Brettargh to Bury, Messrs. Reuss and Kling prepared to ship the prints, and gave the usual notice to the excise for an export officer to attend to see them packed ; but the officer, on observing the marks and numbers of the pieces, seized and carried them off, on the ground that Bury, who had failed at the end of January, was a defaulter for all duties accruing on goods printed by 45 him subsequently to the 22d of November, and that the goods in question were liable for his deficiency. It will, no doubt, sound very strangely to the ears of persons unversed in the mysteries of the excise laws, that the undoubted property of one man should thus be seized to make up the deficiences of another ; and such persons will be apt to suppose that the conduct of the officer, in seizing the goods, was illegal. Unfortunately, however, that is by no means the case. The seizure, monstrous and unjust as it must appear in any equitable view of the case, was perfectly legal. That delectable act of parliament to which we have already alluded, provides, that, in order to secure the duties of excise due from any person carrying on business subject to the excise laws, and for the enforcement of all penalties incurred by such person, all goods and commodities for or in respect whereof any duty or duties of excise is, are, or shall be by law imposed, and which shall be in the custody or possession of such person, shall remain subject to all such duties and penalties , into whose hands soever such goods shall afterwards come, or by what title or conveyance soever the same shall be claimed . So that, if the goods in question, instead of having been paid for only twice over, had been sold a hundred times, and had been out of the hands of the defaulter ten years, during which time they had gone round the world, they would still have been equally liable to seizure, if they could have been found. Nay, if they had been made into dresses, and in actual wear, an exciseman would apparently be justified, under the terms of the act of parliament, in stripping them from the backs of women in the streets, provided he could sufficiently prove their identity. How far this is a power to be tolerated in this country, we leave our readers to judge for themselves. It may be, and we believe it has been contended, that a power of this kind, however harsh and unjust it may appear, is necessary to secure the revenue from loss ; — a line of argu- ment which would equally apply to any sort of spoliation 46 which the officers of excise might be authorised to commit. Indeed, if the revenue is to be secured, at all events, we could suggest a sourse quite as just and as equitable as that which has been pursued in this case, and infinitely more compendious and effectual. If the collector of excise must be legally authorized to rob somebody, let him seize the first persons he may meet, and turn out their pockets, until he has got as much money as will make up any deficiencies that may have accrued. Most undoubtedly the government has as good a right, in equity and justice, to levy upon the first man that may be encountered in Cannon- street, as it had to take the property of Mr. Brettargh. If that gentleman had assisted in defrauding the revenue, — if he had even been guilty of any negligence, — if he had omitted to take any precaution which prudent people would naturally take, — he would have had no right to complain of the loss which his own conduct had entailed upon him. But he did none of these things. If there was any negli- gence, it was on the part of government, in giving credit for duties to a man, who, it seems, was not worthy of credit : and, having incurred a loss by that negligence, they now invoke the aid of an outrageous and abominable law, to make up their loss at the expense of an innocent party. In addition to the cases reported in another part of our paper, there was one of a very extraordinary nature, relating to a debt alleged to be due to the estate of Bury by a Mr. Oliver, of this town. We have not been able to procure all the facts of this case, which are extremely complicated ; but we are told the result of them is, that Mr. Oliver, having admitted himself to the amount of £197* Us. Id., has been found liable to pay a further sum of <^151. 6s. 6d., although that actually formed a part of the balance of £197* 11s. Id. He is, therefore, called upon to pay the same money to government twice over , — a proceeding which we cannot comprehend. The impolicy of the law under which these proceedings have taken place, is quite as manifest as its injustice ; and 47 the transactions which we have been narrating, with some others of a similar kind, are likely to produce very injurious effects on the trade of the country. W e understand that one or two foreign merchants, who have shipped prints, have been refused the drawback, on the ground that the person by whom the goods had been printed was a defaulter to government. Of course it is not very likely that merchants will come here to purchase prints, if, after having paid for them, they are liable to be seized, or if the drawback is to be refused, on the ground that government have not taken care to secure the duty. Foreigners will, of course, resort to any other market where their wants can be supplied, rather than come here, under such circumstances. We trust that all persons interested in the trade in printed calicoes, will unite to obtain, if possible, the repeal of the absurd, oppressive, and yet unproductive tax, which has given rise to these proceedings ; or at all events to get rid of a law so unjust as that to which we have adverted, and which applies to all commodities on which an excise duty is paid. It cannot stand the test of a public investigation. ^ No. 3. ( From the Manchester Guardian of Nov . 27* 1830.J TO THE EDITOR OF THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN. Sir, — The following case is so strongly marked by injus- tice and oppression, that I have a desire it should meet the public eye, in addition to others brought forward yesterday at the meeting at the town hall, on the subject of the tax on printed cotton fabrics. The goods below spoken of were packed, with others bought from various persons, in March, 1 822. The drawback was paid to Messrs. Duff and Browne, the shipping agents at Liverpool; and in January, 1824, nearly two years afterwards , 48 when one of the printers, accused of forging the Kings marks* had absconded* that house was called upon to refund the money* and the person from whom I bought the goods paid it to me* to his own total loss* as the printer became an outlaw. This obnoxious and hateful tax* sir* is so sur- rounded and hemmed in by disgrace* on the part of the legis- lature* and hardship* as it applies to individuals and to the public* that no member of either house of parliament can* on a fair pressing of the matter* if rightly put forth* resist its repeal. — I am* sir* your most obedient servant, JOHN RAILTON. Manchester* 26th November* 1830. ( Copy of Application from the Excise.) Messrs. Duff and Browne* — Gentlemen* — The undermen- tioned pieces of printed calicoes forwarded to you from Man- chester* and since exported* have been ascertained to have been stamped with a forged stamp. I am* therefore* directed by the commissioners of excise to call upon you for the immediate repayment of the drawback thereon* amounting to £52 18s. 2d. — I am* &c. &c.* (Signed) J. SIMPSON* Collector. Excise Office* Liverpool* 13th January* 1824. (To this letter was appended a table* specifying, with various other particulars* the number of pieces alleged to have been marked with the forged stamp* viz.* 216* and demanding, as the amount of drawback to be refunded, £52. 18s. 2d.) PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND GARNETT, MANCHESTER. CALICO PRINTING AS AN ART MANUFACTURE, A LECTURE READ BEFORE THE SOCIETY OF ARTS, APRIL 22, 1852, BY EDMUND POTTER, REPORTER TO THE JURY ON PRINTED FABRICS, CLASS 18, IN THE EXHIBITION. LONDON : JOHN CHAPMAN, 142, STRAND. MANCHESTER: JOHNSON, BAWSON, AND CO., CORPORATION STREET. The following Lecture, read before the Society of Arts, as one of a course suggested by H. R. H. Pbince Albert, on the Results of the Exhibition, is printed at the request of a few friends. No apology is offered for it as a composition : the opinions are the practical conclusions of one whose knowledge of the trade (and of the different legislative measures connected with it) extends back over the period of its most marked increase, and who has during that period been permitted to enjoy the intimate friendship of many wLo have been its chiefest ornaments, and who it is to be regretted have left few records of their experience for the benefit of the trade. An Appendix is added, containing some few opinions and facts, omitted in the Lecture from a fear of trespassing too much on the patience of the audience. Manchester, June, 1852 . . ■ - A LECTURE, &c. The Society of Arts having done me the honour to ask me to deliver a lecture on Calico Printing, as shown in the Exhibition, I will not do more than ask the kind indulgence of my audience, to the somewhat unconnected remarks of one whose long experience, practical knowledge, and, I may add, fondness of his trade, must be the warrant for opinions which, I fear, may be but indifferently expressed. Under any circumstances, a lecture on art, con- nected with a particular manufacture, must be a matter of no small difficulty ; none, however, but a practical man can fully estimate the difficulties which daily occur in trying to improve in taste, and at the same time satisfying the consumer, consistently with profit to the producer. Before I express, however, any opinion on the trade as an art-manufacture, allow me, as a means of arriving at a just estimate of its position, to refer briefly, and as popularly and clearly as I can, to its History and Progress, since its commencement in this country — to estimate its present extent and importance from such statistics as I can place before you — and after- wards to offer you my opinion upon its connection with art and taste, its position in the Exhibition, and 6 the aids it may derive from Schools of Design and other kindred institutions. I purpose to omit ail scientific reference to the Chemistry of the trade, because if I possessed suffi- cient knowledge on that branch of the art (which I do not) I think it forms of itself a sufficiently large and interesting field of enquiry. The subject has been illustrated in many scientific works, and I believe lectured upon in this room, in an able and popular manner, within a very short period. I may, however, incidentally mention, that this branch of the trade has called forth the peculiar energies of some of the greatest names we have had in it during the present century — and has indirectly had the aid of a Henry and a Dalton. I will merely remark in addition, that the execution which places on the material the printer uses the great diversity of variously blending tints of all colours, fast fixed into the very heart of the cloth, so firmly as to become as permanent as the fabric itself, gives evidence of great scientific knowledge and accurate manipula- tion. Calico Printing is perhaps the most important branch springing from the parent stem of the cotton trade : it may be described as the art and process by which colours are placed on to the plain fabric, giving variations of form, and gradations of colour, more cheaply and expeditiously than in the loom. The connection of the word Calico with Printing, in the phrase ordinarily used, most probably took its rise from the fact that the first material printed upon in this country, was the East Indian fabric of that name. The common import of the term Calico-Printer now, 7 is a printer of all sorts of fabrics — calicoes, muslins, linens, silks, or woollens, or the many mixed varieties, composed of different materials. In giving a rapid and popular outline of the history of the trade, the following are the authorities I shall freely use : — Baines's History of the Cotton Trade ; Ures Dictionary of Arts and Sciences ; pamphlets by the late Mr. Thomson, of Primrose ; evidence given before the Parliamentary Committee on the Designs Copyright Bill ; and some printed papers of my own. The art is of very ancient date in India, and has its name from Calicut, a district where it has been practised from time immemorial, with great success. The Egyptians appear also, from Pliny’s testimony, to have carried on, at a remote period, some of its most refined processes. England received the art from France, about the end of the seventeenth century, soon after the repeal of the Edict of Nantes, it having been previously derived by her from Central Germany, for some time before the seat of the manufacture, originally brought thither from Egypt and the East. The trade first planted itself in the neighbourhood of London. A number of small establishments sprang up, and in 1700 it had so taken root, as to obtain in its favour a prohibition of the cheap and beautiful printed goods of India. This Act was intended to protect woollen and silk manufacturers from the com- petition of Indian goods : it had, however, the effect of stimulating and increasing the then infant Print trade. The English had become accustomed to the use of printed calicoes and chintzes, imported by the Dutch and English East India Companies ; and they 8 are spoken of as highly fashionable for ladies’ and children’s dresses, as well as for drapery and furni- ture : while the coarser calicoes were used to line the garments. In 1702, the Print trade had extended itself sufficiently to attract the notice of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was for the first time weighted with a duty of 3d. per square yard on calicoes printed, stained, painted, or dyed. In 1714, this duty was raised to 6d. per yard. By the same statutes, half these duties were laid on printed linens, the latter being a home and the calico a foreign manu- facture. Notwithstanding the prohibitory law of 1700, Indian goods were largely introduced by the smuggler, and freely consumed, in spite of a penalty of ,£200. imposed on the buyer or seller of Indian prints. A law was therefore passed in 1720, prohibit- ing the use or wear of any printed or dyed calicoes whatsoever, whether printed at home or abroad, and even of any printed goods, in which cotton formed a part, excepting only calicoes dyed all blue, muslins, neck-clotlis, and fustians. The effect of this law was to put an end to the printing of calicoes in England, and to confine the printers to the printing of linens. In 1736, so much of this Act was repealed, as forbade the use or wear of printed goods of a mixed kind, containing cotton, and these fabrics were allowed to be printed, weighted with a duty of 6d. per square yard. In 1750, the entire production of Great Britain was estimated at 50,000 pieces per annum. In 1764, printers established themselves in Lancashire, temp- ted doubtless by the cheapness of fuel, and by this 9 being the locality in which the cloth was manufac- tured : (I may explain, cloth is the technical term used to signify all textile fabrics printed upon.) In 1774, the printer was released from his fetters, with regard to the kind of cloth he must use by the repeal of the law, so as to leave him the choice of his material ; but he was still saddled with a duty of 3d. per square yard, to which a halfpenny was added in 1806. On the accession of Lord Grey’s government to office, it was one of their first acts to repeal this duty. Thus, after a period of about 140 years from its first intro- duction, the Print trade was allowed to enter into competition with other kindred fabrics, on a fair footing. The trade was first established in Lancashire (in 1764) by the Messrs. Clayton, of Bamber Bridge, near Preston. So anxious were the printers, a few years afterwards, to obviate the difficulty they then expe- rienced in obtaining the cloth, that some of them actually left the more distant districts in which they were established, and even planted themselves where one of the main requisites for their trade — water, was afforded in a very limited supply. The cloth at this time being a calico made of linen warp, crossed with a cotton weft, and was called the Blackburn Grey. A specimen of this material, printed 70 or 80 years since, will be found on the table. A circle of a few miles round Blackburn, long afterwards remained the great seat of the print trade, and that district has, even to the present time, retained a considerable portion of it. Another change in the mode of producing the cloth tended, however, in no small degree to spread b 10 tlie trade over a wider district, the introduction of the power loom, which has now completely superseded, (except it may be in the extremely low and light fabrics, to a very small extent,) the hand loom weav- ing, and which in its infancy the manufacturers of the Blackburn district dared not introduce, for fear of out- rage by the hands. It was brought into successful operation in Stockport and that neighbourhood, and more particularly by the Ashtons, of Hyde, a name intimately associated by its talent, energy, and wealth, with the rising power of the power-loom calico manu- facturing trade, from the commencement of the present century. The best and largest quantity of power-loom printing cloth was first manufactured in Hyde, Stalyhridge, and their immediate neighbour- hood, North Derbyshire. Print Works afterwards es- tablished themselves in these localities, as they had done somewhat previously, on many of the streams in the immediate neighbourhood of Manchester. To return to the period of the introduction of the print trade into Lancashire. The Claytons were fol- lowed with greater vigour by Mr. Robert Peel, the father of the first baronet, and grandfather of the late prime minister of this country. Mr. Peel was a yeoman, and lived at Cross, near Blackburn ; active and ener- getic, he entered into the cotton manufacture, and added to it the printing business. We are told by Baines that he had it from one of his family, that the first experiments were secretly made in his own house, the cloth for printing (in those days by block only) being smoothed for the purpose by ironing. The pattern was one of nature’s own — the parsley leaf. 11 He carried on the business for some years afterwards at Brookside, near Blackburn, aided by bis sons, and the concern was eminently prosperous. His eldest son, afterwards the first baronet, possessed strong talents, and devoted himself to business from an early age. This son branched off from his father’s concern, and established himself at Bury, with his uncle, Mr. Haworth, and his future father-in-law, Mr. William Yates, names now extinct in the trade, and only remembered as the sharers of the success of the Peel family. Peel was to calico printing what Arkwright was to spinning : a man of iron mind and frame, possessing what seems to have been very rare among the early printers, great mercantile talent and applica- tion, amidst all the shocks of trade, which, though then amazingly profitable, carried with it corresponding risks. The first Sir Robert Peel seemed to possess that foresight and prudence which enabled him to amass and retain the princely fortune since inherited by his descendants. Many other houses of equal standing, but wanting his business talent and pru- dence, proved unable to stand the competition even then existing. I met with the following estimate of the character of Mr. Peel in a curious old book of receipts for Calico Printing, published in 1793. Speaking of Mr. Peel as the rival of the house of Livesey and Co., whose failure on a very large scale had then paralysed the whole district, the author says: — “He seems to have profited by adopting similar modes, and by attending to quality as well as quantity, he has in some cases exhibited respectable work : but without a compliment to him, his labour, attention, 12 investigation, and systematical arrangement of the business, as well as his conception of trade in general, must have been very great, to reach the height to which he is now arrived ; and judging by what has happened, unless vague politics now distract his atten- tion, he is a man of resolution and enterprise, whom other printers have either to fear or emulate.” I am acquainted with few records of taste of any kind amongst the Lancashire printers of those days. It was not so much needed, their energy and capital being the rather actively employed in branching widely out, and securing the best and newest modes of production. Of the rising men, at the head of the various establishments, not a few received their early training from the Peels, and had been selected by them to fill responsible situations, from which, in the na- tural course of events, they stepped, to be themselves the heads of future houses. Previously to the year 1785, Block Printing, aided by the flat copper plate printing press, was the only mode of calico printing. Without going into any lengthened description of this process, it may be mentioned that the block, with the impression cut upon its surface, was dipped on a stretched cloth or sieve, previously brushed over with colour, and then printed on the cloth ; the size of the block about ten inches by nine. It required 448 separate dippings and impressions to print one piece of calico, 26 or 27 inches wide, and 28 yards in length. The grand im- provement of the cylinder printing machine, invented it is said by a Scotchman of the name of Bell, was first successfully applied at Mossney, near Preston, by the house of Livesey, Hargreaves, and Co., celebrated at this date, (1785) for the extent of their concern, and the magnitude of whose failure in 1788, has been already alluded to.* Machine, or cylinder printing consists, then, in printing off the engraving prepared on a cylindrical copper roller, by pressing the cloth in contact between this roller placed on an iron centre, and a weighted iron cylinder placed above it. The weight of the upper roller is again added to by screws and levers — a revolving motion given to the copper cylinder, draws the piece through between the two, with the impres- sion upon it. My purpose is, however, rather to describe the contrast in the quantity of production, than the process. The average production of the block was six pieces per day, employing the labours of a man and boy, and printing one colour. Its speed remains nearly the same, though many improvements have been made, by which more than one colour may be applied to the sieve, and thence by the block, in one operation, but with no great utility in contrast with the machine. We take the block, then, as pro- ducing six pieces a day : the machine, with the same number of hands, will produce in one or more colours, (in proportion to the style and quality) from 200 to 500 pieces, with infinitely fewer defects of impression, and with all the accuracy and precision that well- arranged mechanical power is capable of. The engraving of the copper roller, a beautiful process in itself, may be *The invention of the Cylinder Printing Machine is also claimed to have been first invented previous to this period by a Calico Printer, named Oberkampf, at Jouy, in France, in whose hands it remained some time, though perhaps it was independently discovered, and first successfully applied, by Bell. 14 found admirably and popularly described in Baines s History of the Cotton Trade, as may indeed the whole process of Calico Printing. Copper rollers of the finest quality in the world, and of English manufac- ture, are now produced at a reduced price, and form a very important item of investment in the printer’s capital, some of the larger Print houses holding stocks of engraved rollers valued by them in varying sums from 1150,000. downwards. I need only briefly refer to the business and art of engraving on these rollers, as one affording employment to a large number of skilled hands, capable of producing every variety of effect, equal to any efforts (though in a less expensive form) from the burin of the best engravers of the day. The designs, engraved on these copper rollers, are furnished by the calico-printer, engraved to his order, or they are produced by the engravers themselves. These latter are chiefly of the smaller class of what are technically called single colour plates, or covers, which serve for the base of the varied patterns, after- wards printed upon them by a second impression. This style of engraving and pattern affords scope for an amazing variety of form and effect, produced either by beautiful gradations of stippling, or the line, either waved or otherwise. The finest possible patterns are engraved by machinery, with soundness and accuracy, on rollers which in many cases afford repetitions of impressions of the pattern to the extent of many thousands of yards, forced from their surface by the rapid process I have described, under a pressure of some tons weight. The English engraved copper roller is the best 15 produced, and is an article of export to all parts of the world, where printing is carried on. The art has kept pace with the other improvements in the trade, and though the taste displayed in the patterns pro- duced by the engravers themselves is of a quiet, modest character, it has in it the elements of great beauty, and has a powerful influence on the success of the English printer : giving proof that where large capital and machinery can be used, nice execution fol- lows, and carries with it a taste not excelled elsewhere. The production of Great Britain, which, in 1750, was supposed to be 50,000 pieces per annum, had in 1796 risen to one million, and in 1830 to nearly 8,600,000, a progress of astounding rapidity, unequalled perhaps by anything but the history of the cotton trade itself. The most important cause of this increase was doubtless the cylinder printing machine, which, like the steam engine of Watt, came, almost perfect, into use, very early after its first erection. Some of the machines made shortly after that period, were at work in the trade till within a few years past, and capable of producing single colours, with as much precision as any of the more modern ones. The London printers still held their high position, long after the establishment of the art in Lancashire, and I believe the remuneration given to their de- signers about this period, 1780 to 1800, was higher than it has ever been since. They seem to have been seriously annoyed by the piracy of their Lancashire competitors, and some pamphlets published about this time contain curious warnings given by the London 16 school against the too free introduction of machines, as a means of degrading the art ; and it is a no less curious fact, that timidity, or the fear perhaps of the working class, did induce some of the masters to keep back the number of their machines. I have spoken of the Peels, as being (as far as Lancashire was concerned) almost the Print trade of the last century. I may now speak of the men who succeeded them as leaders in the trade. During the period 1796 to 1821, the Forts, Hargreaves, and Thomsons, fairly established themselves as extensive and wealthy printers, not more by their energy and business talents, than by their scientific attainments, and by the unbounded and lavish support which they gave to everything which art and science could sug- gest to assist them. Let me here, for a very few moments trespass on your time, whilst I allude more particularly to Mr. James Thomson, as one whom we have lately lost from the trade. Though friendship and counsel enjoyed from him during thirty years, through many a period of difficulty and contest, may dispose me to speak warmly, and colour highly the character of my friend, there are others present who can bear testimony to the talents of the man whom I should class as the head of the Print trade for a period of 40 years. Mr. Thomson was born in the neigh- bourhood of Blackburn, and was related to the Peel family. He was by them placed in the London es- tablishment of the house of Jonathan Peel and Co., a cousin of the first Sir Robert. Here, as I have heard him relate, he dwelt in the city, but soon showed a taste for a pursuit not kindred to the book-keeping 17 occupation he then followed. His fondness for che- mical pursuits more fitted him for the meridian of the Print field. He left town, and took an important position at the works, near Accrington, first as mana- ger, afterwards as a partner. Here he remained till the year 1810, when circumstances led him to wish to place himself at the head of a new establishment, which he formed at Clithero. These works are still among the first in the trade, and are carried on by his son and nephews. The era of Mr. Thomson’s commencement in the trade was the beginning of a series of discoveries and new applications in chemical science, to the purposes of calico printing, which he followed up with energy and devotedness for a period of 40 years : carrying along with the application of his favourite science, chemistry, a quick appliance of all the mechanical and economical improvements which, from time to time, were opened out to him. During the same period, he devoted himself, and the ample funds his business placed at his disposal, to the advancement of taste, in connection with his trade. No sums, however large, were spared, to draw into its service the talent even of Koyal Academicians, and of many other eminent men, high in art. His love of art, and taste, and progress, carried him in many cases beyond the taste of his consumers, and he often reaped the reward of genius in advance of the age — disappointment. But this did not deter him from aiding in every effort which tended by any means to elevate the taste of all classes. He was the munificent supporter of Schools of Design : to him the Manchester School almost owed its existence, c 18 and he endowed it with an annual sum, for the pur- pose of giving the prize medal, which bears his name, designed by Gibson, and executed by Wyon. During his long career as a man of business, his house was always open to men of science, literature, and taste, and the rich stores of his knowledge were freely open to all, — nay, even to his competitors in trade. Mr. Thomson died just previous to the preparation for the Exhibition, and almost the last conversation the speaker had with him, was on a special summons from him on that subject. Startled with the project, thinking with others at the time that it was unsuited to his own trade, disliking the idea of a contest for a prize, not from the fear of competition, but from what he thought the unfairness of a competition, into which price and other circumstances could not enter, he spoke doubtingly of the plan, but with his usual liberality gave the subscription he never refused to anything likely to further the advancement of art and science. He did not live, however, to see the magnificent spectacle, which no one would have admired and estimated more than himself. Had he been spared, I am confident his judgment would have been largely at the service of those of us in his own trade, who acted as jurors, and would have added a value to our reports which they cannot now possess. It is not often the annals of trade furnish us with examples, and successful ones too, of men deeply engaged in business, upon whose genius and attain- ments one can so pleasantly dwell. This must be my apology for saying thus much on the character of my friend. 19 I have spoken of the progress of the trade from 1796 to 1821. In the first year the quantity produced was one million pieces ; in the last, seven millions. Here it seemed to pause, and as a branch of the cotton trade, for the first time, to make little progress: this, too, with all the capital and energy of the numerous houses then embarked and well established in the trade. The solution of the difficulty soon made itself apparent, but was not so easy of removal. The trade was heavily taxed, and was the only one producing a textile fabric that was so. The cheaper other cotton fabrics of great variety were produced, the more onerous became the tax upon printed cottons. The most remarkable fact was, that the cheaper the printer obtained his cloth, the greater the per centage of taxation he paid. At first, when his material and produce were both high priced, (the duty being 3£d. the square yard,) the tax amounted to perhaps 2J- per cent ; hut when it was repealed, and cloth had been cheapened, it had risen to probably 50 per cent. This acted as a bonus for the production of all other kinds of textile fabrics, in preference to printed cottons : nay, even printed silks were free, as were goods printed on the thread before weaving, producing the beautiful chene effect, so freely used even now in silks, carpets, &c., and some descriptions of woven cotton goods. The duty had been regularly remitted on exported prints, and that portion of the trade shews a small increase in the ten years previous to 1831. For the five years previous to the repeal of the duty, there had been a positive decrease in the home consumption of prints, 20 to the extent of nearly 15 per cent., this, too, con- current with an increasing demand for all other classes of textile fabrics. The printers struggled hard for the removal of a tax in itself so unjust and impolitic, and which was evidently pressing very heavily upon their trade ; but it was not till the spring of 1831 that they could obtain its removal. It was, however, one of the first beneficial remissions of taxation made by Earl Grey’s government. The removal of a duty, amounting on an average to 50 per cent, on goods produced for home consumption, naturally gave an immediate impulse, not merely by the reduction in the cost, but by the removal of the harassing and vexatious supervision, under which all trades suffering from excise duties must unavoidably be placed. Various statements were made at the time, as to the additional cost of production, which these restrictions entailed on the printer, and an experience of upwards of twenty years has clearly proved that all the statements then made were even below the truth. Thus then the cost was lessened on 6,300,000 pieces exported, as well as on the 2,300,000 retained for home use. Great vitality was at once shewn in the trade, and though the records of the excise are wanting since that period, and no public statistical accounts are kept, there is reason to believe that the trade which in 1830 produced 8,300,000 pieces per annum, now yields about 20 millions. Great changes in material, taste, and style, have necessarily been atten- dant upon so rapid an increase. First, then, very great improvements have been 21 made in the material printed on. The regularity of make, and evenness of fabric, in calicoes made by the power-loom, in all qualities, down to the cheapest possible production, gives the English printer a fabric for printing upon, which places him decidedly above the competition of the whole world, in this most essential part of his trade. The increased demand for quantity led to great changes : — cheapness, the essential element, was attended to, — the machinery improved and quickened. The machines which had hitherto rarely placed on the cloth more than one or two, or perhaps three colours, were enlarged, and made to impress an additional number. Machines are now working producing ten colours at once, with the same beautiful accuracy and precision, as in the case of the smaller number. Preparations are making to increase the number of colours up to fifteen ; at the same time producing, as they doubtless will, six or seven hundred times as many pieces per day, as if blocked separately. These changes, the perfection of machinery, the quickness of production, and its cheapness, have nearly superseded the slower process of block-printing, and this employment, like that of the hand-loom weaver, must decrease and disappear, except on finer fabrics of slight texture, on which machinery has not been brought to bear ; chiefly, perhaps, from the small quantity not affording repayment for the outlay. The changes in the trade during this period, led to the encouragement of a taste, not so showy as the chintz-block productions (for a long time the highest style in the trade) but of goods of a more elegant and quiet character. 22 It is but simple justice to name that at this date, the English printer drew largely upon the style of his French competitors. The printers of the then called Swiss prints, (really French goods produced in Alsace) were unrivalled in their pink and purple plate work. These goods, even for years afterwards, were imitated successfully, only by a few of the best first-class English printers. The progress of the trade in scien- tific knowledge, now so patent to all, has enabled almost every printer in England and Scotland to produce, with more or less success, this class of goods, varying of course in excellence ; in pinks, fully as good, when on an equal fabric, and in purples cer- tainly surpassing those of Alsace. These goods which were exported by the French, and met with in almost every capital city in the world, are now nearly super- seded by the English plate, and to them has been added the supply of a new and increased variety of lower priced prints of a similar class. It is an inter- esting and curious fact, that the taste in almost every market, has changed and improved with the introduc- tion of these goods. The English printer has also drawn largely upon his French competitor, during the same period, for another trade, which he has likewise by the aid of the manufacturer and his machinery, done much to make his own. France has long been famous for her beautiful fabrics in fine wool, wool and silk challis, and de-laines. Expensive and costly, made of the finest wool, requiring the greatest care in execution, these goods have been produced with a taste in colouring and design, worthy of the beauty and 23 elegance of the material. With them, France sup- plied and led the taste of all the civilized markets of the world. An article so costly was naturally limited in demand. The capital and machinery of the English printer have been brought to bear on this branch of the business. Cotton has been introduced into the fabric, and a beautiful substitute at a low price introduced and substituted for the more costly all-wool material of our neighbours. The desired cheapness and beauty have been obtained. Block- printing on this material (the English wool, and cotton-de-laine) was for some time the only mode of printing. Machinery has been adapted to it, and the English printer now introduces the cheap article at a low price, in every known market, and creates a separate demand which the high-priced one would never have known. The cheaper article has intro- duced with it no corresponding reduction in taste : quite the contrary, the wider demand for good taste, and the greater power of execution obtained by machinery, have led to new styles of great novelty. During the progressive improvement, dating from 1831, I may name one house of high standing who introduced a colour superior in brilliancy, fastness, and utility for domestic wear, to any other I am aware of. I allude to the madder purple of Messrs. Thomas Hoyle and Sons ; a colour which may he said to have superseded the old navy blue print, in English wear. Messrs. Hoyle and Sons maintained their well- deserved superiority for a number of years ; numerous modifications of the same colour enter largely into the production of all English printers. 24 I must be permitted to give a brief notice of printing in Scotland. It was first established there in 1738, twenty-six years previous to its introduction into Lan- cashire. Garments only were printed till 1754. The cloths were made in Scotland, and are spoken of as being made of linen yarns for warps, and cotton for wefts. In 1771 and 1772 the trade more firmly established itself : and from that time seems to have adapted itself almost entirely to printing handkerchiefs and shawls for the English markets. Special notice is made of the supply wanted for Virginia, Maryland, and the West Indies. The trade of Glasgow, till within a comparatively recent period, was confined to shawls and handkerchiefs. It now produces other classes of work upon a par with those of Manchester, though much less in extent. Calico printing at one time was carried on so far north as Aberdeen, but I have reason to believe it is now extinct there. The London printers up to the repeal of the duty, still held their position for first-class goods. They made great use of the flat-press printing machine (cylinder printing having been but little used in the district). In fact, I am informed that the first cylinder machine was only introduced in 1812, twenty- seven years after its introduction in Lancashire. Their plates were well engraved, and for a long time they succeeded in getting a smartness of impression better than any at that time obtained from the cylinder. Some few of the Lancashire printers adopted the press, the better to compete with the Town printer. 25 The rapidly increasing trade in Lancashire, and with it the power of so much cheaper production, gradually undermined the London printers, and brought about a complete change in their class of work. Their fine muslin trade for garments has been transferred to the Lancashire and Scotch printers. The London printer has availed himself of his greater advantages for block-work, and has applied himself to printing shawls, waistcoatings, and a variety of fancy handkerchiefs. Silk handkerchief printing has here its chief and almost entire seat for the supply of the whole world, and produces all the variety and excellence of pattern suited to its varied demand. London printed shawls, the production of my friend, Mr. Swaisland, of Crayford, were shown in the Exhi- bition ; correct in taste, elaborate and beautiful in execution, and fairly equal to anything of the class produced in the French market. It must be stated, that the Lancashire printers, to a great extent, not only contended with the Town printers in price, but availed themselves pretty freely of their taste. London patterns were produced at great cost, and their school of drawers was good. Their production being slow and careful, enabled the Lancashire printer by his machinery, to fill the markets rapidly with his imitations and copies, to the very serious injury of the London printer. Better taste, and better morals, too, I hope now prevail. The Printers’ Copyright Bill, which at that period gave protection only for three months’ duration, was in 1842 extended to nine months. I believe the London print trade to be decreasing. D 26 If I might venture an opinion, not unkindly meant, though perhaps unpleasant to some of my friends, I think it will continue to do so. Peculiar branches of it will linger last, retained by the talent which often holds out for its generation, hut is not renewed. The tendency of the trade is decidedly to concentrate itself; the market will not hear dividing. Thus we find the Scotch printers opening their establishments in Manchester, and transferring the larger part of their mercantile business there. And a new feature has just presented itself in the opening of an establishment there by a French print house of the highest standing : and I see no reason to doubt its success. Having brought the history of the trade to the present period, let us briefly contrast its first establish- ment with its present position. The first printer established himself on the banks of the Thames about 160 years ago; his works most likely an outhouse or shed, his machinery such only as a Frenchman knows how best to accommodate to the purposes of production ; his own artist, chemist, and workman, he would probably produce on an expensive material by costly means, a print which, after the cloth was bleached, would require weeks and months to finish. Its progress would indeed be like a work of art : for his production of a few pieces a week could hardly be called a manufacture. Time and manual labour would form a very large item in his cost of pro- duction. Goods differing certainly in style, but of equal utility and taste, are now produced at the rate of 10,000 pieces per week by not a few establishments. In these goods, time and labour form the smallest items 27 of cost. The trade may therefore be said to have changed from an artistic employment, to a staple manufacture, using taste as one of its elements. The present annual production of printed cloth of all kinds, viz., calico, muslin, de-laines, (in the woollen and cotton fabric,) and printed woollens, may be esti- mated at about 20 million pieces. I arrive at this estimate with considerable difficulty, owing to the absence of any very authentic statistics. Commencing at the repeal of the duty in 1830, the excise return gives us 8,300,000 as the production of that year. In 1840, in conjunction with some of the trade with whom I was actively employed in obtaining the exten- sion of the Printers’ Copyright Act, I made considerable enquiry into its statistics ; we had correct lists of all the printers in Great Britain and Ireland, we obtained returns from a large proportion of them, we knew the producing power of the remainder, and were thus able to make a fairly accurate calculation of the entire production at that time, which we were fully satisfied amounted to about 16 millions. I regret that since that period, no means that I am aware of exist, of coming to so accurate a conclusion. My own experi- ence, however, and thatof others upon whose judgment I can fully rely, lead me to suppose that the present annual production exceeds 20 millions of pieces, and consumes a weight of cotton (according to my friend Mr. Bazley’s calculation, given in his lecture here a few weeks ago) about one-seventh the entire import of cotton into this country. In reference to the exports of printed goods, our information is rather obscure, owing to their being 28 classed with dyed cloths of all kinds ; a custom which I hope, on attention being called to it, may he altered, as producing unnecessary confusion. After consider- able thought and calculation, I have ventured to estimate them for 1851 at 15,544,000 pieces, or rather more than three-fourths our entire production. These goods are, however, many of them, of the cheap and more staple class of prints, or slight goods suited to warm climates, and for markets where cheapness is the great recommendation. In value, I should be disposed to estimate our Export of Printed Goods at <£5,775,000. In reference to the entire export of manufactured cotton goods, (exclusive of yarns), it may be assumed that out of £23,447,103., given as the export of 1851, about one-fourth may be placed to the account of the print trade. These exports may be divided, as nearly as is useful for the purposes of comparison and reference, amongst the following countries : — Estimated Exports of Printed Goods from Great Britain in 1851. PIECES. Hamburgh, and North Germany (large portion in transit) 900,000 Holland 360,000 Belgium 30,000 Denmark 22,000 Sweden and Norway 36,000 Russia (Odessa only) 14,000 France (in transit) .... 50,000 Naples and Sicily 230,000 Sardinia, Tuscany, Trieste 720,000 Carried forward 2,362,000 29 Brought forward 2,362,000 Turkey, Ionian Isles, Greece, Malta 1440,000 Egypt 84,000 Gibraltar and Spain 280,000 Portugal, Madeira 410,000 Chili, and Peru 1010,000 Mexico 270,000 Brazils and East Coast of South America 2680,000 British West Indies 660,000 Foreign West Indies 690,000 St. Thomas 450,000 British North America . 470,000 United States .' 1470,000 India 1570,000 China, Manilla, and Singapore.,,.. 550,000 Mauritius and Batavia 325,000 Coast of Africa, and Cape of Good Hope 505,000 Australia 237,000 New Zealand, and South Sea Isles 36,000 California 45,000 Total 15,544,000 The home consumption I estimate at 4,500,000 ; the excise returns for 1830 gave it as 2,281,512 pieces. The repeal of the duty, and the decrease in the cost of production, giving the consumer goods in much better taste and value at one half the price, have greatly tended to this increase. In the remarks I shall have to make on taste and art, connected with the trade, I may have to refer to these tables, in proof of the statements I shall offer, and I venture to think they may be accurate enough for that purpose. I offer them, I will not say with reluctance, but certainly with diffidence. I have, however, spared no efforts or calculations to make them correct to my own mind, 30 and I have obtained evidence from those I thought best able to give it; on one point I have been anxious, not to overstate the quantities, or overrate the values. Number of Print Works in Great Britain and Ireland. England (Lancashire) 120 Scotland 81 Ireland 1 202 Exclusive of the London district. The only records I possess of a former period are from a table compiled for private reference, by a friend in the trade, in the year 1840, and which I had then occasion to make use of and verify. This did not include London, and the numbers were Lancashire 93 firms Scotland 70 „ Ireland 3 „ The Lancashire number shows an increase of twenty- seven firms, and Scotland of eleven. This increase is comparatively small, when contrasted with that of the cotton trade generally, and it is really more so than the figures represent, since the new establish- ments are almost all very small ones, many of them employed in printing the different fancy woollen and mixed fabrics, carpets, and yarns. It is an extra- ordinary fact, within my own knowledge, that for the last twenty-five years in the Lancashire district, no more than one or two new print works of any 31 great extent or power have been built, while a greater number of large establishments have been discontinued. The power, then, by which the annual production has been raised from eight to twenty millions, has been chiefly gained by the extension of existing establish- ments ; certainly the increase of producing power has been equivalent to the increase of demand. The Irish printers were named as three in 1840. Their works were in the neighbourhood of Dublin, were on a tolerably extensive scale, and produced first class medium work. They have, however, since been closed, and I think Ireland holds out no inducement for the revival there of calico printing. One small establishment does exist in the neighbour- hood of Belfast. The rate of wages paid to the hands employed in the trade, I believe to be higher than that of any other class in the cotton trade. Their occupation entailing upon many of them a knowledge of chem- istry, and of art to some extent, and the constant exercise and appreciation of correct execution, enables them to rank amongst the highest class of manu- facturing workmen. I regret that I can offer no official statistical returns as to the production of our Foreign com- petitors. French statistics have been occasionally produced, but I should fear to offer any opinion as to their correctness. In connection with my office as reporter for the jury on printed goods in the Exhibition, I made every effort, through my friend M. Persoz, of Paris, one of my colleagues on the occasion, a gentleman whose varied knowledge, on all 32 subjects connected with French Calico-printing cannot be too highly rated, but without success. The only estimate I can make any reference to, is one I find of Mr. Thomson’s, in 1840, in which he calculates the then production to be little short of 3,500,000 ; and if we consider it has since increased one million, and I should feel inclined to think it may have done so, her trade of 4,500,000 pieces per annum, (considering the quality of a large proportion of her productions) may be ranked as a very important one. France, after ourselves, I place highest in the scale in value of production, — next to the United States in quantity, and I may say she is the only competitor we have to meet in any of the neutral markets of the world. She is our competitor in fine goods only, and chiefly so by her taste. The United States exceed France in quantity of production, but I have no statistics to offer. I know her power of production to be very large, and her consumption of printed goods is certainly more per head for her population, than that of any country in the world. Her printing is more remark- able for mechanical power and speed, than for taste ; her mode of business, forced in many instances, by large capitals on the joint-stock system, varies completely from our own. Her cost of production is much higher than ours, from her high-priced labour, coal, and drugs. She protects herself with a 20 per cent, duty, and competes with us only in her own market. The Zollverein, Austria, and Bohemia, produce for their own markets ; and by their protecting duties prevent any other supply, except of very fine French 33 goods. Their prints are good in execution, imitations of French taste in the finer goods, and of English prints in the medium and lower qualities. Whilst referring to protective duties (a subject deeply inter- esting to the printer) I may just refer to the Zollverein. Prussia takes credit to herself for her liberality in not having raised them (they are very nearly prohibitory). These duties are charged by weight ; a few years ago, when prints were higher priced, we had a trade with her, the duties then being 25 to 30 per cent. ; now, on our reduced prices, a print worth 8s. 6d. pays 50 per cent. In Austria, the duties are also charged by weight, and on a print at 8s. amount to 80 per cent. — of course a prohibition. Switzerland is very limited, but choice, in production, and opens her market to the world, with a fiscal duty of only 2J per cent. Holland has a small production of medium goods, and a very moderate protection, not exceeding 5 per cent. Belgium is highly protected, and produces nothing deserving notice in quality. Naples has a few small print works, and high pro- tective duties. Russia produces printed goods of no great character, and her market is prohibited to us, except the port of Odessa. Spain likewise produces goods of an inferior quality to a limited extent, and prohibits us, except in goods of a very fine quality, at a duty of 50 per cent. Occasionally, a large trade is done in English prints through the smugglers, chiefly from Gibraltar. Portugal produces very slightly, and imports English goods at a duty of about 30 per cent. E 34 Turkey produces a few printed goods, hardly worthy of criticism. Her duties are light, not above 3 per cent. Egypt has likewise revived the art, and with the assistance of European machinery and workmen, produces the rudest possible results ; duty as in Turkey. Of the productions of all other countries, it may be fairly stated (with the exception of those of China, the East Indies, and the negroes) that they are imita- tions of either French or English goods, and can- not any of them be said to have a school of their own. I have placed on the table some specimens of Chinese printing, some of them executed on English cloth, and some on that of their own manufacture. They exhibit a very primitive taste and rude execution. The Chinese undoubtedly practised the art of Calico Printing many centuries before ourselves. The taste shown in these samples is their own, and we very well know the difficulty we experience in inducing them to change it, or even to substitute our copies. Now China, Singapore, and Manilla, took from us . last year, in other descriptions of cotton manufactures, .£2,384,716., whilst we only sent them ,£186, 799. in printed goods ; probably China herself did not take from us 200,000 pieces. Here, then, we have an open market with a population larger than that of all our European and American ones added together. The printer as yet has merely a footing in it ; depend upon it, he will try to extend it as widely as possible. However great that extension may be, it will certainly not give much scope for taste, nay, it may be profitable almost without it. 35 I am inclined to think that the production of Great Britain exceeds that of all the rest of the world. I have endeavoured to give an accurate estimate of the trade, its importance, and its relative proportion of the great trade, of which it is a branch. I shall next proceed to consider the distinguishing feature of its difference from the staple manufacture, the plain calico, viz., — the art and taste required for the design to be put upon it to constitute the print. I may frankly state at once that I think as an art manufacture, or rather as possessing capabilities for scope in art and taste, it has been much overrated, particularly by those who form their opinion from a knowledge of the extent and power of the trade, without reference to the actual demand it has to supply, without, in fact, being acquainted with the real wants, tastes, and capabilities of the purchasers of printed fabrics. It is the printer’s object to provide for the especial taste of the consumer ; if he anticipate it too far, no matter how novel the production, or how much art and taste it may embody; no matter what merit it may have, if it do not meet the taste of the consumer, the producer will suffer, and its value to him will be some- what similar to that of an unsold historical painting : it may have great talent, great genius, but it will hang on hand. It is too much taken for granted that art and taste to any amount may be applied to manufactures. The extent and value of the print trade, perhaps, does not tend to lessen this opinion, and many remarks and much criticism has of late been visited upon it, remarks, 36 I will admit, made in no unkindly spirit ; tending, I will own, to promote enquiry into its real condition, and encourage improvement ; but I fear tlie relative fitness of the trade for any very immediate change or improvements in taste, may not he so great as is supposed. I come to this conclusion for many reasons. In the first place, our demand for what would generally be called good taste, must be confined to those countries, and classes, which possess a degree of education and refinement, sufficient to appreciate art in connection with manufactures. Secondly. The existence of prohibitions and duties, causes us to experience a great difficulty in forcing finer goods into consumption in those more civilized markets, where there is sufficient refinement to make taste valued. Thirdly. The present taste of the trade is not duly estimated, from the want of knowledge as to what it is really intended to supply. It may be worth while to enquire whether it be possible that the capital and talent now engaged in the trade, subject to the very severe competition which is a marked feature in every occupation of the present day, can have failed to exert their legitimate influence. Taste in a Print can only be estimated or defined by reference to the consumer for whom it is intended. There must be the applica- tion of taste to some extent, in every production, from the rude specimen which I exhibit on the table, as prepared for the negro on the Gambia river, to the fine specimens of French work, placed in contrast with it. There is taste in both, in their fitness for their respective consumers, and in both correctness of 37 execution. We will take the negro print as being the lowest, affording the greatest scope for improvement. Difficulties meet you at the very outset. The less civilized the consumer, the more fearful of being cheated, and the more suspicious of any change he is. I ht,ve also placed on the table a specimen of negro printing from the banks of the Gambia, on cloth of native manufacture. It is the lowest specimen of printing and art manufacture I have been able to obtain. Original in every respect, machinery has had no part in its production, no steam, or artificial heat, have been applied to it ; it has been produced in the open air, dried in the sun, and washed in the stream ; the labour bestowed on it has been profuse and slow, and the waste of material in colouring, great ; it is per- fectly fast, and coloured with the native indigo. It is in fact the negro print ; he knows its value from ex- perience ; its taste is the best he can appreciate in his aboriginal state, and he produces it for long con- tinued periods, and fears to make a change, because he knows his customers are unprepared for novelty. The first attempt of the stranger who wishes to obtain his oil, ivory, or gum, (or what is "worse, his person for slavery) must he to supply him in exchange with something as near as possible to his own production, tempting him gradually with price, in the shape of extra quantity. The savage is suspicious and ignorant, and he wishes in his timidity to have even the very errors of his native productions imitated. I have seen ' samples of English goods refused, simply because they were sent more perfect than the original. When the native has products for which he cannot otherwise get paid, he does take very slowly innovations in art manu- factures. These come naturally, after he has been freely supplied with the more material articles of civilisation, or what is worse for the savage, of unres- tricted and uncivilised luxury. On the table is a specimen of English printing for the Gambia, which has been a staple pattern for upwards of 40 years, in pattern unchanged — its production cheapened in cost, and its real value as a commodity kept exactly up to the demand of the market. It will be evident that in this normal market, if I may use the expression, the increase of taste can only follow the slow progress of civilisation, a progress by no means so rapid as the increasing power, capital, and production of the calico printer would wish. I have endeavoured to estimate from the Table of Exports for 1851, the probable quantity of low priced Prints we export, and should be disposed to class them as follows. To them must be added our produc- tion for the home market of the same class. PIECES. Coast of Africa, and the Cape 300,000 New Zealand, and the South Sea Islands 36,000 China, Manilla, and Singapore 550,000 British West Indies 300,000 Foreign West Indies 300,000 St. Thomas 200,000 India 1,570,000 Mauritius and Batavia 325,000 Chili and Peru 800,000 Brazil and East Coast of South America 1,000,000 Egypt 84,000 Turkey, Ionian Isles, Greece, and Malta 1,000,000 Part of our Home Comsumption 1,000,000 Total 7,465,000 I find those countries which take our lowest description of goods, and where the duties are chiefly very light, — our Colonies, India, China, — receive from us about 6J millions of pieces, or about 40 per cent, of our exports in printed goods. A great pro- portion of the finer part of our exports, perhaps three fourths, are very seriously taxed, either for protection, as in the United States, the Zollverein, and Belgium ; or for revenue, as in Brazil, and the other South American markets. A part, however, of these better goods find their way into consumption in Canada, Turkey, the Ionian Isles, Egypt, &c., subject to very moderate duties. I estimate the probable quantity of finer printed goods exported as below : PIECES. United States.... 1,470,000 Belgium 30,000 Denmark 22,000 Naples and Sicily 230,000 Portugal and Madeira 410,000 Mexico 270,000 California , 45,000 Portion of Brazils, and East Coast South America 1,680,000 Holland 360,000 Sweden and Norway 36,000 British No America 470,000 Australia 237,000 Sardinia, Tuscany, and Trieste 720,000 Gibraltar and Spain 280,000 Turkey, Ionian Isles, Greece, and Malta 440,000 France 50,000 Russia 14,000 British West Indies 360,000 Foreign West Indies 390,000 Carried forward 7,514,000 40 Brought forward 7,514,000 St. Thomas 250,000 Coast of Africa and Cape 205,000 Chili and Peru 210,000 Hamburgh, Hanover, and Prussia 900,000 Total 9,079,000 After a careful analysis, I estimate the quantity out of our entire production of printed goods, including the largest part of our home consumption, on which state may he fairly exerted, at probably 12 J millions of pieces. Here, however, let me remark, I use the word taste, not in the popular acceptation, as denoting any great amount of artistic talent, but that, more or less, as I shall endeavour to show, it is in this quantity an essential ingredient. Another conclusion I arrive at from the tables is, that the demand for low class goods, allowing little scope for the exercise of taste, hut a great field for cheap and economical production, is very large, and that in this portion of our trade, consuming millions of our production, the demand for taste can only be raised by a slow process, differing in degree only from that pursued with the negro of the Gambia. I may allude next to the large exports shown in the table as sent to the United States. The American printers’ own production is large enough in extent to allow of every appliance capital can furnish being profitably employed, and is protected with duties and charges amounting to about 35 per cent. Notwith- standing these difficulties, and contending moreover, with an energy and industry hereditarily derived from 41 ourselves, I suppose we export to the United States, nearly 1J millions of pieces per annum, embracing every description of good printed fabrics. A better elucidation of the real position of the English printer, or one by which we can better estimate his real power, can hardly be given. Under the disadvantages of such a competition, he forces in the American market a quantity of prints, probably not less than one-fourth their home production. France exports thither largely. America herself produces the lowest goods, upon which her duties act almost as a prohibition to us. Nothing but an advancing taste and execution will enable us to keep our footing in this market, unless there be a change in our favour in her tariff. It will readily be supposed that we have no more severe competition to meet than in the American market. From France, as I shall elsewhere notice more fully, we are excluded, as also from Russia (except a very small exp&rt to the free port of Odessa), and from Spain, with the exception I have named. The perusal of this table shows some of the diffi- culties (unthought of and unappreciated by the man of taste, who criticises the low scale of art in which he may place our productions) which the printer has in securing remuneration for investments in art and taste, investments he would undoubtedly extend, if good for his own interests. The tables, if further analysed, would show the comparatively limited range there is for the very finest productions of art manufacture, into which only the highest taste can he extensively infused. They would show again the wider field for middle class consump- F 42 tion of goods, which admit more scope for perfection in execution, (not to he had without real, though not generally perceptible taste accompanying it) : and, thirdly and lastly, the wide field for the consumption of lower class goods, which do not need much taste, and are best fitted to take off the quantities, which accumulated capital, labour, and mechanical power produce, and must do so, to he profitable, with great rapidity. In this class of goods, capable of the most extended demand, we most readily meet the extending wants of millions, — we take their raw products in return, we distribute the comforts and luxuries of these returns in the shape of cheap tea, coffee, sugar, &c., into every home in the kingdom, from the cottage to the palace. Their cheapness, reacting with prodigious force, adds to the incomes of all, by giving greater value for lessened amount. In the case of the popu- lation connected with the Print trade, the wages, with the exception of block printers, are as high, in many instances higher, as when machinery was ruder and less used. It is the right direction given by educa- tion, which can alone tend to make these widely- diffused incomes, the best promoters and consumers of taste. The argument I wish to carry out, in referring to these statistics of exports, is, to show how strongly our taste is ruled by demand. The great success of the French printer of late years, and especially in his fine goods, I attribute, greatly (not entirely) to the greater extent of markets he has for them than our- selves. We are debarred from a considerable part of the demand for fine goods he enjoys. He has our 43 market free, and we are prohibited from his ; he gains the chance of sharing in the supply of our 30 millions of population, in addition to his 35 ; he has thus the fine trade of 65 millions open to him, while we have it only for 30. From singular local causes, one house at Mulhausen, in Alsace, of high standing and great talent, has been able to add to this large demand for fine goods, that of the Zollverein of about 25 millions of population. This has been* accomplished by estab- lishing a branch Print-works at Lewrach, within the Zollverein, 40 miles from Mulhausen. The short distance enables them to transport the rollers previously used in France for printing, to Lewrach, where they will produce from the original designs goods not subject to the import duties, thus giving them as a reward for the taste and design of one house, a share in the consumption of 90 millions of population. I am not at this moment able, owing to the non-receipt of some correspondence, to state whether, and to what extent, this mode of business is pursued by other houses.* Thus the English printer, for the best taste he can procure, has the share in the supply of 30 millions against the 90 of a competitor. While referring to Mulhausen, it may not he unin- teresting to mention, that it is certainly the seat of the finest printing in the world. Calico printing was first established there in 1746, by the firm of Koechlin and Co., and is still carried on by descendants of the original firm, and during the whole period, and not * One other house enjoys the s^fte facilities. 44 less so now, the house has had a high and justly de- served reputation for talent and taste, and to them the chemistry of the trade is most deeply indebted for many valuable processes and discoveries. Other houses, of almost equal celebrity followed, and Mul- hausen has justly maintained its reputation of being, for fine goods, the first calico-printing district in the world. I have estimated *our home consumption at 4,500,000 pieces. Here, of course, is the printer’s best field as an art manufacturer ; he has the highest class of consumers at his own door; he has un- doubtedly the cheapest power of production in the world; capital, machinery, well-skilled hands, and certainly the best material at the cheapest cost, for printing upon, and all his drugs duty free. Of this 4,500,000 pieces for home consumption, about one- third will be in low and staple goods, requiring some taste and exactness, neatness and precision of execu- tion, hut not allowing any great scope for variety or novelty; the other two-thirds may certainly be classed as goods to be added to the quantity which give scope for the exercise of art and taste. I have endeavoured to show the field for the exer- cise of the taste of the English printer. France, the best market in the world, remains closed to him, while at the same time it produces the only competition in taste, worthy of notice, to which taste and its produc- tions our market is freely opened. In discussing the present state and requirements of taste in the English trade, we must at once admit the great superiority of French taste in all the very finest printed fabrics. 45 Paris has long led the fashion of the world in female attire, and in the design and execution of all the lighter fabrics, she maintains her superiority. These productions are found and estimated in every civilized capital of the world. In all the medium class goods, as before noticed, where machinery could be brought to bear, she has ceased to hold the position she did, even a few years ago, and is supplanted by the taste and execution of the English printer. The causes for this result appear to me natural and legitimate. The English printer, with his cheaper fuel, well made, and infinitely cheaper cotton fabrics, his machinery and capital, applies himself to the more extensive supply; he gives more regular employment to the population, he adds continually to his mechanical resources and power, and step by step displaces every French production which he can adapt to his means. I may make one exception, viz., in the highest quali- ties of machine de-laine printing; where colouring enters largely into the design, in taste, but not in execution, the French yet excel us. The French printer clings more to manual labour, and the very finest block-work, and it is not undesirable for us he should do so. Block printing has been gradually lessening in England, and is required chiefly for fine fancy fabrics, either in quantities too small to be worth while preparing machinery for, or too delicate and difficult to execute. The occupation is very variable, confined to particular seasons, dependent upon fashion, and consequently very irregular. In no single instance has the application of machinery been more beneficial, than in the regularity of habit it has con- 46 ferred on the working-classes in the Print trade. The lessening number of block printers now connected with it, presents a melancholy spectacle of a decaying branch of work, and it is better far that the work should be done in France, than that we should retain an employment, which, from its irregularity, has long made its workers a contrast in comfort and character, to the more orderly class by which they are surrounded. The fine French trade requires what Paris alone can supply, great variety and novelty of design, in proportion to the small quantity of pieces produced. Paris may be called the World’s School of Design ;* the habits of her people, her libraries of art, her museums, her public and out-door amuse- ments, and her constant variety and excitement, emi- nently qualify her for supplying the English, and all other markets, with designs. This occupation is an increasing one, one for which she is eminently fitted, and from which I do not think any efforts of ours will much disturb her. However much it may mortify our national pride, it is better that we should he well supplied from the best market, than that we should vainly attempt what the habits of our people are not so well fitted for. I have stated it as my opinion, that in every class of goods on which English capital and machinery can he brought to hear, we are superior to France. The designs for these goods are either produced at home, for which we have sufficient and improving talent, or are ordered from ideas furnished hy the English * French Designers, vide Appendix. 47 printer, and drawn in the French capital. This trade has, it must be admitted, greatly increased in Paris during the last twenty years, and lessened, if not become extinct, in London. Within my own recollection, the emoluments and salaries of London designers, whose names are yet remembered in the trade, were equal to those received by the best Paris designers of the present day. The change of supply has been forced, no doubt, by the removal of the London trade into Lancashire. I do not consider that English talent is incapable of furnishing these designs — far from it — hut the external influences are wanting. These are not to be obtained in a country print field, and London does not present the supply. As a proof that it is not merely French talent, I may mention, that the heads of some of the French drawing ateliers, are English and Germans. French taste in prints is the highest, and has therefore secured a large and increasing demand. Taste, in its higher develop- ments, is the attendant of wealth, leisure, and luxury; and in its lighter expansion is hardly to be expected from the plodding regularity of an English artizan, whose morality and application, however, do admirably fit him for the steady attention required for more mechanical productions. Thus, then, each nation takes its proper position in supplying what is best suited to its peculiar powers. If we aspire to share the pro- ductions of higher class goods, I know no better means of being enabled to do so, than by allowing the French prints to enter, as they do now, freely into competition with our own ; if we can supply cheaper and better, we shall displace them, if not, let our 48 customers here have the benefit of the taste we do not furnish, but which affords us examples, and let us hope that France will in her turn, allow us to give her the benefit of our superior goods in the medium and machine printed fabrics.* I may allude to the difficulty of raising the standard of taste while required to meet the demands of so many markets, which require productions lending little aid to its advancement. Extreme competition — by this term I do not mean unfair, or even unhealthy competition, but the natural struggle which hourly occurs in trade, and which, after all, constitutes the safeguard of progress — often produces, no doubt, eccentricity of pattern, partaking more of novelty than taste, from the effort made to obtain startling effects. These novelties check themselves from the cost, en- tailing as they do hundreds of failures for one success- ful result. Patterns of this sort, often the result of accidental combinations, do however sometimes prove exceedingly profitable. The most successful and curious pattern, (within my recollection,) to be classed under this head, w T as the diorama pattern, produced by Messrs. Simpson and Co., of Foxhill Bank, about twenty-five years ago.f I should hardly like to trust myself with naming the quantity printed from this one pattern, which for a time was the novelty of the day, and had for a short period a sale unequalled, I believe, by any pattern ever printed. I may fairly estimate the quantity produced by the original printers, and by others who copied and made variations from it, as being Import of French printed goods, vide Appendix. f Vide Appendix. 49 hot far short of 300,000 or 400,000 pieces. I have placed a copy of the pattern on the table. Like all extreme novelties it had its day, and I do not think that any printer could now, by reproducing the pattern, or any near variation from it, tempt a demand in the whole world’s market, that would pay the cost of pro- duction. So utterly distasteful, and so instantly recog- nised, are all reproductions of this class. A second illustration is one of a quieter kind, not so extreme in character. It is known as “ Lane’s net,” the original of a style with which the world was sup- plied, and I might say literally clothed for a short time. It was produced in the London market upwards of 40 years ago. This pattern, with another I shall refer to, will be found on the table* My third illustration, though not so extensive per- haps in its range of consumption, and still more simple in its novelty, was an accidental selection of one out of perhaps hundreds or thousands of the class, and if there be any credit in the matter, I might own myself its original designer. It is a small broom, or brush pattern, produced upwards of 20 years ago, and for a pattern of its style, had a very remarkable sale, certainly within my own knowledge, to the extent of a quarter of a million of dresses. I can hardly attempt to give a rule for the success of these patterns. They are simply curious instances of the fitful nature of demand. Lane’s net does possess clearness, neatness, and novelty. The diorama was, strictly speaking odd, capable of great variety in colouring. The broom * Vide Appendix. G 50 had character distinct in its size ; had it been half the size, it would have been ineffective, if larger, absurd, and consequently unsaleable. The immense increase of production in lower goods, has not decreased the taste in the higher, in this country, though it may have caused it to make less apparent progress than when the larger part of the supply was of fine goods. We find specimens of good taste on the lowest material, printed at the lowest possible price for export, shewing a taste superior to that in use for our best work twenty years ago, employing greater talent in design, greater skill in engraving, the cost of production cheap, because repaid by the quantity produced. This diffusion of art, and of a better taste, cannot be otherwise than beneficial, even to the higher class of productions, as preparing a taste and demand for them in countries where high price would never have given prints any admission. The improvement of the lower cannot militate against that of the higher, either in the moral, intellectual, or artistic world. The productions of the highest class of French goods of to day, whether furniture or dresses, are superior in taste and execution to those of any former period. The productions of the first class printers of Great Britain maintain an equal advance, and are superior in execution and taste, in every respect, to those of former years. Great competition and rapidity of production are not immediately beneficial to high finish and execution in art ; but this tendency to quickness of production, rather than perfection, rectifies itself, and machinery, which perhaps at first does not give the polish that 51 excessive labour formerly supplied, ultimately exceeds it, by its cheaper and more regular application. It is remarkable how taste or novelty in that class of demand which would strike the casual observer as the one fitted for its greatest development, is limited in quantity. The limit or commencing point, in which taste or novelty enters freely into the composition of a print, is for the supply of the working and middle classes of society. They require it quiet, modest, and useful, and any deviation for the sake of novelty, which calls in the aid of the brighter and less permanent colour, quickly checks itself. The sober careful classes of society cling to an inoffensive taste, which will not look obsolete and extravagant after the lapse of such a time as would render a garment comparatively taste- less and unfashionable in a higher class. This trade is the printers’ most extensive and valuable, and has its necessary and practical bearing on his taste, and hence it is in this branch of the business, ' the English printer is most decidedly superior to his French competitors. India is frequently referred to as a high standard of imitation for the English printers’ taste. Here, I must confess, perhaps, my want of knowledge, and it may be, of taste ; I have no prejudice against any theory on the subject, but I have a strong practical opinion of the unfitness of the oriental style, as I understand it, to advance the general taste of the printer. The finest specimens of India printing, of which I have any knowledge, are those of the chintz- printed furnitures, which a century or a century and a half ago, formed the hangings (and may still be 52 found in some) of our larger mansions ; large in pattern, exceedingly varied — trees, flowers, fruits, animals, and grotesque forms, all entering largely into their composition. In one sense, they could hardly be called Prints, and though produced by innumerable applications of the block, they were finished up, to a great extent, by the hand, touched either by the brush or by small bits of wood, dipped in the colour and tipped on. In this, as in all similar productions, quan- tity of labour formed the most m aterial element ; they were works of Indian art, rather than manufacture. These India furnitures, in their larger and more striking character, are quite unfitted in style for use in this country, in any but rooms of very large size, and even then our climate, for comfort, requires a greater depth of colouring. One fact shows the very limited application of this style for general use. The English printer has never succeeded in introducing it, to any great extent ; it does not bear reducing in size and character of pattern; nor do I believe any reduction in the cost (that great forcer of demand) would bring it into any but a very limited consumption. Another class of Indian character, the Cashmere and Persian, which is adapted in very low goods for export in large quantities to the Bengal markets, is one that has been repeatedly introduced, and once successfully, within the last 20 years, by the English printer for his home trade ; cramped in form, it is by its fulness of detail, beautiful only when exquisite in execution, and then costly. I do not see that any adaptation or variation of it is at all likely to tempt its reintroduction into the market at home. Any devia- 53 tion by the introduction of natural objects or flowers, never appears to be in harmony with it, and though repeatedly tried, has generally soon be relinquished. This style of design is certainly of great antiquity. It is the standard Eastern style, and constant reproduc- tion has perfected and harmonised the detail. It is well adapted for the shawl printer, giving a cheap imitation of the expensive woven shawls from which it derives its name, and affording a complete contrast to the more simple figured, or the bolder flowered garment. Some of the very highest specimens of French woollen de-laine work in the Exhibition were of this class. The Arabesque style is frequently dwelt upon and suggested to the printer for his art. It is well adapted for interior and furniture decoration, admirably so for the paper printer ; it admits of great beauty, but loses its effect and scope, when reduced to a small scale, and is moreover not in accordance with the require- ments of the larger part of our export demand, into which variations of flowers and natural objects, most largely enter. I place floral designs for prints in the highest rank, being the best adapted for giving endless novelty and variety in form and colour, consistent too with good taste ; good alike both on the flat surface and in the fold. Here, too, the printers’ taste has been progressive, if not in design (hardly to be expected) greatly so in execution. The floral style is useful and saleable in every market 54 in the world, from the last pattern of the newest French woollen, silk, or muslin, down to the com- monest calico for Mexico or Brazil. In these remarks on styles I wish to show that the printer must not chiefly seek to produce that which depends for success upon refined appreciation, hut that which has the great majority of demand. I can hardly, even at the risk of being tedious, help referring to the class employed as artists in the trade, for the preparation of patterns. I may venture to give something of the statistics of design. I believe there are 500 or 600 hands constantly employed in the occupation (exclusive of those employed as sketch makers for the engravers and block cutters). Many of them possess a pretty good knowledge of art in other respects ; some of the younger and best hands have been educated in our schools of design — admir- able institutions for teaching drawing, and securing that boldness and freedom of outline, which the small and cramped style of many of our patterns tends so much to destroy. The remuneration of this class is not large for artists, remembering that it is one which cannot be well pursued later in life. I have previously referred to the French market, and the causes for its being the best for high class designs, in fact for such as afford the greatest scope for novelty. I consider the English designers for our medium Prints unsurpassed, and better than at any former period ; there is, however, little in the employ- ment to tempt talent of a high class to remain in it. I have more than once, when I have found a young man of good, artistic talent following it, advised him to use the advantages he might obtain at the School of Design, and if he could, to change to some higher branch of art, likely to give him a better remunera- tion, and a higher station in life. The trade has at times furnished, from its ranks, some men of con- siderable talent; Stothard and Lonsdale were em- ployed in early life in designing for calico-printing. The services of Wilkie, of Smirke, and others, after- wards Royal Academicians, have been at times ob- tained to try to raise the standard of taste, but the want of practical knowledge, and, it may be, the absence of a sufficiently elevated demand, has always rendered the application of such talent unprofitable. It has often fallen to my lot to hear the printers blamed for not remunerating and sufficiently elevating the designer. I would not unkindly underrate his position, or the value of artistic talent, nor would I altogether treat it as a mere marketable commodity, much less so, in a department in which I have been somewhat of a worker : — the real merit of a design must consist in its fitness for the market for which it is intended, combined with tire novelty. The experi- ence which can suggest this novelty, can hardly be expected to be possessed by any one except the printer himself. I believe it is the more frequent possession of this knowledge by the master printer, combined with some power of practical designing, which has tended to change the value of the designer’s position, and perhaps to make him the compiler of the pattern rather than the designer. Schools of design are so intimately connected with 56 this part of my subject, that I cannot help very briefly referring to them. I almost regret to see them as separate establishments, and not as following a more general system of education. I think our schools of design have been aimed (if I may use the expression) at certain classes or occupations, supposed to be defi- cient in taste, and those classes have been blamed for not sufficiently supporting them. I do not object, as an individual, to have the art I need perfected by educated labour, but it ought not to be done, even if it can be well done, at the cost of the community. However, as drawing schools, they have done very much to give good and solid teaching, better than any previously attainable by the classes who have attended them; they have implanted a power, which, in its future and wider field, will, I doubt not, be worked to great advantage, through the agency, and by means of the practical knowledge of the manufacturer. The arguments I have adduced, in giving my opinion as to the reasons why French taste is superior to our own, in the highest class of goods, point at once to the benefit I conceive the Exhibition to have conferred on the English printer. It brought all the classes in the trade, — master, designer, and worker, into the world’s exposition, and showed all the world’s produc- tions in art and taste, in contrast with each other ; and if the Exhibition in their own particular class did not permit such marked features of novelty, and did not so well satisfy them, as it did many others engaged in similar art manufactures, it gave them the opportunity of seeing how art and taste might be superadded to many a simple production of utility, 57 and thereby elevate its character, while it did not impair its usefulness, mingled too with the regret that so glorious a collection of beauty and art, should be seen by so many for so brief a space, and not remain there, as a means of study, after time and thought had been given to dwell upon the points most applicable to practice in their peculiar branch of art. Perhaps the most striking part of the Exhibition of printed fabrics was a beautiful variety of French printed furnitures, well fitted to exemplify the pecu- liar talent in which, I most freely admit, they do excel us. Though in some points not so difficult in execu- tion, yet I am inclined to class them on the whole as the best specimens of printed fabrics in the Exhibition. Beautiful in drawing, colouring, and execution, large in scale, and expensive in production, they had all the scope required for art ; and they ivere works of art. The quantity consumed of higher class furniture prints, renders them hardly worth the attention of many English printers. They are, however, produced on a limited scale, with considerable excellence ; but, I must confess, inferior in taste to the French. Large quantities of machine-printed cheap furnitures are produced for export, with considerable taste at the price. I have before remarked, that I feared that the rank and capabilities of the trade, in respect to art, were too highly estimated. That feeling was not a little produced by its position in the Exhibition. Except in the one article of printed furniture hangings, which I have just named, the exposition of printed goods appeared flat and cold, in contact with the many more H 58 striking, rich, and highly coloured fabrics, (which formed a strong contrast with them.) Another cause militated against the appearance of the collections of printed goods ; each case contained only the produc- tions of a single printer, and consequently could not exhibit the variety and contrast shown in many a shop window in Regent- street. These causes appear to my mind, to have placed our prints in a false position in the opinion of those not practically acquainted with their real merits, and perhaps induced the casual visitor to the Exhibition, to select prints as an article upon which instruction in design and taste might be beneficially bestowed. The Exhibition, then, improved the general taste ; and the exhibitor, printer, or otherwise, who could not at once feel its influence on his own particular branch, felt, at least, that the eye accustomed to beauty of form and colour, would in future expect more art and taste in connection with his manufacture. I fear from the opinions I have expressed, it will be thought I do not estimate the print trade very highly as an art-manufacture, and that I have dwelt rather too strongly on its economical power of production, as affording a better source of remuneration and improvement. Perhaps the practice I have alluded to in others, of representing the taste needed too highly, and then depreciating the want of it, may have led me into this tendency. Our art is respect- able in its proper sphere, and perhaps that is not a high one. More art-education will elevate us as a class, and enable us, (if we have not done so) to keep pace with other kindred manufactures. 59 We wait the demand ; we cannot afford greatly to anticipate it ; cherish as we may and encourage to the utmost of our power, the progress of taste, common sense and the cautious prudence of the merchant will restrain us to the actual wants of the day. I have tried to estimate fairly our position, with the natural leaning in favour of my own class, not unwilling to allow its errors, nor on the other hand prepared to admit that the industry, capital, and talent we do possess, have been altogether lost to their own interests, or the character of our productions. I look forward hopefully to the progress of civilization, the continu- ance of peace, the widest extension of Free Trade, as promoting the exchange by each nation of its best products — whether they be designs for prints, or raw materials — which daily need supplying, for our im- mense variety of wants, and which the more they extend, act as incentives to industry. In the more staple manufacture of Prints, necessity and competition act more forcibly, the restless com- petition of the capitalist, and the great necessity for work as a means of livelihood, are a safe warrant for no lagging there. Art requires more external aid — poverty starves it, prosperity needs it as a luxury, but does not always keep a sufficiently refining hand upon it. The gradual extension of education, education of the mind first, and of the eye afterwards, accustoming it to dwell on natural beauty, on correct forms, in all the possible creations of art, will give that power of imitation and compilation, which forms the basis of design. How many of us, or at least of our workers, dwell where natural beauty is 60 not seen, and where artificial beauty does not exist, I need not say ; blame them not if they do not suffi- ciently appreciate it, offer them increased facilities, cheapen their means in the same honest course we have latterly been rapidly pursuing : — their wages will not decrease, but the reverse, their resources and means of improvement will increase, be treasured and appreciated, and their morals and taste will be higher. If I were asked to say at the moment, how I thought most had been done in creating a taste for art in my own time, in this class — the workers, I should say at once, the cheap works of art so widely diffused in the various illustrated publications of the day* I know of nothing that has so widely penetrated every house, as our cheap illustrated periodicals. First on the list, I may place the Penny Magazine of Charles Knight ; good in art as in matter, and deeply do I regret to think that this should supply proof of an argument I have adduced, that supply is sometimes too much ele- vated above the demand, too high in character for the class it is intended for, fully to appreciate it. Another, later, and more successful effort perhaps, because more popular, and more allied too, if I mis- take not, with business talent, is the Illustrated London News. Channels like this afford a wide means of dif- fusing art and taste, and the great improvement of the art they use shows the necessity they feel for keeping pace with a progressive developement. It is not for me to ramble out of my subject, to refer to * I might venture to add also, that they have perhaps done quite as much to improve the taste of the higher as well as the lower classes; the cheapness which gives entrance to the cottage never excludes from the drawing-room. 61 literary matters, but so closely linked to these illus- trated periodical works are those of Chambers, and latterly of Dickens, that I may be pardoned for allud- ing to them as nearly allied, and suggesting by their interesting accounts of art, the wish their readers will have to become more intimately acquainted with their form in illustration. In conclusion : I have tried to trace the History and Progress of the Trade, — its great increase strongly marked by increased demand for cheap goods. I have endeavoured to shew, how the present supply is dis- tributed, and its consequent influence on our taste. I have ventured the opinion that that taste has im- proved correspondingly with our demand ; that it is quite equal to it in quality, except in the very highest and most limited class of our productions, and that there it is deficient from external and economical causes, which it may be difficult (I would not say hopeless) to try to obviate. 