The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-27 00:00:00

CONTEMPORARF PRESS.

However the peerage may have been adorned by the
fostering hand of the premier in the additions which be
has been pleased to make to it, the baronetcy has not
been equally fortunate. His Lordship has made two ba-
ronets—one, the English baronet, Alderman Key, con-
demned by an act in which his noble friend here is shewn
to participate, is obliged to resign the representation of
the city of London in the first reformed Parliament.'
The second, the Irish baronet, Mr. Alderman Harty,
very much patronized by Lord Grey's government, is
ejected from the representation of the city of Dublin for
bribery and corruption!
There is a third baronet in the person of Sir William
Cliaytor, who, we believe, received what heretofore
was considered his honourable distinction, on condition
that he would oppose and beat the Conservative candi-
date for the city of Durham ; indeed, we believe that
this gentleman received a written communication, pro-
mising him a peerage if he brought in his son for that
city—he himself coalescing with Captain Barrington to
bring him in fur Sunderland.
We merely ment;on this, as adding to the numerous
instances in which the Government have maintained
their principle of governing without patronage, and to
shew that after our noble premier has " taken care of
himself and his sixteen cousins," he is quite ready to do
jobs for Key, of London—Harty, of Dublin—Chaytor,
of Sunderland—Mr. Wood, of Preston, and Mr. Parkes,
of the Political Union at Brummagem.
We shall next week cull and select certain portions of
the evidence before Key's Committee, which will be
found both entertaining and instructive; and we are
quite sure when the report—(the evidence is in the ap-
pendix)—shall be read, the only charge which can be
brought against the Committee is one of excessive le-
niency, exercised from a sense of compassion and for-
bearance upon a political question so vitally affecting
the honour and character:of their adversaries. To any
unprejudiced mind the evidence itself will clearly show,
if the Committee had given-any opinion, WHAT THAT
OPINION MUST HAVE BEEN.—.John Bull.

Mr. Wm. Brougham made a short and very extraordi-
nary speech upon the occasion, which we insert in this
place from the Timev, as we happen to know of the ho-
nourable and learned gentleman's near connexion with
that journal, and therefore venture to conclude that he is
fairly reported:—

"Mr. Wm. Brougham agreed with the members that the bill
was an infraction of the law, but he would ask, was it not a case
of the strongest necessity ? The number of actions, had been
multiplied so enormously, that great injustice must be the con-
sequence if the bill were not passed. (Hear, hear.) He was
informed that in the Exchequer alone there had been upwards
of 4,0 W writs issued within the last two years, making with those
in other courts 8,000 in all : if ever there was a case of stern
necessity that was it. He would ask what right the rector of
Kendal had to £lO,OOO a-year of tithes ? He must be beat in
nine out of every ten of the actions. It was clear that they bad
only been summoned in order to save the right which otherwise
Lord Tenterden's act would have taken away. He should be
sorry to interfere between justice and those who would have
brought their actions if Lord Tenterden's act had never passed;
but as the suits in question had been instituted, as he believed,
merely for the purpose of defeating the operation of that act, the
easiest, fairest, and most convenient method of proceeding would
be, to suspend them till next session, or some more distant
period."

