The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-01-24 00:00:00

CiORRESPON.DENCE

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD %
SIR,—In support of my statement in your paper of Friday
last, as to the rapacity of the Romish priesthood in Ireland,
would you kindly give insertion to the annexed extract,
which I copy from the London Evening Mail of January 18.
Yours, &c., A. M.
" The Mayo Constitution thus records another instance
in which the peasantry have risen en 'muse against a Roman
•

,UI.IIOIIC priest :---, In a parish within a few miles from-this,
the parish priest announced that the amount usually paid,
we believe, for marriages, baptising, &c., would be increased
in future. This so enraged the peasantry, that they broke
open and took possession of the chapel, and when his reve-
rence arrived there on Sunday from another part of the
parish, he was fiercely a,sailed, and obliged to take refuge
in the house of a neighbouring magistrate. We know not
whether peace has been since restored between the parties."

THE CHRONICLE AND MR. GLADSTONE

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

" Toujours Gladstone. It is Monsieur Tonson over again.
Some branch of the family or other is everlastingly occupy-
ing public attention." Such is the exclamation of the
Chronicle of Saturday, at the head of an article of a column
and a half'. The tone in which this is uttered is an indignant
one. That such a person as Mr. Gladstone, who thinks dif-
ferently from him, should occupy so much precious time and
space in the public journals, appears to him surprising, if not
absolutely ridiculous. In this outburst of feeling, moreover,
he intends his readers to perceive, that in treating them to
the long article that follows on this identical consumer of the
public attention, he is not influenced by any other motive
than that of believing it to be his duty to his country, to lay
before them the valuable opinion he has formed on the sub-
ject of Mr. Gladstone's late letter to one of his tenants in
Scotland.

After having by these sentences in some measure softened
the rancour of his soul, he proceeds to give a short sketch of
Mr. G's career in life, how from a good old Radical he be-
came an uncompromising tory, and how from nothing, by
his talents and industry, he made himself what he is. lie
then alludes to the fact of Mr. Gladstone's return to his
native land, and buying an estate on it, after having won the
well-merited reward of his untiring exertions, a princely for-
tune. With this allusion is coupled a taunt, which, I pre-
sume, is intended for the benefit of all Scotchmen who may
chance to peruse his pages, that no Scotchman, after having
sought and made his fortune in a foreign land, has ever re-
turned, or wished to return, to the land of his birth. I was

not aware that the spirit of patriotism, which has so long
burned in purity and strength in the breast of every Scot,
was extinguished and gone ; nor was I aware that it was the
part of any journalist, either for amusement, or for the pur-
pose of enhancing the subject he is discussing, to cast such
unfounded sneers upon a sister country.
An extract from Mr. Gladstone's letter is next presented
to us, in which he expresses his belief " that no alteration is
contemplated, or will be made, in the existing corn-laws."
The Chronicle thinks that more importance than it deserves
has been attached to the foregoing extract in some quarters;
and stating the argument used by those he refers to, says,
that he doubts the premises, and therefore altogether rejects
the conclusion built upon them. Now, I think the learned
editor has not duly considered the said argument, or he
would never have expressed his doubts so boldly. As given
by him in his paper, it is resolved into the syllogistic form
thus—" Whatever proceeds from the father of the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade may be looked upon as truly
shadowing forth the ministerial intentions, touching the corn-
laws in the ensuing session of parliament"—" Mr. Gladstone
is the father of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade,"—
" therefore whatever proceeds from Air. Gladstone may be
looked upon, &c." The Chronicle may reasonably doubt
the major premises, but he must be a sceptic indeed if he
disbelieves the minor. I merely bring this forward as a
proof of the imperfect manner in which the article is written.
The erroneous view he has taken of the sentiments of those
he is condemning on the importance to be attached to Mr.
C's expression of " belief" is also sufficiently clear. He
gravely tells us, that though Mr. G. may know the opinions
of his son, it does not follow, as a matter of course, that he
knows that of another person. No one, I am sure, ever
made such an illogical assertion. The- Chronicle is confusing
probability with certainty ; and because it has been said as
the opinion of some that Mr. G. was probably aware of the
intentions of government on the subject of the corn-laws, he
construes this into the expression of a firm belief that he
(Mr. G.) must be aware of these intentions. He utterly re-
pudiates the notion of Mr, G's being the ministerial oracle
on this occasion, wisely guesses that he is the oracle of no-
body, and supposing that be may be the oracle of somebody,
asks what his communications amount to, viz., that " no
alteration is contemplated, or will be made, in the existing
corn-laws."