63 APPENDIX. IMPORT OF FRENCH PRINTED GOODS. I am indebted to G-. R. Porter, Esq., of the Board of Trade, for a return of the value of French Printed Goods admitted into this country. I give the annual amount for the five years ending in 1850, (beyond which I have no return) during which period they have been admitted duty free. £. 1846 73,193 1847 125,357 ] 848 150,347 1849 126,930 1850 150,583 Considering that this import includes a large quantity for reship- ment, and embraces all sorts of the finer and most expensive wool- len and gauze and cotton goods, it shows no very large demand for printed fabrics admitted to be the highest in taste. It shows very plainly how high price limits consumption, and that our own produc- tion very nearly satisfies the demand even for taste. I will venture the assertion without fear of contradiction, that if the French market was open to us free for the high class goods only, (in which they are supposed to excel us) that our exports would speedily exceed our imports of printed fabrics. We should offer them a taste which they would appreciate as highly as we do theirs. FRENCH DESIGNS. The importance of the French trade in Designs may be in some degree estimated by the number of hands employed in their produc- tion. I am informed by a friend resident in Paris, and upon whose intimate knowledge of the trade I can rely, that he supposes the number engaged in designing for the calico printer in Paris, to be between 200 and 300, exclusive of those employed in the Print Works, probably an equal number. There are a still greater num- ber resident in Paris who design for shawls and other woven fabrics. 03 The emoluments of the very best class, in a very few cases, rise as high as £1000. per annum, and diminish rapidly to the larger number whose salaries do not exceed 60, 30, and even down to 25 francs per week, — a ratio of wages, considering their ability, lower than those paid in this country. I believe very exaggerated ideas exist of the amount actually paid for designs by the English printers to the Paris drawers. Let any one with a practical knowledge of the productions of the English and Scotch printers, take a list of them in his hand, and he will readily admit the very limited number of those who receive any supply whatever from Paris. The amounts paid by individual houses is of course a detail of their business of which no statistical state- ment can be given ; my own practical opinion on the subject, how- ever, is, that the amount supposed to be paid is very much overrated. ■ A Jk ? ^ ^ V k ijr ^ ■ * % ^ w ^ A % ^ W ijf _ 4< 'V *s^ ,»# A L E T T E R TO ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE EXHIBITION OF 1851: BEING REMARKS ON THAT PAST OF THE SECOND REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHICH RECOMMENDS THE TEACHING OF PRACTICAL DESIGN AS APPLIED TO CALICO PRINTING BY THE STATE, BY EDMUND POTTER, REPORTER TO THE JURY ON PRINTED FABRICS, CLASS 18, IN THE EXHIBITION. LONDON : JOHN CHAPMAN, 142, STRAND. MANCHESTER: JOHNSON, RAWSON, AND CO., CORPORATION STREET. 1853. RECENTLY PUBLISHED, PRICE ONE SHILLING. CALICO PRINTING AS AN ART MANUFACTURE A LECTURE BEAD BEFORE THE SOCIETY OF ARTS, APRIL 22nd, 1852. BY EDMUND POTTER. LONDON: JOHN CHAPMAN, 142, STRAND. MANCHESTER: JOHNSON, RAWSON, AND CO., CORPORATION STREET. ERRATA. Page 26, line 13 from top, for “ exhibit in almost ” read “ exhibit almost.” Page 29, line 14 from top, for “ production ” read “ productions.” A LETTER, &c. Dear Sir, I have received, with the compliments of her Majesty’s Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, their second Report. I cannot avoid, for rea- sons which I will try to explain, offering a few remarks on certain parts of that Report; more par- ticularly upon those which suggest the teaching of Practical Designing to Calico Printers. I address them to your notice specially, because I can venture to do so in a more familiar and practical style than it would be good taste in me to do to the Commissioners themselves. I can also claim from you credit for the opinions I may express, from your knowledge of the fact that long practical experience, and a certain position in the Print trade, entitle me to offer them with some confidence. I extract part of the conclusion of the Report, as follows : — “ In the preceding part of the Keport we have shown, by point- ing to the many institutions so liberally supported both by the public and the State, the injustice of the reproach to this country, that it makes no efforts for the promotion of science and art : but we have confessed likewise, that though a larger amount of money is spent for those objects in this Metropolis than, perhaps, in any country, 4 yet this is the only country which has neither supplied (in any prac- tical or systematic shape) scientific nor artistic instruction to its industrial population ; nor provided, for men of science and art, a centre of action, and of exchange of the results of their labours, affording at the same time the means of establishing the connexion between them and the public which would secure permanent rela- tions of reciprocal influence. “Yet this country, as the centre of the commerce and industry of the world, would seem to require, more than any other, to have these wants supplied; and the Great Exhibition of 1851 has, in its results, convinced us that, unless they be speedily satisfied, this country will run serious risk of losing that position which is now its strength and pride.” As regards the Print trade, I think some of these conclusions are not arrived at on sound data. It surely exhibits, neither in its progress nor position, the necessity for the State’s care, to provide for scien- tific or artistic instruction to its industrial population. The Report of the Jury on Printed Fabrics, class 18 in the Exhibition, made at the request of the Com- missioners themselves, warrants no such conclusion as they have arrived at ; — on the contrary, it shows the rapid progress of the trade, unparallelled by almost any other (except the entire Cotton trade itself,) by its in- crease from a production of eight millions of pieces per annum in 1831, to upwards of twenty millions in 1850, — and reports an equally progressive improve- ment in chemical and mechanical science. This is acknowledged by our competitors in all parts of the world, — pointedly so by the duties and prohibitions on our productions existing in almost every continental country, (Switzerland and Holland, and one or two others, to their honor excepted.) These duties are retained to prevent our competing with them, not merely in staple goods, but in high class goods, where taste greatly aids the consumption ; this, too, whilst in our own market, foreign prints are admitted free. France admits this decidedly; and with superior taste in her fine goods, (from causes easy of explanation,) prohibits us in her market, and shuns the competition we court. A careful examination of every specimen of printed fabric in the Exhibition certainly led the Jury to no such timid conclusion as that promulgated by the Commissioners, — “that this country (or the Print trade, particularly selected by the offer of aid,) will run serious risk of losing that position which is now its strength and pride.” For myself (I believe my opinions will be those of a large majority of the trade when consulted,) I really have no fears of any retro- grade movement — or even pause. Remembering how our position has been gained without any State pet- ting or aid, and how consolidated by the recent Free Trade measures, I know not how to account for such an expression of opinion. The same self-interest and individual energy will still arise to watch for and reward every chemical and mechanical discovery, and to carry on the same progressive improvements in taste and execution which have marked, more strongly in this country than in any other, the progress of the trade for years past. Every advantage of locomotion our competi- tors may gain will surely be ours also, perhaps in more than an equal degree. T know not, then, why c the position we have attained should be held to be in so critical a state. The results of the Exhibition, certainly, to those who possessed a real knowledge of the trade, apart from what was to be gained there, were not those to induce timidity or fear: the printers have since shown none ; and who else can form so sound an opinion ? To the printer in active business, there was exhibited very little that had not previously come under his ob- servation, that too without the most essential informa- tion which he possessed, viz., the comparative cost of production. He would hardly judge of the state of his trade from the Exhibition, -when aware of the fact that not one-sixtli part of its number exhibited at all, — and that many of those who did, did so more from feelings of deep personal respect to the Illustrious Prince who was its projector, and on high moral grounds, than as any trial of strength with their foreign competitors. It was no surprise to the printer that his French competitor exhibited finer goods than his own — more attractive, as allowing more scope for design. It gave him no anxiety as to the stability of his own trade, to see such productions ; nor do I believe it tempted any one to deviate much in his course, and attempt the production of goods more naturally suited to French than to English labour and capital. I have reason to believe that our foreign competi- tors were much more surprised by our productions (limited as was the exhibition) than we were with theirs. 7 Am I then to refer the fears of the Commis- sioners’ conclusions (not drawn from our necessities certainly,) to the reports of the advantages other countries are supposed to derive from schools of practical teaching supported by the State ; — am I to suppose these are referred to as examples of what we might he if our Government adopted a similar course ? I can take a deep interest, and appreciate highly, the information contained in Dr. Playfair’s Keports ; but I differ widely as to the conclusions to he drawn from them. I do not doubt that there is very much good in the schools as reported, to the coun- tries wherein they are established, hut much of downright evil if forced upon us with our very dif- ferent habits, institutions, and trade. The teaching needed under despotism and prohibition, either of thought or trade, will necessarily be different from that we need, if any be requisite. As regards the practical results of Government teaching in those States themselves, — it does not enable them to offer us any competition in cost or taste, except as regards the latter from France ; and no French goods come here, except those of a very fine description, and in very small quantity. Those States which take the most trouble in teaching trade art, prevent the only test of the value of that teaching, by prohibiting competition in the open market we invite. I make the admission that the highest class goods in Calico Printing (which technically means printing- on silks, woollens, or cottons,) are produced in France, 8 — I have before endeavoured to account for it.* I can admire, and I hope, estimate, this taste ; but I come to the conclusion that we may attain as high a degree of excellence in any part of the trade desi- rable or beneficial for us to follow, without adopting an unsound example and policy. I will try to explain. — We differ from France in our political and commercial policy most completely. The State wishes to manage everything in France : gives extravagant fetes; promotes and pays for public and out-door amusements; exhibits an overloaded and voluptuous taste, and creates a demand for decorative art which we do not possess. Are we to be blamed because we do not produce for it ? Paris is the world’s model in millinery and upholstery, on account of this demand. France (“the Emperor,”) pays for, and forces taste in jewellery, — now by the order of a crown — it may be two, — and now by thousands of pounds spent in bracelets and necklaces, etc., for actresses, singers, and ballet dancers, or other public talent. The effect is that this taste being fostered by demand, finds the power of supply, not only for Paris, but for the other capitals of Europe. France cannot if it would, create a demand for staple goods such as we excel in. The experiment was tried under republican- ism, to find occupation for the masses. It was too costly, too unwieldy to manage; and very unsound in principle. Suppose a million per annum so spent amongst the same amount of population in our own metropolis, by * Lecture on Calico Printing. 9 a lavish, reckless court. It would acid to the taste of a certain class — elevate it doubtless, — but how would it fare with the taste and morals of the class most taxed for it? And after all, what is the value, commercially, of this expensive and fine taste which I admit we do not produce equally with the French ; — had not our taste better be allowed to follow comfort in England, and not forced to precede it, as in France ? The fact of the very small importation of French prints into our market shows the very limited con- sumption of costly goods. I do not suppose the quan- tity imported and retained for our home consumption (many are re-exported to our Colonies and elsewhere) to he more than f per cent, on the quantity of our pro- duction — in value they are of course much greater — hut chiefly so on account of the expensive material on which they are printed. Light, elegant, short- lived both in taste and fabric, they show the French character in dress. They suit the English consumption to a certain small extent only ; and what- ever degree of excellence our own taste may arrive at, still a quantity of these goods (it can hardly be smal- ler) will be wanted to supply the desire of novelty and fashion in our higher classes. I know not why it should not be so. I have elsewhere expressed the opinion that if the Paris market was open to the English printer, he would return the compliment by a much larger supply of goods of a different, perhaps not inferior taste. I very much doubt whether, as a mere question of good taste, (apart from execution,) 10 the French do not produce a larger proportion of bad and absurd designs to supply the demand for novelty, than ourselves. French taste is over-estimated also, I believe, from the great advantage they possess of working on a finer material. Test ours on the same material, — give a fair competition on calico, — not one on silk and woollen, and the other on cotton, and a fairer decision will be arrived at. I have dwelt too much on this point, perhaps : hut French taste is so much quoted, and has been so long admitted better than our own, that I am compelled to believe it is to this competition, the expressed anxiety of the Commissioners must refer. I can hardly conclude that the Commissioners would recommend the establishment of a School of Practical Aid, — (or trade teaching) for calico printers, — without some further evidence in favour of the neces- sity for it. A Report of Mr. Redgrave’s, published with the Jury Reports, is referred to as “a valuable Report on Design,” — interesting, I certainly thought it when it appeared, as conveying the opinions of a man of undoubted taste and talent in his own profession ; hut when the opinions therein expressed, freely — per- haps I may be allowed to say dogmatically — and with evidently very little knowledge on the subject as regards calico printing, are adopted in some degree by the Commissioners ; and when I find him quoted as the Associate of the Director of the proposed School of Practical Art, I feel certainly no hesitation in canvassing his report, and protesting most strongly against practical conclusions, drawn, as I think I 11 have shewn, from unpractical opinions, and unfair to the extensive trade they are intended to affect. I will, however, refer to those parts of Mr. Redgrave’s report upon which I possess a practical knowledge, leaving you to draw your own conclusions. I would not willingly misquote Mr. Redgrave ; hut his sweeping charges appear to embrace all manufac- turers, — he makes few exceptions, — and as my own trade is specially selected as needing instruction, I am led to suppose his observations embrace that at least. In his preliminary remarks he says, “Manu- facturers are eager to obtain novelty at any sacrifice of truth and taste.” Mr. Redgrave’s opinion is natural to an artist; as a manufacturer he would cease to hold it, without, I believe, sacrificing anything to truth. As an artist, Mr. Redgrave may follow his own good taste. His genius and labour produce the painting for which its value and his reputation find him a customer, who, to appreciate and purchase it must be a man of wealth and taste. Mr. Redgrave’s supply is below the demand ; he has, therefore, the power of gaining a reward for his genius, and at the same time advancing taste, and a high standard of art. Contrast the manufacturers’ position ; — “eager,” as he states, to obtain novelty at any sacrifice of truth, and at any cost; they are dependent upon extent of demand; upon the whims or tastes of 'their customers. They are not like the artist — the arbiters of taste, — except so far as connected with execution ; and be a pattern or a score of patterns ever so frightful, drawn in China by natives, sent to them with orders 12 to be imitated, they must be done to a hair’s breadth, even to their very imperfections, or they will be re- jected. Is there any more bad taste in this than in Mr. Redgrave’s painting, honestly, an ugly woman ? The printers, then, are only to a very limited degree responsible for the taste they exhibit; to that extent I claim for them, as a body, as great an anxiety to lead, purify, and exalt taste, as any other class of manufacturers or artists, producing for the consumption or supply of the same classes of society. Nay more, — our first-class printers are constantly before their demand. Every one knowing anything of the trade will admit the often profuse expense they in- cur ; and I would add what is within the experience of many, — that' had they kept more level to the taste of their customers, they would have been better com- pensated. The printer, like the artist, has station, repu- tation, and ambition, and like him he is fearful of losing caste : he is scarcely so ignorant, either, as to retro- grade in one of the main elements of his trade — taste. Mr. Redgrave asserts that “whenever ornament is wholly effected by machinery, it is certainly the most degraded in style and execution ; and the best is to be found in those manufactures and fabrics wherein handicraft is entirely or partially the means of produ- cing the ornament.” Mr. Redgrave, artist-like, dreads machinery, from the fear of bad repetitions : the manufacturer en- courages it to the greatest possible extent, as equally useful for cheap, and good repetitions. The manufacturer thinks machinery the greatest possible 13 blessing to society and even to taste, as enabling him to multiply a thousand-fold, the genius and mind of the artist, cheapened so as to gladden, refine, and civilize thousands, rather than select classes. The manufacturer knows that it is the extent of demand from these multitudes which affords him infinitely the best reward, and he gladly improves, and cheap- ens, the supply. Science, and machinery its result, are his agents. The Commissioners, equally with myself, wish for such results ; and I trust we shall not ultimately differ in the mode of obtaining them. They must arise from cheapness and plenty, giving comfort first, and taste as a luxury afterwards. One great difficulty I have ever noticed in connect- ing art with manufactures, — the constant dread in the artist’s mind, of too rapid progress, — the fear of machinery in Mr. Redgrave’s case, — the fear of inno- vation, and departure from rules and standards of art, — the constant endeavour to make manufacture bend to art, rather than to make art subservient to the comforts and luxuries of life, and the constant reference to the poor rewards and neglect of artists, not now founded in fact, either as regards literature or trade. I regret to follow Mr. Redgrave in similar opinions, honestly meant no doubt, but surely narrow-minded ; showing very little faith in human nature and pro- gress. Stamped as these opinions are by the autho- rity of the Commissioners, I can hardly avoid it. Surely it was not good taste to refer to the Juries in a remark like the following : — 14 x ‘ Even in the Great Exhibition the question of design was nearly overlooked, and the works of the designer left without a place : his name was not necessarily coupled with the fabrics or manufactures his skill had designed or decorated : and his reward was left, there- fore, to the good feeling of his employer. No Special Jury was named to unite with the manufacturers in the various classes, in judging of the taste and art displayed in the ornamentation of their fabrics ; and that art, which as we have before said is calculated, when excellent, to raise the reputation of a nation’s manufactures, was left to the judgment of those too likely to consider, not its real excellence, but what an untaught multitude would purchase and would prize.” This, too, after instructions such as the following had been given to the Juries on Textile Fabrics : — Group C. — MANUFACTURES. — Textile Fabrics. “ In this, those articles will be rewarded which fulfil in the highest degree the conditions specified in the Sectional list, namely, — in- creased usefulness, such as permanency in dyes, improved forms and arrangements in articles of utility, &c. ; superior quality, or superior skill in workmanship ; new use of known materials ; use of new materials ; new combinations of materials ; beauty of design in form or colour, or both, with reference to utility ; cheapness, relatively to excellence of production.” If the Jurors were not supposed competent to decide upon the taste even of the articles in their various classes, why were they selected: if the Kingdom, or the World afforded not the body competent to arrive at a decision, surely the State is not going to attempt to appoint arbiters of taste, and the deciders of what is truth and what otherwise, — what ought to be encou- raged and what condemned. You will do me the justice to remember that 15 I condemned, perhaps rather strongly, the pro- ject of giving prizes, or deciding upon what was, or was not, taste in pattern and design, in the very earliest stages of the Exhibition : that opinion was strongly shared by others who did not perhaps care to express it. Surely by Mr. Redgrave’s remark that in France many large establishments have well-appointed schools attached, for teaching drawing, modelling, and the rudiments of science connected with their manufac- tures, it is not intended to infer that such facilities are not offered by the English manufacturer. If we do not attain to a high standard, it has not been for the want of an expenditure, certainly in many cases liberal, if not lavish, and which has frequently obtained the aid of the best artists this country or France could afford; directed, too, by the practical knowledge of men of education and taste of the very highest class ; men who could appreciate art, and who have fostered it in every way ; and who would be the last to fail to lend a helping hand to genius, more par- ticularly if found in their own employ. Surely such men would have the wish to encourage and value it as a trade commodity, if they are not to have credit for any higher motive. There can be, in my estimation, no more injudicious friend to the trade artist, than the one who wants to forward his claims by an injudicious estimate of his value and position. Like all the rest of us in trade, his talent finds its level. If he have applicable practical taste, he easily gains his reward, — such reward being the exact value 16 ilie printer can afford to pay for art, as a constituent part of his production. Take the following opinion from Mr. Redgrave, which I give at length, upon the position the artist ought to take : — “ It has already been stated that this Beport originated in the consideration of “ Designs.” It is proper, therefore, that the works of the designer should be examined and commented on before the manufactures to the construction or for the ornamentation of which they were intended to he applied. From the artists we have a right to expect that true taste, that scientific knowledge, and those sound principles too often wanting in the manufactured works. The difficulties to be overcome in the various processes, or the limited resources of the manufacturer, together with the influence of public taste on the demands of the market, may form some excuse for the manufacturer if his efforts are imperfect, or directed to sale rather than to excellence. But the designer has so long exclaimed against the bondage which has obliged him to please the public and the manufacturer at the sacrifice of his own better judgment, that he ought gladly to have seized upon the present opportunity to exhibit a faith and practice of his own. Now, at least, he was at liberty to appeal to the few, and, untrammelled by any conditions, to exhibit his own powers, his own knowledge, taste, and better judgment, to lead men to the appreciation of the simple and the chaste as the true source of the beautiful. Another reason for commencing with the examination of the works of the artists, was, that if the stream was pure at the fountain, the blame would justly lie with those who afterwards defiled it ; or, in plain words, — if the designer were proved to have set a good example in his works, false taste, where found, might be placed at the door of the manufacturer ; while, on the contrary, some allowance might be made for him if the autho- rised teacher were wanting in taste and true principles.” Practically, the designer for calico printers has 17 often, in past years, more particularly when the know- ledge and taste in the trade were far inferior, freed himself from all bondage, and used his own taste ; how practically, or rather how fruitlessly, Mr. Red- grave might easily have ascertained. I know dozens of artists whom only a painful prac- tical experience could convince that nothing hut fol- lowing the taste of the customer, not their own, could repay the printer. The lesson may not be so easily taught to the State, perhaps, because the cost of the experiment will not be so keenly and readily felt ; but I know no reason for supposing that the results would be different. Some of our leading printers, during the present century, have been designers educated practically to the trade — rising by their own merit, taste, and in- dustry. There is every facility in a trade like ours, every day supplied from the skilled workmen with junior partners, for talent to raise itself. What bar is there, then, to any taste really worth having, being tested? 'None whatever. Why should the artist be taught, and educated by the State, beyond the chemist, the mechanic, nay those who need it most, as most helpless, the very labourer himself. Mr. Redgrave admits that “ there is no subject which comes under review in his Report, of more im- portance than the consideration of design as applied to garment fabrics,” and proceeds to give his opinion that “ the great sources of error in designing for gar- ment fabrics are over ornamentation, and attracting undue attention to ornament.” B 18 As regards the print trade, I believe him to be greatly in error. The supply of printed goods for our home trade — our best qualities, and about per- haps one-fourth of our production — is chiefly for the middle and lower classes, in useful staple goods. Now I will venture to assert that fully four -fifths of the patterns for this part of our production are of a quiet, unobtrusive taste, neat and simple ; and affording no great scope for, and using little ornamen- tation, the greater pains are bestowed on quality and execution. The taste of the consumer is well supplied, and if the printer attempt to deviate from it he suf- fers. If bad taste and forced novelty do exist, (and I do not deny it,) it is in the remaining part of our supply, intended to meet the taste and demand of the highest and lowest classes — fine goods for the one, and coarse, vulgar, printed cottons or woollens for the other. I do not mean to assert that part of the higher class demand is not for a pure and good taste, far from it — but this demand is very limited, and in great part scarcely varies from the middle class wear — chiefly so as requiring finer material only. I have expressed the opinion that the greater part of the English demand is quiet and simple in character, and I fully agree with Mr. Redgrave, “ that simplicity is one of the first constituents of beauty, and therefore it will often happen that simple patterns are by far the most beautiful,” but our demand is so distributed as not to enable the printer to employ himself in producing simple patterns chiefly ; more than three-fourths of 19 our production is for export to all parts of the world, the smallest quantities for the most civilized cities. Paris, with her taste, as I have before stated, prohibits us; many of the Continental States nearly do so. The foreign demand, such as it is, is for a foreign taste, not ours, and though it maybe neither good nor simple, it is a duty to ourselves to supply it, so long as it adds at the same time to their comforts and our profits. Let me briefly remark upon the standard of qualifi- cation Mr. Redgrave would require in an art- workman. He asserts, “that the art-workman should know all the processes of the manufacture he is engaged in, is abso- lutely necessary.” Many of us have spent lives of inde- fatigable industry in all the various occupations con- nected with the print trade, and yet I know not one (whose opinions at least I should much respect,) who would think himself qualified to fill up Mr. Redgrave’s requirements. The artist himself is the inventor and finisher of his production. Not so the manufacturer. The calico printer, for instance, looks to sub-divi- sion of labour, and knowledge, as the only means of a perfect and ready supply. He may himself have mercantile knowledge (the first point) — knowledge of his customers’ wants. He collects and connects the ideas, directs the taste, purchases the art — (all he re- quires) — pays for it proportionately, buys chemical and mechanical skill, or such parts as he does not pos- sess, and by sub-division of first-class labour, produces the highest results, only thus attainable. The first printer, in the commencement of his trade, resembled the artist. He was, of necessity, artist, printer, 20 chemist, and manipulator himself : the result was slow, costly, and less perfect. I have known one of the class during my experience ; but he has allied himself to sub-divided labour, and finds a living somewhat in contrast to the former picture he presented, of genius struggling with penury and difficulty. I have dwelt perhaps too much on Mr. Redgrave’s opinions ; chiefly so because I suppose them to be those upon which the Commissioners recommend the teaching of practical art. While the Report professes not to enter into any details, the teaching, however, of practical art, viz., pattern designing, drawing of trade patterns, is as an- nounced in the Report to be one means of securing sound industrial teaching to our manufacturing popula- tion. I object altogether to the State attempting to do this, because it is not legitimate and sound economy. If the print trade is prosperous and success- ful, surely the State has no right to aid and pamper it. If unsuccessful, has the State any right to prop it up at the expense of the people, — to give a bounty for taste, — or is the State (to be fair and just,) going to undertake the teaching of practical design to all trades ? Then, as to the knowledge of the teachers, — the Report refers to a letter addressed to the Presi- dent of the Board of Trade, from Mr. Cole and Mr. Redgrave, submitting an outline of the principles they propose should he adopted in order to carry out the scheme of practical instruction, founded, I presume, on the opinions enunciated in Mr. Redgrave’s Report. 21 Before giving practical reasons against the efficiency of the offered teaching for our trade, I cannot help noticing the latter part of the paragraph in page 33, as shewing the very slight knowledge now possessed on the subject by our instructors. I extract as follows : “ In like manner, the properly educated designer for printed and woven fabrics ought to be practically familiar with the early chintzes of India, as well as the best specimens of work now produced at Paris, Mulhausen, Crayford, or Accrington.” I would ask, do the gentlemen who made the Report, or do the Commissioners really suppose, that the calico printers do not possess a knowledge of the every day productions of their own trade ? I will simply assert that fifty houses, within twenty miles of Manchester, and a score in Glasgow and its neigh- bourhood, (besides numbers of mercantile houses in each place) do possess regular supplies of patterns of everything of any value, produced at the sources referred to, and from many others which the State (without being merchant and printer itself,) never could obtain. With these specimens, which may be laid be- fore the drawer or designer, will of necessity be placed the ten times more valuable trials for patterns, of each separate house, numerous and exceedingly costly, and of which only the selected samples are ever seen by the public. With these, too, is connected in the printer’s mind, that real knowledge of which the State-teacher will be thoroughly ignorant, viz., the practicability and cost of execution, and the chances of selling or meeting a demand at a profit when produced. 22 Again, is this practical teaching to be in London, 200 miles from the largest part, and 400 miles from the rest of the trade, excepting a fraction in the neigh- bourhood of Town ? Possessing no practical information itself, — none worthy the name at least — the State begins a school of practical teaching for one of the most exten- sive trades in Great Britain; casting a slur on its taste, and marking the producers as illiberal, un- educated men, incapable of appreciating their own position, or the wants of their customers ; this, too, without even any fair inquiry as to the facts, other than the criticisms of artists and amateurs, in general taste and knowledge not superior to many of the best men in the trade. The State cannot teach practical art apart from and unconnected with operative printing. There are no legitimate standards of taste ox design, except the demands of the day, for each particular country or class, varying according to means, climate, complexion, and the thousand prejudices of fashion and oustom. The printer has no past, no school of old masters, except his own experience; few repetitions, except for staple productions — plain almost as a self-coloured calico, (requiring, however, consistent taste shewn in exquisite exactness of execution) — I had almost said we have no veneration ; we respect a past print for its recollections of profit, and it may be of beauty, hut the very worst thing we can do, is to recur to it for imita- tion or copy. The amateur out of the crush of com- petition, cannot know anything about the past, or the 23 originality of a present, pattern. The fashion of to-day is useless for to-morrow for the same market. We cannot stay to touch, retouch, or perfect a pattern, without adding to its cost, and retarding the supply — equally injurious. I have known the pattern books of drawings, of houses who ranked very high amongst us, collections which had been accumulating for years, and the work alone on which had cost probably <£10,000, — sold by weight for little better than the price of waste paper ; and this not in a solitary instance. Any quantity of exquisite drawings of past patterns, good in execution and taste, might be bought in Paris at a little better price — it is their value. State productions will be worth nothing beyond this ; they may he very good drawings, but useless as patterns. A State education in practical art, will he an endeavour to supply and force a particular taste, before the consumer is prepared for it. The State must pay the cost while trying to create this taste. The manufacturer cannot waste his time and money in these experiments. — Ought the State ? I will give you a practical illustration of the un- sound conclusions which would influence the teach- ing of the artist and amateur. It will he in the recollection of my colleagues on the Jury, that the two best specimens of printed goods shewn in the Ex- hibition, were of distinctly opposite classes. — The first a very beautiful specimen of French printed fur- niture, more nearly a work of art than a manufacture ; costly, tedious, and elaborate in execution. The 24 demand for it necessarily very small. Speaking as a printer, I should certainly not be disposed to produce the article with a view to profit, because of its very limited sale, though as far as execution, or even taste went, there would exist no impediment to my doing so, — one or two small printers supply the world’s demand. This specimen was exactly the class of pat- tern which would catch the artist’s eye, and be held up as an example, — in fact it has been done. The second specimen was of a class of work hold- ing out no pretensions to taste so called. It was brilliant in colour, good in execution, and correctly suitable in taste and pattern, for the demand it was intended for, but the amateur would have condemned it at once to the Chamber of Horrors, as not having an atom of taste. It required, however, great scientific knowledge and skill to produce it, and I do not think it could be equalled by any other printer than the producer (except, of course, after very long experience and cost.) It was an article in large demand ; and I doubt not correspondingly profitable. Now I would ask you what would be the feelings of contempt with which the owner, or his fellow-printers, would regard the decision, if this specimen were marked as in bad taste, and as a thing not to be en- couraged : and with what consistency could you ex- pect them, to pay for, and support schools of design and practical art, on principles of teaching so directly opposite to what they would call common sense. There is no more unsound opinion current, (and it is encouraged to sanction State interference with the 25 practical details of trade,) than that the print trade affords great scope for what is called high art and taste ; whilst the facts of the very nature and character of its productions — low priced, from the compara- tively humble rank of the mass of its consumers — are carefully concealed. We are abused for producing abominations, by those who forget to point out the market and the recompence for the experimental taste, which they wish the State to furnish and the printer to pay for. I do protest, then, against the justice which allows opinions to be given, which, if followed out, might end in the condemnation of ninety-five out of every hundred patterns produced by us, as not squaring with the ideas of the State teacher ; calling them, too, practical opinions, and founding practical teaching upon them. That the offered “practical teaching” is hardly needed, may surely be inferred from our past progress. Let any one, possessing (as many of us do) collections of all the best English and French printers’ patterns for the last twenty years, say if our increase in taste has not been progressive with our quantity. In the finer goods it may not be so perceptible; but in every description of print downwards, to the lowest now produced, the gain is, I would say, most strikingly so. The gaudy, clumsy-headed, and stalked flower pat- terns, coloured with patches of yellow and blue, popular and profitable twenty years since, would not now be purchased for the lowest mining or agricultural demand, and would inevitably leave a loss for any foreign market. c 26 If the State is to teach design with effect, to any particular class, or to those most needing it, I very much question if it should not he the higher classes. Extravagances of fashion, and absurdities of style, certainly always take their rise above the mid- dle classes, but do not descend to those below in their original absurdity; time, and the influence of taste, soften them down. Take for instance one style, — the large-plaided woollen trowsers recently in fashion. Though not beyond their means, in a cheaper class of material, I will venture to predict that our middle classes, and our better class of work- ing artizans, who exhibit in almost every variety of style in their Sunday habiliments, never adopt the extreme class of pattern I allude to. The absurdity is too strong for their taste. We are blamed for want of simplicity, though I be- lieve we really have more than many other trades, in all of which the same fault is apparent. For instance, ask a London upholsterer for any article of furniture — good, plain, bold, and simple in character; his answer invariably is, — I can make it for you, but I could not sell it if I had it, I have no demand ; — it would not look the cost, like an over- decorated article, and therefore would not pay to keep in stock. Again, will you condemn the paper printer for the gay cheap paper, perhaps twopence per yard, which pleases, and adorns the sitting-room of the mechanic. It meets the owner’s taste, why should he not have it? It may be even in better taste, in his dingy room, and in better contrast with his swarthy hands and com- 97 plexion, (which he has neither time nor cheap soap to improve,) than the modest small drab or buff pattern, such as the middle and higher classes would choose for a bedroom or a passage. Or again, — let any one cast his eye around him in the drawing-rooms of the last West End Terrace, gaily papered to please their occupants, and say why the manufacturer should be blamed for supplying either class according to their wishes, — why should he make a martyr of himself, or submit to be made one, to satisfy some undefined taste not yet a demand. It is an easy occupation to discuss taste ; easier still to abuse the bad and quote the good in expensive, costly examples — to avoid altogether the question of demand; hut not so easy to supply the deficiency, when the power of doing so is curtailed by price. The amateur takes no note of this ; it is no part of his business ; his practical teaching would end here; he would leave that to the manufacturer. Talk of beauty, and the examples of Sevres china — produced at a loss to the State, in France, (I believe I am correct in making the statement,) of 19, or <£13,000 per annum, to the maker of every-day pottery ware, as an example for him. To discourse on French taste in silks, mus- lins, and cashmeres, to the printer producing for the multitude, as examples, may be very amusing, but scarcely very practical. If you would try to influ- ence public taste at all, supposing it to be the State’s province to do so, it surely ought to be by slower and more practical degrees : by not going so far in advance of your customers as that they will 28 never be able to overtake you. You must be prac- tical manufacturers yourselves, before you pretend to teach the theoretical in connexion with pro- duction. Through this process the State cannot follow and therefore most assuredly its teaching will fail. As an illustration of this part of my subject, I had the pleasure of hearing, last spring, Mr. Digby Whyatt’s lecture at the Society of Arts, on “An at- tempt to define the principles which should deter- mine form in the decorative arts.” Now it will be admitted that no one is better able to discuss the general principles of taste ; but I was struck with the difficulty Mr. Whyatt had, when he came to the subject of taste as connected with textile fabrics. Mr. Whyatt had taken considerable pains to illustrate his lecture with various specimens of art manufacture in textile fabrics; and some splendid specimens of figured silks w r ere shown, and dwelt eloquently upon, as the best specimens of taste. They were rich and costly ; unattainable except by a few. One dress of English make, a flowered silk, was exhibited, and highly extolled for taste. Naturally enough, I was led to consider what would be the result of the same drawing and form on cotton ; and whether there was more of art and taste in this very expensive dress than was really embraced in many of our inferior, not noticed, and perhaps despised prints. I came at once to the conclusion that the majority of these displayed as good drawing, as correct distribution of form, and as good taste, in their productions at fourpence or 29 fivepence per yard, as was shown in this dress at three pounds the yard. The cheaper, plainer article, requires more taste ; it cannot rely on beauty of material. I honestly believe that we have supplied the requirements; a fact I am willing to admit not likely to come within the cognizance or experience of Mr. Whyatt, and un- known to those who propose to turn our instructors. Practical teaching will be worthless, unless tried in practical results. It will hardly be proposed to have a model Government print ground, to reduce to prac- tice higher class taste, (better than the capitalist is now supposed to supply), to set off against private com- petition — expensive production, for which there would be no sale, except at great loss, for mere models. If so, the .£13,000. per annum supposed to be the loss on the Sevres manufactory, would be by no means equal to that on a fancy print works for State pattern pro- ducing. Even supposing such an example followed, or such an absurdity sanctioned, many a private printer would still, without much cost to himself, sur- pass any Government establishment, in any particular class of goods, if worth his while. Whilst alluding to what we might consider bad taste in dress, — worse, I believe, far, in male attire, in the tailoring department, than anything we, the printers, are charged with supplying to the millinery one — -it may be worth while to inquire how far it is right and politic in the State to try and check a harm- less supply. Take, for instance again, the large plaid trowsers, lectured against as only fit for the Chamber 00 of Horrors ; even they have furnished a large demand as a novelty to more than one woollen manufacturer, a demand perhaps beyond the regular one for the plainer and genteeler patterns, allowed to be in better taste. Well, the quieter taste is more enduring, but the very novelty of the worse, as any tailor can tell, often forces the extra sale, harmless I suppose we may at least permit it to be, in proportion to its extravagance. Nay, I have seen Royal Commissioners themselves infringing upon the correct in taste in this way. I would ask them, how regulate these things except by demand ? Is it fitting for the State to meddle in these minor morals of taste, as I presume we must now consi- der them, if trade teaching in taste is to be carried out? Bloomerism died out, .killed by its own bad taste, without being lectured against under State sanction. You will ask me, What ought the State to teach ? I would answer, simply drawing, elementary and correct drawing; that, to do it well, will require all the art and taste the State can purchase, for your examples and copies should be of the highest order of art.