The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

EXPRESS TRAIN WITH THE MORNING

PAPERS

By the spirited exertions of Mr. Pearson, _agent for
the London Times, and some other news-agents,
we expect to receive, by nine o'clock this forenoon,
copies of the London papers of this morning, con-
taining the debate upon Sir Robert Peel's propo-
sitions last night. IYe shall communicate to our
readers the information which they contain in a
SECOND EDITION, which will be ready, we
expect, about ten o'clock.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Our usual Express parcel did not arrive in time last night

By some unaccountable mistake, the name of Mr. George Bade-
inch was omitted, list week, iu our list of the Grand Jury at
the Quarter Sessions for the borough. Our reporter, how-
ever, correctly copied the list furnished to him.

We think a good deal my be said on both sides of the question
animadverted upon by " A Housekeepe:." We would. how-
ever, have in,erted his letter, had he, instead of indulzing in
useless recrirn nations against others, brought forward addi-
tional facts in support of his opinions.

EMI' Etberpool taithatti.

TUESDAY MORAING, FEB. 10, 1846

In a crisis like the present, when so important a
change in the policy of the Government is pending,
it may be interesting to our readers to learn how that
change is regarded by the representatives of this
great commercial community. We are the more
readily induced to supply the information from the
fact that, during the week, some idle gossip has
reached our ears disparaging to one of our hon.
members, which none who have observed his past
integrity of conduct, and his inflexible adherence to
those principles, the profession of which secured
him the confidence of the Conservative electors of
Liverpool, would wish to remain uncontradicted.
It has been more than hinted that Sir Howard
Douglas, the hon. and gallant member to whom we
refer, is prepared to jump round the compass with
her Majesty's Ministers upon the subject of pro-
tection. Sneers against him have been freely in-
dulged in : and hints have even been thrown out
that official sunshine was to be the price of his
flexibility and sudden conversion to Free-trade

doctrines

We have undoubted authority for denying the
imputations levelled against Sir Howard. We know
that he entertains strong objections towards the
Ministerial propositions, which he regards as preg-
nant with injury to the true interests of the country;
and that he is not prepared to succumb to the
dictation of the league, or the Government, by sup-
porting them. He is not dazzled by the dream of
unbounded commercial prosperity, which is held up
before us as the price of the sacrifice of the right
arm of the country—its agricultural and industrial
interest; and is unwilling to be dragged into a
forfeiture of his convictions as to the operation of a
system of Free Trade ; and is we believe, prepared,
should it be necessary, to submit the decision of the
question to the proper tribunal—his constituency.
Whether this mode of ascertaining the degree of
weight to be attached to his vote upon the Govern-
ment propositions will be urged upon him or not,
we cannot of course say. This much, however, we
are er-

hied to assert, that Sir Howard Douglas will
not submit to fight under false colours—to call him-
self a Conservative whilst carrying out measures
which he believes to be destructive of the best
interests of the country.

That the Conservative electors of Liverpool ad-
mire so manly and constitutional a policy we feel
well convinced. The hon. and gallant member has
already won a meed of gratitude from us, in his
staunch assertion of Protestant principle and con-
sistency, which will not fail him in the hour of trial,
and we feel persuaded the mass of his former sup-
porters will be found with him again, whenever he
makes his appeal to them, and however the League
and its faggot supporters may crowd to the onset.

That we are drifting rapidly towards further in-
roads upon the constitution, every day furnishes

