The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-10-26 00:00:00

Ireland, from the introduction of this system—who have deluded themselves into the vain belief that it will pave the way for the ultimate conversion of the Popish flocks from the errors of their ways. Dr . Murray, and his "eleven hundred clergymen," will take precious care that the system shall work bene ficially for the interests of the " Holy Mother Church." In proof of the general concurrence of the Popish Bishops on the subject of the national school system. Dr. Murray states, that he received " numerous an swers" to his applications on the subject, to two Of which he particularly directs the attention of his Ro man Catholic countrymen, as coming from " those districts in the North, where Protestant prejudices (I) '""t supposed to be in full vigour, and where, if any cwnger to their religion lurked in the system, it could not fail to be soon called into ruinous activity." These replies are from the Roman Catholic Primate of Drogheda, Louth, Armagh, and Tyrone, and from the titular Bishop of Down and Connor ; and both of them are expressive of the most perfect satisfac tion with the working of the system, and especially With its friendly tendency towards Popery. In a subsequent part of this letter, Dr. Murray, after enumerating the rules enforced by the commis sioners on the subject of religious instruction, pro ceeds to state in what manner these rules may be con sidered as unobjectionable in the opinion of the Popish clergy. He says, that " the pastors, in whom the ever faithful Catholic people confide for the religious instruction of their children, have unrestricted liberty to explain to them and impress on their minds, even within the walls of the national schools, every article of their faith, and every principle that should regu late their moral conduct." What more gould be de sired ? There is no restriction whatever placed upon the interference of the Popish priesthood—the schools are, to all intents and purposes, Romish seminaries— endowed out of the national funds, to which Protestants contribute at least three fourths,—and they are, ac cordingly considered the fittest instruments within the reach of the Popish hierarchy, for perpetuating the spiritual slavery of the Irish peasantry, and thus se curing the ascendancy of the Papacy. What more, We ask, can be desired ? With respect to the alleged influence of the Pro testant members of the Board of Education, Dr. Mur ray is at some pains to rebut the objections of M'Hale. While he is lavish of his praises upon his Protestant coadjutors, he acknowledges that "it would undoubt edly give more confidence to the Catholic body, as well as diminish the responsibility of the present Catholic commissioners, if a larger proportion of members of their communion were introduced into the Board: , There does not, however, appear to be any substantial ground of complaint. The Papists and Protestants work together with a marvellous degree of harmony. he'l latter are pronounced " gentlemen of truth and honour," who "entered the Board with the distinct understanding that the utmost freedom of conscience, without the least inteferfence with the religious opi nions of any, should bd secured throughout every branch of the institution." With such yielding and pliant characters,—with such conciliating, liberal, and conceding Protestants as fellow-workers, it is no won der, as Dr. Murray observes, that " the Catholic members have never been allowed to feel their infe riority in number." How should they, when every thing has been arranged to their own liking, and while nearly all the schools are under the direct and indivi dual controul of the Popish priests ? The laboured panegyric in which Dr. Murray pour trays the amiable points in the character of his digni fied fellow-commissioner, Archbishop Whately, must Certainly be considered as very complimentary to a Protestant prelate, who has SWORN, with all solemnity, to "drive away all heresy" from among the people of his charge. Dr. Murray says, that this " exalted dig nitary" did several years ago," while rector of a parish in England, give publicity to certain erroneous no tions, which he had been led to form of the Popish creed,' from the insidious and deceptive statements of an apostate priest." But, under the genial influence of an essentially Popish atmosphere, it appears that Dr. Whately has repudiated his "erroneous notions," for we are told by Dr. Murray, that " his high station has / not been degraded, as it formerly was," when he Drenched against Popery,) "by fiery charges against those who were represented as having a church without a religion." We wish Dr. Whately joy of this flatter ing testimonial to the fidelity of his ministry, and to the strict fulfilment of his ordination vows. " But," says Dr. Murray, " it is said that his Grace, and his associate, the Rev. Mr. Carlile, have contrived to infuse the poison of religious error" (that is, as we should say, wholesome Protestant truth)" into the hooks published by the society." Dr. M'Hale dis tinctly charges the Board with this " infusiOn of poi son" into their accredited formularies. How does the titular of Dublin answer this very serious charge ? His reply is instructise. He says that he holds him self equally responsible with the other commissioners for every thing contained in those books; but acknow ledges, at the same time, that " mistakes may have crept" into them. By " mistakes" we are of course to understand any texts of Scripture which unfold the leading truths of the Christian scheme, or which serve to slim the errors of the great fore-doomed apostacy. With this saving acknowledgment he is content to add, that if " any one should prove to him that those books contain any error at variance with the Romish faith, be would at once cause it to be expunged, with out dreading the least opposition from any member of the hoard." While armed with such sweeping expur gatorial powers, can any one wonder that Dr. Murray Should continue to be satisfied with the system ? But what shall we say of his strange forgetfulness in con fessing that the Holy Scriptures contain matter " at variance" with the Popish faith ?—for such is the only inference which can be legitimately drawn front the language which he employs. Dr. .M'Hale complains that the pruning-knife is not sufficiently employed in cutting down the Scripture extracts—that many pas sages are retained in the books sanctioned by the , bnard which ought not to be placed within the reach of the People. Dr. Murray replies, " Point out those pas sages which you conceive tube at variance with our faith, and I will cause them to be at once expunged — fo r I can assure you that they only crept in without having attracted my notice." The admission is of importance, as is also the following:—" It is, more over, to be distinctly understood that the commission ers d o not require the books which they have published, nor any of them, to be used in the national schools, Provided other useful and unobjectionable hooks be supplied." Does it not appear, from this admission of • one of the commissioners—the one who is invested With the " expunging" dispensation—that it is a per fect farce to have any books at all provided by the Board, as long as there is no rule to enforce their adoption by any of the schools, and as long as any other' books may be substituted at the option of the Priest ? What these other " useful and unobjection able books" are, it is not difficult to conjecture. We may rely upon it that they are such as can give no Possible umbrage to the Popish priests. We shall, Probably, be enabled to throw some some light upon this subject ere long. That the Irish system is in perfect accordance with VII views of the Popish hierarchy we further learn fro m the declaration made by Dr. Murray that he never yet offered an objection" to anything in the religious extracts of the Board " which was not Promptly attended to." Can any one have the hardi hood, aft e r thi s , to d e ny that the scheme is essentially s ubservient to the Popish priests ? Respecting the Scripture lessons, we are informed, 1 . 