The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-12-31 00:00:00

j, 'FROM THE REV. HUGH M`NEILE TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SCOTSMAN.' SIR,—I hope your sense of fairness, to which you allude with reference to theitisertion of Bishop Gillta's letter, will prove sufficiently impartial to induce you to insert my reply. The bishop begins with a sneer at our protestant meetings, and an assertion that, however safe we may be in *peaking to an ignorant audience; it is a bold experiment, on our part, to allow our 'speeches toile printed. This comes well from a bishop of that. ecclesiastical system which incarcerated literature for centuries, 'amid which even now .presents her dogmas to audiences in an unknown tongue —never using the language of the people, except so . far as surround ing protestantism codpels her to save appearances. So long as the vain inventions and superstitious traditions of men, which made void the commandments of Godgwere entombed in monkish Latib, it fared well with the arrogance and tyranny of the papal system. But alas! " cum statutum esset, ut cultosdivinus, eo useuein Latino itliciniate absolutus,.tron sirelin vernaculum :f- and when -the' refoemers pronounced it to be " a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the primitive church to have public prayer in the church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people ; " that is, when what certain per sons, said to ignorant audiences, came to be submitted to examination and argument, .the papacy tottered to its base ; and but for the seasonable institution of the Jesuits, support ing, by perfidy the most accomplished, what had become en dangered by inquiry, it would have been utterly prostrated. One practice of jesuitical perfidy is, to deny publicly what is secretly maintained and covertly propagated—to deny upon oath, if need be, what is nevertheless propagated by autho rity. This has been recently illustrated by the conduct of the papal prelates in Ireland, who denied, before committees of the British parliament; and disclaimed, as never published to their knowledgsfin Ireland, obnoxious documents of papal intolerance, which the same prelates caused to be circulated, with their sanction, among all the priests, the instructors of all the " ignorant audiences" of their enslaved people. If Bishop Gillis deny this, and challenge me and my friends to the proof, he shall have it in circumstantial detail, with names and dates. If he do not ask for it, it will be, I pre sume, because he knows all this already. And yet he accuses protestants of rashness in having recourse to printing! That such a charge should emanate from such a quarter, supplies but another illustration of the 'condemning and betraying power of conscience. Those who are most'fami s liarised , with treason will he always the most forward to accuse othe'r's of being traitors. The main object of the bishop's letter is to exculpate, if poiaible, the class-bo o k o f M aynoot h , BAILLY'S MORA', THEOLOGY, from the guilt of teaching such doctrine as rens ders it impossible to bind his disciples by an oath under the British constitution. Upon this point, I am sorry to say, I have a most, pain ful ebservation to make at the outset. The bishop, after contradicting my statement concerning Bailly's doctrine, introduces The quotation thus, " But let the words of • Ilailly - be orsce - fiziek quieted." For once fairly !, And what is the i nev i ta bl e inference but that Mr. M'Neile had quo t e d t h em unfairly? Is it possible to doubt that the bishop intended to convey that meautng ? Is it possible to deny that he has succeeded in convey-. ing that meaning? If that be not his meaning, r have-a right toask him to say di s ti nc tl y w h at h e does mean hy saying " let the words of Bailly befor once fairly quoted?'' And if that be his meaning, what will our readers think - of his candour, when they observe that his quotation froinliailly is verbatim et literalim the same with mine, as it was read in the meet ing, and as it was printed immediately afterwards in the Ad vertiser ? The words of Bailly were fairly quoted by me. The bishop introduces them with "Let the words of 'Badly be for owes fairly quoted! " There really seems to be a moral incapacity in every Roman ecclesiastic to do or write anything with streitshtforward honesty. Upon this bishop a own showing, however, the only quota tion I professed to give from Bailly was correctly and perfectly given. Compared with his own quotation, there'is no flaw in either the 'accuracy or the completenessof mine. • - This is so far satisfactory ; but the bishop denies my infer ence and says, " There is not in the whole course of Bailly's Theology, a treatise, a chapter, or a page in which any such doctriueis taught as that attributed to him by Mr. W.Neile, but quite the rev erse ." Thi s t h en is the matter in debate. To make good my assertion, I revert to the two charters at p.p. 119 and 120, of the second volume of Bailly. 'The first is headed causes hindering the obligation of an oath (causie impedientes, obligationem juramenti.) The second, causes removing the obligation of an oath (causse tollentes, oblige. tionem juramenti.) These of themselves seem strange to the ears of protest ants, who are used to consider an oath so sacred and para mount, that once taken, no cause can either hinder or remove a Christian man's obligation to keep it. Not so, however, this popish professor of morale : he enu merates seven causes which hinder, and five which remove, the obligation of an oath. The first-mentioned cause which hinders the obligation of an oath is what Bailly calls a defect of liberty, (defechis libertatis), which is thus explained, (nulls enim obligatio 'sine libertate et animi deliberatione centrahi potest.) For no obligation can be contrasted with out liberty and deliberation of mind. Now, if this had been assigned as a reason why an oath should not be taken at all, we could understand and agree With the statement ; for it is the plain duty of a Christian Man to refuse to contract an obligation, however urged to it, which he has not liberty to fulfil. Suppose a Christian man, ' seized by a heathen prince, and threatened with instant death if he did not bow down to Juggernaut, our doctrine is, that his defectus libertatis should prevent him from swearing, he should rather die than commit either perjury or idolatry. Bailly's doctrine supposes him to swear, and assigns his de fect of liberty as a reason (impedien.s obligationemjuramenti) why he has incurred no obligation. Now, if a man may swear to save his life, and in swearing inetir no obligation to perform the thing sworn, why not to save his church ?• But we are not left to an inference for this. The second cause preventing an oath from imposing an obligation (inspediens ne juramentum protnissorium obli.ga tirmem inducat) is the opposition of the law resistantia " Quando juramentum fit de re illicita, et per legem prohibita etiani venialiter, tune vim non habet obligandi. Enim vero juramentum non est vinculum iniquitatis : ne moque potest abligari ad pecandum. Non est obligatorium contra bonos mores prasstitum juramentum.—Regul. Juris, • lviii. in 6. Hine non obligat juramentum de re quse sit in daninum tertii—c. x.rtiii. de jurej. Vel contra bonuin pub ileum ant legem divinam ant ectlesiasticani, cut eivilem." " When an oath is made concerning an unlawful thing, pro hilaited even venially by the law, then it.has not authority to oblige ; for an oath cannot be the bond, of iniquity, and no one can be obliged to_ sin. Au oath taken against good . morals is not obligetory ; hence, an oath dee,s not oblige if it be tp•the iniury Ora third perion, or againstthe public good, or the drilne law, or the ecelesiaetical law, or the civil law.-" 13 vt WAY; we aAI should such an oatl s . b e takesk.at all Bailly, all through' this, suppOses the oath reacEer, and not Oi.ndsng. Tier , : is our complaint against him : -because,-to secify cases in which an oath is not binding, and still to 'allow tla#,Oaiths iu such cases snag be taken, is systematically= jo'keep an open door for deception ; the practical application of the pOost, now before us fully justifies my assertions in Idinburgli ; because, if an oath, taken against what papists call their- eeclesiestical . law, be nut binding . , then no oath which respects the interests or even the -existence of pro testantismecan be bindiug. It. is notorious that, tlee3'. are taught to consider protestentism e., heresy) a sin ; and that to aid or abet it is a sin ; nay, that not to oppose and extirpate it, if possible, is a sin. But no oath can oblige a men to sin," says'%illy, and "oaths against ecclesiastical law lire not binding.',', Again we ask, th en , w hy t a k e th e*? rn According to Roish doctrine, the perjury of a papist who swears not to injure the protestant church consists not in.! breaking the oath, but in taking it. How, then, can a pa pist be bound by an, oath under the British constitution ? The third cause which hinders the obligation of an oath is, " wheat lteepieg it would prevent some greater good opposed to the - tiring promised in the oath" (impeditio niajoris boni oppositi ref per juramentum pronaissw) ; the explanatory sentence given iv, " - as if you were to swear that you would not obey the commands of Christ" (ut si jures to non esse Christi conciliis obsecutarum). Again, and with increasing emphasis, we ask, why tekesehy suppose a man, under any ''ciicnrnstances, to take such an infamous oath ? Is it not to familiarisiethe mind with false swearing? Is it not to culti vate an ingenuity in evading,* rather than a holy, reverential dread in taking an oath? The fourth cause is, " the impossibility of the thing sworne for, by'a mile of law, there is no obligation to things impossible." (Q uar t a causa juramenti obligationern impe diens, est relpromissse impossibilitas ; narn ex regula juris, impo:esibiliurn 'Huila eat obligatio.) The same enquiry recurs. Why, then, take the oath ? To go through the whole trea tise thus would swell my letter to an inconvenient size. If, therefore, I omit anything, it is not to garble the quotation, or make a case, but simply to avoid needless length—l pass therefore five and - Six. " The seventh cause or ground of excuse (I adopt Bishop Gillis's - translation) from the obligation of an oath is, a limi tation of the intention of him who swears either expressed or even tfigitS hutinederstood from provisions of law or from ceniteine'! cause a juramenti obligatiOne exc usans est,' litnitatin'iritelitionis jurantis vel expressa.vel etiam tacita et sibintelk-Ctii 'dispositione juris vel ex consuetudine;) The bishop reMarki : " This Mr. 