The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-06-18 00:00:00

The existing system—designed, as we have said, with the
double view of securing an average return for his industry
to the farmer on the one hand, and an average supply of
food for the community on the other—not brought forward
for any factious purpose, devised after mature consideration,
and open only to one class of abuses, easily remided—accom-
modates itself to all states of the market, protecting the agri-
cultural interest in seasons when it needs protection, and
relaxing that protection in favour of the public whenever its
enforcement would press upon the comfort of the commu-
nity,

'the proposed system—designed to effect a permanent de-
crease in the returns of the farmer's industry, brought for-
ward as a bid for popular favour by a beaten and desperate
faction—accommodates itself to no one assignable condition
of the most fluctuating premises in the world, but one; and,
in accommodating itself to that one unfrequent and transitory
conjuncture, violates the very principle of free trade, of
which its advocates have the impudence to call themselves the
supporters ; places the British or Irish farmer, in years when
he requires protection, on a par with those who, in such
seasons, can undersell and beggar him ; and, in seasons when
he does not require protection, protects him at the cost of
a famishing community.
Both systems equally violate the abstract idea of free trade.
But the one is honest in its origin, applicable in its provisions,
and efficacious in its working ; the other originates in faction,
applies but to one case in the whole category of changes in-
cident to wind and weather, and wouid inevitably work ex-

, _ .....
cessive injury to the agricultural classes in Great Britain,and
absolute ruin to all classes in Ireland.

The originators and advocates of this dishonest device must
not, we repeat, be allowed to arrogate to themselves the cre-
dit with the vulgar of advocating free trade. It is not free
trade to keep foreign grain out, unless it pays a duty
of a shilling bushel. It is not a free trade to keep Norwegian
timber out, unless it pays a duty. It is not free trade to keep
Brazilian sugar out, unless it pays a duty of—
In all these proposals of ministers, the principle of free
trade is violated. We do not blame them for that; but we
blame them because they have violated this principle only in
that inadequate degree which is calculated to work a great
amount of injury to the community. We think that the ab-
stract idea of a perfectly unrestricted interchange of coin-
modities, except among subjects of the same state, can never
be realised in practice ; and we advocate the violation of it
whenver its violation may be conducive to the national hide-
pendence, the encouragement of our friends and allies abroad,
or the stability of society at home. What they propose will
conduce to none of these ; and yet it flies in the face of free
trade in the abstract, just as absolutely as all that they pro-
pose to do away with on this very plea of advocating free
trade principles.

ADDRESS OF THE PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION
TO THE ELECTORS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
IRELAND.

The time has now arrived when it is necessary to decide
on what principles this great empire shall henceforth be go-
verned—whether on the pure and sound protestant principles
of our forefathers, which formerly secured to Great Britain
God's blessing, and under which she attained unequalled
national prosperity and renown, or by the new system of
modern liberalism, under which truth and error are to be
alike sanctioned or alike disregarded ?
By you, fellow-countrymen ! by your votes at the election
of your representatives must an answer be given to this im•
portant, this vital question. Let each man then remember,
that in exercising the elective franchise, he discharges a great
public trust, and either fulfils or abandons his duty.
Consider, we beseech you, the real state of affairs; be not
led away by idle words, but look, and look carefully to facts.
Popery, the former scourge and bane of the conntry—popery,
the curse of Ireland, and Italy, and Spain—popery, the pro-
phesied " mystery of iniquity," is again making progress
among us. In 1837 forty-one papists were returned to par-
liament ; by these mei' on nearly every division since has the
scale been turned. By papists, therefore, you have of late
been virtually governed.
Think not, brother electors, that Popery has neglected to
use the enormous power thus possessed.
In three short years Popery has placed her votaries in the
palace, in the council, and on the bench. A Papist is the
treasurer of the Queen's household, four of the Queen's privy
councillors, three of the Irish judges, one of the lords of the
treasury, the Irish solicitor-general, the vice-president of the
board of trade, the secretary of the admiralty—these and
many minor officers of state at home and abroad, are now
Papists. Very much of this progress has been made since
1837. Return such another parliament ; and what then ?
Will Popery be contented with what she has ? Far from it.
She is am-bitious, and craves supremacy ; she is despotic, and
will turn power into tyranny !
And what is this popery ; some new or some amended reli-
gion ? No ! Popery is unchanged and unchangeable ; she
is the author of the inquisition, the ancient persecutor of the
church of God ; and even now, in the 19th century, teaches
in her colleges the doctrines that so long degraded Christen-
dom, and deluged nation after nation with blood. To pa-
pists the bible without comments is still a forbidden book ;
they are still deluded with the mummeries of the mass. And
what has been her treatment of protestants ? Let the atro-
cities of the inquisition, the gunpowder plot, the fires of
Smithfield, the massacre of St. Bartholemew, the slaughters
in Ireland and the Low Countries, and the recent banish-
ment of nearly five hundred protestants from the Tyrol,
reply to this thrilling question ;
Brother Protestants ! this very Popery is now supported
by grants from the public treasury. £50,000 a year is paid
for a system of education conducted almost entirely by Ro-
mish priests in Ireland—a system in which the Bible is mu-
tilated, and therefore Gon is dishonoured. £9,000 is annu-
ally paid to the College of Maynooth, where Popish priests
are trained to disseminate her baneful principles throughout
Ireland. £2,350 was paid in 1838 to build Popish chapels
in Ireland. £14,764 is annually paid to Popish priests in
the colonies.

