The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-21 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Silt,—l am sorry to see a person of your acknowledged
penetration deceive'd by
the specious arguments and mis-
statements of Mr. Earle in his articles in the Liverpool Mer-
cury,, which, from your article in your Tuesday's publica-
tion, would appear to be the case ; and ask yka.i, as an im-
partial journalist, to insert this letter, and hape 1 do not de-
ceive myself in assuming that you will do so. •
Yon do not appear to be aware of the tact that 7,1 r. Earle
has been aware from the first that the author of " 1 u Silentio
et Spe," the plan which he patronises, is Mr. limes, and
that he has used, and is using, his influence to obtain for it
the first prize. You are also perhaps not aware that Mr.
Earle has not hesitated to conceal and misrepresent facts to
carry his own interested views, and that he has calumniated
the author of the successful prize in every way,—that, when
baffled on one point he has turned to another, the present
position being the fourth he has taken up,—that he has de-
clared that Mr. Elmes shall have the prize,—and you surely
cannot know that the parties " toe independent to be biassed"
to whom Mr. Earle has sent the plans to be referred have
already made two different statements each, as the Building
Committee can prove,—the last one unfavourable to the suc-
cessful plan,—or you surely would not call this an act of
fairness to the successful competitor, who may ask you why
were Mr. Dowdall and Mr. Forster, who gave their opinions
in favour of his plan, excluded from the number of the new
judges. Was it because they were " too independent to be
biassed ?" You do not mention in the article that the suc-
cessful plan was referred back a week in consequence of Mr.
Earle's misrepresentations, and which he was forced to recall,
and that it was then decided by the board to be entitled to
the first prize, but condemn the vascillating conduct of the
board in reversing the unjust decision which Mr. Earle in-
sidiously obtained in the absence of some of those who had
previously voted, and who were not then or now aware that
the board possesses the power of reversing a decision once
fixed. It appears, however there are several additions to the
Poor Law Act which are not generally known. lam sur-
prised that, knowhig as you must the domineering character
of Mr. Earle, you should lend your powerful aid to further
his selfish and unjust object. You must be aware of the
paltry and low-minded persecution indulged in by Mr. Earle
against any person (not Mr. Scott in particular—witness
Mr. Stone, the schoolmaster) who may be unfortunate enough
to be upheld by any one but himself.
I am sick of the hypocrisy and humbug of Mr. Earle, who
is continually stating his belief that the successful architect's
design was seen by some of the guardians before it was sent
in, and that they knew it to be his when they saw it in the
room. Why, Me. Earle and all the board knew Mr. Elmes'
plan from the particular manner he has of colourinz his
plans; and I have no hesitation whatever in asserting, and
all his acts tend to prove it, that it is solely because it is Mr.
Elmes' that Mr. Earle backs it by his vote and leading arti-
cles, his misrepresentations, insinuations, in short, by all
the bad methods which are generally divided amongst com-
mittees, but which Mr. Earle seems to have a monopoly of
here. It is the only plan he ever voted for ! When the di-
vision was taken for the first prize, six were for the success-
ful one—Mr. Earle and another for Mr. Elmes! When the
vote was for the second prize, four were for Coat of Arms,
and four, including Mr. Earle, for Mr. Elmes ! ! The
chairman, Mr. Earle, (how came he to be chairman that
day ?) then gave the casting vote for Mr. Elmes ! ! In short,
it was, and is, Elmes, Elmes, limes. Why, then, all this
mocking and talk about prejudging?
You say, "To canvass a gentleman for his vote under such
circumstances is to offer him a gross insult ;" of this I accuse
Mr. Earle. Probably Mr. It. E. Harvey, Mr. Dover, and
Mr. Rimmer can prove the truth of this ; and I ask Mr.
Dover how he knew that (as he boasted) he would have had
the majority last Tuesday if the guardians had not been can-
vassed? When Mr. R. E. Harvey came to the meeting he
came for a certain purpose:—to do the bidding of Mr. Earle,
who brought him. Mr. Rimmer never attended any meet-
ing till Tuesday, when he attended to vote against the suc-
cessful plan without knowing anything of the merits of the
question, and for that purpose only.
You may not be aware that when the motion was brought
forward to refer the plans to professional gentlemen, (Vier
the prize had Leen awarded and the sealed letters opened,
the chairman, the Rev. A. Campbell, expressed " his sur-
prise at Mr. Earle's motion," saying that he had never
known any Parallel to it, and condemned it in the strongest

terms.
In conclusion, may I ask would it not have been better for
you to have studied both sides of the question before writing
an article on the, subject, as it may tend seriously to injure
the successful architect in the opinion of your readers, who
may not previously have heard anything of the subject in
question.
The plans are on view at the Exhibition Rooms, Postoffice
Place, to take an impartial view of them yourself.
Sir, your's, &v.,