We have already told Mr. BroughaM that the number
of actions brought, being, as it necessarily is, the choice
of the defendants, and not of the plaintiff, is at least pre-
sumptive proof that these actions are justly brought ;
from which it follows, that if wrong is not to be pi otected
because it multiplies enormously, the legislature ought to
show particular favour to the several plaintiffs, instead of
hampering them with obstructions. As to Mr. Brougham's.
decent question, " What right haS the vicar of Kendal to
ten thousand pound a year ?" we shall venture to answer,
even supposing the question not pregnant with a false-
hood, as we believe it is largely—to this question we shall
answer, in the fashion of Mr. Brougham's country, by
another—what right has Lord Brougham to £lO,OOO or
£12,000 a year ? One answer will serve for all. It is
his—the law gives it him. But, in truth, there seems a
particular impertinence in Mr. Brougham's mode of put-
ting the question, when it is considered that it was put
for the very purpose of preventing its being answered in
the proper way. The Vicar of Kendal, it seems, is sub-
mitting the very same interrogatory, viz. :—What right
have I-to my income ? And Mr. Brougham echoing it,
says; "Whatever right you have the legislature shall not
allow. you to enforce it." The learned gentleman then
proceeds to say that the vicar must be beaten in nine out
of every ten of his actions. If so, his crime be his punish-
ment. Nobody who knows any thing of the law of this
country and its expenses, will think an extraordinary pro-
ceeding of the legislature necessary to prevent men from
embarking extensively in law suits, nine out of ten of
which they are to lose. The profits of this kind of tithe
would scarcely leave any one, churchman .or layman, an
object of envy. Mr. Brougham, however, infers, from
his own postulate, that the actions brouglatby the Vicar
of Kendal are brought only to save the right in danger of
lapsing under the provisions of Lord Tenterden's act ?
What harm then is done ? Evey: body knows that the
expenses of primary prodeedings.in a law suit rest solely
with the plaintiff ; the defendants in those actions are put
to no expense, their title is made no worse than it was
before Lord Tenterden's act, though its being wrongfully
bettered by that, act has been prevented • while it is very
clear that the clergy, who have advanced out of their own
pockets money to save the rights of their successors, hare
not acted in a rapacious spirit. After some amendments
the report was brought up.—Standard.

ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL.—The merchants who are
sufferers by the great fire at the Custom House have but
one thing to reproach themselves with :—and that is a
reliance on the vigilance and care of those, who would
not permit them to look after the security of their own
property, but undertoOk the charge of it in defiance of
all complaint and remonstrance. We mean, of course,
the Government, which leased the Custom-House Stores
to an English Company, whom it constituted Trustees
over the bonded goods of our merchants. Petitions and
letters without end were addressed to men in office at
both sides of the water, but without effect. The lease
of the English firm had run out last summer, and yet, in
contempt of all entreaty and remonstrance, was renewed.
Who then is in equity and justice responsible for the
heavy loss which has been sustained ? The answer to
this question, from all sides,is, one and the same—the
Government. Even the Castle papers admit this, and
join in the unanimous call for compensation. But then
they propose a very easy way of mulcting the Govern-
ment for its gross neglect and contempt of the mercantile
interests. " Government having caused the loss," says
one of these Catoes, " the damage should be made good
out of the Public Exchequer."
Alas—poor JOHN BULL ! This is always the way :
Quicquid detirant reges, plectuntur Achiri.
The Government, quoth " Evenhanded justice," has
offended, and therefore let the People pay ! Admirable
retribution.

Is there no 'no& of visiting the blunders of a Govern-
ment upon itself p Do not its members possess property ?
Are they not paid noble salaries for protecting the rights
and the goods of the subject ? and if by their mulishness
or ignorant self-sufficiency their trust suffers in their
keeping, in common justice, why nut hold them, like
all other defaulters, personally acct.untablel—Limerick
Herald.

The parliamentary session is still protracted, although
many of the member,s, weary of the almost interminable
debates of as inefficient a legislature for all beneficial pur-
poses as ever assembled within the walls of the House of
Commons, and heartily sick of the mischievous policy of
the King!s advisers, have retired to their country seats to
enjoy fresh air and the exercises of the field. The House
of Lords is engaged in confirming the decrees • of the
Commons on several important questions, not the least
of which is that of the abolition of slavery ; bUt even
there symptoms of fatigue are apparent; the Lord Chan-
cellor finds his seat uneasy, and scruples not to betray his
irrascibility in a manner not the most courteous in the
world, as will be seen by reference to the debate of Wed-
nesday. The mode of raising the wind for the twenty
millions voted to the West India colonists remains to be
discussed; and this has been so long delayed, that it is
somewhat doubtful if even sufficient of the ministerial
hacks can be kept together to say "aye". to Lord Al-
, thorp's proposition, whatever it May be. • As fur ihepub-
-lic, they are absolutely nauseated with the Siieditnen'they
have had of a reformed Parliament, and the Irish eco-
nomy of a ministry who have added enough Millions to
the national debt to have provided even for a war exi)en-
diture.—Salopian. Journal.

