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

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

ST. ANNE'S CO Senex" strongly reprobates the Vand-
alism of a writer signing " A Burgess," who, " year after
year," has recommended to the Common Council the removal
of this sacred edifice, together with its burying-ground, in
which repose the remains of many of the old and highly re-
puted inhabitants of the town. We fully concur with him
that such a desecration and destruction of the Temple and
and the Tomb would be disgraceful in a Christian country
but he need be under no apprehension. Amidst the unfaith-
ful of the day, there are still those left, true to the principles
of their forefathers, and to those feelings of respect to the
resting-place of the honoured dead, who will effectual y check
such a monstrous proposition in the bud, should any one
have the audacity to bring it officially forward.
'GRETNA GREEN MA RRIAGES.—W e really cannot inform our
correspondent G. whether such marriages are legal or not.
It is, we believe, a questio vexata, even amongst professional
men, and he had better consult one of the genus, and be
cautious how he trusts him.
Tea COBURG Docx.—A correspondent complains that the
outer gates of this dock are so imperfectly fenced, that even
during the day timid persons have to walk round the dock
rather than attempt the passage. lie hopes the Dock Trus-
tees will cause the needful improvement to be made, which
would cost but little.

TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE.—In a letter on education which
appeared in our paper from Mr. A. M'Creary, the word "con-
venience" is by mistake printed " conscience." which mars
the sense. The author admits that this might have arisen
from the imperfection of his manuscript.
SEDITIOUS BALiAns.—" A Subscriber" calls attention to the
fact that seditious songs are frequently sung in the streets,
and properly wishes the proper authorities to put down a
practice that annoys all good subjects.
Tna LEAGL E. Vcritas" notices a resent statement of the
Mercury, to the effect that a man named Fyles, who voted for
Mr. Brown, at the county election, was sadly persecuted, first
by his master, and ,econdly by his landlord, and shows that
this and another charge against the Conservatives have no
better foundation in truth than " the baseless fabric of a
vision."

FUNCII'S LAMENT.—These anonymous verses have a personal
allusion, and as the party assailed appeared open and above
board in the plain prose, we cannot in justice insert them,
" Mechanic" ought to have forwarded his name in order that we
might have obtained one or two further partculars from him.

Ebt Zthrrpool gktanZfarb.

TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 25, 1814.

However greatly we might have been dispossd 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 be 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 contend, 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
sehopelessly 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-
__

tinned, to be shelved for the session by being re-
ferred, in company with the new competing project,
to a select committee. Already it is half acknow-
ledged that government are prepared to give the
weight of their influence to the latter ; and, at all
events, when we recollect the creeping progress of
past legislation upon the subject of the bankrupt
and insolvent law, it is morally certain that the pub-
lic have no more immediate certainty with respect to
the settlement of that law upon a satisfactory and
permanent basis than they had at the commencement
or the close of this or any other session of Parlia-
ment.

It is painful to witness such mockery of the pub-
lic interests and regardlessness of the public feel-
ings, as is apparent in this and similar proceedings
of both houses ; and still more painful when the
authors of such procrastination of important ques-

tions are the members of a government who have
been accustomed to protest so loudly against the
same course when pursued by former governments.
A goodly list we have already of measures initiated
in both houses, and strangled prematurely or
shelved during the present session,—of registration
bills, education bills, new poor-law amendment
bills, and other projects, ushered into being with
much flourish and profession, and botched or bun-
gled in their progress. And if we are to have, as
we much suspect, a final and wholesale slaughter
at its close, there can scarcely be wanting a Whig-
Radical Lyndhurst to chronicle and catalogue them
before the face of the world.