1 1 Dr. Murray's letter, that they "were formed on an Improved plan of what he suggested to the commis. 'qoner s of education inquiry twelve years ago." Here again, we have a distinct acknowledgment of the Po- Dish origin of the Irish system of education. Again, he says, that "they are not strictly conformable to any Previous English version, but are translated from the Hebrew and Greek editions of the sacred text." Will our liberal contemporaries, after this, venture to assert that the Irish extracts are taken from the authorized version? What will they say to the following, which !e quote verbatim from Dr. Murray's letter—" The n ew translation differs often in immaterial points, (mark the distinction,) from our Douay version ; hut in no point affecting faith, or morals, does it differ In. meaning from the Latin vulgate." How accom nlodating have the other commissioners been ! The 191 Proved ver s i on diff e r s o n no material point from the ' 4 aim vulgate! What more, we again ask, could have been deskest by the Papists ? s' - 'Yet, even this very accommodating version " may be rejected by the managers of any of the national schools, without breaking off their connexion with the board—they are at perfect liberty to do so." So we are informed by Dr. Murray. What. a farce, then, is the system altogether. It is high time that this ex pensive delusion should be abolished by Parliament. It is plain that Government can have no controul whatever over the dispensation of the funds toted for the purposes of instruction in Ireland. The money may be altogether employed in teaching Popery. Away with the fraud! Amongst others - of Dr. MeHale's objections we find that drawn from "the quality and supposed duties ofdistriciinspectors," of whom the majority, according to the titular of Tuam, are Prostestants. What says the other titular ? He says—" Of this assertion the reverse is the fact." The majority of the inspectors are acknowledged most distinctly to be Papists ! Dr. Mc'Hale's letter claims a second article on this subject. Before we close for the present we would have the electors of Liverpool to reflect that the system which Dr. Murray has described in his letter is the system adopted in the Corporation Schools. The committee have distinctly stated that they have intro duced the system, especially as regards its scripture lessons. How those lessons have been drawn up Dr. Murray has informed us. Are the electors of Liver pool satisfied that such a system—so benefiCial to Popery—should be perpetuated in this town ? Let them answer this question at the 'listings on Thursday next. Let them prove to our Radical contemporaries that "the school question is NOT set at rest for ever" —and that it never will be so until the Irish system is banished from the Corporation Schools. THE REV. JAMES ASPINALL.—In our last publica tion we introduced a few cursory observations relative to the recent conduct of this gentleman, who had, as most of our readers are aware, been. presented with a piece of plate by the teachers of the South Corpora tion School, " as a testimony of esteem for his unwea ried and zealous attention to the religious instruction of the Protestant children connected- with that esta blishment." Remark! that the wordsbetween inverted commas are copied literally from the Chronicle, with whom Mr. Aspinall is on terms of the most perfect in timacy, and whom he is suspected of occasionally as sisting in an editorial capacity. It is more than pro bable that he may have penned the introductory re marks himself, for we hold the consistency of our radi• cal contemporary in too high esteem, to suppose, even for a moment, that he would approve such base treach ery as that displayed by Mr. Aspinall towards the in terests of the Protestant Church. We are not aware that any bargain was entered into between his reve rence and the teachers, most of whom are indebted to him for the situations they hold, but it is very likely that the " coffee urn" was purchased with the money derived from a kind of tribute or commission paid by these unfortunate schoolmasters. However, that it was presented there can be no doubt, and it will, accord ing to the Chronicle, " cause his children to hold in remembrance the virtues of one who dared to be ho nest in the worst of times." But alas ! what will he its reproof when religious feeling has a more power ful influence upon the public mind than at present? Will it not' recall to recollection and to shame the de grading fact, that it was given as a mark of approval by an infidel and Popish faction for his disregard of the oath administered to him at his ordination ? Thirty pieces of silver was the price for which Judas betrayed his Master—a mess of pottage was the reward of Eaau's ingratitude—and a " coff.le urn" is the recom pense of Mr. Aspinall's services. The address which was presented, and the reply which followed, both re cognise this fact, that at the time when the Irish sys• tem of education was adopted in the Corporation Schools, Mr. Aspinall stood alone, single-handed, op posed by the whole of the orthodox clergy of the town. This - pleasing circumstance we have had frequent oc casion to record, and every time with feelings of ad. miration of the firm and uncompromising opposition manifested by our reverend Rectors and the great body of the clergy to the introduction of this unholy sys tem. And we would ask any reflecting mar, what pride Mr. Aspinall can have in being singular in such matters ? Are not Rectors Brooks and Campbell as - profound in learning, as conversant with the spirit and tenor of the gospel—as elevated in intellectual acquire ments—as high, in scholastic attainments—as rich in gifts and as distinguished for piety—as the minister of St. Luke's and the chaplain of the CorporatiOn Schools ? Are not Messrs. Buddicom, Tattershall, M'Neile, Oald, and many others, as able ministers of the New Testament us Mr. Aspinall himself ? Is their zeal less warm—their reasoning less powerful—their love to their master less strong ? Let their churches answer ! The testimony of thousands has already con-. firmed the Opinion we have frequently expressed, that the ambition of being singular is •not always judicious. And now, mark the result The new system gave equal privileges to the Protestant clergyman,.the Ca tholic priest, the Unitarian minister, and any other of the various sects, to instruct the children in .their re spective creeds. All were to harmonise in favour of this national system, and, with one exception, all are agreed. But who has produced this delightful state of things ? Who lots been rewarded as the chief instru• ment in effecting- so pleasing an association ? Who but the Rev. James Aspinall, an ordained minister of the Established Church of England ! No matter to him that the priest of Baal was present, indulging his unholy rites—no matter that the Catholic priest was there, explaining and enforcing the cursed doctrines of his apostate church, and poisoning the minds of the children with the impurities of Dens—indifferent to him whether the Unitarian was pouring contempt on the divine authority of his Master: all were to be made subservient to his ambition, and a " coffee urn;" just tribute! now rewards his exertions. ' RADICAL LIBERALITY. — Some of our readers are probably aware that a public meeting was recently con vened, by placard, of the electors of St. Paul's ward, to take into consideration the best means for securing the election of Mr. Christopher Rawdon. As the meeting was, in every sense of the word, a public one, several conservatives, having votes in the ward, con ceived that they were at liberty to attend. However, it did not suit the " liberal" gentry, who wish' to mo nopolise the whole representation of the town, to al low the conservatives to have any insight into the pro ceedings of the meeting ; and, in accordance with this feeling of the inconvenience of having any conserva tive witnesses present, the exemplary " reformers" proceeded to turn the tories out of the room. Amongst others, a shoemaker, resident in the ward, and having a vote, was struck down, In wally dragged through the crowd, and thrown down stairs. If such conduct is to be considered as a prelude of what may be expected on the day of election, we hope the authorities will make the requisite provision for preserving the public peace. Such behaviour can scarcely be called "libe ral," unless it be in the sense that no charge is made for blows. The ccnservatives, however, have it in their power to resent the insult, by kicking out Mr. Unitarian Rau•don. THEATRE ROYAL—Mr. and Mrs. Wood have been play ing during the week to very good houses at this theatre, a round of ()perm ic pieces, ‘• Fra Diavolo," " La tionnambula," &c. Mrs. Wood's exquisite voice is still as great an attraction as ever. Ma. ROSE, THE BARD of Col.oun.—We are glad to find Mr. Rose, the bard of colour, has received some very flatter ing notices from several distinguished individuals, among whom, we understand, are Lord John Russell, J. Pease, M.P., PoulettThompson, Req., £LP., and "last, not least," the celebrated Lady Blessington, (ever foremost in the en couragement of literary aspirants,) all of whom have sever ally written to him, expressing their gratification with his co ronation poekn.—Monchester Advertiser. Sn PWRECK OFF SOUTIIPORT.-011 Monday morning last, at daybreak, a brig was seen on shore on the Horseback, short distance from Southport, on which she had struck du ring the night, and almost instantly filled with water. -The crew, which consisted of the captain, nate, and three seamen, fortunately escaped, the captain and two seamen in a most miraculons manner. On the vessel filling with water, the mate and one seaman got into the small boat, aml before the captain and the other two seamen could get over the side of the vessel the boat drifted away, and it was found impossible at that time to pull her up again. The captain and the two seamen were left on the wreck, as the only alternative to pre serve their lives, let down a small skiff belonging to the brig, and which was so small as to be considered by the two men who had escaped in the boat as quite incapable of being the least assistance to them; they, however, succeeded in landing at Lytham, but not without being capsized in about five feet of water. They were soon rescued from their perilous situa tMn by some Lytham boatmen, who brought them safely on shore. In the mean time several well-maimed boats had put off from Southport, under the direction of Captain W. Ball and the two seamen who escaped in the boat, the wind blow ing a complete hurricane, to render assistance to the captain and men, whom they supposed to be stilt on the wreck. On reaching the bank, and finding no person there, the boats put off to Lytham, where the unfortunate mariners met, and gladly recognised each other. The name of the vessel is the Edward, of Ulverstone, bound from Drogheda to Lancaster, with a cargo of meal, barley, and peas. Part of the rigging has been saved, but it is feared the cargo will be a total-loss. Much praise is due to Captain Ball for his manly and humane e xertions in behalf of these shipwrecked mariners. COURT OF PASSAGE.-WEDNESDAY. (Before CHARLES CRO➢IPTON, Esq., Assessor. LYNN V. BEALE.-TRIAL WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN BE M Itb lED. Mr. Venables appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Murphy for the defendant. Mr. VENABLES stated, in this case Geo. Frederick Lynn was the plaintiff, and Elizabeth Beale the defendant. The action was brought to recover from the defendant a sum of money for the sale of furniture. The only question they would have to try. was, whether or not the defendant was a married woman. The affirmative lying with the defendant, Mr. 11luti PtnY opened the case. In this record the defendant did not dispute the supply of the goods. The only question would be whether Mrs. Elizabeth Beale, at the time the goods were supplied to her, was still a married woman. It of course lay with them to state the circumstances which in .duced them.to believe that there was no doubt that the de fendant was married to a person of the name of Beale. He should call witnesses %Om would prove, that though Beale left this country ten years back, yet he was recently seen in London, within seven years, and unless the plaintiff could prove that the man was dead, he should be entitled to their verdict, under the direction of the assessor that the defend ant was not entitled to pay for the goods furnished to her. The amount of debt to recover, was agreed to be £25 los. John Clarke, plumber and glazier, in this town, affirmed that he knew Mrs. Elizabeth Beale, and knew her to be mar ried to a person named Beale, and they lived together as man and wife, and were reported as such. They were mar ried in 1820. Ale believed they had children. Ile recol lected Mrs. Beale's husband leaving Liverpool eight ornine years ago, and going to America. He had examined the register of St. Thomas' Church, and found that the marriage of the defendant with Joseph Beale was there entered. Cross-examined by Mr. VENABLRS.—Mre. Beale was living in Union-street, and carrying on the business of a lodging-house keeper, which she had done for several years. The name of Beale wss on the door. He had not heard that she had made an assignment, but he knew that she had a sale in her house. John Rodgers, American passenger agent, deposed that he knew Joseph Beale several yeats ago, in Liverpool, and he was reputed to be the husband of Mrs. Beale. He had seen Mr. Beale in London in the spring of 1834 or 1835; he could not tell which. He had called on him witness) at his provision store, No. 1, East-street, Smithfieln, to buy provi sions to go to New York. He (witness) had been to New York frequently, but this was seven or eight years since. Mr. VENAIII.ES, for the defence, contended that in a plea of coverture it was the duty of the defendant to give every evi dence in their power. He was of opinion that the evidence was ton slight to prove the coveture. A year or two ago the defendant had made an assignment, and, if she was a mar ried woman, she committed a fraud on that occasion. This would induce the jury to look with much suspicion on the de fence now set up. She ought to have stated what her situa tion was ; and it was clear that this was a story trumped up afterwards. Mr. MURPHY said if his friend could not make out any thing else than that Beale was alive five years ago; he must, on his own showing . , be con-,cited, The ASSESSOR said, Mr. Venahles must do as he liked ; he (the Assessor) must state the law to the jury. Mr. VENABLE:S then called Mr. Penn, who deposed that he was in the employment of Mr. Lynn, the plaintiff. lie had called on the defendant for the debt, and she said she was not prepared to pay. She hoped Mr. Lynn would not he harsh with her, as she was a "lone °man," and everything depended on herself. Cross-examined.