The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-25 00:00:00

TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 25, 1844.

However greatly we might have been disposed to
regret the failure of the attempt made by Mr.
Miles to do justice to an ill-used body of men, the
planters of our colonies, we must far more deplore
the mode in which that failure has been brought
about. The noblest assembly of freemen which the
world contained—the pattern legislative body, which
has been for centuries the admiration of surround-
ing nations—the reformed British house of Com-
mons, has laid down its independence at the feet of
a minister, and consented to become in his hands a
mere instrument for recording, with all the mockery
of parliamentary form and ceremonial, whatever
principles or measures he chooses to dictate to its
acceptance ! The balanced constitution of Great
Britain has virtually ceased to exist, and Sir Robert
Peel and his colleagues become the arbitrary dic-
tators to the Crown, the Peerage, and the People.
We deplore the vote of Monday night most
deeply for this stain which it has inflicted upon the
character of the House of Commons. To that
house how can we longer look up with confidence in
any emergency with which the nation is threatened ?
It is no longer a deliberative body. It speaks no
longer the will of the nation. The public business
would go on quite as safely—the work of legislation
would be quite as well conducted—if her Majesty
were to cease calling together their "honourable
house." There can he no moral force in the deci-
sion or the opinion of an assembly which at the
threat of a minister can wheel about with such dex-
terity, rejoicing in its very slavery, and parading its
degradation.

There may certainly be occasions upon which
some deference to a government must be paid by its
supporters, and some sacrifice of individual opinion
may be justifiable. But this, we must cuutend, was
not such a case. It involved no great principle
upon which the existence of a ministry could be
fairly placed at issue. It was not even so important
in its bearings and probable consequences as the
Factory Bill, with respect to which Sir Robert Peel
first experimented upon the servility of his party;
and it was therefore the mere wantonness of power
which upon the present occasion exacted from that
party a sacrifice of character so humiliating.
The demand once made, however, it is urged, in
extenuation of the conduct of those members who
submitted to stultify on Monday their vote -of the
previous Friday—amongst whom we regret to see a
member for this borough and the newly-elected
member for South Lancashire—that they had only
the alternative of such a course or the resignation of
Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues. They were in
this position, we admit; and, as the result of this
submission, they are likely to be placed in the same
position again, whenever that statesman finds it ad-
visable to sacrifice any other interest or institution
to the claims of expediency or the clamour of his
opponents. But is it to be conceded that no hand
besides that of Sir Robert Peel can wield the desti-
nies of this empire ? Are there no able and honest
men upon the ministerial benches to raise the fallen
staff of office, and govern the country in accordance
with the declared wishes of the people ? We main-
tain that there are such men; that the country is not
so, hopelessly and absolutely dependent upon the ex-
istence of the present ministry as to require that, to
preserve them in office, the most valued branch of
the constitution should be placed in abeyance.
Highly as we estimate the talent and the character
of Sir Robert Peel, we are afraid that we purchase
his services at too high a price, when we give for
them the independence and the character of the
British House of Commons.

Since the foregoing remarks were written, another
branch of the legislature, whose proceedings are
generally marked by a greater amount of dignity
and self-respect, has chosen to imitate the course
pursued by the House of Commons. On the 30th
of April the House of Lords passed the second read-
ing of a bill, brought in by Lord Cottenham, enti-
tled the "Debtors and Creditors Bill," which was
supported, in a speech of great learning and legal
acumen, by the Lord Chancellor, and received the
hearty and almost unanimous favour of government
and of the house. Affecting as it did a large class
of the mercantile and trading public, its further pro-
gress was watched with great interest, and, by one
unfortunate portion of that public, whom it released
from the pains of imprisonment for debt, it was
hailed with welcome, and its passing into a law
looked forward to with vast anxiety. The tempo-
rary absence from his parliamentary duties of Lord
Brougham, however, who was understood to be fa-
vourable to its main principles and provisions, re-
tarded this consummation. Postponement was re-
quested to enable that learned lord to express in
Person his opinions and wishes respecting it; and
the fullest confidence was entertained that, with
perhaps a few unimportant alterations, the bill would
go safely through both houses and receive the royal
assent before the close of the present year.
But—alas for the hopes of men and debtors !
his crotchetty lordship of Brougham and Vaux has
returned to his duties in Parliament with a measure
of his own ready for being ushered into being ; and
her Majesty's government and the House of Lords,
disregarding the anxiety of the public for a prompt
settlement of a question so important as the law of
debtor and creditor, have consented, with a facility
perfectly unaccountable, to permit the measure of
Lord Cottenham, which they had previously sane-