The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-13 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

' AVe hilt to acknowledge the receipt of the following publications.
' which shall be noticed in our nest : The Monthly Chronicle—
. 'The A' crawl(' l Magazine— The Sportiman--The Farmer's Maya-
- tine-7 he Churchman:—The. Sunbeam—The Bishop Exeter's
.Speech, &c.—and Day's Sermons. .

Zfir I'Libtrpool

TUESDAY moIIATING, MARCH 13,1838.

•
'ublication of the STANDARD commenced this Morn-
r.t 5 o'clock.

THE RECENTVIVIsIoN.—STRENGTO OF PARTIES IN
,PARLIAMENT.--w is their wont, the whig-radicals have
•been loud and incessant in their boasts of triumph since
Ahe division in the 'louse of Commons on Tlfursduv
`Men-nine. kfew days before Sir William Molesworth's
motion was brought on, they were as melancholy in their
•
Forebodings as they
are now vociferous
In Lien- exulta-
,lions;. It was quite evident, from the lugubrious tone of
the ministerial journals, that the ministers dreaded a tie-
:feat upon this long promised motion. This feeling of
anticipated discomfiture led them to every species of ca-
jolery. entreaty, promising-, and threatening, in order to
induce the recreant radicals to refrain from casting their
lot =mtg. the conservatives. We should very much
like to Ktow what amount of patronage has been pro-
mised, or bestowed upon, the virtuous radicals within the
last formight. We feel assured that a list of all the
"good things" which the whigs have pledged themselves
to confer upon their radical. allies, within this brief pe-
riod, would
,create. no little astonishment in the , country
•••••-if, indeed, any act of depravity, meanness, or prosti-.
antion of power, on the part of the present government,
could excite any surprise at all. A short time will, per-
haps, snake to show to what extent the votes of the
ultra-radicals, on Lord Sandal's amendment, have been
influenced by the agreeable contingencies to which we
114ve alluded. Unless the promises which the Whigs
have made, in order to secure another quarter's salary,
be speedily converted into substantial benefits, we shall
very snort learn the secret of their nature and extent
froiu the refractory radicals themselves.
But what reason have die I.odg-radicals to he proud of
the numerical results of the late division ? One. might
iniagilie, from the exaggerated tone of triumph with
"hien the majority is alluded to in the ministerial jour-
1141s, that the• ministry mere in a better situation than
• 114' hiti.o been in at any other period since their RCCPS-
hi"n to office, awl !hat the' hopes of the conservatives
were forever anuililati;tl. is this the case ? Far from
it ; RS lvt, shall proceed f)'(i*eliton;lrate.
Mdst tf -wit' readers will recollect that, when Sir Ro-
kvrt peo resigned-dike in 1835, the majority against

him was 34, and that, on several subsequent divisions,
the whig-radical ministry _had majorities as large as 70
or 80, and those on questiOns which did not necessarily
involve the the fata of the cabinet. These majorities
were obtained, it should be .borne in mind, in a parlia-
ment returned when the conservatives were in office.

What is the position of the ministry at present ? They
have been three years in power—have realised all those
benefits which the most unscrupulous exercise of pa-
tronage could command—have had all the court influ-
ence in their favour for the last nine months—have had
the advantage of a dissolution of Parliament under these
auspicious circumstances—and have enjoyed the well-
"known benefit of fau'iing. the return
~of a majority in
favour of their own principles.. And what is the actual
position of the Ministers, as shown by,the recent divi-
sion ? On a question which was of the most vital cha-
racter—which literally involved the fate of the cabinet—
and in a house composed of six hundred and
.eight mem-
bers, including the tellers and the speaker, they have
obtained a majority of twenty-nine This must be ta-
ken as a satisfactory test of the actual strength of par-
ties in the house, inasmuch as the principles of the ab-
sentees on both sides are, fortunately, well ascertained.
The liberal and radical absentees were—
Mr. Bainbridge,
Mr.- Bannerman, .
Sir M. Chapman,
Lord Albert Conyngham,
Colonel Edwardes,
Mr. Erie, • •
Mr. J. Fielders,
Mr. Grote,
Mr. Hector,
Sir Robert Heron,
Mr. Jervis,
General Johnson,
• Mr. Leader,
. ,
Mr. T.-Martin,
Sir W. Molesworth,
Mr. A. 11. Moreton,
Mr. Phillpotts, •
Mr. Potter,
Mr. Pryse,
Mr. Sergeant Tallourd,
Colonel White,
Mr. Wilkins.
. Twenty-two, and with the Speaker 23
Add the liberals in the House, (tellers included) 318