—She never said she was a single woman. Thomas Blain proved that he was one of the jiarties who executed a deed of assignment, and took possession of Mrs. Beale's property. Th , , defendant executed the deed as Eli zabeth Beale, on the 31st of March, 1836. Cross-examined.—She never represented that she was single. Mr. MURPHY, in reply, said this had been made a case of morality, So far as that went, no man of considerate mind but would say that the defendant had liquidated every demand to the utmost, surrendering every farthing. But this was not an issue of morality. lie was bound to tell the jury that the law said that the presumption in favour of life was so strong, that showing the existence of a party in life, to within seven years, showed that he was living; and that those who wished to put away the presumption should show at some fixed period the death of the party. The Assussoa, in summing up, said he need not tell the jury that they were not to take into consideration the hard ness of the case. It was a very important rule of law, the time when life was presumed to last. If they believed the evidence, they must be satisfied of the life of Beale. The question was, had the defendant brought herself within this rule of law? It was a very-scandalous thing that a person should be holding herself out in this manner as unmarried; but that was a question with which they had nothing to do. Suppose the jury were to decide against the evidence, they would be doing no kindness to the plaintiff's, as they would only heap fresh costs upon them for a new trial. There was no evidence to prove that he (lied within the time of law, and the life was proved. Ile was bound to say to them that they ought to find that the defendant was a married woman. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. The Assessor, said it was a very disagreeable duty to have to perform, but they must abide by the law. Mr. \TEN ABLE'S said it was a kind of notice to the public about dealing with the defendant. The Court adjourned at four o'clock. THURSDAY. HOPK INSON V. ' , HUM AS.-BLISTERING HORSES, Mr. Murphy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cutting ham and Mr. James for the defendant. Mr. MuliPliY, in opening the pleadings and case, said, in this case George Hopkinson was the plaintiff, and John Thomas the defendant. The declarator stated, that in the month of October, 1837, the plaintiff employed the defendant in the character of a veterinary surgeon, to treat a horse of his, and to blister his legs; and by his bad treatment the horse was damaged, and, contrary to his implied promise, the defendant did not use proper skill in the treatment. To this the defendant pleaded, first, that he did not so promise; that he did not accept the retainer; and, secondly, that he did use proper care and skill in treating the horse. It was neeessary,for him to tell the jury, that with regard to the treatment by a surgeon of any human being, the medical practitioner who undertook the treatment was bound, in so doing, to use proper skill. When it was shown that he had made use of that, no one could expect more. The same law held good with regard to the treatment of horses. But if they should show that there was neglect, they would be en titled to compensation,iaccording to the damage. The plain tiff, Mr. Hopkinson, was a coach-builder, in Liverpool, and some time during 1837, he purchased a horse of Mr. Law rencee the proprietor of an omnibus, runninz between Liver pool and Aighorth. Mr. Lawrence, when driving his horses in the omnibus, attracted the fancy of a gentleman with one of them. Mr. Lawrence valued this horse at £5l), and a bargain was finally stmck between them for the horse, the gentleman to give £25 and his own horse, for Mr. Lawrence's horse. After the exchange, Mr. Lawrence then worked this horse in his omnibus, when a contract was entered into be tween hint and the present plaintiff, for the same berse e Mr. Hopkinson purchasing it for about £2B. Mr. Hopkinson did nut intmediately remove the horse from the care of Mr. L., and whilst its Mr. Lawrence'e ca re, a gentleman saw the horse, and offered to give £4O for him, but Mr. Hopkinson thinking the horse of greater value refused to part with him on these terms. In the month of October Mr. Hopkinson was going to London for about two months, and thought it b e tt er not to let the horse lie in the stable, but that it was desirable to turn him out to crass anti as a preliminary it was suggested to him, as a usual habit, on taking the shoes off, to have h;s legs blistered to strengthen them. Mr. Lawrence kindly offered to do this fot hint, but Mr. Hopkinson setting great value on the horse was determined to spare no expense and ea re and ordered him to be sent to the defendant, Mr. Thomas the veterinary surgeon. The horse was accordingly sent, and had been two or three days under treatment with this blister, when Mr. Lawrence taking two horses to be shod there, observed that the horse had received a blemish on the knee. The servant immediately told Mr. Lawrence that the horse had got a haunt' knee, Mr. Lawrence then went to Mr. 'Thomas and enquired of him how this injury had happened ? Mt. Thomas then said he did not think it would do him any harm. Mr. Lawrence said it was broken and would render the horse of less value. "If it be," said Thomas, "it is my d—d lad who has let him kick his knee against the man ger." The horse was tied with Isis head to the rack, and it was quite evident, when an animal had his head so tied that he could not reach his knees, when the irritation from the blister began, he would strike up with his feet and endeavour to ovetcome the irritation, by rubbing his knees against the nearest part he could reach. And that was the ground of negligence the plaintiff charged. They said the defendant was guilty of negligence in tying the horse in that way : that he ought rather to have been put in a loose manger, where he could not hurt himself, or his position in the stall to have been reversed, by tying his head up to the bastions; and thus when he struck up with his fore feet from irritation, he would have nothing to oppose him, and cause injury to his knees. That was the course which ought to have been pursued. he was hound to say that the joint of the knee was not injured so as to cause stiff ness, but, the mark of the sear which remained, had materially deteriorated the selling value of the horse. A broken knee indicated such unsafeness in a horse, that when he was put up for sale he would not obtain near so much, with such an indication, as if free from blemish. In order to test this, when the horse was recovered, and had a white mark on his :nee, it was sent to Mr. Lucas's, and there put up fur sale; and although the circumstances were stated which caused the blemish, only two persons were found to bid for it, —hackney coachmen—one of whom hial £lO., and the other £l4. la was, therefore, evident, that this blemish rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to realize a fair prafit on the ani mal. He should call witnesses to prove these facts; his friend would also probably call witnesses to endeavour to refute them, and he should have an opportunity of reply. He thought they would hardly say, when a positive injury had occurred which might have been avoided, that such deterioration of property was a matter for which compensation in damages ought not to be given. —He called Mr. Thos. Lawrence, coach and omn ibus keeper, residing at Al bany Villa, near Aigburth, who deposed to knowing the plaintiff; and that in the autumn of 1837 he swapped a horse of his worth £5O with a gentleman, receiving another horse and £25. He valued the horse he received at £3O. Ile was then in poor condition. Ile afterwards sold this horse to Mr. Hopkinson for £25 as a favour, what it bad cost him. In the month of October, before the accident to him, he should say the horse was worth £50., and was at the .present time worth it but for the blemish. He recommended Mr. Hopkinson to turn him out to grass, and first send him to Mr. 