The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-23 00:00:00

lo reason to cen ure
is that ad

—at all event', in
i by our correspondent—

right reverend prelate and Lord

Ebe Eibtrpoof

TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 23, 1846

The fate of Sir Robert Peel's administration—
whether it will be permitted to do all of which it has
given promise, or be overthrown ignominiously,
leaving everything and every interest in the empire
unsettled—is a problem which a few days may solve.
Its vitality, however, does not appear of a very en-
during character ; and it will pass to its doom—
whenever that doom arrives—with few to mourn
over it, and fewer still to bestow upon those who
compose it, the tribute of respect and affection. It
will be said of it, that it l: as hastened what, for good
or for evil, may well be regarded as a crisis in the
destinies of this country. It may be said of its
.head, and of its more prominent members, that they
have sacrificed the interests of party to their convic-
tions of public duty. They will descend into pri-
vate life with something like a crown of martyrdom
upon their heads. The base metal will be gilded by
the assertion of patriotism, as their inducing motive;
yet the coin will be found but a counterfeit after
all. It will not ring; it is short of weight; and the
hard-hearted and unimaginative trader, to whom it
is offered, will nail it to his counter as a specimen
of spurious material, and, probably, hand over the
utterer to the guari:iianship of a police official.
We are not about to join in the recent personal
attacks which have been made upon Sir Robert Peel
for the course which he has seen fit to pursue upon
the questions with which parliament is now dealing.
The private character of that right hon. gentleman
is, to us, a security that he would not, willingly and
premeditatedly, do anything which could be charac-
terized as politically profligate. We shall not, how-
ever, compromise our honesty, by concealing the
impression, which a dispassionate consideration of
his career, as a politician and a minister, has forced
upon us, t"at he has wofully and signally departed
from that straight-forward course which ought to be
the path of great statesmen. We cannot condes-
cend to blink the expression of what we conceive to
be the truth. There is, independent of the right
course, a consistent course, for every statesman to
pursue. Sir Robert Peel may have pursued the
first. He may be right, now. We may be wrong
in finding fault with that course. A consistent
course, however, he has not pursued ; and we are
almost inclined to believe, that danger as great is to
be apprehended from the glaringly public expedi-
tion of th.t inconsistency in a statesman, as is feared
as the result of the measures with respect to which
it has been displayed. .

We have been in the habit of regarding the ex-
pressed opinions of public men as founded upon
some definite principle—some settled conviction.
We look upon the leading statesman of this, or that,
party, as an exponent of the opinions and feelings
of a definite portion of the community. His influ-
ence in a representative system of government is
base.l upon, and dependent upon, this principle.
Sir Robert Peel, however, demurs to this long-
recognised state of things. He tells us, practically,
that the he'd of the column is to move the base;
that the representation of any given amount of pub-
lic opinion is free to direct his influence in complete
contravention of such public opinion. We have
been looking up to him for the maintenance of a
certain policy—laid down by himself—the justice
and wisdom of which we have been impressed with
from his own lips; yet he claims a right to turn
rJunl, and say to us, the time has come when I
must pursue an opposite course," and to drag us
with him. Can we help asking, in such a case,
" how have you arrived at your new conviction ? by
what process? in what time? Is it the conviction
of a day, or of a crisis, or has it been making way,
silently, for years ?" A further enquiry suggests
itself—" are you serious now? Is there any secu-
rity that we may not some day be called upon to
bear you announce another, and, perhaps, an oppo-
site, conviction." There is, obviously, no such se-
curity. We cannot point to one recorded opinion,
or one enunciated principle of acting, of a statesman
n'ho recognises such a code of political morality,
and say, " here, at least, we are safe." The new
light may bP breaking in upon his mind even now.
The scale, which we are destined hereafter to he told
has dimmed his political vision, may be just begin-
ning to lose its opaqueness, or may be almost gone.
The oracle may be only beginning to shake off its
torpor, or may be ready to startle us with some new
discovery. To trust, in such a case, is to be idiotic.
Confidence in the professions of public men are per-
fectly incompatible with the existence of such a sys-
tem of political morality, which overturns the whole
action of the constitution itself, by rendering the re-
presentative principle, upon which it is based, a farce
and a delusion.