* The practical application, the after result of this instruc- tion, is beyond the State’s teaching, and is required in a thousand forms, in various occupations, each requiring a long apprenticeship soundly to apply. Simple as this may seem, you will have work enough for any time your students can afford, without meddling * It is a curious fact, noticed in a Report of Mr. Wornum’s on “ French Art Collections and Instructions,” that “all inquiries in France seem to lead but to one conclusion, — that industrial art , to use a French expression, is there entirely left to private enterprise for its development.” with trade, and trying to teach a smattering on false principles. If it were a question involving any moral consider- ation, there might he some grounds for State meddling in trade teaching. I have no wish to enter into the vexed question of State education generally ; elemen- tary drawing is a most valuable adjunct to that of every class, and will necessarily tend to develop a better taste, leaving the bias of that taste, as dependent afterwards upon habits, occupation, climate, or the atmosphere of taste the consumers live in, to be sup- plied by free competition. You know me to be a supporter of schools of design. I took an active part in the formation and early days of the present Manchester School, and have known some- thing of its progress to the present day. I consider it a capital school for pupils required for pattern drawers. The drawings sent from there, to be exhibited at Marlbro’ House, rank amongst the first in the kingdom. Again, as I have asserted, you may have good masters for drawing, but not for pattern design- ing. If you had, the trade would take them ; they can afford to outbid any State teacher’s salary. Again, why spoil your master, the artist, by forcing him to teach what he does not understand, and what he can have no feeling for. How, especially, is a London school to succeed ? (the Town demand for patterns is but a limited part of ours, and can give no weight or support to one if we do not.) Our Manchester School has done nothing, in my opinion, so contrary to its interest and 32 success, as the few attempts it has made in pattern drawing. It has been looked upon coldly, because it was supposed to be merely a school to aid particular trades, and not to elevate the taste, and teach the whole community; and the objection had something of soundness in it, so long as it was customary to produce trade drawings. Let it be a school of art, not trade design, and the supposition will not exist. Mr. Redgrave remarks, I think, that “schools of design have existed ten years, and not yet won the support of the manufacturers.” It has not been for want of dabbling in pattern drawing, however. Let them be, as I would venture to suggest, — for the whole, and not a section of the community, — and in ten years more they may win support. To museums, collections of materials, to exhibi- tions to any extent, it would ill become me to object. No one can enjoy them more; and I should be the last to wish them supported in a niggardly spirit. A museum of practical art, so far as connected with the print trade, would hardly, it will be judged from the opinions I have expressed, be worth the trouble of collecting. If it were to be continued, and a prac- tical record of specimens to be preserved, selected from its annual productions, it would require a staff of selectors and keepers of records more costly than any yet allowed for educational purposes. I am sup- posing, of course, not a mere trade collection of patches or patterns, but a National Print Trade Museum. It is exceedingly difficult to find records of the past progress of the trade. Absurdities in cost, 33 showy taste, and useless speculations, would find a place in the museum ; whilst the real consumption of the people would, as surely, escape notice, from its quiet, modest, and unchanging character. The collection would be nearly useless to a future generation. The only error in conduct, of the Exhibition, was the idea of giving large prizes ; it was soundly re- linquished. You could not supply the tribunal for decision. Even in the smaller matter of medals, the profuseness of distribution, — an excess of liberality for fear of giving offence, took from them much of their value. In the offer to give prizes for designs — practical designs — you are falling into the same error; and seek, besides taking upon yourselves to meddle with trade, to found a tribunal which no one will respect, because it seeks to substitute a foregone conclusion for what must be matter of experience and demand. The printers may be indifferent, and may not care to offer any opinion, (though I believe the large majo- rity will coincide with me,) simply because they may think the whole matter of very little importance to them. They will estimate any value to be derived from the instruction, just as they would any other amateur teaching. You will ask why I object to a moderate trial ? On principle — even if it were good. You offer to aid a class whom you choose to suppose inefficient : will you aid all classes, — teach all trades in detail, — or what is better, leave all free to take care of themselves ? Few of us like to obtrude our opinions, or to force D 34 trade details and our own affairs on the public ; still, none of us like to be misrepresented, least of all, pitied and despised for ignorance. I certainly should not have expressed an opinion on the Report, had I not felt in some degree that I owed it as a duty to His Royal Highness Prince Albert, and the remainder of her Majesty’s Commissioners, to give my opinions, in virtue of my connection as Reporter to the Jury on Printed Fabrics in the Exhibition. I may not have expressed myself very clearly;; — I wish to do so openly, practically, and not offensively. To yourself personally I offer no apology : it was owing chiefly to your favorable opinion as to my ability to do so, that I was led to accede to the request to give a lecture on Calico Printing as connected with the Exhibition, (containing similar opinions to those now expressed,) at the Society of Arts, last spring. I remain, my dear Sir, Yours truly, EDMUND POTTER, Dinting Lodge, Glossop, Feb. 1 , 1853. Esq. Johnson, Rawson, and Co., Printers, Manchester. [Fifth Thousand.] THE STRIKE: A LETTER TO THE WORKING CLASSES, < ON THEIR PKE8ENT POSITION AND MOVEMENT, BY A LANCASHIRE MAN. LONDON : JOHN CHAPMAN, 142, STRAND; MANCHESTER-. JOHNSON & RAWSON,89, MARKET STREET. ■ A LETTER, &c. My Friends, Like many of my neighbours I have been asked, can nothing be done to end this miserable strife between masters and men, — can there be no arbitration ? An arbitration is certainly the most sensible mode of settling a dispute, but first it must be ascertained whether both parties have rights. Now, as a neighbour residing amongst you, with a lengthened experience in business, and I believe some good feeling towards you, T will venture to express the opinion, and to show you, that you have no right to ask for an arbitration. Further, I will try to give you a little plain practical advice on the course you are now pursuing. Your leaders are preparing to disorganise trade, to carry their ends by inflicting misery and starvation on you, work- ing you up by that means to violence, and taking away your power of quiet judgment. It is right you should know the consequences of the painful contest they are provoking. No- thing would give them greater pleasure than to make a dis- union between you, and your best employers, and your best friends ; aid them in this, and the accumulated misery will fall upon yourselves and families, whilst their wages are doubled or trebled, so long as they can keep up disunion. When reason and freedom take their place in your meetings, their pay ceases. A remonstrance in the days of prosperity is little heeded— but, perhaps, the adversity and suffering which I fear you are yourselves creating, may give you a lesson which, if beneficial for nothing else, may induce some of you to think on the position in which you have placed yourselves, and to enquire whether good can come_out of so much misery. I very much fear the late rapid increase of prosperity 4 amongst you has not brought with it the forethought which many of us hoped for. It has perhaps not resulted so much from the industry of the people, as from improved legislation. I would offer advice then, not arbitration, simply because the employed seeks to dictate to the employer, and to reverse the position of master and man, contrary to all economical law. The man cannot surely assume a false position, and then ask for an arbitration. A mill is not a republic — the hands have no rights except for payment for services rendered; they contract to give work, the master, pay or wages — any decisions as to mode of manage- ment must arise with the master and be controlled by him. Any suggestions made, or any outlays for profit — results of his work, thought, and capital — are his property, and the workman has really no claim to any share of the profit arising therefrom, and he is liable to no loss. Advice the workmen may give, often beneficially ; requests they may make properly enough, but when they endeavour to force by threats either one or the other, they commence a dishonest course, usurp the mas- ter’s functions, and place themselves in the wrong. The following pages are the result of much anxious thought on the subject, by one who makes no pretensions to be your special friend, asks no favour from you, pleads no superior knowledge to those of his class, and has no other claim upon you, beyond that given by a deep stake in the country, as a manufacturer, whose interest, however, is tied up with yours — who wishes to buy your labour, fairly to pay for it, and to be as independent and uncontrolled in the purchase as he is in the purchase of hats, clothes, or shoes — free to buy where he likes, and where he can do so cheapest. If he likes the shop on this side of the street, well and good — if he prefers the opposite, he claims the liberty of crossing unquestioned, and certainly unabused and unob- structed. Certain movements on your part lately indicate a wish to prevent myself and others, choosing the shop we wish to trade with. Now I wish first to discuss the policy of your proceedings, — the benefit or otherwise — to yourselves. As to the right you claim for yourselves to get what you can, I admit that at once ; buy where you can cheapest — sell where you can dearest. I claim this, and of course I admit it as your right ; 5 nothing can be fairer ; it is an honest maxim, and as such you may carry it out to the full extent safely. But you have chosen a mode, to my mind, singularly unfair and short-sighted, and as such, one which will defeat its own pur- pose. I fear I can hardly admit a strike or a combination, as practised, to be otherwise than dishonest ; mind I say as prac- tised. Individuals, or collections of individuals, have a perfect right, morally and legally, to ask what they like for their labour; they have it on sale, just as a hatter or shoemaker has his labour and material; but the hatter or shoemaker has not, and does not attempt, the power of preventing his customers going elsewhere. You are trying to obtain this power, and I never knew a strike, (and I have watched many during the last twenty years,) where the attempt was not made to prevent the master buying labour where he wished. Now this attempt is simply dishonest, gloss it as you may. I do not say masters may not he as dishonest as men, — we are all apt to abuse power when we get it, — but the less we have at stake, and the more irresponsible we are, the more tyrannical we naturally become. Knowledge, and the force of public opinion honestly expressed by a free press, will, however, in these times, con- trol either an Emperor of Russia, an overbearing master, or the tyranny of a turn-out, or its committee. Now the working classes are making an attempt to obtain higher wages, the very natural and foretold result of the Free-trade principles which many of us struggled so hard to obtain years ago: and though the writer would boast not of his exertions, yet he may look back upon thorough Free-trade opinions, frequently promulgated, previous to the progress of the Anti-Corn-Law League. There is great demand for labour consequent, in part, upon Free-trade. Cheap means of sub- sistence have given greatly increased means of purchase, with the same wages. The money necessary formerly for bread, was lately only partly required, the remainder created an in- creased demand for luxuries and comforts of all kinds, and a consequent demand for labour at home and abroad. The new discovery of gold has also aided this demand largely : there is nothing surprising in the demand for labour, and its rise in value. Every intelligent manufacturer foresaw it. Cheap bread and cheap money produced demand, and the surplus 6 labour of the country has been absorbed ; our idle and our workhouse hands have been brought into w'ork : and though the rate of wages may not have been much advanced, nomi- nally, yet it has been greatly so, by the cheapening of the means of subsistence. The worst paid labour — farming hands — gained their advance first : the best paid labour — factory labour — has naturally been the latest to advance. A few words why it has been so and why it will be so, and why factory labour will not, in my opinion, advance, unless it be when aided by machinery. We are not the only cotton manufacturers in the world. Undoubtedly we are much the largest ; but if the prices of labour are to be advanced, and the cost of production to be increased by the shortening of time, (I am no advocate for excessive working,) the increased Foreign competition w T ill keep down the master’s profits. — Profit he must have as his share of work and use of capital, or he too will turn out, — not prevent others working if they like, — but stop himself ; and wages, in spite of any combination, will rather fall than rise. The workman troubles not his head about foreign com- petition, though many of you know as well as the writer, that Kussia, Germany, France, and more particularly the United States, possess cotton mills as well arranged, and very nearly as economically worked as our own. None of these pay as much for labour as ourselves, except America. I own she has not the capital so cheap as we have, but she has great water power — an educated working class, and the best consuming home market in the world. She holds out great inducements to the capitalist, and you are trying to drive him there. Some of you may smile at the idea of capital moving, but move it will. Many of us, the masters, know how fast it does move, and the best of you well know how interest gets up, from three per cent, to five per cent., in a few months, — and why ? because capital leaves England, to be invested where it will pay better. You are many of you cottage holders, much to your credit. Most of your cottages are mortgaged, — no dis- grace ; you are trying an honest means of increasing your property. You borrow money cheap, and lend it in the shape of a cottage, dearer, — a fair and sensible operation. If capital gets up in value from the rate of interest rising, you who borrow at five per cent., may have to pay seven 7 and a half per cent. What then ? what help for it ? Can you raise rents ? Will you, when you ask it, get sixpence per week more for your cottages? Do you not get now as much as you can ? Admit you do, — nay, let interest rise — your rents will come down, wages will come down, fewer cottages will he built, masons and joiners will be more plentiful, fewer factories will be built, fewer hands will be wanted. Now this you cannot control, it will rectify itself. Money may have been too cheap, demand for wages too great, both will level themselves ; no combination, however extensive or strong, can prevent the result. It matters little what demands you make; if money goes up, becomes scarce, you will not get an advance, — you may offer your labour cheaper, and not be able to sell it. Thel* as to competition ; — out of the cottop. we use, spin, or weave, probably three-fourths or four-fifths is exported. Your employers have to sell their calicoes and yarns in other parts of the world, against the calicoes and goods made by the Americans and others. You rely upon our producing them cheaper, and so long as we do so we are all safe; our cheapness of production, and that alone, is our salvation. Nojv I wish to point out to you how you are interfering with that cheapness, and how, by a foolish short-sighted attempt, you are destroy- ing the very means your employers have of getting, first a profit and a living for themselves, and next finding employ- ment for you. You claim a part of the general prosperity, and seek to enforce an advance. Why do you fix on a ten per cent, advance ? Why should you not fix a 20 per cent. ? If you are right in fixing at all, why not 20 as well as 10 per cent. ? You will plead moderation , some of you may ; by others it has been asserted you mean to get 1 0 per cent, first, and then try to do so again ; or if it were fairly outspoken, having made yourselves masters, by reversing the custom of trade, if it were possible, you will try to regulate all prices by clubs, rule trade by agitation, give all men alike, fix the rate of wages never to be lower : nay, if clogmakers are not wanted, you would still keep up their rate of wages, and if nobody will employ them, why the clubs, the labour-parlia- ments, in common honesty must keep them. 8 One of two courses you must take ; either you must let trade alone, let wages be ruled by demand, let men who want work bid for it fairly, have it fairly, buy or sell as they like, or else you must regulate all wages — an impossibility. You claim an advance of 10 per cent, out of the manufacturer’s profits. His calico is falling in price, and cotton costing him more, how then is he to realise any profit, any wages for him- self ? Ash more, you will say, get 10 per cent, for us. Do you suppose the manufacturer has not hitherto got all he can for himself ; would he not try harder for himself than for you ? Self is his object and yours ; he will not deny it, nor need you. He has more knowledge as to how much he can get; he has more power than yourselves. Ask your leaders, then, why your employer has not got more for him- self, or how 7 he is to do ? You say, your share of the profits has not been fair. I deny that. You sold your labour for the highest price you could get, you don’t sell it for a share of profit, certainly not of loss, or at this present moment your wages would ha fallen 20 per cent. Now do none of you think that this very attempt to raise wages will reduce them? Do not you think that every manufacturer in the country will try to introduce machinery in every possible shape, and to reduce the quantity of hands he employs ? and where is the manufacturer who cannot do this, more or less ? Do you think any man of common sense will now start to build a mill which he is not to manage him- self, but so soon as finished, recollect by liis work, head, and money, he is to ask Mr. So-and-so, the secretary of the club, to be kind enough to supply him with hands, to inform him what he is to pay, — a rate so high, perhaps, if he has placed himself in a country where coals, owing to combinations, are excessively dear, say 10s. per ton instead of 6s.! or may be if the amalgamated engineers have made his ma- chinery costly, and the bricklayers put him on 10 per cent., — that altogether with his rent, and coals, and the cotton he must have, he finds the honour of being master may be a loss. Will he not then rather turn merchant, take the money he has to America, build there, or ship to Australia, or farm, or do anything in any trade where he may still be a master in reality. Disguise it as you may, your very attempt to raise 9 your wages, by trying to force a price, will be the very means of reducing them. You can no more force a master to work, than you can make a horse drink at the water. Suppose you do succeed, which is not at all probable, you are forcing machinery as fast as you can. Why the Preston mills will never w r ant again all the hands now out ; and if they gained the 10 per cent., the extra amount would not keep those who will be thrown out. You will tell me, enough for us to-day, let to-morrow take care of itself. Exactly so, just the argument of your leaders. Keep up the cry of 10 per cent., and the foolish idea of being masters, whilst you are not the pay-masters, and then the agita- tors will make speeches, get your money, and assuredly lead you the same silly dance that the now insane Feargus O’Con- nor led the thousands who were fooled out of, perhaps, not less than one hundred thousand pounds, though he was as plainly, at that time, to every man of education and common sense, misleading his dupes as are now your leaders ; and a few years, if not a few months, will as plainly convince you to your sorrow of the fact. They sometimes refer to the press, and regret the position it has taken, almost unanimously, against you. Why is it so? Because the newspapers are written and printed for the edu- cated ; or rather, without meaning the slightest disrespect to you, for a class better informed than those who compose your meetings ; and the arguments your leaders use are so thoroughly unsound and untenable, that no public writer would venture to adopt and present them to his readers. Never, in any previous strike, did the hands obtain so little sympathy and support heyond their own order. Not one public man of the class always ready to do a good deed, either from real philanthropy, or from vanity, has found face enough to support your cause ! You may tell me I am a master, and that my interest and yours run counter. How so ? Are all masters against you ? Are there none you can trust ? None honest ? Surely, not so. There are many working men I know and could trust, if they were free agents and not trammelled by a club, and durst vote as they thought honest ; but where working men associate together, delegate their powers to men they 10 know to be interested in tlieir advice, and when they allow every brawler or child to come and vote, and regulate matters about which they are perfectly ignorant, how 7 can their cause succeed ? How can truth and honesty prosper in such hands, and what other results can these movements have but misery and disappointment, and a reduction of wages ? For, so surely as you are poor and miserable from idleness, (and a turn-out you know will make you both,) so surely will you be obliged to take lower wages, for all will not be wanted again, and who will keep the surplus idlers ? I blame you not for ignorance, for w T ant of foreknowledge on subjects like these; but you have knowledge enough to know that your masters can see further than yourselves, that they know better than you w r hat has always been the result of strikes, and w r hat most probably will be the end of this. They know the misery you are bringing upon yourselves, and, unfortunately, it seems that the only way they have of convincing you of your error is, by a very costly and painful sacrifice on their parts as w T ell as yours. It has often struck me as a curious fact, that your leaders never try the ballot, but that they always use intimidation : and that in your collections in the various mills, even females who object to give, are maltreated, bullied, and insulted. You never send a box round, as is done in more rational meetings, and let all give according to their means ^and inclination. Is there nothing like tyranny in your mode of proceeding ? Are your leaders confident of their position, or do they fear that if moderation and common-sense dare express themselves, their occupation w r ould be gone ? One word more : — many men amongst you are always on the verge of becoming masters. Now suppose one of you were to have £500, left him ; would he not feel himself at liberty to take a mill ? Having done so, w 7 ould he not have a right to get his weaving done as cheaply as he could — as cheaply as any hands would do it? Would he — were he ever so honest and liberal according to your w T av of thinking — start at once and give 10 per cent, above other people ? — Most assuredly he would not ; he would have sense enough to know that unless he bought at the same rate as other people, he could not sell with them, and would he not be just as honest as the very 11 moment before be became a master ? I say he would ; and I don’t think you can deny it. Suppose he had saved part, and borrowed the rest, of the money, and commenced as a master ; would his case have been different ? Three parts of the masters in the trade have risen from the men by some such process, and I have yet to learn that it can have made them dishonest, or less kind than when they left your ranks. If so, the melancholy admission must be made, that the best men, the most thoughtful and provident, those who had best fulfilled every duty, by working, saving, taking care of their families, and advancing themselves from men to masters, must have been the least honest. Now is it so, or the reverse? No one will deny but that the best men amongst you rise to the top, and will continue to do so. Now if you will trust such men you will have no turnout ; no idleness nor waste of time ; — robbing a population of labour for weeks and months, by an unsound attempt to force what must come naturally, if it come at all. Your leaders talk of protecting you from capital — why capital represents knowledge, the moving power which is to keep you in work. Look at Ireland, which has been protected — self-protected — from capital ; she has been over-run by idle hands wanting capital to set them to work ; and her people have starved and died by thousands in consequence. Latterly, laws have been made to give property rights and safety, and labour is now better paid. Is it labour or capital which has brought this about ? Here were tyranny and misery without capital. Again, you rail at the larger capitalist ; — your leaders speak of him as the bloated capitalist ; and the more industrious and more talented he has been, the more to be pointed at, as an object of envy, hatred, and malice. Strange shortsighted- ness this too, for it always happens that the smaller capitalist is the keenest ; or, as your leaders express it, the most tyran- nical. Do you not bargain as hard and as closely as you can with the money you have? And if you have only 16s. in- stead of 20s., do you not in every possible way try to reduce the price of the labour you purchase? You want shoes — the shoe- maker buys his leather, and pays for it; he employs labour to make the shoes ; you higgle with him, and force him down in 12 price ; he reduces the price of this labour to meet you ; are you, are you not, tyrants, according to your leaders, for making the most of your capital? Disgust the capitalist, as at Preston, and the best, the kindest hearted, and the most able will leave you; — carry out your system to your leaders’ wishes, and you will make a new Ireland there. You may tell me that I am overstraining the argument, and that you only want to prevent excessive accumulation, and over- whelming power, — that you want to distribute more equally the results and rewards of labour. Tell me calmly, — is in- dustry to be checked to please the idle ? are savings to be limited to satisfy the spendthrift ? virtue to be discouraged because vice would look less ugly ? One of your leaders sug- gests that your next move should be to start a Joint-stock Cotton Mill, pay high wages, and retain the profit yourselves, — in fact turn capitalists. This course has always been open to you. Why not have tried that instead of a turnout ? You have spent and wasted in wages already, probably not less than one hundred thousand pounds. Suppose you had worked on comfortably and respectably, amassing this money quietly — built or bought a mill, and competed fairly and honestly with your masters ; you would then have known something about trade, — you would have gained sound practi- cal experience, and you could have raised wages by example. If one mill paid at 10 per cent, advance, why not two, why not ten ; if there be the margin of profit your leaders assert there is, there can be no difficulty, — try the scheme. Work is good, and idleness cannot be otherwise than bad and wasteful ; you have idled and wasted away £100,000. of what might have been your own ; wasted as clearly as if it had been thrown into the sea. Now mind, I don’t think you could make your mill pay even the wages now offered by the masters, setting aside profit. Better far, however, convince yourselves that it takes something beyond labour and capital to realise a profit ; — better obtain this knowledge even at the cost of £50,000., than waste £100,000, as you have done. One point more ; — you do not mind parting with contribu- tions weekly, to keep your leaders agitating and inflaming a starving population ; but they know — and perhaps some of IB you know — if it came to working, and working profitably, a Joint-stock Mill, that they, or any of their class, would hardly he the men you would trust with the management. You say, how acquire our rights, — how obtain a fair ad- vance, which the masters will no more offer, than w T e should offer an additional halfpenny on our pot of beer because we could afford it. Demand will give you the advance you may be entitled to. If looms are standing for want of hands, and rent and profit going, the master will give the uttermost penny he can afford to fill them, and must pay the market price. The wages he will have to pay will be the bargain between you ; but if you alone are to fix prices, why he is not likely to have a fair share, and he locks up the shop, — and what do you get? Now your advanced wages, if you have a right to them, would come just as surely as your masters’ advanced profits. He could not get his higher price so long as his competitor will take a lower one ; nor will you. — He cannot control his neighbour ; it is better for both parties he should not; so fair competition fixes the price, and it regulates itself as honestly and smoothly as water finds its level. The surest way of getting better wages is by being in- dependent. The wealthiest manufacturers get the best prices, because they can hold their goods until the turn of the market. Try this course for yourselves. Make yourselves independent by saving, by education, forethought, and prudence ; by teetotalism more quickly than anything else. You have the power of competing by joint-stock mills. If there be the large profit you suppose there is, enter into com- petition with your masters, elevate yourselves, and you will gain real, sound, substantial power — an honest power ; and depend upon it you will exercise it soundly ; safely to your- selves and the community. Now don’t think this sneering or mockery. Take a picked mill, one having a large proportion of its workmen who have saved money, who are trying to get education, and its main attendant comforts and benefits, and tell me do they wish for a turnout ; do they wish to risk their savings for a strike, or any benefit they could get by it ? Do not such men frequently turn masters and shopkeepers, and do you, their neighbours, ever think of such an absurdity as dictating to them the prices they shall sell at? 14 In the course you are pursuing, you substitute for home and its improvement and duties, the excitement of the club com- mittee. You meet at the beerhouse, to regulate the masters’ affairs, whilst your homes are left unsupported, and your children idle and unschooled. Our first duties are at home, to take care of ourselves and those most dependent upon us. It is the law of nature, and selfish though it may be igno- rantly called, it is right and natural. A man knows his. home duties ; they are simple and plain, and he can hardly go wrong. Industry, temperance, cleanliness, and education for himself and family, will not unfit him for taking care of his rights. A large majority of you may gain all these at home ; you will lose them all from home, in had, untrustworthy com- pany. Take a man into a meeting to regulate and vote for wdiat he can hardly understand ; he becomes unhappy from the recollection that he is out of place, and that he is making his home miserable by the very first step he takes. Can this step be right or necessary, let him but ask himself? if his own judgment be not sufficient, let him trust some one else, some neighbour, some one whose intelligence and education is better than his own. Every neighbourhood possesses some one each of us must respect ; ministers of religion of all classes, thoughtful, kind men of every sect, happily abound, men whose incomes, small in many cases as the mechanics’, prove that money is not their god. Now, as regards your subscriptions to support strikes, labour parliaments, or wffiat not, you have a perfect right to do as you like. You think such things will benefit you. I only ask you, have they ever done so ? I know more than one hard-working man w 7 ho has subscribed many a sixpence, many a shilling, making altogether many a pound, to Feargus O’Connor’s Land Scheme. When that folly was at its height, no reasoning or remonstrance could make you even doubt its policy. Is not a similar folly clear enough now ? The pre- sent scheme of a Labour Parliament is just as hollow, and will prove as delusive within a very short period. Take this advice from me — it can hardly be dishonest, it will not lessen your power, but increase it — Save the money you would sub- scribe, and place it safely somewhere, under your own con- trol. Time will add interest to it ; not so, if you let other 15 people play with it. Savings will become capital and give you power ; part with them and you lose that power. You want to control your masters, prices, and labour payments ; you can only do it by capital, by savings ; part with your savings in contributions, and you part with your indepen- dence to questionable leaders. A word or two on the present assumed prosperity of the master, upon which this most unjust claim of a power to share, or rather divide, is founded. I will ask the youngest child in a mill how it can be, if cotton, coal, oil, &c. get up in price, (and the master must buy these to make yarn and cloth,) even 15 or 20 per cent., and wages keep as they are, cloth not rising in an equal ratio to pay for the separate advance on each article, that there can remain a profit equal to what it was before ? Keep on the 10 per cent, advance, which is what you want, and you take the whole of the master’s profit to add it to that of the man. Why try to force the master to increase wages ? He cannot do it when food and other articles are dear, because his demand is less, and his cloth comes down in price. When food is cheap, surely he has a right to his profit, with his workmen who are benefiting by the same cheapened means of living. Sugar, tea, and many articles the workman largely uses, are now cheaper, from reduced duties, which reduced duties have been obtained by the imposition of a tax on all in- comes above £100. per annum ; a tax largely paid by the em- ployers, and to their credit, willingly, and in the main, honestly and cheerfully paid. I speak from conviction, that the manu- facturers and spinners have had a worse rate of profit latterly than previously , a profit no doubt controlled by high price and scarce cotton. Had it been the reverse, I admit no claim the working classes have to force a division— to claim 10 per cent, or 20 per cent., or what they like, because they fancy they ought to have it; giving no guarantee that they will play the partner also in adverse times, turn out, and force themselves and neighbours to take off 10 per cent, or more, to secure the master a profit in his turn. The increasing competition in trade will compel sounder and more economical management, and it may change some- what the relations of master and man. To the latter it will bring no injury, but compel forethought and self-reliance, 16 rather than the dependance of the servant. Sound economical justice in the mill, and enforced regularity, are quite com- patible with fair dealing. I am anxious to express a strong opinion on this point, as I think the millowner is often un- fairly dealt with by the world, and found fault with by those whose more easy life, and less contact with the working classes, may tempt them to suppose they acquit themselves of their duty in pointing out to the millowner a course they themselves would be little disposed to follow, when they recommend liberality in wages, forgetting that every one must buy as cheaply as he can, as a matter of self- protection and duty, and that the millowner has to be just before he can pretend to be generous. You are commencing a struggle, and what kind of a struggle? How are the parties matched ? Your employers may lose time and money. If they do that quietly and patiently, they must win, but what fearful odds are against you. You lose time or money’s worth,— your young people gain had habits that their after-lives may not change — and your children ruined health, which years may not renew to them ; you yourselves throw back your chances in life, savings are changed into debts, and the prospects which many of you had of self-education, self-improve- ment, and of raising yourselves above your position, are gone for years, if not for life. You sacrifice almost everything for what, depend upon it, a few months will prove to you to have been an unsound attempt to force your masters to pay, — for what? why, what they simply decline to buy — your labour at a price they do not consider fair : they have one opinion, you another ; each has a right to his own. Now contrast the combinations of men and of masters. Men combine first always, — masters in self-defence. You may deny this by the old assertion that capital always combines against labour, as though capital could do without labour. But the capitalist has knowledge and forethought in a greater degree than the workman, and therefore knows that combination cannot ultimately effect any purpose of control- ing prices ; he never resorts to it, except as a protection forced upon him. Just glance at the management of the affairs of a combi- nation of workmen. The first step taken is to excite the 17 masses , to summon public meetings, to have paid orators— men frequently of idle habits, seeking a living — good talkers , bad reasoners, supported by committees from your separate trades, of just such men as will associate with such charac- ters, or be seen in public-houses or beer-houses, with them. It is not the thoughtful, most respectable, and best educated amongst you, that will do so. What then is the consequence ? You are misdirected and misrepresented ; nay, further, at all your trade meetings, you allow lads to vote — reckless, thought- less striplings, whom even the wildest Chartist would not ask to vote ; and yet in a case which involves your very subsistence, you submit to the judgment of such a constituency. Reason, consequently, has no effect ; and nothing but force — the force of starvation, can be brought to bear upon a turnout, — a miserable mode truly of deter- mining a question amongst rational beings. How frequently too, brute force and ill treatment are the weapons the turn- outs use, the public press week after week records. Nay, at one of those meetings, to which few of the thoughtful and quiet amongst you ever find their w r ay, — and where the noisy generally control the prudent, and urge on the thought- less, — one of the speakers was led to observe, that if they persevered “employer would become an obsolete term, since operatives would become their own employers,” forgetting that to be masters of any value, they must also be pay masters. Labour, without capital, means simply a return to barter, to savage life ; to the idle and the dissolute it may mean plunder, — to the honest working man it must be ruin. Now compare this with a masters’ combination: nothing but necessity brings them together ; there is infinitely more jealousy amongst them than amongst the operatives ; they are more accustomed to manage their own affairs, and very cautious about delegating their rights. It is often from motives of humanity towards their hands that they do combine. They do not call in foreign aid. You will find their committees managed by the best and most thoughtful men amongst them — not the noisy and perhaps the hardest taskmasters — but by those who have been the workmen’s best friends ; and they succeed because their counsels are guided by knowledge; they 18 feel that public opinion is upon them, and that they are res- ponsible for the advice they give. I have said that you owe much of your late prosperity to improved laws, and that this rapid prosperity may have pro- duced thoughtlessness. It is this conviction, deeply impressed on my mind, that tempts me to urge all classes to cling to sound opinions, and to leave trade alone. Any fixed rate of wages for cheap and dear districts, for good and bad hands alike, attempted by combinations, is absurd and unsound, and a measure as wicked as would be the re-imposition of the corn- laws. What the working classes really want, is a thorough independence — a moral courage ; which can only be obtained by education. Education alone, I use the word in its fullest sense, moral and religious education, can teach us our rights and duties. The very chances of prosperity we have, clouded though they may be, present a prospect of an endless squabble and struggle of classes, unless the rights of each class can be clearly, honestly, and religiously defined, and then enforced and se- cured by a moral law 7 . A people, to continue prosperous safely, and not lapse into licentiousness and idleness, must secure themselves by education. One thing is certain, that limited .comparatively as is the education of the working classes, they have knowledge enough to secure the rights of property, and to read rightly the too painful lesson they are paying for. The turnout, whilst it teaches you a severe lesson, will not fail to add to the forethought of the master. It will teach him caution in sinking his capital, a more economical calculation ; and though 1 hope it will not lessen his kind feelings towards his hands, it will induce him, whilst more exact in his bargain, to force his workmen to be more thoughtful for themselves. He will reject bad and immoral, dirty, and uneducated hands; he will make it desirable for any hand to work in his mill, — to have his machinery such as will enable his hands, even at an apparently low rate of wages, to get good weekly pay. He will take no one without a character such as will carry value with it, equal to a premium of a good place in a good estab- lishment. The master who means fairly and honestly by his hands has a right to be treated fairly and honestly. He must make his shop like any other place of sale — he must tempt 19 his hands. He has a right to fix his terms and prices, and his men, if they do not like them, have the right they have in any other place of sale, to reject both. Now I know of no prouder position for a man to fill well, than that of the owner of a large well-regulated mill, the result, entirely, of his own talent and industry; supported still by a growing capital, increasing demand for labour, growing prudence and forethought. Why such a man has been the blessing of many a district ; has been the means, by his capital and labour, of enabling thousands of children to be well brought up, well fed, clothed, and thus carried on to manhood, healthy in body and mind — contrasts in every res- pect to the thousands in many an Irish district where labour has been abundant, but capital and head wanting. The man of this class will be amongst the strongest opponents of the present movement on your part ; he knows his duty to himself : and by his example, shows you the course open to many, nay, to all of you — the only sound course — I may add, which will place you above the influence of your present leaders. A concluding word or two. — I have tried to explain my opinions ; I wish to offer you kind advice ; and the last would be that which would retard your advancement in life, I do not look upon you except as fair competitors ; we are all workers, sellers of labour in one shape or another. Free- trade has thrown and is throwing the world’s market open to us; there is a demand for the labour of all of us. Depend upon it we are not placed here with power to fix even so simple a thing as the rate of wages. Time, the progress of intellect and invention, and the accumulation of capital, (for thrift will prosper) will upset any regulations of 10 or 20 per cent, we may make. I ask you then, think for yourselves individually, seriously, on the subject; act independently, and I do think you will not reject the advice of a neighbour and A LANCASHIRE MAN. Manchester, December 8th , 1858. Johnson and Raw6on, Printers, 89, Market Street, Manchester. * * '[' J ■id in it - - 'T : * ■ ■ f. »• ' oi 2 .-.n : : - • l - ' f ; / . ' .t :-n ■ * * . cb 1 . ... .% ■ ’ TRADE SCHOOLS. A LETTER TO THE REV. CHAS. RICHSON, M.A., IN REPLY TO OPINIONS ON “ TRADE SCHOOLS NECESSARY TO PROMOTE NATIONAL EDUCATION,” EXPRESSED IN HIS LECTURE DELIVERED AT THE MECHANICS’ INSTITUTION, MANCHESTER, NOVEMBER 14th, 1853. BY EDMUND POTTER. LONDON: JOHN CHAPMAN, 142, STRAND. MANCHESTER: JOHNSON AND RAWSON, 89, MARKET STREET. 1854. A LETTER, & C. Dear Sir, When you presented me a few days ago with a copy of your Lecture “ On Education in Trade Schools, necessary to promote National Education,” I promised to give it a careful perusal. You expressed the hope that we should not differ in opinion. I could have wished it might be so ; but I fear your sanguine wishes for progress in your great aim, have led you to form hasty conclusions on one part of your subject, which are to my mind so unsound and untenable, even on the grounds you adduce, that I think it but candid to give you a decided opinion upon them. I certainly should not have ventured to think any remarks or opinions of mine, on Education generally, worth printing, amongst the competition of so many practised writers on the subject ; but your Lecture touches so directly on a part of the question, “ Trade Art,” upon which you are aware I have previously given some opinions to the public, that I cannot refrain from again offering some of my former argu- 4 merits in reply. I do so with less reluctance, because a practical knowledge of the wants of a trade like Calico Printing, requiring, perhaps, more of science and art than most others, has of necessity, during the last thirty years, been the continuous study of my life. I propose then, to give you my opinions on such parts of your Lecture, as relate first to what you class as Secondary Education. I shall extract freely from your pages. I take first the paragraph from page 5, in which I entirely agree : — “ Would, indeed, that I could congratulate this important District on manifesting in Educational matters, that energy and practical wisdom, for which in commercial enterprise it is so deservedly cele- brated, and that it were not necessary still to deplore that Manches- ter, which could teach the English nation — nay, could teach the whole world — one of the noblest of political doctrines for advancing the interest and catering to the need of an enterprising people, can- not, even in her own community, agree to adopt any efficient, practi- cable scheme, for promoting the primary Education of her rising little ones.” Now I wish, by an examination of your own argu- ments, to enquire whether such results are not attainable, and attainable only, by relying on enlight- ened self-interest, competition, and individual energy. You say : — “ 1st. The promotion of Secondary Education is not, as applied to the productive classes, a question of religious training, but of political necessity. “ 2ndly. Instruction in Science and Art ought to be placed within the reach of all those classes, and especially of the operative portion, as equally conducive to their individual interest, and to the produc- tive resources of the whole community. “ And 3dly. The increased competition between England and 5 the Continent, in respect to articles of production, renders it simply a suicidal act on the part of this country, to neglect the Education of the producer, whether in the highest or lowest department of his art ; or to omit to raise him, in his acquirements, to at least a level with his Continental competitors.” I see no practical, and therefore no political neces- sity for this Trade or Art Education being cared for by the State. (I reserve my opinion on primary Edu- cation). Why is it that the men amongst us, be they calico printers, woollen or silk manufacturers, or even china or metal workers of the largest invested capitals, express no such opinion ? Why, with all the force of keen competition upon us, with the constant necessity for science, taste, and knowledge of every kind, do we none of us express the wish for aid, or the fear of competition ? Why do these almost always spring from parties who know infinitely less about the subject, and whose information is often limited to the knowledge of some deficiency in the supply of an article, for which there is no demand, in the English market, to repay the producer ? It can hardly be the political duty of the State to step forward, and to offer to teach the capitalist his business, to suggest plans to him, to erect furnaces, as at Marlborough House, to reproduce some lost colour on china, which our wealthy porcelain manufacturers could have done better, had it been worth their while ; — hardly be the duty of the State, I should think, to venture the opinion that many other Trades are similarly deficient in taste or talent, and that the deficiency is to be made up, not legitimately, 6 by the practical knowledge of the manufacturer, but by “ the worst possible instructor,” as the State has been truly styled, — and proved to be, for example, in the building of steamships, in the management of woods and forests, or national galleries, etc. “ It has been judiciously said by the Chevalier de Cocquiel in his ‘ Keport to the Belgian Government on Industrial Instruction in England,’ * ‘ when steam and machinery made their appearance in the world, manufactures had no longer a birth-place ; when agricul- tural science became improved, the countries in which the sun seems to hide itself were seen to produce a vegetation finer than that of the lands most favoured by nature ; when steam was applied to the locomotion of man and goods, by land and sea, the proximity of the raw material was no longer anything, except an advantage which the skill of a rival nation can easily neutralize. Every day the social improvements tend more and more to equalize the conditions of production between nations, so as to leave intelligence and skill subsisting only as instruments of superiority.’ “ These are truths which it becomes every man concerned in the prosperity of this country seriously to consider. No doubt the capital, the commercial enterprise, and the commercial connexions of England, may long continue to her merchant princes the means of vast accumulation of wealth, and of maintaining an unrivalled influence in the market of the world ; and the resources of commerce may open to the manufacturer sources of profit, and inducements to exertion, which may call into exercise the highest intellectual powers, and the profoundest mechanical skill. But notwithstanding all such advantages, the “ working men” of our own land may be, compara- tively, very little benefitted ; the foreigner may enter, from his Educa- tion and skill, into the enjoyment of the sweetest of the fruits, and may occupy in England, that place in the workshop or the mill, or in the application of artistic taste, which the native children of the soil, but for a neglected, shamefully neglected Education, would have been qualified to fill. Let us not think, then, that of necessity all things are going well with a land, because her traffickers are princes in the Berlyn’s Translation, pp. 72, 73. 7 earth ; but rather let us bear in mind that the greatest evils may be in store, when not alone the untutored bone and sinew of the people, but the skilled, although almost uneducated artizan, seems driven to the resource of Emigration (I speak not of Colonial Emi- gration, but) to Foreign lands, to find a competent reward and stimulus for industry. In such a state of things a country, not- withstanding its very greatest distinctions, may be near to realizing that sad condition, which Goldsmith intimates in his ‘ Deserted Village.’ ‘ Princes and Lords may flourish or may fade, A breath can make them, as a breath has made ; But a bold peasantry, their country’s pride, If once destroyed, can never be supplied.’ “In proof, however, of the dependence of this country upon Foreign skill in whatever relates to the department of the Fine Arts, I will select, out of the thousands of instances that might be adduced, the evidence afforded at the Sydenham Crystal Palace , at this present moment. Through the kindness of Dr. Lyon Playfair , I have obtained an accurate return of persons there employed in the * Fine Art Department.’ ” I give rather a long extract — rather startling cer- tainly. Now as to the facts within my own knowledge. I admit, frankly, that in fine printed goods the French furnish a certain very limited supply, which we admit free from all duty ; we are thus partly dependent upon them. One would suppose, however, from your statements, that in this trade, admitting as we do our inferiority, our working men would have been partly displaced, and “ the foreigner, with his education and skill, would have entered ; and our skilled, though almost uneducated, artisan would he driven to emi- gration, &c.” Now I am actively engaged as the head of one of the largest concerns in the kingdom, possessing, it would be false modesty to deny, a not inferior 8 reputation for taste and skill in production ; and yet I believe during the last ten years we have not had in our employ one single foreigner. It may he this is an extreme case, but take the establish- ments in the trade throughout, and I do not suppose the foreigners working in the whole of them will average anything like one per head per firm — the whole number employed will be an infinitesimal quantity. If it would add anything to my argument, and time would allow, I could give you proof that our competi- tors in the trade, in the various countries of the world, and who supply altogether, as compared with our- selves, half the world’s consumption in prints, employ ten times the quantity of our countrymen that we do of theirs. Why should they not ? I know not what the average may be in other occupations — more, I dare say, in some — but at all events, in this largest fancy trade of the country, we are tolerably indepen- dent. We purchase patterns, I admit, from France, original drawings, or we have them drawn to order to our own ideas in Paris, simply because for fancy designs, (a limited part of our trade,) it is the best market. It is the world’s metropolis of fashion and taste in dress, and there the artist finds the best supply of ideas for materials. He could not enrich his taste much in the Manchester exhibitions — nor yet very much in London. He can do so freely in Paris. Climate, habits, free expositions, all are favourable to his occupation, and there it is our duty and interest to buy. 9 You next give a table, shewing the numbers of Foreign Artists employed at Sydenham, in the Pom- peiian House, selected “ as proof of the dependance of this country upon Foreign skill, in whatever relates to the department of Fine Arts.” Why, Sir, I will assert, without fear of contradic- tion, that our friend the master of the Manchester School of Design, could select four pupils from his classes, equal to any average of foreign talent now employed at Sydenham, if it were worth while for them to change their present occupation for one which has not hitherto been in demand in this country. If it spring up abundantly, let the Foreign Artists, share it with our own, in fair competition ; they will make good subjects, and only form the fair exchange for an equal number of English artizans, who are teach- ing those of some Foreign State other occupations, in which they are our inferiors. I care not whether our imports be goods or artizans. I presume we need them, or we should not hold out the demand. I object to the State interfering, or trying to derange a sound economical lav. I see no harm in a fair exchange of labour, any more than of other com- modities. “ I do not deny the present necessity of employing Foreign skill in departments for which Englishmen are not qualified, although I regard that circumstance as most lamentable ; but I would earnestly ask, whether it is wise in respect to policy, or just in regard to the talents and capabilities of our own countrymen, to allow such a state of things to be continued, without making something like a vigorous effort for its speedy correction ?” 10 That there should be anything lamentable in purchasing what we are unfitted to produce, I really cannot see. Does not your whole argument tend to protection for native industry ? Now, it has often appeared to me that there is, besides its economical unsoundness, something very selfish in these propositions for trade education in taste. The arts and tastes which do not pay us to cultivate, are mainly those for the luxuries of the higher class; models, you may say, to be used afterwards to diffuse a taste amongst the lower classes — of which hereafter. In very fine printed goods, (first of course in my mind) Sevres china, fine lace, fine Berlin iron w r ork, bronzes, fine silks, fine millinery, jewellery, and even bon bons, we are admittedly inferior : not in articles of good, staple taste — in cotton or woollen goods — domestic crockery — in domestic iron ware — in useful furniture, and the thousand every-day luxuries more abundantly found in English dwellings than in any others. We are not second either in fine art, prac- tical mechanics, engineering on the noblest scale, or in architecture. Now, why should you and I, and the millions below us, be taxed to produce at home, by State teaching the luxuries which the higher classes do not demand sufficiently to pay for? Are we to create artistic labour, which, when produced, will only starve, or prove a surplus and illegitimate supply ? Could any patronage, State teaching, State appoin- ted professors in millinery, dress-making, or dancing, 11 enable us to equal Paris ? Paris has secured the demand; she has for centuries had it. Her people, her locality, is best fitted to supply it, — and a century of keen competition could not now much disturb it, supposing we were equally fitted for it. Nay more, the Englishman’s characteristic is plodding industry, regular, untiring application : staple productions suit his habits, accumulated capital, and power best; ir- regular demand, and irregular wages, demoralize him. Contrast the Frenchman’s habits; he likes excitement, not regular application ; will sacrifice his meals to his fetes, and can do so, as not requiring so much bodily stimulus as we do. He is thus adapted to trades not so regular in production, but varying more with season and with fashion. Nay, with a barricade and revo- lution to-day, he settles down to-morrow, with a light heart, to a light and fancy occupation. Free Trade, free exchange, nay exchange and intermingling of people, will improve us both, and therefore, I cannot look upon the employment of foreigners as “ most lamentable” ; on the contrary, I look upon it as a wise ordinance, and as a security for the improvement of the human race, and the increase of peace and good-will. The tastes of a people, the fixed customs of ages, are not easily changed ; experience has proved their utility and fit- ness ; each nation knows its own wants. “ In this country, moreover, it is unfortunately the fact, that the distinction between the employer and employed, the master and the workman, is, in general, so broadly marked, that they both look upon themselves as belonging to separate .classes, having different, B 12 and not unfrequently antagonistic interests at stake. The conse- quence is, that they too frequently range themselves in determined opposition, and have recourse to combinations for the protection of their respective claims, which every true principle of Political Eco- nomy must emphatically condemn, as equally injurious to themselves and the commonwealth. This mischievous class feeling, I attribute to the absence of that Education, which, developing the intellectual powers of the workman, and of the master also, furnishes the only link whereby capital and labour can become connected, and which, rightly directed, produces in the minds of both parties a mutual sympathy and estimation, and causes them to feel that their real interests are common, and that their common interests properly developed are in the highest degree conducive to the general good.” I can quote the foregoing paragraph with pleasure, and fully coincide with you. I believe that the means of producing a sounder understanding must be sought in primary Education. “ But under present circumstances we find that the intervening tie of science and artistic skill is seldom to be discovered in the English workshop. Capital can purchase foreign talent, or agents can pirate foreign productions, and the class feeling between the man of money and the man of sinew is disgracefully perpetuated. It is, however, of serious consequence to consider, what must be the effect upon the workman’s mind, when he finds that between himself and his master there is nothing like a common ground of intellectuality for their mutual estimation. Can we be surprised then, if, under such circumstances, the workman often throws himself upon the counsel of some cunning demagogue, and sacrifices (ignorantly, it may be) his highest interests, rather than rely upon his master’s sympathy ? Can we not imagine the secret thoughts that rankle in his mind, when he looks on foreign skill, triumphant in his own workshop ? Does he not feel himself degraded in his very craft, — and therefore, where can be his loyalty to England’s soil, or England’s wealth, or England’s servitude ?” Now, it is no patriotism, to my mind, to reject Foreign aid — therefore, that does not weigh with me. With 13 my experience, I differ widely in the opinion you imagine must exist in the “ secret thoughts that rankle in the mind of the workman, when he looks on the Foreign skill triumphant in his own work- shop.” Ignorant as you suppose our working classes may be — they are certainly not so lost to common sense as to entertain any such jealous feeling. I never, knew them to try to drive away a superior workman — believe me they have, with all their faults, too much respect and reverence for real talent to do so- Again, my dear Sir, you are deeply, seriously, in error, in the opinion you express, that science and artistic skill are seldom discovered in the English workshop, and that hereby the class feeling between the man of money and the man of sinew is disgrace- fully perpetuated, — and that between man and master there is nothing like a common ground of intellec- tuality for their mutual estimation. Referring again to my own experience, I have no knowledge of such feelings, quite the contrary, in any trade requiring artistic skill or science. What is the fact? Look among the firms in our various manufacturing establishments, and ask who are the leading minds in each, who are the progressive instru- ments of development in each ? who were the active, working, thinking leaders of that great and blessed movement, the Anti-Corn-Law League, and tell me, are not, and were not, one-half of those men originally of the very class, possessing native and practical ener. gies, and whom you think are coldly treated, barred- out, and not encouraged by the capitalist, and between whom and their employers there did not, nor does exist, a feeling other than that of jealousy and distrust ? And, Sir, a very large proportion of our heads of firms are always those who have by their talent and conduct, elevatedthemselves thus from the rank of em- ployed to employers — a day-by-day process. Such has always been the world’s progress, and if no higher influences actuated any of us in aiding them, self- interest here at least guides us right, and urges us to seek out the energy which, from their more luxurious education and culture, the wealthier class constantly needs, to keep it from relaxing into voluptuous decay. To aid and accelerate this supply, is one main reason in my mind for promoting primary education. I am anxious to explain myself clearly on this head, because I wish the working classes to think for them- selves — to educate, and, as members of the common- wealth, fit themselves for the positions they may, and continually do rise to, and to be assured that there is no real bar to honourable ambition and success with even a little education. Most desirable is it that they should have, and feel they have, a fair and open field. Unsound opinions are much more easily rectified by exchange of thoughts in the higher than the lower classes, — let us be careful then, how gentlemen of your influence and kind feeling towards the lower class, plant wrong opinions, or suggest secret thoughts, which I do not believe now exist to any, or but to a very trifling extent. They may have done so in the 15 days of protection, and were encouraged by a party to prevent exchange of commodities, but they will tahe no root again. I extract at full length the paragraph below : “ Further, if we consider what, in the course of time, must be the disastrous consequences, if we continue this disregard of native talent in the productive arts, do we not perceive, that in the race of com- petition, England, as compared with other countries, can only look for disappointment and disgrace ? True, we may pirate patterns and designs, and vex and mortify and rob their authors. True, we may talk of English capital, and disesteem the notion of an English “ Father-land True, we may, for many years to come, compete with Foreign States, by buying, at liis price, the Foreign Artist, to keep us from disgrace. But withal, so long as we continue to drive away our countrymen to foreign shores to work in foreign work- shops, and make the improvement of our native arts depend upon foreign skill — what, I ask, must ultimately be the consequence to English competition ? — what, but at best, a poor equality in every market of the world ? and, if the foreigner should find his interest to desert us, a contemptible inferiority ? In old time many a state traced its ruin to the foolish policy of trusting its defence to foreign mercenary aid, let us then beware, lest in years to come, England should afford a warning to the world, that in periods of extremity, the mercenary in the arts is no more to be depended on than the mercenary with the sword.” Ten years ago, how such a sentiment would have been cheered, and how welcomed would you have been by the very party opposed to that energetic com- , mercial policy which you now extol. Why should we fear any competition in any manufacture worth our following ? Whence is this competition to come ? Surely not from highly protected States; — from France, Prussia, or Germany, — simply because they tax their people on all their staple articles, and as a poor re- 16 numeration, encourage Schools of Art, etc., to produce the elegancies and luxuries of life, for the higher, under the plea of employing the lower classes. This is Anti-Free Trade in perfection, and certainly will raise not a fear in the minds of those possessing “ energy and practical wisdom.” As to buying the foreign artist to keep us from disgrace, I hold there is no more disgrace in buying the producer, than the product — talent than material. “ In old times,” you say, “many a State traced its ruin to the foolish policy of trusting its defence to foreign mercenary aid, etc.” My reading, limited of necessity in comparison with yours, tells me rather, that where a foreign trade and commerce flourished most, as in Venice, Holland, and Genoa — there art and taste succeeded best, and here too you will not deny they would have flourished still, if freedom, trade, and commerce, had continued. History does not yet tell us of a State falling from the results of Free Trade. “ I do not forget that in this country there are vast numbers of persons who are deservedly eminent for their remarkable attain- ments in Science and Art generally, and a much larger number of others who are equally eminent for Practical Knowledge and Skill ; but I wish to draw special attention to the fact, that with compara- tively few exceptions, the higher attainments in Science and Art are forbidden to persons whose limited pecuniary resources deny them those facilities of study which the Continent, or even this country, affords ; and that men who make such attainments are very seldom personally acquainted with practical skill : while on the other hand, in the case of practical men who, in the vast majority of instances, have risen from the ranks and worked their way to eminence by 17 applying to the knowledge of their craft the varied resources of a powerful intellect, and, unknowingly to themselves, developed, rudely indeed, hut yet effectually, the resources of purest science such men, by the very habits of their lives, depreciate, if they do not despise, a systematic attention to scientific study. The result of w T hich is, that a state of things too frequently arises, such as Dr. Lyon Play fair has described in his admirable Lecture at the Govern- ment School of Mines.” I think your opinion unfounded, that men who have risen by force of a powerful intellect, and the prac- tical application of science, despise systematic atten- tion to scientific study. Cast your eye upon all the subscription lists of our public institutions for Edu- cation, and are not the men you would refer to their best supporters ? Do not ignore the fact that many of our commercial men, who have risen from the ranks, have given their sons, as a rule, highly scientific educations — that latterly they have done so by eschewing Oxford and Cambridge, and by seek- ing for their sons an education, as I understand, of a severer and more scientific cast in the London, and even in some country colleges. Look through every list of degrees given at the London University, and say, if a very large proportion of these have not been gained by the sons of those who have risen by the power of intellect , rather than by the advantages of Education. Competition and necessity force this Education, and depend upon it, our commercial classes are sufficiently enlightened to avail themselves of it. If they will not pay for what they certainly can afford, and ought to have intelligence and forethought 18 enough to secure — do not let the State be taxed for them. You quote Dr. Playfair : — “ In this country,” says he, * “ we have eminent ‘practical’ men, and eminent ‘ scientific’ mep ; but they are not united, and gene- rally walk in paths wholly distinct. From this absence of connexion there is often a want of mutual esteem, and a misapprehension of their relative importance to each other. The philosopher is apt to undervalue the dignity of productive industry, while the practical man sees, in the absence of utilities, only the visionary speculator.” We are told that we “ practical men ” keep aloof from the “ scientific men.” The records of my own trade, in fact of every manufacturing trade, would shew no mean sum to the debit of scientific trials, sums, too, given more freely than wisely. We do not undervalue science. Practically, we take it at its worth — we are top anxious for aid and profit, and thus, as a rule, even overbid for it. We do not see why the State need be taxed for the Education of scientific men, who ought, we think, like every other class, by energy and practical wisdom, to find their own level ; we want more of common sense, and not less of science. It is no real kindness, and will do no real good to science, to overcrowd it by gratuitous or half-gratui- tous Education, forcing a supply where there exists only a limited though natural demand. It always happens, too, that the supply thus promoted by the public purse is above the wants of the times, * Introductory Lecture in the “ Government School of Mines” for the Session, 1852-3, p. 7. 19 and produces a consequent surfeit. Scientific Education has been amazingly cheapened, quite as progressively so as any other class of Education. Why, Sir, twenty years ago — not to trouble you too much with the details of my own trade, hut I wish to adduce facts within my knowledge — there were scarcely a dozen calico printers who pretended to any great amount of chemical knowledge. It was the custom to employ but a few practically educated chemists ; the remainder of the trade begged, bought, or scrambled, for what scientific knowledge was necessary. We owed much, very much, to our elder brethren in the trade — the French. French chemistry, and French chemists, were the sources of very many of the newer chemical processes and pro- ductions. But time has changed the course — we are equal now to the French, in every process of calico printing which we find it profitable to follow. There are abundance of really practically-educated chemists connected with the trade ; and certainly the scientific man, though respected, valued, and more necessary than ever, is not looked upon as a rarity. More mechanical science also is diffused amongst us ; we know its value, and secure it. Depend upon it, it is an error to suppose the prac- tical man undervalues the scientific, though he may be, as I think soundly, imbued with certain econo- mical opinions, which would lead him to look some- what coldly on extraneous aid, which he and the public are to pay for, without being convinced of its value, c 20 I can hardly agree with you “ that nothing that human ingenuity has yet discovered is likely to be so successful, as an imitation of continental Trade Schools.” You speak of the tribute we pay to France and other Continental States by taking advantage of their facilities for Education, — so it ever will be ; we wish to widen the field of instruction, to vary it. It would he no argument to my mind, if we sent hun- dreds instead of “ the jive or six English subjects who were obliged to go abroad for the comprehensive in- struction they, could not get at home.” Why, we educate foreigners in thousands, in art, mechanics, trade, surgery, etc., and why not send our youth to their studios, their workshops, and their hospitals ? How is the knowledge of variety of production, or treatment, to he obtained ? Does not the whole world swarm with our civil engineers and mechanics? They are employed for their value ; our mechanics, engine builders, ship builders, are unsurpassed, or if competed with, are so by a nation which relies on individual energy, and primary secular education, and not on Trade Schools. Objecting then decidedly, as I do, to any gratuitous, or half- gratuitous trade, or technical Education, I need not discuss at any length your plans for carrying it out, beyond just glancing at the probable cost and results of the scheme. “ Free Exhibitions should be established, at the public cost, in sufficient number to prevent any pupil, on the ground of poverty alone, from being deprived of the highest advantages, which the whole of the Institutions or Departments could offer.” 21 Are not these very Exhibitions a temptation to plead poverty ? Are not you creating a demand for poor students ? What a temptation you would hold out to the sons of artizans to leave the practical, honest application of their means, and try the spe- culative chances of your Exhibitions. How many fathers and mothers would fancy that their offspring possessed the peculiar genius and inventive taste which would benefit the nation, and that they were entitled to the cost of their Education and maintenance You propose, — “ A Central Metropolitan Institution , wherein every facility should be. afforded for the discipline and development of the most distin- guished intellectual power and the cultivation of the purest taste.” The London University already supplies, in my opinion, every facility for the discipline and develop- ment of distinguished intellectual power. What the Institution would be, which would decide what was the purest taste in Art connected with Manufactures, I am at a loss to conceive — what practical decision its professors could come to that the world would value, is beyond my comprehension. Opinions on taste — on the right, the proper, and the , true — are just as various as on Theology. Only fancy a dictator on Taste ! A Pugin stamping his opinion, his Taste, on all manufactures, reversing demand and forcing supply for a period ; or a Ruskin, whose genius would try another and a different school of practical Art — not less eccentric. Shall I go lower ? — or fancy a Board, with each a vote on the Taste desirable for 500 dif- 22 ferent manufactures. I will not pursue the subject further, though it might be amusing. If your suggestion be not visionary or extravagant, the money will not be wanting to carry it out. Man- chester has tried many benevolent schemes, and many of us have subscribed to all sorts of institutions, we did not believe to be sound, but from pure be- nevolence, and the distant hope that they might do some good. Nay, almost all our public institutions necessarily carry with them, from the Infirmary downwards, an amount of eleemosynary pauperis- ing it is difficult to prevent ; but they are charitable and voluntary establishments ; you purpose to tax the State, or the municipality — here we join issue. I do not object to any private speculation, I have no right to do so; though I may think the results of little value, they will rectify themselves. As regards the models for our imitation, the Con- tinental Schools, you have my opinion, as to the fear of their competition. We need fear no competition, (except for temporary mischief) based on protection, the system has ever defeated its own ends ; time, I believe, will make rapid work with it, and you will then find the States you refer to, relying upon individual energy and competition; and emperors, kings, and electors will cease to be shareholders in exotic com- panies, and to think that the world’s consumption, or taste, can be regulated by any thing but the wants and taste of the consumer, the purchaser, in fact, and he will fix both, price and taste. 23 “ The experience of Continental nations in promoting Secondary Education, both as regards failure and success, offers itself for our guidance ; and therefore in any attempts which this country may make in the same direction, it may avoid the serious loss of time and the difficulties and vexations, which under other circumstances it might reasonably anticipate.” I would certainly not disregard any experience ; but you will readily be disposed to grant, that exam- ples taken from highly protected States, can hardly be made available for us. All these nations, either, as in France, prohibit our manufactures, or tax them heavily in competition with their own. They have our market free, whilst we are barred out of theirs ; no great proof of the strength of their position, or confidence in Industrial Education. In fact, we admit, free, the productions of all our competitors — France, the Zollverein, Spain,, and America, in printed goods. France only sends us any. United, they bring the power of 160 millions of producers against us, and we are nearly, if not practically, deprived to this extent of their markets ; so we naturally cease to produce for them. Any competition in a neutral market, except in such limited productions as from local causes these States can manufacture better than ourselves, is just absurd. Each nation would, under a perfectly Free Trade and intercourse, have its own local productions and trades. These articles other nations would get cheaper from it than by manufac- turing for themselves, and as a natural result would so supply themselves. One nation might make toys best ; another, spin and weave, like ourselves. 24 I cannot help being discursive, and am going to put a question. In all these expressed fears, by yourself and those who have excited them, is it not odd that you have never alluded to our most powerful competitor — the United States? Now, Sir, we, many of us, do fear and feel her competition. She will eventually adopt, sooner or later, Free Trade; and she will, I have not the slightest doubt, abolish Slavery ; and I hope and trust she will do so quickly, gracefully, and judiciously. Now as regards Trade, she has all our Anglo-Saxon energy ; immense natu- ral wealth ; the best educated manufacturing people in the world, (excepting, of course, her slave popula- tion) — she has cheap land, unfettered by hereditary laws ; the lightest possible taxation ; and a surplus revenue. She has thrown herself, and is doing so largely, into Manufacturing Industry; adopting our first steps in liberal policy by reducing, or taking off entirely, the duties on all articles used in her manu- factures. When she takes the duties off her manufac- tures themselves in cotton, woollen, and iron — which I expect she will do— she will be to us a most formidable competitor. In comparison with her, the States you have alluded to will not be worth a thought. I have the firmest faith in her taking this course. The progress of Education — the im- mense circulation of practical knowledge throughout her limits, by cheap papers, books, and rapid inter- course, will certainly lead her in this direction ; nothing but war, that curse to progress and truth, will 25 interrupt her course. She, then, is the competitor we have to fear. Her Taste, you will say, is not our model. Granted ; it is differently based; it is as yet almost entirely practical ; hut she has Taste for her demand , and it improves with her civilization and wealth. I do not deny that it may run riot a little, in extravagant expenditure and costly living — the result of the easy acquirement of the necessaries of life ; she is a new country, and high taste can only be the result of long- accumulative trials and demands. It is a question left for history to solve, whether a taste springing from wealth — the result of great practical and scientific industry — will not he higher and purer than any yet recorded as the fruit of patronage, or the demand of a nobility, or upper class, forced from slavery as in Greece or Pompeii, or more latterly in France, by other means, in a not more moral age — that of Louis the Fourteenth. Has not Taste, the demand of the wealth of commerce, in Venice, Genoa, and Holland, been at all times as high, and infinitely purer, than any resulting from pa- tronage — or, in latter days, from protection and teaching ? “ Cheap living, * and the elevation of the industrial classes, has been the avowed banner of the most distinguished Statesmen of England. To attain this object, the important point is to increase the productive power of society.” Cheapness, as in America, creates a large demand * Report on Industrial Instruction in England, (Berlyn’s Translation,) p. 71. 26 for simple domestic luxuries. As yet, her wealth is widely-diffused, and her demand in accordance. We have greater wealth in masses, and a far greater amount of capital in all shapes, the result of expe- rience and accumulation. This capital it is which constitutes, as yet, our power of cheaper production. We must secure cheapness to our people, and a sound Education to make their labour valuable and intelligent, henceforth to keep our position as a com- peting power. One remark more. The amount of taxation in the United States is less than what we pay, probably by the value of the entire house-rent in Great Britain. Suppose, then, such an amount set free, and so distributed here, what would be the effect ? A portion only would be spent on food ; the larger residue would give a demand for luxuries, and an im- petus to Taste, far beyond anything history records. America, also, gives only a secular education; with her, all religions are equal ; and from its present vitality, I do not doubt that there, Christianity will take deep root and yield the best fruits. Do not think me insensible to the value of art and taste. I have, perhaps fortunately, position and re- putation enough to be careless of any insinuation in that direction. It is because I value them, that I wish them properly estimated. I have often thought much might be said on the difference between patron- age in art, and patronage in manufactures. By the former, the artist may be helped into life by the 27 taste and liberality of the patron ; to manufacturers, patronage or aid is positively injurious. A few more remarks on the question, then, of secondary Education, following still your own argu- ments. “Moreover a Department of Practical Science and Art has been established by the Board of Trade, &c.” I have watched, as you are aware, its operation, narrowly ; and the practical application of any of the schemes for the benefit of trade, I must say, seems to meverydistantandveryindistinct. I question, therefore, very much, the prospect of Parliament granting funds, except with some very much sounder explanation of practical utility than that which has yet been afforded. Every step you take in advance of simple elemen- tary Education, embroils you in difficulty ; difficulties of opinion from the nature of the very educators themselves, — from their ignorance of what they would attempt, viz., to instruct without experience. I cannot see with you — “ That in every aspect of the subject, there are the very greatest encouragements, at the present time, to endeavour to expedite the movement in behalf of Secondary Education. “ And where, more favourably than in Manchester, can any effort be made for exciting the public interest in a subject so deeply impor- tant ? For where, more than in Manchester, is such an effort needed for the general benefit of every class of the inhabitants ? “ Engaged in a variety of the Productive Arts, and to an extent which is scarcely equalled in any district in the world, how can Manchester, not to speak of culpability, but without a suicidal act, neglect the training of her population to investigate, appreciate, and apply the mysteries of those crafts by which she gains her wealth?” D 28 If, along with the wealth of our City — gained by persevering industry, close and incessant competition — comes not the knowledge of our wants, in secondary Education at least, (those not possessing the primary can hardly know their loss,) — if, along with our power of supply we show no demand for it, depend upon it, Sir, it is no part of the State’s duty to try to afford the supply. Whilst giving this opinion — and I do it not lightly — not as an amateur — not blinded by prejudice, or linked to any party, — I am willing to join in almost any experiment in Art Education unconnected with trade, but of a higher, purer, and sounder kind, which can aid your scheme ; but I will be no party to taxing the State to supply a fancied demand. I extract — “ Are we seriously concerned, when we contemplate the unfortunate collision between capital and labor , which at the present moment forces itself upon our consideration ? If so — can we suppose that there is any permanent remedy for such a state of things, except it be in an intellectual improvement of all the productive classes, whereby the operative, on the one hand, may acquire not merely a higher degree of intelligence in the practical application of his proper art, but also a due and comprehensive appreciation of the rights of labour in relation to himself as an individual, his fellow-workmen, and his master ? — and the Capitalist and Employer on the other, be prepared not only fully to appreciate and respect those rights, but also to acknowledge, by a consistent effort, that one of the wisest and most profitable investments of the capital at their command, consists in the promotion of the intellectual worth and welfare of the classes they employ ? ” I could not omit noticing this extract. You are aware I have sometime held the opinion that nothing 29 but Education, by promoting a sounder economical knowledge both amongst masters and men, could be brought to bear upon the question of Strikes. Do not many or all your arguments in favor of secondary Education, when supplied by the State, tend to take away from the workman the power of self-reliance and independence. Do not your exam- ples of Prussia, Bavaria, &c. f hold out to him exam- ples of restriction, of forcing trade into certain chan- nels, not letting it accommodate itself healthily and naturally to demand? Would not your suggestions as to what the workman must feel, from the com- petition here, of foreigners, lead him at once to the conclusion that the foreigner ought to be supplanted — you mean by equal talent — he would infer by combination, or a “ strike ”, to make way for the English worker. I think State aid or control of any kind, in trade, directly encourages combination; it tries to regulate and interfere with the demand for labour. State teaching patronizes opinions : intellectual worth needs no patronage, it secures its own reward. If practical knowledge be its result, it will accommodate itself to a paying demand. I have given somewhat lengthened extracts from your opinions in favor of secondary Education, con- trasting them with my own practical, and perhaps you may think, narrow and economical views. We both seek the same end, by different means. I wish to promote on a broad basis, primary Education, forced, first on the very lowest class — the criminal ; next, 30 on the pauper — from necessity the child of the State ; and beyond that I would even go one step, to prevent ignorance from pauperising the next large class, and to secure the safety of the commonwealth, by giving that class the power of acquiring a know- ledge of their responsibility — a knowledge they can hardly, now, for want of means, be blamed for not possessing. Upwards, even with primary State Edu- cation, I would not venture to interfere. Secure solid, practical, primary Education for the millions com- prised within these classes, and I think you would destroy the social malaria which breeds infection. I would supply the moral arterial drainage, where needed ; but certainly would not, as Dr. Playfair wishes, aid a helpless, hopeless tenant with tillage. I cannot assent to your proposal — benevolent and praiseworthy as I may consider it — because I think it based on unsound economical views, apart, as I have tried to shew, from the question of incorrect facts and inferences. I object on no paltry grounds of economy, I would try a bolder and a broader scheme; and though it may not be so quickly promising and flattering in results, its progressive development would, I think, be formed on, and carried forward with those economical principles which seem, to my mind, to have taken root, and be rapidly extending them- selves over the surface of the globe. I look to com- mercial freedom as the civilizer of the world, providing cheap and regular means of sustenance, and the com- fort, without which neither religion nor letters can 31 take hold upon society. On these, I would try to engraft Education, teaching the three classes I have named at the cost of the State. This amount of instruction secured, the class above will, to keep their own position, earn and secure their own Education ; if not, they will fall into the State’s charge, and he returned again in another generation, educated and qualified for the higher position. I want to force each succeeding higher class, by necessity, by shame if you like, to educate themselves. Who else has a right to educate them ? They know the responsi- bility and the suffering, if neglected. You and I have no right whatever, I think, with the Education or opinions of the class immediately below us ; we should not think of interfering, nor would they allow it. So on downwards ; the interference, or the offer to pay, or pauperize, appears to me to be wrong and useless, till you come really to my third class in society. Secondary Education, then, is to my mind the de- mand which will arise safely and soundly, as the result of the primary; with it I hold the State ought not, from either political or practical necessity, to meddle. It would be but fair, after my free, (I hope not unfair or illnatured) criticism of your opinions, to give you mine, as to the practical means of working out my own views, — what I would do, directly, for pri- mary Education, and what I would not object to do for Art and Taste. I must confess the difficulty of defining how far I would go upwards gratuitously. To the Prison and 32 the Workhouse I would afford Protestant and Catholic Religious Instruction, as their inmates might require ; beyond that, I consider that Education should be purely secular. I remember your opinion — “ In respect to Primary Education , I need not state to this audi- ence, my own effort has invariably been to oppose, by every means in my power, and according to my strongest convictions, I shall perseveringly continue to do so, whatever attempts may be made to construct a National System of Education upon a merely Secular Basis. I have ever regarded, and do still regard the efforts which have been made, however well intended, to establish a General Sys- tem of Primary Secular Instruction, as wholly unjustifiable.’ ' In opposition to you, the conclusion I come to is this ; — I would let the State or the Municipality — I should infinitely prefer the former — supply Education in the very simplest form, and secularly only ; with ground, school-rooms, and teachers, to the class only just above paupers. I would invite the competition of sects to educate them in their religious belief; and I believe that no difficulty would then exist in persuading each sect to look after its own flock. If it could not be done from Christian motives, why the State, depend upon it, does not possess the power of doing it, otherwise than as hitherto, — teaching dogmas, rather than practical Christianity and love. I prefer State management to Municipal on these grounds: — I prefer paid actuaries or agents in all cases. A Government Department of Education, keeping out the religious difficulty, and limiting its power to the simple arterial supply and to 33 the examination and inspection, would yield no great field for jobbery ; and the appointments, as a whole, of Inspectors, would be as hitherto, I doubt not, good. The jealous eye of public inspection would be quickly upon all neiv departments ; it is the old ones, with vested rights, and venerable abuses — con- nected, too, with misapplied funds — which we cannot so readily reform. Take two counties first — our own as a manufacturing, and another as an agricultural one — as a trial ; let the State map them out, plant schools, one to so many of the population, for teaching only reading, writing, and arithmetic, and common sense on common matters, soundly and efficiently. Let this education be free to those who really could not other- wise obtain or afford it, but do not pauperize the class above by giving them what it is their duty to pay for. What I want then is to avoid pauperism and to create competition — to produce an healthy action, by draining the moral morass so as to fit it for culti- vation, and then leave it. Now, this merely executive moral police-work, I would prefer being done by the State. I do not think our municipalities, much less our county districts, supply the materials for Educational Boards. Restrict your Education within these practical limits, and it would be safely done by the State. My plea for free Education for my third class is this — Education is practically much more expensive to the lower class, than to any other. Take, for instance, a working man, with children, 14, 12, 34 11, 10 years of age, and so on; he will receive for himself, perhaps, as working wages, 20s. per week ; — his children of the respective ages I have named could certainly earn about half as much more. To send them to school, therefore, he sacrifices T26. per annum, even supposing he pays nothing. Does any other class in society make an equal sacrifice ? I believe not. The better tradesmen would not send their children out at all to work for wages, nor yet any class above them. What man of any class amongst us, I w r ould ask., relinquishes a third of his income, for any one period, for the Education of his family ? Now, suppose a working man educates only one child, he sacrifices T10. per annum in time and wages ; and does he not set an example worthy of imitation — more meritorious and self-sacrificing than is ever made by any one of us in the higher ranks, who should know more about the necessity and value of Education ? Seeing, then, such virtue at such cost, might we not admit that, if Education is to be paid for by the State, the lowest class — those who live by weekly labour, and whose families could add such important value to their wages — have a claim for all the Education the Legislature can bestow. We have a million agriculturists uneducated, and a million or two of other classes ; we may provide schools, tempt them by all possible means, and charge ever so little, one or two pence a week, but we should not get the tenth part of the number we should obtain by free admittance. 