Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-03 00:00:00

VAUXHALL:

Mr Corbally
Mr Savage
It is needless to sly the gentlemen whose names are
attached to the highest numbers were returned.

J. R. JEFFERY, ESQ., AND MR. CRELLIN.

Lime street, Liverpool, 31st October, 1857,
To J. B. JEFFERY, ESQ.

Dear Sir,--I am quite astonished to find, by this
morning's paper, that you publicly misrepresented my
character last night at a meeting held in Scotland Ward.
You appear to have been labouring under a wror g
impression about me, and without being quite certain that
ycu were correct in your opinion of me.

I beg to say, that you were not justified in the remarks
that you have made. Yon were wrong in every remark
(reported in the newspapers) that you made about me, and
I call upon you at once to retract the statements. You
said you believed me to be the nominee of Mr.
James Holme. I beg to say I am not, nor was
Mr. James Holme at all aware that I intended to become
a candidate until after Iha 1 consented to do so. You also
afserted positively that from my connection I could not
deal impartially with the Water Question.
This statement is postfively witrue. I am as free to
act upon this question as lam upon every other question
that may come before me. I 13.ve also distinctly stated
my views regard:ng that question. You say lam a thorough-
going Tory. This statement, like the rest, is untrue.
Though a Conservative I am determined to act, as I said
at the outset, free of party considerations, and shall vote
with strict impartia'ity on every queslios, if elected.
The above a-e the only po.nts that are reported, but I have
been told that in your zeal to disparage me before the Elec-
tors and the town at large, you have contrasted my votes with
those of Mr Liversidge, and have gone so far as to state
that I had plumped for Turne-, and voted for Bonham. I
did not vote for Bonham, and I did not pinmp for Turner.
The above are facts, and you, holding the position that
you do as a magistrate and a gentleman, cannot hesitate a
moment to do me the justice to retract what you have (no 11
dsmbt in error) stated wrongfully.

I would fartker remark, tha` I consider it most unfair
that wh;lst you have seized upon some points (though
wrong) that you thought would damage me, you omitted to
state candidly what your views were with regard to what
I have done since I have been beflre the public in the
Select Ves:ry. I ask you if this is just ?—Waiting your
reply, per bearer, I am, yours very respectfully,

JAMES CRULTN.

Compton House, Liverpool, 31st Oct, 1857

Dear Sir,—l am in receipt of your note of to-day,
wherein you express you'self astonishe 1 to find, by this
morning's "piper," that I have publicly misrepresented
your character in the fa w remarks I addressed to the
electors of Scotland Ward, last evening. Nothing was
further from my intention UnfJrtunately, there were no
profesional reporters present; but if you will state which
of the papers you refer to, I shall be happy to say whether
or not I am correctly reporte j.—Yours respectfully,
To Samoa Orol!io, Sox= J.artisnx.

The reply to this note has been mislaid. It simply
stated, however, that the report referred to appeared in
the Journal and Daily Pose of Saturday, and Mr. Ciellin
feared, in some of the other pipe: a a'so.

Lodge Lane, Saturday, 11 p.m.

r Dear Sir —I should have replied to your ascend note,
which I received at about five o'clock, but for my having
to pres!de at the opening of the Working Men's Recrea-
tion Association 1110 MS, in Circus-street, aed from which
I have jest reached home. What is stated in the very
brief r port, to which you call my attention, of the meeting
held lazit evening of Mr. Liversidge's friends, is not quite
correct. I did not say you could not deal " impartially"
with the water question. With a copy of your printed
address in my hand, I referred to that very small portion
of it which you thought sufficient to convey your views
upon that very important and all absorbing question
the water—and I contrasted its ambiguity with
the clear, dednite, and urmistakeable manner with
which the same subj.ct is treated by M. Liversidge
I farther informed the electors that Mr. Livers-dge had
been compelled to incur the cost of two hundred pounds at
least, to obtain upon his own premises a sufficient supply
of the red sa d stone water for the purposes of his busi-
ness ; and, therefore, having himself suffered so severely, I
thought he was the more likely to deal with that question,
if elected to the Town Council, satisfactorily to the bur-
gesses, than, judging from your address, you were likely
to do. I stated that I understood you were the nominee
of Mr. James Helme. I am glad to find from your
note that this is not true. With regard to your
being a Tory, I said I understood that you ob-
jected to be numbred among these of that effete
echool, but if a man's vo'es were to be any guide to
his political opinions, you certainly were a Tory, and
then quoted you as having voted for Messrs. Mackenzie and
Turner, Messrs. Liddell aed Horsfall, Sir George Bonham,
am', lastly, for Messrs. Horsfsll and Turner. In one of
these, as I believed, correct quotations, you say I am in
error, that you did not vote for Sir George Bonham. lam
sorry to have done you this wrong. I did not say you
plumped for Turner. I infer, from the very great desire
you manifest in your letter, not to be thought a Tory, th
you would willingly er_.se those Tory votes from the poll-
and should you and I live to see another parliamen-
tary contest, I shall be glti to find you voting with me for
the Liberal candidates. In the meantime, however, lam
sure you 'will rot be su-pei ed to find that I recommend
the Liberal electors of Scotlaud Ward to record their votes
on Monday for the man who never gave a Tory vote, in
preference to one who never voted for a Liberal candidate.
—I am, dear sir, yours very faithfully,
To Jas. Crellin, E-q. JAS. R. Ji.FFERY.
If you still think yourself aggrieved, you have my permis-
sion
to publish the coriesponidene i.

