The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-10-27 00:00:00

TO' CORRESPONDENTS.

We have to apologise for the omission of several communica-
tions and lettei-s which it was intended should Save appeared
to-day. The press of advertisements has- alioObliged us to
• omit•our report of the trials at,the Borough Quarter Sessions,
which commenced yesterday.

Tbe Eiberpoot Stantarb,

:TUESDAY MOThVING, OCTOBER 27. 1833.

By the Mari,'EPaptain NELSON; which sailed on the
12th of September, and arrived here on Friday last, we
have Demerara papers to that date. Some differences of
opinion had arisen relative to the "rate of compensation
for thiremancipated labourers, but they do not appear to
us to be of much importance. The colony was healthy
and tranquil. • •
We. have also rP.ceived Canada papers to the sth in,
stant. They at'e-uninteresting.
The New York packet of the Bth instant arrived in the
Mersey yesterday, having made the passage in eighteeen
days. The papers she has brought contain. very little
intelligence of any moment.

e That the cry of certain writers against O'Coeteieetiarid
in-defence of, the House of Lords was premeditated, and
that Mr. BAINES of Leeds acted upon instructions which
he feared to disobey, are facts, is now so obvious, that it
would. be silly to cfeestiori them. ln the Edinburgh
Re
view, just published, there is an article in which the sen-
timents of the Leeds Mercury arefollowed- up in rather
a dis Mal tone, but:with admirable candour and sound rea-
soning: The old whig. propensity to overrate their
claims upon the people, and cherish hope in the lest hour
of despair, is ConsPicuous enough ; but still sufficient is
confessed to satisfy the most incredulous that the Irish
demagogue has touched a sore -subject; insulted tbe.Whig
aristocracy, raised against himself and his hollow and de-
ceitful ministerial allies a new hest . eneinies; and ef-
fectually_ruiried the. Meebenue*:aci reinistretioe. .
After what has occurred it is impossible that the pre-
sent cabinet:can survieei if:if .survive .so long, the first
ten days of the next sesSiorirof parliament. They. ;must
make up their minds either to repudiatd their alliance
with O'Ciisteiee, and denounce the 'ilanderOus and tree.-
eonable invectives lie has uttered, or, by, remaining si-
lent or by defending him, provoke the concentrated op-
position of the leaders of their-party, thereby causing
suAi a desertion from their ranks as mustleave ministers,
in a minority even in the House Of Commons. It is de-
feat and disgrace whichever way they turn. If they
should attempt to justify, or even offer any. apology foe
the atrocious conduct of DANIEL, they will. be signally
beaten. They are in the situation of men who have
bound themselves by some secret oath to.COriunit a foul
crime. The unhallowed project of the party has been di-
vulged, and the victims are on their guard. They know
that the accomplishment of the- villanous design is the
basis of their union, and that its failure must create dis-
tentent and lead to defection on the part of certain of
their confederates. To persevere would be hopeless mad-
ness, ending in suicide Tostay proceedings would be
equally- dee-peer-ons,- for thee-Keounetrels -wirtreeholif they
have unfortunately contracted would in that case peach,
the meditated crime -eyeuld :be •expoSed; and the rest of
the gang either execntednr transported.
Such is the wretched dilemma of- the whigs iu this:the 1
last year of their reign of fraud, and we cry them mercy f
But some will say-7why should not ministers break
.with
O'CONNELL at once,' depiecate his blackguard attacks
upon the peerage, holdiffm
.up to public scorn, end;throw
themselves on the charity and sympathy of the public ?
Stop a bit, good christian ; this is easier said than clone.
When honourable men unite for honourable or legitimate
purposes, no harm can arise from their separation in case
of failure. But can any :alliance" formed by the'King's
ministers, who and the professed guardianS of the crown,
and who have sworn to protect and maintain-the protes-
tant religion in•these realms, with such a manias DANIEL
O'CONNELL, a treaelleC6US papist, and the avowed and
einrelenting. enemy of our nobles, our church, and our
religion, be deemed or held to be, an honourable, a legi-
timate, or justifiable.' alliance?
.man blessed with a
particle of seneee candour, or discrimination, would as-
sert anything of the kind. It is a base and polluted con-
federacy, formed in -the necessity of a gnilty moment,' to
gratify insatiable- rancour 'and dirty pride, to obtain a
temporary triumph at a sacrifice of truth and principle,
and to regain place, power, and pelf, no matter by what
feel means.
How then can Lord MF.LBOU RYE or Lord JouN Rus-
sea. breakevitletrCoNNit.l.?. They are but bares in
the fangs of a tiger. He has them hard and fast in his
.merciless grasp. If it snit his purpose to preserve them
he will ; if he can be allowed to gorge upon his favourite
meal they will be tolerably safe for a while; but if they
wince, or complain, or attempt to desert, he will tear
them to pieces with all the.filry and delight of his brutal
and savage nature. Do not therefore talk to us Of the
whigs turning upon DANIEL. They dare not. We do
-not deny that there is more than one way ef escaping
from-his clutches. They might bribe him—give him mo-
ney instead of blood, and titles to correspond—they might
make him still more illustrious by courtesy though not
less infamous in character ; and by this means, and on
these-Oonditiens, it is more than probable he would con-
sent to deny all that he knows, swear black is white, like
Joseen HUME, and, With well assumed gravity and so-
lemnity, protest before IleavEef• that he uttered,' in the
excitement of galled and disappointed feelings, senti-
ments of which in; a calmer meod . lie .heartily repents.
There is another way. Ministers may avoid disgrace by
quietly resigning before the meeting of parliament.
This will be the easiest and safest way of surmounting a
very serious difficulty. 1;‘64, or no explanations will be
demanded. They have only to equivocate a little, as
Lord MELBOURNE 'did after his first resignation, and
throw the blame upon what the Edinburgh Review ealh
the "court party." They could allege that the seals re-
maining so long in commission—the want of a lord chan-
cellor—and the hostility
.of a ",certain personage" to
one of his most familiar correspondents—had created ob-
stacles in the way of a compact and united administration
which they deemed "altogethee incompatible with their
retention of office. The nation Would probably laugh
• most heartily at this ingeniooe subterfuge; but nothing
hut good nature would prevail ; a new cabinet would be
formed, and O'CONNELL-Would have quite enough to do
in meeting his constituents at a new election. To this
we think it will come, and sooner perhaps than some peo-
ple imagine.
Having said thus much we beg to call attention to the
opinions of the Edinburgh Review, to.which we have
alluded. They have lost much of their force after What

•
we have given from the Leeds Mercury. In fact it is
manifest that tile writer in the Leeds paper, whoever he
is, the writer in the Oxford Herald, and the writer in the
Edinburgh Rei,ietc, have drawn their drgurnents and
ideas frOni the same source The reluctance derived
from compulsion marks them all. There is melancholy if
not despondency in their composition. A ne.* light is
produced, evidently by reflection ; for some adthoritatite
person has said,—`.4 do this, OR l" and it is dobe as a pa=
tient under restraint, and against his own conviction;
swallows a decoction which is exceedingly nauseous and
repulsive. Implicit obedience, however, accordibg to
whig rule, liaalse4n the aristocratic order of the day ;
and nothing remains for us -hut to observe its effects.
We beg an earnest attention to the following extracts :
The last time of addressing our readers on the state of public
affairs was on the eve of a change of administration. We then
expressed our opinion very freely upon the 'character and com-
position of the present House of Commons—and we did not
withhold our apprehensions of still worse mischiefs from the
infatuated conduct of a great party in the other house of parlia-
*meat. .Upon neither subject has the historynf the session in
the least tended to change our sentiments. But the change of
ministry was an event of great importance. A government so
,weak as to he incapable, of ,carrying any one question iu the
lower house has been succeeded by one just strong enough there
not to be beaten, and tocofeeble in the upper house to command
a vote upon any contested question. Of the composition of this
goYerriment, or that of the last, we need not speak. One thing'
is quite certain, that from the one the country never obtained
anything but by cornpulsion ; -While from the Other almostevery.-
thing has been obtained which it had the power to give. This is
surely one ground of confidence—one-claiin to support. Ano-
ther that -our confidence- and support is necessary-to their"'
existence. The court, we fear, is against them.' The church is
against there, and regards them, most absurdly; most wildly
regarde them, as the source of all its perils—whereas we verily
believe they stand between the church and destruction. The
aristocracy, whether in parliament or in the country, is their
'implacable enemY ; -and, 'hating reform only somewhat less
bitterly than it hates them, would-even support a reforming go-
vernment of tories, if such a course might only relieve them
from the whits. Last of all, the Housenf Commons is but by a
narrow majority for them; and of that small majority there are
many unfriendly in their tenets both to their persons and to
their policy, who only support thesis through fear of their con-
stituents—not having, like others elected by the liberal pasty.
broke faith, and gone over to the enemy. Thus circumstanced,
'unless the people support them," is there a chance of their eon-
tinuing to fill those }decor, from•which, if they be driven, a tory
succession, without prospect of end, is the fate that awaits the
country ? ,
The support of the people is, in truth, absolutely necessary,
not only to control the court, but to control the commons. The
recent conduct of the lords has not unnaturally withdrawn the
attention of men from the conduct of our representatives. Yet
a very little reflection will remind us of scenes in the lower
'house of parliament far from consolatory to the friend of liberal
principles. The Speakersbip carried' by eleven votes—the
amendment to the address by sixteen—the resolution on the
,Irish church by about twice as many ;—such it the measure we
insist he content to take of the preponderance of liberal repre-
sentation in the people's house of a reformed parliament. Yet,
was it thus at the general election ? Did nearly one-half of the
candidates for the people's suffrages avow that they were resolved
to support the tories
,? Did little more than one-half of these
candidates profess themselves friends to reform ? Far from it.-
T The • people were deceived—grossly, scandalously deceived.
Men pretending to be liberal in theirsentiruents won their favour,
that they might lend it to the enemies of all liberal opinions.
Men who had never
,given a vote at all—nay, men who had
given many votes, but never a liberal one—were believed when
they affected to be reformers • and some were even preferred
to known and tried friends' Of the people. Were we to esti-
mate at five-and-twenty or thirty the persons who played this
game, and there are at the least as many more, who, hating
reform in their hearts, and desirous of quitting the govern-
ment, and wishing 'to see that government destroyed, yet
have never suinrnorted up the bad courage that has led the others,