'M'Neile is pleased to transmute into, mental reservation' at the moment the oath is taken,..and*hich, according to him, is quite sufficient to preVent its ohligitiOn on -the conscience of a catholic.: Now, with all due deference to Mr. M'Neile's better jade ment, Iwoald say that this charitable interpretation of his bears its own refutation in the very words in which it is couched, for all the world knows that a mental reservation is what is kepl . back'in the mind, whereas, whatever is either .expressed or understood is necessarily 'brought forward to the knowledge of others." To, this , I , reply, first, that what is silently understood "eaciteaubinteilecta" is precisely what isnot" brought for wardeothe knowledge of others, but what is kept back in the mind. - Andeif it be argued that the silent understandine .0 i-eferrecl• lois a mutual unde rs t an di ng f rom Provishmsof law or custom, so that there is no deception, I answer, that this prissupposesthat both parties have the same defined views of the law and custom in question; for if the swearer under stand- one thing by his silent reference to law and custom, and the party to whom he swears understand another thing, theu there is' deception. This is precisely the fact' be okeen papists and the British constitution. The 'paepish est/eager refers silently in his mind to *hat"he . Understands by the - taw- otecustotn ; and the British par/hunt-at refers to what it understands by the law or custortt:' This it not a 'defined, adjusted, and mutually recognises Understanding, andlhereforil thertsts , deception.. lii theiniftiriees will& the bishop , hasoeitett'ofetheeoath taken at CambridgeSnfidethe oathof atiegianne3althe'crown- Of England, there ira legally elained and troititelt9itetogiiised the'ottihitAelf , 41iot 'at til-.of 414 Wrtsintitin a the ther'et&ie, it/seri:fir nsdeeplotion... mit* 'rig there Eby need for any bite of Bailly!s - se!effleotinds of .etctise for exemption from the obligation of in oeth: ' The'bishOp's attention is respectfully •recittested , to 111 is disttinetion e--A limitation - of the 'oath is -one thingeand a limitation of the intention of the swearer .(intsntionis •jurantis,‘ as Bailly hay it), is quite another T • • • In our oath of allegiance there is a limitation of the oath expressly defined by rfra.w (esto sm:rpetna,) but no limitation of thaintention of the swearer either expressed or understood. an a popish' bishop's oath of allegiance to the crown of Eng :land, there is a limitation of the intention of the swearer either expressed by " saving-by right" (salvo meo jure,) de tacitly understood from the custom of the confessional. In illustration of this, I would refer the bishop to the evidence taken before the parliamentary committees in 1821 and 1825. On the following clause in the oath of allegiance proposed for papists—," I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his majesty and his heirs all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them," Dr. Doyle was asked, before the lords' committee— " When crimes, such as murder or treason, are revealed in confession, is the confessor bound not to disclose that?" His answer was---" He is bound not to disclose it in any case whatever." " Has not !such disclosure been allowed at Rome ?" " Never." To which the Right Rev. James Ma ysauran, popish bishop in Ardagh, added, in his evidence : " If a crone is intended, and if it is made known to him in confession only, he cannot divulge it." With this informa tion on the subject of the inviolable secrecy of the confessional, before them, th e comm i ttee said to Dr. Doyle— " It has been sometimes proposed by those who have had apprehensions of danger from conce di ng the Roman catholic claims, that Roman catholics should he called upon when they take the oath of allegiance to the king, at the same time to swear that they will make known to his majesty any treason or treason able designs which they may know to be meditated against him ; from what you have now informed the committee, you could not take such an oath ?" His answer is characteristic, assuming that his duty as a popish confessor takes precedence of his duty as a British subject : it is this—" The secrets communicated in confession are such as we are supposed to become acquainted with as ministers of the sacrament of penance ; and in that capacity' we do n o t cons i der ourselves bound by the oath of allegianCe which we ta k e to reveal tee , 1 crets committed to us in that way; and, as our right of con fession is known to the laws, and our doctrines with regard to it universally acknowledged to exist in our .church, the oath which hinds us to discover any treason against the state, or his majesty, does not oblige us to reveal anything. with which we might become 'acquainted in sacramental con fession." It is true the rite of confession is known, and certain dec. trines concerning it are universally acknowledged to exist in the popish church ; but then, these doctrines are not all clearly defined and mutually recognised, and, therefore, there was an opportunity for mental honesty, on his part, at the moment there was an operation of practical deception upon the committee. In other instances, the same want of mutual understanding gives opportunity for mental dishonesty. What, for example, does a popish bishop usean by salvo nzeo jure, and what does he understand the parliament to think he means? If .they think, or he supposes they think, that he 'means something entirely spiritual, and wholly unconnected, directly or indirectly, with polities, while be really, means his right to ',hake the - sacraments of his church instruments of coercive tyranny at the registries, and on the hustings, and in the senate house, for the advancement of the supremacy of his master the pope, then his oath is fraudulent,- and his aim deception. 13ailly's Treatise encourages this species of deception. One of the illustrating examples adduced by him tinder this head, of the limitation of the intention of the swearer, is " saving the right of another" (salvo jure alieno). Suppose, then, the popish swearer should refer in his mind to the right of the pope, which it is his religious duty to do, the effect produced upon his oath will be made clear, by con sidering what follows in Bailly, under the head of " causes removing the obligation of an oath" (causer tollentes, Src.) " The first cause which wholly removes the obligation of an oath, is a change of the matter—to wit, if the thing sworn become impossible or. unlawful on account of the prohibition of a superior, &c. &c. (Prima cause juramenti obligationem perimens, est materim nintatiO ; videlicet, si res jurata fiat impossibilis, vel illicila ob superioris prohibitioneln). Hence it follows that every sincere disciple of Bailly must feel him self completely released from the obligation of an oath, by a prohibition from the pope. This, also, has" received a re markable illustration in'• our own times. The case of the Bishopof Malta, brought before the House of Lords by. the Bishop of Exeter, has made public the pope's prohibition of the parliamentatlasath administered to . papists. The Bishop cif Malta, tscling nsin straitlstforWard irassalef the pnee, witli •-ont any: isidihreet dhjece view, hai 'refused' to take it.. The Irish- papist reemberS instructed laY priests tersesisin TheelogyS IMie taken the oath to worn plish'their pnroese in Englettel,ind are freed from the autism :of it by a prohibition from 'Rome. Badly teaches that the:prohibition: of a superior removes the obligatiOn of an oath: Thelaets referred to prove that the great superior of the papisrs-haa isSned a prohibition against the parliamentary oath. It follows, therefere, that whatever may he said cone cerning the papal' clutifulnesS of those who eontinite to take it, no genuine disciple Of Badly, who' has taken it;.can feel himself unekv the leastt'oblitetiots keep it. "'flit third cause which removes'tbe Obligation of an bath is if another keep not his promise: Thereasoit assiined is,l;ecause the oath is made under the silent condition, if another keep his promise and fulfil Iris obligatinn." • (Tertia cause jeramenti obligationern Linens est, si alter non 'set - *at promissa c. 3 Jurejur. Ratio est quia emittitur jerarnenfum sub bac ta cita conditione si alter sertat'promissa et snarl' obligationem impleat.) Thus the fidelity'Of every' genuine disciple of Bailly, when be swears, is contingent pion the fidelity of the person to whom he swears, hi the performance of what is sie dently understood to be his part of the obligation`;: and as this obligation is not expressly defined, the swearer can at any time so conveniently interpret the conduct of the other party as to pronounce it unfaithful, and thereby feel himself released from all obligation of fidelity. How different the protestant and scriptural view of the case which commends him wild when he bath sworn to another disappointeth him not, though it be to his own hindrance. The bishop's as sertion, that " there is no difference Whatever with respect to oaths, between 'catholic doctrine, and protestant doctrine," is already answered ; and although not fully, yet, I hope, so far satisfactorily. I nuist, however farther remind him that every beneficed clergyman of his church is bound by oath to the creed of Pope Pius IV., and through it to all the canon law, and 'all the.decrees of all the general councils. - This being premised, I request the bishop's attention to the few following documents, to which lie will look in vain for any parallel amongst the standards of the reformed church. He should remember when he quotes Grotius, that we are in no way bound by the statements of that author. The case cited frova his writings by the bishop, is one of a change of circumstances after the oath had been taken, and not a case of limitation of the intention is the persons taking it. The soldiers swore to theEsteertoa, and they were naturally and honestly embarrassed when the individual, who had been em peror when they took the oath, ceased to be emperor. The standards of the popish church are not so scrupulous as those heathen soldiers seem to have been. -The sixteenth canon of the second Lateran council says, that an oath may, and ought to be violated, when it is " contrary to the utility of the church ;" and the third canon of the same council de clares, that . " all oaths against the interests of the church, and the decress of the holy fathers, arc not to be accounted oaths but perjuries." (Non enirn dicenda sunt juramenta, sed potius perjuria (litre contra utilitatein ecclesiasticam, et sanctorum patrum veniunt institute.) A . decree of the nineteenth session of the council of Constance, one of the largest ever assembled, says, " this present synod declareth that the safe conduct granted to heretics by an emperor, king, or any other secular prince, shall not prevent any eccle siastical judge from punishing such heretic, even if he come to the place of judgment relying on such safeguard, and would not otherwise come—(etiam side salvo conductu confisi ad locum venerint judicii, alias non venturi.) The council of Trent distinctly recognised the canon of Constance; and, as there has been no general council since, the doctrine which declares against keeping faiths with here tics, cannot have been struck out of the popish creed by any competent authority. In the decretals we are informed that simulation is useful, and sometimes lawful. (Simulatio utilis est, et in Apt, pore assumenda.) Again, an oath ought to be so understood that it should not oppose a right : (of a superior) ; otherwise, as being a rash oath, it does not oblige. And pontificalia auc toritas a juramento fidelitatis absolvit. " Pontifical autho rity absolves from an oath of fidelity or allegiance." Does the British constitution recognize the right of the Pope to remove the obligation of an oath from British subjects? Surely not. But every Popish priest who is true to his church, and every Papist who is instructed by - Badly, does and must : consequently, when a Papist, swearing under The British constitution, whether in a jury box or at the table of the House of Commons, either expresses in words, or secret ly understands salvo fare alien°, meaning thereby to reserve _what lie believes to be the Pope's right, he is guilty of trea chery ; because he produces, wilfully, upon English Protes tants the impressio n al or eh e ' Wound" is by chat - oath d - s - They would be, while he knows, as a Papist, that if the Pope issue his prohibition to the keeping of the oath, that prohibitio etz perioris removes the obligation. froin .him. Such• was the Itnistatio intentionis of the swearer. I - feel obliged to Bishop Gillis for giving me such an op portunity cf stating the matter more distinctly and in order, than is.practicable in the extemporaneous hurry of a public meeting. I have only to add, concerning the charge of wil fully confounding oaths with vows, that it is wholly unfound ed. I kept -them as distinct as Bailly does. The bishop knows that in some respects they are not to bedistinguished. Bailly, when explaining a dispensation or commutation of en oath given by a superior, says, " ut ostendemus übi de voto. In hoc enim vote et juramenta mquiparantur." In this`point of view, vows and oaths are on the same footing. altruist leave unnoticed the bishop's burst of eloquence in defence of the convent, whose heaven-condemned idolatries exhale to Popish senses " no other odours than the perfumes o flowers " The bishop's concluding sting being directed against the " reverend graduates" of Edinburgh, will doubtless be re= pelled in the proper quarter. To swear to the creed of Pius IV., thereby endorsing all the canons and general councils, with all their perfidy and intolerance, and then to talk smoothly about charity and brotherly love, what is it but to hang upon a man's forehead the apostolical_ label of the apos tacy, " speaking li es i n hyp ocr i s y." . - • I am, sir, &c. Liverpool, Dec.l23, 1839. HUGH RI`NEILE. CHURCH RATES. (From the Nottingham Journal.) A new species of martyrdom has been invented, in these modern days, by the fertile genius of political dissent. It is not found in a peaceable submission to ecclesiastical require ments, as was the precept and example of our blessed Re deemer on the occasion of an unjustifiable lemple-rate being demanded of him ; nor in bowing the willing and cheerful spirit to the tortures of fire and sword, as was the experience that " noble army," whose van was led by the sainted Ste phen, and whose rear was brought up by our own Ridley and Latimer; neither does it consist in the resistance, to cruel bonds and imprisonment, of that intolerant spirit which would constrain men to conform to a church from which they may conscientiously differ, as was the case with Baxter and Banyan, and the other foes of the bigot rule of Charles 11. The new. martyrdom consists in a refusal to pay live shillings and sixpence when demanded by the laws of the land, a going to prison in consequence of such refusal, and a sending round .of a begging subscription in order to allow the " martyr" a good per centage on his speculation. But on what ground is the law resisted ? Oh, on the ground of conscience, of course ! It is so very wrong to pay five shillings and sixpence to the Protestant Church of England, that it is worth while to shake the foundations of society by a direct resistance to_ the . law, rather than the payment should be made. . The money is only five shillings and sixpence, to be sure, but were it only one halfpenny, the principle would be the same ; the law ought to be violated for the sake of that individtial helfpenny, for why, it is a compulsory pay ment to a - Church which is altogether an object of dislike. We believe that the line of argument expressed in our last sen , tenee is exactly the one used by the political Dissenters in the refusal to pay their church-rate debts. Now every per son in this count r y p ays i n t h e pu bli c taxes a proportion of the expense of maintaining Popish priests in Canada and Australia, and a whole seminary of them in Ireland. Yet we do 'not hear of any refusal on the part of the tender con sciences of the dissenting community to pay their share of this particular impost : we are 'not apprised that they make 'the slightest exertions even of a legal and hoafst nature to remove from the nation the stigma of paying for the support of Roman superstition. How then is coasciente;diSposed of? 'Are we to understand that. the rcfornied more: odious- to the political dissenters than tfie corruptChnich of Rome? We apprehend the truth to he, that it isihbre hated! heeanse more feared, more We' - in ch 0 believe that it is because the' Chinch 'of Enslaxid ni4e prospered- with divine and human favour than any other reli lious institution of the land, and especially than any of the thousand-and-one dissenting sects, from the factiiin of Soei nits down to that of Robert Owen ; it is, moreover, because , her ministers occupy a higher grade in society, and meet with more general deference and respect than those of the various " other denominations" (to use the cant term);—it is for rea sons such as these that the " dominant Church" excites the vehement resistance of those who arc as gentle as lambs in their Opposition to Popery.- It was well remarked by Mr. Baron Gurney ; on occasion of' a recent church rate trial, that he had heard a great deal about "conscientious" objections to paying dues of this and other kinds ; but that lie had in the first place a great sus picion of that kind of conscience which was displayed in saving the pocket ; and in the next place he generally found that these legal demands were resisted rather by a spirit of faction, than a sense of religious duty. Mr. Baron Gurney is a Liberal, andthe only Dissenter moreover upon thebench ; but he is a man of sound law and strong sense, and therefore he sees through and condemns the shallow pretences which are resorted to by the church rate agitators. This tax, the most ancient and the best entitled of any public tribute that is levied, has for its object the repairing and maintaining of the fabrics of the parish churches ; edifices which are open to the use of all, and which the State has decreed by imme morial custom—a law stronger than any Act of Parliament— shall he supported in this manner. " Oh, but," say the Dissenters, " we want nothing with your churches ; they are of no use ; we find our own chapels, and keep them up at our own expense, so we will not pay a farthing to your churches." Very well; now suppose the case of a Gas Company (for instance) which has obtained an Act with power to levy rates upon the inhabitants of a certain town for the lighting of their streets : every body pays 'this tax except one '' conscientious" individual who has hung out a light of his own for his particular premises. This man refuses to pay anything to the general rate, because he has provided a light for himself at his own expense, and never has the least wish to make use of the general town lamps. The Act of Parliament, however, does not make any ex ception in favour of this individual, and so he is obliged either to pay with costs, or to go to prison. The wiseacre did not consider that he had begun at the wrong end ; no one would have objected to his getting up a petition to Parliament to repeal the Gas-light Act; but when he thought of setting up a little Parliament in his own perverse brain, and acting upon itsalecision, of course the result was, that his resistance met with expense and punishment. We cannot really discern the difference between the conduct of the church_ rate refusers, and that of the supposed gas-light defaulter ; unless it be that in a matter of religions concernment it is justifiable to have recourse to means, which in the ordinary affairs of civil life, arc reckoned disreputable and absurd: We should, however, of ourselves have been inclined to consider, that if submission to the law were a duty in common affairs, it were ten times so much a duty in those of a religious character. There is one remarkable saying of our blesstsd. Saviour constantly in the mouths of Dissenters when resisting the " ungodly" union of civil and ecclesiastical power;---" my kingdom not of this world ;"—and they will tell us that these divine words condemn the assumption of secular power by the Church. • Butwhat saysTthe context? "'My kingdom is not of this world—,else ,woald‘ nry , .dpes..this passage more pointecllyesttidre; elispliaticrillY Con demn, than a system of resistancb tolkeehlar power under the pretended plea of Christ's religion • • To apply the argumentunz ad hominent to our conscientious opposers of church rates. They are to a man, we believe, supporters of the ministerial plan' of education. There are portions of that plan which we, as ConserVative Churchmen, oppose most strenuously, because we disapprove most forcibly. Yet that odious scheme is to be supported by grants of money, a large proportion of which is taken out of our own pockets for that very purpose. Now should see-be justified in resist ing the payment of the public taxes on the ground of our strong repugnance to the purpose to which so large an amount of them is to be applied ? We apprehend that such a resolu tion on oar part would be visited not only with the condign punishment of the law, but also with the loud exclamations of the " Liberal " dissenters against our " disloyal Tory ma lignity." And we should deserve their scornful taunts, be cause we should be acting just as foolishly, and just as wick edly, as their own " martyrs " are now acting under their especial patronage and approbation! We would beg to ask our fierce voluntaries one question. —" In what respect is your conduct better than that of the chartists You object to a particular form of government in Church ; the chartists are, opposed to a particular consti tution in state. You make it a point of conscience to refuse the _payment of tuxes' to the Church e the chartists do i-the very same with regard to the state. You demand san•ceelesiastical republic.; the chartists insist upon a eitil democracy. Finally and chiefly, you set • the law at all ance in resisting ,the . claims of the Churcb ; and what more hew the Cnartists ever done against the State? You have not fought, we admit ; yOu have not assembled your selves in riotous crowds to set fire to St. Paul's or Westmin ster Abbey. But von have attempted the destruction of the Churchin a more dangerous because more practicable man ner; yon hare not been content with submitting to the law, as late, and in the Meantime striving constitutionally to effect s its alteration : but you have gone about to defy the law, and to cOmmend and assist those who do the seine. An intenti onally mischievous, but really weak person among you of the , name of Thorogood, in some small town in the south, has gone to prison rather than -pay a legal rate of five shillings and sixpence; and the whole body—or rather all the bodies— of you throughout the kingdom have been applauding this man's conduct, and subscribing to give him money, in order to make his martyrdom answer. You hope that by such ex amples as these,the power of the Church will be set at nought, . and that she will be intimidated and brow-beaten out of her claims upon the community. You are thus trying the same experiment that was tried by the Birmingham demonstration in the time of the Reform Bill, and then succeeded ; and which has again recently been tried for the "Charter," by the "sacred month," and the affair at Newport, and has in this case been a signal failure. You can applaud pious Christians who will pay no Church taxes : but when a society of poor working men declare that for a month they will pay no State taxes and do no manual work, nothing can exceed your indigna tion at their wickedness and audacity. Yet the " sacred month" was only designed as a " passive resistance," to bring the upper and middle classes to Chartist terms ; as the going to prison of John Thorogood, is intended to humble and reduce the Church of England. By the way, talking of Chartists, did you ever happen to hea r of o ne 'Joseph Rayner Stephens, formerly a Wesleyan preacher, 'but discarded from that respectable body for—being an