The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-14 00:00:00

Abe Liberpool A,tanbarb. TUESDAY MORNING, MAY-14, 1833. Ministers seem resolved to precipitate the country head long to destruction. They are not content that it should linger on and perish piecemeal ; they.are determined to have a general conflagration and a sanguinary catastrophe. The plan for emancipating the slave labourers of the West Indies came out on Friday last, and will be found in another part of this day's STANDARD. It is a scheme of robbery—of wilful and direct robbery—of confiscation as palpable and unequivocal as is to be found in the his tory of the world. It is no consolation to be told that such a measure can never pass into a law merely because it is impracticable. The evil is committed by its promulgation. When the packet which sails to-morrow shall have conveyed the scheme to Jamaica and the other slave colonies, the lighted torch will be raised, and a wild uproar of savage rebel lion be the inevitable consequences. Exasperation on the one hand, and inebriated joy on the other—fear and excess—resistance and retaliation—revenge and plunder —will cause scenes of devastation and suffering, and ul timate destitution, such as were not exceeded by those o f St. Domingo in the time of the French convention. All-children under .six years of age are to be declared free. The slave, is to work for his master only 41 days out of the six ; the remaining time to.be at his own dis posal, or he may claim labour for it from his master, and fixed wages. Every slave is to be valued, and his price paid by instalments ; and so long as these instalments are regularly paid, the slave will be held to be absolutely free. The power of corporal punishment is to be taken altogether from the master and vested in the magistrate. The labourer is either to have one-fourth of the day, or one-fourth of the week, to himself, as shall be settled by contract. In order to carry these wild views into effect, it is pro posed that a loan of fifteen millions sterling shall be made to the colonial planter and proprietor, but how this loan is to be appropriated nothing is yet explained, nor is it stated whether the mortgagee is to take any benefit un der the loan_ The.most absurd part of the plan is, that the slave is to pay the pric6 of his freedom out of his labour, which la bour, in the first instance, is taken from the owner. This is like paying a man a hundred pounds for an acre of free hold land; . but allowing the purchaser to pick the pocket of the seller of a pound a week until the stipulated price is paid. Such folly, or rather such wickedness, was never heard of before. But how are the fifteen millions to be raised ? Mini sters do not condescend to favour us with any informa tion on this point. Lord Althorp is reduced to srtch straits that he' cannot afford to reduce two millions of taxes—rather than part with this sum he threatens to break up the administration—and yet the noble lord and his colleagues propose to borrow fifteen millions in order to liberate and demoralize the happy and well-fed blacks of the West Indies. Now, the question is, could the colonies raise this large sum at present with all the advantages of slave labour well secured ? We contend that they could How, then, is the money to be raised and the in terest paid, by a community of persons who, bad and em barrassed as they are at present, will be placed in a much worse situation by the contemplated measure, under which they are to be deprived of one-fourth of the slave's labour ? No explanation is given. In the contemplated loan, ministers must have it in view to saddle the interest of the loan upon , the mother coun try. Are the people of England prepared to bear this new and unnecessary burthen ? Suppose the money is borrowed at 6 per cent., and we do not see how it can be borrowed at much less, this would impose upon us addi tional taxes of £900,000. Are we prepared for this ? We shall see. Nothing is said in the ministerial.plan about aged and infirm negroes. What is to be done for them? The young blood is to be let loose, but the son who is allowed to purchase his own freedom is not compelled to provide for his parents. On the whole it is a monstrous piece of folly, the effects of which will be dreadful, and of which we predict the people of this country will heartily repent when it is too late. Yesterday an extraordinary meeting of the West India interest in Liverpool, the fullest indeed