The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-18 00:00:00

COACHMAN

The Time); has published a correspondence between Lord

Reneliffe, and George Frisby,

" whot drives the Leicester

coach"

-which

is a good thing in its

It relates to
What

" thumbing,

' lying, bribery, and such matters

" thumbing" is, the reader must endeavour to collect as well
as he can from the noble lord : it is not to be found in the

slang dictionary, at least in our editiot of it

We have called the letters a correspondence between the
peer and the coachman ; but they are not exactly so, as
Lord Rancliffe addresses himself to a Mr. Hardy, and
George Frisby in reply addresses himself to the Editor of the
Times—so that, though there is an interchange epistolary
between them, it is not direct, but carried on through third

persons.
Lord Rancliffe states the case nearly thus :
" Bunny-park, May 1, 1841.
" Mr. Hardy,—l understand Frisby, who drives the coach
from Nottingham to Leicester, has been telling most abomi-
nable lies, and that I wanted to du, which I never did even
to my own tenants—thumb him. I asked him on Monday,
at the request of others, it he would vote for Mr. Larpent ;
his answer was, he would let me know. He voted on Tues-
day for Mr. Walter, but be left a message at the inn at
Bunny, saying he had voted for Mr. Larpent, and that the
tories were above 100, I think 130, a-head when he left. I
went into Nottingham on Tuesday, and find he had told me
a lie. I said to him, which I will say to tory, whig, or ra-
dical, that he was a lying fellow. I respect any man who
keeps to his principles, but I hate liars. It is perfectly in-
different to me whether a whip or a tory represents Not-
tingham, but I hate falsehood or deception of all sorts, and
I mustinsist on this fellow contradicting what I understand
he says, that I " thumbed him." How could I, when he
voted the other way ? If he does not contradict his infernal
lies in the paper, I shall put the case in the hands of my
lawyer."
Something follows about money due and owing as between
his lordship and the man ; but it is not of much consequence.
The noble lord concludes by accusing the tories of ingrati-
tude; but, at the same time, wishes them good luck at the
next election for Nottingham ! He says
" I ever behaved, as you know, well—aye, •kindly to the
tories; and at this election see how I was treated. My own
feeling is that of thorough contempt, and hope that next
election you may have two tories who will treat Nottinghum
as it deserves. . " Yours, &c.,
" RANCLIFFE."
In what category are we to place this eloquent peer ? If
he is neither fish, flesh, nor fowl, he is certainly capital red
herring, and very piquant in flavour. He hates the tories,
and yet he wishes them to represent Nottingham ! He once
represented Nottingham himself, and he shows his own gra-
titude by wishing the inhabitants to have tories " who will
treat the town as it deserves !" But there is a postcript
which serves in some degree to explain these seeming incon-
sistencies. It runs thus :
" P.S.—Be so good as to read this letter to that liar Frisby ;
a more venal corrupt place does not exist than Nottingham.
I can prove that_votes were bought as publicly as pigs in a
market."
Lord Rancliffe is but too plainly a disappointed man ; and
writing under feelings of irritation, he spares nobody. The
tories are ungratefnl—the whigs are corrupt—and poor
George Frisby is over and over again pronounced to be a
" liar" of the first magnitude. But one story is good till the
other is told. Now what says George, the coachman ? Why
he totally denies Lord Rancliffe's charge ; he says he never
promised to vote for Mr. Larpent, and that the noble lord is
altogether in et ror ; and we believe him. We wish we had
room for his excellent reply, for we own that it does credit
to the " bat ;" but the pre-occupation of our space will not
admit of it. Suffice it, however, to say that the " Leicester
Coachman" makes out a rebutting case, which leaves his
noble, but too hasty accuser, nothing to boast of.