MR. Jowsr; WOOD.—In defending, a few nights ago,
the recent appointment of the ex-member for Preston to
the office of Chairman to the new Board of Taxes, Lord
Althorp took a great deal of pains to show that nothing
could be more disinterested than the selection of this
gentleman. "He had recommended Lord Grey," he
said, "to select Mr. Wood, not because he was a sup-
porter of ministers,--for no man could Say that that gen=
tlenzan's conduct had been at all subservient to their pur-
poses,—but because of his consistency of conduct and ge-
neral ability." From this it would appear that Mr. John
Wood owes the favourable opinion of his Majesty's. mi-
nisters, and all its.pleasant accompaniments, to the inde-
pendence and ability of his parliamentary conduct ; and
that, in short, his present circumstances afford another
beautiful instance of "virtue rewarded." Alas! that
we should be .compelled, in the dis Charge of our duty, to
point out othei and somewhat less honourable grounds
for the elevation of this " consistent" and worthy Whig,
and what is worse, to deprive it altogether of its moral.
Our Manchester readers have not forgot—we are sure
Mr. Poulett Thomson's friends have not fOi-g6t—the ex-
ertions which Mr. John Wood made to secure the return
of the vice-president for Manchester—his canvassing;
the speech of the." Volunteer Advocate," at the Claren-
don Bowling-green, in Chorlton-upon-Medlock, which
was one continued. eulooiumg of Mr. Poulett Thomson ;
and the zeal with which he defended the candidate from
the attacks of his oppouents. And was all this to be for-
gotten by Mr. Poulett Thomson ? Could he feel other-
Wise than grateful to the man to whose exertions, and to
those of Mr. Charles Wilkins, (who was here by "acci-
dent") he was indebted in a great measure for .nis suc-
cess ? Impossible!—Mr. Poulett Thomson knows better
how to appreciate the services of his ftiends; and Mr.
John Wood now enjoys the reward of his exertions.in the
cause of "his right honourable friend," and ample satis-
faction for the half hour's lecturing which he received
from Mr. Elijah Dixon and Mr. James Wroe. It was his
" subserviency" to the purposes of Mr. Poulett Thom-,
son, we will venture to say, and not his " ability," or his
consistency," which recommended him to the office
which he now holds.—Manchester Courier.

Before the third reading of the Colonial. Slavery Bill
took
_place in the House of Lords, we were glad to find
that Lord WynfOrd, with the greatest consistency, gave
notice that early in the next session, he would bring in a
bill to prevent the introduction of sugar and other speci-
fied commodities, which were the produce of slave labour.
This certainly will be the only effectual kind of British
legislation against slave labour—and though the minis-
ters declared that they should strenuously oppose such a
measure, it is the duty of every abolitionist to promote
it;—for the measure, which prohibits the existence of
slave labour in the British Colonies is only an additional
bounty upon its employment in other colonies not British,
if our merchants are to be uurestrtcted in the purchase of
colonial produce wherever they can obtain it best and
cheapest. Unquestionably that will be where slave la-
bour is employed; and, indeed, we have little doubt that,
with all the philanthropic zeal of .our trading and manu-
facturing magnates against slave labour, it will be found,
in the end, that they must either deal continually in the
produce of slave labour, or contrive to do without colo-
nial produce altogether. What a consolation it will be
to those who twenty years hence are paying the interest
on the twenty millions of compensation to our West In-
dia Planters, that instead of using the produce of British
slave labour, which the British Parliament could have
regulated on humane principles, we are either deprived
of colonial produce, or driven, to, the use of slave labour,
over the inhumanities of which we can place no check or
controul—that we have thrown away our money and our
colonies, and have done a direct practical injury to the
cause of humanity, in the name of which these follies
were committed.—Felix Farley's Bristol Journal.