The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-10-12 00:00:00

and his answer was as follows

average i"

" Lord Stanley, I have stated, that the policy of this
country has been to establish such a price as to give a profit-
able employment to the cultivation of a large portion of the
landlords of this country. The policy has been, no doubt, to
a certain extent, to raise the price of corn above its natural
level, but, at the same time that it raises it above its natural
level, I believe the result to be, that it keeps it from those
extraordinary fluctuations which are to be found in other
countries, and to give that which is much more essential to
all classes of the community—steadiness of price, rather than
lowness of price."

On the first portion of this answer the anti-corn-law
gentry immediately seize, and turn it to much ac-
count. It is an " admission," say they—a palpable

" admission ;" and, suppressing all that is explana-
tory, they hawk it about from place to place as a tri-
umphant corroboration of their doctrines, even from
the mouth of Lord Stanley. Acting upon the same
dishonest system, they convert his lordship into a
seeming witness in their behalf on other points; and
thus it was that they made up the mess which figured
last week in the radical journals as one of the " reso-
lutions" agreed to at the Saturday-night gathering,
held in this town, to which we adverted in our last,
and which, [resolution].runs thus :

"That we fully concur in the admissions made by Lord
Stanley, the present secretary for the colonies, at his re-elec-
tion for North Lancashire, that the operation of the corn-
laws is, Ist, to raise the price of food above its natural level ;
2nd, to increase the rent paid to the landlord proportionally
to that price ; and, 3d, that the price of food has no effect on
the rise and fall of wages ; and from these admissions we are
confirmed in our opinion that," &c. &c.
Now what designation can we give that will pro-
perly denote this mutilating, falsifying process, if we
forbear to call it downright LYING ? It is something
more than equivocation or quibbling-; it is an attempt,
by gross misrepresentation, to create a directly false
impression, and to give authority to propositions to
which, in the naked form in which they appear here,
Lord Stanley never assented at all ! Lord Stanley
broadly defended the corn laws in his speech at Lan-
caster, and never made any " admissions," in the sense
which that term is used, which could in the smallest
degree compromise his opinions or invalidate the force
of his arguments. True, he did say that " to a cer-
tain extent" the protective duty on corn did " raise
the price ;" but is that what should be called an " ad-
mission," or reluctant confession of a fact which he
would rather suppress ? Of coarse such is the effect
produced by the duty; it is for that purpose the duty
is laid on ; prohibition is to exclude—protection to
raise the price ; everybody knows that ; and the
leaguers are welcome to the prodigious "admission"
they have obtained, coupled with the explanation
which formed part of Lord Stanley's answer—namely,
that " while the corn laws raise the price of corn above
its .natural level, the result is to give that which is
much more essential to all classes, steadiness, rather
than lowness of price." With regard to the third
point, his lordship did indeed say that wages do
not depend [immediately or directly] on the price of
food; but his accompanying explanations clearly show
that they do so indirectly and consequentially. We
shall give the whole of his answer :L.-
" I ain asked whether wages rise or fall in consequence of

tide to the Woof oomf I toll iotttisto, that In myPap
n 3 4t, %raga do not depend upon the On or felt In the price.
of corn, one way or the other; but that they do depend UPon
the. Proportion which the labour to •be given bears to the
numb(tii of persons applying for that labour; and that, if a
somewhat highei price of corn led to a more expensive and
extensive cultivation of the soil, the result would be that a
much larger proportion of the community would be called
into employment, and consequently a much less proportion
between the number of people seeking employment and the
amount of labour to be given to them; and, if that cultiva-
tion were materially diminished, the consequence would be,
that, a number of hands being thrown out of employment,
the competition for labour and employment would lower the
wages of labour, which are kept up in consequence of the
more extensive cultivation enabled to be carried on in con-
sequence of the duty on corn."
Thus does he show that, though in the first instance
it is the relations of demand and supply which regulate
wages, they would eventually be affected by the price
of food. Abolish the protecting duties, and reduce
the price of bread, and wages perhaps may not be im-
mediately affected, hut, ultimately, they will and must
be lowered ; for the demand for agricultural labourers
Will decline, the supply in the market will be exces-
sive, and on this principle wages must come down.
the agricultural labourers will be driven into the
towns, and in a short time the wages of mechanics and
Manufacturers must also decline ; so that it is obvious
from the entire of the noble lord's reply that he could
only have alluded to the immediate, and not the conse-
quential effects of food on wages, when lie said that
the latter were not dependent •on the price of the for-
flier. So perfectly satisfactory and conclusive were all
his replies to Mr. Catechist Brooks that the poor man
Was absolutely overwhelmed, and sat down amidst the
Jeers of all the assembly. On the whole, the right
honourable member for North Lancashire never made
a more happy and successful display than he did on
this occasion. His eloquent and beautiful speech may
be usefully referred to at any time as a perfect manual
on the subject of the corn duties ; dealing not in te-
dious and minute details, but in all the commanding

