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

DR. M'NEILE'S EXPLANATORY LETTER.

1 IN our last, we announced the expressed inten-
tion of Dr. APNEILE to write a letter on the sub-
ject of recent misunderstandings, for the benefit of
those who attached much importance to hii indi-
vidual opinion. That letter has been published,
and appears in our columns to-day.
To us the writing of this letter was quite unne-
cessary; for the sake of others, it is as well that it
has been done. We never misunderstood for a
moment the motives which actuated Dr. M'NEILE
in writing his well-known letter of the 6th of
February, for the principal facts which influenced
him we knew intimately, and there was not on
line in it which was inconsistent with his high
character, as an individual or as a champion of
Protestantism. There were others, with as good
intentions undoubtedly as our own, who did not
see it in its true light, probably from deficiency
either in knowledge or in correct perception. Some
of our contemporaries, too, believed, or affected to
believe, that there was a serious Protestant defec-
tion; though there is not a single point in his first
letter which admits of such an interpretation,
The writers of the latter class are now cele-
brating a sort of ovation ; as if the Rev. Gentle-
man had made a most serious mistake, they had then
called him to order, and, after his making a most
abject apology, they are graciously pleased to
receive him again into favour. If Dr. M'NEILE can
relish a left-handed compliment of this kind, we can
only say that his taste differs very widely from- our
own.

The whole dispute resolves itself into two Brea.
•
Ist, Is it allowable in any circum.

stances to postpone the assertion of an importan
principle; and 2dly, if so, were the circumstance;
on the Gth of February of this kind ? "
who takes the trouble to go through Dr. NPIN
letter wi.l see that to these two points
every line has reference, directly or indirectly ; anc

made:

EILE'n

in
our article which was published a week before;
these were precisely the points that we discussed.
In reference to the first principle, the Govern.
went of the country affords us at this moment
a remarkable illustration. Lord DERBY and his

••••i
friends are Protectionists, yet they avoid coming
into collision with their opponents on this subject;
and while some endeavour to goad them to a pre-
mature strife, by representing that they are either
" Protectionists or impostors," they give us to
understand that they will not force the subject
upon us, even with a small majority. Let those
who will, bewail about a "standard-bearer fainting,"
or about "desertion of principle," for ourselves we

are thankful for the wisdom that regulates that
decision. Some of the clergy in Portarlington and
the neighbourhood had prepared to resist Colonel
DUNNE, as many among us would have resisted
Lord JOHN MANNERS; but they found that
though he did not "go far enough," they could do
no better, and therefore he was re-elected without
opposition. Mr. ADAM HODGSON is a free-trader.

yet, without any sacrifice of principle, joins those
who are not so; and Dr. M`NEILE showed, in hi°
letter of March the 2nd, that the editor of the
Record admitted, in one of its applications,
the very principle which he opposed in another.

Of cot

rse every one fi

ms his own idea respect-

Ing the importance of particular questions; and
points of difference are in general spoken of as
relatively minor, though often they are absolutely
of vital importance.

The.sccond principle is one on which men differ
more widely and more readily than on the first.
Our own opinion was that the difficulties were