The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-01-30 00:00:00

"

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO 7'HB EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sta,—l have been in the habit of going occasionally to the
Chtrch for the Blind. It has been a matter of convenience to
me to do so. I have not hesitated to subscribe my money to-
wards the suppart of that institution, nor is my mite waning,
a.nit I hope never will be, towards the support 01 illy one of our
local charities. I cannot, however, conceal the disgust with
which I read a letter iu the Liverpool Cuerier of yesterday, pur-
porting to come from the Rev. Edward Hull, minister of that
asylum. I have 'read the letter twice over, and would fain be-
lieve that it is a forgery. Until I have some such evidence that
it is so it is my. present intention never again to cross the thres-
hold of his chard), nor shall I feel calleu upon to subscribe one
single farthing towards any institution which can afford to con-
tinue such a ministerin the responsible situation which be holds
at the large stipend of £5OO per annum, a sum which I believe
exceeds the stipend allowed by oar wealthy. corpration to their
chaplain, and which, did the not receive, would certainly go
towards the legitimate objects of that charity. The spirit of the
letter is one which is a disgrace to any minister. I find no fault
with seine of his remarks it Lamle out by facts, into
ever, I have neither time nor inclination to inquire; I agree
with him that some of your remarks ate occasionally too severe
—but his wanton and unprovoked attack on some of our most
respectable merchants--his ungentlemanly language, which he
'attempts to cloak under a quotation from scripture, pro:.erbially
applicable to himself; is far more disgraceful as coming from .a
clergyman than any of the. personalities of which either the
STANDARD or any other paper may. have been guilty. Mr.
Hull yesterday appeared upon 'Change, no doubt to receive•
congratulations on his epistolary performance. I wish, for. his
own'sake, he had been privileged to hear the remarks which
'were generally made' by those who took the troub.e to read his
letter. One gentleman remarked, io my hearing, "it was almost
-blasphemy to introduce scripture into such a letter." Let Mr.
Hull remember it is an easy matter for those to quote scripture
who show at the same time that they are not under ins inaueuce.
I have lived in Liverpool nearly twice as long as Mr. Hull, and
have had some•experience of the character of many of the lead-
ing individuals of this community. I have a pretty general ac-
quaintance on the Liverpool Exchange, and can tell him that
the characterof the individual or -individuals against wiloin his
puny efforts are supposed to be directed stands too high for gen-
tlenianly demeanour and iatelligence to receive the slightest
injury from the feeble shafts of his vindictive malice. I have
thought it right to serfcl you these remarks in the hope and from
the conviction that those against whom Mr. Hull has directed
his scurrility will consider it too contemptible for their notice.
A• MERCHANT, AND A SUBSUR IBER TU THE

SCHOOL FOR TIIE BLIND.
Liverpool, January 2916, 184

TO THE REVEREND EDWARD HULL.