in open and audacious breath of their faith, to desert. in the face
of day, and join the adversary's ranks. On those men—those
lukewarm, unwilling friends, or concealed enernies-L-depends
even the scanty majority which the government now has. Can
it be for an instant doubted, that the least relaxation of support
froot•thecountry would at once decide their votes, and throw
the ministers into a minority in the House of Commons—seal
their dootri with the court, and with the peers, and with the tory
leadersgiving the,court the courage to fling them out—giving
the teTies, spirit to take their places—and raising the assurance
of the peens to.a pitch which, even without any such encourage-
ment, it had .welinigh attained short time ago ? If any one
should think our -apprehensions chimerical, we entreat him to
took at the composition of the ministerial majorities during the
session: He will find not only how small they were, but how
various in their constituent parts—that is to say,. not 'of how
many parties composed—of this we are presently to speak—hut
how many of the individuals who voted' on any one occasion
were absent, and had their places supplied by different persons
on another occasion. Where parties run near, nothing can
better prove the number ''of persons who are not steady—not to
be relied upon in all things. Then.it by no means requires the
defection of such members as wo have been supposing hollow
friends to turn the scale. When the majorities are twelve or
fifteen, eight or ten leaving their ranks, and five or six going
over to the tories, at once throws the government into a mi-
nority—and one such defeat would be-fatal upon a question of
any importance.
It ought to be very distinctly understood in what:way any
coldness on the part of the country must infallibly operate to
restore the tory rule. The court is of course anxious, if it
dared ventureon the experiment of last year, to repeat it. What
gave the courtiers the courage to try it then ? The abusive tone
taken by many at public meetings, and by some through the
press.. This, and this alone, was theocause of the change in
November, 1831. The tory party instantly raised a cry that
the ministry were grown unpopular; and, in proof of their po-
sition, they appealed to one or two intemperate and thoughtless
speeches Ely liberals or pretended liberals, and to one or two
scurrilous newspapers, who wore the same liberal colours. The
courtiers, prone to believe what they wished were true, thought
the whigs had become unpopular, and removed them from power.
It was now too late for those to repent, who had, if not done the
mischief, yet enabled others to do it. They did what was far
better than empty penitence—we mean such of them as had
been sincere and honest, though mistaken—they rallied against
the tories, and united to support the Whigs as a body ; if not for
their own bakes, yet ro preference to their adversaries. This
same heedleas.and ruinous course must not again be pursued by
the country.- If they only relax in their support of the minis-
try—if they show any symptoms of declining favourthe court
will assuredly turn upon them, and welcome its natural allies,
the tory faction. • •
The .kirid of 'slackness of Which we speak May Operate in
another way to 'destroy the government. "Even if it do not per-
manently unsettle the majority in the commons, or encourage
the court to recall the tories-,=a, sino,ledefeat, a defeat on one
question, and not likely to. be repeated on any other, may very
possibly make the ministers.throw up the government. They
feel that in the lords they can do nothiug—a majority of three to
one against them is their fate in that house—in the place too
where their principal members sit. This is not a very agreeable
state of existence for any men—for any men of spirit it is not
even very bearable. But, if it be attended with a defeat, even a
single defeat in the_commons, who hasps right to wonder that
they retire from so thankless a service ? Especially, if the peo-
ple should betoken any disinclination towards them—who would
have a right to complain of their retirement ? The discomforts
of high office—of narrow majorities on test-questions—of slack
or unruly support where zealous , aid was justly expected—of
opposition, undeserved in quarters where co-operation was
claimed as of right—may possibly be the reason why some are now
no longer in the service of the_people, whose labours the people
would most gladly reward with- their unbounded, because well-
earned confidence. Better not . try the same thing too often.
Better not disgust with the public service those who still cling
to-it, and endeavour faithfully- to discharge their duty to the
country. .
* * *

