Mr. Pakington hoists the same signal, and makes proclamation, “Good people all, Electors of East Worcestershire, take notice, dis house”—videlicet, the Pakington house—“is a true Protestant, and don’t believe any insinuations to the contrary.” Delpini’s label, it is related, saved his premises from conflagration; Mr. Pakington’s will not, I imagine save him from defeat. I propose to offer a few remarks in illustration of what Mr. Pakington’s true Protestantism means, and what it has led to in his instance.
Mr. Pakington says, “Having reason to esteem the excellent private character and charitable exertions of Mr. Liddell, and consequently disapproving the abuse of which he has been the object, I could not do otherwise than vote against Mr. Westerton’s election.” I esteem the excellent private character and the charitable exertions of Mr. Pakington for the promotion of education and morality, but I shall certainly do otherwise than vote for him at the coming Election. The Pope of Rome bears an excellent private character, and is well reputed for charitable exertions. He has also been, I dare say, improperly and undeservedly abused. Recognising all this, does it furnish any reason why I should tender my adhesion to the Pope, or any excuse for my adhering to him, or favouring his religion? Mr. Westerton was put forward as Churchwarden by the party in the Church who were adverse to Mr. Liddell’s Romanising practices. As a candidate he represented the true and wholesome Protestant element in religion, as opposed to the representative of the doctrines of Auricular Confession and a Semi-Popish form of worship, just as Mr. Calthorpe represents the Liberal element in politics—the principle of progress; and Mr. Pakington the Conservative, or rather the Tory element—the principle of keeping in office by being the “humble servants to command” of the House of Commons. The contest between Mr. Westerton and Mr. Davidson was a contest between Protestantism and the Romanistic party. It was watched throughout Great Britain with the deepest interest, for it was felt that the result would be to ensure the victory of religious truth, or give a disastrous triumph to the defiled and adulterated pseudo-Protestantism—the “mongrel church,” as the Hon. and Rev. F. Baring truly called it—of Mr. Liddell and his backers. At that election the fate of the Protestant Church in England was weighed in the scales against the false doctrine, heresy, and schism of the Tractarians. Most happily for the country, most fortunately for the interests of mankind, the good cause preponderated. Tractarians kicked the beam, and all of us felt that a great mercy had been vouchsafed to the afflicted Church. But no thanks to Mr. Pakington. He flung his weight into the scale along with auricular confession, crosses, flowers, candles, images, and other play-things of Puseyism, and so far as by his voice he could, comforted and favoured the partisans of Romish observance as opposed to the purity and simplicity of Protestant Worship.
In that day—the day when Mr. Westerton was doing battle for Protestant interests with spirit and resolution worthy of a martyr—where was Mr. Pakington? Every one felt that a great crisis was impending in the history of the Church, and never was the Scriptural adage, “He that is not with me is against me,” brought more closely home to Protestant breasts than at that moment. But where was Mr. Pakington? Not merely was he not with us; he was arrayed openly against us, and it might have been his vote, for aught he knew,—for the numerical difference between the candidates was trifling—that would have given a heavy blow and serious discouragement to Protestantism, by placing in the ascendent that party in the Church, whose sole end and aim is to bring back England to the bosom of the Roman fold, from which, as they conceive, she has ignorantly and perversely strayed.
And what is the excuse Mr. Packington offers—for he feels bound to make some apology—for having thus turned his back upon Protestantism? By alleging Mr. Liddell’s excellent private character, his charitable exertions, and the abuse of which he has been the object. In the same way any good and charitable and abused individual, though of Red Republican principles, might obtain Mr. Pakington’s vote, the consideration with him being, not whether he agrees or differs with a man’s principles, but that a man—to entitle him to support—should be of excellent private character, and equally distinguished for charitable exertions and immense obloquy. When the vital interests of Protestantism are at stake, it is not the time to allow minor considerations to influence the mind and to sacrifice them to the private character of any individual, however excellent or however improperly abused. When the enemy is in front and the battle joined, it would be base to slink out of the ranks from consideration for a private friend engaged with the opposite party.
The vote for or against Mr. Westerton I am disposed to make a touchstone of sincerity, as regards attachment to Protestantism, or the reverse. Mr. Pakington may write up and call out as much as he pleases, “Good people all, take notice dis house is a true Protestant;” but he must excuse my saying that, after his vote against Mr. Westerton for the churchwardenship of Knightsbridge, I can attach no confidence to his professions. True Protestantism may have his lip-service, but false Protestantism, with its depraved doctrines and soul-sinking mummeries, had his countenance and his vote.
On the other hand, Lord Calthorpe—the father of the Liberal candidate—has uniformly and signally distinguished himself by his zeal on behalf of evangelical religion, and his steadfast resistance to the insidious aggressions of the Tractarian faction. His son—early trained in the same principles—is animated with the same feelings and convictions, which will produce the same fruit; and, when such a man invites my suffrage, as a candidate for the Legislature, I cannot doubt—even without regard to politics—that I ought unhesitatingly to prefer him to Mr. Pakington, or I feel that I should have small claim to subscribe myself
A PROTESTANT.
February 4th, 1859.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION!