The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-05-19 00:00:00

is an ominous piece of intelligence, and. fully confirma-
tory of our worst apprehensions. .
But-what do the petitioners propose should be done
in order to avert so direful a calamity as that of depriv-
ing the Sturgites and the Scobleites of the means of
sweetening their tea and coffee ? The remedy which
they suggest is, the importation of foreign sugar—of
sugar which they say is sold at one-half the bonded price
of the three descriptions admissible for home consump-
tion. In plain English, they wish to give the prefer-
ence to slave-grown sugar, in foreign countries, over
that produced by the free labourers in British colonies.
Such, in fact, is the modest proposal conveyed in the
petition. We hope the approaching Anti-Slavery Con-
vention will take cognizance of this nicely concocted
plan for encouraging slavery.
Great Britain has put down slavery in her own co-
lonies, at an . enormous expense to the people of this
country, and we are now called upon to patronise and
encourage.slavery and the slave-trade, by allowing the
importation of sugar from countries in which the
whole produce is raised by slave labour, and into
which, as the Morning Chronicle very justly observes,
" slaves are continually imported." Admirable con-
sistency ! Noble philanthropy ! We have made the
slave free in the West Indies, and are now called upon
to deprive him of the fruit of his free labour. The
West India planters have concurred in the noble mea-
sure of emancipation, and we are now called upon to
plunge them into irretrievable ruin. Exquisite sense
of justice and humanity I
As-we have already remarked, we rejoice that even

the ultra-liberal Morning Chronicle has had the courage
and good sense to denounce a scheme so fraught with
ruin, and so utterly inconsistent with every principle
of reason and justice, as that developed in the petition
under notice. We cannot better conclude these ob-
servations than by quoting the emphatic language
of Our contemporary resOcting this petition. We
earnestly solicit the attention of the radical journalists
of Liverpool to the following sensible remarks :---

" It is very true that the importation of sugar has fallen
off, and must continue to fall off still snore than it has done,
because the negroes, admitted to their freedom, and able to
live with little labour, are not such fools as to work as much
as they did in their state of slavery. In British Guiana
alone we have a territory of boundless extent, in which sugar
may be raised in any quantity, but labourers are wanting.
A limit is placed to the extension of the operations of the
planter; he has a boundless extent of soil, and, could he only
command labour, he might continue to add to his produce.
But the labourers know the value of freedom ; they consult
only their own wants and their own pleasure ; and, however
agreeable it might be to the planters in British Guiana and
the British consumers, that they should continue to perform
as much work as they did during their slavery, the wants of
their employers and the comforts of the British public are
the last motives by which they will be influenced.
" But whatever ineonvenience may be suffered from the

high price of sugar, to meet that evil by importation of sugar
from slave colonies would be infamous. To put down slavery
in our own colonies, merely to encourage it elsewhere, and not
merely encourage slavery but the slave-trade, would be
the height of inconsistency and of impolicy.
" The British people, to whom sugar is a necessary of life,
must, however, obtain that commodity. But increased im-
portation can only be obtained through additional labour.
The additional labour can only, however, be obtained by a
fresh supply of labourers. Why should any impediments
be thrown in the way of the planters obtaining such a
supply ?

" The slave-trade was an abomination, and slavery a great
evil. The slave-trade has now been abolished for nearly
thirty-five years ; and there are no slaves in the British domi-
nions. The negro in all our possessions is free. Ought not
that to be an inducement to well-intentioned men to impart
the blessings of freedom as extensively as possible ? As the
labourer must be more happy under the British government
than elsewhere, in encouraging emigration from all quarters
we are diffusing the blessing of freedom—we are encouraging
the industry of freemen, and striking a blow at slavery. The
petition of the London dealers in sugar would, if acceded
to, discourage cultivation by free labourers, and encourage
slavery."

