The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-03-23 00:00:00

greater than Dx
and we hinted as delicatel

M`NEILE estimated them,
as possible at this

point, without betraying the secrets of the camp:—
" We are hardly in a position to prescribe twenty
articles for the creed of a Liverpool M.P., when we are

iitting to men with o::ly ten, and when those
of fifteen are slow of appearing. Those who talk out of
doors, do not know all the Points whEre the shoe pinches."

In further illustration of tl

ais, we may also men-

tion that one of the present candidates is so in
consequence of a lucky accident. Whether the

tion of Dr. WNEILE'S letter, after its prae-
meal, were either necessary or wise, we need

public

not now discuss; but in the two great principles
of it we coincided thoroughly from the first, and

never more earnestly than now

We refer our readers to the eighth, ninth, and
tenth paragraphs in Dr. AP.NEILE's recent letter;
every sentiment of which is in harmony with what
we have already written and still hold.

In the face of all these facts, our neigh-
bour the Courier says, laughing in his sleeve

we presume,

" The Courier is, after all, the
represents the Reverend

only paper that trail,

Doctor's views !! !" Our readers and the pub-
lic generally will form their own opinion on the
y and veracity of this elegant extract. We
g lungs who, in sounding his

modest

h the man strop

own trumpet, has such a brazen one as this to use;
and we beg to congratulate the Rev. Canon on

having at length graduated in so distinguished a
. . . _.••

CA
school of politics.
The Courier also adds, Dr. M`NEILE " does-'not
go along with the Standard,—which we are sorry to
see manifesting a laxity of principle on this subject
not at all in accordance with the sound Protestant
feeling that once characterised it." Now, in re-
ference to the first ofjhese points, the concurrence
of a distinguished man is agreeable, and its ab-
sence is in some degree dispiriting; but we have
always proposed to ourselves a higher and nobler
object than the despicable one of chiming in with,
or playing second fiddle to, any man in existence.
We advocate a principle, believing it to be right,
or we oppose it, believing it to be wrong; and
were Dr. 11/PNEILE a mitred archbishop or a toiling
curate, MARCELLUS in exile, or CIESAR with the
senate at his heels, our course would be the same.
We are not aware of any instance, during our
connexion with the Standard, in which his views

have differed essentially from our own ; and we
have formed a wrong judgment indeed of his
character, if he do not estimate at its proper value,
the toadyism that would atone for the gross
blunder of attempting to lift him before he fell.
To the main point of the quotation, we
might simply reply, res non verba. There

is not a fact or argument to warrant such a
statement, though, from our contemporary's
erroneous estimate respecting Protestant prin-
ciples, we can easily account for his making
an assertion so widely at variance with the
fact. We have no right to interfere with him in
advertising his paper when, or where, or how he
pleases ; but we distinctly object to his libelling
at the same time. We do not allow the Roma •
to rob the decalogue of the second command
nor can we permit a Protestant Dissenter to
abrogate the ninth. We submit, with great -
spect, that it is both an awkward and •an unusual
method of establishing claims to superior sanctity,
to begin by bearing false witness against one's
neighbour i Our contemporary has given us more
than sufficient opening if we wished to retali-
ate, but we prefer to act merely on the defensive;
and we have confidence that he will endeavour
to avoid wronging us in future. . _

entrusted wit
as Ma
priestl
I leavc

known, is m
Yours, very f

32nd sfarch, 1852,

s now or

`• a li isti
work the

rcely bell

burnt."' I cor

is and of t