'Chows to get blistered, and he was accordingly sent from his place to Mr. Thomas by Mr. Hopkinson , s orders on the 7th of October. He saw the horse three days after at Thomas's with a blemish on his knee, and the leg was very much swollen. A light discoloured bloody froth was work ing out of the blemish from a kind of scratch. He saw Mr. Thomas and asked him huw he came to let the horse blemish himself in that way. Mr. Thomas said he (lid not think it would be touch, and they walked together into the forge where the horse was tied to the rack. He (witness) told Mr. Thomas that he would find the blemish was one for life. He (Thomas) then said, it was the fault of his damned stupid lad, that the had let hint knock his knee against the manger. He (witness) told him, he ought to have prevented it. The horse came back to his place in November to go to grass, and there was then a scab on the knee, from a wound, not from a blister. Some ointment was sent to dress the wound. The horse remained altogether about three weeks under the treatment of Mr. 'Thomas. Eight or ten days, in his judgment, was a sufficient-time for a horse to .rentain under treatment for a blister. There was a charge for keep and treatment for 21 days. He recollected being at Lucas' Repository when the horse was put up for sale, and the highest bid for it was £l4 55., for which he was bought in. He believed it was not the intention to sell him, but only to ascertain what he would sell for. Mr. Thomas told him the horse had been tied to the rack, and pointed to the manger,and told him he had injured himself by knocking his knee against it. In his judgment, the proper mode to treat a horse, was to turn his him round, and tie his head to the bastions, or, if he was not reversed, to tie his head to pillars in the centre of the stall, so that he could not injure his knees, this tatter plan was sometimes pursend, as they could not approach the manger, and some horses were quieter with their heads towards the manger, than when turned round. He had been in the habit of knowing and treating horses thirty years, and had blistered a great many its his time, and had blistered sotne very lately. Cross-examined.—To his knowledge and experience, the custom. the proper treatment, was to reverse the horses when blistered on the fore legs. That was the safest way; and if a professional man adopted another practice, likely to damage the horses, it was a bad course. Mr. COTTINGRAM.—But is it unprofessional so to treat horses when blistering ? Witness.—l mean to say to tie them to the rack is a very bad practice ; I won't say anything about the profession ; they will profess anything (Laughter.) The witness was then cross•examined at great length, to show that when the horse was turned into the field, the other horses drove him over a low rail fence, which he leapt, and in so doing injured his knee by knocking it against the rail, as the wound in the knee broke out again on the following day. The witness produced a stake the height of the rail, from which it appealed that it was only 16 inches high, and the rail had not been knocked down, George Bentham examined.—Was formerly in the em ployment of Mr. Lawrence: first observed the injury to the horse's knee in those stables, and told his master, who went to see him. He had seen horses blistered on the fore legs; he had seen them tied both ways, with their heads turned round to the back end of the stall, (their heads where their tails should be), and also tied up to the rack. In his opinion the safest way was to have then► tied with their heads at the back of the stall. Alfred Bagnall examined.—ls a veterinary surgeon, and a member of the college of surgeons. He had seen the horse; he had a large blemish on his knee. He had bee❑ in the habit Of blistering horst . S - . -- in - hisjudgment, the proper mode of tying a horse, while under the treatment of blistering on the fore legs, was to turn him round in the stall to prevent his hurting himself. Ile could not then injure his legs; there was nothing to kick against. The blister irritated the legs where applied, and the horse was apt to kick. Cross.examined,—A horse under treatment ought to be turned round about 36 hours. The necessity for this would depend on the strength of the blister and not on the temper of the horse. It was his practice to turn them round. Peter Burns, livery stable keeper. Had been in the habit of seeing horses blistered, and in his opinion, the proper way to fasten a horse under this treatment, was when turned round in his stall, to prevent him from hurting himself. Cross-examined.—lt was not common to tie a horse to the rack under such treatment, as to reverse him. The practice was to reverse him. Thomas Preston examined.—Had had 43 years experience among horses, and had been foreman to a veterinary surgeon 13 or 14 years, and had also been servant to Mr. Briscoe. He had both blistered horses, and had seen them blistered by the farriers. He had seen them blistered by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Waring, and Mr. Briscoe, and the horses were always tied reversed in the stalls, by orders of those veterinary sur geons, or their apprentices. Cross-examined.—Had lost his place tinder Mr. Briscoe, because folks liked to see fresh faces. He took a little drink sometimes; but no gentleman ever complained about him. This was the plaintiff's case. _ . Mr. COTTINGHAM, for the defence, contended that proper care and diligence had been used. He contended that the horse had got quite well of the abrasion of the knee when sent to Mr. Lawrence's, and that he got injured afterwards, while in his care: and that Mr. Lawrence was attempting to shift the blame off his own shoulders on to Mr. Thomas. That the horse had be, put put into a field amongst other horses, who had chased anefrightened him over the rail fence, against which he had injured his knee, and that, therefore, Mr. Thomas was not liable for the damage. lie contended tl►at Mr Thomas had followed the proper course of practice of veterinary surgeons in Liverpool, whose evidence he should call for. He contended that this action was only brought in consequence of Mr. Thomas having brought an action against Mr. Hopkinson for f,iybill, and made tri►n pay it; otherwise Mr. Hopkinson would have brought his action for damages long before.—He called Henry Middlehurst, apprentice to Mr. Thomas. He re membered the horse coming to Mr. Thomas to be blistered. Ile was tied to the rack with two altars, and secured as they generally secured them. He remembered the horse receiving an injury about the 10th day, when tied to the rack. He re ceived an abrasion of the hair and the cuticle—a delicate, insensible membrane covering the skin. The hair would grow over that injury, If the skin had been cut deep it would not. He had not been blamed for the injury. Cross-examined--Mr. Thomas had blistered horses since, and had tied them up to the rack in the same way. He had only reversed one since, which was for an injury to the shoulder. • Henry Bradshaw, the other apprentice to Mr. Thomas, examined.