. • ,
A state of things in which the ministers may, any day. be left
iu a miriorityof the commons, is pregnant with mischief to the
country yet greater than its annoyance and inconvenience to
themselves and their parliamentary supporters. It is a predi-
cament in which the unfettered exercise of judgment is not left
to those whose duty is to consult for the good of the common-
wealth. It is a crisis in which they are not wasters of their
own movements, but must be at
,the mercy of others. Nay, it
is.a state of things in which this very worst of mischiefs must
oiler-dimes befall us, that small knots of men, or even single
individuals, rising into an unnatural and most inauspicious
importance, are enabled to dictate to the government what line
shall be pursued; -and thus to become the arbiters upon mea-
sures of the greatest moment. As long as the parties that divide
parliament are so equally balanced, every individual—certainly
every half dozen of individuals—may exert an influence on the
affairs of the country, which no good citizen can really contem-
plate without feelings of alarm. No one can, therefore, seriously
maintain that a vast improvement would not be gained to our
present eonditi6n, were the people to regain somewhat of the
preponderance which, in the first reformed parliament, they had
in some excess; and which at the last election, we believe them,
through great mismanagement of various kinds, to have lost in
as great a degree of efficiency. It is impossible to deny that
the parliament which. met in January 18'33, contained an ina-
dequate proportion of tory members—fess than one-fifth—of the
whole ; but it is equally impossible to doubt that sixteen to
seventeen—or at the very least five to six—is far more than the
due share of that party in the representative body. We anxiously
hope, therefore, that no new parliament will ever, under any
circumstances, be returned in which so equal a balance of parties
shall be found.
The reader will be prepared, from these very obvious remarks,
to expect that we should &fres 110 i a little from those excellen: and
liberal persons, who, in sees.ing fora solution of all the difficulties
which have of late beset the path of the reformers and of the
reforming ministers, keep their e)es fixed upon the house of
Lords alone; Now, let us not be for one instant misunderstood.
Nist a man among all who have attacked that ancient and illus-
trious assembly is less alive to their conduct, and more deplores
their infatuation, than ourselves. We only deem it superfluous
to dwell upon points admitted by all but the zealots of the tory
faction, and which, to urge upon these zealots, would be alto-
gether vain. But while the lords have their due share of the
blame; and while we amply admit the deep responsibility that
they have incurred, let us ask ourselves one question which
never seems to strike the partizans to whom we are alluding.
Whence conies it to pass that these same lords—for they are the
self same with the lords of 18.32, 1833, and 1834—have held a
conduct so exceedingly different iu 183,5 ? What reforms did
they contrive to throw out in those years? What reform have
they suffered to pass this year ? This question, however, is an-
swered jest as soon and as easily as it is propounded. The lords
are the same ; but the cosmos's are different. Herein lies the
great Secret of the diversity of conduct pursued by their lord-
ships in these two eras. In 183,3, for example, all the measures
of reform which went up from the lower house were backed by
majorities of four or five to one—if indeed there ever had been
a division taken upon them. In 1835, the divisions were in the
proportian of 220 to 240 or 250—and the lords felt that it was
one thing to reject what had been carried by acclamation, or by
a preponderating force of numbers • and another to reject what
had only the' measuring cast in its favour.
It being; therefore, perfectly manifest that a second house,
something its the nature of a House of Lords, is necessary for
sound and safe legislation, the only question is, how it shall be
composed—and first of all, shall it be elective or hereditary ? or
if hereditary, shall the members sit by individual right, as they
now do, or by election among and by the nobility, as the French
nobles did in their statesgeneral ? Let us begin with the last
plain and most obvious change. Would it avail us anything in
remedy of the present evil ? Certainly it would have the di-
rectly opposite effectfor if all the members of the House of
Lords were chosen by the peers as a body,- or even divided into
any conceivable chambers of election, instead of two-thirds, or
it maybe three-foUrths, anti-reformers, we should not have a
single ,member of the house a informer. The Scottish peers
tire an example of this, of when's sixteeu-sixteenths are tortes.
Theo, shitirthe
.ey6wn select peers ainoug the nobility as in