The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-07 00:00:00

doned the appropriation pretext, and kicked it down ;

but stuck fast, and have continued ever since to adhere

firmly to, the appropriation reality.
The new corn-bill is a ruse of precisely the same de-
scription—another produce of the same forge—and
with all the family likeness strongly impressed upon it.

We do not deny that it is a lever of some power;--

otherwise, indeed, there would have been little use in

calling in its aid in a case so desperate ; but it is of

great moment to consider whether it is likely to an-
swer that purpose for which alone it is now brought
into play—namely, to keep in the O'Connell ministry.
In the first place, we may observe that no scheme
which ministers may bring forward will have the small-
est chance of passing in the present parliament. They

are now in a minority in both houSes on questions

much less calculated to provoke hostility than this

Over and over again have both houses refused to dis-

continue the protection of our agriculture by large ma-
jorities, and in these decisions ministers have con-

curred. Is it then likely that such a proposition will

receive any support when started by tergiversators—
when set up by flying renegades who use it as a shield
to hide them.from the shafts of their too potent adver-
saries, and as a mere cover for their disgrace ? Of
course not. On this point we may make ourselves
perfectly tranquil. All they can possibly do will be to
bring on a discussion of the question, and from such a
discussion we have nothing to fear—magna est veritas
et pravalebit. We have Sir R. Peel and Lord Stan-
ley and a Conservative host in the Commons—the
Duke of. Wellington, the Duke of Buckingham, and
another Conservative host in the Lords—strong in ta-
lent, information, and every statesmanlike quality—,
and what should we apprehend from any collision of
mind on such a question ? Under existing circum-
stances, when there is so much misconception abroad,
and so much practice in the way of delusion, it is, we
think, rather to be desired than dreaded.
But as to the result in parliament, our flying enemy
knows perfectly well what it will be, and their calcula-
tions are all made not for parliament, but fur the fac-
tory towns—not for in-door legislation, but for out-door
agitation—not for the representatives of the people,
but for a portion of their constituencies. In short,
what will take place in parlilament will be but a mere
rehearsal or prelude to the serious drama which is to
take place in the country; for we reckon upon it that
a general election is in preparation, and is immediately
to follow.

With regard to the corn duties, we shall merely say,
that if there be any modification of them which would
be more advantageous to the people than the present
system, and equally safe, we are satisfied that the adop-
tion
of it will be just as well entrusted to a Conserva-
tive administration as to a Whig, and that the people
will be of the same opinion. The immediate question
is, will the Whig proposition alter the state of national
opinion as to Whig government, and restore to them
that balance of power which they have unquestionably
Now, in crder to solve this problem, we may
just ask, what change it is likely to make in the feel-
ings of those who have hitherto evinced their dislike to
Whig rule ? As to the Conservatives, sure we are that
it will not alter them. All who are interested in agri-
cultural pursuits are outraged by it ; the counties,
therefore, will be more resolute than ever in returning
staunch Conservatives. The " firebrand " in this di-
rection will only add fuel to a flame already existing,
and be far more likely to do harm than good to those
its throwers.

As to Ireland, a country solely and entirely agricul-
tural, we cannot certainly reason about it as we should
of one whose people acted rationally and consistently
for their own interest ; but this we may affirm, that
withdrawing protection from their agriculture will gain
over none whom popish priestcraft has not blinded
with fanaticism and crassated with folly.
But, lastly, as to our towns and boroughs, what
change can it make in them ? Those who imagine
that free trade in corn will furnish them with abun-
dance, will continue under that delusion still—and
those who use their understanding to some better pur-
pose, will not be caught by Whig chaff.. In short, we
think this desperate, electioneering, and popularity-
, hunting scheme will prove an utter failure—just the
straw caught at by a drowning man—and will be the
very last of the Whig performances in office, not only
for this season, but, as we expect, for many a long sea-
son and session to come.

It gives us much pleasure to observe that our Town
Council has at length been induced to move on the
subject of the Inland Bonding Bill, and we cannot but
feel gratification in learning that we have been in some
degree instrumental in bring about that consummation.
Why they have been so long in awaking from their
slumbers, we cannot by any means satisfactorily ex-

plain ; but we have heard it assigned as an excuse that

some of the members regarded the idea of Manchester
entering into competition with Liverpool as a shipping
port as so much like a jest that they could not prevail
upon themselves to treat the matter seriously; whilst
others thought that it would be only " liberal, " and
show a generous enlargemEnt of mind to let the inland
people have their way—that the scheme could not do
us very much harm, and was, in fact, almost unworthy
of notice.

With regard to such feelings and opinions, we must
say, for our part, that we could not coincide in them.
If the project was a foolish one, it struck us that there
was just so much the more reason for opposing it ; but
if it were likely to prove injurious to Liverpool, that we
were called upon strenuously to defend our own rights
and interests, and to resist the meditated wrong, whe-
ther the amount of injury might be great or small,
trifling or important. Under such circumstances, we
own we thought it most culpable on the part of the
Council to remain silent and inactive. It was quite
impossible to say with truth that the bill was "no
affair of ours." It was not only obviously but pre-
eminently the reverse, and yet we permitted the in-
landers to tunnel away, or come openly across our
grounds, without uttering a word, or even making a
sign. The result must have been that the bill would
pass

What should hinder it ? Liverpool, it would be
argued, made no opposition, but seemed rather pleased
with the idea of having her warehouses empty, her
shipping idle, her brokers without orders, and her
merchants whiling away the day in listless indolence.
She " cared for none of these things," it would be
said, and therefore her privileges and advantages might
as well be handed over to others. However, we hope it
is not too late to demonstrate that quite a different
state of feeling prevails here.
Our "esteemed contemporary," the Manchester
Guardian, is, we perceive, not well pleased with the
line of argument we have pursued on this question.,
and takes us to task in his last number for " misre-
presenting" him. Now misrepresentation is a trade
that we do not usually follow—intentionally never. We
are, therefore, desirous to meet such an accusation,
and to show that it has been made against us unjustly.
It is preferred in the following terms :
" We (viz., the Manchester Guardian) had exposed the
absurdity of the Standard's allegation, that the proposed
boon of inland bonding would be at once injurious to Liver-
pool and useless to Manchester, by showing that if it turned
out to be useless, it would not be persisted i n ; and conse-
quently, Liverpool would sustain no injury. This the Stand-
ard represents as " a candid admission" that the experiment
is of a very doubtful character ! We must say. that the mis-
representation is as silly as it is dishonest."
Now though we are here charged with making a mis-
representation which is at once " silly" and " dis-
honest," we protest we cannot perceive even the
ground of the charge in the figure and form ira which
it is set out by our accuser. He says he exposed the
absurdity of our allegation, that the bill would be use-
less to Manchester, by showing that if it were so, it
would not be " persisted in." Now we ask, :is that
" exposing the absurdity" of our allegation, or pt Dying
the soundness or correctness of it—which? Thit ;, we
think, is that mode of reasoning which was caller I by
schoolmen "confessing and avoiding"—viz., first an ow-
ing your adversary's premises, and then showing h ow
they could be gotten rid of. So far from treating tour
allegation as absurd, our contemporary treats it at; a
very probable eventuation, and reasons upon it .as
such. The Manchester people also, he says, foresaw
as well as we, and in case of such a contingency hap-
pening, were determined to let the act fall into disuse
and become obsolete. They, consequently, did not
esteem the supposition as in the smallest degree
" absurd ;" but, on the contrary, a very likely and
rational hypothesis; and yet our contemporary charges
us with monstrous obtuseness and perversity for just