The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

Ltherpool

TUESDAY 11/ORAING, JUNE 4, 1814.

We abstained la't week from replying to certain
remarks of the Manchester Guardian, because we
did not wish, by the expression of any opinions of
ours at such a crisis, to give encouragement to the
apathy which we saw existing amongst the Conser-
vative party in this town and district. Nor perhaps
should we have been at the trouble of addressing
ourselves to our contemporary now, were it not
that, whilst vindicating the tone of the article
commented upon by him, we shall be afforded an
opportunity of throwing a light upon some features
of the recent contest for the representation of the
division which, unexplained, are calculated to lead
to very erroneous conclusions as to the existing
strength of genuine Conservatism in our locality.
At the risk of being tedious, we give at length that
portion of the Guardian's article which refers to
ourselves.

"THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE CAUSE."—If any
county elector in South Lancashire, who calls himself a
conservative, should have begun to feel rather doubtful as
to what con-ervatisin truly means, we would not recom-
mend him to institute a very strict comparison between
the speeches of Mr. Entwisle, whom he is called upon to
support, and the remarks of the Liverpool Standard in
reference to the present contest, or he will be pretty sure
to feel much more bewildered than ever. On consulting
the latter authority, he will find the present administration
described as "a ministry which worships expediency,
whilst it plays fast and loose with promises and pledges ;"
and, as for the premier, lie is denounced as having, by the
course he has taken on the Factory Bill and other ques-
tions, done his best to convince his supporters, that
"there is no principle connected with his government for
which it is worth the while of conservatism to contend."
Such, then, being the present state of things, an honest
conservative would naturally expect to find the Standard
largieg upon the electors of South Lancashire to throw
base expediency to the winds, and rally round a candi-
date who would not pin his faith to the sleeve of the prime
minister ; who would not give his unqualified support to
" a ministry which plays fast and loose with pledges ;"
and, above all things, who would most distinctly pledge
himself to support Lord Ashley, and oppose ministers, on
"that great conservative question of humanity—the Ten-
hours' Factory Bill,"—even at the risk of turning a faith-
less and pledge-breaking ministry out of office. Alas for
the incoesistency of " poor human nature," as Judge
Baliburton says! After all its grand fl )(Irish about prin-
ciple, and its horror of expediency-worship, the Standard
feels itself constrained to follow the very same course as
that which has been pursued by the ministers whom it
denounces. Instead of calling upon the electors to sup-
port a candidate of decided political principles, it urges
them to "throw aside their present apathy, bury their j
present jealousies," and rally round Mr. William En-
twisle, who claims their support chiefly on the ground of
his unqualified admiration of Sir Robert Peel's abilities as
• a statesman ; and who expressly declares, that, were he
returned to parliament, he would support ministers in
their opposition to Lord Ashley's agitation for a diminu-
tion of the hours of labour in factories.
What, then, are the principles involved in that "great
conservative cause" of which we read so much in minis-
, terial prints, •and for which the electors of South Lan-
cashire are called upon to exert themselves so energetically
on Monday and Tuesday next? We have seen that the
Liverpool Standard can furnish no intelligible answer to
these questions; but it may be said to be unworthy of
much notice as an organ of toryism.
This is scarcely a fair statement—indeed it is a
very unfair one —of the position taken by us in the
article in question ; hut we are perfectly willing to
give the Guardian all the advantage of his jesuitry.
Grant that we described the ministry of Sir Robert
Peel as " a ministry which worships expediency
whilst it plays fast and loose with promises and
pledges;" that we have represented Sir Robert Peel
as having done his best to convince his supporters
that " there is no principle connected with his go-
vernment for which it is worth the while of Con-
servatism to contend ;" does it follow that we ought
to have called upon the Conservatives of South
Lancashire to damage .the cause of Conservatism
itself, and those instittitions and principles involved
in it, by a refusal to support the candidate offered
to their choice, even although he chose to " pin his
faith on the sleeve of the prime minister"? Would
there be any " consistency" in recommending a
course which could only have had the result of giv-
ing victory to a party diametrically opposed to all
those institutions and principles which, as Conser-
vatives, we revere and trust to maintain, whilst by
an opposite course would be secured the election of
a gentleman, who, although not altogether to our
taste, is still the faithful supporter of many, and
some of these the most important, of those institu-
tutions and principles ? Surely there would not.
Surely the Guardian entertains a better opinion of
our judgment than to expect from us the advocacy
of a policy so suicidal.

