The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-26 00:00:00

JUNE 26,

cations, it became the law of the land. Then the grand
work of reform was declared to be complete. The new
magna charta was signed and sealed. We had bonfires,
illuminations, skyrockets, jollifications, processions, mo-
numents, subscriptions, medals, and every sort of sport
from the sublime to the ridiculous. The beggar danced,
the toper swilled, the patriot bawled, the jobber laughed,
and Babel was played over again, until we silent people
began to think there would be no end to the fun and
glory.
By that much honoured and idolized reform bill it was
enacted that the rights and privileges of freemen, resid-
ing Within seven miles of the borough, should be
continued in perpetuity, and that their sons and appren-
tices should to all intents and purposes inherit and
enjoy the same rights and privileges as they would have
done had the reform bill never been passed into alaw.
Upon these provisions have all freemen and free bur-
gesses acted since 1832.
The question then comes to this—was the reform bill
of 1832 a final settlement, as its advocates professed it
to be, or was it a delusion ? Was it a solemn compact
entered into between the parliament and the people, or
was it a fraud practised by the former upon the latter ?
We appeal to the nation whether the claims recognised
by the whigs in the reform bill werenot claims in favour,
for the most part, of the. yaorking classes. They could
not rob the rich freeman—Aiey could not deprive the
wealthy burgess of his suffrage, for his property or his
tenancy was certain to secure him a vote ; but they
would have deprived thousands of honest and hard-work-
ing men in England of their votes if they had denuded

free burgesses of the privileges conferred upon them by

inheritance and servitude. We therefore contend that
the recognition of those rights and privileges by the re-
form bill was one of its most popular and generous pro-

visions.

But for these the bill would have been an ac

of unprecedented tyranny and injustice. The recogni-
tion of the poor freeman's claim was its redeeming point,
and preserved it and its authors from obloquy and exe-
cration—Perhaps from violence in large towns such as
Norwich, Bristol, and Liverpool.
But the whigs, faithful to the spirit which guides them,
never allow an opportunity to pass to show the deadly
enmity they cherish towards the operatives and the hUm-
bier classes of society. They may yield to expediency
for the moment—they may court popular applause when
it is dangerous to dissent from pUpular opinion—but they
invariably return to their base arts and tyrannical pro-
jects as the dog returns to his vomit. The dagger may
be concealed, and the meditated guilt disguised under a
smile ; but it is ready to be drawn in an instant, and the
victim taken by surprise in a moment of false security.

Lord JOHN perhaps flattered himself that his insidious
and proscriptive clause would not be discovered, or that
its intention would be misapprehended. He has found
out his mistake now, and he will find it difficult to repeal
ihe reform bill. His sly, insidious, and dishonest inten-
tions have been exposed to the house and the whOle
country, and we feel confidenl that should the House of
Commons refuse to do justice to the burgesses, the Lords
will interpose and preserve their rights and liberties.
In short, looking at all the clauses of the bill, we see so
much to condemn, so much to detest, so much craft, and
fraud, and ignoranCe, that we cannot safely express the
disgust we feel towards its author in such terms as jus•
tice demands. We must be held excused by our readers
if we decline adverting to it in its entierty. We are
ready to criticize its details as they transpire in discus-
sion, sheltering ourselves under the censures of the House
of Commons.

Sir ROBERT PEEL on Monday night exposed the loose.
ness and slovenliness of one of its clauses, but we can.
not help thinking that the omissions were intended.
The 6th clause runs thus :

"And be it enacted, that after the passing of this act, every
male person of full age, who ..on the last day of August in
any year, shall have been an inhabitant houieholder within any
borough, or within seven miles of such borough, and shall have
occupied any house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop, WITHIN
such borough." 4.c.

It is enacted by the above clause that, provided the
person resident within seven miles has occupied " any
house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop," for two
years and • ten months, and has paid poor-rates for the
same during that-period, he shall be qualified to vote in
all borough elections. Sir ROBERT PEEL very properly
remarked that this local franchise is limited to persons
who, living at a distance, have " countinghouses, ware.
houses, and shops." The shopkeepers here are well pro
vided for. There can be no mistake about them.. But
have the shareholders of gas.woiks, of soap-works, of
distilleries, of breweries, of glass and iron works, of pot-
teries, of theatres, of baths, of wine-vaults, of timber-
yards, and fifty other places, any right to vote under this
ingeniously restricted clause ? Lord JOHN himself has
doubts upon the subject, and, at the suggestion of Sir
ROBERT PEEL, he has condescended to give the subject
the benefit of his consideration !

Now, what kind of legislation is this ? We cannot ad,
vance a step without stumbling upon some gross blunder.
One lawyer in the House of Commons contends that
aldermen are to retain their honours and privileges du-
ring life under the provisions of the bill ; another lawyer
asserts the contrary, and contends that. aldermen sink
into common burgesses, and that in future the title of al-
derman will not confer more power or give more respec-
tability than that of a parish beadle. In fact the bill is
full of anomalies and absurdities.

When will the cup of popish infamy be full ? We are
led to ask this solemn question from having read the
report of the proceedings in the House of Commons on
Monday last.

A petition from Birmingham, on the subject of the no-
tice of motion made by Mr. SHEIL, had been entrusted
for presentation to Sir ROBERT INGLIS, who, it will be
in the. recollection of our readers, had, upon Mr. Slimes
motion being read by the clerk of the house, risen and
given notice of another—contingent upon this said one
of the honourable member for Tipperary.
We must refer our readers to the speech itself, in order-
-that they may understand fully and aright the soundness
of reasoning and argument of the right hon. baronet.
The reply of Mr. SHEIL, if, indeed, a shuffling string of
-quibbles deserve the name, was weak and powerless in
the extreme. He made a sad bungle of his attempt to
answer Sir R. Ircous's question about the Belgic church—
substitnting EXPEDIENCY in lieu of PRINCIPLE—
as the basis of legislation. But both the quibbles of Mr.
SHEIL, and the offensive and low jokes and sneers of Mr.
O'CONNELL, teach us an important lesson. They show
us plainly that with these men the chaplet of distinction
is just as beautiful, even though the bright gems of truth
and honour are wanting. They show us very clearly
the contempt these abettors of the papacy have for the
sanctity of an oath. But above all, and beyond all, they
proclaim to us in accents of thunder their close resem
blance to those men " whose gain is godliness," who are,
in short, no longer for religion than religion is for them
—to those who use its sacred name to obtain or secure
their secular interest ; but, if this, their unrighteous mam-
mon, be opposed, then hell itself shall be invoked, and ail
that craft and subtlety can do shall be arrayed in one
confederate war and crusade against the church of Goy.
So it is now with the papists. Time was when this
land afforded a plentiful harvest to the sons of Rome.
Here the emissaries of the pope reaped, in former times,
Peter-pence, first-fruits, indulgencies, jubilees, and pil-
grimages. Then, indeed, there were goodly days, with
frequent and plentiful returns in these things from hence
to Rome. But, now that there is a great gulf fixed by
laws and statutes, so that these things can no longer be
—now, forsooth, are they infuriate in their attacks upon
the church of England; for, while these laws are in being
and execution, their power is comparatively small. We
herein see the true cause of the anxiety of these rebels to
sound the death knell of protestantism in Ireland. That
distracted country has not yet rejected wholly the au-
thority of antichrist. The priests of Ireland are sadly
afraid that if they invade not us, the faith of protestant-
ism will spread, and, as a necessary consequence, that the
superstition of popery will begin more and more to lose
its hold. They fear lest the benighted peasantry of Ireland
.should, as their brethren in England have already done,
find out that religion consists not in looking devoutly at a