It is not often that we are tempted to take up
cudgels in defence of the small body of men who
constitute the force of the Anti-Corn-law League in
the House of Commons; and even in the present
instance it is with reluctance that we do so. But so
fearful was the blow dealt against them yesterday
by a local contemporary, that, in pure humanity, we
feel ourselves impelled to offer a few remarks, in the
hope o' saving from utter political extinction such
amusing personages as Mr. Cobden, Mr. Milner
Gibson, and their offending brethren.
The Albion fastens upon these gentlemen the
charge of having, by their votes in favour of the
Ministers upon the Sugar Duties question, "thrown
away the best chance which the Liberal cause has
had for years, and, perhaps, postponed the downfal
of Toryism to an indefinite period." With all due
respect for the Aibion's judgment, we must contend
that Mr. Cobden and his party have done no such
thing. By promoting the ministerial proposition,
and enabling a number of the Conservative party to
jump Jim Crow so successfully, they have perma-
nently weakened that party in the estimation of the
public out of doors, whilst they have weakened the
cohesion of its members in the House of Commons.
They have helped them to deal " a heavy blow and
great discouragement " upon a body of their
staunchest supporters, the Wrest India interest, and
to exhibit themselves in the unamiable position of
standing between the people and a supply of cheaper
sugar. At the very moment when Ministers were
rubbing their hands over their escape from a second
defeat upon this question, and the Albion was fum-
ing at the thought that Sir Robert Peel was not out,
and Lord John Russell not in, Mr. Richard Cobden
was chuckling over the clever ruse which had kept
in their seats for a time an administration whose
every step approaches his own policy, and drags us
nearer the compulsory adoption of ultra measures
of liberalism, or rather of destruction to the best
interests of the country, whilst it had disappointed
the excited hopes of the most paltry set of pre-
tenders which ever abused the patience of a people.
Richard Cobden care for Whig rule t Fudge.

Beyond the fact that these offending League
members regulate their votes by something like
principle, and thus,—regarding the measure of Sir
Robert Peel as a better free trade measure than that
of Mr. Miles, which Lord J. Russell and his party,
gaping for place and for nothing beyond, rushed to
support—cast on this occasion mere party considera-
tions, those favorite considerations of the Albion,
overboard; let us see what was the eminent consis-
tency—(inconsistency is imputed to Mr. Cobden)—
of the liberals who voted for the ministerial propo-
sition. The measure of Mr. Miles was one to in-
crease the differential duty, making it nominally 14s
in place of lOs, in favor of British plantation sugar.
Against that very principle—of differential duties—
who were the loudest in their protestations when
the Canadian Corn Duties Bill was under discus-
sion ? Why, the very members, composing a por-
tion of the late administration, who now, with a
party benefit in view, support the same principle
which is involved in Mr. Miles's motion. This is
' inconsistency if you like! But, we beg pardon;
we are in error. There is a consistent love of place
evident ; a consistent love of embarrassing op-
ponents for personal benefit. Inconsistency in
principle—consistency in adherence to interested
i motive.

But, to the consideration of the main point of
offence—the question of the fact what injury Mr.
Cobden has by his conduct and that of his friends

inflicted upon the whig-radical party. The Albion

states the question to be one between
A Liberal Government. Four shillings more or less
Repeal of the Corn Laws. duty on white foreign
Alteration of the Sugar Du- clayed sugars, and all the
ties, including the point blessings of a Tory Go-
at issue in the present vernment into the bar-
struggle. gain :
Repeal of the Income-tax.
End of the spy and packed
jury system in Ireland.
Termination to the letter-
peeping Government in
England.

thus leaving us on record his sage conviction that
the success of Mr. Miles's amendment would have
brought about the various consummations in the
first column ; and the success of government the
consummation described in the last.
Now here we beg once more to differ from our
contemporary, and to assure him of our conviction
that nothing that could possibly have befallen Sir
Robert Peel's government, with respect to this ques-
tion, could have produced such a lusus naturw as
would be a whig administration, in the state of
public feeling existing at present in the country.
Sir Robert Peel might possibly have resigned; but
it by no means follows as a matter of course that
Lord John Russell would have occupied his place.
On the contrary, it is, in our estimation, and in that
of other parties better qualified to give an opinion,
far more likely that the formation of a strong Con-
servative administration would have been the result
—an administration by whom some deference would
have been paid to the declared opinions of the ma-
jority of the nation—of which the right hon. baro-
net might have formed a member, but of which
some other gentlemen, now his colleagues, (amongst
whom we include Sir James Graham,) would not ;
and by such a process we are rather inclined to
think that the chances of power for the whig party
would not be very greatly advanced. The forma-
tion of such a government might involve a dissolu-
tion of parliament ; but that is a matter over which
we should not materially grieve. It would afford
an opportunity to the constituency of weeding the
House of Commons of a few members who have
been of late rather crotchetty, and whose place
could be supplied by better materials.

We have expressed our regret elsewhere, and we
again express it, to find the name of our valued