35 You may ask me to fix the scale of income below which I would give Education, and urge the difficulty of drawing a line. I would make the attempt; we do it for taxation. We enforce an Income-tax upon all incomes above <£100. per annum. I would give an Education to all the children of a working man, whose income did not exceed 20s. per week. I know the difficulties, and the claims for exemption, which exist with regard to the Income-tax. Many escape dis- honestly ; if the parent in the Education affair was dishonest, the State would suffer slightly, but the child would be benefitted. I trust you will not consider my scheme imprac- ticable or hopeless. If sound, your friendly criticism will do it no harm ; if unsound, you will, I am sure, try with continued zeal to substitute a better. Some- thing we urgently need, to educate those — the large mass after all — spread around us, with very little chance of any effectual moral or religious training, arising from detached voluntary efforts, however noble and persevering they may be, — producing bright spots, like cultivated patches on an Irish bog, to show what the whole might be. You will not suppose I undervalue private efforts ; there will still be every necessity for them, but in my opinion they are more adapted to forward secondary Education, which, after diffused primary Education, will not be so far above the demands of society. I will not more particularly allude to such an example as the one you lately witnessed given by a mutual E friend, eminently qualified by heart, head, and means, for the good work. A few words as to State assistance to the advance- ment of Art, Taste, and Public. Reading-rooms. I should be glad to see the State or our Corpora- tions, or both, open reading-rooms and libraries in every district, for the masses, strictly , — literally cheap, covered spaces, lighted and warmed. Out-door recre- ations and parks are very slightly adapted for our climate. I would add, also, large, simple, roomy halls, for statuary, paintings, and works of art — free at all times — exhibitions such as our people never see. Now what a treat would a free exhibition be in our own City, of the paintings and works of art possessed by many of our neighbours, in a room like the Free Trade Hall. Fifty thousand people would visit, ap- preciate, and benefit from it ; — not a sixpence of injury would be done ; and we should implant a taste for art which might produce in many a mind incalcu- lable effects. If the people could not appreciate high art, they would not visit such exhibitions ; but they never do fail to appreciate the good and the beautiful, when they have a chance of quietly viewing it, — if we tempt them, as we lead a child’s intellect, we shall surely succeed. To take men from the beer-house and the music saloon, we must first, as a step, try the coffee -room > the concert-room, and easy education by the eye; next the news-room and library, and so on to higher standards. We all make mistaken attempts. — we do 37 not begin low enough — do not secure a footing, — and so miss our object. In conclusion, let me admit I had no idea, when led into criticising your opinions on Trade Schools, and the necessity for them, of doing more than satis- fying myself as to the soundness of my own opinions, and trying to work them out in detail. I may fail to convince you, and perhaps some others of my col- leagues of the Council of the School of Design, with whom we have discussed the subject, of the correct- ness of my views : however, this will not lessen our efforts, each in his own way, to aid the means of diffusing a taste for Education, either primary or se- condary, in our various circles : if we do so zealously, time and experience will work into practice the true theory. ^ I remain, Dear Sir, Yours truly, EDMUND POTTER. Dinting Lodge, Glossop, February 15 th, 1854. Rev. Chas. Richson, M.A. J9hnson and Rawson, Printers. 89, Market Street. PRACTICAL OPINIONS AGAINST PARTNERSHIP WITH LIMITED LIABILITY, IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND, BY EDMUND POTTER. LONDON : JOHN CHAPMAN, KING WILLIAM ST., STRAND. MANCHESTER : JOHNSON AND RAWSON, 89, MARKET STREET, 1855. | ■ ; >n1> SSJS . PREFACE. The following Letter was printed about two months ago, chiefly for private circulation, with a view of promoting discussion, and explaining my practical opinions on the subject, more particularly to the friend who had sought for them. The question has since assumed great additional importance, from the fact of the Government having given notice of their intention to bring in a Bill, during the present session of Parliament, to alter the Laws of Partnership, and, I very much fear, conceding Limited Liability. I am equally fearful the measure will be carried, a majority of the House of Commons being supposed to be in its favour. The press, with its influence, is strongly so, for many reasons beyond some of those I have alluded to. The question is one vitally interesting to our commercial community on many grounds, and it is to be hoped it may not be hastily and lightly 4 legislated upon, without reference more particularly to its effects upon the currency ; in fact it would seem to merit a ventilation and discussion which, in the present aspect of parties it is hardly likely to obtain, unless some special effort he made for its postponement. The j Economist newspaper, which is supposed to shadow forth the intentions of the Cabinet on such questions, thus expresses itself on the 29 th January last, and says, in reference to partnerships, — “ The alter- ation we ask for is that of perfect freedom — permit all men to make all kinds of mutual contracts on any terms they like — and again, “ the more capital can he withdrawn from unproductive employment, and invested in those productive occupations, the more will the whole community prosper, and the better in the long run will it he for them and all other classes. The change in the law therefore, which, by permit- ting, encourages this — which removes one fetter more from industry — cannot be otherwise on the whole than beneficial.” The very fact of the Government seeking powers for permitting, and thus encouraging, a particular mode of trading; seeking to grant a permission which involves an immunity from responsibility (except for the 5 capital advanced), is, in itself, a startling announce- ment : and I must confess it is to my mind strangely puzzling, that it should he advocated in a paper hitherto professedly the organ of free trade opinions. It remains to be seen whether this change is a concession to the opinions of a calculated majority of the House of Commons, or whether it is intended to indicate a retrograde step in our commercial policy. I cannot conceive that, under any circum- stances, it can be right or politic to try to tempt the working of capital in a weaker and more speculative mode, by subdivision, and by granting its owners, when working in corporate bodies, irresponsibility beyond the amount subscribed. I cannot see that it can be just so to do, whilst in- dividual capital, working more economically, more efficiently, and therefore more beneficially for the country, is to be held entirely liable, jointly with the complete personal responsibility of its owners. If Limited Liability is to be conceded , I conceive it would be just to capital, and to individual owners, that such capital ought to be placed on the same footing as Joint Stock, in fact only liable for its own amount. Let A. B. give notice that he is going to trade with £5,000. in a particular concern, and for that amount only 6 ought that business to be liable ; thus you would re- move all restriction ; — refuse this, and you keep a restriction on individual capital, (but not on subdivided,) certainly not compatible with the Economist's theory of freedom in partnership. The Economist does not mince the matter, and if he speaks from authority, it would be well to inquire if we may expect like freedom of action in other respects. Are those who might think they could see a profit in it, to be allowed to issue onepoundnotes in payment of wages, upon giving special notice of such contract with their work-people ? It would merely be, I conceive, equal to the permission advocated “ to make all kinds of mutual contracts in any form the parties like ” ; or if general freedom be granted, why should not those of us who like it, pay our hands in flour or potatoes ? Why should the Truck Act, and its restrictions, be continued ? Why should we not be allowed to do as we like, provided we can agree with our own people ? Now as regards truck, may it not be safely affirmed, that it is cheaper for the country that we should have a sound, regulated metallic currency, for the payment of wages, and that it is better both for society, for master and man, that gold and silver should be used rather than meal and potatoes ; and is it not much better 7 that all should be equally dealt with, and that indi- viduals should be prevented, for the general good, from doing exactly as they might like with their potatoes and labour, as well as in partnerships ? My idea of sound Political Economy differs widely from that of some of my friends, whose opinions I should wish to respect, and certainly from the Economist’s proposition. I say, treat all capital alike (admitting exceptional cases in regard to charters), make it all responsible. You cannot do this, as I have stated, if you absolve one £5,000. because it is merely cut up into shares, and at the same time refuse like immunity because another £5,000. is worked by an individual. Admit both systems, and you hold out a premium to irresponsibility, you en- courage a moral cowardice, a shifting of risk, in contest with full fair responsibility ; not, at all events, consistent with my ideas of political and economical fairness. If it be necessary for the State’s good that immu- nity from responsibility should be granted ; if capital lies wasting, because idle, and the State cannot get cheaply supplied with commodities in consequence, why then private interest ought to yield ; but, surely, this ought first to be proved, as well as that associa- 8 tions possess the power of working and producing cheaper than individuals : surely this ought to be clearly shown before you try to depress and injure individual energy, by giving a premium to associations. It is with the earnest wish of forcing a full discussion on the various bearings of the question, that I am anxious to obtain support and circulation for the opinions I hold. EDMUND POTTER. Manchester, 12th April, 1855. A LETTER, &c. Dear Sir, We have discussed the question of Partnership with limited Liability. You ask me to give you my opinions in print, and you refer me to a clever article on the subject, reprinted from the West- minster Review. I will try, then, to state to you as plainly as I can, my opinions on the subject, and on the views expressed in that article. I am the more anxious to do so, as I find that I differ from many of my friends, besides yourself, whose opinions on various economical subjects have hitherto been in accordance with my own, and as I think you and they are jump- ing to a conclusion, and are anxious to try a dangerous experiment, without a full knowledge of the difficulties you would create, were their views and yours actually carried into practice. I do not pretend to quote my own experience, during many vicissitudes of trade for thirty years past, as superior to that of many, whose opinions I may nevertheless somewhat freely criticise. I have, how- ever, had the advantage beyond many, of a knowledge of the practical working of trade on a very large scale, 2 and in a market having at once, (I say this without fear of contradiction) the soundest circulating medium, the simplest contracts, and carrying on the most extensive dealings with the least litigation, and with unsur- passed credit and respectability. Now, if there he any exception to this estimate of mine, any deviation from its high standard during my experience, it will be found to be connected with the early introduction of the Joint Stock system of Banking amongst us. Previous to the war in which we are now most lamentably engaged, it was matter of congratulation and common remark, that no great leading question remained to embarrass or seriously divide the House of Commons. Education, Legal Reform, Sanitary Mea- sures, as well as this question of limited liability, seemed likely to be soundly and deliberately con- sidered. Now, alas ! the only question likely to ob- tain any decent attention, is the war. The House will be powerless for good on other matters, and the fear to my mind is that, by way of doing something, it may hastily and impulsively do wrong. One such hurtful step it had nearly taken last session, in its evident readiness to decide abruptly on the question we are now discussing. Few subjects require a calmer and deeper consider- ation than this; and yet the influence most active and powerful at present in its favour, is obtained through the lighter and more popular productions of the press, acting upon public opinion through its sympathies and feelings, rather than through its judgment. I 3 may instance in proof of this a quotation or two from Chambers’ Journal. I believe the opinions thus advo- cated to be the result chiefly of a benevolent wish to aid the working classes, under the idea of holding out a premium to forethought and saving ; there is, there- fore, the greater need that apopular practical exposition on the subject should be brought to bear against the almost unanimous opinion of the press, in order to expose its fallacy. The question ought not to be carried by sympathy, and by appeals to benevolence rather than to economical justice, any more than by what, I think, may be shewn to be practically unsound opinions. These latter may be met and refuted, but the impulsive and more dangerous benevolent, yet really selfish arguments, are not so easily dealt with. I use the word selfish, because I consider that benevo- lence may be so called, which would give a class as it were a privilege to escape from difficulties which ought to be met, like all others, by responsible action. The Times, The Examiner , The Manchester Examiner and Times, Chambers’ Journal, Household Words, The Westminster Review, and many other publications, as- sume that unlimited liability is an unfair restriction, and that a man ought to have the right to trade with his capital, under the avowed intention of sharing the whole profit, while only incurring a risk of partial loss, upon giving some special notice of this his left-handed intention to absolve himself, — and so to make the public liable for the remainder. Space does not allow me to give extracts from all these various opponents 4 of my own opinions. I will, however, quote, and that pretty freely, from the article reprinted from a late number of the Westminster Review* mainly because it embodies with considerable skill most of the argu- ments which I consider fallacious. Before, however, giving my opinion on the article in the Review , — your special request — I will venture to refer to a few of the attempts made to gain, by impulsive sympathy, what to my thinking, stern jus- stice and real benevolence ought to oppose. I find fault, then, with the manner in which the supposed claims of the working classes are urged, week after week, in pages of what I consider as mere sentiment, and unsound alike in argument and morality. The diffusion of such opinions would, I think, tend to make the workman hopeless and des- pondent. I do not suppose, however, that they have actually much effect on the working- classes, but they decidedly have on the class above them, by whom Chambers’ and Household Words are chiefly read. — They promote dissatisfaction by constantly re-echoing the cry for sympathy, and by craving for laws to promote institutional aids, rather than recommending, as the only safe guides, education, self-reliance, and moral responsibility. Now, no one can value more highly than I do the writings of Chambers and Dick- ens; the benefit they have already conferred, on many subjects, and their power for good, are incalculable. They furnish a large quantity of original matter, “ Partnership with Limited Liability , n — Jno. Chapman, London. 5 besides selections, generally sound and instructive, brief, and adapted to the weekly space they have to fill; such articles are eminently useful for the daily and weekly papers, suited for the scissors, and consequently find a ready and widely-extended circulation. Most of us are more ready to accept our opinions on political economy, for instance, ready cut and dried, and decided for us, than we are to work out, by our own thinking, questions of right and responsibility. Hence it is, I suppose, that the feelings and opinions of so many have been worked upon as regards this question ; it has been repeatedly enunciated, that limited liability would specially benefit the working classes, and others of narrow means, whereas those above them are sup- posed to need neither sympathy nor aid — or to be capable of seZ/-protection. Public opinion is easily led to the supposition that the better- doing class has more than its share, and ought, somehow or other, to be restricted or weighted, under the vague idea, that if it were to realize less, the working classes would earn more. As an example, take the following extract from an article in Cham- bers’, published in May last, entitled, “ Social Polar- isation.” This extract occurs in an article on the death of Mr. Justice Talfourd. It is, I admit, full of kind and generous feeling, but calculated to create what I deem an unsound and mischievous, because a clearly despondent feeling, in the mind of the work- ing man. “ The fact undoubtedly is, that some men rise from the condition 6 of operatives into that of masters, for some of our greatest manu- facturers are known to have been originally working-men. It is a possibility for some singularly constituted and happily circumstanced men thus to rise ; but it is not sufficiently easy to do so, and the examples do not tell upon the multitude. Once a man has fairly got into the capitalied and employing position, he obtains the benefit of that gale of antagonism, which continually works to the making the master’s little more, and if he possess real prudence and self- command, he probably ends in wealth. But below that point* there is continually blowing an equally powerful gale in the contrary direction. The ultimate divarication is startling. We contem- plate at this moment a family of clever, prudent men, who have risen from a lowly sphere to enormous wealth, and are now planting themselves in the superb halls and broad estates of the ancient gentry, while the armies of their workmen are generally so devoid of any tendency to make an economical use of their gams, that it is thought to be a real, though negative benefit to them, to be called upon to purchase the necessaries of life from stores established by their masters — establishments which, in themselves, yield the masters a handsome income. It is not merely a separation of conditions and sympathies which we have to deplore, hut a constantly widen- ing distinction in intellect, force of character, and morals. The masters, merely as human beings, become colossi ; the men are dwarfed. And how is it to be wondered at, when the former see every day how additional capital and additional character are the means of improving fortune, while the latter have neither any immediate use for saved money, nor any reason to think that their morals will in the smallest degree affect their prospects ? ” Now what should he the moral of the example of the masters who have so risen ; surely not that “ the raising society at one end depresses it at the other.” — I therefore dissent from the conclusion come to by the author of the article. “ No nostrums, we suspect, though facilities for small joint-stock 7 concerns among operatives may be admitted to be a hopeful means of somewhat correcting that reckless frame of mind in which so much of the evil subsists. The thing, to all appearance, will go on, on, on, perhaps with some occasional checking and correction, but on the whole stretching the paradox wider and wider, till either it cracks in terrific confusion, or some great prophet arises to give mankind a new direction and a better destiny.” The only hopes suggested are joint-stock concerns, and the chance of some great prophet arising, to give the people a new direction and a better destiny. I feel confident that sentiments like these, repeated in various publications, have powerfully swelled the cry for privileges to the working classes, in the shape of non-responsibility, and have only helped to generate an antagonism to the master, as if there had been some step or point in his progress, where he left his caste, and became an opponent, to keep down those whom he had quitted. How different the tone and moral of the following extract from the “ Times” of December 10th, 1853! “Let each man cease to recognise any insurmountable distinction between his employer and himself, and he may be assured that he will soon cease to think of the rights of labour in the interest of his increasing capital, and will leave the exhortations of orators, to feel a deeper excitement in ambition, and a warmer zeal in hope. A few only, indeed, might achieve greatness, but all would feel the benefit of attempting it. As it is, want of ambition is a great obstacle to the elevation of the working class* An acquaintance with physical comfort, and a determination to have it, insure some degree of exer- tion, but it is only that of routine ; the qualities necessary for great successes, — enterprise, and self-denial — are comparatively unknown. The idea which the workman attaches to the term 'labour’ is a proof 8 how confined are the notions entertained by his class. He expects great rewards for the performance of mere manual toil, requiring little thought and no invention. The higher qualities of the mas- ter’s exertions, the enterprise, the originality, the imagination, go for nothing. This, perhaps, may be expected from the great division of labour, which, if it produces vast effects, often deteriorates its instruments. The man has been all his life a part of a great machine, a sort of human spoke or winch ; and he cannot be expec- ted to have much conception of the laws which regulate the rewards of exertion, or to know that the difference between success and poverty is the difference between originality and routine. The com- forts of life are to be attained only by the exercise of qualities which all have not. The true reward is given to each man under the present system, and to quarrel with it is to question and defy laws which are unchangeable. The workman knows of himself that there are various kinds of labour, of value widely different, although the absolute toil may be the same. Employments may be agreeable, or the contrary; they may be permanent, or liable to interruption; they may be difficult or expensive, requiring a long apprenticeship and a considerable outlay; they may involve responsibility; success in some may be uncertain, health in others may be endangered; some may require activity and quickness, others taste and judgment. In all these, the relative value is determined by the rarity of the faculties required, and by the wants of society; and it should be the great endeavour of the workman to acquire that kind of labour which is most in demand — a course of proceeding similar to that of the manufacturer, who anticipates the wants and studies the tastes of his customers, and does not continue the production of what was fashionable twenty years back, and then declaim against society for declining to purchase what it does not want. It is the chief use of education to the workman, to teach him what kind of labour it will be best for him to have to offer, and where he may dispose of it to advantage. Ignorant populations are always on the brink of misery ; for not only is their unskilled labour almost worthless, but they are ignorant of where it is in request, and have not knowledge or self- dependence enough to shift their abode, and offer it where the price 9 would be remuerative. Let the operatives apply the laws which regulate the difference of their own wages to the case of their masters, and they will generally find that the remuneration which he receives is not more than skill, enterprise, and the risk of invested capital will justify.” Without dwelling further on what I believe to be the fact,— that the public mind has been led much farther by feeling than judgment, — I will now try to examine, somewhat in detail, the arguments of your friend in the Westminster Review. He refers to “the mind wandering over the catalogue of the various forms of association, which are recog- nized in this country.” — I think we need only confine our arguments to two forms of Partnership, limited and unlimited, responsible and non-responsible. My idea of Partnership is, that it means a union of capital with labour as a means of profit, and that it involves unlimited pecuniary and moral responsibility. The Partnership asked for with limited liability, is sought as a means of profit without pecuniary and moral res- ponsibility, except to a limited degree, viz: — the amount of the capital embarked. I do not find that this limited liability is sought to be extended to all capitals. Two individuals are not to act together as partners, one being responsible, and the other not ; hut it is asked that, in a firm wielding the same capi- tal, two partners alone should he responsible, and that all the others should be limited in their risk to the amount each has advanced, nay, that they should even share the full profit. 10 The Keviewer, speaking of the laws of partnership, (page 8) says, “The perplexing diversities of the law affecting different associa- tions, are undoubtedly impediments to commercial pursuits, but they are far less mischievous and restrictive of commercial activity than a vicious principle, or the vicious application of a good one. And the one or the other is to he found in the doctrine of unlimited liability, which prevails in the law of partnership. Its influence in such a country as this is so important, that public attention cannot be too earnestly directed to it. It seems, indeed, almost marvellous, that commerce should have been successfully carried on under a law so discouraging to its prosecution; and, still more, that a nation so hampered should have attained to that material prosperity which England has reached. The secret of its success, however, lies partly in that indomitable spirit which has enabled its people to triumph over even more formidable obstacles than defective institu- tions, but still more in the frequent invasions which have been •made upon the law. Had this been inflexibly maintained in all its integrity, either the country would not now possess many of those sources of wealth which it now enjoys, or some indirect means of undermining the law must have been resorted to, in order to meet the requirements of society — possibly by the machinery of some imperium in imperio , like the Court of Chancery, which sprang out of the necessity of bending the feudal law to the wants of a later age- I will not as yet discuss tlie benefit of Joint-stock Companies, and the good they are said to have done to society, but I would ask whether the high moral character of all our commercial transactions, together with the securities of our industry and prudence, in fact the complete responsibility, moral and pecuniary, of our commercial men to each other and the world, have not had a most potent influence on our success? 11 Now it would be the last argument I would use against all change, that a majority of us had done well, and that therefore we had better let well alone. There are millions amongst us far, below the standard of com- fort and education which you and I would wish them to attain to. But I hold the opinion, that we owe the progress of the last twenty-four years entirely to that sound legislation, which began with the Reform Bill, (or perhaps Peel’s Currency Bill) and ended with Mr. Gladstone’s last measures; at all events we have speeded fast enough, to glut , temporarily, I believe, every known market with our cottons and woollens. The Reviewer says, (page 12), “The consequences of this state of the law have been proved by a multitude of competent, honest, and disinterested witnesses, to be very injurious to several classes of the community.” First in reference to the working classes, (page 18,) he observes, “Upon the working classes the law bears quite as hardly. The capitalist may reasonably complain of being driven to less profitable investments; — the clerk may justly grumble against a system which deprives him of the means of advancement ; — but the labouring man is surely entitled to curse a law which not only defeats schemes undertaken by the wealthy for his improvement and comfort, and checks the demand for his labour, by impeding the formation of associations among the rich, but renders it impossible for him to apply his own humble savings in a manner which will not only bring him commercial profit, but will tend to improve his individual cha- racter, and elevate his social position. This plain right is fully enjoyed in America.” I reserve my opinion as to America for a future page. 12 Now as regards the law which prevents partnerships, (except with charters or acts of parliament,) of limited responsibility, and which the Reviewer thinks the working-man is entitled to curse, we will suppose the working-man, in this case, to mean one who has week- ly wages, who is thrifty and accumulates, and thinks himself injured in not being allowed to carry on, for instance, a cotton factory, with the privilege of ex- emption from any loss beyond the money-capital he puts into it. He asks a privilege not to he allowed to the private trader. Take his case, — he is a cotton spinner, with a mill, and £5,000. capital; he is legally responsible with his entire property, for all his debts and transactions. We will suppose him to employ 100 hands: — well, 50 of these hands, whilst in liis employ, with their savings, or such amounts as they can persuade their neighbours to contribute, raise £5,000. Suppose the law to be altered, and limited liability granted, and that they — seeking to work a mill of equal power with that of their employer, ■ — find, to conduct the concern, a managing partner or two, who need hold only a very small share of the capital, perhaps only one-fiftieth. These are the only two fully liable with all their property, if they have any beyond their share. They are paid by salary, and a proportionate share of the profits. Now if their master have a million beyond his £5,000. capital, he is liable for every penny of it. But if the shareholders get a man or two of capital amongst them, and their property altogether be a million, they are not 13 liable for one penny beyond the paid-up capital of <£5,000. and what may belong to the conductors. I may ask, if it be a hardship to their master to be subjected to so manifestly unfair a competition*of capital from his own servants, aided by capitalists, is it not degrading for the men and others to seek so unfair a privilege ? Nay, if such a privilege were granted, would there be any semblance of unfair- ness in a master requiring from his hands an under- taking that he had their entire services, and that they had no opposing interests to which his experience and trade customs were to be devoted. But supposing that Joint-stock concerns, with this limited liability, were, legalized, does any one with practical experience on the subject suppose, that with the rate of profit obtained under the present competi- tion in the cotton trade, any concern could pay with the inferior management of a Joint-stock company, seeing that it has to compete with the better worked private establishment. I venture to affirm as a fact, that an increased extension of Joint-stock manage- ment, more particularly in small establishments, would render them valueless as an investment. For instance, if the advocates of limited liability mean anything, they mean to increase the competition in trade — the cotton trade, if you will. They build two- mills where we have now one, to double production — they want to use the dormant capital more actively — they want a better rate of interest for it. Surely greater production would increase the competition. 14 Could the new, inexperienced Joint-stock company, keep pace with the establishment of the individual master- employer ? — would both pay ? — would either ? — are rather solemn questions. The one has the paid-for working experience which time only can realize; the Joint-stock company has it to purchase. Now all this gaining of experience, and its consequent cost, would fall mainly upon the shareholders to the extent of their capital, (which some of us might not think unfair,) but beyond this the country must pay for the loss on their experiments. Is, then, a forced and more rapid development of production desirable, carrying as it would along with it a reduc- tion in the rate of profit, and involving an increased expenditure of capital, and a reduction of wages? Truly, the workman’s curse, if not the country’s, would be most likely to fall on those who suggested to him to ask for a profit, without earning it by fair and honest responsibility. We are told that limited liability is specially asked for, in order to induce the working-classes to save, by providing them with a profitable means of investment. Now, with some knowledge of the working-classes, I would venture to affirm that it is not the question of liability which deters them from saving, and making experiments in trade. They have long tried a variety of schemes — co-operation stores, clubs of all sorts, building and other associations, which have not an- swered ; why then should schemes of a bolder kind, more doubtful because bolder, answer, with the infinitely 15 greater competition of limited liability, and infinitely less moral responsibility ? The excitement and interest of commercial adventure would not, I believe, lead them to save. The saving man amongst the working- classes is prudent and thrifty; and the hard shilling or two per week, saved with difficulty, would not be entrusted to a mere learner of the business that he hopes to profit by, and would not be advanced to meet the competition of the more cheaply-worked, because private establishment. It is a fallacy to sup- pose that limited liability could benefit the small working-class capitalist; it would lead him into error. The larger capitalist has infinitely more knowledge, earned by the experience by which he has gained his means — he would take all the best and safest investments, and leave his less able and less informed competitors with the worst. You know me to be the earnest advocate of edu- cation : I wish every working man so educated as to understand his own position, to be ambitious to improve, to know that brain and industry alone can aid him, and to feel that his reward must be appor- tioned to his talent, that so he might acquire an interest in his labour. It appears to me that it is the want of a correct knowledge of their true interest and rights, which prevents the working class feeling a proper interest in their employment, and which so far unfits them for working together in any joint-stock partnership. They cannot measure their own relative value. Neither a domestic household nor a mill can 16 answer, conducted as a republic; but that mutual respect and kindly feeling which are the growth of the first, may spring up and bear fruit in the manage- ment of the second. Pursuing, then, briefly, the question of the practi- cability of profitably working Joint-stock establish- ments by the working classes, nothing can be more absurd to the thought of parties like myself, than the idea of conducting any concern, where the workers are all, or in great part, partners or shareholders. Instead of the theory that each has an interest working for good to all, a feeling of jealousy would be created; each would regard his fellow-workman with a master’s eye, measuring the quantity and quality of his work, constantly sitting in judgment on his neighbour’s value as a workman, with little benefit truly to his own producing power. In fact, suspicious watch- fulness would interrupt that continuous industry which the master now takes care to insure, and which, in fact, a master only can secure or esti- mate. A workman ought to have no other care than the simple discharge of the duties named in his contract; if he fulfils these honestly, he performs his duty to himself and his employer. I believe that the substitution of Joint-stock working amongst hands, (supposing it at all practicable) with itsjealousies and consultations, and the want of a ruling, decisive power, to meet questions hourly arising, would be a ten-fold greater mischief even than the evils of strikes, to the hands themselves. They, wanting knowledge, — 17 a want not to be supplied, except by a very slow process, as it were, the work of a generation, — would be influenced by feeling, led by others below the average even of themselves in real worth, in a contest with practised and successful individual energy. You will tell me these difficulties would be smoothed, — would be provided for by law, by rules and regu- lations, arbitrary and binding on the partners, — you will not say they would be simplified. Only fancy the rules for working Joint-stock companies with capitals of from £50. to <£5000., varying to suit various trades. Why the very necessity for such laws, their voluminous- ness, and the endless life-long squabbles inseparable from the interpretation of them, — all this, and their various measures of responsibility, would be quite enough to destroy at once the even working of one half the trade. No wonder lawyers hail the prospect of a change in our partnership laws ! The opinions given by them in reply to the queries of the Mercantile Law Commissioners, were 20 in favour of limited liability, and 3 only in opposition to it. Examining further the question as regards the working classes, I take an opposite extract from the Reviewer, (page 35,) “The country is already enterprising enough, suggests Mr. J. A. Smith; the proposed change would encourage speculations, and present a temptation to the working classes to engage in trade. ‘It would induce parties,’ says Mr. Cotton, ‘to advance their money without due caution for speculative schemes and speculative busi- nesses.’ ‘ It seems to me,’ says Mr. B. Kerr, ‘ that commercial under- takings would be the very worst mode in which the capital of the B 18 middle and working classes could be invested;’ and he elsewhere expresses a strong objection to ‘letting loose anew element of fraud and reckless speculation, and to allow it to be introduced in small doses, so as to fit the means of the humble.’ ” My experience leads me fully to concur in these opinions, and I believe that if the present work- ing of the various clubs of all sorts, Joint-stocks, &c., could be laid open, it would exhibit, — as almost every country attorney or county magistrate can attest from the experience he has obtained, — such an insight into their conduct or management, as would prove that an irresistible temptation to fraud is always held out, when parties are entrusted with capital beyond what they have been accustomed to, and which they have neither the moral responsibility nor education to cope with. Small Joint-stocks, then, amongst the working clas- ses, would open the door, as Mr. Bellenden Kerr observes most justly, “to new elements of fraud and reckless speculation in small doses, so as to fit the means of the humble.” Mr. Slaney, late M. P. for Shrewsbury, whose benevolent intentions with regard to the working classes during a long period none can doubt, says in the Mercantile Law Report on the law of partnership, “Many people, especially workmen, believe capitalists, by their virtual monopoly, make too large profits, and that workmen’s wages are too low : hence strikes and much distress. The truth of this opinion can only be tested by experiments with combined capital, the ex- 19 perience derived from such trials, peaceably conducted, would be valuable to all, correct mistakes, and lessen discontent.” Now, to my mind, this brief opinion bears with it a wrong inference, and suggests an unsound mode of testing the question. Why not inquire into the fact, as to the existence of a virtual monopoly? The capitalist who has worked his way up to his position by intelligence and industry, found no monopoly to bar his progress; difficulties he met with and surmounted; he was paid for his labour, step by step in his upward progress, at its current value ; and when in his turn, he became a purchaser, he paid those following him up the ladder on the same terms. To my thinking, there is no restriction here, and how the term monopoly could be applied to it I never could conceive. I know nothing which more readily tends to create discontent and despondency, than this con- stant hinting that the rewards of successful industry and capital are too large, and ought to he divided on some socialistic principle. The remedy suggested, “ that experiments with combined capital should he tried, which would he valuable to all, correct mistakes and lessen discontent,” ought to my mind to he made at the cost and full liability of those making them — not at the risk of the community, for the profit of a com- pany securing themselves by limited liability. The very term “ experiments,” suggests the speculative character of the expedient to be tried; — such experi- ments must damage the steady, responsible trader. For the opinion of the operatives, and the class of 20 experiments they might try, take the following extract from the Review, page 61. — “ The operatives have learned from the middle class what vast works may be accomplished, and what countless wealth may be ac- quired, by combination ; and as the laws surround every healthy plan of co-operation with danger and difficulty, they believe that they can carry into effect among themselves the joint-stock prin- ciple, only by the realization of the fantastic, the mischievous, the impossible designs of dreamers and fanatics.” The Reviewer quotes frequently from a pamphlet by Mr. Field, in support of limited liability. * That gentleman’s opinions seem to spring from kind feelings towards the working-class, and are com- bined with much legal research on the subject, but, (if I may be allowed the remark,) with curious economical opinions, and 'with very little prac- tical knowledge of the probable working of Joint- stock companies, such as he advocates. He puts faith in legislation. I have admitted how much we owe to expansive legislation, to the removal of monopolies — real monopolies — privileges without re- sponsibility, held by classes. He, like myself, has aided in these measures, and they have certainly worked to the attaining of freedom, but in no case to the at- tainment of it without responsibility. I cannot conceive of the soundness of any measures which take away this ; my object would be to give the largest possible increase of knowledge — to promote cheap- * “ Observations of a Solicitor on the Right of the Public to form Limited Liability Partnerships, &c.” by Edwd. Wilkins Field. 21 ness and comfort, — but never to admit limited liability, moral or pecuniary, except in classes without the pale of society, and within the custody of the law. Mr. Field says, “ A fragment of truth I believe to form the nucleus of all the co-operation, socialistic, and Fourrier theories; and to be the real spirit of vi- tality in our workmen’s strikes and their trade unions ; and I believe that this spirit is to be extended only by true legislation on the subject between us.” Now the legislation, as far as I can gather from the pamphlet itself, seems to me to consist in the claim for limited liability, as something due to the workman — as a privilege and protection for his weakness. “ I have,” says he, “claimed freedom of action and com- bination for the small capitalist against the great one, as a matter of right and justice.” Mr. Field infers injustice, natural injustice on the part of the large capitalist: neither he, nor any other of the numerous supporters of the small capitalist, adduces any facts to shew, at what point of capitalization this power of injustice, or feeling of antagonism commences. Does it begin with the nailmaker capitalist, who employs one journeyman and an apprentice? or with the farmer capitalist who employs ten labourers, or with the cot- ton-spinner who employs a hundred hands, or with the iron-master who employs a thousand ? I have had long practical experience on this subject, which I believe neither Mr. Field nor the Reviewer has had, and I must confess I cannot remember realising in any position of life, the idea that there existed 22 any antagonistic bar to progress, created by capital. One experience always remained strongly impressed on my mind, — that knowledge and perseverance alone could give power; and this conviction I have ever found strongest in the minds of those whom you and I most respect for their talents and benevolence, amongst our trading community. I have given you my idea of the impracticability of the working of Joint-stock Companies by the operative classes ; and you will admit that if unsuccessful, it would hardly increase harmony between the classes. I would next consider the benefits affirmed as likely to result to the classes above the workman, by the privilege they would obtain by gaining modes of invest- ment with a better rate of interest. Why, the very announcement that a Bill for allowing partnerships with limited liability had passed the House of Com- mons, and that it was intended to raise the value of money, and rate of interest, by offering such induce- ments for trading, would cause just such an excite- ment in every quiet country town, as the railway fever did a few years ago, and would create a much greater amount of misery, by the forced extension of every trade, from brewing and baking to ship-building, &c., besides the creation of numbers of trades no rational responsible capitalist would now dream of. One of the writers in favour of limited liability* ascribes the mischiefs of railway speculation, to the want of power to extend it to other classes of trades. The fever * Lord Hobart. 