From this point commences a 'violent attack upon the
tories, adorned with all the bitter sentiments of extreme
party spirit, in which reason and all the finer feelings of hu-
man nature seem to be forgotten and unknown. `• When,"
he asks, " did the tories contemplate doing good to the
country ;" and a little further on he says " their contempla-
tions matter not a straw." " they may all be assumed to be
levelled against the people and their happiness." He does
not say when did the tories do any good to the country, but
when did they contemplate doing any good ? When did such
an idea ever cross their minds ? Never, he replies. What
a state has faction brought our country to, when such senti-
ments as these are openly avowed in a public newspaper!
Where, in the case of those whom he is attacking, does
be imagine has that honour gone which ought to be to all
men dear? Where has that noble patriotism fled, which
despising everything but the country's good, adorned the
British senators of old ? Does he think that the pulse of pure
devotion has ceased to beat in our parliament and our cabinet
now, because the political sentiments of the latter are differ-
ent from his own? That while they are proposing measures
which they publicly deeare they consider most conducive to
the public good, a cloak is thrown over their secret thoughts,
and that in reality they care not a straw for the people's
happiness. There may have been in times past, and may be
in time to come, men who can be classed under this denomi-
nation, but to maintain that all are liable to the same impu-
tation is to say that human nature is altered.

If such opinions are to be held of all who are appointed to
the government of our land, where is confidence to be
placed ? Is it to be in the hot-headed demagogtie, who
would willingly subvert our institutions from the very foun-
dation ? Such, apparently, would be the wish of the Chron-
icle. If, indeed, from the sweeping sentence of utter worth-
lessness passed upon the tories, he could have Christian feel-
ing enough to put faith in any one.

It is time that some chaujge-took place in the rancorous
party feeling now abroad in the country, and a more generous
spirit on both sides introduced and acted on. Fair and ho-
nourable discussion gives an impulse of interest to the society
at large, and serves to preserve its rights and privileges
pure; but when it is brought to such a degraded point as
exhibited in the Chronicle, it is dangerous and hurtful in the
extreme. I trust the time is not far distant when the differ-
ent political parties will show more forbearance to each
other, a new life would then be thrown upon the political
world, confidence between man and man would be restored,
and the best interests of the nation be flourishing and pros-
perous.

Yours, &c.,
F,

MR. HAMMOND AND THE MINOR THEATRES

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

•
SIR,—My attention having been drawn to an article in-
serted by Mr. W. J. Hammond in your paper of. Tuesday
last, and which also appears in the Liverpool Journal of this
day, I feel myself, as one of the parties concerned, and in
the absence of Mr. Raymond, called upon to request the
favour of your allowing me a short space in your paper of
Tuesday next fora few remarks thereon.