These are facts. Do you approve of them ? If Popery
be true, why is so little done for her—if false, why anything
at all ? Remember, our present gracious Queen, when she
ascended the throne, was required solemnly to declare that
Popery was superstituous and idolatrous. And is she, almost
as soon as seated there, to be surrounded with Popish coun-
cillors ?

Fellow countrymen, be not deceived. We do not ask you
to vote for this party or for that: but we implore you to pause
before you vote for any one who directly or indirectly favours
popery or infidelity.

Vote, then, for true Protestants, and for such men only.
Oppose all who oppose them, and once more give to Great
Britain a Protestant House of Commons, and restore to her
the character of a Protestant nation. This, at the present
crisis, when Jesuits and infidels, when chartists and social-
ists, are banded together with revolutionary designs—this,
fellow countrymen, is your great political duty. For
the blessings you now enjoy martyrs have perished at the
stake, and the blood of your ancestors has been profusely
shed. Oh ! let it not be in vain ! Let not the blood of your
fathers reproach you with treachery to the good old cause
they loved, and with indifference to their glorious examples.
Return God-fearing men to parliament ; and then the light
of the Lord's countenance will shine on our senate—his
spirit will guide their deliberations—and the righteousness
which " exalteth a nation" will again bring down his bless-
ings upon us.

` Pi-Ovideout of all the people able men ; such as fear
God, men of truth, hating covetousness."—Exodas xviii. 21.

(From the Dublin Evening Mail)
Ministers and their candidates must not be permitted to
have the credit (if credit it be) which they have the impu-
dence to claim, of advocating the principles of free trade.
Free trade means the unrestricted import of the commodities
of other countries in exchange for the productions of this.
But it is not an unrestricted import of foreign corn to let it
in at a duty of a shilling a bushel, or in other words to keep it
out, unless it pays that duty. That is not done on the prin-
ciple of free trade ; it is done on the principle of protection
—on the principle of restriction, prohibition—if you will,
monopoly. It is, to the extent of a bushel, a corn-law—a
bread-tax—just as clearly at variance with, and in deroga-
tion of, the principles of free trade, as the present sliding
scale so much denounced by the advocates of unrestricted
commerce. The only difference is, that, on an average of
years, it would let foreign corn in, perhaps one-fourth
cheaper than the present system (and thereby lower the
value of all agricultural produce in these countries in a pro-
portionate degree ;) -while in years of scarcity it would keep
it out, unless it paid that eight shillings a quarter duty,
where the much decried sliding scale now admits it duty
free. Thus, in good years the country would suffer from
the admission of foreign grain so cheap, that the farmers at
home would be ruined in striving to compete with it; and in
bad years, the country would suffer from the exclusion of
the needful supply, unless at a price so horribly dear—for it
would always be Bs. a quarter above the current market price,
that current price being then at famine pitch—(there is the
beauty of a fixed duty)—that nobody could afford, without
ruin, to purchase it A fixed duty on foreign corn is, in
fact, the most absurd thing in the world. The only ground
on which a duty of any sort, whether fixed or sliding, can be
imposed, is as by way of protection. It is by the way of
protection Ministers proposed their fixed duty of a shilling a
bushel. See, then, the sort of protection it affords. In very
good years it will be no protection at all ; for, the better the
year, and the more abundant the commodity at home, the
less need will the farmer have for protection from an article
with which he can nearly compete as it, is. In the majority of
middling years it will not be protection enough ; and the
British farmer, notwithstanding this advantage of eight shil-
lings a quarter, will be undersold and ruined. In bad years it
eance, but when public policy
will be protection with a veng
and state necessity would make it most desirable that the
protective system should be pro tempore suspended, as by
the present law it is, whenever prices reach the point of
undue pressure on the national means of subsistence. In a
word, there is but one condition of the market to which a
duty ofBs. a-quarter is applicable—namely, where that amount
of protection will secure the farmer an average return for his
crop on the one hand, and the public an average supply of
food on the other; and that point the present sliding scale
ascertain, perhaps as nearly as human ingenuity could devise.
Thus, out of all the variety of conditions in which the crop
may be, a variety of conditions resulting from the combina-
tion of the most fluctuating and unstable agencies in nature,
there is but one to which the ministerial plan is applicable—
and even that upon a principle of protection and in deroga-
tion of the pure theory of free trade ; while the sliding scale
aeconirnodatesitselfto all, from a state of the most redundant
and overflowing fruitfulness, to that of the most pinching—
or to that which, but for its liberal provisions would be one Li
of the most pinching—scarcity.