Lodge Lane, Nt.vember 2nd, 1857.

Dear Sir,— Prom a report publshed in this day's Daily
Post, I observe that in addressing a meeting of your
friends, at the Castle Inn, Scotland-road, on Saturday
evening, you Lock occasion to charge me with having cast
some foul aspersions on your character. You speak of the
falseness of the accusations, and you accuse me of having
uttered a tissue of groundless allegations, which ycu
afterwards describe as being "virulent charges."
I think it a great p'ty that you should have wed such
very strong language, in reference to what I was reported
to have said of you, and having used it, you did not read
your first note to me, in order that your friends might have
an opportunity of judging what those foul aspersions,
groundless allegations and virulent charges were. You
;old them, indeed, that I had charged you with being
the nominee of Mr. James Holme,—that I said you were
not in, a position to deal " impartially' with the water

going
question, and had spoken of you as being a thorough
Tory, who had voted for Sir George Bonham. Thee°
the "foul aspersions," "groundless allegations," 11-
" virulent charges," of which you complain so bitterly.
s 5
On all these points I have given such explaoB6oo
I thought.the occasion called for. In this explaation: a
have only two additions to make. The first in refaef:
to Mr. James Holme; the second, to your allePdl;9lc s
foe
Sir George Bonham. When I said I wag ga-gr,
find that you are not the nominee
r ofleclo,
James Holme, I meant no personal
on that gentleman, but was simply rejoicing in our
ether
claimer of Toryism, as represented by Mr. Solute. Wihe
oli-
you do not speak rather rathly in calling a charge °' ,PO,O
tical v I mmunity of feeling with him, a " fou a4Persl:o,/,
is a matter for his consideration and yours. raou* hos
ever, just venture to hint an opinion, that y6O
displayed excessive sensitiveness in this matter, snoa.
the occasion, by no means, called for. As to Siroot
Bonham, I was unable to refer to a copy of the poll for
myself personally. A friend, however, kindly did ltd 0
me, on wilvise correctness I placed every reliance ; au,„,
I had no means of testing his accuracy previous to senn;ed°
to you my reply, I accepted your correction, and elPils;
my regret for having thus been led to do You 8 11
god
but to-day I have made a personal inspection, 80"
your vote recorded as given for Bonham.
With this record before us, is it not probable that Its
memory is at fault? At least I am exonerated fOrli
charge of having misrepresented you in this particulse'
°1
,ed
I think you will admit you might have been nore cli
in your expressions. no Of
I took every means in my power to have 0911" tor.
Saturdayb delivered to you yesterday. It was in yo
thrt Itie:
le"
x before nine o'clock in the morning, so
might, if so disposed, set the whole matter right 10
as

day's papers. - 109
In this particular I should have allowed you to P er,
3,ourself. Your remarks on Saturday night, b°Aig lee,
leave me no option but to send our correeP°ll" e
together with this letter, for insertion in the pap' es
of to morrow ; not on account of any intrinsic inlP_„° bal
which I attach to the questions at issue between u;b0o
simply because you have thought proper, at a Ler
meeting, to charge me with having uttered fau.oo- 6eP
sions," groundless allegations," and I virulent CU''
—I am, dear sir, yours very respectfully,
Trotoy,
To James Crellin, Esq. JAMES R.