The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-22 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS

Our Lancaster correspondent will receive a copy of to-day's
STANDARD in lieu of one of the 12th instant : every copy
of the latter date was disposed of prior to the receipt of his
letter.
-We have not had an opportunity of reading the addresses
from Scotland; but as their contents are of enduring inte-
rest, the postponement is of little consequence.
" A. Protestant': notices that the " Tracts for the Times"
are placed in a very conspicuous part of a popish book-
seller's window in Ranelagh-street, and asks whether it is
not a fair inference that the doctrines inculcated therein
are not very repugnant to the Romish party. Our corre-
spondent's deduction is a very reasonable one, and we need
scarcely ask whether he ever saw in the same place any of
the works of our Reformers, or any other scriptural publi-
cation.
" A Member of Castle-street Ward" is desirous of directing
the attention of the chief magistrate to the line of conduct'
uniformly, adopted by his predecessor whenever placed in a
position similar to that occupied by his worship as respects
the committee now sitting on the warehouse question.
We freely admit that Sir Joshua, though proving himself
senseless enough in many things, always paid the greatest
deference to the wishes of the body over which he was
called upon to preside:
We have not received the Dublin Statesman for many weeks:
we presume it is owing to the recent change of proprietor-
ship, but hope after this intimation the cause of complaint
will be removed.

Eibrrpool gptanDatti.

FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 22, 1841

Another week will carry us into the excitement of
the parliamentary session, and probably enable us to
form some estimate of the comparative strength of the
two great conflicting parties in the state. We, there-
fore, seize the opportunity which is left us of devoting
a small portion of our space to examine the present
position and future prospects of the same parties
within our own community.

It is not a little instructive to notice the close affinity
which exists between the condition of the ministerial
party generally and that of the Whig-radical party in
Liverpool. Both are alike "in extremis"—clinging
for a temporary support to the expediency of the hour;
and the decline of both may be attributed to the same
leading cause—viz., the loss of their character and re-
spectability. By the celebrated Lichfield-house com-
pact, Lord Melbourne's administration bartered the
respect of the country for the parliamentary strength
contained in the dorsal appendage of the Irish mendi-
cant. By a similar alliance, formed between the whig-
radical party in Liverpool and the Romish priesthood,
the former bartered the confidence of the respectable
portion of moderate reformers, for the occasional aid
of a mob, drilled and disciplined by the astute hand of
Popery. To be permitted to bask for a year or two
longer in the sunshine of court favour, Lord Melbourne
alienated the affections of the English gentry and yeo-
manry, thus voluntarily abandoning any hone which he
might have entertained of permanently increased
strength to be derived from an appeal to the English
constituencies. The " Liberals" (!) of Liverpool, with
the same contemptible time-serving spirit, made the
same sacrifice of the future to ensure the prolongation
of present rule—to enable them to outrage and insult,
for a few months longer, the feelings of their fellow-
townsmen, and to gratify the insatiable malevolence
which constitutes the nature of whig-radicalism, by
heaping difficulties in the path of those who are des-
tined
to succeed them.
Let any of our readers take the trouble of looking
back for a few years, and comparing the condition of
the Liverpool whig party with what it is at the present
time. Ten years ago that party could produce upon
any emergency a fair muster of men with respectable
names and decent coats. They could find movers and
seconders of resolutions at their public meetings with-
out the necessity of drawing forth from their obscurity
men of the retiring character which distinguishes Mr.
John Rosson or Mr. John Murray. It was not impe-
rative then that their deliberations should be protected
by Sir Joshua Walmsley's impartiality ; and their au-
diences were not always composed of Papist mobs,
drafted together from the docks or from the lodging-
houses of Banastre-street, at the summons of the
priest. Of those days they might exclaim with the
poet—

- " fuimus Troes ; fuit Ilium et gloria magna

Troia "

but now, alas ! no such proud remembrances are upon
their lips. Unlike the scattered remnant of that noble
race who preferred unsullied honour to slavery, the
Whigs of Liverpool, prostrate, kicked, and despised,
choose rather to lick the dust beneath the feet of men
whom, in their power and their pride, they have been
accustomed to command, than to carve out for them-

selves an honourable retreat from the scene of their
humiliation.

We need not go far to find an illustration of this la-
mentable deterioration in the character and tastes of
our local Whig-radicals. Thy melancholy exhibition at

the late meeting at the Music-hall is quite sufficient for
our present purpose. With what alacrity on that oc-
casion an ex-councillor, and an aristocrat of the first
water, might be seen hobnobbing with a journeyman
tailor ! With what meekness the whit' patriot, once
the observed of all observers,- submitted there to play
a third-rate part, whilst the "first business" was per-
formed by members of the Rosson brigade, with the
fugleman himself as prompter and stage-manager!
Amiable and gentle William Rathbone ! On that day,
beneath thy puritanical coat and under the shadow of
thy broad-rimmed beaver, what a mixture of bitter
thoughts and crawling, abject subserviency might we
not have found ! But we pass from the contempla-
tion. We will not press too haid upon a fallen party.
Still, however, we must urge upon our readers the
general features of the picture which whig-radicalism
in Liverpool now presents to us. In that picture we
see a party, respectable so far as regards the circum-
stances and the peisonal character of its members, sub-
mitting to an alliance with men whose objects and
whose character are alike dangerous. Pulled down
contumeliously from the pedestals to which their own
inflated vanity had raised them, they are willing rather
to lend their contribution of spleen and envenomed
feeling to a furious democracy, whose efforts are di-
rected to undermine the fabric of the constitution and
destroy the integrity of the empire, than to fall back
into a subordinate rank amongst the friends of exist.:
ing institutions, and to aid in the fulfilment of duties
which they haVe.,vroved themselves incapable of dis-
charging. 14.

Yes, the, fact is nolkundeniable that the whig aris-
tocracy (1) of Liverpoor-,—the Rathbones, Earles, Ew-
arts, et hoc genus omne—possess no longer a controlling
power over the vulgar herd of shopocrats and cellar
patriots whose " most sweet voices," in former days,
have contributed to swell their triumphs. They have
fondled into life a power of a coarser and more endu-
ring nature than their own, which, at length, able to
move by its own unaided strength, has hustled them
into the kennel, and will from henceforth pursue its
own objects after its own fashion. To gain a tempo-
rary triumph they allied themselves with Popery—car-
ressed the monster openly in the person of the " bla-
tant" demagogue O'Connell, and fed it by contributions
to Protector funds and Repeal rents; and they are now
reaping the just retribution for political dishonesty in
the desertion of the few good men of their own party
and the contempt, of those of every other. For the
future, as a party, they must work with Popery, brawl
with Popery, agitate with Popery—agitate for rebellion
and for the dismemberment of the empire ; and when
the day arrives on which that dark and subtle powe
shall throw aside its mask of assumed loyalty,

havoc ! and let slip the dogs of war," the mean and
mercenary imbeciles who have aided the loading of the
mine must either consummate their meanness by
crawling aside into the shelter of falsehood and treach-
ery, or be crushed by the explosion. We leave them
to the choice of their alternative,

The most consummate specimen of assurance which
we have lately met with, is contained in a leading ar-
ticle in the Morning Chronicle of Wednesday, in which
we are told that " the repeal is their" (the Tories) "own
especial question ; they alone are responsible for the
mooting of it, and for whatever interest it has excited
in Ireland." Indeed ! we presume that the Conser-
vative party in England are allied with the "impostor,"
whose allusions to us are conveyed in the terms " white
bellied English" and " Satanic Saxons." Again, we
are told, " what impudence it is in the Tories to taunt
the Whigs with an agitation which has been rendered
powerless exclusively through the popularity of a Whig
administration, and the respect which it has earned for
the British sceptre !" The note of admiration affixed
to the last sentence is that of the Morning Chronicle
itself; and our readers will therefore excuse us for talk-
ing of " the popularity of a Whig administration," or
" the respect which it has earned for the British
sceptre !" !

We can readily believe that the organs of Lord Mel-
bourne's administration would willingly persuade us
that we are responsible for the mooting of the repeal
agitation. But how can that be done ? Have the
Conservative party encouraged and patronised that agi-
tation ? We think not. The measure of Lord Stan-
ley, which the Chronicle points at as the incentive to
repeal, may to some extent have exasperated the traitors
from whom that treasonable outcry springs ; but that
measure did not originate the agitation for repeal, and
had it even done so, we cannot conceive what injury it
could thereby create, so long as it is rendered " power-
less and harmless through the popularity of a Whig ad-
ministration, and the respect which it has earned for
the British sceptre."
Reader—excuse us for repeating the last sentence.
We do confess that we are both amazed and amused
at the popularity in question, and " the respect which
it has earned for the British sceptre !" ! ! Good hea-
-why, the only popularity which the administra-
tration in question has achieved, is confined to the
hangers on of:inchoate treason, whose machinations
would, under a. firm and constitutional government,
be punished by suspension, which is vulgarly called
hanging ; and as to the respect which is spoken of, we
imagine that it is anything but that which ought to
attend an honest administration,
But to return to our text in the Chronicle; we
are admonished that the question is, " which is the
party answerable for this repeal, the extravagance of
which we thus condemn, and the mischiefs of which
we have so often held out ? Who but the authors of all
the evils, and all calamities, discords, and disturbances
through the length and breadth of the empire, but espe-
cially in Ireland, the country of their peculiar hate, the
mark of their incontrollable animosity ?" ! How beau-
tifully the government organ echoes the heartless lies
of the agitator ! How anxious is the mouth-piece of
Downing-street to proclaim that England, and the peo-
ple of England, have no sympathy with their brethren
across the channel.

yens !

Let us return, however, to " the text." Let us see
what is the end aimed at by our contemporary of the
Chronicle. " And this is the party" (to wit, the Con-
servative party) " which would snatch the reins of go-
vernment out of the Whig hands—to resist Mr. O'Con-
nell and repeal !" Aye—here is the grand arcanum of
ministerial tactics. We have allowed and encouraged
the agitation of repeal until it has become dangerous;
and now who dare snatch out of our hands the respon-
sibility of allaying the demon which we ourselves have
provoked ? Truly a most legitimate and a most mo-
dest question.

But the country, we imagine, will not be satisfied
with this species ofargument. Whig-radicalism has
fostered a principle which is destructive to the com-
monweal, and it will not be allowed to benefit from the
antics which its own creation may choose to enact, as
a hindrance to the legitimate demands of the people of
Great Britain. Lord Melbourne's administration must
not be allowed to shelter itself under the treason which
itself has created.

We have before us a copy of the .Anti• Corn Law
Circular of the 14th instant, and we may say with per-
fect truth and sincerity, that we have seldom met with
a publication more fraught with dangerous principles,
or more calculated to produce mischief, than this organ
of the Mammon League. We venture to assert, with-
out the fear of contradiction, that more levelling doc-
trines never appeared in the columns of any Chartist
or Socialist periodical, than have been admitted into
the columns of the Anti-Corn Law Circular. It is
now evident that the land-owners of Great Britain are
to be sacrificed en masse, in order to carry out the
crude and ridiculous speculations of the free-trade phi-
losophers. We infer this from an article which ap-
pears in the first page of the Circular—copies of which
article will shortly, we understand, he circulated by
thousands throughout the manufacturing districts.
This article is styled "A Word in the Ear of the Land-
lords." It contains some of the most pernicious prin-
ciples of the Socialist school. The first paragraph
which meets our eye contains a distinct assertion of
the community of property. It says, " The landlords
think the property in land more sacred than any other
sort of property, and that the right of the owner to it
is greater than to other sorts. They should be told
that it is quite the reverse, and that it is supported by
law and custom only, while it is opposed by natural

right." According to this _writer, the man who re-
claims a barren wilderness, and converts it into fruit-
ful land, or the man who exchanges the wealth which
he has realized, by other pursuits of industry, for such
land, after it has been brought into cultivation, has no
" natural right" to his property. This is the doctrine
propounded in the pages of the Circular. It is not our
object to refute this doctrine. It is sufficient to say
that it is utterly inconsistent with the recognized rights
of labour. We only desire to point out the dangerous
dogmas which are pitt forth, under the sanction of the
Anti-Corn Law League. We wish to brand these
worshippers of Mammon as levellers. We wish to
convict them of the crime of seeking to subvert the
very foundations of all human society, and of trying to
abrogate every code of human laws.
The next paragraph, in the article under notice, is
neither more nor less than a palpable contradiction of
the one which we have already quoted. The writer
says, that " the right of every man to the produce of
his own labour is a natural and indisputable right ;
but land, not being the produce of man's labour, be-
longs to no one person more than another.", Here is
an acknowledgement that the rights of labour pre "na-
tural and indisputable" rights. Well, then, land re-
claimed by human industry, and by the application of
human skill, is, to all intents and purposes, the " pro-
duce of labour." The right to it, thus acquired, is,
therefore, on this writer's own showing, " natural and
indisputable." As to the assertion that land is not the
produce of man's labour, we can only designate it as a
contemptible quibble. If the assertion were true, no
man would possess a natural right to the use or pos-
session of any production which he has, by his own
labour, rendered of value or utility to himself or his
fellow creatures. According to this preposterous dog-
ma, the fisherman has no right to retain possession, or
to dispose of, the haul of his own nets ; nor has the
miner any right to the coal, the lead, the iron, or the
copper which he may dig out of the bowels of the
the earth, or to the mine from ;which these minerals may
be extracted.

We now proceed to quote a paragraph which, for its
utter disregard of every semblance of truth or candour,
may be fairly said to be unparalleled in the annals of
political controversy. The.author states that " calcu-
lations have been made, showing that since the peace
the landowners have received an amount of money, in
the shape of an extra rent, in consequence of the corn
laws, greatly exceeding .the value of their lands ; and
that thus, by a sort of forced purchase, the community
has become the rightful owner of the land." Accord
ing to this principle, all the landowners in the kingdom
ought to be dispossessed of their estates. The writer,
however, forgets the immense number of estates which
have been sold and re-sold, at greatly advanced prices,
since the period of the peace. The great proportion
of these estates have come into the possession of re-
tired merchants and manufacturers, who have paid for
them out of the capital which they have realised in
industrial pursuits. Does he mean to allege that this
class of purchasers ought to surrender to " the com-
munity" their ,territorial acquisitions ? The very idea
is a glaring absurdity.

We now come to the very pith and marrow of the
senseless and mischievous article on which we have
been commenting. Having asserted that " the public
have a double title to the estates (of the landowners).
by natural rights and by purchase," the writer pro-
ceeds to consider the different methods by which the
public may obtain possession. The first scheme pro-
posed is that of augmenting the taxation of the land,
leaving to the present owner only about one or two
shillings in the pound, as a sort of remuneration for
managing the estate. Hear this, ye retired merchants
and cotton-spinners, who have invested the proceeds
of thirty or forty years' labour in the purchase of land !
At present you are receiving a return of three or
three-and-a-half per cent. interest for your purchases.
Are you prepared to accept about one-sixth part of a
pound sterling as the interest of your investments ?
The next proposition is, the ejection of the landowners
entirely, the government letting the land entirely to
the farmers, and placing the -rent to the public account.
A modest proposition, truly ! The sans culottes of the
French Revolution did not venture half so far in the
work of confiscation and appropriation. The third
proposition is, the division of the land equally among
the people. But, as it might be objected that " after
a series of years things would come round very nearly
to their present position," the writer proposes that
each person should have a life-interest only in the
estate, by which means, he says, " the extreme of po-
verty would be avoided, wealth would be more equally
diffused, and a poor-law rendered useless." We so-
lemnly assure our 'readers that we are neither exagge-
rating nor distorting the language put forth in the
Anti-Corn Law Circular. We are quoting ,the very
words sanctioned by the organ of the League. It is
surely unnecessary for us to enter upon the formal
refutation of such mischievous dogmas as those pro-
pounded in the Circular. We feel assured that any
elaborate reply to such pernicious doctrines would be
almost considered an insult to the common sense of
our readers. It is right, however, that they should be
made acquainted with the real views of the anti-corn
law agitators.