Total of Wliigs and Radicals 341
The Conservative absentees were—
Mr. Archlall,
Mr. J. Bailey,
Sir E. Barnes,
Mr. Blakemore,
Sir F. Burdett,
Mr. Cartwright,
Lord Clive,
Mr. E. J. Cooper,
Mr. Cresswell,
Mr. Dugdale,

Mr. Lane Fox,
Mr. W. 0. Gore.
Sir G. Heathcote,
Mr.llogham,
Mr. Kelly,
Mr. Ker, .
Lord Lowther,
Mr. H. Lowther,
Sir J. Owen,
Sir F. Pollock,
Sir W. Rae,
Lord Ramsey,
Lord Stormont,
Sir G. Tyrrell,
Mr. G. H. Vernon,
Mr. Wall,
Sir Eardley Wilmot,
Rutland vacant, but to he filled by a conservative.
Conservatives absent ..... 23
Ditto voted, (tellers included,) 289--317

Whig-Radical majority

The ❑umbers represent the relative strength of par
,ties on the night of the division. • Since, then the con.
servatives have gained two. voles by the substitution of•
Mr. Emerson 'l'ennent and Mr. Dunbar for Lord Belfast
and Mr. Gibson, as members for Belfast; and, on the
other hand, they have lost one vote by the substitution of
Mr. Maurice O'Connell for Air. Batennan, as member
for Tralee. These changes will reduce the above ma-
jot ity to twenty- two:

But we must not stop here. On all questions which
affect the interests of the Church, as well as upon other
questions of vital importance, there are several members
who would undoubtedly vote against minkters, but who
have, on the recent occasion, voted for them. Among
these we may confidently enumerate the following :

Lord J. G. Lennox,
Lord Arthur Lennox,
Sir Charles Lemon,
Mr. Walter Long, .
Sir Charles Greg,
Mr. Goring,
Mr. Gilbert Heathcote,
Sir Robert Ferguson.

Here are eight Whigs who will not vote for any mea-
sure for despoiling the church of its revenues—in short
for any measure which obtains the sanction of O'Connell
and his tail. If we deduct these from the liberal majority
of twenty-two, and count their votes with the Conserva-
tive minority, we shall'find that the real majority of mi
nisters, on those questions to which they are irrevocably
pledged by the Ml6field House compact, is only Six!—
or, if we deduct the Speaker, only FIVE In other
words, on the resolution, which the Whigs carried against
Sir Robert Peel, for the alienation of a fancied surplus of
the revenues belonging► to the Irish Church—which reso-
lution threw the Conservatives out of office—we should
find the following division, supposing the whole House to
be counted out :

Whig-radicals
Conservatives

..331
..326

Majority

After these statements, we venture to ask why our
radical contemporaries indulge in such immoderate ex-
ultation while contemplating the result of the late divi-
sion ? To whom is it the most mortifying—to the
ministers, or to the opposition ?

Before we quit this subject, we solicit the attention of
our readers to the following reflections, which occur to
us in reviewing the nature and examining the conse-
quences of the recent struggle :-
1. That tile ministers could not have secured the ma-
jority which they obtained without a compromise of
principle on the part of the radicals. The latter have
been loud in their denunciations of the former. They
have ridiculed their general policy, described their mea-
sures as tyrannical and oppressive, and declared them to
he unworthy of public confidence. And yet they have
voted for them in their extremity ! This inconsistent
conduct has condemned the radicals in the estimation of
the British public. Some degree of credit was formerly
given to them for sturdy honesty of purpose, and consci-
entious adherence to their principles. They are now
fully convicted of the meanest dishonesty and hypocrisy,
the most tritckling and slavish subserviency, and the
most cowardly desertion of avowed principles. As a
party, they
have rendered themselves insignificant, des-
picable, infamous. Over the abject humiliation of this
noisy and turbulent faction every true Protestant—every
sincere patriot must unfeignedly rejoice.
2. That the COnduCt of the conservatives in the late
contest was unstained by the slightest dishonour. They
might have left the ministry in a minority if they had
been so unscrupulous as to compromise their principles
for the sake of obtaining a party triumph—if they had
been as reckless as the present cabinet and their sup-
porters when they sUppla.ated Sir Robert Peel. The
Conservatives, to use the language of the radical Specta-
tor, " had taken especial care to place themselves in a
.9712'nority, thoof2h one sufficiently numerous to demonstrate
their .strengoi." 'They were taunted by the ministerial,
speakers with their " alliance with the radicals." What