Principles which enter into the question.
We were led to a re-perusal of this speech by some
recent attacks made upon his lordship by the chop-
fallen leaguers, and we have to thank the witless venom
of some of these unconscious blockheads for directing
us to so gratifying a labour. We shall notice one or
two specimens of the malignant dulness of the faction
from a leading article in the Mercury of Friday.
" We hardly know whether the new Colonial Secretary, in
his speech at Lancaster, was less fortunate in his defence of
himself; or in his vindication of the order of landlords to
Which he belongs. First, with regard to himself, as doubt-
less the question of greatest importance, at least in his own
ebtlination. The epithets " turn-coat" and " apostate"
have clearly stuck in his proud stomach • but he by no means
Proved that they were not justly applied.
" By no means proved that he did not deserve the
epithets apostate and turn-coat !" Such is the judg-
ment of this Second Daniel who sits as chief in the
court of intellectual WhiggerT in this town. Lord
Stanley did not prove that he was not an apostate ! An
apostate is one who falls away from his principles ;
Lord Stanley was to prove that, in seceding from the
Whigs in 1834, he had not fallen away from his; and
it certainly did happen that he was able to adduce the
most curiously, and as it would seem, providentially,
conclusive evidence that such was the fact. It was
really a subject of admiration to every body. Here
testimony so perfectly demonstrative and irrefragable
came to be at hand at the very moment there was any
need of it. Lord Stanley withdrew from the Whigs
originally—not because he deserted his principles, but
because he would not do so; and not only was the fact
so, but it did so occur, that long before the circum-
stance took place, his lordship declared that, if the
Whigs, with whom he was then acting, should ever
carry their liberalism so far as to attempt subverting
the church, he would leave them;—and this he proved
by the unsolicited and unlooked-for evidence of a
French gentleman, (a Member of the Chamber of De-
puties, and an extreme Liberal,) who happened to be
in this country in 1826, nd who heard his declarations
to this effect. Could there be a more remarkable case
of predetermined consistency, and of unforeseen testi-
mony, to bring that consistency to light ? Aad yet,
in this town, a dull plodder in the dull round of Radi-
cal tnisinterpretative vituperation and perversion has
the hardihood and recklessness to talk of his lordship's

" apostacy" !
Did we not say well in the beginning of this article

that the very name of

become disreputable=

anti-corn-law man" must soon

-and that there- is a species o

contamination implied in being a reader of their jour-

But it is not enough that the noble lord should have
thus triumphantly refuted the groundless imputation
Of his adversaries, and shewn that, let who might wince

under it, as against him it must prove impotent and
harmless ; they have anothei charge in reserve ; "if

not an apostate" say they, "he is surely a turn-coat,
or why is he joined in the ministry of Sir Robert Peel?"
Or to put the charge in the words of the Mercury—
" How come they now to be colleagues ? One or other
must be a turn-coat and apostate, and, galling as it
may be, Lord Stanley must, in his heart, confess that
he is the man."

