The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-04-08 00:00:00

15. A pril 8, 1845. i l n the resolution which I have the honour to submit to °ttljadoption and suppo r t. E noug h h as b e e n a d van ced, l u r k, to prove th a t, accor di ng t o th e t erms of my reso it • °°. on w h atever grounds the endowment is proposed, Is unjustifiable in principle • it remains that I should 1 13 8%.," a ptbing on the last clause,. which affirms, that there o evidence of any national compact or argeement for entnanything, g continuance." In the absence of anything like argu i.a.entr anything, indeed, beyond mere vague and unsus ot I l he ed assertions in its fa, (and Sl has to fn abl e t o produce vour anything elsir Rober is, t P l ee think, flet, etnthsive against any national compact or agreement, the at in the appendix No. 69, of this report, there I , s T y co a list of all the grants voted by parliament toMy - r o oth si nce its establishment, from the year after its in rPoration, 1796, to the year 1813, different sums vary 1441frnto £4,000 to 12,000 are acknowledged, after lj - si u ' t he amount has been fixed at £9673. In this e ther e i s no allusion whatever to the existence or there i s of any compact, and the absence of any r ri7 Bt icb allusions in such a document must be nsidered fatal to the c l a i m . The evidence of Dr. Crot ty' President of Maynooth, and which issued in the list of grant s printed in the appendix now quoted, is even i rco ger stiil aga i nst t h e ex i stence o f any a g reement. At ,feghat 53 of t h e report he is asked,— is the amount of the annual parliamentary i L al as varied in different years since . 1813 it has been t ° 12 018'.8 it was .€12,5 ,, 0 ; and again, was that . (the increase tQO in the year IEOB , on account of any . particu , lar n s e u n m ee b o e i o t Zleired for building ? I believe it was in con_eq the an ge of ministry at that time. . . I believe it was fo l r do Parpos e of building that the additional sum was granted. tsme soin ziet k now whether they intended to keep it up to lie same y afterwards : but when lie. Percival was applied to in d the ..e?' following instead of granting them the sum that h , a been 8 i anted the e;zr b fore, he lowered it to what it had been. ; this Y eviden e ce speak' for itself. All I infer from it ' B , th a t lit tei bad there been any evidence of contract it is not espeeiall t hat Dr Crotty would have omitted to notice it, Y when that 'point of his examination absolutely th"nded of him to put it forward. If appeal be made . to act of - Union it is also in vain. That it was not in '4?ed in the 7th art i c l e o f t h at t rea t y i s pl a i n f r o m the th at °f six Years being specified anterior to the passing of 1 1 „,, Measure as the period from which the average was . to is• Lake n Q Y hp T of sums granted by the Irish and to be continued triai t e ry . M, per . ial . Parliame_nt. . Amongst other things for and ri ,',utlng institutions for pious and charitable purposes, th e irs„ observe, only for a period of twenty years after Pre t e ° KM. This' article is plainly fatal both ways to the lea „,. ne e of a compact in favour of Maynooth.. In the ab oph,"hof any tangible argument in its behalf, it would be f q r tt ling with a shadow to dwell longer on this part of and ; so that I may consider my case made .n out, ni telidaithout another word might leave the question in your hie' vvithout fear as to the result of your verdict. .AI eop - ,, gu MY ease is closed, yet there are one or two points jo s t•i r e eted with the priesthood of Maynooth such as to my trespassing further on your patience, for a eon ng moment, while I advert briefly to them. In a very rioli°l:tan.t.letter from the late Dr. Doyle, the ablest cham pi-ess u,r Irish Romanism that the present century , ha d s . w:t e we are informed that on the subject of the d i vine su et of kings " the high doctrines of Bellarmine and Bos 04e* on that ' subject have yielded before the more popular ai g h s ,.° l Locke and Paley. • This is passing strange atfirst p e •r I that p r i nc i p l es f or w hi c h everyt hi ng hadbeen Lanae and lost i n F rance , s h ou ld be abandoned in re- asiti'under circumstances that would have enhanced . their veers of In the eye of the English government, and doctrines °Pnosite character adopted and inculcated. The I), e Mind of my learned friend Dr. M. O'Sullivan in his ' i gest of Evidence on the State of Ireland" has un rethei!ed and explained the mystery. So long as there ti,e-sitied alive a p member of the house of Stuart, so long of s that doctrine taught which seduced the affections th e fa • Irish priesthood and people from the reigningitiitte sla y • in England; for Mr. O'Connell has . even cow' , in his evidence, that the ultra-royalism of e hip:toental priests was in favor of the exiled family . ; Iva; ! h en that family became extinct, the principlethe _ p'andoued, that must then have entwined itself around O f vacailY of our beloved Victoria (whom God preserve) kr.`tfeelings of the present race of priests in Ireland th i."Yse thus writes in his history of the Roman Ca -4'1,71 Association : ~n ' oth b e c lergy, c lergy too, sent in their adhesion from time to time. May -Le np; -e gan to ' he felt Irishmen who had never left Ireland,. were taise,yests whom it s • t forth A re at many of the clergy still re the 4•., their former fe e a n rs,and . were g too much affected by a sense of ~Nse7,„...e n, ies of their order • but the new class of the clergy were "otia, • ' 11, 37 stepped out beyond the modesty of theirliabitual func -14,4 Into the activity of public life. The priesthood no longer re- Dositi,usu-oPeration —they joined every meeting—secondd every pro • th e 4lent their aid to every object, they became interested in to rth u , tl4ll 7 levies—grew champions in the cause of the Assoc a %te were th e principas al channels by which its influence was ncated." hirtl tes timony as to the ch arac t er o f th e M av nooth priest tn aared with th e continental priest, is also confirmed ie relu c t ant admissions of the late Mr. Inglis, in his ag,, ° e ur ileY through Ireland in 1834." Hear Dr. Doyle 11, e h In the letter already referred to, addressed to Mr. p lioe:he ministe of England (he says) cannot look to the exer erfhe Catholic priesthood;" and again, 0 111r ilu el.ng from Carrickfergus to Cape Clear, no sentence of x- " If a rebellion e Now, ilication would ever be fulminated by a Catholic prelate." eVid sir I have done. You will observe that the only e pe epar I have submitted to you is, that of friends or tet e n!ans, else of Romish bishops and professors : all in / h oLed concealing the deformities of the system. ahe a d taken low grounds throughout. But as I have arilioV. observed, they are the only grounds . on the ex • is attempted to vindicate the continuance of i t; ais l a sti ng grant, much less the propriety of augmenting kti e - ,,••" they are the grounds alike suggested by my reso- Itia e - and Prescribed to me by the respected committee he e j Whose management this magnificent meeting has t he sl i l t,, ra nged• But even upon these grounds, and upon o ther) i dl ag of Romish witnesses, (and I have quoted no about am told to ask your assent to the resolution lam iii • 43 trl "e• Th. real grounds on which we drecate tepeatee!sure, have already been touched upon, and will be Wile se bY the succeeding speakers. There is one . to the h i "ngenial mind I hand over the task of illustrating the gh demandof Ch •t . • • tend ris an principle in connexion with -that b .erness of Christian love. These are the grounds thi s ri ng us together in the face of the obloquy that the toProceedin will entail uon us, our esire for -0 4 r 1118 of our Roman Catholic fellow-subj d ects, and Ptiail e ° ve for that Truth in whose liberty we are Stat e „,!ed to rejoice ourselves. Oh sir, that we had *er e . "'" in power, who knew the truth and loved it, and Bo it, M en ashamed to confess it, nor afraid to defend „;',",e,n that would reply to the whispers of expediency, ~matt powerfully or how plausibly recommended, e rr not careful to answer thee in this matter. The soul 'rage tr ue Christian would not quail though the world was . con -1,:y42(t i s , s `t and arrayed against him his Bible is his guide, his ,nich.