active local Secretary of Your pet dissenting " Ecclesiastical Knowledge Society ?" The said Joseph Rayner was at that time your s sworn friend; you prized his unyielding spirit; reviled his " cruel persecutors." How is it that he has since become the object of your bitterest vituperation and contempt ? Why simply because he has had the manliness and consistency to attempt to carry out against the State, the same principles in which you and he once cordially united against the Church ! The comparison between yourselves and the wretched and despised Chartists is one that you will not admire. No doubt you often feel thankful that you are not as other men are, and especially not as those poor publicans. But we must speak as we think nevertheless : our opinion has not been given without argument ; if is questioned, let it by argument be impugned. But in the meantime we.must take leave to carry the pa rallel yet a little further. The Chartists and yourselves are both seeking after impossibilities —even though you might be successful in your primary design of upsetting " the powers that be." This country will never submit to a democracy either in Church or State. By the blessing of Divine Pro vidence it has now attained the greatest height of liberality and toleration in both, that can co-exist with the supremacy of an efficient government. Suppose you succeed in over ', throwing the Church—suppose the Chartists succeed in over throwing the State ;—what would be the results ? They would be exacth similar in both cases : the mild and tolerant Go vernment: would be destroyed amidst the fierce joy of the Re publican and the insulting triumph of the scoffer ; and in its room, armed with tenfold power, would soon be seated the strongest and most unprincipled of the factions which had united for its overthrow. A despotism, perhaps a cruel and certainly a stern one, would as surely succeed as night fol lows day. You will admit the truth of this in the case of the Chartists, without the slightest hesitation : it) matters of civil government you are not so devoid of penetration as to doubt for a moment that anarchy must be followed by absolute power. But how long would your own golden equality last? Which of your present allies would step forward to take the station of your future tyrant ? Can you doubt for a mo ment ? Is there not now, professedly in strictest league and amity with yourselves, a spiritual sect, once the lord paramount of all Christendom, and now possessed of every means of ag s grandisement and determined to stretch' thnse means to the Utmost ? The Church of England removed, what could any of yon—all of you in concert—do against the Church of Rome ? —with her mighty foreign 'influence e with her commanding talents, and her determination for empire ? And (the truth can not be denied. nor needluse lissChniehmen hesitate to confess t epee for the. conflict withedissent by the accession of those quondam Churchnten who would love to embrace the strong est side, and , thatmurnerous class who would take refuge in it; as a church, however corrnet; . yet better than none; just as in-ease of the overthrow o f a moderate and equitable go vernment, multitudes of well-tneaningsand honest minded individuals arefain to take up with the succeeding despotism. Oh ! well may the Roman Catholics join hand in hand and (feigning) heart:with you in your church rate war I Well may- o.'Connell preach up the beauties 'of the "voluntary sys tem," to beguile the minds of those who are so intent upon their own petty Schemes that they cannot perceive his drift, nor discern the knowing sneer with which he utters those cant expressions, and converts the zeal of ultra-dissenters to the furtherance of the unchanged and unchareeable Church of Rome! It will be seen, that in the above remarks we have confined ourselves entirely to the refutation of the reasons on which dissenters themselves rest their anti-church rate pretensions. Were it not foreign to our present purpose, we should be ready to argue the question on the far higher grounds of strict justice and public advantage, both of which it would not be very difficult to show are involved in the successful enforcement of the church's rights. We shall be ready to go into this subject so soon as the positions we have above laid down have met with anything like an argumentative dispute on the part of our dissenting cotemporaries. We have no sanguine expectation of anything of the kind; not that we value our own poor ability at so high a rate, but because the side of the argument which we feel it our duty to take, is so unquestionably the strongest and the best. If we have spoken severely to those who, with the plea of religion on their lips, " resist the powers that be," our answer is, that we have warrant from scripture for condemning their conduct in terms much more sharp and decisive than any we have employed. The immediate occasion which has called from us the above remarks, is a bitter and rather ludicrous quarrel which is just now raging between two of the sections, which have united in encouraging Thorogood (the man to whom we have before alluded) in his resistance to the law. It appears that the poor fellow was induced to go to prison by the persuasion of the leading members of one of the London agitating So cieties, under the expectation of something handsome being done for him' in the way of subscription, in addition to the temptation of his humble name being crowned with dissent ing glory. After he had lain in gaol for some time, as might naturally be expected, his affairs began to get somewhat dis ordered. Still, thought he, the subscription will surely come by and by, and a good thing will be made of it after all. At 'length, beginning to grow rather apprehensive of his interests being neglected by his officious patrons, he makes and appli cation to them, stating the melancholy plight to which he has been reduced by following their counsels. But what sort of a reply does he get ? Why they go about to console him somewhat after the following style : " Bravo ! John Thorogood, every thing proceeds in as favourable a manner as can be desired ; your affairs, you say, are al ready brought to the verge of ruin ; your health and spirits, too, are beginning to give way under the pressure of impri sonment • nothing could possibly be b e tt er f or exc iti ng sym pathy with your sufferings, unless, perhaps,' you could ma nage to give up the ghost altogether! Only think what a ' tine stroke that would be! Why, your name would be im mortalised. and the - Church would receive in your death one of its hardest and deadliest blows !" But Thorozood, as one might anticipate, was far from being satisfied with the prospect of future glory held out to him, in the place of pre sent comfort, health, and life ; what he wanted was the ready cash, which had been so liberally promised to him; as to dying for his principles, to be sure it was a fine thing to talk . about, hut a very melancholy one to encounter in reality. He accordingly turned away with disgust from his evangelical comforters, and addressed himself to the more miscellaneous portion of the Church's enemies ; since Which timethe ape *lotion has seemed more likely to suceeed-. The money has ediently begun to pour in pretty copiously, end there-is good reason to. expect, that a handsome thing will be realised after all. But. in the mean time some of his friends have .ciaiti menceda most , furious attack on the Cool and ,calculating gentry who first - broUght the poorr-len - ow into his present plight, and then refused to exert themselves in his behalf.. The Anythingeirian Advertiser and. the Nothingtonian Sun have distinguished themselves on the one side of the contro versy, and the evangelical- Patriot hits been equally bitter on the other. Of course, Strange criminationa and recrimina tions have come out of this schism among schismatics, and curious have been the disclosures•laid open on each side, as to the secret workings of dissenting agitation. Brother Conder, of the Patriot, abuses brother Childs, late " martyr" of Bungay, and wishes he would at once "jump Jim Crow,"and leave the dissenting troops. Brother Childs retorts by calling brother Conder " a needy adventurer" and " a rancorous buffoon ;" and he closes'a long letter to the Sun with a note respecting one of - the most conspicuous of the dissenting societies, which is too rich not to be copied entire. " For nearly a year the Church Rate Abolition Society has made no sign. The last public event in its history was a con troversy respecting alleged malversation of its funds, Mr. Besley pledging himself to prove, at tine next meeting, the grave charges he advanced, and the committee pledging' themselves to call such meeting iu May last. No public meeting was called in May, nor at any other time. The charge, therefore, returns; and if there really be any present members of such a society, they are invited to say what be came of its funds:" Well-a-day ! cannot these people- be content with trying to rob the church, but they must also rob one another? Cannot they be content with robbing one another, but they must go and expose their dirty tricks to the world ? Verily, verily, this one little controversy is calculated to do more to the separation of any thing like religion—any thing like com mon decency—from the company of dissenting " martyrs," than a thousand arguments. But there are some Who tire very hard to be convinced. CLAY CROSS TUNNEL.—This tunnel is now in a forward a state as any part of the line. The whole of the brick work was completed some time since, and the permanent rails are being laid; but the laying of the last brick was deterred until Wednesday, owing to the illness of the engineer, on which day a silver trowel was presented to him, and the brick was laid in the presence of the gentlemen of the North Mid land Railway. After the ceremony the party partook of a sumptuous repast At Mr. Price's, the contractor.—Derbyshire Chronicle. FACTS FOR THE LABOURING CLASSES RELA TIVE TO THE CORN LAWS. BY A TRADEtNIAN OF MANCHESTER. As the Titi.:l3 TRADERS are still actively engaged_in agita ting the people against the CORN LAWS, and are doing every thing in their power . to induce all classes .of society to unite with them to petition Parliament ter a total renew.'