It is not for us to speculate here upon the next
probable movement of the professors of this lax mo-
rality; whether the sugar duties, the Irish church,
the repeal of the legislative union between the two
countries, the recognition of a non-religious system
of education, or some measure more directly affect-
ing the liberties of the subject and the security of
the state, are destined to be the field of its exercise.
A far more pertinent enquiry would be—what is to
be the course of the British people to protect them-
selves from the vagaries of these men, who have
thus thrown from them even the shadow of respon-
sibility, and declared openly, that we are not to rely
upon their professions, or their pledges? Happily,
Sir Robert Peel himself has afforded us a clue to aid
us in such an enquiry. _ _

" Her Majesty's advisers saw that the time had
arrived when these measures must be conceded ;
and `►hey resolved at once to undertake the task of
their settlement." This is the stereotyped announce-
ment of every measure of apostacy. Why has the
time arrived ? Why is that a necessary and a wise
-c now, which, last year, or a few years ago,
same men told us was pregnant with ruin to

measure,
these

. .
the empire ? We answer—because we have been
sleeping at our posts, whilst the workers of mischief
have been actively mining, around and beneath us.
We have let in the small rill, and stood unresistingly
by until it has grown into a flood—until " the time
has come" when its onward progress must no longer
be impeded ! We have neglected the wise maxim,
" obsta principiis." We have overlooked the seeds,
and feebly contended against the growth, of disease
in the body politic, until" the time has come" when
the physician has to insist upon amputation.

Take, for an example of our meaning, the posi-
tion of the conservative body of the nation, with
respect to the pending measures for the withdrawal
of protection from native industry. 'We have seen,
for years, a powerful and well-organised body—the
Anti-Corn-Law League—industriously inoculating
the public mind with convictions of the necessity of
a free trade in food—a free interchange of commo-
dities with foreign countries, to the exclusion of all
consideration for the interests of a large mass of the
native producers. That body appealed to our selfish-
ness—to the cupidity of the capitalist, the manufac-
turer, and the small trader—to the ignorance of the
artizan and the labourer. Was anything like a firm
stand made against the spread of this movement ?
Were those, even, who are now moving so vigour-
ously to arrest its triumph, at their posts ? They
were not. They were immersed in petty projects of
their own ; following, in extatic gratulation, at the
heals of a minister who, having drawn them to the
brink of a precipice, is now throwing them over.
They were busy urging on enclosure bills, cutting
down workhouse dietaries, securing slices of tithe
property, supporting long hours of factory labour,
and introducing, for their own benefit, small ends
of the wedges which, when driven home, are des-
tined annihilate them. And whilst they have
been thus engaged—thus running purblind to their
own destruction, drawn on by the scent of treasury
pickings and petty corruption " the time has
come !" They find themselves, in the day of trial,
helpless and unarmed. They have no strong sym-
pathy in the heart of the nation to fall back upon.
There must he an end of this apathy—this selfish
indifference. This is one step towards protection of
the interests of the nation from betrayal. But we
must do more than this. We must protest, as a
nation, and prepare to struggle as a nation, against

the recognition of expediency, as our sole guide in
legislation. There is something, surely, beyond
considerations of mere human selfishness, which
ought to govern the world. We have, as a nation,
a divine mission to fulfil, or we should not have
been so abundantly blessed and strengthened from
above; we should not have been a Christian people.
There is such a thing as immutable truth in the
world, whilst we are entangling ourselves in the
mazes of a crude philosophy, and sacrificing that
truth at the shrine of a contemptible and selfish
expediency, which is but the thing of an hour. Our
first step must he to recognize the existence of that
truth; to proclaim it as our guide, from which no
temporal considerations will be suffered to withdraw
us; and to rally only by the side of honest and
faithful men, who take it as their standard. Here
is the sure protection of the nation against the
power of the mere worldly statesman—the man,
who, looking only at the balance of parliamentary
influence, the strength of party feeling or party
lethargy out of doors, the possibility of attaching to
him this or that section of politicians by a stroke of
policy, turns round, evzr and anon, upon the nation,
and prefaces the announcement of his political
apostacy by informing us that "the time is come,"
when he can no longer be consistent with himself,
or keep faith with those who have confided in him.

