The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-08-10 00:00:00

persons engaged in public affairs, must make up
their minds to bear with insult, misrepresentation,
ridicule, and invective from the less scrupulous
organs of their rivals. The latitude conceded to
the newspaper in its comments upon men and
events, certainly ought not rashly to be contracted ;
since the fear of public exposure will restrain classes
of men from the commission of improprieties, who
would otherwise be without any check on their
conduct. But, on the other hand, the abuse of the
liberty granted by public opinion to the press de•
serves the severest reprobation ; and nothing is
more offensive to a generous and truly liberal
or seems more indicative of the cowardice of con-
scious weakness, than the virulent abuse, the de-
clamatory denunciations, and the unscrupulous
misstatements in which certain public journals in-
dulge against their adversaries in politics. That
Lord DERBY should have become the subject of
the most bare-faced misrepresentation, with a por-
tion of the newspaper press,—that his character
should have been maligned, his language misrecited
and misconstrued,—that his conduct should have
been placed in the most odious light, is nothing
more than must have been anticipated by every one
acquainted with the tone of the leading organs of
the Opposition.
Our readers must often have heard of the instruc-
tions given to counsel on behalf of a defendant in
an action at law. "In case there is no defence,
counsel will therefore please to abuse the plaintiff's
attorney." The anti-ministerial press seems to be
acting on similar directions. In reading some of
the diatribes which have lately been launched in the
columns of daily and weekly contemporaries at the
noble Earl at the head of the Government, we have
been constrained to believe that the writers have
selected from their pigeon-holes certain treasured
common forms, descriptive of political profligacy,
immorality, mendacity, corruption, and incon-
sistency, and filled up the blanks with the name of
Lord DERBY. The high tone of public morality
assumed by some of the journals, is indeed truly
ridiculous to any one who has had ever so small a
peep behind the scenes. When " The Thunderer"
of Printing-house-square, in particular, plays at
indignant virtue, and takes "the high line" in
moral didactics, we can scarce refrain from. thinking
of the old proverbial description of the demureness
of a lady of easy virtue at a christening. The seven
cardinal sins, of which folk may be guilty in their
private and individual capacity, seem to make but
a sorry catalogue, compared with the variety of
transgressions of which the Times accuses Lord
DERBY in his public capacity. Any vindication of
the spotless probity, the high honour, the scrupu-
lous truthfulness, the manly candour, the unflinch-
ing firmness, the unshaken consistency of the noble
Earl would be all but an insult. Still we may con-
cede that his Lordship is fallible, that he may have
erred, may have made mistakes, or been guilty, of
over-sights. It is, therefore, worth while to exa-
mine some of the charges made against him, in
order to ascertain the general trustworthiness of his

accusers.
The Times of Tuesday last was unusually "strong"
on the subject of the ejection, by Lord DERBY'S
Agent, of three persons named RATIIMEL, BUR*
Rows, and ENTWISTLE, from their holdings in the
market of Bury, after the recent election.
This mighty "censor morum" and castigator of
public delinquents had no hesitation in declaring
that the Premier had,
" In the most public and notorious manner, exhibited
his contempt for the rights of the elector, and set an ex-
ample to his order, which those who wish for its speedy
and violent extinction will do well to follow."
It will be remembered by our readers, that the
contest at the Bury election was between Mr. FRED.
PEEL and Lord DUNCAN, both of whom were de-
clared opponents to Lord DERBY'S Government.
Now the first specific charge made against his
lordship was, that during the election, his agent,
Mr. STATTER,
" Had set the worst possible example to the people,
and done all he could to ir.flarne their passions, by lend-
ing the Town-hall (of Bury), which appears to be Lord
Derby's property, to the supporters of Mr. Peel, and
denying the same courtesy to the friends of Lord Duncan."
A most notable charge truly 1 Lord DERBY'S
agent had " done all he could to inflame the pas-
sions" of the people, (against Lord DERBY,) by
lending the Town-hall to one of Lord DERBY'S
opponents, and not lending it to another ! But how
do the facts stand ? Why, the agent in question,
Mr. STATTER, has stated the following circum-
stance in a letter to the editor of the Times :
" Although possessing very large property in the bo-
rongh, Lord Derby has never, from first to last, in the
slightest degree interfered, directly or indirectly, in the
late election ; he has never expressed to me, nor, so
far as I know, to anyone else, any preference for one of
the candidates over the other ; as his agent, I have
never canvassed a single person, or taken any part, and
although I have a vote for the borough, I did not
even record it.
" The Town-hall is a handsome and extensive range of
buildings, erected at the sole expense of the Earl of Derby,
and it is used for lectures, balls, and concerts, and for
other public purposes. On former occasions, and long
before the erection was thought of, T had expressly stipu-
lated that no persons should be allowed to enter the room
in " clogs" (the thick wooden-soled shoes, often shod
with iron, which are worn by the working-classes in this
district,) by which much damage was done to the floors,
walls, and stairs. On the first occasion on which I allowed
Mr. Peel's committee to hire the room, so much injury
was done in this way that I determined not again to let
it for public political meetings ; and, on a second appli-
cation from the same party, I refused permission, until
the chairman assured me that the meeting was to be a
private one, and that admission was to be by ticket only,
and also personally undertook to make good any damage
which might be done to the premises. Lord Derby knew.
and to this moment knows, nothing of the permission or
refusal."
So much for the Premier's attempt to inflame
the passions of the people. But, then, there is the
main charge of the tyrannical expulsion of the
recalcitrant triumvirate RATILM EL, BURROWS, and
ENTWISTLE. The indictment on this charge is to
the following effect :
" It chanced that the Earl of Derby was possessed of
three small houses in New Market, Bury, tenanted by an
elector named James Rathmel, butcher, and two non-
electors, John Burrows, a confectioner, and Thomas
Entwistle. These men had all offended grievously in the
election. The first was guilty of calling out Duncan for
dis-
tasteful thetoh
t secondee
hungpelp a
ut. ptyi n; hainsdshop e a
thirdlist of
adornedvoter s
hs
person with a Duncan rosette. Perhaps they thought—
these butchers and tartsellers of Bury—that the man on
WPM' shoulders rests the mighty weight of the British