The author of " A Word in the Ears of the Land-
lords" seems tagain courage as he proceeds. He next
ventures to say that " an opinion prevails among the
aristocracy, that a revolution would only deprive them
of political power, leaving their estates untouched, and
that the public creditor, and some traders and land-
, owners, whose moveable properties might be plundered
or destroyed in the confusion of the revolution, are the
! only parties who would be injured." So, then, a re-
volution is seriously contemplated by this anti-corn law
writer. In this revolution we are solemnly assured
that the property of the landowners is not one whit
" more secure than that of the landholders." Thus, it
would seem, the fundholders are to suffer in common
with the landowners. Hear this ! ye who have pur-
chased annuities ; ye who have invested your money
in public securities, for the sake of securing a comfort-
able competency for your declining years, or an ade-
quate provision for the surviving members of your fa-
milies ; and ye thrifty operatives, who have laid by in
the Savings' Banks, out of your hard earnings, a small
fund, which may be available as a resource against the
contingencies of sickness and old age. Be prepared,
one and all of you, to surrender to " the community"
the fruits of your patient, and laborious, and self-deny-
ing exertions. Be prepared for the confiscation of all
your worldly wealth. Do not flatter yourselves that
you will be spared in the season of general plunder.
Landlords of England ! read your doom. "The same
hands that would wipe away the (national) debt, would
burn the title-deeds of your estates." Read again—
" The leaders of a successful revolutionary movemenr
would be very unlikely to commit so great an error as
that of leaving the estates in the hands of the aristo-
cracy." Prepare yourselves for the alienation of your
estates for the benefit of " the community." It signi-
fies not whether you have been kind and indulgent
landlords. It matters not whether you have always
been prominent in deeds of princely charity and muni-
ficence. It is of no moment whatever that you have
devoted your incomes to the promotion of science and
literature, or in the erection of churches, asylums, hos-
pitals, or any other public institutions of a Christian
or benevolent character. The mandate of the Anti-
Corn Law League has gone forth, and you are to be
denuded of the means of doing good to your fellow
creatures, which you have hitherto turned to such no-
ble ends.

The writer of the scandalous article upon which we
have been animadverting has spoken out candidly, at
least—we wish we could say honestly. He concludes
his plain-spoken appeal with the caution, that " the
possession of a few friends among the landowners
ought not to prevent the Anti-Corn Law League from
making the most determined attack upon that body
and its vicious legislation." Let the Earl of Fitzwil-
liam, and those others of the landed proprietary who
have lent their aid to the anti-corn law agitators, lay
these things seriously to heart, and then let them re-
flect whether Lord Melbourne did not for once speak
the honest truth, when he declared that any man who
would advocate the repeal of the corn laws must be a
madman. Our own opinion of such a man is, either
that he is the most consummate fool, or the most de-
liberate rogue—the latter of which appellatives we
think is most generally applicable.

The Secretary of the Protector Society has been
busy, during the last few days, exerting himself in the

collection of subscriptions, for the purpose of relieving
Ethers of th.l society who may be reduced to

those men

such extremities as to be under the necessity of apply-