* of all duties *upon corn and articles of foreign manufacture, and conceiving, As lAlo, that if their views were adopted, this country would be plun,ged into the greatest misery and dis tress, I feel induced to endeavour, to the . utmost of my ability, to point out to yoir the complete FALLACY of such policy. • : : - I will first makna few general observations, and afterwards give you the principal reasons of the repeal advocates, and then answer them -i n - detail. - Diargig the years 1835' and 4836, this. country appeareilitdtre; to - i'errArial oli4rate'r, hi a oery sound amiprearpernus,state. The whig journals asserted ,that it was ,entirely ; owing to,, the wise a n d lib era l po li cy o f their goN'erniiicilt . : and' my friends continually dinned in My ears, that if the tbrias had been in power, we should have been. "strangers to such a happy state" - of circum • stances. Now, you must bear in mind, that neither the journals nor my whig aCquaintance alluded to the corn laws. Goods of all kinds; said they, are in great demand ; mills are king' built in every directioti,'railway shares are a lucrative speculation, and , as for joint-stock hanks, they will become a mine. of wealth in the country—in fact, there is one univer sal burst of prosperity. But, what say this party Now ? Why; the Morning Chronicle admits that the political, com mercial, and.monetary- state of the country never was more discouraging; and what is very remarkable, we are still un der WHIG RULE ; but they are too liberal to have to do with the present state of things, as such—they attribute this to " the diabolical corn laws," and to former tory misrule V't A prudent commercial man will confine himself within his means, knowing that if lie trades beyond his circumstances, he is sure to be a sufferer ; and so it is with a nation (instance Belgium ;) for all trade being barter, it would be unwise in us to send out our commodities to a foreign land unless we have the means to consume the produce, namely, cotton, silk, sugar, tea, coffee, Se.c &c., given in exchange ; and if we procure the precious metals we ought to be in the situation to enjoy them, as articles of use, ornament, or circulation' s neither would foreigners send us their 'commodities if We could not absorb them ; it is our home -market alone,. there• fore, that upholds all our domestic and external trade, and the cause of our having been a great producing and trading country is entirely o w i n g 'to Our l a b our being better rernu nerated than foreign labour, which has given us an increased power to consume. Labour has but one interest, however varied ; for if one branch of industry suffer, it operates as a drag upon the remainder. Many trades are so cautious of too many being admitted into their body that they limit the number of apprentices, and, in consequence, theyare enabled to command better remuneration ; and such is the case with the labour of a nation; and does not common sensetell you, that it must be niech more to the advantage of the working classes that they should supply the national market them selves ? I do most sincerely hope that you will not be led astray by ignorant nien, who would destroy your interests by inviting the whole world to send us their corn and manufac tured goods to supplant your industry in our markets. No doubt, one class would he beriefitted by the measure. They that have fixed incomes would be enabled, with their means, to embrace a greater quantity 'of commodities • for you know well that competition always reduces prices ; therefore it be hoves all men who have land, Mills, mines, or ships, and they who depend upon their daily labour also, to oppose the free traders with their whole might. You will better understand the immense importance of the home market when I inform you, that our export trade is not equal to our annual taxation ; moreover, a great portion of our exports is composed of foreign produce, namely, cotton, silk, wool, flax, &c., &c. • besides, a great quantity of our yarns and other steam productions are almost in a raw state when exported, so that the manual labour employed upon them is comparatively light; for our advantage is much greater when we export goods, composed of British materials, than when composed of foreign materials. A basket-maker, for instance,:that grows his own willows, is better circumstanced than he who has to purchase them..l LABOUR is the poor man's CAPITAL ; he has nothing else to depend upon, and it is by work that he is enabled to live; so that all they who are endeavouring to induce parliament to sanction the free importation of foreign silks, gloves, watches, clocks, hose, lace, boots, shoes, cabinet furniture, glass, corn, and all the rest, are doing the greatest injustice to the community ; for it is preposterous to talk of serviny the working man BY SUPERSEDING HIS LABOUR. Absenteeism is admitted to be a great evil to this country : then let me ask, what very great difference is there bet Ween our country men expending their money upon foreign productions at home, or their residing abroad ?§ But if we are to have free trade, then let it be upon sound and equitable principles ; for my part, I will never sanction any other. Is it just that government slarald tax our labour, and at the same time allow foreign untaxed labour to com pete with it? Such conduct is the height of folly and op pression. The Right lion. C. P. Thomson, the late member for Manchester, asserts, in his speech upon the corn laws, page 15, that wages, in some parts of the world, are only a halfpenny per day. Now, this remuneration is not equal to the taxes here upon a working man's family ; and it is desir able that our wages should be reduced so as to compete with such rivalry. It is impossible, I say, for us to carry out the principles of free trade unless we reduce our taxes to the le vel of foreign countries, and that the intercourse with other nations of the world should be reciprocal. But even if this were attainable, it would still be doubtful whether we should be acting prudently, and I will tell you why. I have already stated that the reason we are a great trading country, is be cause we enjoy considerable resources, and are consequently more wealthy than other nations ; therefore a rich country, throwing open its markets to poor countries, would be like Earl Fitzwilliam, the great corn law repealer (supposing him to have a large preserve, well stored with all manner of game), saying to his twenty neighbours, who have _got very poor preserves—" Gentlemen, if you will allow me to sport over your preserves, I will give every one of you the privilege to sport over mine." Do you not think that he would have the worst part of the bargain ?—and such would be our lot. The repealers say that if we Would allow the free importa tion of corn,' foreign nations would take in exchange our ma nufactured Foods, and if it had not been owing to our corn laws, they would not have commenced manufacturing. In answer, let me state, that if 'in favourable seasons we almost produce a sufficiency for ourselves, is it to be expected that all the nations of the earth will forego manufacturing, so that each country may send us some thousand quarters of corn annually;; Moreover„ it is notoriou s , th a t w h en our harvests have ty•e n defielent,.'we have been enabled 'to obtain corn telly by export , 4 f hellion,; but evgn supposing that they mice °lmports for their Wm h it ;;Iniplf um' mechanical for their physical productions, so that our manual labour is damaged by the measure. • The free traders signify that the reason the precious metals Are exported in such abundance 'to pay for• corn is owing to our ports being open only occasionally';' but if corn were suffered to be imported at all times that. would not be the case. I beg,,in answer, to say that if we have a drain offal/ '• lion every six or seven years, , and the result is a great evil to us, what then would be our situation if we had it constantly ? What would you [think of , Doctor Howring saying to one of his patients, whotn.-he had to bleed -periodicallyH—" if you will allow me to keep open one of your veins, I shall be saved the trouble of coming to you again," which would certainly be so ; and you may depend upon it, if we permit a perpe tual import of foreign grain, that it would most assuredly ex haust our stack of bullion, and then what an awkward figure we should cut in a foreign.shop..with, empty pockets. Again. They say, why cultivate land that requires twelve .hours' labour, while we May obtain abundance of corn 'grown from land that only requires eight hours' labour ? I answer, that our country is our farm, and it is our duty as well as our interest to make the•mnst• of our means. What would be thought of a farmer, if helvere to say, I will not work my land, but will purchase what I need from my neighbour, be cause his soil is in better cowlition, than my QWII ; or, of a shoemaker, if he were to:deelare that it is of no use in.me to work any longer, for John Turner is a more active and pow erful man than I am. The repealers assert that it is entirely a landlord's question. The farmer and the agricultural labourer would not be da maged by .the change, and that rent ,alone would be dis paraged. Iu answer, I ben to gate that competition invariably affects all parties for no reduction of rent would be enter tained until the farmer's circumstances were impaired, and his sinking, and, as a matter of course, the same circum stances would finally press upon his workmen. Who ever heard of mill property depreciating when trade was good on the other hand, 'if mill property became of little value, may we not rest assured that the condition of the operative is not satisfactory ? Such is exactly the case with the landed interest. More over I am convinced that if a law we re passe d that tended to reduce the value of land, the farmer's position would not be improved ; for the landlord now only . obtains the extreme rent, and then he would be enabled to do - the same. Let us also bear in Mind that, although there are some hundreds of landed proprietors possessing large estates, still there are tens of thousands whose rentals do not exceed fifty pounds Per annum ; so that the same law that would reduce such persons' incomes (as Earl Fitzwilliam) to a point that would not be felt by them, would inflict immense injury upon a great body of landowners. The Free Traders fix upon the silk trade as a proof of the soundness of their views. See,. say they, how it has flourished since the trade was thrown open. I admit that the silk manu facture has increased considerably. The cause of this in crease, I will explain to you. Previous to the silk trade being made free, raw silk was taxed at the rate of four shil lings the Pound, so that silk goods being cheapened they have superseded other fabrics:: for instance, suppose the brandy tax were repealed, would not that tend to lessen the consumption of other spirits? The description of silk goods made here is mostly of a plain character. France furnishes this market with all the choice rich goods, which yield the most labour. For proof, let us ask, have wages in creased since the trade was thrown open ? I tell you, No ; but, they have decreased to one half, and in some cases to one third. Now, if this be a specimen of free trade, lam sure that we had better be without it. * About twelve months ago, the Anti-Corn Law agitators confined themselves to..the total repeal of the corn laws ; but whe.n. the•Loudon...delegate,icimvu.ssed the members of par.• liament to support their measures, they were informed that it would not be doing justice to the landed. interest to repeal the corn laws, and at the same time to continue protection to'buz' manufacturers. They then saw their• one-sided posi tion, so that for appearance'sake they could do no other than cry for an , entire Free Trade, or as the .Americans would term it, " - going the whole hog." . • . The Leeds Meretmi, of the 15th November last, stated in its leading article, ,that the BeYgian cotton. manufacturers had completely glutted their market, and .to afford them relief, the Belgian government , had purchased their goods. and were sending them to distant markets subject to a loss qf fifteen per cent.' • It would not be surprising to hear, soon after the meeting of parliament, that Edward Baines, Esq., M.P., for Leeds, should give notice that he would move for leave to bring in a bill, to repeal the corn laws, in consequence of foreign competition having ,shown itself in our external markets. But what says the wise man—" Wisdom is before him that hath understanding, but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth." Man is constantly scheming to raise himself to a state of independence, deeming it much more desirable than a state of dependence, and so it ought to be with a nation ; and, therefore, the production of food should be the first ob ject of consideration. I contend that it is our interest to produce every thing that our soil and climate is capable of. I certainly admit that it would be unwise for us to attempt the cultivation of tea, coffee, cotton, or grapes, from a thorn hedge, and such like ; but to produce corn, cattle, potatoes, &c., is quite natural, and we should encourage the same to the greatest possible extent. The next Consideration is .clothing, &c., in regard to which the same rule should govern us, for our productions are the bases of all our • wealth, and it is owing to these that we are enabled to enjoy foreign produce. .§ Fair play is a jewel. Let me ask how it happens that the liberal, both local and itinerant, in all their harangues confine themselves to the free trade in corn. They are ever ready to tell the people what a fine thing the cheap foreign loaf would be for them, but they are as silent as church mice respecting cheap foreign goods, &c. If it be so very desirable that the working man should have CHEAP FOOD, then it must be equally desirable that he should have ci-tzaP CLOTHING, &c. I would, tberefore, recommend those advo cates in future, to address the operatives belonging the various branches of industry, and show them the great ad vantage that they would derive in case the people of this country would only consume foreign manufactured goods in lieu of their own. But this, I presume, would be no agreeable task. This allusion to Dr. Bowring's supposed profession is founded on error. Dr. Bowring's not an M.D. but an LL.D. The repealers are divided in opinion as regards the effect that a free, trade in corn would have .upon prices. Some of then' believe that the demand for our consumption would be so great, that prices abroad would advance, so that foreign rnanufacturersewould have to pay more for labour, andin consequence, we should be better enabled to compete with them. This is the Right Honourable C. P. Thomson's view, '(our late member.) On the other band, there are a class who declare that prices would fall here considerably; and their cry is, why eat dear borne-bread, when foreign-bread may be purchased so very much cheaper? And besides, say they, if we get a cheap loaf we shall be enabled to work for less wages, and beat the foreigner out of his own market, and them our present mem b er , R. H . Greg, Esq., will be saved the trouble of going with his old power-looms either to America or Geneva. In answer, I would observe, that if Mr. Thomson's views 'bat - Correct; find thateforeign labour is raised by the measure, it could only be done at the cost of this country, and on that ground we ought to give it our most strenuous opposition ; but if the other party are right in their calculations, how can the working man be served if a corresponding reduction take place in his wages ? They say, that the agricultural labourer derives no advantages from big prices. This is not to be wondered at, for high prices are occasioned by bad harvests and deficient crops, which impoverish the farmer, and it generally follows that the employed par ticipate in the circumstances of the employer, for we seldom hear of wages advancing when trade is in a depressed state. There is a divided opinion among those who are favorable to protection ; some advocate a fixed duty, while others deem a fluctuating scale as most conducive to the general interest. Corn is dependent upon the seasons, and it is therefore liable to great changes; as such. I think it impos sible to fix the duty at a point so as to give security to the grower, and satisfaction to the consumer ; for if the duty be too low the producer would be injured, and if the protection was adequate, and high prices prevailed, then there would be a cry raised throughout the land that it was a starvation law. To avoid this, I would prefer a fluctuating scale, and that the duty should range between five shillings the lowest, and twenty-one shillings the highest figure: such an arrange ment, I fancy, would better establish the equilibrium of price ; but this being so momentous a question it ought to be approached with the greatest caution.* • Some'time ago, I went one evening to the Corn Exchange, to hear Mr. Nekton, the Anti-Corn-Law advocate ; and in the course of his lecture he alluded to protection, and said, that it was nothing less than one portion of the community robbing the remainder ; and he compared it to a number of Monkeys confined in a range of cages, in Exeter Change : these monkeys, he said, instead of eating their own provi sions, partook of that • of their companions, at the same time imagirun that they were d er i v i ng a great a d vantage. I Now, contend • that this is not a pa ra ll e l case: f or it must. be admitted that although each monkey lost the food allotted to it, yet each enjoyed that of his companion, so that their system was reciprocal ;• but our reciprocity is riot so, for we allow foreigners to dip .their beaks into our mess, although they will not even let us have a peep at theirs, unless we pay them our hard cash. The Free Trader would reply by saying, that our paying the . foreigner in specie for his goods, is but an indirect ex change of our labour, for it is that which procures us the gold. and silver; but let,us ask C: P. Thomson, Esq., if it would not serve our interest much better in case we expend ed our money upon our productions, and by so doing would it not be more likely to fructify in our own pocket, than in squandering it upon foreign manufactured articles ? • I have candidly leis' before you the arguments used by the Anti-Corn-Law advocates, and have given you my opinion regarding them ; 'and I do most solemnly assure you that, if I deemed their views calculated to promote the interest of the working classes, 1 should scorn to oppose them in the least ; for I am satisfied that the commercial state of this country never was in such a deplorable plight. But, thatany man should assert that this state of things arises from the corn laws, appears to me quite ridiculous. I am persuaded that those laws have nothing to do with our present difficul ties. I beg to say, however people are divided as to the cause of our embarrassments, the effects are now obvious to be disputed. I consider that our present circumstances spring from several causes, namely, a one-sided system of Free Trade, are unnatural application of machine power, which produces to excess, and also too great a pressure of taxation upon the industry of the country ; and you may take it for granted, that half-measures will not availars, and that we must have recourse to something like the following expe dients before our commercial position can be improved ; and the sooner we set about it the better. First.—Lay a tax upon all coal that is exported. For merly, for the protection of our trade, coal exported was taxed ; and surely there is need of such a tax now ; for the free exportation of coal has a two-fold evil. In the first place, it puts a weapon into the hands of our rivals, to wield against- ourselves; and in the second place the foreign de mand has a tendency to enhance the value of coal at home, which adds to the cost of our manufactured goods ; and, moreover, when we reflect upon the nature of procuring coal, and the frequent loss of life through explosion, caused by fire-damp, &c., I am sure we are not warranted in pro moting the exportation of it beyond due bounds, particularly as its consumption will be much increased at home in,conse quence:of the rapid promotion of railway conveyance' It be hoves us then the more to husband our means. Second.—Tbe enforcement of a law to prohibit the expor tation of machinery. Third.—Prohibit the importation of foreign-manufactured goods ; for in all conscience have we not quite enough to do to consume our own commodities ? Formerly we did not suffer manufactured goods to be imported. Our maxim was, that the wealth of England should uphold the labour of Eng land ; but now-a-days, our liberality is so great that we en courage any other labour in preference to our own. France has played a different game, and the result is, that she has got all the money ; and the Bank of England has been obliged to borrow money from the French Bank, to enable her to meet her engagements. Fourth.—Take off taxes to the amount of at least sixteen millions ; say such taxes as press upon the industry of the country, namely, the tax on malt, soap, glass, cotton, &c. and substitute a property tax. This measure would have a tendency to cheapen commodities, and then our countrymen would have less inducement to reside abroad to economise. Fifth.—Curtail the hours of factory labour. Near the cloSe of the last session of parliament, the govern ment introduced a new factory act, but, like most Whig measures, it was so exceedingly bungled, that the committ ee could make nothing o f it, an d Lord John Russell was obliged to withdraw it. But during the discussion of the same act, Lord Ashley moved a ten hour clause, and supported his motion upon the ground of humanity and sound commercial policy. The ten hours' clause means ten hours, of- actual. —!•• v - necuration q,f 114 k hours per day. Lord John Russell, supported by Mark Phillips, Esq. one of our members) most strenuously opposed Lord Ashley, saying, that he, Lord Ashley, was totally mis taken in his calculations, and that it was anything but hu mane to abridge the hours of labour ; for how is it possible, said Lord John Russell, that a man can earn the same amount of wages by ten hours' work, as he can by working twelve hours ; for, continued his lord Ship, if you reduce the hours of labour, a reduction of wages must follow. I think that Lord John Russell should have proved to the house that increased hours of labour always gave increased wages, and then his argument would hold good; but allow me to ask his lord ship how it happens that formerly, when the hand-loom weaver only worked eight hours a day, he earned thirty shillings per week, and that now the power-loom weaver, with an improved machine, works twelve hours a-day, and gets only twelve shillings per week ? I would also direct his lordship's attention to the capitalist, for the mill-owners assert that yarns and goods are so abundant in the market, that they are- selling at ruinous prices, and that they are compelled to put their works upon short time to preserve themselves from destruction. Common sense, therefore, must convince any reflecting mind, that if capital can be overcharged, so may labour. What would Lord John Russell think of a sportsman charging his gun up to the muzzle,•_io that he might destroy a covey of birds at one shot : I wish his lordship to understand, that labour has its medium as well as every thing else. If a man indulge extravagantly in eating and drinking it is certain to injure his health. If a merchant trade beyond his resources it is certain to produce ruin. Indeed, it is notorious, that indivi duals do frequently trade beyond , their means, and it may fairly be asked, is it not possible that a nation may do the same? Is not this our case at present? Is it not admitted that both labour and profits are on the wane ? Extravagant production has a tendency to advance the price of the raw material, and at the same, time to glut the market with goods. This places the manufacturer between two straits. Do not suppose that I am an enemy to machinery, far from it.. It is not machinery that is an evil, it is the abuse of it. Fire and water, so long as they are kept within bounds, are necessary to the well-being of man; but, if suffered to rage uncontrolled, will cause misery and devastation. Machine labour may be compared to a fruit tree. When it is in its infancy, it may be allowed to expand, but as it ma tures, it must be kept pruned, or it will yield only timber instead of fruit. So it is with machinery. When young, it might be allowed to run all hours ; but as it matures, it must be kept in bounds, or it will produce evil rather than good, It was the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel, that if the government did not curtail mill labour, machinery would prove a . curse rather than a. blessing, which induced Sir. Ro bert to advocate a short hOurs factory bill. The present system of mill labour is attended with serious evils. The operatives are injured in their health by extreme labour, which has a tendency to damage another portion of opera tives, by depriving them of employment, so that one portion becomes sufferers by over-labour, and the other portion is rendered so for want of employment. This principle has the same effect upon capital. To moderate mill-work to a rea sonable term (say ten hours of actual . daily labour) would be a great advantage, as it would expand the employment of ca pital in the erection of. new mills, and labour would thereby be called into action, by which means the consuming power would be increased ; for we cannot satisfactorily produce un less we have the,ability to consume. Before steani-Power was introduced, the consuming ma nual power was the 'producing power, so that the supply and demand were kept relative. At the present period the steam machine is the great producing power, and through its com petition with man, it has reduced the circumstances of the consuming power, which is a s t a t e o f t hi ngs t h at cannot be endured. Indeed, capitalists are now feeling the withering effects of the present system; but to epppose that the free adriii.SSlon of foreign goods and corn would relieve es, may be compared to the act of a man who cut off his feet in order to serve his legs. John Fielder', Esq., M.P., a few years ago advocated an eight hours' factory bill. At that time I considered. that he was going into an opposite extreme, but past events have almost convinced me, that his ideas were correct; however, it must now be acknowledged by all intelligent men, that ten hours is the utmost that either labour or capital can sustain without injury, and so far as concerns our steam productions, we have nothing to fear from foreign competition, for we send them to the cheapest-paid -labour-countries in the worid, _namely, Russia, China, India, &c., but as regards our phy sical labour, man being a consuming power, taxation enters considerably into the cost of his labour, which gives the fo reigner an advantage over us in all manual productions, in consequence of foreign labour being much more lightly taxed than our own. In conclusion, I particularly wish to impress upon your minds, that the British empire, with its dependencies, is great and powerful, and possesses all the resources of wealth ; and if we had a ministry competent to manage our affairs, we should soon be in a flourishing condition, and then the present suffering and discontent would speedily vanish. The Whigs have held office about nine years, and during this time the circumstances of the country have been progressing from bad to worse, and now things have beco me so tru l y deplora ble, that it is utterly impossible for us to bear with them much longer. * For what may appear very promising in theory, if re duced to practice might prove very calamitous. We must bear in mind that there is a wide difference between corn and cotton ; for corn can be produced in all parts of the world, but cotton, it is well known, can only be grown in a peculiar climate. Now, suppose the duty on corn was fixed at 10s. per quarter, and the measure being favourably received by the foreign corn growers, they, naturally enough, would com mence producing for our market, and no doubt, in a short time, we should be inundated, and the result would be at tended with an immense sacrifice, which would prevent our farmers from cultivating corn ; as a necessary result, the fo reign and home producer would cease to furnish our market at the same time, and the end would be discontent and starva tion. It must be allowed that we, as manufacturers, very frequently glut foreign markets with our goods, and many of our merchants are frequently ruined by this. Then, all ex portation ceases, and, in consequence, the glutted markets, in a little time, become exhausted. Now, this state of things may be borne for a season, so far as regards clothing, but what must our situation be if we should be so circumstanced as relates to fOod ? I will leave you to decide. There is a duty which every man owes to himself. It is highly imperative, that at the next election, all electors who have the least regard for the happiness of their country, shopld give their most strenuous opposition to those candi dates, who term themselves Liberals, or Free Traders ; for the views of these men are alien, and moreover, they inva riably aid the present incapable Ministry, whose policy I conceive is deadly hostil e t o our we ll - b e i ng. i n d ee d , one of the Free Traders, recklessly declared in the House of Com mons, that he would vote " black is white," rather than the Whigs should riuit office. This gentlem an i s we ll k nown b y the name of " Greek-loan-Joseph." Middlesex turned him off, and he is now left hanging by O'Connell's tail. But I trust that the electors will, when that opportunity occurs, like good men and true, give their votes to those candidates who are attached to British interests, and who are also the firm supporters of the Altar, the Throne, and the Cottage; then, I have no doubt, brighter days would shortly dawn upon OLD ENGLAND. A TRADESMAN. LIVER THEATRE, CHURCH-STREET, IS OPEN FOR THE SEASON, TUESDAY, Dec. 31, and DURING THE W K, On which occasion will be exhibited a New Splen • , Painted Crimson and Gold Curtain, in the style of the .e of several of the principal Continental Theatres ; toga .er with a New handsome Drop Scene, (from a celebrate. painting;) exe cuted by Mr. Parker, principal Artist of e Theatre-royal, Drury-lane, who has been expressly e ged to visit Liver pool for the purpose, and under whos direction the whole of the interior has been improved and renovated. Mrs. WAY LETT, the distinguished Vocalist and Actress, from the Theatre-royal, Drury-lane, for a limited number of nights. Mrs. RAYMOND in several of the newest Dramas during the season. Mr. HOSKINS, the popular Comedian, for a limited period. Mr. W. J. HAMMOND and Mr. RAYMOND will appear In some of the newest productions during the season. Mr. MARSHALL, from the Theatre-royal, Drury-lane, is engaged as stage-manager to this Establish men t. Mademoiselle CHEVALIER, principal Dancer from the Theitre-royal, Covent-garden. Miss FOSTER, the popular Dancer from the Theatre-royal, Drury-lane. Miss THOMASSIN and Miss LYDIA:, principal Dancers from the Theatre-royal, Drury-lane. Mr. F. GARDNER, from the Theatre-r•?yal, Bath, for a limited period, pupil of Mr. Alexander Lee. Mr. J. L. HATTON, formerly of Liverpool, and who has, during the last season, appeared in several popular Dramas at the St. James's Theatre, with such distinguished suc cess, is engaged for a limited period; and will make his first appearance, at this Theatre, on Monday next. ' Mr. TILBURY, principal representative of old men, from the Theatre-royal, Covent-garden. Miss NOEL, loding Actress firm the Theatre-royal Bath. HIS present TUESDAY, Dec. 31st, and folluwin& even ings, a New Drama, written expressly for Mrs. Waylett, by the late J. H. Bayley, Esq. called CORK LEGS. Duval Mr. Tilbury I Eu1a1ie........ Mrs. Waylett. In the course of the Evening Mrs. Waylett will sing seve ral new and popular Songs. To which will be added a new and popular Drama, called THE KING'S GARDENER; OR, NIPPED IN THE BUD. Galochard Madame Galochard ...... Mrs Waylett. To conclude with a new version of the celebrated Historical Drama of J ACK SH E PPA. R D ; OR, TILE HOUSEBREAKER, OF 1703. Owen Wood.. Mr. Tilbury I Joe Blueskin.. Mr. J. L. Hatton Jack Sheppard.... Mrs. Barton. The celebrated Drama of THE MAGIC VEIL ! or, The Fairy of the Lake, will speedily be produced. Boxes, 3s ; Pit, 2s ; Gallery, 6d. .Second Price at Half past Eight. Boxes, 2s ; Pit, Is. No S econ d P r i ce to t h e Gallery. Private oxes, to contain Seven Persons, to be had Nightly, Price £1 Is. Tickets and Places to be had on and after the 26th inst. of Mr. BREZE, at the Box-office, from 11 till 3 o'clock. Several Novelties will be produced immediately manager, Mr. Marshall. THE TIMES, AND THE ENSUING PARLIA MENTARY SESSION. PARTIES wishing to Subscribe to THE TIES, during the ensuing interesting Session of Parliament, mug make application, on or before the Ist ofAminuary, to L. T. GASKILL, 45, Lord-street, when they*ill be ensured of the Latest Editions. The EVENING MAIL, Published at the TIMES OFFICE, Three Days per Week. Advertisements forwarded daily. L. T. GASKILL, Agent. Ebe itibrrpool &tanbarb. TUESDAY .MORNING, DECEMBER 31, 1839 In compliance with a time-honoured custom we wish our readers " a merry Christmas and a happy new year." In doing so we crave their indulgence while we take a cursory retrospective glance at the events of the year which is this day brought to a close. The year 1839 has not furnished us with any incidents, connected with the history of this country, which will hereafter form any creditable addition to our national annals. It has proved emphatically a year of disgrace and humiliation. At borne we have had nothing but disquiet and disturbance, commercial distress and general suffering. In our colonial pos sessions matters have been getting worse and worse, until they have reached a ruinous crisis. With re spect to our foreign relations we:have nothing satis factory to contemplate or reflect upon. The domsstiehistorKoLgre_4 : nritaiii, during the past, year has been, alinost invariably of a gloomy dm - racter. Look, for instance, at the proceedings of the infatuated Chartists—a body of traitors organised under the very nose, if not with the direct con nivance, of our present imbecile administration. Though, happily, in our own town and neigh bourhood—thanks to . the sound PROTESTANT feelings which animate the mass of our local population —we have known little, excepting by hearsay, of the violent and insurrectionary pro ceedings of these rebels ; other portions of the em pire have not been equally fortunate in escaping their turbulent proceedings. In many parts of the north they have caused very considerable alarm, and rendered necessary the concentration of a large military force, in order to provide an adequate protection against their anticipated outbreaks. In Birmingham they have attempted to reduce to practice their plans of incen diarism, violence, and plunder; and they have, un happily, proved but too:successful. In South Wales —a district hitherto conspicuous for the unswerving loyalty of its inhabitants—the Chartists have ventured upon a movement which has issued in bloodshed, and which may yet bring some of these infatuated traitors to an ignominious death upon the gallows, or to the less miserable fate of perpetual expatriation. Our readers will bear us witness that we have re peatedly exposed the ultimate designs of the Char tists, and warned our countrymen and our rulers against their ascendancy. The events of the last year have afforded the strongest corroboration of our views. If our warnings had been attended to twelve months ago, the bloody scenes enacted at Newport might have been avoided. But we live under a ministry as incapable of reflection as they are deaf to admonition. There is also another class of persons, to the prevalence of whose opinions, during the past year in particu lar, we cannot advert without