—Had not been blamed for the injury the horse sustained. Fennell Briscoe. veterinary surgeon. examined.—Had been in practice 20 years, and during that time had been in the habit of blistering horses. The usual course pursued was to tie them up to the rack. He had never in the course of his practice been in the habit of reversing horses. Ile thought a horse by being reversed would be more liable to accidents; he would he more liable to Injure his hind legs by striking against the manger, and producing what was commonly called a "capped hock." In all cases of blister ing the fore-legs, in his judgment as an experienced veteri nary surgeon, the proper mode was to tie a horse to the rack close up to the manger. If a horse was reversed there would be much more danger of his coming down on his knees. From the description of the injury, in his judgment the hair would grow again over it. Cross-examined.—lle thought there would be no less dan ger of a horse hurting his knees by being reversed, when blistered. Mr. Ellis, veterinary surgeon, examined.—The proper mode of treating horses when blistered on the fore-legs, was to tie them to,the rack. He was was of opinion, from the description he hail heard of the injury, that the hair would grow over it again. Cross-examined.—lle had not seen the horse, he only judged from description. Hughes examined.—Had been in the employ of Mr. Lucas five }ears, and had charge of the sick horses, and the blistering department always came under his care. The proper way to to treat horses in such cases was always to tie their heads to the rack. lle never knew but one instance when a horse was reversed, and he was a very restive high spirited horse. He was of opinion, from a description of the injury, that the hair would grow again. He never knew of a horse cutting his knee in his life from having his head tied up to the rack. The manger in question was an ordi nary one, and had been used by Mr. Wilson, veterinary surgeon. Cross-examined.--A restive horse would kick with his hind legs as well as with his fore, and there would be greater dan ger of his getting his hough injured by being reversed. He did not attempt to reconcile this with his statement of revers ing the restive horse. He merely mentioned it as having taken place. James Fagan, veterinary surgeon, examined.—He had seen horses blistered before being turned out to grass, and the proper course to pursue was to tie them to the rack. He was of opinion the hair would grow again, from a description of the injury. Robert Reader, groom, examined.—Was formerly groem with Mr. Josh. Ewart. He saw the horse in the next field to the one he had been put in after be had been turned out. He had been forced over the fence by the other horses. That must have been the case, or he would not have gone out of the field. He saw his knee all bloody, and concluded he had knocked it against the rail. He told Mr. Lawrence Moot it, who said he knew it was a latle dune, and sent hurl to Mr. Thomas for some ointment to dress it. This was the defendant's case. Mr. MURPHY, in reply, contended that the apprentices of Mr. Th omas wished to screen themselves, and that the unpre meditated exclamation of Mr. Thomas to Mr. Lawrence when first told of the blemish, that it was his d—d stupid lad that had let him kick himself against the manger, could not be set aside by any evidence. He contended that when a horse was tied, so that he could not get his head to his knee when the irritation commenced, the natural movement he would make would he to lift it up and rub it against anything, and if a manger was in the was, he was most likely to knock his knee against it, and thus cause an injury. He attributed the bloody state of the horse's leg to his bending it 'with exercise and thus cracking the scab, and the blood, from exercise, would flow. The learned ASSESSOR, in summing up,. said the evidence was very conflicting, and it would be for the jury to weigh it, and state whether or not in their opinion proper care had been taken. He then went carefully over the evidence. The jury expressed a wish to retire, and after an absence of half an hour, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, £5. The cause occupied the Court the greater part of the day. MR. THOS. PHILLIPS' LECTURES ON ENGLISH VOCAL MUSIC. On Tuesday, at two o'clock, Mr. Thomas Phillips gave his second morning lecture, at the theatre of the I{oyal Institu tion, assisted by the three Misses Brandon, on English Vocal Music. Ile first noticed the principal faults of English singing, the first of which was unintelligibility, which he illustrated by an ane c d o t e o f some s i ngers at a country , when the p sa l m was g i ven ou t, sa id t o one as so dark th ey cou ld no t see. " N ever m i n d," saidchL i another,r :' it was ; and when the organ commenced the tune of the Old Hundredth Psalm, they began singing—" It is so dark I cannot see." It was astonishing that this barbarism was so generally put up with : for want of the proper introduc tion of musical graces to fill up the time, the rhyme of the words was continually perverted and. rendered absurd. This he illustrated by many examples. The proper pronuncia tion and emphasis of the words ought always to be preserved, else feeling, the soul of music, was lost; for the strength and fe English language was lost if barbarously mis preloiiiilg o ouncretdh—es hiut syllables• made long, and long short, in order to make the words agree with the time of the music. This might be completely obviated by the proper introduc tion of the shake and the uppoyiaturo. lie then noticed the difficulty usually experienced in attaining the shake, which was to be attributed to the learner trying at once to run before he could walk. The proper way to learn it was by degrees, as regimental boys are taught to druni, increasing in rapidity could give the perfect "roll." Ile then noticedt the beauties they of the crescendo and diminuendo as ap plied to the shake, and the grace of a concluding turn. The appooiatura added greatly to feling; and expression in sing ing, but it was too generally misapplied. The chief superi ority of the Italian singers consisted in properly singing this, grace. Being a small note, it was very generally omitted or slurred over, about a quarter of the time of its approximate note being given to it by English singers. When omitted, the note was often drawling and inelegant; and when slurred over, it added no expression to the passage. The proper way tq sing it was to give it three-fourths of the time of its adjoining note, and which immediately gave feeling and expression to the passage. The chief fault of English sing ing was unintelligibility. Singing, with appropriate words properly enunciated, gave additional feeling and expression to those words, and was then intellectual and soul-stirring; hut without intelligible enunciation, it degenerated into in feriority to instrumental music, and was then but an appeal to the sense of hearing, but not to the intellect. The singing of the savage—the "corroborg" of the aboriginal Australian —was more intellectual than the barbarous and unintelligible sing-song of most English ladies ; for what the former sung, relating to deeds of daring in savage warfare, to historical events, or to superstitious observances, fired their bosoms with emotion" whilst the unmeaning collection of sounds which characterised the singing of the English drawing -room left the hearers listless or disgusted, He illustrated his meaning by singing various songs and melodies, and was ably assisted by the Misses Brandon, one or two of whom possess excellent and highly tutored voices.