The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-05 00:00:00

is still so much evident desire and common disposition '
to do mischief, cause them to be passed over with in-
difference or contempt. Mr. Easthope, one of the re-
presentatives of the borough, differed from all the
other members of this Babel assembly in one respect ;
and we shall conclude what we have to say on this
subject for to-day, by briefly noticing his remark. It
was his opinion, he said, " that the good and enlight-
ened of the Church of England had only to have an
appeal made to their consciences, and the impost
would be soon put down as a nuisance not to be al-
lowed." Well this was at least CIVIL, when compared
with most of the other utterances at this great volun-
tary church meeting, and we wish the Dissenters would
follow his advice. Let the appeal be made to the good
and enlightened of the Church of England, and if
church-rates cannot stand that appeal, we, for our part,
shall say, by all means let them be abolished. But
mark this—if the church-rates cannot stand the test of
this expmination—if the principle upon which they are
defended cannot be maintained, why then neither can
the church itself he upheld.

The question really at issue here, is, the old one of
establishments; for the principle which supports and
justifies an established church, also justifies and sup-
ports whatever may he necessary to maintain it. Let
us go to the root of the matter, and we shall find that
all these issues turn upon, and resolve themselves into
this—namely " Is the Bible true ?"

This great truth was admirably put and enforced the
other evening, at an operative meetirg held in this
town, by the gifted minister of St. Jude's—and the
more the question is sifted, the more clearly it will ap-
pear that unless we first definitively settle this point,
we are likely to he for ever at sea, without the smallest
hope of casting anchor, or finding safe harbourage
anywhere.

Either the Bible is true,' or it is not. If it is not
true, then, clearly and certainly; no one sect or religi-
ous party has any right to a state preference; for then
all religions are alike—the mere invention of man.
This being the case, " establish" any one—A, B. or
C, and you immediately institute a grievance against
all the rest, and give them a right—quite consistently
with the liberal doctrine of the day—to cry out perse-
cution, persecution. If the Bible be not
,true, what
possible right, surely, could any one sect of poor, fal-
lible mortals have to dictate their opinions on religion
to the world ? None whatever.

But, on the other hand, if the Bible be TRUE, causa
finita est ; GOD bath spoken, and man is bound to
obey. He commands his truth to be taught, and man
is left no choice on the subject. Questions about es-
tablishments, and church-rates, and church property,
do really then resolve themselves into the question of
the truth of revelation. Let those who believe the Bi-
ble to be true, act consistently, and they will never be
found fighting against the maintenance of a church

which teaches the truth of God. Here then is an an-
swer to Mr. Easthope ; and we take leave to tell him
that so long as the "good and enlightened of the
Church of England" continue stedfast in their belief
on this fundamental point, so long they will maintain
the good old Church of England in all her rights and
dignities and necessary supports agtinst Papists, Dis-
senters, Infidels, and all gainsayers whatsoever.

We now turn, in pursuance of the recommendation
of our contemporary, the Manchester Courier, to the
arguments put forward by the speakers at the late
meeting in that town in favour of the Inland Bonding
Bill. And first let us see what new light Mr. Mark
Philips, one of the members for Manchester, has
thrown upon the subject.
Setting on one side the unsubstantial generalities in
which that gentleman indulged, the only argument
which we can find worth notice throughout his long
and rambling speech is contained in the fact that the
parliamentary committee of last session decided by a
majority of seven to four in favour of the principle of
the measure. But is this, we ask, to be wondered at
when we take into consideration that the great bulk of
the evidence laid before that committee was one-sided?
It must be within the recollection of our readers that
the interests of Liverpool had no efficient advocate be-
fore the committee, that body whose duty it ought to
have been to offer the evidence and abundant expe-
rience at their disposal of the Working of the present
and the probable effects of the proposed new system,
having been entirely absorbed in the prosecution' of
their dock warehouse project, and consequently having
taken no steps to protect the property and privileges of
their fellow-townsmen.

In the addresses, however, of one or two gentlemen
who succeeded Mr. Philips, we are favoured with
something more tangible in the shape of argument;
and if we are to judge of the kind of evidence upon
which the Commons' committee reported, from the
statements laid before the meeting by these gentlemen,
we can still less wonder that the report in question was
in favour of the bill. A Mr. Consterdine, for instance,
after going into a long and elaborate calculation, which
he informs us was offered to the committee by the ad-
-vocates of the measure, arrives at the conclusion that
the town of Manchester and the district within twelve
miles round it contribute to Liverpool under the pre-
sent system an annual amount of £702,977 (!) as the
expense of bonding their merchandise here instead of
in Manchester. Upon cotton we are told they pay
£128,181, upon timber £95,296, upon grain 80,500(!!),
upon drysalteries £lO,OOO, upon groceries £9OOO, upon
wines and spirits £lBO,OOO, and upon tea and other
unenumerated articles, including rent of warehouses,
travelling expenses, &c., a further sum of £200,000,
the whole of which sums are in future to be saved by
the passing of the measure in question. Such is in
effect the monstrous representation of the gentleman
in question; and our readers will naturally ask upon
what data it is formed. Simply, we answer, by taking
an account of every charge to which imported mer-
chandise is liable after leaving the vessel until it reaches
the consumer, and placing the burthen of those charges
to the debit of the present system of bonding. Mr.
Consterdine and the advocates of the bill include in
their calculation not only the brokerage, which they
grumble so much to pay—and which we believe is
never paid without being earned—not only the entire
expense of cartage and porterage, but even the Liver-
pool dock and town dues ! Is it honest, we ask, to
hold out, as a necessary result of the passing of the
bill, the prospect of a saving so manifestly impossible
to be effected by it ?

Another speaker, however, Mr. Gibb, outherods
Herod in his golden anticipations of advantage from
the proposed change, and in his denunciations of the
present system. "We ought," says this gentleman,
" to have the power of bringing up the ships to Man-
chester at once, and thereby save all those immense
charges which the borough of Liverpool derives, and
which they-do-not even. thank us for paying." Un-
doubtedly, Mr. Gibb, such ought to be the case, and
will be, perhaps, when the tides flow as far as New
Bailey bridge. Until
_that period arrives, however, we
fear that " bringing the ships up to Manchester at
once" can scarcely be effected.

The most prominent of the advantages in which this
very sanguine gentleman indulges is the conversion of
the town of Manchester by this measure into the cen-
tral market of the manufacturing district. "We shall
have warehouses erected," he says; "we shall have
our own porters and carters, and our own brokers, and
dispense altogether with the services of our Liverpool
brethren, who are only the drones who feed upon our
say that Mr. Gibb has an idea
honey." We dare
himself that such a change will take place, but we are
afraid that he will not find many to entertain it. As a
market, we repeat, no legislative measure can ever
enable Manchester to compete with Liverpool. The
utmost that this measure can effect will be to enable a
few grocers, spirit merchants, and others, to carry on
their business with a little less capital, by peddling
smaller quantities of merchandise out of bond than is
convenient under the present arrangement.

We cannot omit recommending to the notice of our
readers the following sentence from the same speaker :
—" He wished to say one word is to the opposition
they had met with. It had arisen principally from the
outports ; but he thought Liverpool opposed them with
a very bad grace, when they stated that their opposi-
tion arose from having warehouses already built, whilst
at the same time they are seeking power to lay out ano-
ther million in building more." We must confess that
this is not very wide of the mark, as applied to the
corporation and Dock Committee of Liverpool; but
neither of these bodies at present represent the feelings
and the interests of ,the people, who are the real parties
interested in this question. Can it have been a feeling