The real complaint—yea, the sore grievance in this
case is, that Lord Stanley has not fallen in the mire
with the disgraced and the degraded Whigs, and that
he has risen to high honour and great power whilst
they are sunk for ever in perdition. However, we
think The great oracle, the Magnus Apollo, the Jupiter
tonans of Whiggery in this town, even the ex-minis-
terial Mercury, ought to be answered, and as to an-
swer so awful a thunderer would be a task quite beyond
Our poor abilities, we shall refer the matter to Lord
Stanley himself, and e'en let the minister of state satisfy
him. The passage of his lordship's speech which
seems to apply specifically to this head is as follows.
We take it from the report of the Manchester Guardian,

a hostile print :
" I refused in the yearlB3-1 to form part of the admini-
stration of Sir Robert Peel, and I assent in 1841 to form part
of the administration of Sir Robert Peel. Is there not any
inconsistency in that course ? I say there is none. I say
that in 1834 I had just separated from a whig cabinet, with
whom, upon many grounds, I cordially concurred. I was
asked to join an administration formed of gentlemen politi-
cally opposed to me and my friends. I could not feel suffi-
cient confidence in them to join their administration. I de-
clined office, and I watched the course of events, determined
whether in office or out of office, to maintain and adhere to
11l own principles. (Hear, and applause.) From that time
to this, 1 have been in close, uninterrupted, and confidential
intercourse with Sir Robert Peel. In opposition, no great
measure has been taken by the party acting under the direc-
tion of Sir Robert Peel without my cordial concurrence and
cordial sanction •, upon all subjects I have been admitted by
him to the most frank and unreserved communication of opi-
nion ; upon all subjects of past policy I have cordially been
able to agree with him ; upon a full discussion of the course
which her majesty's present government will pursue, I have
no reason to anticipate any the slightest difference between
the views of Sir Robert Peel and my own. And in that
state of things, after having satby his side for the last seven
years, having during that time shared his councils and fought
his parliamentary battles with him, why, if at the end of
that time, when our efforts had succeeded in displacing the
administration of the day, I had refused to form part of that
administration, which I was aisistin,,,,---to---bring-into- power,
so tar from being able to plume myself on my consistency, I
think you, and I think the country, would have told me with
justice, that I was a most intolerable blockhead to dabble in
political matters. (Laughter.) You may believe me, and,
electors of Lancashire, I think you will believe me, when I
say to You that I have no sordid or private objects to induce
me to accept office. To me the emoluments of office are
worthless ; to MC the patronage of office is a matter of con-
tempt ; to me the labour, and the responsibility, and the
power which attach to office, have no charm. (" Then
why do you accept it ?") I'll tell you. Because, by accept-
ing those labours and that responsibility—because, by de-
voting days and nights of unremitting and thankless toil,—l
believe, by so applying the energies of my mind and body,
and the best faculties with which I have been gifted, I am
performing that which, in the position in which I have been
placed, is not a pleasure to
C myself, but is a sacred duty which
heers.)"
I owe to my country. (
We shall not add a word lest we should weaken the
impression which this most splendid and beautiful
piece of true eloquence is calculated to make on the
mind ; we shall also leave it to the Mercury and other
" swift messengers of the gods " to digest it with what
appetite they may. In our next we shall endeavour to
shew that Lord Stanley has been quite as successful in
his vindication of the "Order of landlords to which he
belongs" as he has been in the vindication of " himself."
Our readers, we confidently expect, will not find the
discussion in any degree tedious.

The large assembly who were present at the last an-
niversary meeting of our Protestant Association took
in good part the " boasting" of the Rev. Hugh
Stowell that the Manchester Association was " not a
sixpence in debt," and that Manchester had turned
out a considerably " larger total of signatures against
the Maynooth endowment than Liverpool ;", because
it was evidently dune with a view to stimulate, and not
repress a spirit of generous emulation in this quarter.
On this head there could be no mistake at all, and
there was none. We should be ashamed indeed of
our town, and of a Protestapt assembly met in it, if a
proceeding could have been misunderstood by them,
and much. more if such a misunderstanding had oc-
curred in a case where Mr. Stowell, the able and well.-
known champion of our common cause at Manchester,