-is trust, and onward he goes ; he knows no fear but that clie f -23 the beginning of wisdom ; his heart is fixed trusting in ( Vt 4.4 ." had sha t England had never forsaken her first love, then hon ors still lain sheltered in the protection of Him, that 'lt r ,o ?those that honor Him. Then her peace had been 0 1 , t r f i ve f r t and her righteousness as the waves of the sea. is alk!' she would even yet remember from whence she t 'is r e .") and repent, and do her first works : then, " for th,„ -r l e Y endureth for ever " is anything too hard ne e, ?r, she might ' even yet emulate the blessed iescribed by the Psalmist—" g Happy is that people 'ad i s L i ° such a case yea, happy is that people whose t e 4tj eon a -7 Lord." At the conclusion of the reverend „ tt lecti r , • fr a tt, s eloquent address, the enthusiasm of the `u,esri o ' ''displayed itself in a long protracted burst of u se s°, Ipt7, offs BERRY HORSFALL ESQ., in seconding the i'nre 434 said, sir, after the very powerful and eloquent d ace We •' af f iend very briefly It 'Set five just near rom our r _to m , ell content myself with briefly, and very briefly -utetrthisZ th . e resolution. But, sir, I feel that the object :4of eting is one deeply affecting the christian charac -413, % country, and as such, I cannot be content 0411 h t° ,,,,aay that I second the resolution. lam quite ,--• there is seldom any instance of an individual rele,vorward to oppose any measure with regard to to t6 b L ut he is immediately charged with being inimi ;tlstoremo‘fooentry. (Hear.) Now, on behalf of the ori i,Ptiai,tt this meeti ng , as well as on my own behalf, I p ! t P uti a c tly such charge ; for, acting upon the scrip t, , Llon of endeavouring to do good unto all th st f_°Pe we ar e a t a ll times prepared to extend any „c res ts ' do to our Irish Roman Catholic fellow „sPeak (Chas ) The question is, what is good? and . .11 not• sp r , with regard to the opinion entertained by Odd at " °Pon this platform, who it is well known the and eerie Prescribe as the greatest good for Ireland, tr;rneeeTritural education, but I speak with regard to 'Of Which of the House of Commons. I refer to 'arli a 4l are annually made by the Commons House (+lent for the benefit of Ireland, and I s say, let m0m5 , 101, 7 de r go oe y measure for which they propose, which we g • cOra for Ireland, and it will at all times have a h la d i sunport. I hold in my hand a list of the •t ... 40 ,ag e m May last for the benefit of Ireland, viz for the Foundlin g Hospital, Dubin. ~t 1,00 f, 9 , f0r the House of Industry, Dublin. ~4 e 2,4 00 !or the Female Orphan House, Dublin. iel, ooo or the Westmorland Lock Hospital, Dublin. ~4 e 1,60 , Tr the Lying-in Hospital, Dublin. tat'3, oo ,, 'or the Stephens's Hospital, Dublin. le t° ; for the Fever Hospital, Cork-street, Dublin. 7 00 ior the Hospital for Incurables, Dublin. t tst . e et .63o °r f the C ommissioners of Charitable Bequests, Ireland. t, :tit di sae or . the nonconforming, secndiug, and other Pro -7,340 fontulg Ministers, Ireland. r charitable allowances, Ireland. e 4 , 09 7 f ( 7_ colltity surveys, Ireland, 40 r o liai L l s o a n l ar i es and expenses for the improvement of 3o o p . the Royal Irish Academy. 1. 4 ,4 0 ° 1 the Royal Hibernian Academy. 4 V 240 0 • , 0 5 r . t he Royal Dublin Socie y. (4; list alt con servatories co nservatories at Botanic Garden, Dublin." t hei 4l %,lle p‘°,gether amounts to upwards of £llB,OOO. 11 tia i r t ° 2ie e a t e - v i . So far as I know of these charities, and 4lv e A , 300 am prepared to say " instad of XllB,OOO tree*hi 4 gra , 000 if you choose," but , do not e call upon us w e n t even of £20,000 or £30,000, for a purpose !)1 as to be even is not good for Ireland ; do not call Ilta e ,,aYri nntis u PPort a grant to the Roman Catholic College *hraatlce of (Hear, hear and cheers.) If we were in to e ,,`,,e hi;„"_th,e instru ' etion; given at that college, I think loi e g'lgh te ve heard from Mr Nolan, would be sufficent l i v atk et zt hing n of u t s ia llpo . n that subject. Mr. Ewban . k to ld . us lo lls •a m e instructions given at the University of i bihktiv en .n.r. Nolan told us something of the instrue 4-elihe;ityrtvi. aYnooth. Ile has given us some extracts !hit! ut u In structions there given, as regards the re ergeets whl etween man and man ; he has given us some th, h etw ee c n n shevv the relative duties which are taught - chain a nd his S ( ig But there was one link 1 4 '°11: he f robi` t d h e e fieient : (Hea e r. n ) He did not . give us ex kke twee,, doctrines taught there, chewing the rela ,,t3t Mh e ' (HZ,nlan and his God , between man and his T i p tl ef tC e e lals - bZi k. ! .. hold in my ha , nd an extract from one to Rh M tlta t he e ttaple a f aynooth, not given to the world tit tgou...uthority, but given in evidence ail l t) o r Mr, 1 4„,0t Lords, about the period of the report la te °oe*, u„'an has referred. It has reference to the Its viut ,„,14c church, and with the permission of Iti a jlow s .__ l ll read it. (Cries of " read, read.") It 14 the . itte redness of the obligation to obey the Church, that, even at the day of judgment, the sinner who has erred by following its commands, may thus address his heavenly Judge, and claim forgiveness as of right—Lord, if it be an error which we have followed, Thou Thyself hast deceived us by thine own plain and reiterated direction, that we should hear the Church even as we hear Thee. Thou Thyself hast deceived us, by thy apostles, by the pastors and teachers appointed by Thee, ' for the perfecting of the saints, for the edifying of thy body,' who have commanded us so to do. Thou Thy self hast deceived us by thy Church, called by St. Paul' the pillar and ground of tilt. truth,' which Church has never ceased to exact from her children a firm assent to all her decrees, threatening an ever lasting curse against those who dare to rebel against her. — Conscious, alas I of our own ignorance in divine things, and of , n's understanding, how could we rely on - the Scriptures, and despise an authority therefore, we say, 0 Lord, if it be an wed, T THYSELF lIAST DECEIVED SED." the weakr ourselves in searching the S so exalted error which we have f is the Roman Catholic Col rind of doctrine e of Maynooth solution, upon Nolan did n so fully. has refer- Great sensatior taught at t (Hear, hear.) T which Mr ence to the compact which to exist, and in my re marks upon that subject I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. Before, however, entering upon that point, allow me to make one or two observations with reference to the speech of the noble member for Liverpool, Lord Sandon—for I will not say our representative, upon this subject. (Loud and genernl cheering.) His lordship assigned two or three reasons in addition to the alleged compact why this grant should be made. He tells u " He found tha had fought the battes o times of peril ; and cou rt of boon to those who and had stood by her in had been made under such circumstances, and cent refused." (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that the noble lord, for whom personall, I have the highest regard and respect—a respect, in which I will yield to no man, is well versed in the history both of England and Ireland, and I do not mean to say that some such statement is not to be found ; but, I con fess, it is the first time I ever heard of military service being rewarded by grants for teaching Roman Catholic doctrines. (Hear, and much applause.) It is certainly a most extraordinary way of rewarding military achieve ments ; and if the statement had not been made i❑ Eng land, I should have said it was an Irish statement alto ._ d during 50 years, be now gether, (Loud cheers, and so me l aug ht er .) There — is one other statement which the noble lord makes, which I am anxious to impress upon this meeting, because we are not to consider the present as a final measure. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said, that— He had on every occasion voted in favour of Catholic eman cipation, and he had also voted with his noble friend the mem ber for South Lancashire in favour of an endowment for the Catholic clergy of Ireland, and he would vote for that proposal again if it were brought before the house." (Hear.) This precisely shews us, that this is not to be considered a final measure ;—(hear, hear)—and I think that what ever our personal regard for Lord Sandon may be—and I repeat, again, I will yield to none in my personal respect for his lordship's private character, and for his talents as a cotnmercial representative of Liverpool—yet, I do think, looking at this subject as christian men, we must bear in mind that Lord Sandon is prepared to vote again for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ire land. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) Neither, Sir, will that be final. (Hesr.) The noble lord made an obser vation in the course of his speech, for which, I think, even Sir Robert Peel and many other gentlemen in the House of Commons would scarcely be prepared. (Hear.) He said,— " He could not forget that the Protestant church had appro priated all the ecclesiastical revenues and properties of every description to Ireland, leaving the people still under the religi. ous guidance of their Roman Catholic pastors, and making no provision whatever for their churches or subsistence. (Hear, hear.) He could not, therefore, look on the question as a sim ple one of endowment, but he regarded it more in the light of restitution." (Hear and cheers') (General cries of " Oh, oh," and " hear, hear.") If, sir, we come to the subject of restitution—if a man has taken what does not belong to him, he must restore the whole and not a part. (Hear.) And if Lord Sandon's principle be correct, it is not a paltry grant of £30,000 or £40,000 to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, that must be made, but, on the principle of restitution, we must restore all the property both in Ireland and England which has been wrested from the Roman Catholics. (Hear, hear.) The other point to which I shall refer is that with regard to the compact or contract upon which Lord Sandon has dwelt so fully. I am speaking in'a com mercial town, and I speak as a commercial man ; I think, too, I know something of the nature of a contract, and I hope, sir, I respect the obligations of a compact. Sir, it is a common course, if a person says he has a contract, to ask to see the contract. (Hear, hear.) If it is not pro duced, I must either question its existence, or the terms of it; either it is not in existence at all or the terms are not such as they are represented to be. (Hear, hear.) But lam disposed to ask this question—if it is a contract, why appeal annually to the House of Commons to grant it? (Loud cries of Hear, hear.) This grant is made an nually, and if the contract was in existence at all there would have been no necessity to apply annually for the grant. (Hear, hear.) lam disposed, however, to take a somewhat higher ground than this; and I regret most sincerely, Mr. Chairman, that upon this ground I feel I must differ from you. lear.) I respect your opinions sir, so highly, that it is with great pain and unfeigned re gret I venture to express even a single syllable at all at variance with the tenour of your admirable observations. But you remarked, I think, that if there was a contract, let it be fulfilled. Now, sir, in our English courts of law, if a contract is brought into court, and that contract be either immoral or illegal is declared void ab initio. (Hear, hear.) Admitting that this contract is existing, all I ask is this, that we show the same respect to the laws of Godlas we do to the laws of the land. (Loud cheers.) I do not know that it is necessary to go further into the subject of compact. There is, however, one compact, which I think there are more parties than one bound to respect. (Loud and general cries of " hear, hear.") The Queen of England occupies her throne by a compact. (Cheers.) Our reverend and much respected friend Mr. Stewart, read part of the coronation service ; and if our reverend friend had gone a little further he would have found a still more important part of it, which, sir, I will with your permission read : "I, Victoria, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that the invo cation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous." Now in the face of that declaration so recently made, what must we think of the first minister of this land, who asks the Queen of England to affix her signature to a bill for endowing and perpetuating the teaching of those doctrines which she has, in the face of her people and solemnly in the sight of God, declared to be super stitious and idolatrous ?—(Loud cheers.)—Sir, I shall not further occupy the time of this meeting, but I will just put the meeting in possession of the opinion of a gentle man who has recently seceded from her Majesty's govern ment, I mean Mr. Gladstone. (Hear.) It is a very re markable opinion. Mr. Gladstone in his work entitled "The Church in its relations with the State", alludes to this grant to Maynooth ; and what is his opinion? His words are:— "In principle it is wholly vicious, and it will be a thorn in the side of the state of these countries so long as it is con tinued." (Hear, bear.) Such is the opinion of Mr. Gladstone; and it is with the solemn conviction of the truth of that statement—and I am sure it must be a subject of deep regret to every one in this meeting—that the minister of the crown should have introduced the bill which he has introduced into the House of Commons—a bill of which I will only express the hope, faint as it may be, that the Commons of En gland yet will not adopt it—that the Queen of England will yet never sign it—(tremendous cheering)—(and with the next point you, my friends, have something to do with —that the people of England will never sanction it.— (Immense and long-continued cheers). The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution and it was unanimously carried. Mr. T. T. GLAZEBROOK moved that the petition be adopted, and sent for presentation to the members for the borough. (Cries of " No, no.") He said—after the speeches you have heard I shall not say more than a very few words. I will, however, say that I rejoice that this public meeting has been held in Liverpool, for on other occasions of less importance than this public meetings have been held. Some years ago a system of education that was thought to be injurious was introduced, and it was not thought necessary to get up a great opposition to the measure provided it were presented in a modified state ; but every means were used to rouse the sympathy and energies of the town; and if it were right then it is right now to take steps to get up such a remonstrance as is suited to the importance of the occasion. It is stated, on the high authority of Mr.Colquhoun, that Drs.Troy and Reilly made a representation to Mr. Pitt on the subject, and urged that government should take the matter under their own control—that they should make such salutary alterations in May nooth as to make it an useful institution ; but at the same time those very persons were in connexion with a treasonable committee at Dublin, some of whom expiated their treason upon the scaffold. After a few other observations, in the course of which Mr. Glazebrook disclaimed all feeling of unkindness towards the Roman Catholic church he sat down amidst loud cheers. The Rev. HUGH WNEILE then came forward to se cond the resolution. The rev. gentleman was very warmly received. He said, Mr. Chairman ; there is, sir, a large number of people assembled in this place whom I should be very sorry to disappoint, or in any way to grieve. There may be, and I think it very likely there are, a few persons here whom I should be extremely glad to dis appoint. (Hear.) Therefore, sir, conscious of my own infirmity, I have taken the liberty of writing a scriptural protest upon this subject, which, with your permission, I will read before I make a speech. The rev. gentleman then read, with great impressiveness, the following : We are assembled here to day, not actuated by any de sire to find fault with others, neither by any unwillingness that those who differ from us in opinion, should possess every advantage really conducive to their true and perma nent happiness ; but by a deep and solemn sense of our responsibility and duty. The question before us is a re ligious question. As such we have felt it ; as such we have thought, and written, and spoken upon it. But in the meaning commonly applied to the word religious, it is not an exclusively religious question. It may indeed be doubted, whether in the present state of the world, any practical questions, entirely or exclusively religious, can arise among men. Man, consisting as he does of body as well as spirit, and the Christian dispensation consisting as it does, of outward and visible ordinances, as well as inward and spiritual principles ; the different branches of the subject cannot be so radically separated, as some per sons think they may be and are. If the commandments of Almighty God were exclusively addressed to man's inward feelings, and conveyed by the unseen ministration of angels, independent of any human instrumentality, then religion might be wholly separated from the affairs of this world. But this is not the case—God's command ments are addressed to man's outward actions also, and are conveyed by human instrumentality of divine appoint ment : and thus a man's intercourse with God, and obe dience to God's law, i. e. his religion specially so called, is absolutely inseparable from much that belongs to his intercourse with his fellow man. In every discussicn. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD therefore involving such topics, the real question at issue is a mixed one. I dont allege that it is wholly comprised in our duty towards God, without any regard to the feelings infirmiti-s, or prejudices, the varying judgments and pre sent interests of our fellow-men; neither certainly is it comprised in our duty, or supposed duty, towards our neighbour, without any regard to the plain revelation and permanent authority of Almighty God. Thus here as elsewhere the law has two tables, and the consistent Christian has two objects in view—first and chiefest, fidelity to divine truth, and second anti subordinate, the present convenience and future improvement of hu man society. These observations apply in all their force to the subject now under our consideration. lam willing to admit, that so far as the present convenience of human society is concerned, the weight of argument seems to be against us. I believe indeed that even on this ground, a true and adequate view of the social character of the Roman Catholic system, would prove it an unsafe and therefore impolitic course to give it national encourage ment. But generally speaking, I am, I repeat, willing to admit, that if we had nothing to take into our considera tion, but fair play between man and man as such ; if we had no revelation from God, and no special duty towards God and his revealed will; in that case we would all be liberal, as it is called : we would delight to be liberal, we should have no higher duty, no more constraining con sideration than how to please man. I do not wonder