ever held here, took place, at which the greatest dissatisfaction was expressed, and the ministerial plan universally condemn ed. No resolutions, however, were passed, as the meet ing had a perfect reliance on the judgment of their depu ties at present in London. FROIL the very first moment that we saw the Times newspaper espousing the cause of the unfortunate Sir John Cam Hobhouse, formerly secretary at war, lately. secretary fur Ireland, and now nobody, we gave him up as a lost man. Those who have watched the career of that factietia journal with any attention cannot have failed to obsv-ve, that it never advocates a good measure with out injuring it, and never supports an individual whom it does hot degrade or destroy. Let us glance at a few instances.in illustration. It supported Hobhouse at Bath, and reviled his oppo nent Roebuck in the mOst scurrilous terms ;-- z ßoebuck was returned, and Hobhouse rejected. lt furiously as sailed Mr. Lyall in the London contest, and represented Mr. Alderman Venables as the fittest of all possible per sons to represent the reformers of the capital ; but Ve nables was kicked out, and Lyall returned by a very large majority. It fought : poor Mr. Babbage against Mr. Ser geant Spankie in the Finsbury district, bUt the lawyer floored the philosopher to the unbOunded sorrow of Printing-house-square. It embraced the cause of Squire, now Lord Western, in . lissex i -and ruined- him •in double quick time. It supp,irted Mr: Murray, the vvhig candidate for Marylebone, with great-zeal and fury, in opposition to Sir Samuel Whalley, who came off victorious, leaving Mr. Murray, the Times, Burdett, , Ebrington, and . all the ministerial hacks, in a lamentable and unexpected mi • nority. Captain Berkeley :vas among those who had the misfortune to be praised and bedaubed by the Times LI VER POOL STAND AIM. when he last offered himself to the electors of Gloucester, but the gallant officer ;as beaten by Mr. Hope. It obeyed the mandate of; Lord Durham, and fought under the.noble lord's banners in. the.. cause .of Mr. Barclay at the Sunderland election, but.the usual fate befel its ad vocacy Alderman Thompson was returned. And last., not least,.it was the thick and, thin adherent, and toweting champion of Sir John Cam Hobhouse in `Vest Minster ;_ but, alas, its friendship proved mortal, and the worthy baronet was flung out, by a comparative stranger, as an old market woman would fling a rotten turnip or a bruised onion. These are a few of the casualties which the venal and treacherous Times . has inflicted upon its admirers and confidants. In the case of Sir John we haN e no tears to shed, no sympathy to throw away. He and others had set the example of giving pledges, and acting the part of tools and slaves to the basest portion of their con stituents; by appealing to their passions, by inspiring them with hopes which they kneW could not be realized and cramming them with promises which they well knew it was impossible to fulfil. During his whole life Hob house had been the declared opponent of. those taxes, which, when in office, and, in the enjoyment of good pay, he refused to repeal. The Whigs in power were to him eeowthing—his constituents nothing. This was not the case fOrmerly when he was a sad and sour member of his ",Majesty's opposition." The house and window duties were then hateful things. It was during that period that he and Lord Althorp voted for their repeal .merely to an noy the existing government of. the. day. The cry then was " let the house reduce an obnoxious tax, and let the ministers find a substitute." That factions cry, that mean and dishonest policy, now reverberates back upon the treasury benches, and the Whigs are in an agony. Their day of delusion and fraud is past. They have not sufficient influence or popularity to return any one of theirmembers or colleagues in any of the great towns of the empire. Look at the Irish Se cretaryship ? it is vacant, and no respectable man can be found to fill it. Mr. James Abercrombie dare not take it or he would lose his seat for Edinburgh. . Spring Rice must eschew it or he would be kicked out of Cambridge. Bernam wood would march to Dunsinane if Sir Henry Parnell were to accept the office and make. a second appeal to the weavers of " bonny Dundee," Even Mr. Edward Ellice, respected as he is, would run consider able hazard in Coventry, if he were to whisper any in tention of embarking for Dublin. In shoft, the. ministry are hemmed in and