as wan as devoted, minister of OR church, watt the
party misunderstood I but there was no such ignorant
misconception. Mr, Stowell's objsct was at once cor-
rectly seen, and his motive duly respected. A rivalry
such as he would seek to establish between Manchester
►;d Liverpool, is fair and honourable; and we shall
not be at all sorry if his taunting comparison shall
have the effect of bringing in sufficient funds to our
Protestant Association to pay off all debts, and leave
a balance in the treasurer's hands, and also of greatly
increasing our list of signatures against the grant for
maintaining a Popish College in Ireland.
In some other passages of his speech, our excellent
friend—if we may he permitted to use the expression—
was not so happy, although we utterly disclaim the
slightest feeling of anger towards him on this account.
We did not take it well of him, for instance, that he
should have thrown out any insinuation of doubt as to
the sterling Protestantism of our esteemed representa-
tives, Lord Sandon and Mr. Cresswell. On this head
we are compelled to say that he spoke without due
inquiry. It was quite a mistake, in point of fact, on
his part, to say that there was no reference to Protes-
tantism in their addresses; the reverse was the case;
and even in the short joint address which they issued,
and which appeared in the STANDARD of the 20th of
June, there was the following passage :

"More • deeply disgusted by the constant degrading and
dependent alliance which the Ministers of the Clown have
formed with the avowed foes of our Protestant church and of
sound religious education, with the disturbers of the public
peace, and the enemies of the integrity of the Empire, we
find the Householders more than ever mindful that they
must protect, by their votes, that stake in the country which
they possess ; the freemen," &c.
But even had there been no assurance in words to
the effect alluded to, it would not have afforded any
sufficient ground for raising such a question as that
suggested by Mr.. Stowell. The question immediately
and directly at issue at the last election, was one be-
tween a Radical and a Conseivative administratia ;
the candidates before us were Radicals on the one
hand, and known Conservatives on the other ; and the
result was, that we carried the election of the Conser-
vatives gloriously, and beat the Radicals to their heart's
content. Therefore it is, that in Liverpool "we trust we
have a good conscience," and flatter ourselves that we
have both done our duty, and the state some service, by
re-electing our present members. We are only sorry
that• Mr. Stowell and his good men of Manchester
were not able to do so -much. We are persuaded of
their good dispositions, and in time we hope that they
will be able to boast, not only of the instrumentalities
they have used, hut of the successful results achieved
by them.

There was another topic of a kindred nature to
which Mr. Stowell alluded, and on which, if we rightly
understood him, we are compelled to say that we do

not concur with hini.. The impression left on our
mind by Mr. Stowell's observationS was, that the pre-
sent administration was not, in his opinion, entitled to
our entire confidence; that although "there was much
at the present epoch to call for thankfulness to God,
and congratulations to each other," yet that there were
reminiscences connected with the leading men now in
power, which should make us cautious and reserved in
confiding the ark of the covenant into their hands.
Now, with regard to such an opinion, and the policy
to which it would probably lead, we must declare our
dissent. It is our opinion that under present circum-
stances we could not have a better ministry, and that
they ought to receive the zealous and unanimous sup-
port of all the Conservative party throughout the king-
To carry forward this purpose, it will be very
desirable to avoid the introduction of any useless ques-
tions and vain janglings, calculated to cause division.
There is ample scope for the exercise of Protestant
zeal, both of a religious and political 46nd, without

doing so,

With regard to the articles which appeared a short
time since in the Times, casting slanders on our Pro-
testant associations, we hold them very cheap indeed,
as we know no reason for the supposition that that
most wayward and inconsistent journal is, with all its
vast circulation, the organ of Sir Robert Peel's govern-
ment

We believe, on the contrary, that it enjoys no
such confidence, and therefore that its remarks are
entitled to no more weight—as an indication of minis-
terial sentiment—than if they appeared in the Liverpool

Ilercurff

When next Mr. Stowell shall do us the favour to
appear on our Protestant platform at Liverpool, we
trust he will have more maturely weighed these several
matters, and that in the meantime additional evidences
will have appeared that the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel
is entitled to all our confidence, and has made great
advances in the attainment of it.