•:, */
RiyEREND Sia,4-BYer siuco your magnanitnotis determina-
tion' was made known to me—now some time ago—that you
"considered it your duty to write down the LIVERNIOL STAN-
DARD;" s 1 have looked with an anxious gaze into every news-
paper likely to contain the first curious ebullition of:So extra-
ordinary a resolve. I say curious, for really the attempt of a
git,kle shell to run down a frigate could not be more ludicrotis
than a contest where the imaginary talents and real inconsis-
tency, the affected loyady and real radicalism of the Rev.
Edward. Hull are brought into contact with the genuine talent,
the undeviating consistency, and unshaken loyalty-which, from
its commenceineut to the j)resent hour, haye characterised tile
pages of the LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
Setting jesting, however, aside, I really did look with curio-
sity,for the commencement of your Quixotic campaign, and the
more so when 1 learned that the same vanity which prompted
your declaration of war induced you to exhibit your first mani-
festo to the select few some days before it was ushered to
• the world in the columns of the Courier. "Wait till Wednes-
day," *was the lauguage of those in your confidence. `• Only
• wait till Wednesday, and then see how the STANDARD will
look!" ".If it can survive Wednesday,-then, indeed, it must
be insensible to shame!" Well, Wednesday,
"Big with the fate of Cato uud of Rome!"
at length arrived, the elaborately written letter appeared,- the
mountain its labour is delivered, atid, •`mus mutes parturiunt,"
because in.actically presented to our disappointed expectations.
. That I may not, however, be accused of turning into ridicule
what I cannot refute, or of indulging in invective where I am
deficient iii argument, bear with me, 'I beseech you, a few mo-
ments, while I comment upon your production, uud earuse use
if the data for my arguments he drawn from that source. The
discovery may certainly be galling, that you yourself should
have furnished the surest weapons against you ; but your clas-
sical' studies, though they may not have taught you the Sublime
ethics of a Socrates, will, at all events, furnish 7ou with this
consolation,; that your fate is not singular. The dying eagle of
./Eschylus Nomplamed not- so much of the wound from which
its4ife blood flawed, as that:the fatal shaft • bad been winged by
a feather taken from its own bosom.
That yOu are the " third clergyman" alluded to in the
STANDARD of the 13th L agree with you—" no person enter-
tertains the's.ightest doubt." In the paragraph, however, from
which you quote, although it certainly reflects, and severely
too, upon theinconsistency of-yqur con Wet, it merely states a
fact which-hundreds can testify, and the poll book can confirm.
Your own paraphrase, however, furnishes me more 'specifically
with what you consider the nature of the charges; and,As you
certainly ought to know their exact application better than
Another, lam bound to adopt your interpretation. You state
that you tare charged with " radicalism, hypocrisy, a - want of
merit and of talents, of disaffection to the king, and of enmity
to the church." • sow mind, it is you who state this, and not
the STANDARD. Probably, however, your own consciousness
of the charges that might justly be brought against you may
have suggested to you these. No matter. I have no objection
to your version of them, and on their truth or falsehood- I am
willing to rest my case. I have no hesitation, however, in ex.
pressing.my conviction that not one syllable would have up-
peared to your prejudice in the STANDARD, nor would•any one
have reflected-upon your character merely because you voted-
for Lord Sandon and refused to vote for Sir Howard Douglas.
Many Men of unexceptionable character and loyalty did the
•sanie. Motives of personal feeling inducing them to do so, front
a w,ish,' at ail events, of securing the return of his lordship.
But was this your case, or were these your motives? You
hatie appealed,to the public, and I am content that the public
shall judge. You treasured up your vote until late in the
second day. "Yon refused to bestow it until it was no longer
worth- having. You ascertained that Lord Sandon was so far
at the head of the poll, that by no possibility could he be reached.
You saw that Mr. 141-orris was so immeasurably behind, that by
4017,0ssibility could he get in. You saw, moreover, that it was
a-very severe struggle between Sir,lloward Douglas, a conser-
vative, and Mr. Swart, a leveller—that one or the other of them
must be elected. And, now, how do you act? Do you throw
your vote into the scale in "support of the-venerable institu-
tions of your country," (which you say vou are charged with
endeavouring to overthrow,) in support of that church of which
you say you have been a minister nearly a quarter of a century,
or of-that-king who is the temporal head of the church? Your
answer is already given and recorded. You voted for Lord
Sandon when by so doing you could neither assist him nor pre-
judice Mr. Ewart or Mr. Morris, and you declined to vote for •
Sir Howard Douglas when your suffrage might have contributed
to the election of a conservative, from a fear that by so giving it
you might endanger the return of a leveller.
I make no comment upon this. I merely state the fact, and
leave any unprejudiced person to draw the inference.
As to the other parts of your letter, however unchristian the
dospiritintit.
e m ()e
which they are written, they carry with the their n
a
The "mercantile house," the " two gentlemen whose
characters unimpeachable,"exactalyndfeethl the other persons r
you.
v ait•
lode
pleased
al }our having
so unnecessarily dragged theist before the public. But this is a
matter in .which I take no interest.
to m a are
y, perhaps,
All
to. borrow from you the text quoted-
towards
giotia,- and bridleth not his tongue, this man's religiuu is vain."
tle, endin conclusion,
o l your eter :—" If any man seem to ha reli-
I, however, -make no application of it here. Let those who
know you best judge for themselves of its fitness; to their de-
cision and that of the public lam willing to leave it.-1 am,
rev. sir, your obedient servant, DELTA.
Liverpool, 28th January, 1835.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL COURIER.

