The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-02-09 00:00:00

i ,

CORR.ESPO DE2V-CE.

THE POLL BOOK

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIKEI?POOL STANDAIID.

is now some time since I ventured to trespass upon
your kindness, in allowing any remarks of mine upon a political
subject a space in your valuable columns. I trust this may be
my excuse in troubling you upon the present occasion.
The point I ain about to touch upon is one, as I think, of no
ordinary moment, of no trifling importance, in these tumultuous
and revolutionary times ; times when all men who entertain
opinions, on political subjects, especially those which imme-
diately affect our constitutional landmarks, ought with an
exemplary.
.beldness, openly and fearlessly to avow them, and,
by so doing, at once to place themselves above all hurtful com-
ment or suspicion.
I am led to make these observations, by observing, alike with
astonishment and extreme regret, the extraordinary and incon-
sistent manner of voting practised. by individuals at the late
municipal election in this borough. Now, sir, lam far from
saying that A or B has not an undoubted right to vote as he
pleases on all occasions; but I do say that the votes of all per-
sons are open to public remark and public censure. A man in
voting at an election, no matter whether municipal or. parlia-
mentary, discharges a great public duty; he thereby ueclares
what he thinks of the questions pending'upon the issue of such
election—his opinions are supposed to be expressed in the vote
he gives. For instance, you would not suppose a person who
voted for Mr. Councillor Rathbone and his colleagues would
agree to the endowment of the parish clergy. Wolf then, in.
my humble opinion,.the burgess who giving three votes, votes for
one cokservatise and two radical-reformers, such burgess pro-
fessing to be a tory, staunch and firm, not only aids a cause he
'declares he dislikes, but also by upholding one which is in direct
opposition-to his declared opinions, casts a reproach upon the
political party to which he says he belongs, and strengthens
one which would dash down all he holds dear to his country and
his home.

These, Mr. Editor, are not times when wishing to please a
friend, we ought to allow private considerations to give way to
'public duty, and by so doing injure our religion and our country.
If we are indeed'eonservatives, let us not mince the matter; we
may give a vote to please a friend, but that single vote may
destroy the chance of victory, when had we done, as our hearts
told. us we were in-duty bound to-do, we might have not only
secured victory; htit, do I'go too far when I saY; perhaps. saved
our' country front revolution and ruat ?
Let no ulan give way to private considerations when his
country. calls upon him to throw them aside and assist her in
maintaining her freedom. Do our political adversaries ever
vote for tory candidates to please their friends ? Ali ! no; the
instances are indeed very rare. Why then should we, by sup-
porting radicals, throw•that weight into the scale which, by de-
ciding the contest, gives victory to our country's enemies:
Why should a clergyman of the church. of England (and
clergymen have done so very recently) vote for two unitarians (I ! )
`and one conservative; at the same time declaring. himself to lie
a supporter of the protestant religion, as the- national religion of
his country? Does this man faithfully discharge his duty to
his country—not to mention higher considerations? I sir, deny
that be does. lie resembles the husbandman in the fable, mho-
fostered the viper which afterwards bit him-. Ile upholds (at
all events in the .political world, and politics are now closely
connected with religious considerations) an enemy to the church
of England, he goes hand in hand with all)an who would, if he
could, level it to the dust. Cats you, Mr. Editor, believe. that
such a man loves or wishes well to his religion and his country ?
I cannot think he dues; he may say he does, but he mistakes
his motives. I admire that individual of whom we eats say. "Ut
sus opera his verbis ne cl!Berant." None of your half-and-half
men ! We cannot iu these times please all parties, hut let us
at least have an approving conscience in the matter. We feel
that sorrow most whirls is occasioned by those who should have
been fur our comfort; so alse is that blow most dangerous which
our glorious constitution receives from those who are professedly
her friends. PshaW, sir; to tell me that the individual who pro-
fesses trinitarian rightly performs his duty when he openly up-
holds a man who professes unitarian principles, and who would
if he could, exterminate. protestantism altogether. Now can
people wonder when they bear so much said of the progress of
dissent, and of the advances popery is snaking in the touted
kingdom.
Far, very far be it from me to try to. bring disgrace upon the
protestant clergy : persons are not wanting who strive so to do.
lint who el n see these things without endeavouring to show the
folly and inspropr;ety of such inconsistent conduct? Such men
as Mr. M'Neile are exclaimed against hecattar they expose the
errors of popery and arianism; but, sir, when. do you see them
act inconsistently in the support of their religion ? Do you see
them countenancing, by their votes or otherwise, the admission
of papists, See. into the councils of the state or the borough ?
1 and yet, for doing their strict duty iu this, they ale called bigots.
for one deny that they cou'd act otherwise:and act consistently.
I feel certain that their consciences would be ill at ease were
they to' uphold a doctrine which is destitute of the testiniony of
scripture as to its truth: The thing is impossible; 1 should as
soon expect to see them eulogizing " Dens"rheology."
What an example should clergymen set to the lay portion of
the community? How great is the force of that example? It
is a common thing to hear a Person say that he goes to a theatre,
and finds an innocent amusement, and that there can be no horns
in it, "because I sow a clergyman there." It is not my businesS
to decide where a minister of the gospel is or is not to go ; but
only see the effect of such a step ; it confirms others in opinions
which:may or may net he wrong. 'And a layman may with equal
propriety say, he voted for Mr. C:aor Mr. A. because a clergy-
man slid so; and be would not have done so had he thought it
wrong. oe that the established church woqld be injured by it.
And thus is the consertative cerise injured, yea deeply and
foully injured, by'men who should be eery jealous, even of the
humblest of its tenets; by men who shook' be-amour, its first,
though, at the Hanle lime, least iotruding supporters.
What an effect may not this have upon elections of greater
moment. But I will hope for better-things for the time to come,
and excusing myself fur trespassing thus upon your time, remain
yours, &c., ARGUS.
Liverpol, 3d Feb., 1836.- •