Our contemporary of the Mercury has devoted two
mortal columns of his last publication to the purpose
of misrepresenting the object and provisions of Lord
Stanley's bill, and vituperating the character of those
who came forward in its support, at the meeting of
'Wednesday last, Our Liverpool readers are, we dare
say, aware that two columns of the Mercury are no or-
dinary soporific. On this occasion, however, our con-
temporary has put oft' his night-cap, laid aside his cup
and candle, dipped his pen in gall, and boldly perpe-
trated a mass, or rather a hash----for most of it is second-
hand—of the grossest stupidity, ignorance, falsehood,
and ribaldry that ever disgraced the pages of any paper
which, by the 'utmost stretch of courtesy, could be termed
respectable !
We shall not attempt to follow our contemporary
throughout the whole of his rambling ,and incoherent
remarks. We shall not animadvert upon his vulgar
personalities, directed against the speakers at the Am-
phitheatre meeting, and especially against one of them
who has always been, and, we trust, ever will be a thorn
in the side of that party of which the Mercury is the
subservient tool. We shall not notice the flippant ab-
surdities and the laboured wit which our contemporary
substitutes for argument. These things we willingly
resign to the enlightened admiration and refined tastes
of his tap-room readers, for whose gratification our
contemporary is ever ready to dip his hands in filth,
and to degrade, in his own person, the character and
respectability of the British press. Our only object, in
noticing at all the lueubrations of our contemporary, is
to show, out of his own mouth, hiS profound ignorance
of the subject upon which he presumes to write, and
the ready facility with which he perverts and misrepre-
sents facts, in his attempt " to make the worse appear
the better reason."

The first instance we shall give of our contemporary's
ignorance—whether real or assumed, to serve a disho-
nest purpose, we shall not inquire—is contained in the
following sentences. After sneering at the " amiable
faith entertained in the impeccability of the judges of
assize, and assistant barristers appointed by them,"
and, in the true spirit of O'Connellism, imputing, to
the bench generally, partisan and corrupt motives in
their administration and interpretation of the law, he
proceeds to show " what Irish judges will or will not
do in conformity with, or in opposition to, the spirit of
an act of parliament." We pass over for the present
the decency of such an insinuation, coming from such
a source, and come at once to the illustration—to the
" one fact which is worth a wilderness of assumptions
and suppositions," and which, unfortunately for our
contemporary, is not a fact at all.
" The sth section of the Irish reform act"—we quote
from his own veracious authority—" confers the fran-
chise on El 0 leaseholders, the object being evidently
to extend the franchise : but the Irish judges have con-
trived, and their decision has been acted upon, to limit
the franchise virtually to £2O leaseholders ; for, accord-
ing to their interpretation of the section, a man must
not only prove that he has a holding for which he pays
El 0 a-year, but that a solvent tenant could afford to
pay for it El 0 annually over and above the rent he him-
self pays, which is just the same as if the £lO house-
holder in England were required to prove that his house
is worth £lO a-year more than he actually pays for it."
Now, we are really at a loss to know whether insolence,
ignorance, or falsehood is the more prominently dis-
played throughout the whole of this paragraph. We
will dissect it, however, in order to show how grossly
such prints as the Mercury mistake their forte when
they leave the beaten track of scurrility and slander,
and commit themselves to facts and arguments.
" The sth section of the Irish reform act," says our
contemporary, " confers the franchise on ten-pound
leaseholders." Indeed it does no such thing. There
is not such a being mentioned or contemplated in the
whole act as a " ten pound leaseholder," in the sense in
which our contemporary uses the term ; and it is evident
that he is in a profotind state of ignorance as to the
wording and meaning of the section in question. That
section does confer a right of voting, and for the first
time, upon leaseholders for a certain term, or for lives ;
but its limitation is not to those who hold at a rent of
£lO per annum, and whom our contemporary styles
ten-pound leaseholders, but to those who " have a be-
neficial interest" in their leases " of the clear yearly
value of £lO at the least above all rent and charges
payable out of the same." We give the words of the
enactment, which are precisely the same as those used
in the English act to create the same right of voting;
and we are npt aware that any difficulty has ever oc-
curred in England as to the interpretation of the clause.
Here, then, we have the false assumption raised, that
the Irish reform act intended to confer the right of
voting upon parties holding on lease at a rent of £lO
per annum, " the object being evidently," as our con-
temporary says, " to extend the franchise," Why,

