The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1832-12-18 00:00:00

India and church property, triennial Parliaments, and vote by
ballot, I felt so much disgusted, that if the contest had been
between him and Lord Sandon, Or even Sir Howard Douglas,
althongh he goes rather beyond say mark,. I should have voted
for his opponent. Indeed, if I had been.compelled to decide
between the two, I should certainly ,have given my vote to Mr.
Thornely, in preference to Mr. Iti,vart, as being honestly con-
sistent in his political career.' ' •

I have stated the cause of my not voting as I 'intended, early
on the first day, for Mr. Ewart; and subsequent distant engage-
ments prevented my voting for Lord Sandon, as I otherwise
should have done on the second day, which will be sufficient to
show that altlxough.l am one Of those who did not vote, I am so
far from being . politically, " favourable" to Mr. Thornely that
lam decidedly opposed to hiM. • • • • •
The statements given in the Journal, to bolster up the alleged
preference shown to Mr. Thornely, in my opinion, prove the
reverse, when taken in connexion with the glaring fact of the
sinister coalition with Mr. Ewart, it being evident that a very
large number of" those who voted for Mr. Ewart voted also for
Mr. Thornely, not because they were "favourable" to him if

he stood alone, but because they were so instructed; and others
were opposed to Sir Howard Douglas, as being rather too
ultra, he being also supported by gentlemen, who, in the true
sense of the word, are of " the greatest respectability" in
Liverpool.
Let us now look at the votes as given in the Journal.
House- Official Hay or
Freemen. liclders. Total. 21 tals. Splits.
Ewart 1238 3-190 4728 4931 2166
Sandon 2091 - 2097 4191 4260 2130
Thornely 3062 4031 4096 2048
Douglas ... .1736 1548 320-1 3242 1621

6,017 10,107 16,154 16,529 8,265

Supposing the •whore 'to have given two votes, the account
will stand, as plumpers or single votes,
Ewart 619 1745 2361
Sandon 1047 1048 2095
Thorne.y 185 1531 20m
poug,as 8.:8 • 774 1611

3')19 5098 8117

The fractions thus produced are—

For M. Thoplely

485 1531 2016

3019 5098 8117

So that, instead of having the votes of " fully two-thirds of
his follow-tothisinen," electors, Mr. Thornely, " with all ap-
plianeesand means to boot,": had only—one-sixth of the free-
meni three-tenths of the householders, and one-fourth of the
total electors who voted !

And there is no doubt that if the contest had been •between
Lord Sandon and Mr. Thornely alone, " unmixed with other
matter," even that modieum would have dwindled into com-
parative insignificance.—YOut s,&e.
Daka-street, Saturday evening. CANDIDUS.

TO MR. T.(10.:1.gS 2710RXELY.

Stn,—Having read your address. to the electors of Liverpool,
in which you broadly assert that it was owing to the votes of the
old burgesses;
.und not to the general feeling of the respectab:e
inliabitants'of the town; that you were rejected as the represen-
tative of Liverpool. I begleave to refer you to the names of the
merchants in the daily Trade List of the port, and of the' master-
tradesmen, forinerly (I don't mean to use the, words offensively)
esteemed the hack-bone'of the town, for a comparative estimate
of the weight,'wealth, commercial enterprise, and respectability
of your own and of I Sanclon'S a'nd Sir HoWard Douglas's
supporters. But the fact is, that on this, as on all former odca-,
sions, the party which have supported you have used the outcry
of intimidation before an election, and, if unsuccessful; of briery
afterwards; arid I alit- persuaded that the cry of bribery now
raised, is for no other purpose than to bring the question once
more before the House of C.oinutoits, 'with a view to get the .old
burgesses disfranchised altOgether.

With respect that pa tit of your address, in Clayton-square;
in Whichi you allilie to the effect of administering the bribery
oath, had none of your sapient counsellors the wit-to discover
that this arguihent proves a little too much ? for, as the oath
must be administered before the elector is asked for whom he
votes, how could you tell, when several of these atrocious free-
men "slunk away from the booths," whether they- were your
own voters or your opponents ? -particularly as it is a well-kn Own
fact, (and can he proVed by flatting; the parties, if such a dis-
closure would afibrd you any satisfaction,) that the officious
zeal of some of your own partisans led them into the commission
of the dangerous indiscretion of _offering bribes, whether ac-
cepted or refused you may learn, Perhaps, upon inquiry. "ris
an old adage, that men who live in glass houses should beware
how they cast about stones ! That all the old burgesses of Li-
verpool do not belong to temperance societies, more the pity ;
but lf men choose to get drunk at their own expense, I am not
aware that, so long as they keep the peace, there is any law at
present to prevent inebriety; but it is to be hoped that the re-
formed Parliament will pass an act to suppress all such shock-
ing debauchery, morning, noon, and night.
That after the majority-on the-first day's poll you were not
prepared for, the result of the election, is-very possible; but I
must beg leave to point out to you, that "the promptitude of
the battalions of your friends" packed all the polling booths
early on Wednesday morning, so exclusively that at the Lime-
street booth more than eighty votes were polled by your party
before a single individual could tender his vote for either Lord
Sandon or Sir Howard Douglas. This might be all fair, as a
ruse de guerre, but it is, I beg leave to submit to your cooler
judgment, 'quite a sufficient explanatiOn Of the cause of your
majority on the first day's poll.

Recommending to your particular attention a stricter obser-
vance of the ninth commandment in your future addresses to
the electors of Liverpool, I am, &c. E.

DISSENTERS AND SOCINIANS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

Stu,—lt is clearly the duty of every man who wishes well to
church and state, to endeavour, by every lawful means, to break
the unholy alliance between the orthodox Dissenters and the
Socinians. I. conceive that the hostility of the former to our
national Zion' is mainly owing to the new light that has of late,
and only of late, burst in upon them, namely, that a nation, as
a nation, has nothing to do with religion. They have, evidently
only heard one side of the question, and consequently take for
granted that there is nothing to be said in favour of an estab-
lished religion. I have occasionally invited. them to try their
teeth upon a tract of some fifty pages, recently published by
the Christian Knowledge Society, entitled, " A Church Estab--
lishment Lawful, Scriptural, and Necessary, by the Rev. S. C.
Wilks ;" but I fear they generally find it too, hard for them.
Hard arguments, after all, go farther than hard words. This
short pamphlet is especially useful in silencing the cuckoo-cry
of " My kingdom is not of this world." -

Another means of breaking this unholy alliance, is to show

the 'orthodox Dissenters that Socinians are really their ene-
mies, both in a temporal and spiritual point of view. And, as
L. s. D. arguments weigh. a great deal with some " indepen-
dent" supporters of Socinian candidates, it may be worth while
to call their attention to the last report of the distribution of
Lady Dame tiewley.'s charities,
.which were inte4dgd for the
benefit of pious nonconformist ministers: - It appears, from the
December Lumber of the Corgregatianal Magazine, which is, I
suppose, unquestionable authority, that there are 72 socini4n