The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-03 00:00:00

Now, he believed this to lkritten for our learning and
instruction. It went to the essence of the whole case. They
might depend on it that the root of national independence
was, after all, successful national agriculture. (Hear.) He
was proud of British ships; he was proud of British com-
merce; he was proud of British manufactures ; he was proud
of British colonies ; but, after all, the source of our national
prosperity and of our future national independence was
home-grown corn—native British home. grown wheat.
(Hear.) He would conclude by proposing a toast which it
gave him the greatest possible pleasure to introduCe—the
" Health of the members of the county of Dorset." (Im-
mense cheering.

ULTRA. PROTESTANTISM v HIGH CIIURCHISM

(From Fraser's Magazine for August.)

One little incident in the recent election struck us very
forcibly. We had regretted to see that in the town of Leeds,
while the two radicals, Aldam and Hume, adhered closely to
each other, one polling 2012, and the other 2034, there was
a great disparity between the two conservatives. Mr.

Beckett polled 2675, but Lord Jocelyn only 1927. A para-
graph, however, from Leeds, which appeared in the Morning
Post a day or two after, explained the whole matter. It was
as follows :

The triumph at Leeds is satisfactory on another account.
Pour years ago two radicals were returned for the borough
of Leeds, and just at that time those sound church prixciples
were beginning to be preached there, of which Leeds is now
the stronghold. * * * We now see the result. The de-
termined and consistent conduct of the churchmen of Leeds
has secured a conservative member for that borough,—a
thing which, four years ago, was impossible. And why was
Lord .1 ocelyn defeated? It was only because he was sup-
posed to be brought forward to conciliate the Methodists,
since his family is distinguished for its ultra-protestantism.
* * The triumph of toryism and churchism is thus
complete by the return of Mr. Beckett alone."
Now this precious farrago teaches us two things. First,
that a " high churchman" of the new Oxford school would
rather unite with a dissenter, nay, with an infidel, than with
what he calls an " ultra-protestant." Lord Roden is a firm
and consistent churchman. Ay ; but he is an " ultra-
Protestant," attends Exeter Hall meetings, and shews that
he really hates Popery. Therefore these disciples of Dr.
Hook deliberately and avowedly prefer Joseph Flume and
his brother candidate, Aldam. The triumph of " Toryism
and churchism," they tell us, "is complete." How? by
the return of their two candidates ? No, but "by the return
of Mr. Beckett alone." Their triumph is complete by ex.
eluding Lord Jocelyn, whom they plainly tell us they could
have returned,—more complete than it would have been had
both Conservatives been elected ! We here see what " High
churchism " is ; and what sort of a parliament we should
have had, if there had been a Dr. Hook in every borough in
the kingdom.
The second thing, however, that we are desired to notice
is the wounderful good that " sound church principles "
have wrought in Leeds. There is now " a conservative
member for the borough ; a thing which, four years ago, was
impossible."
We know full well that Dr. Hook kept a number of claques
about him, but we did not know that any of them were so
ignorant or so impudent as this.
Was it impossible then, until Dr. Hook came to Leeds,
to return a conservative for that borough ? Does the writer
of this wise paragraph not know that from 1835 to 1837 Sir
John Beckett was member for Leeds, having been elected
by a majority of 276; while, in 1811, Mr. Beckett was only
returned by a majority of 41!
This impudent assumption forces us to look into the facts
of the case. There is no reason, then, whatever, to con-
clude, from this election, that the cause of the church, or of
conservatism, has gained anything at Leeds by 1)r. Hook
and his " church principles." But since the bravado is put
forth, and since " ultra-protestantism " is especially al-
luded to as a crime of Lord Jocelyn, let us compare, for a
few moments, the case of Leeds with that of another great
town in the north, namely, Liverpool.
No one at Leeds, save this paragraphist in the Morning
Post, seems to have alluded to Dr. Hook or the clergy as
having had any particular influence in producing the half-
triumph there achieved. But at Liverpool, Lord Sandon
himself, the candidate who was returned at the head of the

poll, with a majority over a cabinet minister of 1548 votes,—
Lord Sandon, himself in returning thanks to the electors,
thus frankly attributed his great success, not to electioneer-
ing efforts of the clergy, but to their past labours in a right
instruction of the people. He said,—
" You have now been reaping the harvest of that good
seed which has been sown among you for years past. It is
not in vain that the ministers of the gospel have been labour-
ing among you. It is not in vain that they have teaching
you that the good protestant and the good churchman ought
to be at the same time the good politician ; and that if he

wishes to have the institutions of his country preserved, he
must support the men who are attached, morally and religi-
ously, to the church themselves."
Nor was this merely a private opinion of Lord Sandon's.
The vast audience of thousands cried out, " The clergy have
done it all ! " and when the name of " Hugh M`Neile" hap-
pened to drop from the lips of one of the speakers, the
shouts lasted for several minutes. Yet no one said, no one
hinted, no one of theadversaries challenged it upon Mr. M'-
Neile or the other clergy, that they had acted the part of
electioneering canvassers. It was their constant, moral, re-
ligious, and sound protestant teaching, that " had done it
all ! "

Let us, then, thus taunted, just compare these two towns.
Leeds has it's Dr. Hook, and, it is boasted, is " the strong-
hold of church principles ; " alias, Oxfordism. Liverpool
has its Hugh M`Neile, and is a stronghold of what Dr.
Hook calls " ultra-protestantism." Let us then see what
may have been the course of these two towns during the last
seven years. We will give the respective polls for 1835,1837,
and 1811, side by side :

LIVERPOOL,
or " Ultra Protestantism
- 1835.

LEEDS,
.1t "
Church Principles."
1835.
4407 Beckett (C)
1075 Baines (L)
3869 Brougham (L)...

Sandon (C)
Swart (L)..
Douglas (C)
Morris (L)

Sandon (C)
Cresswell (C)
Evart (L)
Elphinstone (L)
1841.

1837.
4695 Baines (L)
4652 Molcsworth (L) 1873
4208 Beckett (C) 1764
4072

Samlon (C)
Cresswell (C) .
Walrnsley (L).,
Palmerston (L)

5979 Beckett (C)
5792 Aldan] (L)..
4647 Hume (L)..
4431 Jocelyn (C)

Thus, in LIVERPOOL, in 1835, one Conservative was
elected, the second defeated by 206. In 1837, two Con-
servatives were elected, the second by 441. In 1841, two
Conservatives were elected, the second by 1115.
In LEEDS in 1835, one Conservative was elected, his ma-
jority over the second Radical being 276. In 1837 two Ra-
dicals were elected, the second beating the Conservative by
109. In 1841, one Conservative was again elected, be...ting
the second Radical candidate by 43 !

In Liverpool our majority has risen to 1500. In Leeds it
has fallen from 276 to 43. So much as to the point—whether
" Church Principles" of the new Oxford school, or the
" Ultra-Protestantism " of the school of our great Re-
formers, is most likely to advance the cause of Conservatism.