The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-28 00:00:00

fimPlictilOPOt; 1134114Stititill
41)$, i
d. As tits via trg p Improslono 404 nPk,

Intgtili."-P tip

~iacity.
We shall conclude with the closing passage of this
manifesto, remonstrance, or what it may be called, and

we request particular attention to it :
Finally, sir, by calling together an assembly of your diocese
to discuss our local affairs, you would seem to arrogate to
yourself a spiritual jurisdiction over us. We strongly pro-
test against such an usurpation. You are assuming an au-
thority to which you have no title. We are not within your
province—we never formed, and never will consent to form,
a dependency of Ireland. Keep here, if you please, as here-
tofore, an Irish chaplain for the Irish soldiers : but for our-
selves, we want no Irish priests, and that you may not attri-
bute this, our aversion, to mere passion or caprice, we must
be plain with you (though not so explicit as we might be),
• and inform you that within this present century we have had
the experience of four Irish priests. The first was in 1802,
expelled by the governor-general O'Hara, at the request of
the catholics, for conduct which you would not like perhaps
to be made public. The second was also ejected from the
church by the congregation' in 1806, under the sanction of
the governor-general Fox—also for reasons which are noto-
rious here and recorded, and which you may learn, if you
desire it. The third, not many years ago, voluntarily left
the garrison, and his history we may also furnish, if desired,
or inquiries may be made at the house of the widow lady
where he lodged ; and the fourth gentleman, this Mr.
Hughes, has scarcely been here a year, and has set the place
in a flame, which nothing but his prompt departure can ex-
tinguish. There is very ample and edifying information
regarding all the before-mentioned divines, which we can
furnish to their reverences of Dublin, should they continue
to take an interest in our concerns, and desire to prolong this
public discussion.—We remain, &c.
Gibraltar, 28th April, 1841.
(Here follow the signatures.)

We hear of nothing from all sides but the utter
failure of the budget agitation ; but there is one item
in particular on which the failure is as egregious as it
is undeniable—we allude to the proposed reduction on
slave sugar. This budget was altogether too base and
abominable, and after a few futile attempts to intro-
duce it into the market,—the agitation market, we
mean,—it has been altogether withdrawn, or nearly so.
Ashworth, the Quaker, was the only one•of the " MIS-,
sionaries" that ventured to squint at it on Monday
night, and then his only way of dealing with it was to
sneer at those who would protect the blacks, as " hu-
manity-mongers." His words were these
The English people paid annually £3,300,000 to the
proprietors of the soil of Jamaica on account of this mono-
poly of sugar. This preference of 4d. per lb. to the West
Indies pressed more heavily than would be imagined on pri-
vate families. He had calculated the cost in his own family,
and found that it amounted to 1:10 Bs. a-year. That sum
be had to pay on account of the monopoly of the West India
proprietors. Every labourer that used only one lb. of sugar
a-week paid directly to those men, who were previously
lave-owners, and whose only claim on us for this preference
as, that they bad manumitted their slaves for £25 each.
.7hese men, however, had now turned humanity-mongers;
hey had endeavoured to cajole the people by appealing to
heir humanity on behalf of those slaves, and under this
,lea they wanted to continue the tax of 4d. per lb. on sugar,
'or their own especial benefit, and not, be it remembered,
'or the advantage in the slightest degree of the negroes.
Hear, hear.)
One really does not know whether most to admire
be lying, or the hypocrisy, which disclose themselves
n this passage. It is tainted with falsehood in every
?art. The first sentence contains a rank misrepresen-
tation; for the English people pay no such money as
is there alleged to the " proprietors of the soil of Ja-
maica on account of this monopoly." There is a dif-
ferential duty of 4d. per lb. as between Colonial and
Brazilian sugar, but it is a duty which they pay for
their own benefit,—a duty which they wisely and cheer-
fully pay for the preservation of their colonies,—a duty
which they pay not for the gain of a few, but for the
advantage of the many.
The second sentence contains another falsity ; for
nobody ever complained of the duty till those itinerant
agitators endeavoured to get up the grievance. The
people, of course, felt the rise in price which took
place subsequent to emancipation ; but they mani-
fested no " ignorant impatience" on the subject ; they
attributed it to its true cause, and they looked forward
with confidence to a favourable change taking place in
a little time—and in this expectation they have not