23 might not have raged so high in railways, but one more epidemic, and more disastrous, would have spread over the face of the land, and it is the prospect of such a disease that this promised limited liability holds out to my mind. Bear with me while I draw a picture of what might be its operation in a single well-doing and prosperous town. I wall not take an imaginary town like Coketown, but we will take Bur- ton for instance. I shall not be considered personal, because I do not know a single individual therein. Some fine morning, then, the news reaches Burton, that they who like may establish a brewery on the limited liability principle, for the compounding of ale as good as Bass’s or Allsop’s, and that they may try to do this, if they can, with no other risk than the loss of a few ten-pound shares, and with visions of profit to the full extent of what they suppose Messrs. Bass and Allsop to realize. Well, no doubt, Burton has some clever attorney, a young man not overdone with practice, who has an eye to his own interest. He draws up a prospectus — capital so much — profit so much per cent., — risk, loss of share only, — (non- liability will he printed in very large type). He finds a chairman, a man of high character, a land- owner with perhaps no capital to spare, but who may have land and water to dispose of on very liberal terms. These latter have been secured , subject to the appro- bation, of course, of the Provisional Directors. Our attorney looks out for a Secretary and a Manager, well skilled, no doubt. Perhaps their recommendations u may be, that they have filled some situation with one of the successful firms, and therefore must be well qualified to produce, with the aid of improved ma- chinery, &c. &c., far better and cheaper ales. Then follows the allotment of shares, for which applications are to be made to the secretary, a few having been granted and a few reserved, &c. If these applications alone, such as they would be, could be laid open, published, thought and moralised upon, they would present such a picture of infatuation on one side the glass, and of deep misery, wretchedness, and desti- tution on the other, as their natural result, as would scare the advocates of limited liability from ever again dreaming of trying to persuade themselves and others, that there was a royal road to profit, any more than to learning. Fancy some of these applications. First, the widow with narrow income, arising from a good mortgage, living quietly and res- pectably, wishes to mend her income. She risks what she can ill afford. Surely if Mr. Bass has made such profit, she shall, now that this law has come into force, she modestly prays, get ten per cent, for her money ; she applies for shares, and gives up her solid security. Next comes the clergyman, or schoolmaster, or the doctor with his hard earnings, — goodness knows generally hardly enough obtained, — the homely, un- ambitious, and virtuous course of whose lives, has perhaps not hitherto given them much of that talent most fitted, in this competitive world, to secure wealth. However, they are confiding and hopeful; they see 25 what Messrs. Bass and Allsop have done — they have enjoyed the ale as most of us have, and have every confidence that the new Brewery will convey an equal amount of comfort to themselves and the world at large. Another class of applicants would still remain, viz., the shopkeeping class : — they, as in the great railway fever, would be found to furnish capital, not their own perhaps, but drawn from the credit obtained by them in their legitimate business, — and thus a double mischief would ensue, — they would cripple a trade wherein they had perhaps a prosperous establishment, to start a new one of more than questionable risk. We suppose, then, the share list made up; the brewery built — largely and expensively — handsomely, and with every convenience. — But all this preparation is before demand, and the working experience (always expensive) having to be gained, the article first made will naturally be inferior, much inferior, to Bass and Co’s. — It must therefore be sold cheap, sweet or sour; and credit and every artifice tried to force it into consumption. Well, the Company struggles on, — loss succeeds loss inevitably, — managers, directors, interest, rents, and I was going to say dividends, must be paid. The latter would be paid, perhaps, to keep up the price of shares, hope, and temper, and must come out of capital. Depreci- ation of works, anything and everything would be postponed for this purpose — self-deception would supersede the honest decision a private individual uses in his own concern, and a very few years would show c 26 our Brewery at a discount of 60, 60, or 70 per cent. One point we have slightly touched upon ; supposing the beer to he pretty fair, and the experience moderately gained — where is the demand to come from, unless stimulated by lower prices? Were there consumption for more beer at a profit, would not Bass and others, with their means and experience, see it and provide for it first? Perhaps they have done so ? But the picture I have drawn is hardly complete; would not the very fact of one Brewery apparently answering at Burton tempt a few more Companies? — nay, it is hardly likely that if money were found so easily to pay attorneys, managers, &c., that opposing members of the same class would not unite to share the profits of a rival Brewery or two. This would be the inevitable and immediate result, — every body in Burton, — shop- keepers, landowners, labourers — every class would, by excitement and expenditure, apparently grow rich upon the prospects. Bass and Co., Allsop and Co., and the private brewers alone would be thoughtful, and they would be most seriously injured. The result would he millions of gallons of ale brewed, extra, and for whom? — hardly for Bass and Co’s, customers, they are supplied, — for new markets, new customers, to be found. Well, here the dream would end, and the misery begin — the farce of supply before demand would be turned into a tragedy, and the ignorant and thought- less, though hopeful andrespectable class I have alluded to as shareholders, would learn that the tempting capital into a channel already naturally full — can only entail 27 a loss, which the new comers must bear the most heavily. Task your own recollection of the railway fever — where there was the bar of getting an Act, — the wholesome process of a Parliamentary Committee, with, perhaps, the salutary restriction of cost, — and say, if my picture is overdrawn. Why, it would spread like contagion over the land, its very madness recreative in power. It would raise the prices of shares in every absurd scheme floated by the class of speculators, who had never succeeded by the honest, practical appli- cation of their talent, in sober competition. Stoke would have a dozen new potteries ; Nottingham and Leicester would double their preparations for lace and stockings; Coventry for ribbons. The Iron and the Cotton Trade would he the least touched, because I think in these districts that there is a more general knowledge of business, and a clearer insight into the difficulties of sale. But every wealthy, intelligent, hard-working capitalist in the kingdom, who had been successful by the honest and responsible application of his talents and capital, and been justly rewarded by success, would have his trade competed for by Joint Stock Companies, of the class I have suggested. He could keep his ground against a fair competition, — is not that competition sufficient now to keep his profits from being excessive, and to secure the com- munity a cheap supply ? Now, who would benefit by this unwholesome com- petition ? Clearly not the competing shareholders of 28 the present generation. Would the country profit by the wholesale loss which the increase of establishments would cause ? The railroad fever caused a rapid expenditure of 300 millions of capital. Limited liabil- ity, if granted, would create a similar impulsive mad- ness, with, I believe, a similar result of loss, with- out the benefit. And yet this wreck of property is not to be compared to the moral evil that would be produced by the measure, with the loss to the country, probably, of one third; for the two thirds are perhaps as much as the railways are now worth. They were, however, a supply of a new power, creating its own demand. It would seem almost needless to canvass the claims of other classes to limited liability, but one or two appeals are made in the Westminster Review, — in behalf of classes really sufficiently well educated and placed to be fully able to attend most faithfully to their own interests, to compete in the open field manfully and safely, — which require noticing. One naturally shrinks from repressing a kind, chari- table feeling, and I may appear to do so, in urging what are often named cold-blooded economical doctrines; but I believe the truest humanity and kindness exists in the most perfect assertion of right, — in fact, of justice to all parties. I quote from the Westminster, (page 15,) a pro- position by the late G. R. Porter. “ If, in place of simply lending money to a. trading concern, to receive a fixed rate of interest, the law allowed of the embarking of 29 any given sum in the same as a partner, drawing a proportionate share of the gains, it is scarcely to be doubted that many would do so. And it would not be simply with the object of gain to himself that a man would do this, although doubtless that object would be a leading one. He would often be desirous of combining with his own gain the probable success in life of some relative or friend, in whose ability and character he might see reason to place confidence, and over whose conduct in life he would thus acquire a right and motive for watching.” Now if there ever was a man who could, by his benevolence of heart, allied to clearness of intellect, give warmth to a cold economical doctrine, it was the friend whose words I quote ; and yet Mr. Porter seems to me to place the weight of friendship and kindness, as the secondary influence, and the one he would have been the last to admit to the injury of the general weal. The question to my mind should be, has the capitalist any claim for protection in the enjoyment of his benevolence ? Whilst secure from risk, and taking the chance of profit, surely the benevolence of the friend would exhibit itself most nobly in being content with five per cent. Such instances are not rare ; few there are that have struggled up- wards in life, with good moral reputation, that would not admit how much they have owed to such help, and make, at the same time, the acknowledgment, that they had found friends content with simple interest. One more rather lengthy extract from the West- minster, on the point we are specially considering, viz. : the benefit to clerks, inventors, and others of that class. 30 44 In dealing with the evil consequences of the existing law, we have incidentally noticed many of the advantages which might be expected to result from the introduction of the system of limited liability into our law. It is obvious that capitalists would be bene- fited by it, as it would enlarge the field for the employment of money. But those who would chiefly profit by it are, undoubtedly, clerks, junior partners, inventors, poor relations, needy friends and dependents, and others, whom rich men, influenced by mixed motives of self-interest and kindness, would readily assist when they knew that they might do so with effect to the objects of their friendly interest, and without unfathomable risk to themselves. Mr. J. S. Mill, after assenting to the proposition that the system if introduced with proper regulations and safeguards, would give additional facilities for enterprises directed by intelligence, and create additional facilities for the investments of the middle and working classes, adds ; 4 Above all, which is very important, it would enable personal qualities to obtain in a greater degree than they can now, the advantages which the use and aid of capital affords. It would enable persons of recognised integrity and capacity for busi- ness to obtain credit, and to share more freely in the advantages which are now confined in a great degree to those who have capital of their own.’ 4 It encourages industrious habits,’ says Mr. Leone Levi, 4 and besides, it contributes to maintain a floating capital. ’ Mr. Townsend, with whom Mr. Davies appears to agree, thinks that it has a tendency to check rash speculation, and to facilitate useful and cautious enterprise. ‘ I think,’ says Mr. James Stewart, 4 it would be the means of bringing together two great classes, the class which has capital, of which we know there is a very great superabundance in this country, and the class which consists of active, clever, and enterprising men who have not always capital, I think an alteration of the law in this respect would have a bene- ficial effect in bringing those two classes together.” “ It would be the means of bringing together, ” says Mr. Stewart, “ two great classes, the class which has 31 capital, of which we know there is a very great superabundance in this country, and the class which consists of active, clever, and enterprising men, who have not always capital.” The simple answer to this, it would appear to me, to be a very plain inquiry. Would not these two classes, not ignorant of each other’s wants and objects, speedily associate together, if there was a demand for the products of such union 1 The already established trader will not submit without a struggle for his ground, is it likely there will he an increased demand sufficient to pay for both capitals ? And is it for the general welfare that this extension of trade should be so tempted ? for if limited liability carries a profit with it, you inevitably force all capital into that mode of trade. The Reviewer says, “ it would enlarge the field for the employment of money.” Surely this is unsound — if the mere bringing of capital and talent together would enlarge the field, — how is it that capital is so cheap ? Why is money lent at three, four, or five per cent. ? I refer to the period previous to the war, and such a period as would occur again, if we were at peace, and again prosperous. Why, with capital, experience, and knowledge ready at hand, do not our manufacturing capitalists double or treble their production ? My reply would be because they know it will not pay so to do, because they do not anticipate demand, they meet it cautiously, rather than reduce profit to loss by over-supplying, — in fact, they are responsible and prudent. If, as is supposed and infer- 32 red, the mere expansion of trade brought profit, that expansion might immediately take place simply by a return to an enlarged paper currency, the issue of one pound notes ; — do the advocates of limited liability mean or wish that ? One fact is certain, and to my mind a most suspicious fact it is, that the doctrine of limited liability will have the entire support of all the paper-currency school, as a step towards their opinions. Depend upon it, that next to the benevo- lent class, whom I have referred to in my first pages, with a view to show that their kindness of heart had outrun their economical prudence, the most earnest supporters of limited liability would be the party for- merly led by the Birmingham School. You will infer that I do not think the limited liability scheme would conduce to cheapness generally; far from it (except by the misery and immediate loss it would occasion by forcing an over-supply.) Let us test a few of the arguments set forth in favour of limited liability on econom ical grounds ; and here I cannot help being struck with the very slight attempt the Reviewer makes to produce such arguments in its favour. He shelters himself under a long extract, from a high authority certainly, containing in my opinion, some of the strangest practical advice, as to a mode of economical working, I have ever met with. “ But the impolicy of the present law in an economical point of view, is quite as striking as its injustice. This was admirably shown by Mr. J, Stuart Mill, in his evidence before the committee of 1850 : — ‘I think,’ says Mr. Mill, ‘ there is no way in which the working classes can make so beneficial a use of their savings, both to them, selves and to society, as by the formation of associations to carry on the business with which they are acquainted, and in which they are themselves engaged as workpeople, provided always that experience should show that these associations can keep together. If the experiment should succeed, I think there is much more advantage to be gained to the working classes by this than by any other mode of investing their savings. I do not speak of political or social considerations, but in a purely economical sense. When it has happened to any one — as it must have happened to most people — to have inquired, or to have known in particular cases, what portion of the price paid at a shop for an article really goes to the person who made it, and forms his remuneration, I think any one who has had occasion to make inquiries into that fact, must often have been astonished to find how small it is, and how much less a proportion the remuneration of the real labourer bears to the whole price, than would be supposed beforehand ; and it is of great importance to consider what is the cause of this. Now, one thing is very impor- tant to remember in itself, and it is important that the working classes should be aware of it ; and that is, that this does not arise from the extravagant remuneration of capital. Capital, when the security is good, can be borrowed in any quantity at little more than three per cent. ; and I imagine there is no co-operative association of working people who would find it their interest to allow less than that remuneration, as an inducement to any of their members, who, instead of consuming their share of the proceeds, might choose to save it, and add it to the capital of the association. Therefore, it is not from the remuneration of capital that the evil proceeds. I think it proceeds from two causes-^one of them (which does not fall strictly within the limits of the inquiry which the committee is carrying on) is the very great, I may say, extravagant portion of the whole produce of the community, that now goes to mere distribu- tors ; the immense amount that is taken up by the different classes of dealers, and especially by retailers. Competition, no doubt, has some tendency to reduce this rate of remuneration ; still I am afraid that, in most cases, looking at it on the whole, the effect of D 34 competition is, as in the case of the fees of professional people, rather to divide the amount among a larger number, and so dimi- nish the share of each, than to lower the scale of what is obtained by the class generally. Another cause, more immediately con- nected with the present inquiry, is the difference between interest, which is low, and profits, which are high. Writers have very often set down all which is not interest, all that portion of profit which is in excess of interest, as the wages of superintendence, as Adam Smith terms it, and, in one point of view, it is properly called so. But then it should be added, that the wages of the labour of super- intendence are not regulated like other wages, by demand and supply, but are in reality the subject of a sort of monopoly; because the management of the capital is a thing which no person can com- mand except the person who has capital of his own ; and therefore he is able, if he has a large capital, to obtain, in addition to interest, often a very large profit, for one-tenth part of which he could, and very often does, engage the services of some competent person to transact the whole of the labour of management, which would other- wise devolve upon himself. I do not say that this is unjust in the present state of society, for it is a necessary consequence of the law of property, and must exist while that law exists in its present form. But it is very natural that the working classes should wish to try whether they could not contrive to get this portion of the produce of their labour for themselves, so that the whole of the proceeds of an enterprise in which they were engaged might be theirs, after deducting the real remuneration of the capital they may require from others, which we know does not in general, when the security is good, much exceed three per cent. This seems to be an extremely legitimate purpose on the part of the working classes, and one that it would be desirable to carry out if it could be effected ; so that the enterprises in which they would be engaged would not be conducted, as they are now, by a capitalist, hiring labourers as he wants them, but by the labourers themselves, mental as well as manual, hiring the capital they require, at the market rate.’ ” Assuredly no one will disagree with Mr. Mill, as to 35 the extreme desirableness of working men “ forming associations to carry on businesses with which they acquainted,” if both are to be responsible for their enterprises — but why seek for a privilege which shall lower the moral standard, I have asked before? Now really if Mr. Mill’s opinions mean anything, they appear to me to evince a desire to alter, by some undefined mode, the rate of distributed remune- ration of different classes in society; to take part from the workers with brain, and give to the manual labourer (Mr. Mill’s real labourer, I presume) some- thing he does not now earn, after deducting the real remuneration of the capital he may have borrowed from others, “which” he says, “we know does not in general, when the security is good, much exceed three per cent.” Truly, if the capitalist was to lend money to the real workers, who are to swamp one or two of these classes furnishing the brains, in the hope of being paid for that class of work, he would want I fancy some better security than even limited liability would afford. Perfectly legitimate the proposal, if the capital can be found , — liable to all the conse- quences as it ought to be, for the mischief it would create to others, beyond the capitalist and workers, in such an economical saving of labour. Is it right ? — can it be beneficial to suggest to the working classes, that we have all been working in error, and to lead them to fancy that some alteration in the laws of partnership may give the ignorant, though hard worker more, and the more intelligent less ? In another shape Mr. Mill’s arguments appear to me to he precisely those of the Preston Turnouts ; they asked for a different law for themselves, as the working classes; in fact for a larger fixed division, to obtain which some other class must be depressed. Perhaps it would he better to define where working begins, and where it ends. Your friend the Reviewer seems to me almost to shirk the economical part of the question, except in the extract from Mr. Mill. One would have thought he would have laboured hard to shew that limited liability would enable the country to produce at a cheaper cost, and that therefore that saved part of the cost might be devoted to, or shared in good part by the workman. However, one of his authorities, Mr. Field, goes more earnestly and boldly into the economical part of the question. I quote from his pamphlet, (page 6.) — “It is manifest, further, that by allowing the advance of money into trade on limited liability terms of joint adventure, a cheaper class of capital is brought into trade — capital for which the advancers are willing to accept a lower return; and by the use of which the public gets a cheaper commodity.” In my opinion, the general public would have to take the risk of loss, that the owner might get more by being able to lend with limited risk ; — we seek to supply cheap capital, they say, you exclude it. Now, whence is this capital to be supplied ? We are told in the same breath, that one main object of the advocates of limited liability is to raise the value of money, and the rate of interest, to benefit chiefly the smaller capitalist. He, they say, is ignorant of the best means of invest- ment; his money, they infer, lies dormant. To make it more active, they urge limited liability partnership. How is capital dormant in this country ? The rate of interest is lower in England as a rule, than in any other. The profits of capital are small; therefore its intelligent possessor keeps it active, pushes it into every channel, forces it into manufactures of all classes, quite as fast as is prudent; and so supplies the demand, while the rate of interest is kept down. Mr. Field asserts that the want of limited liability excludes cheap capital. When I refer to America, I will ask, why capital is dear there, with limited liability ? and why cheap in England, without it ? What I should call cheap capital must really be the gain of prosperous trade, — like other good harvests, producing comfort and plenty. The rate of interest, whilst we had cheap corn, and were prosperous and at peace, was for a considerable period not above three per cent . ; and still this capital kept increasing, s till aiding our commercial prosperity ; our labourer was everywhere well employed, and no reasonable project of commercial enterprize wanted funds. Manufac- tures in cotton, wool, and iron, increased rapidly, and the markets of the world were amply supplied. The check came from high-priced food, and war, taking our capital, and cramping our demand for other articles — savings became less plentiful, money-capital more scarce. 38 With respect to our present Joint Stock Companies or corporate bodies, my opinion, perhaps, may be suf- ficiently inferred without much further special refer- ence to them. Under certain circumstances, as in Banks and Insurance Companies for instance, they may be valuable, requiring, as these do, large amounts of capital, — yielding, if legitimately carried on, a small per centage, — and not carrying with them, if soundly managed, a large amount of risk. More depends upon the honesty and responsibility of the manage- ment, than upon intelligence ; but under no circum- stances would I sanction chartered or limited respon- sibility in Banks. I am not prepared to offer the same opinion as regards Insurance Companies, for reasons I need not, perhaps, weary you by detailing. As regards Banks, it is impossible to prevent them trading ; they will do so, directly or indirectly ; they speculate in or become possessed of shares and scrip ; of mills and manufactures of all kinds, which it would be folly to prevent them holding, or even working temporarily — they are traders from necessity, and I would treat them as such, making them fairly respon- sible. It is the value of security that yields the Joint-stock Bank its profits, and for these profits, surely, the shareholders are honestly bound to give their entire responsibility. I may be told that a charter, and a large paid-up capital, with a public and a government inspection, would be ample security. The very extent of the transactions of a bank of wide-spread business, renders it utterly impossible that any one, two, or 39 three individuals can thoroughly understand its posi- tion and risks ; the shareholders must depend upon each other’s moral responsibility, and upon their directors and servants. Is it not the fact, in spite of all this, that repeated instances of bad debts of astound- ing amounts, have been made public at times, which have been contracted by Joint-stock Banks, and of which debts, even the very directors themselves have many of them been ignorant. The shareholders are easy under the circumstances, because they consider their individual and average risk but small; but surely the fact of such business being done, is a fair claim on the part of the community for unlimited liability. I believe, then, the sole value of Joint-stock com- panies is in their aggregated responsible capital; they work more expensively than a private establishment, because they have continually to buy the prime ingre- dients — experience and knowledge. The best talent they cannot purchase, for no public body has it in its power to give the rewards of an individual firm. I am perfectly willing to admit that many Joint- Stock Companies, Railways, and Banks, have been managed by men of high ability and probity ; have they been sufficiently remunerated ? — decidedly not. I may further admit, that many Boards of Bank Directors contain men of undoubted talent and singleness of purpose ; they feel their moral respon- sibility as fully as the pecuniary one; and the very fact of such men taking such positions, shows the non-necessity for partnerships with limited 40 liability. Though I do not deny that good men might be directors of such companies with limited liability, still designing men would creep in, and the shareholders, less responsible themselves, would look for a less high standard of responsibility. I have shewn why I think corporate bodies have failed to secure and reward the best talent. It is somewhat curious, too, that they have had the expe- rience of some of the very worst men as managers, directors, &c.,andhave suffered accordingly. Why, you and I have, seen men as managers of Joint-Stock Banks, of the very worst moral character, the fact patent to the whole world, and yet these men played with a capital of half-a-million, for years ; and the result is well remembered. Now no private concern would have kept such servants a month. The character of this class of men was formed by their position — its temptations being too great. Now if the shareholders, in these cases, had only been responsible for the amount of their shares, the public would have suffered for the mismanagement, and for the wrong which permitted such exhibitions of moral depravity to be shewn. I believe the weight of this fearful responsibility has, since that time, done much to correct the evil, and men of the highest moral character are now placed at a different value ; but I am certain the mischief has been corrected by the complete responsibility of the shareholders. It has often struck me that the position of a share- holder in a J oint-stock, and that of a partner in a private 41 firm that are of so contrary a nature, as to require from the former, if possible, even a greater moral responsi- bility. The director of a trading Joint-stock company cannot at all times tell the whole truth to his share- holders, without injuring the value of the property under his care. He has probably no permanent interest in it; his pecuniary interest is to sell to-day rather than meet the storm he sees approaching, and always to keep up the nominal price of shares. I consider such a fact one of the inherent weaknesses of the Joint-stock system, and inevitable; and I state it that I may ask, if it be desirable further to encourage corporate trading, by remitting responsi- bilities? I do not wish that present associated capital or talent should be controlled, but I do ask that its extension should not be tempted by a concession, which would many times increase the difficulties natural to the system. To me, therefore, the following extract appears a most extraordinary argument to bring forward, in fa- vour of limited liability. It is taken from Mr. Field’s pamphlet, (page 30). “ The history of the failed company with unlimited liability is always the same — the years of plenty followed by the year of famine — a glittering bubble of success inflated to a balloon size, only to burst with a more fatal explosion — spreading in its locality, all the the fevers of gamblers in its early days, and misery and destruction in its fall. An investigation into the positions of the sufferers, again, is most instructive. They will be found to be mainly the widows and children of the early shareholders ; or the quiet indo- lent men led into the scheme by those who had helped to ruin it ? E 42 and quitted it, before its failure, on the first turn of its affairs. Doubtless, to limit the liability of a company, is to lessen its brute force of credit ; but then, that is to lessen its awful powers of mis- chief and ruin; — to make its existence depend on its deserving credit ; and to place it under the government of wise and cautious men, instead of the wild speculators who now so surely work their way to the command.” I do not differ from Mr. Field as to the truth of his picture, or that of some others which he refers to; hut I really cannot see how a limited liability company, with a capital of one million, for instance, is to he worked under any rule, more honestly than one with the same amount of capital, but backed with the un- limited responsibility of the shareholders. I need not trouble you or myself with any remarks upon the legal question connected with the subject. I should be very sorry for the necessity of any fresh enactment. To my mind the law is simple and plain. If an individual chooses to trade, let him be aware that he is fully liable — if he adventures for profit, it ap- pears to me he should be liable for loss. I cannot resist quoting the strange practical sugges- tion of the Reviewer, contained in the following extract, which might be headed “Trade Confessional,” — it is a rich specimen of what might be necessary as part of the system of limited liability, — (page 31). “But those who would introduce the system of limited liability into this country, do not wish to see it turned into an engine of deceit ; and they have, therefore, always proposed, as the best pre- ventive of fraud, that associations based on that principle should make public all such particulars of their affairs as would show the 43 world their true position. This practice might, indeed, be well extended to our ordinary partnerships, not merely for the sake of the public, but also for that of the firm. Without in the slightest degree undervaluing the importance of personal character and con- duct, as elements of credit, it cannot well be doubted that if men could look into each others’ cash-books, and tills, and ledgers, and accounts, they would have better data than they now possess for ascertaining the amount of credit which they might safely give. A man’s credit depends upon the opinion entertained by the world of the probability of his meeting his engagements ; and if a reputation for diligence and probity raises that opinion, it is because those good qualities imply solvency, or at least increase the odds in its favour. But an inspection of the balance sheet would often correct the imperfect estimate which is formed upon character merely.” I will now proceed to shew the working of limited liability Partnerships in America, which the Re- viewer dwells on in such glowing terms. After so many pages of speculation it is rather a relief to a practical man like myself to be referred to an example on so bold a scale — “ This plain right ” (of limited liability) says the Reviewer, “is fully enjoyed in America.” And again at page 43, “ In the New England States, however, where charters cost fewer halfpence than they do pounds in this country, ‘ manufacturing in its broadest sense,’ says Mr. Davis, ‘ that is, not only the making of cottons, and woollens, and linens, but of machinery and power,’ is conducted on this commercial principle. In those states, says Mr. Carey, ‘ The soil is covered with compagnies anonymes — chartered com- panies — for almost every conceivable purpose. Every town is a corporation for the management of its roads, bridges, and schools ; which are, therefore, under the direct control of those who pay for them, and are, consequently, well managed. Academies and 44 churches, lyceums and libraries, saving-fund societies and trust companies, exist in numbers proportioned to the wants of the peo- ple, and all are corporations. Every district has its local bank, of a size to suit its wants, the stock of which is owned by the small capitalists of the neighbourhood, and managed by themselves ; the consequence of which is, that in no part of the world is the system of banking so perfect, so little liable to vibration in the amount of loans — the necessary effect of which is, that in none is the value of property so little affected by changes in the amount or value of the currency, resulting from the movements of their own banking insti- tutions. In the two states to which we have particularly referred, they are almost two hundred in number. Massachusetts, alone, offers to our view fifty-three insurance-offices, of various forms, scat- tered through the state, and all incorporated. Factories are incor- porated , and are owned in shares; and every one that has any part in the management of their concerns, from the purchase of the raw material to the sale of the manufactured article, is a part owner ; while every one employed in them has a prospect of becoming one, by the use of prudence, exertion, and economy. Charitable associa- tions exist in large numbers, and all are incorporated. Fishing vessels are owned in shares by those who navigate them ; and the sailors of a whaling-ship depend , in a great degree, if not altogether, upon the success of the voyage for their compensation . Every master of a vessel trading in the Southern Ocean, is a part owner; and the interest he possesses is a strong inducement to exertion and economy, by the aid of which the people of New England are rapidly driving out the competition of other nations for the trade of that part of the world. Wherever settled, they exhibit the same ten- dency to combination of action. In New York, they are the chief owners of the lines of packet-ships , which are divided into shares , owned by the shipbuilders , the merchants , the master , and the mates ; which last generally acquire the means of becoming themselves masters, and to this is due their great success. The system is the most perfectly democratic of any in the world. It affords to every labourer , every sailor , every operative, male or female , the prospect of advancement ; and its results are precisely such as we should have 45 reason to expect. In no part of the world are talent, industry, and prudence, so certain to be largely rewarded.’ ” The question I wish to solve appears to be, whether this same limited liability, to which all this prosperity is ascribed, is not now becoming rather a bar to it than otherwise. The prosperity of America, by her adoption of the Joint-stock system, is referred to as one of the strongest proofs of its value; most unfortunately, I think, at this precise period, for those who advocate its adoption here. The amount of fraud and insolvency in America, (it would be a hateful though easy task to chronicle details and statistics,) I believe to be double or treble what it is in this country, on the same amount of business. Truth forces the assertion. I have been largely associated in business with American citizens for very many years, and have found them individually as honourable and right-minded as those of any other nation; but the amount of tempta- tion created by the Joint-stock system in the United States they acknowledge to be productive of the results I have stated;— the system is bad, human nature would be the same everywhere. Speculative adven- tures, large profits, corresponding losses, the rapid transition from poverty to wealth, leading to profuse- ness of living and recklessness of commercial reputa- tion, lead one, however reluctantly, to contrast the relative moral standing in American commercial affairs with our own. Late enormous frauds in scrip and bonds, have been disgusting and disgraceful on both 46 sides; and if those in the United States have greatly exceeded ours, it has been, I believe, owing to the ex- tent, in America, of Joint-stock business, and the lower tone of commercial morality it has produced. Even supposing other reasons wanting against limited lia- bility, with this fact our legislators will surely pause, before we are committed to a system founded on so demoralizing a tendency. This question of limited liability is one of great interest to those of us in trade, and naturally leads us to compare our own position without it, with that of our American competitors with it. Our trade is free, quite unprotected, — theirs the reverse, highly protected. Our trade is worked al- most exclusively by private capitalists with unlimited liability, — theirs chiefly by Joint-stock companies, with limited liability. Our manufacturers’ credits are short, chiefly cash transactions with little risk, — theirs almost entirely long, with long-dated bills and their concurrent risks. One of the cheapest elements of cost with us, is capital, — with them it is one of the dearest. Their Joint-stock Banking concerns pay infinitely better dividends than their Manufacturing Corporations, — here our manufactures pay better than our banks, Joint-stock ones at least. Land with us is dear, and does not tempt as a trading investment. Cheap capital with us promotes its active use in trade. Land in the United States is cheap and plentiful, and tempts capital and labour — real capital. Capital there 47 is very dear, and cannot be spared for manufacturing purposes. Admitting the correctness of these contrasts, it may be averred that the same system of partnership is hardly suited for both countries, and that under existing circumstances, Joint-stocks in America, for the present, may be inevitable. I will venture the opinion that they could not exist at all under a system of Free Trade, and most certainly we cannot now return to any other system. Free Trade requires cheap capital, quick returns, little risk, — America has none of these ; — she has apparently large profits, but risky and uncertain. The contrast continues deeply marked, also, in the relative condition of the English and American operatives employed in the cotton trade. The American establishments, those at Lowell for instance, sprang almost at once into existence, on a large scale, with abundant though high-priced capital, cheap land and water power, largely protected profits gained in the midst of a thriving population living on cheap food, and with a taxation probably not more than one-third of our own. The workers were taken from an intelligent state-educated popu- lation, many of them, as we are told, resorting to the mills rather as a means of saving for future invest- ment, than as a necessity for a livelihood. Such hands, then, could not be otherwise than of a high class, contrasting very strongly, physically and morally, with the dense population congregated in many of our own manufacturing districts. 48 Our population has been weighed down by poverty, (I do not say now,) the result of war, debt, and taxa- tion, and by dear provisions, kept or attempted to be kept at a famine price by Corn Law monopoly. If laterly we have been surely and soundly emerging from this degraded state, we shall not be wrong, I think, in ascribing the change to peace, a sound cur- rency, reform and free trade. The moral and physical condition of our hands has of late greatly improved. I have had this opinion confirmed from time to time, by some of the best informed of my American friends, who watch narrowly and take an interest in the ques- tion of the welfare of the people in both hemispheres. With this, too, I have had the admission, that their own manufacturing population was not improving with its increase, though in part owing to the mixture of emigrants of a poorly-educated class. I believe, now, that the wide-spread existence of Joint-stock Companies in the United States, will render it im- possible for free trade or cheap production to make progress there. These corporate bodies have sprung up under protection, and can only exist under it; every shareholder has, therefore, a direct apparent advantage in upholding the system. We are continually told of this American prosperity, and of the rapid increase of manufactures under this system of limited liability. We are told on high au- thority, (Mr. Daniel Kirkman Hodgson,) “that the experience of all countries where those partnerships have existed is decidedly in their favour.” I have 49 heard the contrary opinion expressed by many of the American merchants and manufacturers of the highest standing, and hy shareholders in such establishments themselves. Mr. Field admits that the President of the Board of Trade asserted, he had met with the same opinion from Massachusetts and the New York States. A few more words as to the profits of these Joint- stock manufacturing companies. I believe the average profit (I make the statement upon the very best American authority) for the last five years, upon ten of the best of such concerns, will not have been at the rate of more than eight or nine per cent, per annum. Now during the same period, the current rate of in- terest on money not sunk, but floating, has been at about the same rate of income, with the very best security. Contrast this rate of profit with the same amount of manufacturing power, in the hands of private concerns in this country; where, during the same period, the rate of profit has been certainly higher, while the rate of interest on floating capital has not exceeded four per cent. Truly the Joint-stock system holds out no particular inducement for imitation. One other curious contrast, impressing still more on my mind the radical unsoundness of the commercial system in America is, that during the same period in which her manufacturing establishments only paid a dividend of eight or nine per cent, per annum, — a much lower profit than is realized even on this side the water, — the amount of dividends paid by her best Joint-stock Banks was probably double those in this F 50 country. No wonder, with the accommodation and the discounts wanted by her manufacturers, that their profits were small, and those of the Banks large. You will tell me, that if the value of money in this country has only, for the period referred to, averaged four per cent., that fact holds out a strong inducement in favour of Joint-stock Companies, which would realize at least the American rate of profit. I do not believe it. I believe that the inevitably cumbersome and expensive management of a corporate body, would not enable it to realize a rate of profit, even in this country, equal to one half that of a private establish- ment. I believe that the rate of profit of a Joint-stock Company, would very little exceed the current rate of interest obtainable with fair security, and further, that if the Joint-stock system with limited liability were permitted to extend itself, so as to create a powerful interest in its favour, nothing would so much tend to raise up a cry in favour of protection, to aid such companies at the public expense. American manufactures have increased by means of the Joint-stock system, only by substituting credit for capital. It will hardly be affirmed that their money capital has increased in the same ratio as our own. How is it, then, that with capital so cheap here, if there were any confidence in their Joint-stock system, English capital has not been more freely transferred for manufacturing purposes there ? The cause, I fancy, will be found in the fact, that those who are most far-seeing in these matters, dare not risk investments 51 under such a system. For purposes not trading , such as railroads, State stocks, &c. (the class of securities we should consider suitable enough for Joint-stocks here,) the amount of foreign capital supplied to the United States is ascertained to be very large, perhaps two- thirds of the whole. I come to the conclusion, then, that the American system of manufacturing by Joint-stock companies is expensive and unsound; and consequently cannot be competitive with ourselves in neutral markets. They may he apparently prosperous in their own home trade. With a continually increasing population, an ex- panding territory, new lands yielding to cultivation, a well-educated people, a small taxation, and great ele- ments of consumption within themselves, they have advantages which may render them prosperous, in spite of a had system of partnership. One other point in reference to America. I have known many of our best class hands from the cotton districts who have emigrated to the States, and heard of their progress there. Comparatively few have at- tached themselves to manufactures; many who have done so have returned, especially lately, not finding the same certainty of employment as formerly, or a rate of wages to tempt them to remain abroad. Again, in all my experience, I have never heard an English workman mention, or refer to the value of Joint-stock manufacturing establishments in America, as an investment. Since penning these opinions on America, I have 52 met with an article in Chambers’, on “ Things as they are in America,” being the practical observations of the writer, Mr. William Chambers, during a recent tour in the United States. I cannot forbear quoting the article at great length,* because it singularly bears out what I had written from my own information and deductions before reading it. It confirms me in the opinion that America is the field for the invest- ment of capital in agriculture, not in manufactures; and it bears out, but too truly, the apparently unkind remarks I have been led into, on the profuseness of expenditure in the higher and capitalist classes in America, as contrasted with that of our own. I need not, if I had the requisite knowledge, refer to the effects of partnership worked en commandite, or in any other form of limited liability, in any other country. I could only apply the same arguments I have made use of in referring to America. With perhaps two exceptions, the manufactures of all other coun- tries are highly protected. We have no evidence that masters or men are better off than with us, — nay, I believe that now, the working-classes in England are more prosperous, and more soundly so, too, than in any other European state. I do hope, then, that the legislature wifi be very chary in making any concessions in liability. If charters are to be granted, I should like to see it definitely fixed that they should not be so for trading purposes, in competition with private capital. There * See Appendix. 58 are doubtless many objects which may suggest them- selves as fit and proper for charters — public works of a minor class, lodging-houses, parks, wash-houses, or such schemes as are prompted by benevolence rather than profit, and in which the shareholders would consent to limit the dividend to a low, or a fixed rate of interest for investments, not trading schemes. As to the general interest suffering, owing to the refusal of the grant of a charter, I do not in the least fear it; the very fact of the Board of Trade refusing a charter is a guarantee that private attention will be directed to it. Charters cannot be required where capital is as cheap as with us, except there be a poor prospect of profit, and considerable risk, — and why should immature schemes be encouraged, at the cost of any one but the producer or the speculator? — they would confer no public benefit. It was stated as a grievance, only a few days ago, in “ The Times,” that a charter had been refused by the Board of Trade for the manufacture of paper from some new material. Now if the invention was worth anything, private capital would readily have found the funds, and the inventor might have had one or two partners only, instead of many ; the inference, therefore, is, that the value of it was so questionable that no capitalist would touch it, and so the inventor tries to get it tested by the capital of those, who are willing to take a speculative risk without responsi- bility. In my opinion there is no really valuable invention, that private capital will not quickly take up in this country. 