June 17th, 1842. FIIIDIAS.
[Our correspondent may rest assured that we have not
been " deceived by the specious arguments and misstate-
ments of Mr. Earle;" and we think he. has left untouched
that point for which we contended--namely, perfect justice
being done to every competitor. With the decision of the
Board of Guardians we have no desire to quarrel; but we,
hold ourselves at liberty to remark on the vacillating con-
duct which has characterised their proceedings during the
last few weeks. We have understood that Mr. Earle pledged '
his honour as a gentleman that, until the seal of the letter
was broken, he did not know that silentio in spa was the
production of Mr. Elmes and although we disapprove of
much of Mr. Earle's political conduct, upon which we have
fully and freely commented, we are not inclined to question
his honour or veracity as a gentleman. The remarks which
we made on Tuesday- were to the effect, that if any member
to of the Board of Guardians had been personally canvassed
su ort a it was insulting to the person so
particular design,
canvassed unjust to other architects who had spent much
time, labour, and money on designs, expecting an impartial
selection—and very likely to deprive the town in future of
the valuable competition of architects of high character and
ability. We still hold to this opinion, which is that of every
man who is not biassed by prejudice or blinded by partiality.
The truth is, that certain members of the board were re.
solved at all hazards to carry a particular design. The com-
petitors themselves expected justice ; the public e4.,ected
that the best plan would be chosen, no matter who might be
' its author. A difference of opinion arose, more especially
when it became known that Mr. Scott's plan had been pre.
viously seen by some of those who had afterwards to sit in
judgment upon it. It was then resolved that it should he
left to the decision of certain professional gentlemen to choose
' the best design, it having been previously ascertained that
none of them or their connexions were competitors ; and we
are of opinion that none of the gentlemen who have sent in
plans will demur to this arrangewient. It appears that the
opinion of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Weightman had been asked,
not in reference to the whole of the designs, but only as re-
garded the plans selected by the members of the board; and
although we do not underrate the opinion of Mr. Forster and
Mr. Dowdall, these gentlemen could hardly be expected to
be judges of architectural designs, or of the mode of their
execution. If we are correctly informed, Messrs. Cunning-

ham, Picton, Mime, Stewart, and Weightman, are now en-
gaged, not in selecting from the three plans which have been
brought so prominently forward, but in going through the
whole of the thirtg-nine designs; and from the well-known
character of these gentlemen, justice will be done to all par-
ties. We hope when they have made a selection that the
public will be admitted to view the whole of the plans.
We do not know Mr. Scott, and can only repeat, that
should his design prove to be the most suitable, we hope he
may hate the first prize ; but we think Phidias is neither the
wisest nor the best of his friends. The whole question turns
upon something more than hostility to Mr. Earle ;
.and we
fear that our correspondent is so carried away by this im-
proper feeling, that he has lost sight of the principle for which
we have contended,—namely, the selection of the best plan,
and impartial justice to every competitor.]

MONTGOMERY'S " LUTHER."

OPINION OF THU REV. HUGH WHITE, OF DUBLIN.

May 18th, 1812.

Mr DEAR SIR,—I beg now to offer you my best thanks
for your kindness in sending me a copy of " LUTHER," from
whose perusal I have derived a high degree of pleasure. I
cannot more suitably or satisfactorily express my opinion of
this valuable poem, than by saying that it appears to me
worthy of its subject.
The character of the great reformer is delineated with
much fidelity ; and while its loftier qualities are brought into
full exhibition, its softer features; as displayed in the tender-
ness of domestic life, and the breathings of poetical inspira-
tion which pervades his letters, are most attractively pre-
sented to our view. lam also much delighted with the pre-
eminence given in the poem, as in scripture, to our adorable
Redeemer, in the work of creation, providence, and grace,
and the sentiments of grateful love to him, and cheerful cow-
fidinguess in him, which are in many parts of the poem ex-
pressed with peculiar power and beauty of language. The
true spirit of Popery is also faithfully and forcibly exhibited,
and I cannot but indulge a hope that this unveiling of the
antichristian errors and enormities of the great mystery of
iniquity may be of important service in our day, in warning
those members of our scriptural church who are, apparently,
on the high road to Popery. The peculiar glory of the doc-
trines of the reformation is displayed, throughout the poem,
in a very attractive aspect, by the exhibition of their entire
harmony with the oracles of Divine truth, in setting forth
the Saviour's infinitely meritorious sacrifice and righteous-
ness as the exclusive ground of the sinner's trust, and sheav-
ing the important influence which the cordial reception of
this most comfortable doctrine exercises over the believer's
growth in :trace, and progress in that " holiness without
which no man shall see the Lord." And while the theology
of the poem is so sound and scriptural, its poetical merits,
as far as I am competent to judge, entitle it to a high degree
of praise, abounding, as it does, in passages of great beauty
of sentiment and expression. Nor can I omit to return you
my sincere thanks for the pleasure whiCh I received from the
introductory preface, which forms a very suitable' opening
for such a work, and the notes, which contain a mass of most'
valuable information. I remain, my dear sir, your's faith-
fully and obliged, HUGH WHITE.