The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-02-24 00:00:00

pointed party over the friends of order and good govern-
ment; it is the triumph of the ejected placeman, the sturdy
mendicant, the Irish incendiary, and the English infidel,•
over the loyal subjects of the King, and the faithful ad-
herents of 'our national church ; but is it a triumph that
Mi. JAMES ABERCROMBY has auy cause to be proud

of ? He must feel, if he have feeling, that he is Mr.
O'CONNELL'S speaker. Every time he looks beyond the
wooden box where be sits he will see the man, the
despicable man, the " unprincipled ruffian," as the
Times calls him, whu placed bin, in it, and who
would kick him out of it to-morrow, and send the.
whigs to their father • land, where the first. Whig still
reigns, if he could thereby advance his own selfish pur-
poses, fill more readily his long deep purse, extort more
alms from the miserable serfs whom he robs and betrays,
and promote the objects of the most depraved priest-
hood on the face of the earth. It can he no gratificatiOn
to Mr. ABERCROMBY to reflect that he is indebted for his
honours to the pernicious influence of such a demagogue.
He must feel that he is not the representative of the gen-
denten of England. He knows that he is not the repre:
sentative of the gentlemen of Scotland; he must know

that, filling the Speaker's chair, he has for his patron
DANIEL O'CONNELL, for his attorney Lord JOHN RUS-
SELL, and that he represents the scum of the seditious
priests of Ireland.
But if Mr. ABERCRoMBY be thus placed in a position
alike unenviable and mortifying, what must be the posi •
Lion of the House of Commons ? The majority of tlia:

house have proclaimed by their votes that they have rro
regard either fur public principle or private reputation.
As far as our means of judging extend, we can answer
for it that the conduct of the whigs and their stipporters,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL being their admitted •leader, has
excited the clepest disgust in all paks of the country.
The very friends of the party are vexed and annoyed be-
yond all description. The respectable whigs of Liver-
pool heard the ,news with astonishment, and saw the
nature of the coalition with dismay. Whatever degree
of respect might have been entertained for, the rather
equivocal character of Lord Joint, disappeared under the

frown of resentment and the surprise of conscious self-
abasement. To see Mr. WAKLEY and the son of the
Marchi•rness of CON YNGILAM --Dr. LUSHINGTON and
Lord HOWICK— DANIEL WHITTLE HARVEY and Lord
SEymouß—Sax BUCKINGHAM and Sir GEORGE GREY—
Mr. PEASE the quaker, arid JOHN GULLY the boxer—
Mr. LITTLETON and Lord HOwicK—Sir R. LOPEZ and
THOMAS DuNcomEE—M r. THOMAS ArTwooD and PADDY
RUTFIVEN (both bankers)—the Hon. H. T. STANLEY and
Mr. O'DwYEß—the HOWARDS and the WlLDEs—the
chairman of the Bank of England, and—and—swindlers
and insolvents—to see all this, we say, is not only edis-
tressing spectacle, it is one which places human infirmity
in the most humiliating light, and shows to what depths
of:vileness the whigs will descend for factious purposes,
or to avenge the obloquy of dismissal from place, even
though that dismissal was caused by their own incom-
petency, and the avowed inability of their chief to carry
on the government of the country..
They have nOw, however, made their election, but
dearly must they pay for this imaginary triumph. When
En office they talked of the "pressure from without ; "
now that they are out of office they factiously avail them-
selves of that pressure. During the last session theirs
was a constant conflict with the ultra-radical party.
O'CONNELL, who is now their chief support, was thAN,
their open and avowed enemy. He poured forth his
vulgar and savage invectives upon them in every fulsome
Ginn. He called Lord GREY a hypocritical
Lord ALTPORP a consummate blockhead—Mr. SPRING

RICE a low-bred ignorant guager—Mr. LITTLETON a
something—a word so odious that we dare not print it—
and at a radical meeting in London he gave a deep
plunge to. his scurrility by asserting that the House of
Commons contained some six hundred right honourable
and honourable scoundrels; and yet the very whigs,
whom he called " base whigs" are now so mean and so
bass as to seek his assistance in ousting the long tried,
tle amiable, the cOnsistent; and the aCCoMplislied Sir
CHARLES MANNERS SUTTON

Can any thing be more heartless, more profligate, or
more odious than this ?

