The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-01 00:00:00

FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 1, 1833.

MR. EWART.—In the proceedings in the House of
Commons, on Wednesday evening, we observe that "Mr.
Ewart presented a petition from the shipowners and mer-
chants of Liverpool, complaining that a self•elected body,
of forty-threes persons, had the controul of the property of
the Corporation of Liverpool in lands and docks to the
amount of upwards of £300,000 annually. The peti-
tioners prayed for inquiry and redress."—ln addition to
the above extract, taken from the London Courier, Mr.
Ewart, according to the Globe, says, " The Corporation
had abused their power in various ways."
Mr. En-art is sinking so fast into the mire, that we
hardly think our readers will trouble
.themselves about
any Of his assertions. We take it for granted, however,
that he had a petition to present, something to the pur-
port represented in these papers: Such being the case,
we wish to know—

Ist. Where this petition was signed—in Liverpool or

London ?

2d. By whom it was signed—and how many signatures

were attached to it ?

We put these questions, because we know not one
gentleman who ever heard of such a petition until it was
noticed in the papers as having been presented—we put
them because we have strong reason to suspect that the
petition was got up and signed by certain individuals
now in London—we put them because we do not believe
that there were twenty signatures attached to the peti-
tion, either here or elsewhere. •

With regard to Mr. Ewart's charge against the corpo-
ration of a breach of trust, for such is to be implied from
what he is represented to have said in the House of Com-
mons, we do not think it worthy of further notice, than to
beg that in whatever terms he may think proper to speak
of the members of the corporation—whether he may call
them rogues, thieves, vagabonds, or fools, he will be
pleased to bear in mind that his own brother is one of them.

. -
DISFRANCHISEMENT PETITION I—ln our last Publica-
tion we had occasion to draw the attention of our readers
to a petition which was then lying: for signature, against
the disfranchisement of the freemen of this town.—
We stated our conviction that that petition would be
most numerously and respectably signed, and we have
now the satisfaction of adding, that in little more than
two days; it received no less than , 7461 signatures, of
which 1392 were Bankers, Merchants; and Members of
the learned professions.—The petition in favour of the
disfranchisement, received only 3010 signatures after
lying, we believe, nearly three weeks. In that petition
it was broadly asserted that the freemen had voted at the
late election under the direct temptation of bribery, or
Some other equally corrupt influence.. The counter-peti-
tion with somewhat more of respectability to vouch for
its statements, declares, that the • " petitioners have ob-
served with surprise and indignation, that a petition has
been presented to the House of Commons from certain
individuals in this borough, charging the burgesses with
bribery and corruption at the last election. The peti-
tioners solemnly declare their belief, that the charge
thus made against the burgesses is totally without foun-
dation, and has arisen from. feelings .of 'disappointment
in the friends of the unsuccessful candidate, who have,
since the said election, failed, notwithstanding much
research, in procuring evidence to,
,support a petition,
long threatened, but finally abandoned, against the re-
turn of one of the present members for this borough."—
In addition to this pointed contradiction, the respective
committees of Lord Sandon and
.Sir
,Howard Douglas,
have each addressed a petition to the House of Commons,
begging to be examined on oath before a committee of
the House, and have given the most. public and unquali-
fied denial to the charge of bribery. • Lord Sandon's
committee, after denying the accusations, state " that
they consider the abandonment' of the. intended petition
against Lord Sandon's return, as a satisfactory proof of
the FALSEHOOD of the charge." Sir Howard Douglas's
committee speak even more strongly.—They say " that
if the chargc,of bribery, is meant to apply, to them, it is
RASE, INSIDIOUS, and FALSE." We. are Again tempted
to refresh Mr. Thornely's memory,' by' quoting the words
of his, valedictory address, and requesting some expla-
nation respecting them:—" I am assured. by my friends
that cases of gross bribery can be substantiated."
The counter-petition was forwarded to London on
Tuesday evening, in the care of. William Heap
Hutchinson, Esq.

THE affairs of Holland and Belgium are at the present
moment involved in some mystery. What between notes
real, and notes supposed to be fictitious, the plot thickens.
The ministerial journals inform us that Lord Palmerston
has near}, brought his labours to a conclusion ; but
whether, y this we are to understand that the noble lord
is speedily to be ejected from the cabinet, or that Holland
has at length accepted his terms, are queStions left to be
solved by the ingenious inquirer, independent of any offi-
cial information on the subject.
One thing is tolerably clear, namely, that there is no-
thing:in the last genuine note, signed Talleyrand and
Palmerston, to warrant us in concluding that the settle-
ment of the matters in dispute is much nearer an amicable
adjustment than they were before the siege. of Antwerp.
We cannot see how the court of the Hague can entertain
any proposals for a final arrangement, until the embargo
is revoked, the plundered property restored to the Dutch
Merchants, and the prisoners of peace, who are detained
as prisoners of war in France, are set at liberty. These
we consider to be insurmountable obstacles to all amicable
negotiations of a final nature. These form the great
mistake committed by the coercive powers. Their pacific
war only involved them in deeper difficulties: They de-
stroyed the citadel of Antwerp for the sake of glory, and
they closed the Scheldt for the sake of commerce. Bel-
gium was suffering from the stagnation of trade, and her
loving allies proscribed the little trade that remained.
Until the invasion of the Belgic territory by France, the
commerce of Antwerp was uninterrupted, but after this it
was entirely destroyed.