We must not advance to the work of raising this
healthy feeling in the public mind with the ordinary
weapons and appliances only of party warfare in our
hands. We have tried these ; and we have faile I.
" The time is come" when we must no longer be
deluded with the notion that it is enough for us to
follow the advice of that statesman, whose fall from
rectitude we have so great occasion to deplore, and
conclude with him that "the battle of the constitu-
tion is to be fought in the registration courts." It
is to be fought in men's hearts. It is to be won
only by impressing there the conviction that what
is morally wrong can never be politically right; and
that a nation which depatts from its God, he will
not uphold ! We fought the battle of the registra-
tion ; the result placed in office a Conservative Mi-
nistry, with a Conservative party in Parliament
paramount in strength and influence. Yet by that
Ministry, and from that Parliament, have been dealt,
against the constitution, the liberties, the religion of
the nation, blows which the most infidel and repub-
lican legislature durst never have attempted. By
that Ministry the industry of the nation is about to
he laid prostrate ; and our holy and revered Church
is only tolerated until the bond of alliance now
forming with dissent and popery is sufficiently ce-
mented to enable them to proclaim to us that " the
time is come" for its betrayal—l eni ineluctabile
tempus.

The accounts from the seat of war on the Rio
Grande, brought by the Great Britain steamer, re-
cord little beyond vs hat was anticipated as the imme-
diate sequel of the victories achieved by General
Taylor's army. The city of Matamoras had fallen,
without a blow being struck in its defence, and
General Taylor had established himself on the Mexi-
can side of the Rio Grande, where he proposed to
fix his quarters during the hot weather. In the
meantime the American squadron has blockaded
Vera Cruz ; and it is intimated, by the now ram-
pant war party in the United States, that it may be
necessary, in the absence of prompt submission on
the part of Mexico, not only to blockade the ports
on her sea-board, to occupy California, New Mexi-
co and Tamaulipas, but to bombard St. Juan d'
Ulloa into submission.

The Mexican authorities, on the other hand, are
active in their preparations for defence; and the
fate of the Government of Paredes appears to de-
pend upon its success. The army, however, by
which General Taylor was opposed, is said to have
nearly dispersed; and great difficulty is anticipated
in reassembling another of equal strength. As a
proof of Mexican earnestness, however, the Ameri-
can Consuls in all the trading ports and cities are
ordered to suspend their functions; and all Ame-
rican citizens are ordered to leave the country in
eight days. The prognostications of the American
journals are, that Paredes will be prevented from
following out his understood determination, and
peace be restored to the United States by a revolution,
which will bring back Santa Anna to the head of
the Mexican Government.

The feeling of excitement which exists in the
union on the subject of this Mexican quarrel does
not extend toward the relations of the model republic
with Great Britain. It is already found that war
costs money; that volunteers, however bellicose,
must have rations, and clothing, and arms. The
surplus revenue is rapidly vanishing ; the issue of
treasury bonds is in prospect ; the consummation
of the banking scheme is being indefinitely post-
poned, and a reduction of tariff duties is becoming
daily a more impracticable event. Independently
of these sedatives, another material consideration,
of a kind which Brother Jonathan seldom shuts
his eyes to, has rendered him of late moderately

civil towards Great Britain. The consideration in
question is thus glanced at in the city article of the
New York Morning Herald of the Bth instant :
" Our exports to Great Britain and dependiences, con-
tinue in ab ,ut the same proportion to the aggregate as
previously reported, and comprise the most valuable part
of our foreign export trade. The exports to Great Britain
from the South. are a larger per cent of the aggregate than
those from the North. The commercal relations be-
tween England and the United States are of the most
valuable nature, particularly to the principal interests of
this country. Toe balance of trade between the two
countries is annually largely in our favour, and as the
variety of our exports increase, larger markets will spring
up for our produr tons. Oar shipments of breadstuffs and
provisions to Great Britain, within the past five or six
years, have increased immensely, and the facilities we
now enjoy, in the entry of our products into llritish ports,
compared with those of former yerrs, will open a trade
between the two countries in the agricultural products of
the North, hardly second to that now existing in the
principal agricultural products of the South. The re-
moval of the restrictions contemplated under the new Corn
Bill of Sir Robert Peel's, will ultimately give us markets
for oar breadstuffs—we say ultimately, because it will
require some time to extend the cultivation of grain
in this country, sufficient to bring prices down to a point
low enough to enable us to compete successfully with the
grain growing countries more favourably situated to
anticipate us in any demand for breadstuffs in the United
Kiiw clam,"

With this feeling as to the advantage to America
of the preservation of amicable relations with this
country, we have little fear of the favourable settle-
ment of the Oregon question being achieved.
With respect to the relations between our Cana-
dian settlements and the United States, if we can
believe the transatlantic newspapers, they are fast
settling themselves. The J ew York Morning Herald,
quoting the proceedings of a meeting of the Whig
party, from the Montreal Pilot, remarks,—

" We look upon the proceedings of this banquet as
very sign ticant of the direction that the popular will is
taking in Canada. It is beyond question that nine-tenths
of the people are in favour of a republican fcrw of Go-
vernment."