It would be bad enough if Lord JOHN RUSSELL alone
Came within the embrace or. Mr. O'CONNELL. But how
sickening, to think that the son, the brother, the son-in-
law, and other near relations of Lord GREY,- are the sup-

porters of Mr. O'CONNELL on this occasion. How dis-
graceful to see SPRING Rms., the leading opponent of re-
peal, associating with its despicable advocate. How
pitiful to see Mr. LITTLETON, branded as he has been,
seeking the aid of one whom he must mortally hate.
How atrocious to see the destructive% the infidels, and
the whigs making a coalition war against the •conserva-
tives—against the very men who kept them in office for
more than twelve months, and but for whom they would
have been beaten by the WHALLEYS, the PATTBONS, the
Goons, the BUCKINGHAMS, the HUMES, and the %YAK-
LEYS—the last being persons who never- set the Thames
on fire.

All this is melancholy, but we should not consider it so.
The triumph, as the silly people of the Whig press chgose
to call it, is anything but a triumph. It is the death-
knell of the whigs. Lord JOHNNY has indeed " upset
the coach." He has dragged his party through the mire
and left thetii covered with defilement. He has shown

- -
the people of England that no .confidence can be. reposed
in his party—that they are utterly devoid of principle,
--that they are at heart vicious and- rotten—mean
and dishonest. It has fallen to the lot of a scion
of the House of Bedford to make the Ivltigs utterly con-
temptible in the eyes of the people of England. He first
made shipwi-eck of his own character in his controversy
With the Bishop of EXETER ; and having made, rather
involuntarily, that self-sacrifice, he has thought proper,
in a moment of desperation, to drag his party down to
the same low level. They 'have found it—they cannot
possibly sink deeper—they are at the extreme' confines
of execration—and the:e we leave them.

It is instructive, how•ev~er, to remark that one of the
charges-7a false one of course—brought by Lard JOHN
was, that Sir CHARLES MANNERS SUTTON had counselled

the KING to dissolve the late parliament. It. is curious
that upon this charge the radicals voted against. Sir
CHARLES MANNERS SUTTON. It is strange that the very
men who advocate annual parliaments made the dissolution
of a biennial parliament a gi ound of charge against the late
speaker ! What say the ultra radicals to this ? HUME,
WHALLEY, LUSIIINGTo7,4 BUCKINGHAM, ROEBUCK, Sir
TLLIAM \VALLACE, and others, are the avowed advo-
cates of .annual parliaments, and yet, even on false
grounds, Sir CHAALEs MANNERS SUTTON is opposed for
having advised the dissolution of a parliament which,
amid the universal derision of the nation, had existed
fur twp years ! The assumption of the Whigs was a no-
torious fiction, ani, knowing it to be a fiction, they are
guilty, of countenancing a deliberate falsehood ; but
what are we to. think of the radicals who, knowing the
quality of the lie, still pack their votes in revenge against
the supposed adviser of a dissolution at the end
of two- sessions ? What iay the political unions to this?

What say the nailors of L3irtninghaw, the weavers of
Manchester, and the worthy persons who subscribed their

Money to aocotnplish a wilder for which Garside and
•Mosley were. hanged ? Annua'. parliaments must be
come to a low condition indeed when those who pretend
to be favourable to them complain of a speaker, even on
Use pretences, for having counselled the dissolution of
one which the whip cum inued a whole year longer than
the prescribA period ! However, that is their concern,
not ours.

The other pretext adopted by the wings, which rnuq
greatly disgust the country, is t.is.—They alleged that
Sir CHARLES MANNERS SUTTON, as belonging to a poli-

tical party, the tory party, was on the ground of partizan-
ship,. a most unfit person to preside °ter the House of
Commons. Lord STANLEY and Sir•RoBEST PEEL laid
bare the hollowness and the superficiality of this pretext.
It was the most rotten and contemptible of all the argu-
ments used by Lord JOHN RUSSELL; and the absurdity Of
the argument, and the factious fully of Lord JOHN !n
using it, must fur ever degrade him in the estimation of
an intelligent people.

Sir CHARLES MANNERS SUTTON had the misfortune to