The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-05-19 00:00:00

words he•has spoken, and recall -the Pacts which are now.
matter of hikory. The demagogue stands convicted on
the clearest evidence. All the water in the ocean would
not make him clean. He is pollution ! Let no man
touch him—let no honourable man speak to him—out off`
Brookes's he must go, and out of society too altogether,
or there is no spirit in the aristocracy of England.

We come now to the second man—Lord MELBOURNE.
This, however, is a more delicate subject, and we are
not quite sure if we rightly understand what the noble
viscount has stated relative to Lord WELLESLEY. It

was assserted, first by the Times, that Lord WELLESLEY
had resigned the office of lord chamberlain o!1 the
ground that he could not conscientiously support a minis-
try which had given almost unlimited power to O'CoN-
NELL in Ireland. In the House of Lords, on Friday last,
the noble viscount denied that the public rumours as to
the cause of Lord WELLESLEY'S retirement were true.
But as he did not state what these " public rumours"
were, we are left completely in the dark as to what Lord
MELBOURNE did deopy. He did not even condescend to
state the nature of the reasons which induced Lord
WELLESLEY to resign. So far, then, we exonerate, in
this instance, Lord MELBOURNE from the charge of open
fal#ehood. His explanation, however, smacked of the je-
suit—it was un-English —it was equivocal, or to use the
language of an able contemporary, it "asserted a false-
hood in the language of truth." There is no doubt what-
ever that Lord WELLESLEY resigned for the reasons
we have given. His own words are quoted by those
mho heard them. They are before the public—THEY
HAVE NOT BEEN, AND CANNOT BE CONTRADICTED

What then are we to think of Lord MELBOURNE'S
disingenuous explanation ? It is either true or false.
If it meant anything, it meant that Lord WEL-
LEsLEY had not resigned in consequence of the con-
nexion between the administration and O'CONNELL.
If it 'did not mean this, it bad no meaning at all.
The charge, thus, jesuitically met, ig true—the fact nib-
bled at is not denied. We leave the public to draw their
own conclusions. Such a pretty pair as Lord MELBORNE
and Lord DBRRYNANE are seldom seen !

• We have a very 'melancholy announcement to make
this morning, which we do under the influence of very
peculiar sensations. Patriots, schoolmasters, spinsters!
if you, have tears, as Nbatc ANTONY says, " Prepare to
shed them now !"

Lord BROUGHAM, in his place in parliament, on Fri-
day last, intimated that the Society for the Confusion
of Useless Knowledge is a losing concern, and that con-
sequently the Petzny Magazine is on the point of being
given up:
_These are his lordship's own classic words.
In presenting a petition to the house, the noble old
learned correspondent of the king stated that unless
the duty upon paper were repealed the benevolent con-
ductors of the Penny Magazine would be obliged either
to stop payment or discontinue that very valuable work
upon monkeys, bush hogs, spinning tops, catterpillarsi
squaw punch, sea serpents, tad-poles, and cammondle
tea. The dear public, it would appear, cannot afFord to
pay more than a penny for the magazine, and the penny
does not supply any profit to the society. The poor
rogues who rake old books and steal scraps for the work
are paid at a wretched rate, and yet the society cannot
go on unless they have paper duty free. The meaning.
of this is —cheap literature, as it is called, is down-
right humbug and imposition, and the public are begin-
ning to be convinced of the fact. The Penny. Maga-
zine,. therefore, is doomed to fall, despite quackery, as
rapidly as It rose. It is absurd to think that the repeal
of the paper duty would give new life to it. The play-
thing has had its day, and the public are tired of it. It
has been a very excellent job to certain obscure persons,
-the canaile of literature, but the bubble is burst and
the juggler. exposed. Farewell, then, small scribes !
your day is over, Lord BROUGHAM and the Penny Ma-
gazine go down together !

Our attention has been called to a case of alleged libel
in which the proprietors of the Liverpool Journal have
suffered severely. A. person of .the name of EVANS had
been taken before the magistrates of this town, and •ac-
cused of threatening to shoot a gentleman who presided
at the Liverpool agricultural dinner, last year. He was
,s upposed.. to accarding,lF held.to bail.
The Journal • reported the dceurrenco as it would report
any other incident of the day. An action was brought
against the proprietors for the alleged slanderous report,
and the damages were laid at £5OOO. The action was
tried!in London, when the jury awarded forty shillings
damages. ! The costs,' however, ;it . would appear, will
amount to nearly one thousand pounds, £473 of which
go to the lawyer in London who conducted the prosecu-
tion!

This is certainly a case of extreme hardship, and we
would dwell more upon it, but for one reason—the name
of the attorney is not given in the Journal.; It is fruitless
to complain of the law of libel and the grievances of the
press, if the conductors of newspapers will not avail
themselves of. a remedy which the press itself supplies.
We daily see cases of oppression practised under the
sanction of law, but singularly enough we are never fa-
voured with the names •of the honest attorneys who are
the authors of and the sole gainers by these oppressions.
If the press would only speak out, and do justice to itself
and the public, we should see fewer of these vexatious
and disgraceful cases.