The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-08-03 00:00:00

the aid of a fine
the

income-tax,
£56,000.000

country has been for the last twen
kept on the lar'

I under whiCh the nation throw

Alison

Te shall endeavour to give

'tics in our next

by stating his op

all the evil is a contn
attempt of Sir Rob
at a fixed mint price

The doleful lament of the Mail over the defeat of

contemporary begins by expressing, as a set-off
against his regret at that event, the " consolation"
Avltich he has, that it has "for ever put an end to

the Conservative Association," and " prostrated
bigotry and intolerance in the dust. That the
Noble Lord," he adds, " and Sir Digby Mackworth
would both have been returned if there had been
any union or fair dealing on the part of Sir Digby's
senseless friends, there can be no doubt." The de-
feat, moreover, is owing in part to "the paltry
prejudices and remarkable ignorance of Sir Digby
Mackworth," and in part to the " bigotry and
arrogance, and, we might add, the bad and unchari-
table feeling and conduct of Messrs. Thomas Berry
Horsfall, Francis Shand, Samuel Holme, and John
Lawrence." What follows is so rich in absurdity
that we give it verbatim :
" These personages were leading members of the Con-
servative Association, and they were bound in honour and
common honesty to support the candidates recommended
by that body (!) They refused to do this. They talked
with unbounded insolence (! !) of their conscience and
their principles, -as if no other gentleman could have a
conscience or principles differentfrom theirs ; and boasted
that they had four thousand staunch supporters, chiefly
Orangemen, who would vote for their low church candi-
date, and no other, on the day of the election. This idle
boast has now been exposed, and their arrogance openly
punished, and at this punishment, which they so richly
deserved, we heartily rejoice."
We shall not insult the four gentlemen, here
singled out for abuse, by any defence of ours.
Their character is known to their fellow townsmen.
We shall content ourselves by asking our irate
contemporary a few plain questions upon the re-
marks generally, which we have quoted, First,
does not our contemporary think that they would
be " senseless " people altogether, who would sub-
mit to be dragooned or dragged into " any union "
in support of a candidate, whose organ charac-
terizes themselves as " bigoted and intolerent,"
and their candidate as having " paltry preju-
judices and remarkable ignorance ? ' It would
have been "charitable indeed of•-• Sir Digby Mack-
worih's friends , but not very sensible, to assist
poor Lord John Manners out of the cruel dilemma
into which his own friends had deluded him ; but
will the Mail tell us how, out of the few plumpers
recorded for Lord John Manners he could have re-
turned the obligation ? His lordship recorded the
surprising number of 2,413 votes, including splits ;
and nine-tenths of the plumpers recorded for him
were those of persons most bitterly opposed to Sir
Digby's principles and party. Whether it was an
"idle boast," which the Mail talks about, that Sir
Digby had "four thousand staunch supporters,
chiefly Orangemen," is best ascertained by the fact
that he polled 4089 votes, the majority of them
plumpers. The splits from Sir Digby were prin-
cipally those of parties, many of them Orangemen,
induced to vote for Lord John partly through mis-
understanding, and partly upon the.question of the
Navigation Laws. Take away those splits from
Lord John Manners's miserable minority of 2413
votes, and his position on the poll would have
been ridiculous indeed !

" We," says the Mail, " offered to suppress our
opposition to the disqualifications of Sir Diyby
Mackworth, and cordially give him our second
votes, if they would stretch their Consciences !
waive their Hypocrisy ! ! and—recipocrate," How
magnanimous r Was it the Conscience stretching,
the Hypocrisy waiving (on both sides we presume),
or the Votes, which were to be reciprocated ? If
the latter, the reciprocation would have been rather
a losing. one to Sir Dighy. "Mr. John Lawrence,
of G-reat George Ward," our contemporary com-
plains, "refused or neglected to send out Lord:John
Manners' cards." More honour to him as a con-
sistent man, when the candidate for whom • he was
working had distinctly refused to have any con-
nection with Lord John Manners, as our contem-
porary himself very well knows.
But we cannot follow this ridiculous antlflaugh-
able tirade. We can imagine our contemporary
indeed to have been, laughing himself as he wrote
it, and to have laughed ever since. As for the
portion of his columns which he has devoted'to our-
selves and a contemporary, we shall merely cull out
a few of their literary objugatory elegancies, for the
admiration—we trust not the imitation—of the
noble lord and the gentlemen of his party; who
selected the Mail as their champion in the late
contest. Here they are :

"The now degraded Standard, and the con-
temptible and puritanical Courier." " Most paltry

and vindictive hirelings." " Clerical incendiaries."
"Mean spirit of disgusting malignity," &c.,. &c.
His imputation to. us of interested motives—of
being influenced by any well understood pressure
from without—in the course which we have felt it

our duty to pursue, we can well afford to disre-
gard. It is absurd, and were we disposed to adopt

our contemporary's vocabulary, we might

worse name,