Stn,—A 'few weeks ago there appeared in the columns of the
Liveupoot, STANDARD the most gross and wanton attack upon
two exemplary clergymen, ou their appointment by the Com-
mon Council to the ecclesiastial situations which they now
,occupy, that ever disgraced the 'lieges of a newspaper. In
December last was contained in it a mast low and scurrilous
paragraph respecting one of the most. eminent merchants and
best 'nen in this large community.. In the conirnencement of
the present mouth, two gentlemen, whose characters I believe
are unimpeachable, are charged in it with collecting together a
bOdy of the lowest class of Irishmen, and exciting them to do
violence to an alderman of the borough. The publication in it
this week of certain letters concerning a mercantile house in
the town is scandalous beyond all precedent. And in the num-
ber of it, published on the 13th instant, is to be found the
following passage: " We hate the plumping system when it is
done 'under the mask of delicacy, which, being translated,
means hypocrisy: It is true we had fearful odds to contend
agairret—enemies within as well as without the camp. , it is
serious work when we see a clergyman of the Church of Eng,
land .voting for Ewart and l'ilorris—auother leading an unitarian
by thii-band—a third trimming his suspected radicalism and his
known hatred of corporations by voting fur Lout Sandon, but
refusing to vote for Sir Howard Douglas! We shall have
some questieus to put to these reverend gentlemen on an early
day. Meanwhile we rejoice that. we 'can dispense with their
services. The church is safe without their aid, or rather despite
their malice. Their • king has nothing to thank them tbr,.and
we trust he has nothing to confer upou them. It is easy for
pi'ating!priests.to talk of corruptions in the Church of Eugland
• who arc :unable to distinguish themselves in it--;who have no
merit by which to rise—no talents to commaud succest."
Now,.Sit, that the " third" clergyman alluded to in this pa-
ragraph, is myself, no person I believe entertains the slighteA
So that I am charged with radicalism, (by which the
writmenteaus.a desire to overtbiow the 'valuable institutions of
the couotry), hypocrisy, a want of merit ainfOf talents, disaf-
fection to the and enmity to the churcle.ef which.l have
been a minister nearly a quarter of a century—and all these
grave charges are brought against me, because at the late glee=
tiori of the members for this borough, I thought fit to give my
vote for' Lord Sandou alone. Could any man who had never
read the st«ndou.i have believed this to be possible?
Perhaps, Sir, had there been nothing peculiar in the mode of
establishing and conducting this paper, I might, after a resi-
deucnOf more than fifteen •years LiVerpool, have permitted
it to assail my character without notice. Or, if I could believe
that the reputed writer of the libel is the only person responsi-
ble for it, I might suffer it to pass in silence. It is lamentable
to reflect that, there are miserable creatures, who by weekly
scandal earn their daily bread. They cannot submit to etar-
vatiom'and ti.) steal is dangerous. The wretched condition of
such men, therefore, induces us to make some excuse for their
method of gaining their livelihood. The writer of the cited
passage is doUbtless merely the puppet, who discharges the Cod
syringe.from the stage,--the filth is supplied to hid] Irons behind
the scene. 1 will just remind the public of the manner in winch
this paper was set on foot.
In the autumn of 1832, a number of persons, calling them-
selves a conservative society, wishing to establish a paper
winch should support their principles, applied to a London mer-
chant to furnish them with an editor. lie accordingly sent one
down to LiVerpool, giving him a letter of introduction to one of
the society, who subsequently introduced him to four other
members of it, all of whom took a part in making au agreement
with him. Alter the first number of the paper appeai ed. they
were dissatisfied with the production, and the editor was dis-
missed._ This statement was publicly made by the disear,lett
editor, some time- in the yetir 1833, and no public denial was
ever given to ii.
It appears, then, that this paper was established under no or-
dinary,citeutestances, and that it was intended to carry with it
no ontthary degree of authority,—no less than five persons of
the reuk of gentlemen being the original ostrnsible promoters
of it. They formed themselves with others into a joint-stock
company, and professed to deal in loyalty. If they still consti-
tute apart of that company, they are noir general traders in
calumny and slander. • If they employ foul-mouthed monsters,
who, without cessation, vomit forth their pestilential vupours to
the deep thigest of ail honourable minds, they are morally re-
sponsible for all their calumnies. I am willing, bowever, to