We expressed, with sorrow, our conviction that
recent measures of the ministry had produced
great apathy amongst the Conservative electors of
this &strict. We warned then that the conse-
quence of persisting in such measures would be de-
trimental to them as a ministry—would lead to a
permanent alienation of many of their once ardent
supporters. The result of the contest has shewn
that we were right in the opinions which we ex-
pressed. It is not the exertions of the Anti-Corn-
law League which have reduced the apparent strength
of Conservatism in South Lancashire. On the
contrary, the insolence of that League has increased
the genuine Conservative feeling of the county, of
which the number of votes recorded on the poll on
Monday and Tuesday last is not a faithful index.
It is the disappointment felt by so many sound and
loyal men with the trimming policy of Sir Robert
Peel's government, which most materially tended to
weaken our position in this contest ; and we urged
upon the Conservative electors to waive the expres-
sion of that disappointment, and rally to the side of
the Conservative candidate, not for Sir Robert
Peel's sake—not for the ministry's sake—but for
their country's sake. We felt confident that a de-
feat of Conservatism in South Lancashire—and a
seriously diminished majority is such a defeat—would
be turned, by an expediency-worshipping minister,
to the serious detriment of Conservatism ;—would,
in fact, be the ready plea put forward for further
concessions, and further trimming; whilst a deci-
sive victory would have shewn to such a minister,
that the time had not yet arrived when it was neces-
sary to bolster himself in power by such concessions.
It may he said by the Guardian, however, and
will no doubt be said by some of those Conserva-
tives, by whose apathy the Whig-Radical party has
been reduced by one-half, that by returning Mr.
Entwisle, an avowed admirer of Sir Robert Peel's
measures, by a larger majority, we in effect declare
our unabated satisfaction with his government,
whilst, on the other hand, by keeping back from

. ,
the poll, we skew Sir Robert the necessity of retrac-
. .

ing his steps and consulting more the Conservative

feeling of the country. We arimit the perfect rea-
sonableness of the argument were it an ordinary
case and an ordinary character with whom we had
to deal. But we are not in such a case, and we

have not to do with such a man.

It was not the

general policy of Sir Robert Peel's government

which was sought to be attacked or defended, so
much as the question of a rash and headlong adop-
tion of what is styled free-trade measures. Thus

we might have intimated, by a reduced majority and
a hesitating support, our diminished confidence in
the present ministry; but we should at the same
time have declared our diminished dislike of Whig-
Radical and destructive measures. All England,
which was regarding this contest, would have pointed
to us and exclaimed, " See—the commercial and
manufacturing county of Lancashire has submitted
to the dictation of the League ; and even Conserva-
tive Liverpool itself has consented to receive her
convictions at the hands of its hireling seditionits !"
This is already being loudly boasted ; and instead of
the diminished strength of Conservatism in South
Lancashire being likely to operate as a warning to
Sir Robert Peel to abstain from encroachments upon
the Church of the land, and violations of the Pro-

testant feelings of its people, it may too soon, we
fear, be seized upon by him as a justification of that
utilitarian and anti-national policy, towards which
he is already fast progressing.

Our attention has been directed to a petition, now
in course of signature in this town, in behalf of the
" Dissenters' Chapels Bill," which certainly does
appear to us to be one of the most impudent docu-
ments we ever met with. After reciting briefly the
nature of the bill in question, and the fact of its
now being before the legislature, this precious pro-
duction of Socinian cunning and dishonesty pro-
ceeds to declare—we give the precise wording—
" That your petitioners, though not themselves holding
the opinions proposed by Unitarians, do not desire to see
them punished by civil forfeitures, but regard them as en-
titled to the full benefit of those wise laws by which the
once stringent condi:ions of toleration have been relaxed,
and the liberty of worship from time to time enlarged."
So, in the opinion of the very wise people who
are to be got to sign this petition, the present
eassenitsof
non-
Tecognition, by the law, of the right of one