The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-10-30 00:00:00

LIME STREET WARD

70 THE EDITOR OP THE NORTHERN TIMES.
am a vcry humble burgess of Lime-street

Ward—one of that class which, I suppose (from reading
a ConServative paper), is designated " Canaille "—and I
have a strong desire, with your permission, to say a word
or two, through the medium of your columns, to my
" Canaille " brethren. I wish to apprise them, if they
are not already acquainted with the fact, of what they

are about to be subjected to ; and I do this that they may
be prepared to combat the temptation, and that they
may not allow theffiselves to be trepanned in an
unguarded momeut.

It is well known that . Mr. Lloyd has no chance of
successs, if fitness for the office of Town Councillor is to
be the test that he and Mr. Jeffery are to be subjected to.
The Conservatives do not want us to tell them how superior
Mr. Jeffery is in every necessary acquirement fjr consti-
tuting an useful member of our Municipal Council
-

ey know this, and yet they say, "we must have
Lloyd in at any price !" That is not exactly their
meaning, which, if rightly expressed, would read thus—
we must keep Jeffery out at any price. And why are they
so desirous to keep Jeffery out? Because they are
conscious that he would keep a watchful eye upon the
expenditure of the money extracted from us in the shape
of rates ; and because they know that he is the
uncompromising opponent of jobs concocted for the
benefit of the few, at the cost of the many. These
jobs are the pet hobbies of some of those who
are deputed to the Town Council to protect
our interests, and they cannot tolerate the idea of any
one entering the Council Chamber who is likely to spoil
their rides, and to interrupt their usual proceedings; hence
they are determined to leave no method untried to defeat
the popular will. And as they are aware we elect Mr.
Jeffery by the lid of our reason, they are about to
attempt to drown that faculty in beer—all.potent beer
they trust will destroy our reasoning powers, and
cause us to " sell our birthright for a mess of
pottage." The old adage says, "to by forewarned is to
be forearmed," and I have faith in my brethren, that they
will be found proof against every attempt to divert them
from carrying out their convictions--that nothing will
deter them from being early at the poll on Saturday morn-
ing, and registering their votes in favour of the candidate
who is one of the people, whose interests are identical with
theirs, who is not to be brow-beaten or intimidated into
a desertion of those interests —to secure such a represen-
tative. lam confident that the "canaille " (there is a
foreign smack about that word) will buckle on their
armour, and be proof against beer or bribe.—lf you
insert this, Mr. Editor, I shall be your obliged servant,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir.—Having attended the meeting of Mr. Lloyd's friends
on Tuesday last, and that of Mr. Jefferv's on Thursday, I
had an opportunity of hearing each gentleman's version
of the cause of the rupture between themselves, and,
through them, between the two political parties in the
ward. Since then, I have looked daily through the
newspapers, expecting to see either an attempt on the
part of Mr. Lloyd to deny the strong evidence produced
against his side of the question, or a meeting announced
at which he would re-assure his friends of his tru hful-
ness, by rebutting it. Neither of the above courses being
taken, the public are left to draw their own conclusion,
viz., that Mr, Jeffery's stateinent is unanswerable. Indeed,
the able and straightforward way in which that gentleman
put his case, supported as it was throughout by a train
01 circumstances, all tending to strengthen it (whereas
Mr. Lloyd's case depends solely upon his own word,
unsupported by any probabilities), has left the public
no alternative but to conclude that Mr. Lloyd has
sacrificed his right to be considered truly honourable, by
telling only so ',such of the truth as served his purpose,
leaving it for his opponent to tell the whole. Allow me
to draw your attention to two or three points worthy the
attention of the electors. Ist, Is there no difference
betwee❑ a declaration of non-intention to oppose Mr.
Lloyd personally, and a promise not at any future time to
do so, even under altered circumstances? I think Mr.
Lloyd and Mr. Reay have sought to make stock-in-trade
of this, as if the electors were not quite competent to
judge for themselves, and draw a distinction between
the two really different positions. 2nd. Did not the
reading of the correspondence clearly prove that Mr.
Lloyd told a deliberate falsehood, when he replied, " I
don't know," to the question, " what is the matter
between you and Mr. Jeffery ?" when, at the same time,
he was in possession of the letter in which his invitation
was declined, and the reason for declining it detailed.
3rd. Whose version of the meeting in the lobby of the
House of Commons bears the light of day ? Mr. Lloyd
says he does not know upon what business Mr. Jeffery
was there—certainly not the same as himself—and yet
the fact is that he (Mr. Lloyd) saw and read the note
from the Chairman of the committee for opposing the
Town Dues Bill, requesting Mr. Jeffery's presence
upon that business, and Mr. Jeffery's reply thereto,
and still be had the effrontery to make the foregoing
declaration ! Looking at the whole affair, it must be
acknowledged, that any person who, would so unblushingly
make statements so wide of the truth, is certainly not
entitled to be considered a fit and proper person to
represent any ward in Cauncil ; and that, as the matter
now stands, Mr. Lloyd is positively opan to the imputa-
tion.—l am, sir, A LOOKER ON
Liverpool, October 28, 18.56