at persons who take this view being enthusiasts on the side of liberality—l mean persons who have no real practical regard to God's authority, or who evade it by the plea that either God has given us no revelation of his will, or if he has it is practically useless, since it is bigotted presumption in any man to pretend to understand its meaning. If I could exclude God's authority out of the question, I would join such persons—l wou ld j o i n them cordially with all the unchecked desire of my heart to cultivate and exercise kindness to all men. But if I believe the hrly scriptures to be a revelation from Almighty God (the question really turns upon this) ; if I believe that the bible contains directions of infinite wisdom concerning my highest duty, and announcements of infallible truth concerning my eternal happiness; then I cannot yield to the desires of my fallen heart, in defiance or neglect of what is written in the bible. I cannot look upon my duty towards my neighbour as my only or my highest duty; neither can I limit that duty to a regard, however sincere, for the temporal well-being of my neighbour. He pos sesses a soul as well as a body, and he has to live not only in this world, but in the world to come. It must I think in fairness be admitted that this makes an essential dif ference, and that what might be considered a sufficient discharge of my duty towards my neighbour if he were only a social creature intended only for this world, is not and cannot be considered a sufficient discharge of that duty towards an immortal creature, an heir of eternity. Here then is the root of the reason, why we cannot join the system of liberalism. It is not that we love our fel low creatures less, but that we love and fear God more. By various arguments, amounting to moral demonstration the most convincing, we are satisfied that the author of Creation is the author of Christianity. Our whole mind and soul and strength, and moral and intellectual being, with all its powers and all its capacities, is penetrated with a conviction of the truth of the holy scriptures : and that the things which are bound and loosened in the declara tions of this book, taken in the simplest and most natural meaning, will be bound and loosed in the unalterable decisions of the living God, at the bar of eternal judg ment. We cannot therefore discuss such a subject as the one now before us, as it was discussed in the House of Commons on Thursday evening last, namely, without any serious reference to the word or authority of God. We might as well, and quite as wisely, discuss an astronomical problem without reference to the centri fugal impetus, or the attraction of gravitation. We must refer to the revelled will and wisdom of God, and if those who have authority to act, will not condescend to accom pany us in that reference, but proceed upon their own wisdom, and the precedent of their predecessors in office; we, who have no authority, can do no more than respect fully and firmly witness our good confession, and then quietly and prayerfully abide the issue. We may, how ever, say, that in refusing to meet us on scriptural and christian ground, they do in effect confess that on that ground they cannot meet us. That sacred ground is ours. In the debate on Thursday evening no speaker amongst our opponents on this question, dared to set a foot there. Not so much as an attempt was made to shew that the authority of the Almighty justified the step they were advocating. It will not do to say that such a topic would have been irrelevant, having no connexion with the sub ject of debate. On the contrary, so intimately connected is religion with the subject, that the religious scruples of those who object to the proposed measure, were again and again referred to, and again and again thrown over, without any attempt at a scriptural answer. It was clearly known that the numerous petitions against the measure, which by their simultaneous presentation attracted the attention, and excited the merriment of the House, ori ginated in the religious objections of many thousands of the people : still no answer. Surely we may truly say, that whatever political principles, and whatever temporal interests of the country may be represented, and fairly represented in the House of Commons, the religion of the country is not represented. The question before us cannot be discussed in its true merits, without direct and pointed reference to the scriptures; because it involves principles concerningwhich there is no true standard upon earth, except the word of God. The moral government of God, in all its essential principles, is, like Himself, perfect, and therefore unchangeable. The outward cir cumstances of the administration of his government may vary in different ages and nations'; but the essential prin ciples on which the government itself is conducted, must be eternally the same. For example—punishment for transgressions is an essential principle of the divine go vernment. " Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord." The period and the mode of inflicting that punishment are varying circumstances not affecting the principle. In one instance it may please God in infinite wisdom to inflict the punishment immediately upon the transgression ; in another instance to delay the punish ment for years. In one instance to makethe punishment visible in outward calamity ; in another instance, to make it invisible in some secret distress. In the case of one in dividual to make the punishment to consist of temporal degradation and shame ; in: the case of another to re serve the punishment through a long course of temporal prosperity, and then to inflict everlasting misery. No such variation as this, however, can take place in the case of nations as such ; because no nation as such has any eternal existence, and therefore the punishment of a na tion must consist of some temporal calamity. And this is another principle of the divine government, indispen sable for the vindication of God's character as the provi dential ruler of this present world. This is largely il lustrated and corroborated by the facts recorded, and comments made in holy scripture. In so referring to the scriptures, we must not be excluded from the old Testa ment history by the common but untenable objection de rived from an alleged essential difference between the Jewish and Christian dispensations. It is said that the Jewish dispensation was one of visible temporal rewards and punishments, one of miraculous interference on the part of God when his kingdom was of this world, and therein so characteristically different from this, that no argument grounded upon a sup posed analogy between them can be sound and con clusive. Because in this dispensation no temporal ad vantage or prosperity is promised to the righteous, neither any temporal punishment to the wicked, the Lord's king dom is not of this world, and no miraculous interference on the part of God interrupts the natural course of events. Under the Jewish dispensation it is alleged, there was no mystery in providence, and, therefore, God, as a manifest providential ruler, punished the wicked nations by na tional calamities ; but now the long-suffering of God has made providence a mystery, and there is no vindication in this world of the character of God, as a providential ruler. It is the decision of the day of judgment that will vindi cate his character. Is this true, and will it bear th e t es t of scripture ? or are the facts f the case such, that no such objection can fairly be made to our line of argument? If the Jewish dispensation were one of visible miraculous interference, so that there was no mystery in providence, whence the complaint of the Psalmist,—" As for me, my feet were almost gone, my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prospe rity of the wicked." " They say, how doth God know ? and is there knowledge in the Most High ? Behold, these are the ungodly who prosper in the world ; they increase in riches." " They spread abroad as a green bay tree." " They come in no trouble like other men." And whence the exhortation,—" Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him : fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked de vices to pass." Whence also that complaint of Solomon, " Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." These passages express, as cha racteristic of the Jewish dispensation, the same long suffering forbearance in God, and the same mystery of providence in the prosperity of the wicked, which we re cognize as characteristic of our own times. And, per contra, if this one dispensation be so wholly divested of temporal rewards and punishments, that the character of God as a providential ruler remains in every case necessa rily involved in mystery until the day of judgment, whence that promise of our Saviour—" Give, and it shall be given unto you ; good measure, pressed down and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again ? And whence that exhortation of the Apostle, " Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honour thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." And whence the language of the same Apostle to his friend