The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-31 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL -STAN I) RII

His MAJESTY'S ministers are so blind, or so stupid, or so
wilful, as to see nothing in an argument which is not
supported by a howl of applause, and threatened to be
enforced with a bludgeon or a brickbat. Reason, and
sound sense, and justice, are all lost sight of. Clamour
is the only weapon which King William's imbeciles can-
not resist. A drunken riot, or the yell of a band of ruf-
fians in the act of demolishing a private house or burning
a town, convey more terror to ministers than any protest
of the great and good against their policy, or any solemn
warning of the desolation and bloodshed to which that
policy must inevitably lead. Such has been the compo-
sition of the meetings which have lately dictated to the
Government, and such their means of intimidation.

Now let us turn to the London meeting on the West
India question. There was no ruffianism, such as that
over which the Times and other treasury journals lately
gloated. There was no threat to refuse payment of the
taxes, as Lord FITZWILLIAM and the LORD CHANCELLOR'S
brother recommended. There was no attempt made to
intimidate the government by threatening to stop the
exports, or dishonour bills drawn in favour of the West
Indies. All this might have been done, and the whole
mercantile world thrown at once into confusion. It was
a meeting composed of very different materials from the
staple of a reform meeting-:--of men of the highest cha-
racter, of the noblest principles, of great experience, prac-
tically acquainted with the subj ect they had met to dis-
cuss, and deeply concerned in the welfare and happiness
of their fellow-countrymen. Their sentiments, although
pronounced under feelings approaching to despair, were
delivered calmly, dispassionately, firmly, and respectfully.
They were met to meet misfortune, to reason against in-
justice, to declare their wrongs, to complain of robbery
and oppression, and claim the sympathy of their fellow-
subjects in a matter pregnant with awful consequences
to us all. They met to deliberate and protest in a con-
stitutional manner, and invite public attention to a series
of measures, now under consideration, and calculated to
involve all ranks and classes of men, from the merchant
to the artizan, from the landowner to the labourer, from
the rich fundholder to the poorest pensioner on a public
charity, in one mingled mass of insolvency and desti-
tution.

But how are such men treated by the hackneyed scribes
of the ministerial press ? The vulgar sneer, the indeco-
rous laugh, the petty snarl, the insidious misstatement,
the open and premeditated lie ! These form the mini-
sterial reply. A smoke-dried critic reared in the stews
of London, and who never lived a week beyond the sound
of Bow bell, and who knows as little of the West Indies
as we do of the most distant planet in the universe, ven-
tures, with dapper impertinence, to question the motives
of Lord HAREWOOD, to doubt the sincerity of Lord CoL-
VILLE, to suspect the veracity of Lord ST. VINCENT, to
undervalue the experience of Sir BYAM MARTIN and
Admiral STOPFORD, and to throw discredit upon the evi-
dence of Lord COMBERMERE, Lord W. POWLETT, Sir
JOHN REID, Mr. HORSLEY PALMER, Mr. YOUNG, and
others. What despicable pecking is this! It is worthy
of the characterless blockheads of the Times newspaper,
but it is a disgrace to his Majesty's ministers, whose hire-
lings these blockheads are.

It has been asserted, and evidently for the purpose of
throwing discredit upon the meeting, that the majority
of those who took an active part in it were, by property
or otherwise, directly interested in the West Indies, and
induced by motives of a purely selfish nature to oppose
the projected scheme of his Majesty's ministers. Even
if this were true, which it is not, it would be no admis-
sible argument against their opposition. Do we find fault
with the society of bankers forming an association to de-
tect and convict forgers ? Do we impugn householders
passing resolutions for the apprehension of burglars ? Do
we condemn a captain of a ship when he gives orders con-
trary to the judgment of his passengers, and who iss sup-
posed to give these orders from as strong a feeling of
self- preservation as the hapless victims on his deck ? No,
no. Why, then, should we censure men for boldly stand-
ing forward in defence of their own interests, and the in-
terests of those connected with them, by beating down
the prejudices of morbid sentimentality, exposing the
sophistries of conceit, and the ignorance of inex-
perience, and combating the whole array, regardless
of envious attacks, or factious reprehension ? If the
West Indians stood merely " upon their bond"—if they
had no argument to offer save that of their several char-
ters—if they had no right, human or divine, save that
which they derive from Acts of Parliament, they would
nevertheless stand in this position, namely, that so long
as there are law and justice in England—so long as there
is an executive government to enforce that law—so long
as there is a King upon the throne, and a court to hold
the rightful balance between contending claimants, so
long also would the rights of these parties be respected,
and the last penny awarded them by a jury of their
country.