what on earth does the silly twaddler mean ? The ex-
tension of the franchise was effected by the right of

voting being conferred at all upon the leaseholders.
Whence, then, the comparison instituted between the

object of the bill and the decision of the judges upon
the interpretation of one of its clauses ? Can it be

said, or has it been said, that the framers of that clause
contemplated its being interpreted according to our
contemporary's views ? We think not ; and we doubt
whether any man out of Bedlam could read it and put
his interpretation upon it.

Yet upon this interpretation, ignorantly, or wilfully
and falsely, placed upon the meaning of as plain and
distinct a form of words as can be put together in the
English language, our contemporary proceeds to erect
a superstructure of ignorance and falsehood equally
glaring. " The Irish judges have contrived," he says,
and their decision has long been acted upon, to limit
the franchise virtually to twenty-pound leaseholders ;
for, according to their interpretation of the section, a
man must not only prove that he has a holding for
which he pays £lO a-year, but that a solvent tenant
could afford to pay for it £lO annually over and above
the rent he himself pays, which is just the same as if
the ten pound householder in England were required to
prove that his house is worth £lO a-year more than he
actually pays for it" What a pity that the editor of
the Mercury is not an Irish judge !—that a man who
can contrive to make a beneficial interest, which is the
excess of value over rent, into rent itself, should be
deprived of such an elevated position, from which to
display his vast erudition ! For his consolation, how-
ever, we can inform him that, as yet, no Irish judge
has attempted the contrivance in question. His absur-
dity and his ignorance are, as yet, unparalleled, and are
likely to remain so: " None but himself can he his
parallel!"

Seriously—no Irish judge has ever yet ruled that to
confer a right of, voting upon a leaseholder under the
sth section of the Irish refo'rin act of 1832; a man
must " prove that he has a holding for which he pays
£lO a-year." We challenge our contemporary to point
out any such decision ; and as it may take him some
time to waken from his present bemused state, we give
him three months to do so ! It has been decided that a
beneficial interest of £lO a-year must be an interest to
that amount, over and above the rent, estimated by the
additional amount which a solvent man could afford to
pay, and not by the imaginary value which the claim-
ant himself may choose to put upon it ; and, if the
editor of the Mercury will for once lay aside contriv-
ance and consult the reform act, he will find that such
an interpretation is neither contrary to its wording nor
its spirit, however contrary it may be to the convenience,
and destructive to the contrivances, of the Romish
priests of Ireland. •
It will be pretty evident, we think, to our readers,
from the above specimen, that, however well 2cquainted
he may be with the proposed measure for the amend-
ment of the present system—and we doubt very much
his having read it—our contemporary is at least igno-
rant of the meaning and provisions of the act now in
operation. We will; however, give another " sample"
or two—if we may use our contemporary's expression—
and have ,no doubt of establishing the fact, that he is
either politically ignorant or politically knavish. He
may take his choice of the two alternatives..
The Mercury imputes it as an objection to Lord
Stanley's bill that claimants "have to expose their title
deeds to all who choose to see them"—misrepresentation
would be a very mild word to apply to the sentence we
have placed in italics—" to needy attorneys, or agents
of tyrannical landlords, &c." Now the impression
intended to he conveyed here is, evidently, that the pro-
duction of title deeds in support of claims to register
is, for the first time, required by Lord Stanley's bill.
Yet what is the fact ? Why, that the same production
of title deedsis required by the act now in operation,
which expressly enacts that every claimant "shall pro-
duce, in open court, the deed, lease, or instrument, if
any, duly stamped, by virtue of which he shall claim a
right to be registered." The production of title deeds
is no new feature introduced by the bill of Lord Stan-
ley, and is, therefore, either ignorantly or fraudulently
put forth as an objection to it by our contemporary—
at second hand !—for we find it reiterated in another
column as a quotation from Mr. Sharman Crawford.
With equal accuracy, and equal honesty, our con-
temporary proceeds to institute a comparison between
the several bills, brought in by government for the,
amendment of the Irish system of registration and
Lord Stanley's proposed measure. "The principle of
annual revision and appeal to the judges," he admits,
" are common to both ; but in all else they differ as
much as Macedon from Monmouth." We accept with
gratitude the admission of the similarity of the bills
formerly brought in by government and the present
bill brought in by Lord Stanley, in these, which are
their leading principles. Here is at once established a
neutral ground upon which ministers and their-oppo-
nents may meet and settle the details by which those
principles may be brought into application. Let the
bill of Lord Stanley go into committee, and the dif-
ferences which are so fluently and vaguely glanced at
be fairly canvassed. Why is not this course adopted ?
Because faction, fraud, and slavish love of .place, are
stronger in the minds of Lord Melbourne's adminis-
tration than consistency or patriotism. It is not the
difference in detail alone which constitutes the minis-
terial ground of objection to Lord Stanley's bill. They
have thrown overboard their own principles—the annual
revision and the appeal to the judges of assize ; they
no longer seek to reform the evil which they admitted
so lately as 1838; they are bound hand and foot to the
car of the Juggernaut which is crushing in its destruc-
tive course the energies and the morals of the Irish
people, and which is fed with the frauds which the
present system_ encourages and protects. The judges
of assize are now repudiated as a court of appeal ;
" the system of annual registration," our contemporary
informs us, "is now admitted on all hands, Whig,
radical, and tory, to require amendment !" Both these
great principles the Mercury repudiates ; and vindicates
the opposition offered by O'Connell to Lord Stanley's
bill on the very grOund that these principles are de-