Timothy, " Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." Here we have expressed, as belonging to this our dispensation, that visible temporal interference which we see was character. istic of the Jewish. What is the result ? Why that both dispensations have the same general characteristics. The Jewish is not divested of the mystery of God's long suffering forbearance. The Christian is not divested of the miracle (as we speak) of God's visible interference. Concerning both we may say, in the language of Sai n t . . Augustin," If no sin were punished here, no - Provicfetc e . would be believed : if every sin were punished here, no judgment would be expected." What I contend for here is, that there does not exist so wide a difference betw een thel two dispensations, in their essential characteristics, as that any objection can be grounded thereupon, against the propriety of the parallel which we draw, or the force of the instruction which we thence derive. The dealings of Almighty God with the Jewish nation compose what is commonly called sacred history, not that the events them selves are, in themselves, more sacred than others, for all events, in all nations, are equally under ihe immediate and sovereign management of God ; but they are sacred to us abcyre all others, because they are accompanied with in spired comments, pointing out the true philosophy of the history. God himself, by the ministry of la is holy Pro phets, called the attention of the Jews, and now calls the attention of all men, to the moral of his dealings, to the doctrines contained in the narrative, to the principles, the everlasting unchanging principles of truth, involved in the facts of the case. " Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none else !" The history of their fathers, the former things or events passed, were worthy of their remembrance and careful consideration ; because He who had overruled the history of their fathers, was over ruling this history, and on the same principles. In the suc cessive histories of the world, only the human instruments change. One generation of creatures follows after ano ther; but the great Divine Agent changeth not, and the great principle of his government changeth not. lie is eternally and essentially sovereign, and cannot for a mo ment be controlled ; eternally and essentially perfect, and cannot for a moment alter. If controlled in anything, he ceases to be sovereign ; if altered in anything. lie ceases to be perfect—he ceases to be God. Remember what he has done, consider it, that you may understand what he is doing, and what he will do. He has stamped a revealed certainty upon some of his purposes by pro phecy. A revealed certainty ! That is, a pledge of cer tainty communicated to his intelligent creatures. Essen tial certainty is i❑ his mind and purpose, independent of and antecedent to all revelation. Revealed certainty is in his word, declaring the end from the beginning,—not only knowing it himself, but declaring it, that his crea tures also, who can trust his word, may know it, and know that he knew it before —announcing from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, " My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure ! " It is in contrast with such views of the majesty-of the living God, that the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures exhibits the madness of image worship. The idols of Babylon, the images of Bel and Nebo, are described as a burden for the weary beasts, who dragged them on the carriages heavy loaden. Instead of supporting their worshippers, they themselves required to be supported, and carried and set in their places, out of which they could not move. The power and majesty of the God of Israel are contrast ed. By Him his worshippers had been supported from the first, and " even to your old age." He says, "I am he, and even to hoar hairs I will carry you. I have made and I will bear ; even I will carry and will deliver you." Then the men of Israel are appealed to, exhorted to con sider this, and shew themselves possessed of reason. " Remember this and shew yourselves men :" give proof that you are not stones or beasts of the field, or images, or automata, or lunatics, but that you are men. It is to men, to creatures of intellige ;ace, capable of the exercise of reason, that God has addressed his law, and the high reason as signed therein against the use of images in worship, and against every species of idolatry, is that God is jealous. He is jealous of his own glory as the only appropriate ob ject of worship, saying, " I will not give my glory to an other, nor my praise to graven images." He will not suffer images or relics to share with him the praise of effecting cures, or forgiving sins, or administering conso lations among men. He is jealous of the happiness of his creatures, which cannot be promoted by cultivating such false dependances, as must terminate in disappointment. It does not meet the full demands of his holy jealousy that his creatures worship him, they must worship none other but him. There is not only a propriety but also an exclusiveness about his claim, which admits of no partici pation with another. This may be illustrated from human things, both by contrast and comparison. By contrast, it differs essentially from the social friendship and ordinary businesses of men. You may make a second friend, without any injury or offence to the first. You may transact business with a third, fourth, or fifth neigh bour, without any unkindness or injustice towards the first or second. Nay, in these, and such matters as these, participation is right, for we are members one of another; but in the relationship which each of us bears to God there is an absolute and indivisible exclusiveness. By comparison also, some of our human relationships seem to illustrate the subject. Especially there are two, which aid us in apprehending aright the exclusiveness of God's claim upon our affection and service. These are loyalty and conjugal fidelity. A truly loyal subject cannot in any degree, or under any pretence whatever, divide his alle giance. He cannot feel or act towards any other sove reign as he does towards his own. Here, participation in the slightest measure, is disloyalty ; because the sove reign's claim upon him is not only right in itself, but also exclusive of all others. In like manner, a faithful and true wife cannot, in any degree, or under any pretence whatever, divide her affection or her attention. She can not feel or act towards any other as she does towards her own husband. Here, participation in :he slightest mea sure is infidelity, because the husband's claim is not only right, but exclusive. God spake these words and said— " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other God's before me. Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them : for I, the Lord thy God, am a jea lous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." In our division of the commandments of God, these words com prise two, the first and second. In the division made in the Roman Catholic Catechisms and Prayer Books, what we call the second commandment is treated as an explana tion of the first, and under the plea that it is enough to give the commandment itself, without its explanation.— But whatever may be done in catechisms of man's com piling, these words were spoken by the living God, and are found in his holy law in the Bible, in our Bible, and in their Bible. In the Douay Bible they are thus trans lated : " Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of these things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them. lam the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." Look now into the glass of this holy law of God. The human heart is like the human eye; while busy upon objects all around, it cannot see itself without a glass.— God sees and knows it in its inmost winding, and he has set before us the faithful glass of his holy law, that we may know ourselves. Every prohibition of God's law is addressed to some propensity Of man's heart. God says, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Here we learn that a propensity of mail's heart is to multiply ob jects of worship. The original of the passage is remark able. " Thou shalt have no other Gods before my face." The English word before is used in three different senses, with reference to times it signifies prior to; with reference to dignity it signifies in preference to or above • with reference to place it signifies in prese nce of. The last is the meaning here. Thou shalt have no other objects of worship in Jehovah's presence. And if not in his presence, then where can we have them ? Let Jeremiah answer, " Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off ? Can any hide himself in secret places that 1 shall not see him ? saith the Lord. Do not I fill Heaven and earth saith the Lord ? " Again God says, as a dis tinct commandment in our views, as an explanation of the fact, say the Romanists, but in either case it remains true, that God says " Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image. ' Here we learn that a propensity of the human heart is to have recourse to visible objects in worship ; to attempt to affect the mind through the eye sight. Had this been suitable, had it been conducive to true devotion; had it been profitable to men and accepta ble to God ; would these words have been spoken from Mount Sinai ? If the use of visible objects in divine wor _ ship, as images, pictures, relics, crucfixres, heads, scapular, agues dei, had been not only allowable, but commendable ; is it reasonable to suppose, is it likely, is it possible, that God would hare used such words as seem so plainly to forbid them altogether. This argument is made stranger still by a fact recorded in Scripture, compared with the inspired comments upon it. " All the people brake off their golden earrings that were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron, and he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving -tool, afier he had made it a molten calf; and they said, these by thy Gods, 0, Is rael, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw it he built an altar before it ; and Aaron made pro clamation, and said to-morrow is a feast to the Lord. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered bnrnt offerings, and brought peace offerings, and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to pray." In this case what was the object of their worship ? Taking worship in its highest sense, and ultimate design, and de sire of the human mind, clearly the object of the worship was the Lord God of Israel who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was to Him, even to Jehovah, that Aaron proclaimed a feast. If any man in the camp had accused them of worshipping the calf, they would doubt less have denied it with indignation, and said, No ! we only use the calf as a help to our senses, we do not wor ship it ; it is a wilful calumny against us to assert such a thing. Did not our respected High Priest proclaim a feast to Jehovah ? The true God is the object of our worship, and why then accuse us of worshipping an image ? Hear now what God himself said to it. `• The Lord said to Moses, Go, get down again, for thy people have corrupted themselves : they have turned ;Aide quickly out of the way which I commanded them ; they have made a molten calf, and have worshipped it." Hear also how the Apostle Paul commented on this occurrence in the history of Israel, and held it out as a warning to the Christian church . . _ _ against idolatry. " Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written, the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." The Israelites, on the occa sion referred to, were keeping a feast to Jehovah, the God of their fathers. They were singing his praises for their deliverance by his power out of the bondage in which they had been so long enslaved : All this was good, and yet this very incident in their history is selected by the Apos tle, as supplying a warning against idol a t r y. A n d w h y ? Because in their worship they made use of an image. The question recurs, is God a word to b e p rac ti ca ll y supreme or not ? And this is really the question at issue. For although some parts of the Bible may be obscure, and some parts so expressed as to be capable of various inter pretations ; yet the great and characteristic matters of difference between Christianity and Romanism are so clear and distinct, that to deny this distinctness is to make the Bible practically useless—useless as an authority against any crime whatever. For if it b e no t p l a i n against bowing down to graven images, e.g., it is not plain against theft or adultery. And if it be plain against theft and adultery, so that he who commits such things offends Almighty God and incurs his righteous anger ; then it is equally plain against bowing d own t o graven i mages , as an offence incurring the anger of the Almighty. We be lieve it plain and decisive against all these ; simply and explicitly so, in the shortest and most unequivocal form of speech which a moral governor could address to rea sonable and responsible creatures. " Thou shalt not steal." " Thou shalt not commit adultery." " Thou shalt not bow down to them." And as we could not (without wilful rebellion against God's authority) approve of or co-operate in, the endowment of a college for in struction in theft or adultery, so neither can we approve of, or co-operate in, the endo wmen t o f a co ll ege f o r instruction in bowing down to images. If Ireland contained six or seven millions of people devotedly attached to their priesthood ; and if their priest hood avowed (and glorified in it as a part of their ancestral faith) that one part of their education consisted in learning to steal, and that one part of the official duty consisted in teaching the congregations composing the millions how to steal : and if application were made to the British Go vernment to conciliate the people by contributing to the education of their Priesthood ; would such application be complied wiih ? It will be answered, no. But I mug take the liberty of asking, why not? The people sincere in their attachment to and veneratim- Priests. T' P-:-- ies .he Priests are sincere in their convictions of the truth and propriety of their early education handed down from their forefathers, and it is highly intolerant in you to pronounce them wrong, and on the presumption of k owing better than they do, to refuse to deal out to them equal justice in the matter of temporal support. If it be answered, the cases are not parallel, because theft is an injury to their fellow subjects, and it is the pq.rt of good Government to prevent such injury ; but bowing down to graven images is only an offence to God, and Government has nothing to do with God. This concedes what I contend for. It proclaims its own ungodliness. It refuses to sanction and support the teaching of theft, not because God has forbidden it, but only because it is injurious to society. Now, our high reason for opposing the national adoption and endowment of lomanism is grounded on the Word of God; and the question now in rapid progress of decision in England is, shall the Word of God retain real practical authority in the land, or shall it not? It is thus that as christians we show good and scriptural reasons for our own conduct in direct obedience to the Word of our God. But as I have already said, the subject is a mixed one, and I now proceed to show cause for opposing the proposed measure, even on the ground of the good of society. And here you will per ceive that it was not at random or without an aim, that I selected theft for the illustration just offered. Because in point of fact, theft is a part of the instruction given in the College of Maynooth, theft on a small scale indeed, but still theft, and making in number what it wants in weight. I am wellaware that this will be loudly and vehemently, but withal either ignorantly or falsely denied ; and I most free ly grant that it is,a charge so solemn and so fearful, that to advance it without being able to prove it would be ab solutely unpardonable. I proceed to prove it. But first let me ask, what would and ought to be considered a proof of it ? Suppose a commission of education to issue from our Parliament, and to proceed to Cambridge to institute an inquiry. The Commissioners ask the Master of Tri nity College to say what are the class-books, which it is imperative on the students to read. Ile gives the list, in cluding, among others, Locke on the Human Under standing, and Paley's Evidences of the Christian Reli gion. Would this be proof that the principles taught in those books of Locke and Paley formed a part of the edu cation in Trinity College. Cambridge? Surely it would, and the authorities of that college could not deny that they were responsible for teaching, and might most justly and truly be accused of teaching any thing and every thing in culcated in those books. It is a matter of fact then, that the parliamentary commissioners of education went to the College of Maynooth, and made inquiry concerning the class-books which it is imperative on the students to read. The list was given by the president, Dr. Crotty, including, among others, Dr. Delahogue's Treatise on Dogmatic Theology, and the Rev. Louis Badly on Moral Theology. Is this a proof that the principles taught in these books of Delahogue and Bailly forma part of the edu cation given in Maynooth College? Surely it is ; any'. the authorities of that college cannot deny that they are responsible for teaching, and may most justly and truly be accused of teaching, anything and everything incul cated in these books. I open the books, and some mea sure of quotation is obviously necessary for my proof. But here I must entreat your seriousness, because on for mer occasions I have witnessed with much regret, that the grossness of the immorality exhibited in such quota tions, instead of producing a shudder in solemn silence, has led to very unseemly, because unseasonable, laughter and applause. My dear Sir, and my dear friends, let us seek to be so impressed with the dreadful and dangerous character of such teaching, as to be incapable of lightness or levity or merriment, during its painful but indispensa ble exposure. The reverend gentlemnn here read se veral extracts, clearly establishing his statements. Let husbands