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

o.r,be Etberpool Atanbarb.

TUESDAY 31ORNING, FEB. 10, 1846.

In a crisis like the present, when so important a
change in the policy of the Government is pend►ng,
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 sacr►fice 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 enabled 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 helieves to be destructive of the beat
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
convincing evidence. Concession follows conces-

sion as wave follows wave ;. and the very safeguards
which we devised to stay:the progress (lithe 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
Protastantism 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 1629. 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 session, 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 Francis 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 failed in his effort to form an
administration, the fact that Sir Robert Peel would
be 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
is irresistible that, in the present session of Parlia-
ment, Sir lobert Peel will add this measure to the
list of his apostasies from Protestant principles.
But it is not here that we are to stop. We are,
also to be asked to resign all the protections—

nominal we 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 House
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 1329, 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 wonld 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,
raged the prohibition of monastic establishments as
"a law to punish devotion to God, and the exercise
of the highest quality of human nature," (.9 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

invasion of the constitution and the religion of the
law.

Well may we cease to wonder at the increasing
exultation of Popery when such measures can be
advocated in the Parliament of Protestant England,
without the utterance of a word of reprobation !
Well may we cease to wonder that judgments are
visited upon the nation,—that famine is at the door
of one portion of our population, and that another
is drunk with delusive hopes of prosperity and
wealth ! Well may we cease to wonder that mem-
bers of our pure Protestant Church are permitted
to wander into soul-destroying error, and that we
are become the scoff and the scorn of the heresy of
Rome I With such a feeling,—such blindness and
fatuity existing in the British legislature,—we need
no longer ask the reason of the fact that Popery in
her conduct towards us, is daily throwing off the
mask with which she has for generations past
sought to cloak her real features. Let us, as afford-
ing proof of this, direct the attention of our readers
to the following paragraph, which is taken from a
communication addressed from Rome to a German
paper :
' Rome, Jan. 19.—0 n the 14th instant, the Vicar-Ge-
neral of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Fatrixi issued a
proclamation to the people of Rome, which runs thus :
" Not a few persons distinguished for piety have besought
us with urgent prayers to grant permission for the solemn
festival of a novena (nine days' service in the Church of
the Jesuits,) in order to implore from Almighty God the
wider spread and happy increase of the Catholic faith
in England. The Holy Father has not only listened fa-
vourably to this pious request, but furthermore has pro-
mised to all the faithful who take an active part in the
ceremony a partial indulgence of 300 days for every
visit, and a plenary indulgence to those who attend the
novena five times at least, it being understood that at the
same time such persons are to approach the confessional
and Lord's supper. This nine days' ceremony is to begin
at eleven o'clock a.m. on the 17th instant, in the church
above-named. Whether ye look, my Christian brethren,
at the great and noble aim in behalf of which these pub-
lic prayers are offered to the Almighty, or whether ye cal-
culate the gain of the holy indulgences, by means of
which we may shorten the punishment due to our sins—
in either case you must in every way, to the best of your
strength, interest yourselves in the matter, and take part
in this exercise, by praying the Giver of all good, and the
Father of all mercy, that He will pour out over that realm
and its inhabitants His light and those gifts of grace, for
obtaining which alone our prayers will be effectual."
Will any man, after reading this, say that Rome
is changed, except so far as that, in her treatment of
us, she no longer feels the necessity of wearing a
mask ? Three hundred days' "indulgence,"—three
hundred days immunity to sin,—offered to the faith-
ful who pray for " the wider spread and happy in-
crease of the Catholic faith in England !" Bravos
of Italy, assassins of Tipperary, what a comfortable
creed is yours ! Only pray for the conversion of
benighted England, and the blood of your victims
is washed from your hands.