fective
What then becomes of the plea that the details of
Lord Stanley's bill are the grounds of ministerial objec-
tion ? It is evidently abandoned ; yet the Mercury in-
forms us that O'Connell may, with perfect consistency,
oppose this bill, on the ground of objection to its details
alone ! We may, however, remind our contemporary,
that the opposition of this impostor commenced before
the bill was brought in—before its details could be
known—and i 9, consequently, like that of our contem-
porary and his party, an opposition to any alteration in
the present corrupt system—an opposition got up for
factious and interested purposes, " TO PROTECT
FRAUD UNDER AN AFFECTED CONCERN FOR POPU-
LAR RIGHTS l"

But we are sick of the task of exposing the incon-
sistencies of this miserable twaddler. Resides we are
pressed for room, and have already extended our re-
marks considerably beyond the space which such an
antagonist usually demands or is worthy of. We
shall, however, have a word or two to, say to him on
Friday in reply to his misrepresentations of Mr.
M‘Neile ; but for the present we forbear. We have con-
victed him, out of his own mouth, of ignorance, misre-
presentation, and vulgar insolence, sufficient to stamp
for ever his character as a public journalist with a de-
gree of contempt for which the English language affords
no term sufficiently strong. We have proved him igno-
rant of one of those very measures upon which rests the
great claim of his party to support—ignorant, in fact, of
the principles and provisions of the Reform Bill itself.
We have shown him ready to resort to trickery and mis-
representation of every description, to bolster up that
ignorance ; and we leave the public to characterize, in
their own way, the moral worth and honesty of a party
of which the Liverpool Mercury is the established
organ, and the weight which ought to be allowed to
arguments coming from so contemptible and disre-
putable a source.
We would seriously advise our contemporary to re-
turn at once to the mere trifling which for years has
occupied his silly brain. Write charades, good Mer-
cury, expound enigmas, unravel riddles ; be oracular
upon the weather, expatiate upon cork jackets, or square
the circle, if thou wilt; but be assured that the serious
business of the world, and especially of the world of
politics, is too arduous a matter for thy feeble capacity.
Above all, leave the besotted and base administration,
which now governs this unfortunate land, to flounder
through their few short days of power, without the aid
of thy small glimmer of wit, or the guidance of thy
Jack•o'•lantern light, A few days will bring to her