This, for the honour of the British name, we contend,
would be the fair verdict, if none but West India plan-
ters and proprietors were the plaintiffs. But in this case
it fortunately happens that the most distinguished advo-
cates of the planters, and the opponents of the ministerial
scheme, have neither property nor direct interests in
the welfare of the Colonies. Of these are Lord Com-
BERMERE, and Admirals MARTIN and STOPFORD. They
condemn the plan on the grounds of expediency ; and
they fortify their arguments against it by facts which
have come under their own observation, after a long
residence on the several West India stations. Mr.
HORSLEY PALMER, however, (the late Govenor of the
Bank of England) is a still more unexceptionable wit-
ness. His reasons of dissent are founded upon the most
legitimate of all bases. He considers the question as a
purely national question. He disencumbers it of all
selfish and personal. considerations. He justly grapples
with it as one purely British—as one of universal policy
—as applicable to the lowly investments of the poor as
it is to the larger hazards of the affluent. Now, deeming
him an impartial and disinterested witness, we:take leave
to call him into court. What, then, does Mr. HORSLEY
PALMER say ? We take an extract from his speech as
reported in the Morning Chronicle.
"Ministers have brought forward a measure which if it were
possible to be carried (bravo, hear, hear), endangers the property
of every man in this kingdom or its dependencies. (Loud and
long continued cheering). What, my lord, do the West India
planters rest their confidence in ?—not on one, but on,loo acts
of parliament—all confirmatory of their rights. (Cheers.) Any
minister who presumes to tamper with such security as this--
the highest and the best the state can give—endangers the fa-
bric of society by striking at the very foundation on which it
stands—the security of property. (Cheering, and loud clapping
of hands.) I am not so young but that I know a good deal of
what took place in 1825—that year of consternation and dis-
tress; but that distress will be as nothing compared to what will
take place if this shameful measure be persevered in. (Cheers.)
I say, my lord, those ministers who have concocted this dis-
graceful piece of legislation have no notion whatever of the
character of credit, and of confidence in this country. (Hear,
hear.) The moment this proposition is agreed to, there is no secu-
rity for the funded property of the country. (Cheers.) What is
that property secured and maintained by ? One act-of parlia-
ment. (Cheers.) What was the property of the West Indians
seeured by ? One hundred acts of parliament. (Cheers.) I
say there will be no security whatever for any property—in houses,
land, or money, if this first act of gross violation and spoliation is
permitted."

Such a speech, homely in its terms, eloquent in its
bursts of truth, and righteous in its condemnation of un-
merited injuries—such a speech, we venture to say, is
unequalled for its force and justice in the English lan-
guage. We care not who the man is—we care not who
the minister is—we care not what power of eloquence is
brought to bear against it, for we defy the most able, or
learned, or ingenious of the members of the cabinet, or
the members of Aldermanbury-street, or all the other
lay hirelings of the Government to confront Mr. PAL-
MER with a reasonable answer. He is not defending the
colonies—he is standing up for the menaced property of
his countrymen at the last hour of their peril. He, the
most experienced of capitalists and fundholders, tells the
national creditors that if they consent, to this spoliation
scheme, their property is not worth a farthing. He tells
them that should this plan be carried into execution in
1834, the panic of 1835 will exceed that of 1825 by at
least an hundred degrees. In fact he hesitates not to
declare that the initiation of this rapacious and unjust
measure will lead to a general bankruptcy, and to uni-
versal plunder.