Experience has shewn that we were perfectly cor-
rect in our remarks upon the injustice and impolicy
of the course insisted upon by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, with respect to the payment of railway
deposits into the hands of the Accountant-General
of the Board of Trade. We maintained that the
spirit of the requirement of the Act of Parliament
would be complied with by the lodgment, by the
promoters of railway schemes, of valuable securities
instead of money. Obviously, it was unlikely that
parties would keep the amount of such deposits by
them in an unproductive form—in notes or in gold.
They would invest them in one or other of the ne-
gociable securities, publicly recognized as equivalent
to cash. It was, therefore, a perfectly useless pro-
vision, or rather interpre•.ation, of the Act, to re-
quire such investment to be reconverted into money
for the purpose of payment into the hands of the
Accountant-General; and, the more palpably so,
when we consider that the functionary in question
can be required immediately to invest the funds
lodged with him into profitable stock, possibly the
very same which had to be sold out to meet his
deinand. The object of Parliament in stipulating
for the payment of a deposit upon new railway
schemes, was to ensure in every case a responsible
proprietary ; and it was surely the duty of Govern-
ment to see that this object was obtained without
the infliction upon the community, or upon indivi-
duals, of unnecessary and harassing conditions.
The only thing which Parliament had to ask was,
whether the companies had or had not the required
amount paid up, and its value available to hand over
to the custody of the officer appointed.
In taking the course, which he has determined
upon, of insisting upon a cash deposit, we do not
mean to insinuate the slightest imputation of an un-
worthy motive on the part of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, or the Government. But at the same
time motives might be imputed. A very little ex-
amination of the state of the Money and Stock mar-
kets, during the past fortnight, will suffice to shew
that the course pursued, without strengthening one
iota the standing of the companies complying with
it, has opened a very wide field for those specula-
tions of capitalists, against which the public have
not the least protection, and, at the same time, has
inflicted wanton injury upon such companies. We
shall perhaps best explain our meaning by an ex-
ample.
We will suppose a company whose paid-up de-
posit upon a million of nominal capital amounts to
fifty thousand pounds. This sum has been duly
furnished by the shareholders. There has been no
rnalversations of directors—no stagging—no reserves
of shares, nominally for the benefit of landowners,
hut really as sops for provisional committeemen.
The fifty thousand pounds deposit have been in-
vested in consols ; and consols, we know were a
few months ago, at par. Now the course which we
advocated was, that such investments should be re-
ceived as satisfying the requirements of the act of
parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, how-
ever, has decided otherwise ; and, as the result of
that decision, every company has had, in the first in-
stance, to realise its investments and to produce
bank notes or gold for the acceptance of the ac-
countant of the Board of Trade. So far, then, all
the world knew that certain securities had to be
sold ; and men with any knowledge of business
know what is the result of such knowledge. In the
case before us, fifty thousand consols are to be ex-
changed on a certain day for cash ; and the market
is influenced accordingly—depressed accordingly.
Now what remedy has the party ? The board of
directors, compell'd to sell out the best possible se-
curity which can be afford; al it, has the opportunity
of purchasing again what it has sold—consols, or
whatever else it may be. But, before doing so,
parliament must be moved. _lll the world, therefore,
knows that fifty thousand pounds hive to be re-in-
vested in stock by a certain company on a certain
clay; and again the result is against such company.
The fifty thousand, invested at par, loses five per
cent. when realised in cash. It loses another two
and a half per cenit when re-invested. The railway
proprietor is thus doubly victimised.
We cannot see the sense of this. It is not just.
In fact, to this very requirement of the act of Par-
liament, which calls for the deposit of five per cent.
upon the capital of railway companies, we suspect
may he attributed that favourable position of the
public funds which enabled the Chancellor of the
Exchequer last year to make that reduction of the
three and and a half per cents., the saving of which
to the country was not less than a quarter of a mil-
lion per annum. In mere gratitude, that func-
tionary ought not to have exacted the full amount
of his bond: The surplus capital of the country
enabled him, by its being invested in the national
securities, to bestow upon the country a great
boon, and whatever value the doctrine of retributive
justice may have in of ,r cases, it ought not to have
been acted upon here. We repeat that we attribute
no motives of an unworthy character; but we do not
like to see, coin,. :.lit with the recent state of the
money market, lately frequent operations of the
Government broker. In similar operations by any
private party, a motive would be attributed.

The warehouse owners of Liverpool have, for
years past, been about the best abused body of men
in the country. They opposed the erection by our
public authorities, with the public money, of ware-
houses on the dock quays, the land for whose site
was sold by the corporation, in the days of whig
rule, at an insufficient price—at less, in fact, than
land in less favourable localities had been sold to
private individuals; and for this were branded as
selfish' men, opposing public improvements from
private objects. The Legislature, however, did not
think their demands so very inconsistent with justice
or so unreasonable; for it imposed upon the Dock
Committee, at their suggestion,a clause restricting
that body from prosecuting their scheme beyond a
certaint point, and imposed certain conditions, with
which it was imperative to comply.
By our report of the last council meeting it will
be seen that the warehouse owners have, at length,
effectually purged themselves of all liability to be
termed selfish in exacting the full amount of their