Whether Mr. W. J. Hammond';alect was, or was not,
to pre-judge the question at issue between the Theatre-Royal
and the Royal Liver Theatre, and which has to be decided at
Kirkdale on Wednesday next, I cannot say, although it ap-
pears to me, by the tenor of the article, that such was his
intention. But I hope on that day the whole matter will be
discussed, and that the magistrates will decide according to
the best of their judgment without being either influenced
or prejudiced by articles in the newspapers.
I cannot for a moment think of violating either profes-
sional or friendly confidence, much less follow the example
of Mr. W. J. Hammond in publishing private and confi-
dential letters—letters which, between partners, and on
subjects connected with their legal liabilities, as well as with
their joint pecuniary interests, have always, until this most
unparalleled breach of faith, been held as sacred as the
anxious whispers of husband and wife.
If Mr. W. J. Hammond be not devoid of all the feelings
of a man of honour, I do not envy his reflections on this
breach of faith towards a gentleman every way his equal, and
in many respects his superior—a gentleman in whom Mr. W.
J. Hammond for many years reposed (or pretended to repose)
the most implicit confidence.
It is not my intention to allude to any of my private con-
versations with Mr. W. J. Hammond, nor publish any of
his letters to me ; but I shall content myself with stating,
that the suggestion respecting the warrant of attorney men-
tioned in his article was made for the sole benefit and ad-
vantage of himself and partner, and ought not to have been
published by him in the manner he has so injudiciously
chosen. And as respects the opinion given on the merits of
their case then, it is an equally gross breach of faith in him
to publish it now, when on the eve of a trial of a similar
nature, in which Mr. W. J. Hammond is so nearly con-
cerned, and who well knows that at the time he alludes to
(nearly ten years ago) the law on the subject was very im-
perfectly known ; and it was not until after that opinion
was given the parliamentary report upon the enquiry into
theatrical matters was published, and that when it became
necessary to look more particularly into the case, for the
benefit of Mr. W. J. Hammond as well as his partner, it was
found that too much had been taken on hearsay, and too
little had been examined into respecting the real powers
granted by the royal patent to the then opponents of Mr.
W. J. Hammond and his partner. Independently of this,
the opinion published by him was given in the course of a
casual conversation, and was not the result of any deliberate
enquiry into its merits, which every one of your readers must
see was a friendly and confidential proceeding towards Mr.
W. J. Hammond and his partner Mr. Raymond, and one
which ought not to have been published by him.
If any person can be found to assert that private and pro-
fessional intercourse is a fair subject for publication in the
newspapers, he will acquit Mr. W. J. Hammond in this
transaction : all other persons must pronounce him guilty of
a breach of faith, such as would be scorned by, your's
respectfully,
Saturday Evening.

P. S.—As Mr. W. J. Hammond has laid his correspond.
ence open to the inspection of the public, you are at liberty
to show this to any person desirous of seeing it, together
with my signature and address, which I also send you.

SIR
CHARLES BAGOT.—We are gratified to learnrtehaat
private letters, received by the family connections,
more favourable account of his excellency's health uiindeed
much more so than was anticipated. There is not the slight-
est doubt but that Sir Charles will return to this
country as
soon as possible ; and his medical attendants are of opinion
that, by the change of climate, his health will be thoroughly
re-established.—London paper.
MISSIONARIES TO CHINA.—One of the largest meetings,
Perhaps, which was ever held in Exeter-hall, was held on
Tuesday evening at that building, convened by the London
Missionary Society, to consider the means of extending and
promoting in China the objects of the society. The doors
were opened at five o'clock, and by six o'clock the hall was
so full that policemen were stationed at the various entrances
to prevent others from entering. Mr. W. T. Blair, of Bath,
presided, and on the platform were the Hon. and Rev. B.
Noel, the Rev. Dr. Leifchild, the Rev. Dr. Alder, Mr. W.
A. Hawkey, Mr. J. Fouiger, the Rev. A. F. Lacroix, the
Rev. J. Clayton, the Rev. T. Archer, the Rev. R. Moffatt,
&c. The chairman having briefly addressed the meeting,
Dr. Liefchild moved the first resolution, expressive of
thanksgiving to God for the termination of the war between
China and Great Britain, and for the greatly enlarged
facilities secured by the treaty of peace for the introduction
of Christianity into that empire. This resolution. was se-
conded by the Rev. Dr. Alder, and was carried unanimously.
Several other resolutions were likewise passed, one of which,
moved by the Hon. and Rev. B. Noel, stated the Anglo-
Chinese College was to be removed from Malacca to Hong-
Kong, and that the missionary labours were to be specially
directed to that island. The meeting did not separate till a
late hour, and collections were made at the doors.—Globe