DRAMATIC MONOPOLY.
TO TIM EL42T(JR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDSRO,

Stn,—ln some former numbeis of your paper, we announced
our intention to produce a drama called the .Tewess, at the Liver
Theatre. As our exertions to cater for public amusement from
the opening of our house to the present moment. with
a kind and liberal feeling from those who were aware of the re-
striction&uuder which we laboured, and the personal attempts
made to frustrate our prospects, we feel it a duty whiclrwe owe.
the play-going public to explain why we have been obliged to
withdraw the drama alltided to. Sonic weeks since, We received
an application from Mr. Yates to produce a translation of the
Jewess, .the one performed at the VictoriaTheatre, London, and,
consequently, en unlicensed piece. We at once concluded the
engagement, not having the most distant idea that a personal or
invidious attempt would be made to obstruct its production, the
same piece being now nightly performed at two theatres in Liver-
pool.
The following is a copy of a letter received from Mr. Yates,
explaining his reason for being obliged to decline the engage-
ment :

Mcgifield, February 4. 1836.

" TO RAYMOND, LSO., LIVERI3OOI..
" DEAR Sitt,—l have received two official communications
from the legal advisers on the one part of the proprietors of the
Theatre Royal, Liverpool, and on the other from those of the
lessee, stating thaV they intend proceeding against Mrs. Yates
and Miss Betts for the penalties they will incur in performing
at the Liver Theatre, and i have also received a notice from
Mr; Bunn not to subject these two ladies of his company,
under these circumstances, to: such proceedings; I have, there-
fore, only to follow his directions and to express my kerstraal
regret al the circumstance.
" I remain, sir,
" Your very obedient servant,
" FRED. H. YATES."

The public Will please to observe that no interference has
taken place withlke other theatres in the town, performing the
same drama, but every exertion made to ruin us, having ex-
pended a heavy sum of money for scenery and other matters
connected with it. The right to exercise such conduct is most
questionable, as far as the patent is concerned. The patent
granted to the theatre in Williamson-square empowers its pos-
sessor to play only such pieces as are licensed by the Lord Cham-
berlain. The drama in question never was licensed, therefore
does not interfere with the patent. We ask the question—
Have not several dramas which never met the chamberlain's
eye been performed in that house ?—have not the patent rights
.theretty been, v iolated ?—and have its lessees any more authority
to represent such pieces than we have ? We assert that an in-
habitant of the Antipodes has as much right to interfere with us
in playing an unlicensed drama as any patentee of Liverpool,
unless iu the distinguished character of a common intiffmer.
Having explained this personal attack, we leave the public to
judge of its deserts. It is not alone a private but a common
wrong. In our humble persons monopoly im wielded against
the public, and they are told that they shall not have rational
entertainment at a moderate price, nor any, except such as an
individual may please to give them, when, where, and at what
charge he thinks proper.—We are, &c.,
• W. J. HAMMOND,
M. RAYMOND. -
Liver Theatre, Monday, Bth February, 183 i.