•
hop; that the generality of the persons who first constituted
the company have long ceased to have any interest in this dis-
reputable journal, and that they are not answerable for the
vi.e scurrilities with which it. teems. He who acts as superin-
tendent or controller of the paper, whoever he may be, is un-
questionably morally, and I believe also legally, responsible
for every calumny which appears in its pages. Otte of the in-
dividuals whose names have been mentioned tome b‘, persons
whn believe them to exercise control over it, is, I um-told, a
matt of weak understanding, and therefore not likely to weigh
duly the moral guilt which attaches to him in thus aiding iu the
work of general slander. As far as imbecility of intellect can
be justly pleaded as an excuse for malignity of heart, I am wil-
ling to admit the plea. But surely he has some friends around
him possessed of common sense and common honour, whose
duty it is to point oat to him that the guilt calumny is great,
and that the character of a calumniator is base and tmettempti-
ble. •

Does this person disclaith religion ?—or ,does he profess
a more than ordinary zeal for it? If he profess any zeal
for religion he it indeed a poor mistaken man ! Little can
he know what spirit he is of. Little can he understand what
true i.eligion is, if he thinks that it can dwell in the 4ame bo-
som with the spirit of calumny and malice.: ( " If any man
seem to be religious and bridletli not his tongue, this man's re-
liMion vain," rand strange must be the confusion of his ideas, if
he thinks that the best way of sup? filing 'is to vilify its
ministers, and hold_thernsup to the scorn and contempt of the
public.
A clergyman's character is not only dear to himself and those
immediately connected with him, but is of no small importance
in regard to his public function; and 1 have been induced to
notice the libel which has been published respecting me not • so
much by any private feeling as front consideration of the station
which I+ hold in society. If this individual does Possess any con-
trol Over the paper, and is endued with any power of reflection,
would earnestly recommend hint to retire into his closet, and
meditate seriously on 'the part which he has tal:en in aspersing
the characters and Wounding the feelingiof his fellow-creatures:
and if, on such meditation, his heart shall not he oVerwhelined
with remorse, and hie spirit sink within -hint, his conscience must
be seared with a hot irinOtta he must be dead to every feeliug
which becomes a man.

Had I appealed to the .law_, I have no doubt but that the
writer of the libel would have been visited with punishment. I
have reasons, however, for not doing so on the present occasion.
In.the first place. be must be destitute of all shame; aud, in the
next, his unprincipled employer or employers would• no. doubt
continue to pay him the wages of iniquity, and dining his incar-
ceration profit by the licentious exercise of his pen; so that. no
adequate redress could be obtained by a legal prosecution, as
the real proprietors of the paper are not likely to be registered
at the Stamp-ptEce. The public' dune, wiftAU -I earnestly 'im-
plore to assist me in the work, cart check the evil. • If the pub-
lic would cease to bUy the scandal prvagated•in-Ais joarnal,
the party or parties interested in it would so.in:beCoate,::bank
rupt, and-the occupation of their di-udge`ivonld'Kever. .• '
b:dye-hill. Jan. 23, 1835. IAVA LIM 11 1,.
P.S.---The public will observe that triv"eharacta has lbeen
again attacked, and that an attempt ha's Beau made to deter nie
from defending it, in a " Notice to Corrspoticleots" in this
journal sinle the above letter was written.

I have taken the Liverpoa Coarier for fifteen years, and I do
not recollect ever to have seen a single art ic:e in it, profts.sseipv
written by the editor, of which a ge-ntiennin could feel ashamed
to acknowledge himself to be the author.
The proprietors of the STA:': D Ti.o me at full liberty hence-
forth to permit or direct their drUdges to attack me as they may
think tit. I will never hereufter condescend to reply to any
article which may appear in its pages.