een disappointed
But Mr. Ashworth finds that the differential duty
ruts him to an expense of £lO Bs. a-year in 'his own
_amily. We have no knowledge of his " family ac-
counts," and therefore have nothing to say on this
point, but that we are particularly happy to hear he
contributes so much to the good of his country.
But lastly, not content with these assertions, he
proclaims that appealing to the humanity of the people
on behalf of slaves is only " cajoling," and that those
who do so are mere " humanity-mongers 1 " Well, it
is better to be a humanity than an in-humanity-mon-
ger ; and what does that man deserve to be called, who
after being a " humanity-monger " all his life, sud-
denly quits the profession for filthy lucre's sake, and
then denounces those who follow it (with a sincerity
of which he was incapable) with all the zeal and bigotry
of an apostate! Thus seeking the emancipation of West
Indian negroes indeed, only a pretended, hypocritical,
and not a real regard for suffering humanity ? Will
this member of the Society of Friends dare to call it
so ? He will scarcely do so ; then what is the diffe-
rence in principle between emancipating in one coun-
try (where you have the power), and defending men
against slavery in another (where you have not) to the
utmost of your ability ? Has emancipation given us
a discharge in full from all further demands of huma-
nity ? May we draw upon it, as Papists do upon their
treasury of saintly works of supererogation, and sin
upon the strength of the excessive good that has been
already achieved !
We tell the in-humanity-mongers of this good Pro-
testant realm, that the people will be neither cajoled nor
papistified by any such nonsense. The people begin
to see through them thoroughly, and will never be
persuaded that the apostates and hypocrites who ma-
nifest the most brutal indifference to the helpless, mi-
serable African—when their gain is at stake—can pos-
sibly feel any real concern for them. Their very
persons will, most likely, become as odious in their
eyes as their arguments appear shallow, deceptions,
F and contemptible to their understandings.

We direct attention to an extract from the Fleet
Papers, now in course of publication by Richard Oast-
ler, Esq., a prisoner in the Fleet at the suit of his late
master, Thomas Thornhill, Esq., to whom the papers
are addressed. In the extract we have given in ano-
ther column, our readers will see a practical illustra-
tion of the persecution and tyranny of the free-trade
brawlers. We have not taken adequate notice of Mr.
Oastler's productions, and, in expressing our regret
for the neglect, we cordially recommend them to the
serious attention of all classes in these peculiarly agi-
os- I tated times.

Sir Robert Peel, on Monday, gave notice of a most
important motion, the decision upon which will be
looked for with the utmost anxiety throughout the
country, this day. That motion was of " want of con-
fidence" in her Majesty's ministers. Sir Robert Peel
is justly applauded for the manly. and decisive course
which he has taken at this important crisis. Was it
to be endured that the incapables should keep crawling
on, making all their arrangements in the most leisurely
manner, utterly regardless of the contempt in which
they are universally held, and decline either to resign
their offices, or dissolve the parliament ? One or other
is all that they are asked to do ; but neither one nor
the other did they show the least disposition, or make
any haste to do; wherefore it was high time to force
them. They must be smoked out, poked out, worried
out, or any way got out; for assuredly the House of
Commons would ndt be doing its duty by the country
if it suffered a ministry to continue in office which was
only supported by a minority of both Houses of Par-
liament.

We anticipate the triumphant success of the motion.
Certainly if it fail, it will be to our mind quite an in-
explicable affair. It is true these same ministers
escaped from a resolution to the same purport by a
majority of 20, some fourteen months ago; but this
period has been ample to give proof of their utter un-
fitness for the places they occupy, and to have
satisfied the judgment of the most sceptical, and
changed their opinions on the subject. Indeed, the
rejection of the first item of their budget by a majority
of 36, is equivalent, in our mind, to a vote of want of
confidence. _

vv
In the event of Sir Robert Peel's motion being car-
ried, it is to be hoped that the incapables will have the
decency immediately to retire : but if not, they must
be forced to dissolve parliament. The conservatives
can then force them to do this, and unquestionably
they will. We shall be enabled, we expect, to give the
result of this most interesting trial of conclusions in a
second edition.

EXTRAORDINARY FACT.—Whilst a gentleman of wey_
mouth was eating an egg a few mornings since, to his great
surprise he found a large pin in the centre of the yoke. It
was much corroded, and broke easily.--Dorset Chronicle.