54 I believe a charter has hardly ever been applied for, for any object, unless the promoter has been unsuc- cessful in his attempt to impress its value on some capitalist. I allude now to charters for trading pur- poses, not for a scientific discovery or application, partaking perhaps more of the character of an inven- tion secured by patent. In the case of granting charters for desirable objects, after the legislature has defined, as clearly as possible, the range for which they should be given, I would leave the decision to the Board of Trade, or if needed beyond that, to a Board of Appeal, composed, perhaps, of three members ap- pointed for a period, say four years, and going out in rotation. Let the chairman be, if you will, a barrister ; the two others, one an engineer, and the other a mercantile man; let the fees be moderate and the decision quick, and I do not think the tribunal would be unsatisfactory. I am free, however, to confess, that I would, for reasons of economy and fairness in com- petition, leave, as far as possible, everything to the working of private capital. I see very few schemes it could not grasp ; nay even the formation of our railroads begins to assume more the character of private speculation ; we find a few enterprising capitalists generally offering to form them, find plant, and work them, guaranteeing certain divi- dends. Am I wrong in stating, that any amount, up to a million of money, may easily be procured from capitalists on such terms ? The shareholders in more than one or two of the lesser lines have latterly 55 merely represented such capitalists, or have been put forward as the means of getting the parliamentary powers; and I believe railways will be better and more cheaply made in this mode than by any other. Does any one believe that if charters were not granted to Steam Boat Companies, boats would not be supplied to every port in the world, as quickly as the increase of civilization and trade gave promise of freight? I believe they would be worked more cheaply, and that the competition would be sounder, than if a few colossal companies were allowed by charter to com- bine, with limited liability, and monopolize certain lines, by running a portion of them at a loss for the purpose of clearing off an individual steam-ship owner. An individual relies more on economy, energy and competition ; corporations have always an eye to mono- poly, and jealousy seems to be a distinctive feature of a chartered company. A very few words will conclude my remarks on the paper from the Westminster Review, which has in good part suggested these pages. The whole article strikes me as an eloquent appeal for a privilege on behalf of the weaker classes, on the ground that they are kept down by the stronger. I resist it because I think it would make the poor poorer, and render the rich man both less able and willing to aid them, if he supposed that they had already exclusive privileges for their benefit. I resist the appeal more than all, because instead of enhancing the power which res- ponsibility always gives, it tries to lessen it. 56 The Reviewer says, (page 63,) “For ourselves we concur with Mr. Mill, in thinking that it is not proba- able that the working-classes will ever be perma- nently contented with the condition of labouring for wages as their ultimate state ; and we shall ever lend them our humble aid to raise them above it.” Many would join in the promise of the best aid, — education ; teaching them to estimate their position, that, by the knowledge thus acquired, they might step out from it, without sacrificing their independence by relying on a limitation of responsibility, moral or pecuniary. None would more willingly thus aid them than, Dear Sir, Yours truly, A MANCHESTER MAN. Manchester, January 10th, 185C APPENDIX. (From Chambers’ Journal , October 14 th, 1854 .) “ In forming an opinion of a country, much depends on the point from which it is viewed. The point of view for America, as it appears to me, is America itself. To look at it with English eyes and English expectations, is surely unwise. Hopeless would it he for any one fresh from the Old Country to look for magnificent gen- tlemen’s seats, fine lawns, beautiful hedgerows, admirable roads, superb carriages, old-settled usages and institutions, and that artifi- ciality of manner which in England has required a thousand years to mature. We must take America as it is, and make the best of it. It is a new, and, as yet, not fully settled country ; and, all things considered, has done wonders during its short progress. No one can forget that, except in the case of Virginia, and one or two other places, it has been peopled by the more humble, or, at all events, struggling classes of European society. The aristocracy of England have shrunk from it. Instead of acting as leaders, and becoming the heroes of a new world, they have left the high honour of founding communities throughout America to groups of miscel" laneous individuals, who at least possessed the spirit to cross the Atlantic in quest of fortune, rather than sink into pauperism at home. The proper aspect, therefore, in which to view America, is that of a field for the reception of emigrants. It was thus I beheld it; and from all that came under my notice, I am bound to recommend it as a new home to all whose hearts and hands are disposed to labour, and who, for the sake of future prospects, as regards themselves and families, are willing to make a present sacrifice. To all classes of married manual labourers, the United States and Canada offer a a 58 peculiarly attractive field ; not so much so, however, from the higher rates of remuneration, as the many opportunities for advantageously making investments, and hy that means greatly improving their circumstances. This, indeed, is the only point worth pressing on notice. In England, the operative having scarcely any means of disposing of small savings to advantage — the interest of the savings- bank forming no adequate temptation — he rarely economises, but recklessly spends all his earnings, of whatever amount, on present indulgences. It is vain, I fear, to try to convince him of this folly. Practically, he is without hope; and, uninstructed, he does not reflect on consequences. In America, on the contrary, everything contributes to excite his higher emotions. The sentiment of hope is stimulated in an extraordinary degree. In the more newly set- tled cities and townships, so many bargains may be had of small portions of land, which may probably, in a year or two hence, be sold for many limes the original cost, that there is the greatest possible reason for economising and becoming capitalists. The saved twenty dollars of to-day may, by a judicious investment, be shortly a hun- dred, nay, a thousand, dollars ; so that, with a reasonable degree of prudence, a person in humble circumstances rises by rapid and sure strides to fortune. I feel assured that this tends to explain the superior character of the American workman. In coming down Lake St. Clair in a steamer, there was on board a Canadian settler, who had some years ago left Scotland, and was now in the enjoyment of a pleasant and thriving farm on the banks of the lake. On conversing with him respecting his affairs, he told me that all the time he was in the Old Country, he never felt any inducement to save ; for it was a dreary thing to look forward to the accumulation of a shilling or two a week, with no prospect of trading on the amount, and only at the end of his days having a few pounds in the savings-bank. * But here,’ said he, ‘ with a saving of two dollars we can buy an acre of land, and may, perhaps, sell it again afterwards for ten dollars ; and this kind of thing makes us all very careful.’ Did not this man’s explanation solve the problem which now engages the atten- tion of writers on social economy? Did it not go far towards eluci- 59 dating the cause of so much of our intemperance — the absence of hope? The native American, however, possesses advantages over the immigrant. With intelligence sharpened by education, he is better able to take advantage of all available means of improvement in his condition ; the press rouses him with its daily stimulus ; the law interposes no impediment of taxes and embarrassing forms on the transfer of property ; the constitution offers him the prospect of rising to a position of public confidence ; no overshadowing influence weighs on his spirits ; he is socially and politically free ; his whole feelings, from boyhood, have been those of a responsible and self- reliant being, who has had much to gain by the exercise of discretion. If I may use the expression, there is a spontaneity in well-doing in America. In the circumstances just referred to, men conduct themselves properly, because it is natural for them to do so ; and from the aspect of the American operative classes, I am disposed to think they would feel affronted in being made objects of special solicitude by those in a more affluent condition. To speak plainly, why should one class of persons in a community require constantly to have the thinking done for them by another class? I am afraid, that wherever such appears necessary, as in England, there is some- thing socially defective. The whole tendency of institutional arrangements in America, as has been shewn, is to evoke feelings of self-reliance. A contrary tendency still prevails to a large extent in Great Britain, where, from causes which it is unnecessary to recapi- tulate, the humbler classes require to be ministered to and thought for, as if they were children. We must contrive means for amusing them, and keeping them out of mischief ; call meetings to get up reading-rooms, baths, wash-houses, and temperance coffee-houses for them ; offer prizes to those among them who will keep the neatest houses and gardens ; and in so many ways busy ourselves about them, that at length it would seem as if it were the duty of one-half the community to think for the other. The spectacle of well- educated, thoughtful, independent America, enabled me to see through the fallacy of first disabling a man from thinking and acting for himself, and then trying to fortify him by a system of well-meant, but really enervating patronage. It is something to have to say of 60 the United States, that the mechanics and rural labourers of that country do not require to be patronised. The persons in America who seemed to me to merit compassion most, were not the poor, for of these there are not many, except in a few large cities : those who are to be pitied, are the rich. Obtain- ing wealth by a course of successful industry, it would appear as if there were no other means of spending it than in rearing splendid mansions, and furnishing them in a style of Oriental luxury, and thereafter living in gorgeous magnificence, like the prince-merchants of Genoa in the past times of Italian glory. So far as the actual founders of fortunes are concerned, there is, perhaps, little to dis- commend in all this ; but it was disagreeably pressed on my notice, that the sons of these millionaires, born to do nothing but to live on their father’s earnings, were much to be pitied. In New York, they were seen lounging about idly in the parlours and bar-rooms of the hotels, worn out with dissipation, and the nightly victims of gambling-houses, of which there are a number in Broadway on a scale of matchless splendour. Among the vices they have lately thonght fit to introduce, is the practice, now obsolete in England, of encouraging professional pugilism, the exercise of which occasion- ally leads to serious affrays. In Great Britain, as we all know, a considerable part of the fortunes realised in trade is expended in the purchase of land, and in effecting rural improvements of various kinds ; the country, by such means, becoming a useful engine of depletion to the town ; but, in America, land conveys no honour, and is not bought except as a temporary investment, or as a source of livelihood. Wealthy men, therefore, would have nothing to look for in rural life beyond the pleasure of a villa ; so far as I could learn, they do not even go that length, but consume their means, for the most part, in the more seductive but not very refining enjoy- ments of the city. With few exceptions, therefore, families of any note do not continue in affluence more than one or two generations. An 4 old family ’ in America, must ever be a kind of miracle. The principle which seems to be laid down is, that family distinction is adverse to democratic institutions; and that, consequently, each generation ought to be left to shift for itself — a philosophic rule, 61 no doubt, but which, like many other good maxims, is not without practical difficulties. Leaving the wealthier classes of New York to discover, if they can, what is the use of money after they have made it, it is more to my purpose to call attention to the advantages which America pre- sents as an outlet for the redundant and partially impoverished classes of the United Kingom. When I reflect on the condition of the rural labourers in many parts of Great Britain and Ireland — the poorness of their living ; their generally wretched dwellings ; the little pains taken to afford them an education calculated to excite their better feelings ; their blank prospects as to old age ; and when I consider that, within a short distance, there is a country inviting their settlement, where they can scarcely fail to attain a position of comfort and respectability, I am surprised that the ‘ exodus,’ great as it is, is not many times greater — in fact, the astonishing thing, as it appears to me, is, how, under present circumstances, any at all remain.” Johnson and Rawson, Printers, 89, Market Street, Manchester. THE LAW OE PARTNERSHIP. A REPLY TO THE SPEECH OF THE RIGHT HON. E. P. BOUYERIE, M.P. Vice-President of the Board of Trade y ON MOVING THE SECOND HEADING OE THE "PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL,” IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON FRIDAY, JUNE 29th, AS REPORTED IN “ THE TIMES " OF THE FOLLOWING DAY, BY A MANCHESTER MAN. LONDON: JOHN CHAPMAN. JOHNSON AND RAWSON, PRINTERS, MANCHESTER. 1855. ■? ; ' ^-Y *' * • PREFACE. Some apology may perhaps be due for the form in which the fob lowing opinions are offered, in reply to Mr. Bouverie’s Speech on moving the second reading of the “ Partnership Amendment Bill,” on Friday Evening last. It was adopted for the sake of simplicity and directness. The writer deeply regrets some such reply was not made by some of his friends in the House of Commons, who hold similar opinions to those now offered, and who would have been so much better able to give expression and circulation to them. Per- haps the idea of the very hopelessness of obtaining attention to sub- jects of this class, in the present conjuncture of affairs, may have induced them to remain silent. The opinions are offered in the hope of drawing the attention of many who have a deep interest in their full discussion, and who have not given the Bills any consideration, or who may have sup- posed that the Report of the Commissioners on Mercantile Law, — gentlemen so well able to judge from experience and the evidence taken, — would have been acted upon, and not entirely set aside. Manchester, July 5th, 1855. J ; , . »•?*« . A REPLY, &c. Sir, I cannot resist the temptation of trying to reply to the speech of the Right Honourable Gentle- man, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, on mov- ing the second reading of his Partnership Bill, even though I may do so with very little prospect of obtaining much attention to my opinions, fully aware as I am that a change is inevitable from the declared opinion of the House, but still anxious that that change should not take place without a protest on my part. I am willing to admit, that in all changes of this class, the anticipations of profit or loss are frequently much exaggerated; hut I cannot divest myself of the opinion, that much mischief lurks in the moral results, as well as in the financial ones, concurrent on the passing of these Bills. 6 I differ widely with the Right Honourable Gentle- man, and I would ask a brief indulgence whilst I endeavour practically to explain why I do so differ. I will endeavour to follow the Right Honourable Gentleman in his remarks on moving the second reading of the Partnership Bills. (In his definition of what constitutes a partnership, we do not differ.) The Honourable Gentleman states, that “ The objection entertained to the present law was simply this — that it was practically a prohibition to a large class of perfectly legitimate, innocent, and profitable undertakings, which, but for the existence of this law, would be prosecuted with advantage to the parties concerned and to the public, but which, in consequence of the state of the law, were altogether prevented from being entered into. ” He then proceeds to state cases of individual hard- ship and restriction, owing to the present law. In the outset, let me remind the Right Honourable Gentle- man, that the opponents of Limited Liability do not oppose charters, when granted for public advantage, not for private gain. The Right Honourable Gentle- man seems to me, in his arguments, completely to forget the general public, and seeks only to establish his case for Limited Liability, by stating a number of instances, in which the absence of such a law prevents individual profit. Sir, I admit it — many cases of in- dividual restriction do exist,— but I would put a question, directly avoided by the Honourable Gen- tleman, why should divided or share capital be en- couraged, and undivided capital be still weighted with full responsibility ? Take the Right Honourable Gentleman’s next point : “ Then, again, there was the case of inventors. It was well known that inventors as a body were generally men of small means, for the inventive capacity did not usually appear to accompany great wealth. All the great inventors of the country — Watt, Arkwright, and others— were poor men. Almost the only exception he could call to mind was Mr. Howard, who introduced an improvement into the making of sugar. ” Surely this is an unfortunate reference. Watt de- servedly reaped the reward of his invention, by the aid of an honourable partnership with Mr. Boulton ; — Arkwright laid the foundation of a series of im- mense fortunes for himself and partners — and Mr. Howard it appears did receive his reward, — rather strong arguments, that individual inventors have obtained their recompense when soundly due. But admitting that genius is not always or perhaps often allied to worldly wisdom, ought there to be a special law, to encourage what may be erratic genius ? Watt and Arkwright found private capital ; and a long list of other names who have reaped the honest reward of their talents, might easily be added. Capital most anxiously seeks talent and sound investment. 8 The Eight Honourable Gentleman comes then to the main assertion of the supporters of Limited Lia- bility, that other countries are reaping great advan- tages from it. How does he seek to prove this ? He quotes the opinion of a Mr. Levinger, given twenty years ago, referring to the progress of Mulhausen in calico printing ; perhaps it would be well if, before legislating, a little more enquiry were made from the Mulhausen printers themselves, as to their present state and prospects, and a comparison then drawn with the state and progress of the Manchester and Glasgow print trade, during the past tw r enty years also. Upon the results of such an enquiry, I, Sir, should be content to join issue, — Mulhausen protected by prohi- bition, supported by commandite partnerships — Man- chester and Glasgow, with a perfectly free trade and unlimited liability. Sir, I have good reason to know from the best authority, gained within the last twenty weeks, not years, that the soundest amongst the Mulhausen printers seek for free trade, — that gained, I will quote against the Honourable Gentleman his own extract from Adam Smith, as to the prospects of the Mulhausen printers : — “ Without a monopoly, however, a joint-stock company, it would appear from experience, cannot long carry on any branch of foreign 9 trade. To buy in one market, in order to sell with profit in another when there are many competitors in both ; to watch over, not only the occasional variations in the demand, but the much greater and more frequent variations in the competition or in the supply which that demand is likely to get from other people ; and to suit with dexterity and judgment both the quantity and quality of each assort- ment of goods to all these circumstances, — is a species of warfare of which the operations are continually changing, and which can scarce ever be conducted successfully without such an unremitting exertion of vigilance and attention as cannot long be expected from the di- rectors of a joint-stock company. The only trades which it seems possible for a joint-stock company to carry on successfully, without an exclusive privilege, are those of which all the operations are capable of being reduced to what is called a routine, or to such an uniformity of method as admits of little or no variation.” As regards America, certainly our strongest com- petitor, the Right Honourable Gentleman is hardly more successful. He quotes one mercantile and two legal opinions ; but gives none of those practical modern facts which the records of his own depart- ment would have supplied. He does not notice the excessive fluctuations in the value of capital, the high rate of interest, and the low rate of divi- dends from joint-stock manufacturing concerns, as proofs of prosperity ; he does not touch upon the morality and safety of long credits, nor upon the soundness of the practice of the American joint-stock companies in sinking nearly all their capital, ivorking entirely upon paper capital ; he did not perhaps 10 know the fact, one amongst others, of a joint-stock company, a most modern one, with a capital of 1,500,000 dollars, lately getting discounts, with no great readiness, and at two per cent, per month. We have never had such instances of stringent necessity. Sir, if he had collected a few such facts, and enquired into and obtained a list, as I have done, of a dozen of first-class establishments in their largest manufac- turing districts, working at a profit not above mere in- terest, on a credit system, bad and costly in contrast with our English production of the same class, — I say if he had done this, he would hardly have sanctioned the opinion that these measures tended to prosperity and to free trade. Sir, the example of other manufacturing nations is the very weakest argument to my mind in favour of Limited Liability. It is one thing to speak favour- ably of a system under which they, the American na- tion, have grown up from necessity, and another to adopt it. I have not yet met with many sound mer- cantile men who think the American system worthy our imitation. Give them an entire free trade, they could not compete with us under their expensive production of joint-stock companies, and their con- sequent high rate of interest on capital. Cheap 11 production is our safeguard. Does, then, the Right Honourable Vice-President of the Board of Trade seek to raise the rate of interest? If so, how are we to keep our position ? Investment, not the result of cheap capital, but the temptation of Limited Liability, is hardly a move forward. Sir, I think the Board of Trade, in bringing forward these Bills, ought to have supported them against the opinion of the Mercantile Law Commission, by a body of sound mercantile facts ; and I think that I am entitled to say, that whilst we have plenty of legal opinions, these are almost entirely wanting. The Right Honourable Gentleman’s next point is : — “ The origin of this law could be traced to the unwillingness of noble families in the Italian States to have it known that they were engaged in trade, and who intrusted their money to large mercan- tile houses for trading purposes ; and he anticipated that in the course of some little time the gentry of this country would not be indisposed to advance money in the same way to carry on trade.” He anticipates that in the course of some little time, the gentry of this country, following thehistorical exam- ple of the Italians, in times and circumstances wonder- fully different from our own, would not be indisposed to advance money in the same way to carry on trade. Sir, I have long been a Free Trader, and well remem- ber the doleful anticipations of the landowners previous 12 to the repeal of the Com Laws, and their fears, more particularly, of a short stock of gold ; and therefore, I rejoice at the prospect of their having spare capi- tal, and the assurance that they have been latterly, at all events, acquiring spare funds to invest. Where, Sir, I would ask, is now this spare capital ? Is it lying in the hands of country bankers, and by them lent to farmers for improvements ? Is it in railroads, — in shares, — or is it in the funds, — or is it on mort- gage of good landed securities ? If upon the latter, as the best class of security, and it is to be tempted into trade by the immunity of Limited Liability, of course it must either be replaced by fresh mortgages, for which a higher rate must be paid, with funds drawn from other sources (perhaps from trade), or the land must be cleared from mortgages, — a consumma- tion most devoutly to be wished for, certainly, but not yet near. I must confess, Sir, I wish the Board of Trade would explain a little more clearly, and define more exactly beyond this, for whose benefit these Bills are intended. Capitalists do not ask for them ; the mid- dle classes have the knowledge sufficient to work their own capital successfully, and they have not asked for Limited Liability. Well, then, we come to the class 13 — the working or labouring classes, — for whose benefit the parties who have most plausibly urged on the cry for Limited Partnerships, have long worked. It will be in the recollection of the House, that during the Preston strike, twelve or eighteen months ago, the Society of Arts summoned a congress to discuss the question of Strikes. After much debating, no practicable means seemed to present themselves, by which a mode of securing an unvarying high rate of wages could be finally fixed for any class of the operatives, and as in many other cases of a similar kind, the whole affair went off in a resolution, affirm- ing something to the effect, that an alteration in the Partnership Laws, which should give the workman a chance of employing his savings with Limited Lia- bility, would be desirable. The workman wished for an exemption for himself, but the damage, if any, was to be borne by the community. Well, Sir, the Preston strike failed, and perhaps taught a quiet moral lesson, which is working its natural results amongst the thoughtful of the working class ; and perhaps, too, they see a little more clearly than at that time, that what they then thought might benefit them in Limited Liability Partnerships, is now not so apparently valuable. 14 One would have thought, however, if this same Limited Liability had been intended for the benefit of any class, it would have been so most especially for workmen, the weaker and smaller capitalists, by en- abling them to club together small amounts to make a solid working capital. This, Sir, is the philanthropic view, and the one which has been most prominently urged to keep the question constantly before the public. And yet in introducing this Bill, the Honourable Member throws overboard all the working class claims ; the benefits of his Bill are for those quite above and beyond them, and are intended for other classes whom he has referred to — inventors, — and strange to say, not the poor gentry, but the capitalist gentry, and it is hoped, incidentally, the unoccupied gentry ; — those who may perhaps be thrown upon the world by some undefined administrative reform ; and for these he claims an immunity by the concession of Limited Liability, to give them a chance in business. What, the aristocracy ask a boon, a protection from the trading class, and this, too, suggested by an old Free Trade member ! Sir, I can view the Honourable Gentleman’s proposition in no other light than a de- gradation to them. Let me offer a practical example. Suppose a ,£25,000. Joint-stock Company started 15 by the funds of the gentry. A directory obtained, capital sunk, all in the American mode ; business commenced, and dividends paid for a few years, at about the same rate as decent interest, — still like America. Well, the concern would be considered prosperous. The shareholders take out the profits and interest ; they hardly ever invest it, as in private concerns, but spend it as income, perhaps from ne- cessity. The capital does not increase, it is all sunk. A year or two’s bad trade comes ; some speculative operations are commenced, (very natural when the regular profit ceases,) and probably half the capital goes, and the other half would not, if forced into the market, pay the debts of the concern : (now I am hardly sketching to the mind of a commer- cial man, an imaginary picture,) the concern stops, and the creditors apply to some of the gentry share- holders for the liquidation of their claims. What might naturally be the blunt reply of some country gentleman, teased by one of these applicants? Why did you trust the concern, when you ought to have known we had Limited Liability, and only i825,000. to start with ? I will simply ask, what would be the reflection of any right-minded man, who had been a shareholder in such a concern, receiving profits and 16 shunning losses ? If there be any semblance of truth or probability in my picture, would it not be degrading to ask the gentry of England to place themselves in such a position ? Sir, I think I am more consistent than the Right Honourable Gentleman when I object to his giving a boon to any class, and when I urge that all capital should be equally responsible, whether it be the five shillings of the trading workman, or the funds of the capitalist, or those of the landowner, who may wish to try to mend his means in trade. Other parties may hail the Bills of the Right Honourable Gentleman, who have not been quite so directly referred to as the gentry. There are many professional gentlemen, members of the House, in the receipt of incomes honourably earned, waiting secure and remunerative investments for their sav- ings. I would put it to them, whether it be fitting and fair that they should vote for measures, securing immunity for their Pounds, which they refuse to the Pence of the workman? I have been struck with the ingenuity of the Right Honourable Gentleman in selecting new points upon which to ground the claims of his Bills, and with the careful avoidance which he has shown in not replying 17 to those urged against them in the petitions of the Commercial Chambers. 4 * One of the evils that afflicted this country was the want of oc- cupation for the gentry class, and this was one source of the outcry for administrative reform. (Hear, hear.) There was a gulf between the gentry and the trading class, and he thought that if the former were encouraged to invest a portion of their means in trade, it would be found in the long run of considerable social advantage to the country.” The Right Honourable Gentleman wants occupa- tion for the gentry. — I should say, better for them, better for the country, perhaps, that they still con- tinued to fill sundry poor paid places in the adminis- tration — which, by educational qualification, they may fill well, when watched and competed with by other classes — than that they were encouraged to take to speculative and irresponsible trading. I think it unfortunate for one in the Right Honourable Gentleman’s position, that he ever urged the claims of his Bills by such reference to the neces- sity for keeping the gentry employed. Sir, the gulf between the gentry and the trading commu- nity has been pretty well bridged over. Let not the Right Honourable Gentleman inadvertently destroy the link, by setting up special claims for classes, more particularly for that class. He must know, by virtue of his position, that trade in this country does not lack B 18 capital; that fact is not questioned. The gentry can give no real aid, by moving their capital from its present legitimate channels. But supposing Limi- ted Liability granted, they cannot monopolise the shares in all the interesting schemes and speculations now waiting for incubation. Wanting experience and knowledge of the world’s demand, they could only get such investments as would lead them to think in the end, that the Right Honourable Gentleman had done them no kindness, by permitting and encourag- ing them to become traders. Well, Sir, I pass on to the Right Honourable Gentleman’s explanation of two different classes of partnership : — “ So much for the law of partnership ; and he would now come to the question of joint-stock companies. He had said there was more than a technical distinction between joint-stock companies and private companies. A joint-stock company was a partnership with a large number of members, ordinarily carried on under a deed of settlement, the shareholders having no voice in the management of the company, except at stated meetings, and the bond of union in joint-stock companies was different from that which existed in private partnerships. In the latter, the bond of union was personal knowledge and mutual confidence ; but in a joint-stock company there was nothing of this kind, — a man might be a partner to-day and not to-morrow, and there was no personal knowledge of the members composing it. ” * Why, the contrast the Right Honourable Gentle- 19 man draws is a striking and truthful exemplification of the great moral value of a private partnership, over a joint-stock Company. The first is select, bound and retained by a moral tie — and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, that tie is honourable and useful to the partnership and the community. This high moral standing is almost the basis of our commercial prosperity. The man of business, the banker, looks to the names of the individual firms — small links of two, three, or four as it may be — honourably associated for their own and the country’s best interest, — he will glance his eyes over hundreds of bills in a morning, and discount them with the consciousness that his risk in dealing with the number is infinitely small. His customers are thousands of completely res- ponsible men; they are hound to each other by thorough knowledge and moral responsibility, — he needs no labyrinth of registers to search for his infor- mation, he asks no such scrutiny. Well, then, Sir, take the Right Honourable Gentleman’s own truthful contrast. Speaking of private partnerships, he says, “ the bond of union was personal knowledge and mutual confidence; but in a joint-stock company there was nothing of this kind, — a man may be a partner to-day and not to-morrow, and there was no personal 20 knowledge of the members composing it. ” Has it not been fairly said “ that Corporations have no soul ?” Does not the Right Honourable Member admit this, and yet to them, with their daily changing consti- tuency, he proposes to grant a limited responsibility. If, Sir, there he a profit in embarking in joint-stock schemes, if his Bills pass, they will increase rapidly ; private partnerships will correspondingly decrease, — and the Right Honourable Gentleman will fill the country with partnerships, according to his own showing, of a much lower toned morality ; — honest men and the reverse linked together. Now Sir, let the Right Honourable Gentleman, before he tries to increase this class of co-partnerships, pause ; let him enquire and convince himself practically, as to the real moral standing and working of such companies in the United States and France. Is the system produc- tive of a higher morality and greater wealth than our own contrary system, which he seeks to change ? It cannot be, according to the Right Honourable Gentleman’s own showing. The measure before the House restricts Banks and Insurance companies. The very fact as regards Banks, shews, Sir, to my mind, the little faith the promoters of the Bill have in its principles and soundness ; they 21 dare not work it out. Besides, Sir, what is a Banker ? I would ask. How can any legislative measure prohibit a large trading company from banking, by lending, selling, or buying bills ? The Right Honourable Gentleman cannot prohibit Joint-stock Pawnbrokers, on a large scale — joint-stock brokers, advancing millions on produce ; jobbing and spec- ulating, with no responsibility beyond £ 25 . shares. Sir, I find I must limit my reply to the Right ‘Honourable Gentleman, and therefore pass to his remark, that Limited Liability would secure better directors than unlimited responsibility for Joint-stock Companies. My reply to his observation would be, that no difficulty is found in getting first rate men as Directors of the new London Joint-stock Banks with unlimited responsibility, and that the Manchester and Liverpool Banks possess a very first class Directory. Their very responsibility entails upon them, both as Shareholders and Directors, the necessity for trust- worthy colleagues. Just as you remove the responsi- bility, you lessen the necessity for care and confidence. Why should the Right Honourable Gentleman in- dulge fears as to capital flowing abroad, to be invested in Limited Liability corporations ? The test of the fact of such demand, the Right Honourable Gen- 22 tleman well knows, would be the scarcity of capital, and a high rate of interest in this country. The Right Honourable Gentleman next argues, somewhat curiously, that because profit will tempt capital, under all sorts of circumstances, Limited Liability should be granted, and thus expresses him- self ; — “ No statement could be more clear and convincing as to the futility of attempting, in these days, to keep capital from engaging in those undertakings which really were tempting and advantageous to it. Thus, it was quite clear that those engaged in joint-stock companies desired this Limited Liability. All men must desire, on embarking in a joint-stock company, that their liability for the acts of the directors should be limited to the amount they staked in the concern. Joint-stock companies, he repeated, differed from private companies, inasmuch as there did not exist in the one, as in the other, the same mutual knowledge and confidence among the part- ners, and in a joint-stock company a new director might be put in, of whom many of the shareholders, who w T ould be bound to the ex- tent of their whole fortune by his acts, knew nothing. The advan- tages of joint-stock companies were admitted by the Registration Act, to which he had referred, and the number of companies with the privilege of Limited Liability was an admission also of the advantage of that system. The following was a list of the companies incorporated with Limited Liability during the last five years: — railways, 76; harbours, piers, docks, bridges, and canals, 11 ; gas, 10; water, 22 ; miscellaneous, 17; total, 136. What was the reason on which they j ustified the concessions in these cases? It was because such undertakings were a public advantage, and also because they could not be carried on unless Limited Liability was granted.” Now, Sir, mark the concluding remark: “It was 23 because such undertakings were a public advantage, and also because they could not be carried on, unless Limited Liability was granted.” Why, railways, har- bours, docks, etc., are not necessarily tradingcompanies, and so cannot be expected to be liable to unlimited Lia- bility. I am not aware of any one who disputes, that when such undertakings are for the public advantage, and could not be otherwise originated and carried on, they should have charters granted them : in fact, quite the contrary. The opponents of Limited Liability distinctly urge greater facility, and a cheaper and sounder mode of granting charters, on the very ground of their public utility ; and they have yet to learn that a competent Board for exam- ining and recommending such charters is impracti- cable. Now, Sir, what is the Right Honourable Gentleman’s following argument worth ? is it, Sir, I might ask, worthy his position? Speaking of Charters with Limited Liability, he said; — “ He had no doubt that those privileges ought to be granted gen- erally ; for, supposing those parties who argued against joint-stock companies had their own way, or that Parliament had never granted Limited Liability, or that the Board of Trade had not been entrusted with the power, or had refused in all cases to grant it, what would have become of those vast works which were the glory and the hon- our of the time? What would have become of the £285,000,000. advanced on railways, — of the enormous sums contributed for the 24 completion of docks —or of the immense sums expended on canals? All these works had arisen under the advantageous system of Limited Liability, and who could say, if the system was more generally extended, and the present restrictions removed, what fur- ther advantages might not accrue to the country from this system?” Sir, I think it a weak argument to boast the mere amount invested in the vast expenditure in railroads, as a proof of the value of Limited Liability. I respect the enterprise which suggested and has carried out many of these undertakings, and the genius which executed them, even supported as it was by a lavish expenditure. I admit at once, that had it been a matter of private, responsible calculation, checked by unlimited liability, many a public work, not now paying, or ever likely to pay the original shareholder one per cent., would have existed. But, Sir, there is another view of the question, upon which we should dwell for a moment. The Right Honourable Gentleman has not alluded to it, I think, fairly. I have admitted the genius and the enter- prize which created these great works, but it will hardly be denied that the amount of gambling, speculation, fraud and ruin, which accompanied their progress, was infinitely greater than could have occurred dur- ing the same amount of expenditure of private capital. And, Sir, whilst referring with just pride to 25 our great public works, are we to forget the still more striking and profitable progress of private invest- ments with Unlimited Liability? Sir, it might be a not unprofitable enquiry for the Board of Trade to make, — to calculate the present value of the £285,000,000 invested in Rail- ways. I suppose there is something like £100,000,000 lost; now on whom has this loss fallen? — and what other amount of loss has it not at the same time occa- sioned to those who, like many of us, never even sought such investments ? Sir, the Right Honourable Gentleman cannot have a practical recollection of the money market deranged for years, owing to the amazing amount drawn from other employments, — not spare capital, — during the period of the Railway mania, tempted by the promises of profit and the limitation of liability. Sir, the Right Honourable Gentleman can hardly have forgotten the time of wild speculation, urged on by irresponsible directors and shareholders, or responsible only, perhaps, for a few shares ; or the ill-gotten gain of the shrewd, not over-nice promoters of many of these schemes, ever the staunch advocates of Limited Liability, and pro- moters (in the back ground,) of these Bills, quietly reiterating through the press, day by day, the injury 26 the public is sustaining, from the want of that Limited Liability, the granting of which would again place them in full activity, to play over again upon the easily-led public, similar schemes of private aggrandizement. These are the men who would be the directors and shareholders of Limited Liability companies, but who decry unlimited liability, as requiring too lengthened a test of the value of their projects, and as being more select in its choice of partners, and requiring a little more security, — moral, personal, and financial. Sir, I would suggest, previous to legislating, another enquiry to the Right Honourable Gentleman. He has informed the House, that since the year 1844, when the Act passed for the regulation of joint- stock companies, 914 schemes have been completely registered. We will omit Railroads and Gas Com- panies, and we find amongst the projects, 99 Mining Companies, 74 for Patents and Manufactories, 43 for Steam Navigation, 14 Trading Companies, 58 Land, Loan, and Building Companies ; a total of 238. I would ask the Right Honourable Gentleman as to the present state of such of these companies as have been in work beyond a year or two, — a time sufficient to test their paying prospects, — whether 27 the average rate of dividend for the last few years has not been below the rate of interest on funded property ? and whether the present value of the shares of most of such companies is not such as to deter any prudent man from entering into such speculations, for the sake of investment ? Sir, if I am correct in the opinion I have shadowed forth, is it, I ask, a statesman’s part to urge on Bills per- mitting and encouraging the wildest possible specu- lation, which would inevitably follow ? Sir, I may be told the shareholders are the best judges of their own affairs. Admitted, as far as they themselves are concerned, undoubtedly ; and I would offer them no lesson beyond their own experience : but when the Right Honourable Gentleman proposes so to change the law, as to tempt capital into joint- stock operations, by the bribe of immunity and non- responsibility, except for the venture made, and allows, nay tempts them thus to compete with private interest, bound by moral and entire respon- sibility, and within a more prudent course, it does appear to me the matter assumes another shape, and that it is unfair to call that a restraint or restriction which refuses Limited Liability, and places all capital on an equal footing. 28 The Right Honourable Gentleman does not intend to allow free banking, simply because of the collateral injury it would inflict on society, I presume. Then, Sir, I would enquire, is the Right Honourable Gentleman as clear, before he takes the step he promises, that the risk he runs by increasing spec- ulation, loosening responsibility, and weakening moral obligation, would not prove a collateral injury to society, far outweighing any speculative gain, by a tempted expansion of investments? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman show from experience a rate of profit, compensating for the natural inevitable excess of expenditure inherent on Limited Liability ? I have tried to show who would profit by the Bills of the Right Honourable Gentleman ; perhaps they are the very last class he would wish to encourage* I know he may meet me with the reply, that the public must take care of themselves, and are capable of knowing by whom they are led. But, Sir, the Right Honourable Gentleman has, only a few minutes ago, shown us the dangers of associations held together by no moral tie, — partners in fact to the amount of their limited shares, but with no interests but those of the hour or the day ; spec- ulators for the moment, absolved to-morrow ; many 29 of them looking for their own interest in the misery ^ distress, over-trading, and over-speculating of their neighbours. A very few words in conclusion. The Right Hon- ourable Gentleman has just said, “ There ought to be no legal impediments in the way of competition.” Sir, I do not say legal impediments do not exist ; I do not say our partnership-laws do not need many improve- ments ; but let all be able to share by the removal of such impediments. Those of us who oppose the Bills ask no privilege, shun no competition, nay, rather seek it, by advocating all measures of free trade ; but we do ask not to be met by a com- petition with those who shrink from responsibility, who wish for all the profit their capital and their agents may make for them, but at the same time, to be exonerated from loss in the day of adversity, which tries and proves both the honesty and stability of the upright merchant. The Right Honourable Gentleman asserts that “ there is evidently a strong disposition at present to embark capital in joint-stock undertakings, and he could not say, till we had tried the experiment, what would be the result of that disposition.” Let him reconsider his measure, and defer to the sound and 30 well digested Report of the Commissioners for enquiry into the Partnership Laws, rather than obtain a costly experience, with the recollection that he has aided in extending a system which encourages specu- lation, rather than industry ; following the example of States, whose protective and prohibitive system we have discarded, and of the real workings of which he must excuse me saying, I think he has not sufficient practical experience. ohnson and Rawson, Printers, Manchester.