1"1-1E VF,RPOO

did the event show ? Did it not prove tl►at. the conser-
vatives spurned the -Aalliance so effectually that nut a
single radical voted with the opposition? Was this-the
case with the ministers ? No They cordially em-
braced the radicals, and by their support they were en-
abled to secure the tenure of their offices for a short
period-longer. It is now evident that any coalition be-
tween the conservatives and the radicals is an impossibi-
lity. The principles of the former are as diametrically
opposed to those of the latter as the antipodes.

3. That the present ministers will find it impoSsible,
with their present support in the House of Commons, to
carry any of those measures to which they stand pledged
with O'Connell and his tail, as well as with the English
'di'ssenters They cannot carry into effect any propOsi7
tion affecting the interests of the trish. church; Li hick in-
volves the principle of alienation of church property.
They cannot possibly expect to conciliate the dissenters,
inasmuch as, independently of the adverse majority in
the House of Lords, the carrying of any measure fur the
abolition of church-rates is perfectly hopeless even in the
present House of Commons. We may, therefore, con-
gratulate the friends of the Established Church upon the
safety of one national religion from the attacks of its.
enemies.

4. That the splendid display of consummate statesman-
ship—high moral principle--and brilliant eloquence,
manifested on the conservative side of the House of
Commons, has contributed to elevate the character of the
opposition, and to increase the confidence of the country
in tlwir ability and integrity. On no occasion within
our recollection have we recognised such a humiliating
contrast as that which has been afforded by the present
ministers as compared with their opponents. The latter,
have fully sustained'thetr.ptptitation for talent and elo-
quence of the highest orNAcombined with straight for-
ward honesty of purpose—the former have more titan
realised the disparaging opinion which the people of En
gland have been led to form of their contemptible abili-
ties and political tergiversation. .

GUILTY OR NOT GUILT Y.—in the Standard of Friday
we made the following remarks in reference to the re-
primand of O'Connell :—" We sincerely congratulate
the people of England and Scotland upon the triumph-
ant manner in %Illicit the infamous charge of that foul-
mouthed slanderer, O'Connell, against the representa-
tives of both countries, has been met and answered by

the British Parliament. We rejoice to find that there is
still chivalry enough left in the House of Commons to
assert its own independence, and to vindicate its insulted'
honour." Upon these rema►ks the Mercury of Friday

last has the following criticism:—
" Every body who has been present in . one -of the criminal
courts trust have heard prisoners, who have afterwards been
convicted on the clearest evidence, plead " Not Guilty" in as
loud .and confident a tone as if they were the most innocent and
ill-used persons in the world. The " British Parliament" has
done nothing more. The reason why the prisoner who has
" met and answered" the charge against him, by pleading Not
Guilty, is nevertheless adjudged guilty, is because he has been
tried before a third party, sworn to do justice, and decide ac-
cording to the evidence. The House of Commons has tiled
itself,- and returned a verdict of acquittal in its own favour, and
this is what the 'Standard calls asserting its own independence I'
and "vindicating its own honour!'

With that singular obliquity of intellect by which the
editor of the Mercury is unfortunately characterised, he

has here Mistaken O'Connell fur the accuser, and the
House of Commons fur the accused, which every one
besides our contemporary must perceive to be contrary
to fact. The culprit who .had to make his appearance
before the house was the slanderer O'Connell. The of-
fence of which this culprit was guilty was, a false and
malicious libel upon certain members of the house. The
judges were also the members of the house, who alone
could take cognisance of
.the offence. The punish
ment awarded was a reprimand. In the face of these
well-known facts the Mercury has the hardihood to say
that O'Connell was the arraigner, and that the House of
Commons stood upon its trial! if that had been the
ca'-e, how could it possibly happen that O'Connell was
found guilty—sentenced--and punished ?
As our eentemporary is possessed of more than an or-
dinary share of dullness, we shall endeavour. to make the
matter still more intelligible.

