The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-15 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

having employed undue influence at the last election,
and against certain burgesses for having accepted bribes.

So far we understand the case ; and if the object of
the inquiry were to punish those who gave and received
bribes, (supposing that such bribes were given and re-
ceived) in order to effect the return of Mr. Ewart, or
Lord Sandon, or Mr. Thornley, or any one else, we
should be among the last persons in the world to offer
any objection to the proceeding. But the accusers go
much farther than this. They contend that if bribery
can be proved against a certain number of these bur-
gesses, the offence taints the whole body of freemen,
places them beyond the pale of the constitution, and
warrants parliament in disfranchising the innocent as
well as the guilty.
When did we ever hear of such a burlesque upon
judicial proceedings ? Helen Macgregor considered that
Bailie Nicol Jarvie merited hanging merely because he
was a weaver; and yet this lady is represented as
labouring under long-nurtured prejudices and exasper-
ated passions. Here, however, is a case which throws
into the shade the arbitrary decision of the outlaw's wife.
Peter Jones is to be sent to the tread-mill because John
Smith was found drunk in the streets last Sunday morn-
ing. The liberal reformers of Liverpool virtually call
upon the House of Commons to send as it were every
weaver to Botany bay, merely because some half-dozen
or dozen weavers have been convicted of street robberies;
or in other words, two thousand freemen of Liverpool
are to be deprived of their political rights, simply because
some five or ten freemen have committed the unpardon-
able offence of accepting a bribe in. the shape, perhaps, of
a gallon of ale at the last election.
We have very little respect, and certainly no reverence
for the majority of persons who compose the present
House of Commons; but arbitrarily as they seem dis-
posed to act, and covertly as they are aided by his
Majesty's ministers, they date not commit the crying and
atrocious act of despotism and injustice which the liberals
of Liverpool require at their hands. We say they dare
not, from a sense of fear, if not of shame-L--from a sense
of overwhelming ridicule, if not of censure—pass a bill
to disfranchise the freemen of Liverpool, even if all the
allegations set forth in the petition were satisfactorily
proved.

But let us view the subject in another light. Lord
John Russell has established a precedent which must, if
acted upon, lead to gross oppression. He admits that
upon a petition being received from any city or borough
charging a certain portion of the electors with bribery,
the house is bound to enquire into the facts. Be it so.
But the rule must not be confined to Liverpool ; on the
contrary, it must hereafter be made. to apply to every
other place which returns members to Parliament. The
discomfited candidate will thus be enabled to annoy the
voters of his rival without rendering himself liable to
much expense. He may, in fact, have the means of dis-
franchising every poor elector without that elector being
heard in his own defence. He makes the charge; he
procures, and of course pays his own witnesses ; but who
is to bear the costs of the defence ? The commons have
no available fund for this purpose, and it is well that they
have not. Is the defence of their purity to be borne by
the accused parties alone ? Are fifty or sixty labourers
or mechanics to leave their wives and children upon the
parish, .and march up to London from Carlisle, Berwick-
upon-Tweed, or Truro in Cornwall, for instance, to rebut
the charges of some enormous capitalist, or some rich
liberal, who presumes upon his money, and speculates
upon his insolence and audacity ? If this is to be the
order of the day there will be no end to treachery, false-
hood, and litigation. If Lord John Russell's precedent
is to be acted upon, we hesitate. not to say, that it will
open a door to perjury, and lead to contentions in every
town in the kingdom of the most injurious and afflicting
nature. The poorer electors will see that this is an en-
gine erected against them.. They will perceive that their
rights and privileges, and those of their children, are, by
this precedent, to be called in question by every officious
creature who aspires to distinction, and by every disap-
pointed candidate whose pretensions to respectability are
disclaimed by an overwhelming majority. For ourselves,
of this community, we feel all the shame which is na-
turally inspired by the reflection that the originators of
this iniquitous precedent are our fellow-townsmen. They
have thought proper, for their own selfish and sinister
ends, to make war upon the poorer freemen, who, per-
haps, have not the honour to belong to the shopocracy, or,
live in houses rented above £7 or £B. It is an attempt
to rob the defenceless, for defenceless they are in every
respect, unless their Cause be espoused, as no doubt it
will, by the corporation. It is for them, therefore, to
consider well the peril of their situation, and the claims
of those who have placed them upon their trial. They
cannot march up to London to vindicate their rights, and
demand the protection of the legislature ; but they can
meet here and adopt such' resolutions as shall leave an
impression like a brand upon the characters and preten-
sions of their illiberal accusers. They have more in their
power than their enemies dream of; and if they act in a
spirited manner—firmly, but peaceably—like resolute
men contending for their just rights—they will make
those quail who would at present trample upon them.

