The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-17 00:00:00

The dishoOesty of Whig journalism is not a thing
the discovery of which is very likely to strike tt.e

world with wonder. The dishonesty of Whig tactic:.,
when in possession of office or in opposition, is no

startling novelty. But the dishonesty of the course
pursued for weeks past by the Whig press, and by
Whig statesmen and Wlfig members of Parliament,

since the commencement of the present session, ex-

ceeds all our previous notions, and is almost incon-

ceivabl

e in its flagrancy. Let us briefly point at the

instances to which we refer
It is well known that, upon the accession of Lord
Ellenborough to the governor-generalship of India, we
had just sustained serious disasters in Affghanistan,
and the army in that country was detached from its
supplies and surrounded by difficulties. General
Sale's division was shut up in Jellalabad ; Generals
Nott and England were in a position of similar danger
at Candahar. A number of British officers and ladies
were prisoners; and, in short, British power in that
country was almost annihilated. What was the course,
according to Whig authority, pursued by Lord Ellen-
borough in such a state of things ? The result of that
nobleman's policy is before us. Ample punishment
has been itflicted upon our savage and treacherous
enemies ; our army has been withdrawn, after a career
of victory, leaving the prestige ef the British name in
that country fully established ; and every prisoner re-
covered by force of arms. And yet for three months
past we have been told by the Whig press—first that,
on the arrival of Lord Ellenborough in India, orders
were issued to withdraw the troops, without striking a
blow for the re-establishment of our country's honour,
and leaving upwards of a hundred of our unfortunate
fellow-countrymen and coutlrywomen in the hands of
the ruthless savage and murderer, Ackbar Khan ! The
very date of the order commanding such withdrawal
has been again and again referred to, by the Morning
Chronicle, in a series of articles ; its production has
been tauntingly called for in the House of Commons;
the circumstance that no such feeble and un-english
course, as that said to be recommended, was pursued,
has been boldly and in direct terms attributed to the
criminal and mutinous refusal of General Pollock to
obey the orders of his superior in authority More
than this, however, the policy of the ultimate with-
drawal of the British forces within the limits of the
Indus, has been loudly denounced ; and in a recent
speech of no less a personage than the leader of the
opposition in the House of Commons—Lord John
Russell—as a wanton abandonment of the policy most
becoming and safe for Great Britain to have pursued.
Well, the denouement of this disgraceful attempt to
overwhelm the present Governor-General of India with
lasting infamy has arrived. A " blue hook" containing
the whole of the despatches and orders, sought to be
perverted in their meaning and actual wording, has at
length been laid upon the table of both houses of Par-
liament ; and by those despatches the following broad
facts are proved :—first, that the order to evacuate

Affghanistan, as a BEATEN POWER too, WAS GIVEN
BY LORD AUCKLAND, previously to the arrival of
his successor upon the scene of disaster; and that it-
was not complied with because the army could not
move as directed, had even those to whom it was ad-
dressed been willing—which, however, they were not !
Secondly, that the prisoners were distinctly ordered to be
ransomed by a money payment, instead of being rescued
—the mode alone honourable and safe for the British
nation to pursue in suck a case ! Thirdly, and neces-
sarily, that no such order as that referred to as dated
the Ist of August, and containing absolute directions
to General Pollock to retreat without the prisoners,
was issued by the Governor-General; and lastly, that
General Polloek never disobeyed, or had cause to dis-
obey, any order of that noble lord! The whole tissue
of representations, upon which the Whig press and the
Whig opposition have chuckled so exuberantly, is a
tissue of wanton, direct, and gross FALSEHOODS !
Now, we ask, can any member of the late govern-
ment have been ignorant, whilst raising this outcry
against Lord Ellenborough, of its perfectly unfounded
We should say " No ;" and we say, more-
over, that if any circumstance could more strongly
than another justify an enquiry into all the events of
this disgraceful affair, it is the course of deliberate and
misrepresentation respecting it, which has been
systematically pursued by all parties concerned.
We shall give crn Tuesday a leading article from
tlte Morning Herald—somewhat long, but pertinent
throughout—detailing the whole case, as elucidated by
these documents ; and we recommend it to perusal as
the most complete exposure of whig fraud which has
of late made its way to the public.