Let us suppose a member of our Common Council—
Mr. Walmsley, fur instance—to be treated with some
degree of indigniiy by his fellow-councillors. Let us
imagine that lie is blackballed at a ballot for magistrates.
We can easily conceive that a man of Joshua's Nairn
and irascible temperatnent—especially one occupying
such a proud position among the
.Clayton square coster-
mongers, would feel highly incensed at such a: slight.,
Impelled by strong feelings of indignation,•it is not at
all unlikely that he might be betrayed into the use of
very intemperate and unseemly language. His wounded
pride, and disappointed ambition might possibly lead him
to abuse his fellow-councillors. He might call them "a
pack of knaves, liars, and hypocrites." We do not by
any means wish it to be inferred that our friend Joshua
ever did apply these delectable epithets to his reforming
brethren in the council. All we tnea,nhictiol
we,
that he
ile •
might be guilty of resorting to such a mode Of revenging
himself upon that obnoxious body, m
sake of illustration, imagine to be capable of black.
balling the man of many titles. In the next place let us
suppose that some honourable member of the douncil—
Alderman'Evans, for instance—conceiving that the op-
probrious terms " knaves, liars, and hypocrites" amount-
ed to a gross libel on character of the council, called
upon' our friend Joshua for his distinct avowal or retrac-
tation of those terms. Then let us suppose that Joshua
got'up, in a state of considerable excitement, and re-
iterated the charge of " knavery-, lying, and hypocrisy,"
accompanying the renewal of the charge with much vio-
lence of action. In such a 'Case would not our friend
Joshua be amenable to the council for this scandalous
language ? Would not Alderman Evans, in such cir-
cumstances, feel called upon to give notice of a motion
for calling the slanderer to account ? Would not the
council take cognisance of the matter ? We confidently
answer, yes! And, to make the parallel more perfect,
it is not improbable that a motion might be made " that
Joshua Walmsley stand up in his place" to be repri-
manded by the• Mayor, who, assuming that dignified de-
portment which so eminently characterises him, would
proceed to address our offending friend in soma such
terms as the following:—
" Mr. Joshua Walmsley, you have, in an intemperate
moment, been unfortunately betrayed into the expression
of language against the members of the Common Coun-
cil, which the Common Council has declared to be false
and scandalous, anti you having admitted.the truth of the
report which imputed to you such language; and having
openly avowed it in.your•place at the council-board, the
council has decided that you have been guilty of malici-
ously aspersing its character, and it has ordered that you
be reprimanded by the chair. The charge of knavery,
lying, and hypocrisy, which you have made against the I
honourable members of the Common Council, is of the
gravest possible nature, and you have laid yourself open
to the censure of the council. Yru have alleged that
you\r wish was to be elevated to the dignity of magis-
trate : if that was your desire, you did not take.the pro-
per mode of proceeding. You have alleged that other
people in the town of Liverpool have applied the same
language to the honourable members of the • Common
Council: that was no excuse. As a member of the
Common Council you -ought to have considered its dig-
nity, and notAlisparig,e the honour Of its members by
charging them with knavery, lying, and hypocrisy. No
one knew better titan you the power of the Common
Council to punish for such offence ; and it is its bounden
duty to vindicate its own honour and character. It only
remains for me now, in obedience to the resolutions of
the Common Council, to reprimand you• in your place
which I'do accordingly."
There is only one thing more necessary. We are next
to imagine that Mr. Joshua Walmsley (like a refractory
urchin at school who refuses to let down his ) will
not be reprimanded, and that he proceeds to assert the
propriety of aPplving the epithets " knaves, liars, and
hypocrites" to the Common Council=-thus rendering
himself :in (die,• idem of O'Connell.

Is thedtlercury satisfied that we 4iave illustrated 'the-
,
posi Lion' of O'Connell as the real. culprit ? Does the