TrrE events of every day prove most incontestably that
the-present ministers, the longer they continue in office, are
the more impelled by the love of arbitrary power than by
any regard for public liberty and the rights of property. On
Monday evening they introduced their bill for the extinc-
tion of Protestant Bishops in Ireland—for the shutting
up of churches—for taxing the revenues of the clergy—
and fur appropriating part of the church lands to secular
purposes. The bill was read a first time, and Lord Al-
thorp actually had the modesty to propose that it should
be read-a second time on Wednesday. All this was pro-
posed to be chine although the house was in utter igno-
rance of the details of the bill, of which we venture to
say that Lord Althorp, who is not "absolute wisdom,"
was equally ignorant himself. The mere abstract of the
bill occupies four closely printed columns in small type of
the London journals. To read the whole bill is a day's
work, and yet it could not be in the hands of members

before Wednesday, and could not possibly
,be read by
them before Thursday, and yet these members were cal-
led upon to vote its second reading on Wednesday, before
they could possibly have perused it !
This is Whig legislation ! The second reading was
subsequently deferred till yesterday, but even this favour,
or rather this mark of ministerial liberality hardly mends
the matter ; for considering the harassing duties which
members are now called upon to perform, it is quite im-
possible that they can, on a day's notice, and a hurried
perusal, have more than a very imperfect knowledge of
the elaborate and intricate provisions of the bill—a bill
replete with more extraordinary innovations than any
ever introduced into the House of Commons since the
days of the Stuarts.
Far be it from us to give offence, or expose ourselves
to the tender mercies of a reformed parliament; but see-
ing'the mode of procedure which ministers have chosen
to adopt, and which we cannot characterise in any other
terms than a solemn burlesque upon legislation, we are,
half despairingly, driven to the necessity of asking—what
use is there for a House of Commons at all ? If honour-
able members are called upon to decide upon important
measures, without having leisure to reflect upon them—
and called upon to decide them the more quickly because
they know least about them—we say it would be better
for the country, even on a principle of economy, that the
discussions of parliament should be superseded altogether,
and that ministers should enforce their crude reforms upon
their own personal responsibility. All measures hurried
thus precipitately through the house are based upon con-
siderations 'which are calculated to excite.the most seri-
ous alarm in a country not yet ingulfed in the severi-
ties. of uncontrolled despotism. Such precipitation
proves either that the measure itself will not bear dis-
passionate scrutiny, or that the ministers, relying upon
their packed majorities, their pledged supporters, and
their willing slaves, disdain consulting them on a matter
which they do not deem it expedient that they should fully
understand. "The bill must be carried," says Lord Al-
thorp, "or we resign." The meaning of this is, that the
Cabinet is the legislature, and the parliament the execu-
tive. The church of Ireland must be spoliated, and the
Curfew bell tolled over the expiring liberties of an un-
happy people. Why? Because, we of the government
have not the courage, or the sense of justice, or the true
public spirit of a protestant government, to coerce the re-
fractory priests and the demagogues of Ireland. They
and their infamous designs must all merge in a measure
directed against seven millions of people whom they and
they alone have been encouraged to excite to acts of dia-
bolical outrage and open rebellion. The leading agita-
tor is allowed-to escape. No hand is laid upon him. He
rejoices in his silken honours and his patent of prece-
dence—his sedition goes for nothing—his treason is only
an argument in favour of the bill—but his victims are
doomed to the gallows, 'or to slavery in a convict settle-
ment, for following the instructions which he was per-
mitted to give with perfect impunity. He quaffs the
goblet of wine purchased by the contributive alms of un-
happy men, who, if they escape transportation, will be
shut up in their houses from sunset to sunrise.
This, however, explains the secret. The 'coercive
bill is not passed to put down O'Connell and the agita-
tors. It is the ministerial apology for robbing the
church.. The execution of the suppression bill is con-
fided to a man who is an avowed agitator. He is to
have the life, property, and liberty of every man in
Ireland at his mercy. Lord Anglesey happens to be in
this predicament, that those. for whom he professes a
friendship, suspect him; and that those who are deemed
his enemies despise him. He has the confidence of no
party. Those against whom these coercive measures
are directed, have hitherto been his chosen friends.
Lord Cloncurry enjoys in competition with Dr. Doyle
the hospitality of his table and his entire confidence.
Lord Plunkett, once a furious advocate against the
union of the two countries, is Lord Chancellor and the
keeper of his conscience. At his Court of the Castle
of Dublin, few protestants are invited, and hardly any
ever appear. He lives in the splendour of borrowed
royalty, without a coronet to grace his entertainments,
and without a cheer to elicit a happy smile at a public
procession..
In retaining the noble marquess in the government
of Ireland, the ministers must abide the consequences
of the suspicions they excite. Those who best under-
stand the state of affairs in that country, contend that
the suppression bill is only the auxiliary of the Church
Spoliation bill. The lesser, evil, they contend, is only
a specious veil to cover the intentions of the reformers.
The coercion is against the church, not levelled at the
agitators. In short, we are much mistaken if it be not
a fraud altogether.

A PETITION to Parliament,. praying for the total abo-
lition of flogging in gaols; and, in the army and navy,
has been got up in this town,—to be presented, of course,
by Mr. Ewart. IVe have. seen this curious document at
the Commercial Newsroom, and have been amused by
observing, that the only matter of fact connected with it
is conta►ned in- the intimations appended to it, namely,
that copies of the petition lie at a certain counting-house
not far from Paradise-street, at the Mereury-otlice, &c.
&c. The petition lies in almost every line. The first
paragraph asserts, that flogging, or as it is,termed, " the
mutilation of one human being by another," is a "system"
in the gaols, and in the ariny'and navy.' The other two
paragraphs of the petition. allege, that this punishment is
customary. Now, nothing can be more destitute of
truth. Flogging is neither the system nor the custom
in our gaols—the army or .the navy ; on the contrary, it
is well known, that it is rarely resorted to, and that the
necessity for its infliction is gradually being superseded
by improved discipline. No one.can be more opposed to
wanton or unnecessary punishment of any description
than we are; but might it not be permitted to those pro
fessionally connected with the subject to judge how far a
total abolition of corporal punishment is practicable. We
will venture to assert, that there is not to be found in the
British service an officer of distinguished rank who is of
opinion that flogging could be totally abolished in the