The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-26 00:00:00

claim for JUSTICE !"

I am warned by my space to conclude, although it was my
intention to have trespassed upon your readers with a further
portion of the debate. I will, however, be enabled, 1 trust,
to give you the remainder of my observations for your Tues-
day's publication.

THE PROTECTOR SOCIETY.

" Neither a borrower nor a lender be."•

'-HA M LET.

We bad proposed adding a few more observations to those
we made last week on the legal doctrines propounded by this
society, and by Mr. Bretherton, in his pamphlet ; but since
then Lord John Russell's new registration bill for England
has been read a second time, and as it proposes to do away
with the condition of paying the Queen's taxes altogether,
and alters the time for the payment of rates, it is a fair pre-
sumption that the reformers have felt that the existing law is
too much for them, and cannot be overleaped by any such
nontrivances as the Protector Society has attempted to make
use of in Liverpool. Their champion, Mr. Bretherton, it is
true, has been fighting their battle through forty-eight mortal
pages ; but we have already shown that he fights shy of the
question in front throughout. We have now done with his
law, which being no better than a mere gossamer thread of
sophistry from first to last, could not really endure a second
attack, even the weakest, from the fortress of common sense.
It may be well to notice, however, those general powers of
reasoning, as well as argument, with which he has essayed to
defend the cause.

Desirous to put the Pro t ectori les on the vantage ground of
virtue and patriotism, he argues (p. 30) that it is an honour-
able act to " stimuhite men to profit by the privileges which
the constitution offers to their attainment." This being
granted, we are to learn how the Protectorites apply the
stimulus, or what is the sort of instrumentality they use for
the purpose of stimulating ? The answer is, lending men
money to pay their rates ; that is the " stimulus," according
to Mr. Bretherton. Why, we would call this not stimulating
at all, but DOING that act for another which he ought to do
himself. He is not stimulated to work ; his work is done
for him. And this lending and borrowing system is what
Mr. Bretherton champions, recommends, and eulogises as
the most constitutional and patriotic proceeding possible.
He disapproves of giving the poor man the money to pay his
rates out and out; that he conceives would be " bribing and
corrupting him ;" nor would he have the poor man pawning
or disposing of his goods in order to pay them ; that he con-
ceives would be allowing him to be too hard run. No, neither
of these methods will do ; the Protector system of lending is
the only thing. His words are these :
" I conceive, and, I think, rightly, if there is any one
mode of rendering assistance to the worthy, which can be
held justifiable, it is by loan, when, by the undertaking to
repay the amount advanced, the party incurs a responsibility,
proportionate to the benefit received, and is not bribed, to
seek a franchise he will make no sacrifice to possess, either
directly, by a gift of the money to him, or indirectly, by his
receiving the amount, and handing over some worthless
chattel."

There is a little of that obscurity which belongs to the
sublime in the latter part of this sentence ; but we content
ourselves with being able to perceive that the gentleman
means to say, in plain language, that there is " nothing like"
—not leather, but " lending." This is certainly something
new. Some of our old moralists have laid it down, that for
every shilling a man borrows he forfeits so much of his inde-
pendence, and becomes pro tanto the slave of the lender ;
but the advocate of modern protectorism maintains that this
is the very way to make him independent, and to raise up in
the community an independent body of electors ! It would
be unpardonable of us to waste time or space in refuting non-
sense like this ; besides, as we have already observed, the
question is virtually given up by the introduction of a new
registration bill, in which the payments at present found so
incorM'enient to " Reformers" are excused. The following
notice of its details, from the able speech delivered by Sir E.
Sugden on the occasion, may be interesting to our readers:—
" The practice of registration would in future not be con-
fined to one particular part of the year, as now, but would ex-
tend, at the will of the registering barristers, over the whole
year, interfering with quarter sessions, assizes, Parliament
itself, and the other public business of the country. Nor
was the claim to registration to rest, as heretofore, on the
period of the payment of rates and taxes, but on the particu-
lar period of time at which the judge should think proper to
give notice of his intention to register the voters of any par-
ticular district. The right of voting was, moreover, to be
placed on an entirely different footing to that on which it was
placed by the Reform Act, under the noble lord's new-fan-
gled bill. The bill before the house contained a clause by
which it was attempted to alter the franchise in England. It
would have been well if the noble lord had done his work in
a more manly, open manner; he, on the contrary, bad at-
tempted to effect a great and radical change in the most
skulking and secret manner, by leaving out certain words in
the former franchise bill, and putting in others having a di-
rectly contrary effect, though so insignificant as not to catch
the eye. The 26th clause of the bill contained a provision,
altering altogether the Reform Bill, the noble lord's " final
measure"—(hear)—by rendering it no longer necessary to
have paid the Queen's taxes in order to be entitled to be put
upon the registry."