The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-07-09 00:00:00

allow that there is the utmost disparity between the
promise and the peformance, and that the conclusion
has been lame and impotent beyond all calculation.
Has the emancipation act brought peace and content-
ment to Ireland, as it was promised and 'Vowed a
thousand times over that it should ? Has it attached
the Romanists in any degree more to the institutions
of the state than they were before ? Nothing of the
kind appears ; on the contrary, they are ever to be
found foremost in the ranks of its most determined
foes.

Has Sir Robert Peel, or the Duke of Wellington
had cause to be pleased with the gratitude of Papists
for all the favours which, together, they were so mainly
the instruments of conferring upon them ? We are
not aware of it unless they regard expressions of the
most rancorous hatred, and acts of the most determined
hostility to their government or policy as tokens of it.
The Papists of Ireland have kept faith with regard to
the established church, by breaking out into open
r€bellion within one short year from the passing of
that great " healing" measure, which was to subdue
all their feelings of animosity against it. A million of
money, granted by Parliament, has fallen very far short
of compensating the clergy for the pecuniary losses
they sustained by that insurrection, to say nothing of
the loss of life, which money could not compensate,
of which it vas the occasion. And what was the end ?
Why a composition with the insurgents, which has
deprived the Irish church of one-fourth of its income.
We cannot imagine what worse than this could have
happened had there been no breaking in upon the
Constitution—no healing measure at all.
But again, what has been the working of the eman-
cipation act upon the Constitution ? Have the Papists
let into Parliament added strength to the Conservative
cause, or otherwise ? Surely, the O'Connellry of the
House of Commons gives an abundant answer to the
question. It is to the emancipation act we owe the
tyranny of the 'Whig-Radical faction—the Melbourne
Ministry—the Russell pertinacity—the Lichfield House
compact—and every Anti-English and Anti-Protestant
measure or project that has issued from Government
since the bill was passed. It is the emancipation act
that has kept in a ministry after the House of Corn:
mons voted them unworthy of confidence;—and yet
Sir Robert Peel says he does not repent of the act,
and that nothing could induce him to repeal it ! Well,
we would be sorry to raise a schism on the question ;
but we acknowledge that we do not sympathise with
the right honourable baronet on this head.

With regard to the declaration that his opinions are
" moderate" opinions, we would not wish to raise any
captious objection or mere cavil ; but, philosophically
speaking, we really do not understand what is meant
by moderate opinions. Scripture says, " Let your mo-
deration be known unto all men ;" but the moderation
there spoken of is, we presume, moderation in Con-
duct—moderation in language—an abstinence from all
excess in whatever excess would be error; it is an ex-
hortation to the suaviter in modo, but without any
abatement, we should think, of the fortiter in re. But
a moderate opinion would seem to be a different thing.
Now, there are right opinions and wrong opinions, but,
may we ask, is there also a third class neither wrong
nor right which is to be honoured with the title of mo-
derate ?—and if there be, is that the class which the
honourable member for Tamworth conceives to be
" most in conformity with the prevailing good sense
and intelligence of the people of England" ? We do
not desire to dwell upon this subject; we advert to it
merely for the purpose of observing that though we
willingly recognise the right honourable gentleman as
the leader of the Conservative party, and entertain the
highest opinion of his purity of motive and integrity—
of his great talents and many virtu9s—yet that we are
not insensible to what we conceive to be his imperfec-
tions. We certainly do not approve of opinions which
are only moderately right ; we should rather have them
strictly and entirely so. We are opposed to any com-
promise between truth and error. We wish that men
should make a choice and be decided in their opinions.
Moderation in maintaining and enforcing them is another
matter. If our Church is to be maintained, or, in other
words, if this great nation is to be saved from the hands
of its enemies, men must choose between Protestantism
and Liberalism, or Protestantism and. Popery, and act
upon that choice. We know of no middle course that
we can esteem either honourable or safe.