and masters, let the whole Chris tian community, especially let our leg:slators in their high responsibilities, ponder seriously on this mode of dealing with God's most holy law. Is it not palliation of, nay actual instruction in, theft, provided only the amount be small? And is not this in direct and flagrant violation of the word and wisdom of Him who knew what was in many, and said—" He that is unjust in a little, is unjust also in much, and he that is faithful in a little, is faithful also in much." Christianity estimates dishonesty by the principle, not the quantity, and forbids the theft of a penny, as imperatively as the theft of a pound, or a thousand pounds. Romanism estimates dishonesty by the quantity, not the principle; and while she de nounces the theft of a pound, on account of the injury done to man, she palliates as venial—nay, almost defends and justifies, the theft of the penny, although it is palpa ble disobedience to God, and although it tends to blunt in the man the fine edge of a sense of right and wrong. I might call attention to their mode of treating the seventh commandment as well as the eighth ; but delicacy forbids in such an assembly as this. But I must say that, to my mind, the most extraordinary, the most unaccountable moral phenomenon in the history of our fallen world, is the fact that men and gentlemen, fathers and husbands, consent and actually co-operate to expose their daughters and their wives to the questionings of the confessional, when they may read the instructions given to their priest hood preparatory to those questionings, and see the par ticulars—many of them suggestive of indecency—in which those men are systematically taught to examine their penitents, especially recently married females. (Hear.) The reverend gentleman here concluded his reading, and proceeded to say—And this, sir, is the seminary for the endowment of which from the public treasury of England the prime minister of the country has introduced a bill into the House of Commons. (Hear.) He introduced that bill in a speech of great clearness and under sys tematic arrangement. He said, "It has appeared to us that we are at liberty to pursue one or other of three courses with respect to the institution of Maynooth. It is competent for us to continue without alteration the present system, and the present amount of the parlia mentary grant. That is one course." "It is competent," he proceeded, " for us to discontinue the vote altogether, to repudiate all connection with Maynooth." That was another course ; and I am extremely glad to find the right hon. baronet declare that the house were at liberty, had they thought it right, to adopt any one of these courses. (Hear.) I take him at his word. Either of them is a repudiation of all notion of a compact. The third course was, " to adopt in a friendly and liberal spirit the institution provided for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood." He discussed these three, seriatim. In discussing the first he sbewed, unanswerably, I think, the impropriety of continuing the present grant ; he argued, unanswerably, in my opinion, that as regards principle it is as much violated by the grant of £9OOO, as it will be by a larger grant, because principle is not a matter of amount. This part of his argu ment, although strong to those wbo would advocate the present grant, and reject any increase in it, has no strength with those who altogether repudiate any grant whatever. The right hon. baronet urged, however, the impropriety of refusing to add to the grant by a very striking exhibition of Maynooth statistics, in which he brought the subject before the house in forma" pauperis. He described how wretchedly:they were lodged, many of them occupying the same room, and many the same brd, and so he entreated for more money. It is, however, upon the second branch of his speech that the most im portant part of the subject was brought forward ; and it is on this I wish to offer a few observations. " I come now," he said, " to the consideration of the second alter native. Shall we avow that our conscientious scruples are so violated in the maintenance of this system, that we will discontinue the connection with Maynooth ; that the vote shall, after some temporary arrangements, be dis continued, and the burden of educating the priesthood shall be thrown upon the people of Ireland ?" And to persuade the house to reject this alternative, he proposes, as the commencement of his argument, three questions. " When did your connection with it arise ? Under whose authority ?" And " How long has it been continued ?" The right honourable baronet then shows that it arose in the time of Mr. Pitt's ministry, in the reign of George the Third, when the Duke of Portland was Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Lord Fitz william Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. No higher than these high names does the right bon. bart. go to justify the continuance of the connection with Maynooth ! (Hear.) I hope that the people of England will require some higher argument than this to justify its continuance. (Cheers.) These are highly respected names; but the subject ;involves a higher principle, as I have already shewn ; and when the right hon. bart. divided the subject into these three heads, inviting under the second, especial attention to conscientious scruples with regard to this connection with Maynooth, I certainly did expect to find something like an effort to shew that religious scruples did not stand in the way. But there was no attempt to shew this. The fact that Mr. Pitt persuaded George the Third to it, the fact that George the Third reluctantly consented—the fact that Lord Fitzwilliam commended it to the attention of the Irish Parliament as best he could —these facts have nothing to do with the principle of the measure. They are historical facts, but they do not touch the point of conscientious scruples. The argument propounded by the right hon. bart. was that of conscien tious scruples ; the argument advanced and defended goes no higher than Mr. Pitt and George the Third. (Hear.) Our consciences are not in allegiance to Mr. Pitt and George the Third. We should be compelled, indeed, to take such names for our authority if we had no higher authority. If we had no bible, no law of God, Ido not know how we could go higher than George the Third and Mr. Pitt ; and what I complain of is that the right hon. baronet did not go higher. (Hear, hear.) Ido complain that after formally introducing conscientious scruples be fore the nation, the right hon. baronet made no allusion to the word of God. (Hear, hear.) I do notthink the omis sion can be justified by the plea that parliament is no place for introducing religious subjects ; conscientious scruples ,are introduced, yet they are dealt with without any appeal whatever to th e f oun d a ti ons o f re li g i on as h e ld by the British people. Advancing in his argument, and shewing the inconvenience which must inevitably be in curred if the grant be withheld, he asks " what a lesson shall we teach to the landlords of Ireland. We shall be teaching them not to grant any land for the erection of Roman Catholic Chapels ;" and he referred to the city companies also who hold estates in Ireland, and who have given land for Roman Catholic Chapels. In what position should we be with respect to Roman Catholic Chap lains, to prisons and workhouses in Ireland, and in the colonies." So the right hon. baronet traces all the steps that have been taken in that direction ; and upon the strength of these pleas he calls on parliament to take another ; yet the heading of the speech, under which all this is given, invites us to consider conscientious scruples to the grant I If there existed conscientious scruples, they exist still. (Hear.) If the question be retorted upon me, and others who think as I do, and we be asked as practical ,Joen what should be done under such circum stances, I think the answer to that is a reference, in the first place, to what should have been done. Were we mistaken when we thought that the mission of England was to extend over the world a pure and reformed church? Were we mistaken when we thought that England, blessed with a reformed religion, and, in the providence of God, made the mistress of so many colonies, should have made an effort to introduce that religion among all the people over whom she acouir,l fl-t inner ways (near.) England, it appears, had not confidence in her own creed ; and instead of saying, as I humbly think she ought to have said in all her colonies "we will not molest you in your opinions, whatever they are, but will not teach you any exupt those we think true." (Cheers.) But if we respect yonr conscience, and refuse to enforce upon you opinions you disapprove of, we ask you to respect our conscience and not request us to endow opinions of which. we disapprove. (Cheers.) Are the people in every co lony to have their conscience and their religion respected, and England not to have the same ?