THE CORN LAWS

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

Sru.,—ln your published lecture you admit that you con-
sidered your coming to Liverpool an excellent opportunity
to DISCUSS THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU
AND YOUR PROTESTANT FRIENDS, and accordingly yielded
to the intreaties of those who wished for such a discussion.
Having made this admission, you have put it out of your
power to decline a discussion, except you are willing to sub-
mit to the suspicion that A ONE-SIDED DISCUSSION is the •
one best suited to Romish divinity. Your Protestant friends,
sir, are well aware that Romish doctors have very good rea-
sons for preferring ONE-SIDED DISCUSSIONS. Sandy divi-
nity will not bear the storms of controversy, and therefore
they do not wonder that the Pope's chamberlain and divi-
nity professor is most unwilling to submit his baseless fabric
to the dangerous test.
Needing some excuse to cover your retreat, you allege that
it was tenderness-of feeling which induced you to refuse to
meet Mr. Baylee ! You say, "I am induced from a feeling
of Christian charity to decline meeting him ! This gentle-
man should ever bear in mind that, in entering the lists with
me, he does so with fearful odds ! I have studied in the
universities of the metropolis of Catholicity, and have been
long in the habit of teaching the Catholic doctrines in the
same metropolis and other cities. I have already published
scriptural lectures in defence of our holy religion."
Well, then, sir, notwithstanding this formidable prepara-
tion, Mr. Baylee is still rash enough to be ready to meet
you, and offers to give you the following test of competency.
He only requires that it should not be a one-sided test.
A professor of divinity ought to be skilled in the Scrip-
tures, the languages in which they were written, the early
versions, the principal theological writers, and church his-
tory.
Will you venture, sir, to submit to the following test?
Let a meeting be held of .100 educated Romanists and 100
educated Protestants. In their presence lam ready to be
examined by you, for two hours, on the following subjects,
provided you give me the same public opportunity of exa-
mining you :-
1. The Scriptures in English.
2. The Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Greek
Testament, including an inquiry into the influence
of the Hebrew language, or Biblical Greek.
3. The Chaldee Targums, the Samaritan and Syriac
versions, as found in Walton's Polyglott.
4. The Latin Vulgate, and the influence of some of its
phrases on modern errors.
5. The views of the principal theological writers of the
Christian church.
6. The influence of Jewish and heathen theology and
philosophy on the early Christian church.
7. The history of the Christian church.
I pledge myself to give no questions on minute points of
which no man need be ashamed to be ignorant or forgetful,
but to confine myself to such an examination as a divinity
professor ought to be prepared for.
The questions and answers to be afterwards printed.
You have now, sir, an excellent opportunity of doing Rome
a service, by shewing the value of her divinity school. If
you refuse to meet, your Romanist friends will begin to sus-
pect on whose side the charge of incompetency
Of this, sir, I am quite assured, the limited educathen of a
Romish priest would not enable him to undergo the trial.
There is not a Romish priest, or even vicar apostolic, in
England, who would dare to do so : at least if there be, I
am prepared to meet him.
Shrewdly suspecting that the charge of incompetency
would not go down with reflecting persons, you have another
expedient to avoid the dreaded discussion. You say, "By
such a proceeding I should, in a grievous manner, commit
myself with the venerable bishops of the Catholic church in
this kingdom !" Why, sir, you are not under the jurisdic-
tion of the Catholic bishops of this kingdom. They reject
you as an intruder, and protest against your theology as ido-
latrous and superstitious. Perhaps, however, you mean the
" vicars apostolic" of the Roman schism. If so, I suspect
they will not thank you for the insinuation you thus throw
out against them. Is IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY ALSO LOVE
ONE-SIDED DISCUSSIONS! YOU do not commit yourself
with them by holding a discussion in a Romish chapel where
you have no opponent, but the moment (to use your own
phrase) " an Irish Protestant parson" appears and offers to
test your doctrines by the light of God's word, they advise
a prudent retreat ! It seems, then, that the heads of the
Roman schism in England agree with you in opinion that a
good retreat is better than a bad battle.
Perhaps, sir, you could help me out in a Latin criticism.
Why are they called vicars apostolic? My Latin dictionary
tells me that vicarius means a substitute. Are they called
vicars because they substitute an opposite line of conduct
and preaching to that pursued by the apostles ? In doctrine
and practice they are opposed to the apostles. This is clearly
exemplified with respect to oral controversy. Have you
ever read, sir, of the holy apostle St. Paul for two whole
years " disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus "?
(See Acts, xix. 9.) Think you that he loved one-sided dis-
cussions, or that his Jewish and Gentile opponents were
content to listen in silence ? Have you read of another who
" mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, proving
by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" ? (Acts xviii.
28.)
But you say, " Platform exhibitions do great mischief."
It is true, sir, they do mischief; but not to the cause of
truth. They seriously damage the pretensions of erroneous
teachers.

There is indeed an unhappy tendency in all controversy to
stir up bad feelings, and the servants of God need on such
occasions to be especially on the watch—remembering that
" the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."
But the same apostle's conduct proves that this is not a valid
reason for refusing such a mode of testing truth. St. Paul
disputed publicly for three months in the Jewish synagogue.
" Divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of
that way before the multitude." Did be cease from oral
controversy? No : he continued it for two years in a
school-room. (Acts, xix. 8-10.)
And now, sir, in conclusion, God, that searches the hearts,
knows that I write this in no vainglorious boasting. Ido
so upon the urgent intreaty of valued clerical brethren. I
can most truly say I do•so without one feeling of unkindness
for you. I hate your errors : I love your person. That you
and the souls now led astray by you may be led into the fold
of Christ, and there learn to trust in Him, and in Him only,
for pardon and peace and blessedness, is, sir, the earnest
prayer of Your obedient servant,
JOSEPH BAYLEE.
Parkfield, Woodside, May 17, 1841.