feelings of alarm. We allude to the Socialists, who have been inde fatigable in their efforts to make proselytes to their filthy and atheistical system—a system which, while it strikes at the very root of all domestic and social virtue, denudeS its wretched victims of the hope of immortal felicity revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and reduces them to an equality with the " beasts that perish." There was a time when the strong arm of the law would have been interposed to prevent such degraded reptiles as Owen and his mis sionaries from invading the sanctuary of domes tic felicity,* and from disseminating among the populace the infecting poison of their infidel and grossly immoral notions. But what has the last year witnessed ? It has seen that foul monster of iniquity, Robert Owen, introduced by the prime minister of England to our virgin Queen ! Such is the cOunte. nance given to atheism and obscenity by those who ought to be the guardians of public morality ! When we look at the distress which has for some time been so generally prevalent throughout the country, we cannot avoid exclaiming—" See the fruits of Whig'Radical misgovernment." Our trades and manufactures are drooping —our mechanics and operatives are out of employment, and pining in wane and misery —every thing is deranged and out o 1 joint--confidence in commercial transactions has been nearly destroyed—and it is no exaggeration to assert that we have almost been brought to the verge of national bankruptcy. And all this has happened under the fostering rule of the Whigs ! What have become of their golden promises, which they lavished so profusely upon their advent to power Whither have fled those flattering visions of national pros perity which they conjured up to delude " the peo . ple ?" Have they not proved as hollow and unsub- stantial as Whig promises have always, done ? Have they not prov e d the ignes fatui which h ave a l lured " the people" into the very quicksands of destruction ? is useless, nay, it is worse than useless, it is mis- chievous and dishonest . to attribute to the operation of the corn-laws the distress which is now so uni versally experienced. For the last eighteen months we have almost literally had a free trade in corn. Dur ing the greater part of that period the corn-laws have been practically abolished. And what have been the consequences ? Has trade flourished ? Have our manufactures been increasing? Have our opera ticeg f been fully and p r ofit a bl y emp l oy ed ? Th e reverse this has been the result. Our country has been nearly drained of its gold. O ur tra d e h as languished. our operatives have been. reduced to beggary and starv3" tion. We must not omit in this summary notice a pass °g allusion to the state of Ireland. The last year 1133 furnished us with multiplied proofs of the existen ce ; in that unf or t una t e an d pr i est-r idd en coun try, tn, conspiracy almost co-extensive with the whole P°P' h population — a consp i racy w h ose f ru i t i on is sP ( ''''.. ‘ tion and mas sacre — w h ose en d i s t h e su b ver sion P' the Protestant Established Church, and the erectionti upon its ruins, o f P apa l tyranny — w h ose plans 31 i mode of proced ure , f or o b ta i n i ng t hi s en d, are as diabolical as any th a t ever entere d t h e conception 4f man, those plans being no other than the annihila tion of the Protestant population, and the aPPrO rl. ation of their prop er t y t o e n r i c h a gras ping 31)d Jesuitical priesthood. The. Ribbon conspiracy liar been proved to exist in deadly activity, and anoth er of O'Connell's lies has . been thus exposed. T he state If Ireland, therefore, affords no relief to the gloomy picture which we are forced to draw of nu r internal condition. The elements of mischief ar e busily at work in the sister island. We know not the day when the volcano may burst forth in r ain and devastation. Look, again, to the state of our colonial dependencie s ' Canada has not yet recovered from the effects of the Ipte insurrectionary outbreaks. Its po p u lation ar e still arrayed against each other.. The loyalists are fearful of another explosion, t and the anti-Briti sh factions are again busily occupied in laying their plots. To this, distracted colony the Whigs have sent out as Governor-General a man who has alwaY s avowed himself as an enemy to the interests of the ' inhabitants. Such is the decency of the present Government,. and such are, their n otions, af- imPar tr Way. The West India Islands, and the splendid colony of British Guiana, have been victimised without remorse. The planters have been brought from affluence to beggary. The, exports of these colonies have been fearfully reduced ; and the com mercial and manufacturing interests of this countr)" have suffered in consequence. Th e tine colon)" n t New South Wales has almost been the scene of a famine, owing to the miserable and miscalculating policy of the Whigs. 'The state of India will de mand from us nlore than a cursory examination. That vast empire has been all but wrested f r om us by Russian intrigue and treachery. The foreign relations of Great Britain present an equally unpropitious aspect. England has dege °e " rated in the scale of nations. Her flag, has been cin sulted with impunity. Sh e i s no l onger rec ognised as ‘_‘ the empress of the pa.," She is no longer " a terror to the nations." Her power is despised —her honour is tarnished—her sons are treated with con tumely. We might, before closing these remarks, advert t° other topics connected with the history of the closing , year. We might direct public attention to the : melancholy and prem a t ure d ea th o f t h e innoce nt victim of court slander. W e m i g h t dil ate uplift the " enormous lying" in whi c h t h e Whig-Itad ieai papers have, for the last year, so largely indulg e We might allllde to the thimble-rii; shuffles an changes of Lord Melbourne and his associates' These, however, we must pass by. Our next publication will tale place in another Year. We may, therefore, with propriety make it th : vehicle for a few consid era ti ons upon our M tg.- prospects, which, in despite of Whig misrule, are not without some rays of hope. Of all the vile speeches uttered in the course O f. li t _ong life by that irreclaimable slanderer O'Connell, ti l , which he has last sp o k en a t T ra l ee i s t h e v ilest• i combines every disgu s ti ng f ea t ure w hi c h ca n rend er , oratory loathsome. It is o ne bl ac k t i ssue o f falseho od ' .. calumny, and outr ageous i n d ecency. H a d the men ,cant himself not been placed long ago without the t of the society of gentlemen, this last virulent atteu t P of aged malice wou ld h ave b een e n oug h t o exclt de him from it for ever. Although the veering wea ther : cock of a church steeple might be a type of steadine'; cotnpare . d with the ever- s hifti ng qu i c k san d o f what til. roan ,calls his principles, there ip, we admit, about i n Ani. re .tart an .alortniti_ar.....4---sonsis ten cY- F W r ,1 the first hour in which h e , a nee dy b arr ister, appe 3l :: e before the public, to mislead and heap misery 00 LP to Irish, to the present day, when he has " fallen y the sere and y e ll ow l ea f," an d cannot, in the ordi oar course of things, e x p ec t, much longer to AP° ' l n confidence of his misguided coun t rymen , hei , hAol i r r t i . beyond all parallel and comp are , th e most foul-muilWe slanderer that ever yet p u bli c l y disgrace. S.--v community. yr The subject, we know, is stale and threafillare . readers cannot nauseate it more thoroughly: thud s do ourselves ; and if the speech to which ‘vg dll were merely like all others from the same. sourc' t . ve compound of -Billingsgate, an d no thi n g more should no more think of noti c i ng it th an of callint in w attention of a passer-by to some fil t hy object fe° ► which his eyes would instincti ve ly b e•w ithdrawo• If, therefore, this Beggarman had contented bit ns w. , with vilifying the whole English nation, as he lis s 5 1 1 1 0 Cifically and in terms in that speech done—if merely done the House of Lords the honour of ' 1 7,9 tidy abusing them, and declared, u p on hi s honoti r ' A v to that he believed the Conservatives were resolv e " k l e i take away the Queen's life by poi son , i n o rder. to o : ec " Cumberland" King —we sho u ld h ave l e ft tile 5 / ) re d to the applause of the idi ot au di ence w ho loudly every falsehood which this grey-headed s ow derer uttered. B u t th at t h e d ept h o f t hi s mans ore lignity may be un d erstoo d , and h i s natur e be xi ' hs' thoroughly exhibited in its proper colours of en v i' oo t tred, malice, and all uncharitableness, we do P int Oa tt, our readers and the British public the baseLorti unmanly attack which he has made uPp m ho iy Brougha m , se l ect i ng t h at no b leman ' s l a t e inelane bereavement as the theme of his scurrilous ablise•ese Listen to the ch arge b roug h t f orwar d with beat'.,_e,, ribaldry, to an I r i s h au di tory, b y t h e creature:7l:e bow down to. Lord Brougham is destitute °I , e feelings of natu ra l affection, ,because he followed 141_, 'C iP remains of a beloved daughter to the grave an d, nell cannot charge hi mse lf w i t h s uch an act ' e life, looking back upon hi s own po re. an d immacul ate t he nothing in the retrosp ec t a pp ears so monstrous of big funeral ol conduct of the par en t w h o a tt en d s the - dibir child. We do no t b e li eve hi m t o be so in cre ignorant as not to know that in this country' t l ' e .,: r t e e; is always the chief mourner at the tomb of his ebu ereot , bnt the custom of- the lowest Irish may be d ifi n i ti s rein`" and as they get drunk upon poteen over the o los of their nearest relatives, and with barbarous, no i s y convert the house of mourning into a scene ssing , riot, O'Connell knew the auditory he was tu ldre o,icli and counted rightly on the yell of apnlo se a fa would reward him for violating the sanctity oe to ot *ld• A" t t her's grief for the loss of an only chi • , s hea rt words to express our detestation of such a m alt , 4 . 1 the ex cite:t he ' loo t. and feelings. Long ere this they have breast of every man on this side the Channel is unmitigated disgust, and no commentary beware of needed to increase it. But let that man raja' talking with maudlin sentiment of a fathersss lo ve, thies, who disow n s th e o ff spr i ng o f his l avvi t e i m atbe r and turns away f rom hi s d oor t h e wretch co e urte osi whom he has betrayed. The story of Eliz a is not forgotten. : of fi r°- Within the last few years a new descriPti n- , , to Perty has sprung up around us, and assume" to be portance and extent which already en title r it Itti° /151 classed amongst the leading sources 0 1 °"" n f Cora wealth. By a late return made to the "louse 1 9 lew d, mons, the capitalmons, invested in railways n os ' cOll, mss, with that authori se d t o h e ra i se d for those in lally was estimated at upwards of seventy railli°fis.a tlla yet whilst o th er great interests—the corninerc'several nufacturing, and agr i cu lt ura l —have each theirroincial organs, both amongst the metropolitan and t hese tis c " papers, lir immense property embark ed in ale p atn' ful undertakings, which are daily developing ou t fit' si : ral resources of th e coun t r y and opening ivitliov. fields of enterprise to its busy community' Is , any efficient prot ec ti on f ro m the public Pres.sce of the o ccir an occasional par a g ra ph, containing a I°ll , progress of som e p ar ti cu lar undertaking,. telligence, sionally, in the d ear th o f more enlivening 11 1. of Somefind its way to the public eye; or the Pull