embarrassed by the shackles they imposed upon themselves by their darling reform bill. But a parting word with Sir-John Cam Hobhouse. If we had no other ground of gratification at his.rejection by the people of Westminster, we should find it in the malignity of his wretched menaces against his opponent, Colonel- Evans. He declared that he might, when Se cretary of War, have erased the Colonel's name from the army list, with a stroke of his pen. Could he ? Perhaps he could, but what petty malice is in the threat ! None but but ,a disappointed Whig would talk in this manner. It is true that. Hobhouse has made an apology and endea voured to eat his words, but it is impossible to conceal what intemperate venom expressed, and what personal fear retracted. But he is done WE hope that the remarks we are about to offer on the evidence given before the committee on the Liverpool election may be the last that will be made in the STANDARD on this tedious, repulsive, and eptesubject. We may be tempted, or rather compelled to resume it by the coiicluct of our contemporaries, in which case the blame shall be theirs; but we •trust in their good sense, to re frain from reviving acts of folly, of which we are satisfied • t hat the disappointed candidate, Mr. Thornely, and his indiscreet agents and advisers are new heartily ashamed. In justice to the calumniated freemen we submit the fol lowing analysis of and running commentary upon . the evidence to our readers. We give it as we find it, and we regret to say that never in the whole course of a ra ther long experience, did we ever encounter so trumpery a case, or meet with more disreputable witnesses, or see so slight an admixture of truth in so large a mass of ter giversation, falsehood, and fraud. Mrs. Robinson's -evidence has already been disposed of, and it is needleSs now to advert to it here, being con vinced that there is not a single *human being in exist ence, in the possession of reasoning faculties, or capable of counting his ten fingers, who deems it, entitled to cre dit. There is one: circumstance attending the alleged situation •of this woman which must not be passed over, and which Mr. Rathbone and Mr. Harvey are bound to explain. She stated before the committee that she bad, previous to her appearance in London, informed the gentlemen who first questioned her, that she had taken an oath not to divulge the name . of the man who, she said, had re ceived the bribe of £3 10s. These gentlemen, then, Messrs. Rathbone and Han ey, knew that this wretched woman had either taken this oath, or that she had told them a lie. We freely give them the benefit of the al ternative. Some low people,• principally Irish, are ac customed to take these oaths, which although illegal, are, in their opinion, as morally binding as any oath taken before a magistrate. Presuming, therefore, that the wo man, Robinson, had taken this oath, as she stated, the pe titioners, neverthelesti, drag her to London in order to re veal that which she had sworn not to reveal ! But sup posing they did not believe that she had bound herself by an oath, then they must haVe believed that she had told them a gross falsehood ; and yet, in the full conviction of her being a deliberate liar they per fas et nefas take her as a witness before a committee to give evidence af fecting the rights and liberties of three thousand of our. fellow-townsmen ! These are the startling facts, and we. beg the agents and purists to lay them to their con sciences, and endeavour to worm themselves out of the dilemma in the best way they can. Mr. Charles Abercrombie is the next witness on ou r list, and we are desirous to treat him as courteously as a sense of justice and the unpleasant predicament in which he is placed Will admit. A contemporary states, but hether seriously or in joke, we hardly can tell, that, " the first case of direct bribery ,is proved by Mr. Charles Abercrombie." Now, I'vliat does Mr. Abercrombie's evi dence amount to ? He says he saw a man, whom he did not know, whom he never saw before., and has not seen since, receive a five pound Bank of England note, from a' person whom also he did not know, but who, judging fron his back, he considered to be a man about 30 years of age. This is what our contemporary- calls proof. Does he knoW anything of the rules of evidence ? If he d o , he must know, that Mr. Abercrombie's evidence, even sup posing it to be credible and true, is inadmissible, for the witness did not know whether the person bribed was or was not a freeman. We are unwilling to say anything harsh of Mr. Abercrombie, but we are afraid that we must throw his evidence into the fire. -It is not worth a traw. Some one or two witnesses speak of the inebriety of the freethen at the last election, but this charge we shall dispose of very briefly. Mr. Alderman Wright than whom a more unexceptionable witness, or one better known to, or more generally acquainted with the free men could not be found, states, that there was " less drunkenness at the last election than at any he had ever seen ;"—that he never saw the burgesses conduct them selves with more propriety, and that moreover the dif ferent canvassers received the most positive instructions not to pay wages, not to treat the voters, and, in short, not even to promise them either drink, money, or any reward whatever. John Allen states before the committee, that he saw Mr. Robert Horsfall give one Bruffield £1 10s. on one of the days of the election, but nobody saw this but him self ; and Mr. Robert Horsfall and his brother deny the charge in the most solemn and unequivocal terms.— Neither of these gentlemen knew any person of the name of Bruffie]d. It is not even attempted to be proved that this Bruffield is a freeman ; the charge, consequently, falls to the ground. The witness, Allen, admits that his wife received money from Mr. Harvey to induce him to go to London and give his evidence, and this is the only bribery which we see in the case. The evidence respecting wages and drink in the case of the Moorcrofts is all positively refuted by the parties implicated. It is utterly beneath notice. It is stated by one Kehoe, who was employed as a sort of porter or doorkeeper at the committee-room of Lord Sandon, that he'saw Mr. James Ackers give four or five sovereigns, wrapped up in red ribbons to a certain un known plan, dressed in a blue coat and trowsers. He did not know whether this unknown person was a voter or not—he - did not know whether or fur whom he voted —and he did not know whether he was a freeman or a three-and-tenpenny of Lord John Russell's creation. In short, it is impossible, with any quantity of credulity to believe this witness. His own story is its best refutation. Mr. Ackers denies most positively that he gave any money to any freeman or voter in a blue coat and trow sers, or to any other voter in any other coat during the election—in fact, he asserts that he had not a sovereign in his pocket during the election! George Kirby, who calls himself a Custom-house offi cer has stated, that on the second day of the election, he met one Richard Radcliff, a printer, who in the town of Liverpool and at the period aforesaid, did ask him to take a glass of brandy and Water, which he, Kirby, had too much good`sense to decline. As the witness was drink ing his grog at his friend's . " expense, in a room of the White Hart tavern, amongst a number of working-men • (for such is his romance,) lie saw a piece of paper laid upon the table by an unknown man, which he says " looked like a Bank of England note." Not having the powerful visual organs of Mr. Abercrombie, who saw right through the body of Mr. Fairclough, he would nut undertake to swear that the note was a bona fide note, far less that it was a five, ten, or twenty pound note. He might with equal ingenuity and reservation have sworn that it looked like a bill of lading, an excise permit, or a tavern bill. To .contradict Kirby, the Custom-house officer, his treating friend Radcliff is called, and who is he, think you, courteous reader ? A supporter of Lord Sandon or Sir Howard Douglas ?—No, no. He voted for Ewart and Thornely He poSitively denies that he treated any man with brandy and water on the day specified—he de nies that he met Kirby on that day—he 'denies that he was in the White Hart on that day—in short, he is ready to swear that the whole evidence of the Custom-house officer was a false entry, and a tissue of inventions from beginning to end. James Rigby states that Mr. Smith, or Mr. Clay, or Mr. somebody-else, offered him £2 10s. for a vote on tl:e second day of the election. This Rigby confesses that he had no vote—that he never had a vote—but that he, honest man, being tempted to do that which he knew lie durst not do, and which we are confident he never was asked to do, indignantly refused the £2 10s. We leave this witness to stand or fall by his own evidence. No man adjudicating upon the rights and privileges, or the