convin

_
ng evidence. Concession follows conces-
sion as wave follows wave ; and the very safeguards
which we devised to stay:the progress of the devouring
flood, are only erected to be pulled down so soon as
its waters reach their base, and they are shown to
be capable of usefulness. In this way, for the last
twenty years, we have been weakening the fabric of
Protfistantism in this land,—we cannot weaken its
foundations, for they are built upon immutable
truth. We conceded to the clamour of dissent the
repeal of the Test Acts ; and went on step by step
to the fatal concession of 1829. That measure, how-
ever, was too bold, too startling to be adopted with-
out some offering to the aroused protestant spirit
of the nation. We accordingly hedged round the
new elements: which we had admitted into the con-
stitution, with checks and prohibitions ;—checks,
which the serpent spirit of Romanism broke through
without an effort; and prohibitions which the re-
creant and cowardly policy of Conservatism shrunk
from the task of carrying into effect. There were
few, amongst those who had watched the character
of the times, and of the men whom those times
have produced, who did not anticipate the period
when the mockery of protection thus set up would
be withdrawn,—when the full tide of Popery and
popish institutions would be let in upon us and
recognised, and legalised by authority. That period,
the measures of the last session convinced us was
approaching. It has come ! The present session
is to witness the sacrifice of the Protestant charac-
ter of the institutions of Great Britain.

Can there be a doubt upon this subject ? We
will adduce facts which ought for ever to remove
that doubt. Passing over the measures of last ses-
sion—the endowment of Maynooth, and the setting
up of a godless system of academical education in
Ireland—we ask the reader, in the first place, to re-
member who was the nobleman who, on the opening
of this sessimi, moved the Address in the House of
Commons, and what are his politico-religious lean-
ings. Lord Francis Egerton we know to be a man
talented, amiable in private life, and a sincere lover
of his Church and her pure scriptural doctrines.
He has never been accused of a leaning either
towards Puseyism or Young Englandism. Yet,
Lord Fr

cis Egerton stands pledged to the endow-
ment of the Roman Catholic Clergy,—another step
towards the recognition of the popish element in
our constitution. 'We ask the reader, next to refer
to the letter of Mr. Macaulay upon the recent
ministerial crisis, in which he adduces as the greatest
consolation to be derived from the circumstance—
a melancholy one to a Whig place-hunter—of Lord
John Russell having foiled in his effort to form an
administration, the fact that Sir Robert Peel would
he able to carry the endowment of the Roman Ca-
tholic Clergy, whilst his Lordship would probably
fail. With such a feeling existing amongst influen-
tial men on both sides of the House, the conclusion
stible that, in the present session of Portia-
!?obert Peel will add this measure to the
list of his apostacies from Protestant principles.
But it is not here that we are to stop. We are
isked to resign all the protections—

ment,

also to

admit they have been, for they have
never been carried into operation—which were pro
vided by the Emancipation Bill. On Thursday
night, we observe Mr. Watson moved in the [louse
of Commons for leave to bring in a Bill " for the
further Repeal of enactments imposing pains and
penalties upon her Majesty's Roman Catholic sub-
jects, on account of Religion ;" and, among the class
of pains and penalties to be removed, he instanced
those imposed by the act of Is2o, directed against
the regular clergy, who had come to this country
and placed themselves under monastic vows since
the passing of that act." Of course, one object
here pointed at is to legalize the settlement in this
country of the order of the Jesuits,—an order which
it has been found necessary to expel from nearly
every state in Europe, papal or otherwise; which
has been the promoter of revolution, mischief, and
the darkest crime, in every country where it has
been permitted to establish itself. Yet such a bill,
we
_find, is not to be opposed by her Majesty's
ministers. Oh ! no : t' ey only ask to have left to
them the office of carrying its provisions out to the
fullest extent themselves. Lord Lyndhurst, Sir
James Graham informed the House, had introduced
a bill by which Popery would be thoroughly un-
muzzled ; and he entreated the honourable member
to withdraw his motion, and to see how effectively
a Conservative government would do the work of
Rome. Lord John Manners, on the part of Young
England, put in a plea for the Cistercian monks,
" who devoted their whole time to the benefit of
their fellow creatures." Mr. Daniel O'Connell desig-
nated the prohibition of monastic establishments as
"a law to punish devotion to God, and the exercise
of .the highest quality of human nature." (1) And
ultimately, Mr. Watson, Mr. B. Escott, and Lord
John Manners were ordered to prepare and bring
in the bill; Sir Robert Inglis being the only Pro-
testant member to raise his voice against such an