• Is England to present to the aggregate of her colonies an exhibition upon a large scale similar to what was thrown in the teeth of an hon. member by the late Mr. Wilber force, in debate upon this very subject of Maynooth ? (Hear.) A noble lord on the opposition side of the house, made what is called a " liberal" speech. Mr. Wilberforce got up and said he was one of those who be lieved the New Testament, and he had no ambition to be an honorary member of all religions. (Hear, hear.) Then if it would have been right in the first instance for Eng land to have refused to teach anything but what she be lieves true, surely it is right now that England should cease to teach anything but what she think s t rue . (L au d cheers.) The reveren gentleman, after some further remarks, which we are under the absolute necessity of passing over, closed his eloquent address by drawing a' glowing picture of the unhappy state the nation would he in if it departed from its high profession of pure and unadulterated truth. The thanks of the meeting having been voted to the chairman, the rev, gentleman in acknowledging the vote said, he had received letters from Mr. D. Hodgson and Mr. Samuel Holme, regretting their in a bility t o b e pre sent. (Cheers.) For himself he very cordially thanked all present for the very kind attention and patient man ner in which they had listened to all the arguments which had been uttered. (Cheers.) The rev. gentleman then delivered the Apostolic benediction, and the meeting separated. STATIONS OF THE BRITISH ARMY, ON THE IST APRIL, 1844 (From Coleburn's United Service Magazine.) [Where two places are mentioned, the last-named is that at which the Depot of the Regiment is stationed.] Ist LifeGuards—Regent'sPark R 1 s 2 o t n ) D ' d a r l D a H g t G o G u — d a d—ce Gds.—Ca tnre k. d r . s b o u r r y 2d—Longford. 3d—Ballincollig 4th—Cahir s th — Manchester. 6th—York. 7th—C. G. Hope, Maidstone. Ist Dragoons—Dublin 2d—Edinburgh. 3d—Bengal ; Maidstone 4th—lpswich. 6th—Brighton 7th Hussars—Birmingham. Bth—Dublin. gth Lancers—Bengal ; Maidst. 10th Hussars—Newbridge. 11th Hussars—Dundalk. 12th Lancers— Nottingham. 13th Light D'goons—Exeter. i4th—Bombay; Maidstone. 15th Hussars—Madras; M'ston 16th Lancers—Bengal, Maidstn 17th Lancers—Hounslow. Grenadier Guards (Ist batt.) St. John's Wood. (2d batt.)—Tower. (3d batt.) Portman-street Barr Coldstream Guards—(lst batt. 40th—Bengal; Chatham. 41st—Brecon. 42d—Malta ; Isle of Wight. Reserve batt., Malta Montreal; Carlisle. -Plymouth. -Cape of Good Hope, I.W Reserve batt., Gibraltar. 6th—Canada ; Dublin. 7th—Chester. sth—Jamaica ; Hull. gth — Winchester. 50 th—Bengal ; Chatham. list—Van D. Land ; Chatham 52d—Quebec ; Dover. 53d—Bengal; Chatham. 54th—Mullingar. sth—Chichester. 6th—Bolton. 7th—Madras ; Chatham. ,Bth—N.S.Wales ; Chatham gth—Portsmouth , oth (Ist battalion —Fermoy batt.)—Canada; Dundee. 61st—Buttevant. 62,1—Bengal ; Chatham. 63(1—Madras ; Chatham. fifth—Northampton. 55th—Castlebar. 56th—Dublin. 57th Dublin. 68th— Deal. 69th — Templemore. 70th—Manchester 71st—Antigua ; Isle of Wight Reserve batt., Canada 72d—Gibraltar; Cork. 73d—Dublin. 74th—Canterbury. 75th—Newport, South Wales. 76th—Portsmouth 77th—Jamaica, Athlone. 78th—Bombay ; Chatham. 79th—Gibraltar ; Naas. 80th—Bengal; Chatham 81st—Canada; Templemore. 82d—Canada; Tralee. 83d—Leeds. 84th—Madras; Chatham. 83th—St.Vincent; Londonderry 86th—Bombay ; Chatham. 87th—Edinburgh. 88th—Malta; Aberdeen. Sgth—Canada ; Newbridge. 90th—Ceylon ; Clonmel. gist—Cape & St.llelena ; I.ofW. Reserve batt., C. G.Hope. gad—Glasgow. 93d—Canada; Birr. 94th—Madras ; Chatham Igsth—Ceylon ; Kinsale. 86th—N.S.Wales ; Chatham. 97th—Corfu ; Isle of Wight. Reserve batt., Corfu. 98th—China ; Chatham. 99th—N. S. Wales ; Chatham. Rifle B (Istb.)—Corfu ; Athlone (ad batt.)—Halifax,N.S.,lsleW. Winchester. (2d batt) Windsor. Scotch FusileerGrds—(lst batt) St. George's Barracks. (2d batt.)— Wellington Bar. Ist Foot (Ist batt.)—Gibraltar, Clare Castle. (2dbatt.)Barbados ; Enniskillen 2d Foot—Bombay ; Chatham. 3d—Bengal ; Sheerness. 4th—Madras; Chatham. sth—Belfast. 6th—l'ublin. 7th—Barbadoes ; Plymouth. Bth—Weedon. 9th—Bengal; Chatham. 10th—Bengal; Chatham. 11th—* Chatham. 12th—Mauritius; Isle Wight. Reserve batt., Mauritius 13th—Bengal; Chatham. 14th—Canada ; Dover. 15th—Limerick. 16th—Cork. 17th—Aden ; Chatham. lath—China ; Chatham. 19th—Cephalonia; Jersey. 20th—Bermuda ; Isle of Wight Reserve batt., Bermuda 21st—Madras; Chatham. 22d—Bombay; Chatham. 23a—Trinidad ; Isle of Wight. Reserve batt., Canada 24th—I{ ilk 25th—Madras ; Chatham. 26th—Newcastle-upon-Tyne 27th—Cape G. Hope; Guernsey 28th—Bombay ; Chatham. 29th—Bengal ; Chatham. 30th—Limerick. 31st—Bengal; Chatham. 32d—Dublin. 33d—N. Brunswick, Cork. 34th—Athlone 35th—Mauritiut; Nenagh. 36th—Newry. 37th— Gosport. 3Sth—Gibraltar ; Boyle. 39th—Bengal ; Chatham. * For New Reserve batt., HaWei, N. S. Ist W. I. Regt.—Demerara, &c. 2nd—Jamaica. 3d—Nassau, Sierra Leone, Ike. Ceylon Rifle Regt.—Ceylon. R. Canada nine fteg.—Canada. Cape Mounted Riflemen—Cape of Good Hope. Royal Newfoundland Companies —Newfoundland. Royal Malta Feneibles, Malta. St. Helena Regt.—St, Helena. >oath Wales. NORTH HAY MARKET, APRIL 7 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. s. d. s. d. Hay, old nib Oll @ 1 2 Potatoes, 2,p gOlb. new Clover Green ditto Straw, Wheat 0 7 0 83 Turnips, To ten 27 0 —3 l • Oat 0 73 0 83 Manglewurzle 30 o —3l 0 Barley s. d. s. d -v.....=.1■1 TIDE TABLE. DATE. MEN. EVN. HEIGHT HOLYDAYS, ETO. ---- -.......-- Tuesday 8 - 0 7 18 8 Wednes. 9 025 042 17 10 Venus rises n 17m. 111. Thurs... 10 059 116 17 0 Friday.. 11 133 150 15 7 Saturday 12 2 8 226 14 3 Sunday. 13 247 3 9 13 0 3rd Sunday after Easter Monday. 14 334 4 1 11 9 Mars rises 2h 24m. m. 3rd Sunday after Easter Mars rises 2h 24m. m. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS FOR LIVERPOOL. APRIL. HOUR. 8, John Hoose Barry, audit District Court, 12 8, Daniel Mackay, 2nd • 9, William Fox, audit Ditto, 12 11, John Rikey, Ist Ditto, 11 12, James Bibby, audit Ditto, 11 14, Samuel Parker Bidder, Ist NORTHERN HOSPITAL, APRIL 5 [WEEKLY REPORT.] ADMITTED Accidents Medical and Surgical cases Upon recommendation DISCHARCIND 23 Cured 22 Relieved and at own request 4 17 1 Attending as Out Patients. 15 1 Irregular 40 I Died. Remainingin the Hospital.. 72, Consulting Surgeon, William Gill, Esq. House Visiters, John Lightbody and R. P. Cartsr, Esqrs. Treasurer, R. W. Bateson,Esq. Chaplain, Rev. Wm. Hughes.-House -Surgeon, Mr. Parker How TO CALCULATE LEASES TOR LIVE.—Add the ages of the different lives together. Then take the aver. age years of them ' • which average deduct fro m th e num ber eighty ; and whatever the remainder is, divide by two ; and the result will be the number of years value which the lease is reckoned to be worth. A DANGEROUS PET.—During our conversation a young panther, that we had not at first perceived asleep on a corner of the divan, advanced slowly and lay down close by his master, at the same time putting his paw upon one of us. At this piece of unexpected familiarity we could not restrain a movement of surprise. The Defterdar, who seemed to enjoy our embarrassment, gave us a mischiev ous glance. " Are you afraid ?" said he. " No," we replied. " Why, should we be afraid ?" " Fear nothing," quoth he, " the animal is tame." Saying these words he pulled the panther's whiskers, and the brute, by showing his long sharp teeth, and uttering a discontented growl, showed how little he relished this conduct. " I am sorry," proceeded our host, " that I cannot show you the lion which I brought from Shendy ; but a few days ago I was making him play with one of my mamlocks, who, awkwardly treading on the animal's toe, was devoured before my eyes. I was compelled, for my own safety's sake, to lodge a couple of pistol-bullets in his head. Poor animal—it was so very fond of me 1" We requested the Bey to have the kindness to send away his panther, if he wished us to prolong our visit, and one of his khawasses delivered us from its disagreeable company. —Library of Travel. A SINGULAR CREST.—Thomas Fitz-Gerald, father of John, first Earl of Kildare, bore the sobriquet of Nappagh, Simiacus, or the ape, from the following ludicrous circum stance :—When he was an infant of nine months old, his grandfather and father were both killed in the war waged by them against M'Carthy, an opposing chief. He was then being nursed at Thralee, and his attendants, in the first consternation caused by the news of the disaster, ran out of the house, leaving the child alone in his cradle. A large ape or baboon, kept on the premises, with the natural love of mischief inhereat in that mimic tribe, taking advantage of the circumstance, took him from his resting place, and clambered with him to the roof of the neighbouring abbey, and thence to the top of the steeple. After having carried his noble charge rou n d the battle ments, exhibiting the while various monkey tricks here tofore unknown to nursery maids, to the no small con sternation and amazement of the spectators, he descended with careful step, ad terram firnsam, and replaced the child in the cradle. In consequence of this event, the earls of Kildare and other noble branches of this ancient line assumed as a crest, "An ape proper, girt about ti middle and chained or," and for supporters, two apes. The addition of the chain is singular.—Th et( riOilliief of Heraldry. 1- 0 , ti!Di