life or property of a cat, would believe one word lie says. He states that he was sober at the time this splendid bribe was tendered to him, but that had he had a few more glasses in him he would have accepted it, even at the perilous hazard of committing perjury ! He accuses somebody, who is unknown, of bribing his wife, a woman apparently just as respectable as her husband and no more, through the hands of their child, but this is like all the other instances of flagrant_ and, disgusting false hood. Mrs. Rigby establishes the .respectability of Mr. Rigby; she makes it perfectly clear that neither of them are entitled to the least credit. She is not sure, she says, ," whether the gentlemen who called in the evening were the same gentlemen who called the next morning .'" Worthy Woman ! . She says her husband was drunk in the evening—but was his wife quite unsophisticated, despite the ex doublem tumblerum—that is Rathbune Latin—in the morning ? She is asked, " Have you talked this matter over with your husband ? She an swers, " I never have ! !" Mr. „ThOinaS Weston Clay, Mr. George Clay, Mr. Andrew Blowei • Smith, Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Alexander Smith, all deny the allegations of this Rigby and his wife. Reader, you can form your sions!! John Hudson states that on the Thursday election he met a gentleman in the street, Who half-a-crown. The gentleman he styles Horsfall," and describes him as a "short denied by the Messrs. Horsfall that they gave to any freeman at the time or for the pu r p oses and as concerns the fact that they were not from whom Hudson received the half- crown , sonal appearance, they being "tall me°, testifies. Hudson admits that he voted for Now, if he received anv money at all, wb' ell enough, is it unreasonabl e t o conclude, se he voted, that he was b r ib e d by e . the Rathb oi that the money was ha n d e d over in the name respectable gentleman, i n or d er to deceive form a foundation f or thi s contemplated the freemen ? ' The transaction is of so that we should hardly h ave credited its by the defeated candidate and his agents, sures of the last few months did not place in a very suspicious light before the public' • Another witness, Allan Bland, states till day of the election, be saw a gentleman, in give a sovereign or sovereigns to a " with. long clothes on !" This person says the man who gave the sea-faring man tl pulling him by the coat, told him " that lie and on being asked why he did this, he cause" was vexed to see .money pass the other !!" There is an honest rogue few such witnesses as this would sink a in a clam. He goes on to confess that he the first instance ; for he did not know but on being urged to find him out if p° upon the Exchange,, along with a sheriffs having the hopes of a ride to London, and GoosE AND BoAu, and some money to eyes, he pointed out Mr. J. I'. Raynes as gentleman in the brown coat. Now what says Mr. Raynes ? H e knows as Allan Bland—he did not give a soverei during the election—he held no such co. stated with any voter, freeman, or seafaring this how does Allan Bland look ? Nearly as Wm. Rathbone. Mr. Edward Melling's evidence is not e notice. Mr. John Haselden proves a rather against himself and friends. He states five of his own workmen to vote for Ewart but they refused, and he very sagely att fusal to the influence of bribery by the But he proves nothing against the freeme whom he attempts td criminate rebut his satisfactory manner, and their statements rated by Mrs. Spencer, the landlady of Arms. Mr. Haselden has confessedly used r I your own et! .. , ~r- —• tursday befeu !et, whoa ''les "oinglia fort man." gave any 1 nnposes 5 1 ' e not the I crown, their men, „ saill ...........--""14. i Led for Voki 0. which is pi seeing fortiv tbbone parti,.. 'COR name o f a .ive the voter' , red chargeCO o base a el° 1:88b, d its colvoli' Ei.,i4l its, if the Ittan4aT, lace theirceqi4relle`i olic. kti4,`,,l, that oatliese. ',lnri;',4,t I, in a bOT'lct Jeri? of ‘‘ , lig" ' tn' at seal. ci. vt , s thaille&J: T , "t the ' 1 the POI(' 4'4: 'lt Ile ) OV. he, an: . # attoy fe,f ' • gue fo r r I)Li bliii I lie told 111, . ,0 , v the O ft , 0 pc st l ble l' e . Tifs ok4ii / a nd a for. be f ''' t ' o boot, 1.. ."--• 'S a s the '' •Pf dit' nows no ~ 'reign to s ll ' ;onversatOst, ring woo, F .