We perused with infinite satisfaction, as we doubt
not so did most of our readers, the manly and eloquent
speech of a worthy Wesleyan, Mr. Heald, of Parr's
Wood, Stockport, which appeared in our last paper.
The Conservative cause derives no small addition from
the support of the Wesleyans as a body, and it is an
additional source of congratulation that they do not
rest contented with giving that support in silence, but
that they do, from time to time as occasion may re-
quire, proclaim the reasons and grounds of it through
organs of so much respectability and influence as the
gentleman whose name we have just mentioned. His
speech at a meeting of North Cheshire Conservative
electors removes all doubts, if any should have existed,
as to the side which the Wesleyans have taken, and
will take, in all contests between the revolutionist
party and the maintainers of the constitution. They
have unfortunately to a great extent become separatists
from the Church ; but all who are acquainted with the
early history of Methodism must be aware that sepa-
ration was not the origin2.l object of its founder. But
though Wesleyans are now for the most part separa-
tists in congregational government and worship, hos-
tility to the Established Church and the fundamental
institutions of the country forms no part of those ties
by which their body is knit together. " The points
" upon which we agree," says Mr. Heald, " are so
" many and important, and those upon which we differ
" so comparatively limited and unimportant, that it ap-
" pears to me no consideration would justify us with-
" holding our cordial and unanimous support to the
" Conservative cause, at this important juncture of our
" national affairs." To this avowal of Conservatism
he adds the following explanatory comment—valuable
and true in all respects :

" Let us make what we have safe, and then we are in a
position, but not until then, to administer the affairs of this
great country with a large and expansive liberality. These
two views comprehend the basis of my political creed and more
than man in the Queen's dominions, sir, would rejoice
than I should, to see our civil and religious institutions, ce-
mented together as they have been by the wisdom, and piety,
and valour of our ancestors, graced by this high and enviable
distinction. For when we are safe, we can afford to be both
tolerant and generous. (Hear.) Apply these views to the
national establishment of this country, to the principle of
which lam as fixed and unalterable a friend as any gentle-
man around me, who is more immediately within its pale.
And, sir, I am satisfied that the establishment can afford to
cherish and enforce a liberal policy. She has a stronghold
upon the affections of the people of this country, and, if true
to her own principles and the elevated position she occupies,
and in which I for one always wish to see her, she need not
and will not fall by any hostile hand without."

Language more decided and unequivocal could not
be desired of any man. The whole speech was indeed
one animated strain of the " thoughts that breathe
and words that burn ;" and there is an agreeable im-
pression left upon our feelings, as well as conviction
upon our mind, that the Wesleyan body of the king-
dom—concurring, as we are sure they do, in the senti-
ments uttered—are among the staunchest supporters
of Conservative legislation and government. What
othfestehearme
ot b
so
tie and
n,
te resthino
interesting subjects
soh conducted,
jeets o f forms just n one
speculation.
ow
It is a curious fact, as noticed in an able article of
the last Quarterly Review, that the ministry which
introduced the reform, or as Lord John Russell called
it, the revolution of 1832, has ceased to exist, The
eform government consisted of—Lord Grey, Lord
Brougham, Lord Spencer, the Duke of Richmond,
Lord Carlisle, Lord Ripon, Lord Durham, Lord Hol-
land, Lord Auckland, Lord Glenelg, Sir James Graham,
Lord Stanley, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Melbourne,
Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell. "Of these six-
" teen ministers," says the reviewer, " and four others
—Lords Monteagle, Sydenham, and Howick, and
" Mr. Ellice—who have since walked across the stage,
" no less than fifteen (Lord Holland only dying a na-
" tural death) have been, in various ways, successively
" eliminated from a cabinet which still professes to
" stand on the same basis, and to act on the same
" principles, as when originally formed by those whom
" it has thus expelled from its councils."
The fact is certainly remarkable ; and now the rem-
nant, Lansdowne,to be
c u t
oMir e. b
Citizenu n e,
that it is the nature of
Pvaelrm.neiracsout ondnsi
a revolution to devour, like Saturn, its own children.
was'inn dg
certainly f Russell,L Lords
sabouts
right,
The authors of the revolution had surely ample scope
and verge enough allowed them. The constitution
was placed at their mercy, to be cut and carved at their