We fear it must come to this ; although the pear
will perhaps hang on the tree a little longer.

We have given, in another column, an extract
from the speech of Mr. D'lsraeli, delivered on
Tuesday last, containing the evidence adduceable in
support of the charge brought against Sir Robert
Peel by Lord George Bentinck, of having dealt
disingenuously—in fact, of 'having " hunted to
death" his noble relative, the late George Canning.
A spirit Of fairness would have prompted us to give
Sir Robert's reply, delivered on Friday evening.
Its extreme length, however, extending over six co-
lumns of the Times, and a discursiveness not usual
with that statesman, utterly precludes us from giving
any portion of it in his own words; and we must
therefore content ourselves with a summary of its
leading details.
The charge was of a two-fold nature ; first, that
having in 1829, during the debate upon the Catho-
lic Relief Bill, admitted that in a communication
made to Lord Liverpool in 1825, he had asked to be
relieved from office, urging, as his reason for doing
so, that he had become convinced that something
must be done for the settlement of the question,
and that, therefore, he acted unfairly towards Mr.
Canning in withdrawing his support from that
statesman in 1827 ; and, secondly, that he had pro-
cured the insertion of a garbled report of the speech
of 1829 in Hansard's debates, omitting the particu-
lar passage, upon which the charge was founded.
Mr. D'lsraeli supported the views of Lord George
Bentinck, by producing the report of the Mirror of
Parliament and of the London Times, in both of
which was to be found the omitted passage.

It was a disputed question whether the admission
to Lord Liverpool of his change of opinion was in a
written or a verbal communication. To prove that
it could not have bee-i the former, Sir Robert had
his correspondence between them, in the year in
question, brought from his country seat ; and there
was no trace there of its having been thus made.
After entering into a long argument and quoting

several contemporary documents, to prove that such
an admission could not have been made by him ver-
bally, he proceeded to examine the authority of the
Mirror of Parliament, by which the passage of the
speech of 1829 was reported. He had referred to
four contemporary papers, each having separate
corps of reporters, namely, the Morning Chronicle.
Morning Post, Morning Journal, and Morning
Herald, in none of which was to be found that
passage. It was contained only in the reports of
the Mirror of Parliament and the Times,. But how
were the reports of the Mirror got up ? The paper
had not a separate corps of reporters. It was made
out of the best portions of the most extended re-
ports of the gentlemen engaged on the Times, Chro-
nicle, and Herald, who met together daily to com-
pare their notes, and write out the speeches amongst
them. en the occasion in question, from its agree-
ing with the Times, the passage disputed must be
concluded to have been supplied from the notes of
the Times reporter. Sir Robert Peel argued, from
these data, that there were three authorities in his
favour for one against him (the Mirror of Parlia-
ment counting as nothing); and that it was more
likely that the passage was interpolated by the one,
than omitted by the three.
We can scarcely admit the correctness of this
view, as to the probability of interpolation. Such
is not the practice of reporters, who are more apt to
omit than to interpolate. In the report of the 'limes
containing the passage, the reporter is made to state
that Sir Robert was very imperfectly heard in the
gallery, which might account for the error on one
side or the other. The most important feature in
the controversy is the fact that the speech of Sir
Robert was not corrected by him for Hansard, but
for John Murray, the eminent publisher, who pos-
sessed the copyright of such corrected speech, and
supplied it to Hansard by Sir Robert Peel's inter-
cession. Hansard, let it be borne in mind, had his
usual reporters present, whose substantial correct-
ness has always been proverbial, and who would
have detected the omission of so important a pas-
sage, had it been uttered.
Here the question rests ; and here, we presume,
it must rest. In justice to Sir Robert Peel, how-
ever, we do not think that the stigma of having
uttered the sentence and the delinquency with which
it would mark his conduct, to Mr. Canning,
cannot, on the present evidence, and after so great
a lapse of time, be properly attached to his cha-
racter.