• rly as hiPe liti %. ,t entitled r suspiei . :i es that i,. eon. ' art and 11',' t'ti.,Ltit,',.l attribate,Y qitiio(etzi e orpoiitet al e rpse Il i . '9 f • mien. , • • his ecislec • ei ants ale P's 0 'laite •of the , t oil , ed uncle: 1 , 'ille,ll4. ' kl)e i, o ve . bout if 3 ;,,,- .b. Lis envie Jo, k• ,',e which'' 'l44' lisclosed '):, t . ven only ' tiloial Nerc all (O .tir44: he Of fifty , o Rk, s at all, ~ ' 'itti,, by ,aging 10 4 .1: that 11' 4 4 plasterers ' kfter 0 TL i i tt 'wi ll ed to Wks ) or 30 50, , bl ' b r 's of Sir P.', brain ierefore tlOl, ro,'lti t, [is eye,le, '4131;t: d. After r 4t 4 1 11/ i i 3S-eXalVitii Xlittirli• ed to add' •`•••., cf ,, r fie ° CjiS .--.7 ' ,31 'l. -,,_ ae into tv ,i , tjlej:4s to drio:, ro 144i,1,5tt aitY ogell r fitted tb't It, it, 1 u y ll i , el, the ! l ig , ' 41'111,4' Passed off 8, 4 1 and i ei-idence, tilkttaN s t electiot of'zfell T 1 l e re 3; t o pi& l' l',o ti, he fact 0' trikk Ise or ill:04. lull ffian. " 4 L IV ' Y, and tlir I v '.it te, or, ' 11. other Sti,nity itiotil D proof. °I li,a; (3 e, 1 )onderous '' 'l • • This is r,11g., .804 1 impartisi , kke 4 IN' e has.e , ild le i it in vai? I exl'zie fence, or 161' ote.ills y Ratlillit , : f t() es e, then `l4,ra beeP ' 4 I t , DI lg.has IlaS be;ii dti few oic,c# 14 td e $ and ca rev) Oa v to ,q 1 2.% on. 0 , the evideo m(4111 now' betty ' r • 4 the ooISA t Y have 1"' -'4„. , of 4: ----' .le's.kiti( NTS. e 1 4 - 4 op. ,11, for the bit`" ' e 't t pti viilig, ~,, A Arv,4 [A' their co:'',s" •`',..14; I •e CanootP vji Di ,) ill i tri 4 Ili in Unioo tl) 'it t, SO • l is e ree - 0 ! . ~. 0 , 4 ,n -street. ,;$ a Joiissi.o..f ite N, Co.'? 4Of 33, Fleet -0 , 1 k,, it; litN(l 4_Pf),?t wok in favour of Ewart and Thornely ! Mr. John Billinge tells a longstory about scores for ale and beer on account of his APKee. The only part of this evidence ll' passing comment is that where it is di M'Kee employs fifty men, of whom seven men. These men, Mr. Billinge says, were the day of the election. Forty-three out of fi were drunk, who either were not voters at they were ten-pound householders belongi reformed constituency. Certain it is that these forty-three tippling slaters and pla freeman. A man of the name of Felton is allowed to a long rigmarole story about seeing 20 or all in gold"—upon.one of the tables of Douglas's committee. He imagines therel were used in bribing the voters. His CY were dimmed by the glitter of the gold. waste of time in examining and cross- stupid witness, he at length is compelled to he saw none of the sovereigns paid away states that vast numbers of freemen came mittee• room, and asked for something to being required to " name the n ame of any he answers—" I CANNOT !" He admitted not know one-of them to be a freeman ! We have now done. Such is the drivel, the and the glaring falsehoods which are passed ignorantand the factious as admissible evid' contestable proofs of bribery at the last throw it to the' chigs as mere garbage. The be pleased to observe—and we assert the fact pride and satisfacion—that no one case or bribery is brought home .to a single freeman• shillings were spent in ale, needlessly, foolishly; but as to any five pound note, or £2 10s., or even ten shillings, or any other paid to a Liverpool burgess, there is no pr( from the beginning to the end of the pond( of evidence. . One word more before we close. This is paper in which any thing like a fair and i fri of the minutes of evidence has appeared. upon our antagonists to publish it, but in either are not permitted to see the evidence , restrained from giving it to the public by Rto vey, and Company. If it be otherwise, then ashamed of the contemptible stuff which has - at the expense of the nation. Nothing ha s lished by any of our opponents but a few stracts, ill-arranged, invidiously put, and lected to suit the vile ends of the faction. made out, why so chary about printing the e‘ unveiling the facts ?. But no; they know • cealment is their policy- . —suppression the 013 ' stifling the irritation of those whom they have The means are worthy of the men. TO counESPONDENTO' Our numerous correspondents must spare us for the have much inclination, and the spirit is willing' . neither room nor leisure to notice a tithe o f the' tions. We beg it to be understood that we can''' .,, return of auy correspondence. • LivitsvooL:—Prlnted on Tuesdays and Fridays, in John Street, and l'ul'lished at . No. 7, Iligh-stree t SAMUEL FRANOEYS, Stationer, of No. 7, Anson -sty Advertisements are also received by Messrs. Jolt , Dublin; and in London by Messrs. NEwToic, . square, Newpte-street; and Mr. BARKER, 33,