nature

That must, indeed, be a bold man who dares
attempt to reconcile the conflicting opinions of the
members of the Anti-Corn-Law League. At present
we have before us the debate in the House of Com-
mons, upon the /notion ofpoLrtoiordii Hofostvhicek,cofomrmaucnoitmy-
mittee to inquire into the present condition of the in.
with s debate in an assembly, infinitely more infallible
re.
it its knowledge of all thatlates to the cotton, corn,
and commercial legislation—the Manchester Chamber
of Commerce;—and a more cooplete tissue of contra-
dictory opinions Mid theories, than is thus presented
to us, it is scarcely possible to conceive. In one house
we are told of kostiletariffs, as a fertile cause of the ex •
isting ernbarassments it our commercial affairs ;—that
we are excluded from the markets of the world by re-
aid, is the. other, the amazing
talietory legislation ;
discovery %is just been mad* that hoetilu tariffs are
nothing, and that it is the policy of this coisntry to re-
ceive freely
all the products of etker nations, even
although these nations return the compliment by prohi-
bitory duties ayainst the commodities which we have to
barter ! Eut lest this be too astounding an absurdity
to receive credence, Abe mast give its author, and the
words it which it has been produced.
The author, then, of this eke,* light, thrown upon
the science of political philosophy, a*d the nature of
free trade, is Mr. Henry Ashworth, of Turton, near
Bolton. We like to be particular in names, where
such exemplary 'wisdom is it question. The occasion
of the declaration which we propose to immortalize was
an expression, or. rather a ispeech of Mr. Wre. Gibb, at
the annual meeting of the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce, in which the speaker complained that in
he efforts of this country to establish free trade be-
tween nation and nation, we litad not been met by, re-
'2iprocal efforts. " I em astonished," exclaimed the
worthy quaker in reply, " that in this enlightened age,
and in this enlightened body (!)
there should be found
a man hardy enough to stand up for reciprocity."
Why the thing is exploded! We want to concede all,
and receive nothing in return 1 e want to buy cheap
—to have corn and sugar why not lard, or " spoiled
grease," friend Ashworth ?—and coffee and treacle, for
next to nothing,—not to sell goods !—bless you, no
sach thing. Goods will sell themselves, when we have
screwed down wages a little, or—we beg pardon—" de-
creased the cost of production"—that is the fashiona-
ble phrase. And then comes the oracular dictum,
which we give ipsissimis verbis. If we removed our
restrictions in
corn, and they (foreigners) put on 30 or
40 per cent. upon
our manufactures, who paid that ?
,
THEY MIGHT KEEP 0 THE TARIFF AS LONG AS
THEY LIKED. How excessively liberal ! Their own
people paid the tariff Worthy brother of the Albion,
what think you of the last sentence ? We should fancy
that it is somewhat in the teeth of your philosophy.
Seriously, however, what can the world think of a
party which one day whines of retaliatory tariffs—tells
us that they are destroying the commerce of England
—and in the next tells us that an additional 30 or 40
per cent. is nothing ?—that we don't pay it—we don't
suffer from it ? Surely there must be something rotten
in a system whose advocates are thus at sixes and
sevens as to the arguments to be used to uphold it !
What sent the illustrious Dr. Bowring to Paris, Brus-
sels, and a score of other places, but to bespeak recip-
rocity ? And yet RECIPROCITY IS A FARCE!
But go a little further with our wise friend Henry
Ashworth.
Throw reciprocity overboard. Grant the
millocrat free trade—free trade in all articles of foreign
production—no import duties at all—and it will strike
most reasoning beings that we shall make a little hole
in our national revenue. We presume that hole must
be filled up—darned, patched, or whatever the worthy
Quaker may call the process. We must have a new
tax put on somewhere—that is, if we are not to resort
to the repudiation principle. Well, then, what is it to
be ? Taxes on articles of consumption, mind, are to
be abolished ; therefore, we can have no increase under
the head of excise or customs. To direct taxation,

therefore, it conaess—to an income or a property tax,