—The audience, chiefly consisting of ladies, was very numerous. THE GOVERNMENT STEAMERS. Some time ago a memorial was presented to the Lords of the Admiralty by our excellent member Lord Sandon, which was signed by upwards of 300 of the merchants, shipowners, underwriters, and brokers, praying that in case of shipwreck on the adjacent banks, the steam vessels belonging to her Majesty may be despatched and employed in assisting to save the lives of the crew or persons on board. In answer to that memorial the following letter has been received : " Admiralty, 18th September, 1838. My T,„d,_H a vinglaid before my Lords Commissioners of the admiralty the petition of the underwriters, merchants, and other residents of Liverpool, transmitted to your lord ship by Mr. Rowett, together with that gentleman's letter, relative to her Majesty's mail steam-packets being allowed to render assistance to vessels in distress, I am commanded by my Lords to acquaint you, for the information of the petition ers, that the object they have in view, of assisting to save the lives of persons in shipwrecked vessels has already been accomplished by their lordship's orders to .the officer con ducting the packet service at Liverpool ; and it appears, by reference to him, that her Majesty's packets have always been accustomed to render their best assistance towards the preservation of human life when it could be done.—l am, my lord, your lordship's most obedient humble servant, " JOHN BARROW. "The Viscount Sandon, NEW PICTURE AT THE CHURCH FOR THE 131,IND.—We understand that at length a new picture has been painted for this elegant little church, to keep up the uniformity of its interior decorations. We understand that the painting is a very beautiful one by 1-laydon, but we have not yet had time to visit it, and judge for ourselves. DR. SLEIGH'S LECTURES . TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL SMNDSRD. Ste,-1 may safely say that Liverpool, and indeed no town in the kingdom, has ever had the opportunity of gaining so clear and correct a knowledge of the principles and practices of Republicanism as we have at the present time. Dr. Sleigh is a man possessed of extraordinary talents, which, combined with principles based upon "the rock of ages," renders him a giant in argument, and impervious to the attacks of his most bitter foe. During his sojourn in America he was a close observer of the state of the country, he mi nutely investigated the working of that tyrannical govern ment "Republicanism," he saw the misery entailed by uni versal sufferage, and viewed the corrupting influence of vote by ballot with disgust. But, sir, he does not wish his audience to take his word for these things. In showing them that in America—(that glo rious country of liberty and freedom)—tyranny and persecu tion under the garb of justice are practised to such an extent, thet the bare recital of a few cases snake his audience shud der. In proving that wretchedness and poverty, misery and crime abound in this glorious land, where there are no tithes, no taxes, no church rates, and, I was nearly adding no churches. No, sir, he does not wish his audience to be satis fied with his authority alone, but evidence uncontrovertible, proofs undeniable, support his statements, and the man who, after having heard him, will say that his assertions are false, must be either an idiot, or totally devoid of the principle of truth. Dr. Sleigh not only brings forward proofs from those who. have suffered under this accursed rule of Republicanism, but evidence from the very men themselves, who, with all the powers they possess, eulogize and laud this glorious go vernment, which evidence not ; only convicts and condemns that which they advocate, but further proves in detail . the misery. wretcheduess, and want it produces. With regard to the Doctor himself, I may safely say that it was with the greatest disappointment, as well as sympathy, that the audience, who anxiously anticipated a similar treat on Wednesday to those of the two preceding evenings, learned that he was severely indisposed, in consequence of which the remaining lectures are postponed. I may, also, confidently assert, that every indiv►dual who attended on Monday and Tuesday evenings were delighted. His fearless assertion of truth, and bold exposition of error; his elegant diction, and above all, the clear and simple manner in which be elucidated his subject, was such that it could not fail to carry with it a lasting impression to every hearer. To those who wish to obtain a thorough knowledge of Re publicanism, as well as of those " two twins of vice," univer sal sufferage, and vote by ballot, I most earnestly advise attendance; but it ,will be as well to remark, that the infor mation to be derived from these lectures is snore valuable, not only in regard to the political subjects, but also the state of America generally. From the applause manifested during, and satisfaction expressed after the lectures, by the ladies, as well :IS gentlemen, who attended, I may safely predict, that should the hall be crowded at the concluding lectures, there will be few, very few indeed, who would not experience much gratification in hearing a repetition of then , . Trusting the conservatives and their friends will not miss this opportunity of acquiring much valuable informatiun upon so important a subject. 1 am, sir, yours respectfully Liverpool, Oct. 25, 1838. S. 1-1 PRESENTATION OF PLATE TO THE REV. JAS. ASPINALL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STAND.,IRD. Sirs,—ln your last. publication ?on promised again to call the attention of the Christian public to this Judas-like piece of business, viz., " the selling of the Word of God, by the Rev. James Aspinall. for a piece of plate!" To those whom it is your privilege to address, the parallel between this modern Judas and his arch-awetype will appear not a little striking; though I would fain hope, that, in the blacker shades of character, the devil has not so fully taken possession of the former. It is, however, lamentably evident, that this gentleman is in league with the enemies of the Bible—(ergo, with the enemies of Christ)—with men who either reject altogether, or so dilute or curtail it, as to render it anything but "TH E Word of the Most High." With the infidel, the Papist, the Unitarian, and the Nothingarian, has he formed an unholy alliance, having vaunted "peace and goodwill to men" upon traitor lips—kissing the " Word of the Most Iligh" but to betray it! In forming this union, there is no question but that such pleasing, fulsome fustian as the Chronicle has slavered on " this enlightened and liberal gentleman," was dazzlingly resplendent before him ;—no doubt he already saw, in fair perspective and in imagination, "impiyer transit apurnantem pateram," which was to cheer and flatter him at many a " feast of reason and flow of soul;"—assuredly the " piece of plate"—" the price of that which he bad resolved to sell" —had its tempting influence to encourage him to stand " alone," like another Goliah, to defy the armies of the living God! Lo! he has his reward! His fond visions are realised! But, now he has " taken the sop," and before he proceed to the commission of more flagrant wickedness, I would entreat this weak, rash gentleman to pause, and con sider how he stands in the eyes of the Christian community over which he was appointed to watch, and in the eyes of his Master, whose minister he was ordained, to uphold the glorious Gospel in all its integrity, without "adding thereto," or " taking therefrom"! I would have him to remember, that the Holy Catholic Church cast off Popery when her temporising and worldly spirit—her curtailing and clipping of the Bible to meet her heretical and idolatrous notions— aroused the bold Protest of a spiritually enlightened people ! The descendants of those Catholics are still the same;—still jealous; for the honour of the Giver of all good gifts ;—still zealous for the propagation and spread of His Word in its unity;—and still possessing that moral courage of fearlessly protesting against the introduction of error or deceit into their camp, come it from what quarter it may. Does the Rev. Mr. Aspinall not see, in the very, circum stance which his eulogists have hit upon for panegyric, a powerful and (to a modest man) constraining reason for " coming out and being separate" from the unscriptural confederacy with which, in an evil hour, he connected him self? The arrogant impudence of eight presumptuous peda gogues leads them to say—" When nearly the whole of the clergy, actuated by prejudice, or the worse motives of self interest, crimivally neglected the performance of duties naturally connected with their profession, and arraying themselves." &c. &c. What, Rev. Sit ! " When deserted by nearly all" your brother clergymen, (who " dared" not to embark in promo ting a system incompatible With sound Scriptural education, as well as with their solemn oath,) have you had the hardi hood not only to tread on this unhallowed ground, but also to receive with complacency the fulsome nonsense of a pack of ruthless and wicked blockheads, who would lead you to believe that you, forsooth, are the only enlightened divine in our town, when men, immeasurably your su peri o r in every sense of the word, are, with the same fetid breath, (exalted, because aspersed) by such despicably base instru mentality? Can it be possible that such presumptuous vanity as this has " darkened your understanding," and quite put to flight common sense ? Even so it would appear;—for you "assume the god, affect the nod," and condescendingly " thank them" for bedaubing you with praise, not merited by a manly adherence to the truth, but by a cowardly compromise of it! Where rests, then, the charge so flippantly brought against "nearly the whole of the clergy," of "being actuated by prejudice, or the worse motives of self-interest, criminally neglecting the perform ance of duties naturally connected with their profession ?" Was it not—is it not the duty supernaturally connected with Mr. Aspinall's sacred profession, to uphold "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," through evil report and good report, and not by being unequally (?) yoked with unbelievers, vainly to attempt to reconcile and amalgamate what the Bible declares to be impossible—viz., righteousness with unrighteousness—light with darkness—Christ with Be lial—the believer with the infidel—the temple of God with idols? How stands the "self interest ?"—"circumspice," gentle readers, and judge for yourselves. Mark the scurril ous, lying vocabulary that is ransacked to find terms black enough for the pens of the scribes of the Journal, Chionicle, Times, and Mercury, to vilify and traduce the honest, fear sless, and uncompromising champions of the Bible! Doubt less, there is great "self interest" in gentlemen standing to be pelted by blackguards with rotten eggs, rather than relin quish a positive duty! But the very veritable—the " very noble and approved good masters" of the corporation schools would lead Mr. As pinall and the public to imagine, that "nearly the whole of the clergy" had sat down in a sullen sulk of idleness, and a dogged disregard for the best interests of the rising genera tion, when they withheld their co-operation from a system which they, as conscious and zealous Christian ministers, could not sanction. Mr. Aspinall's not reproving, strict ions the foul calumny; but the enlightened, argus-ised, Bible loving public, hurl back with triumphant disdain, such a "refuge of lies," while they point to the true National Schools, which, by the indefatigable exertions of "nearly all the clergy," have on all sides arisen around us! I confess I tretnbie to see a minister of the Catholic (Protestant) church stand associated as Mr. Aspinall, and still daring to officiate at an alts: which he has desecrated. It is natuaal for man to err; but woe to that man who shall continue, from a false shame or a worse motive, to uphold what his conscience and his Bible assures him to be " error." I. am, Sir, yours. &c., - A PROTESTANT. Abercromby Ward. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL CHRONICLE Stn,—On taking up your paper of Saturday last, I was somewhat surprised to find that you had not taken warning by the lashing bestowed on your very charitable and consis tent contemporary, the editor of the Albion, in a letter ad dressed to that individual in the Standard of Friday last. As you have had the fool hardihood to expose yourself to a similar infliction, you must not shrink from it. In the first place, Sir, I accuse you of stealing and appro priating to your own use the principal leader of your radical contemporary of Monday last; and I hope the owner will rate you soundly for your delinquency in his next number. To this accusation you must plead voilty; for, (excepting the last paragraph) assuredly the thing may he sworn to. The same spirit of charity, and the same lack of any thing like argument ; nay, there are the very same expressions, the very same extracts, and the very same comments upon them. The only perceptible difference is, that you have merle a few miserable attempts at wit, and have given your stolen article a sprinkling of that blackguardism, with which you are in the habit of seasoning the radical olios which you hebdoma dally serve up -to gratify the intellectual appetites of your radical supporters. Such being the case, I refer you to the letter of " A Bur gess," in last Friday's Standard. It contains a sufficient refutation of the falsehood and slander contained both in the Albion's original article, and your parody upon it. I must, however, have a word with you upon your concluding para graph, which I may safely say you may call your own, with out much fear of exciting the envy of your brother editors. I have read it over and over again ; but its reasoning is alto gether too high flown, too fine drawn, for my dull powers of comprehension : "'Tis vain to scan by ordinary rules The subtle logic, or the wit, of—fools." So far as I am able to understand the matter, you seem to he in a considerable state of alarm lest charity should have the effect of destroying all good feeling between the rich and the poor. You say man is a suspicious animal, who gives no credit for pure and unadulterated motives; and then, by a process of reasoning which, as 1 before said, I am unable to understadd, you come to the logical conclusion, that it was a most abominable thing for the Abercromby Ward tories to prevent Dr. Carson's having an opportunity to test his cele brated and never-to-be-forgotten theory of the action of the gastric juice on the empty stomachs of a few hundreds of the poor inhabitants of the ward. Truly, Mr. Editor, you should condescend to write intelligibly; if you had written as fol lows it would have been easy to understand, and to believe you too:—" There is another point of view in which the subject must be looked at, and one upon which we found a strong protest against the line of conduct which the radicals pursue in all matters. • Man is naturally suspicions, and this tendency is stronger in proportion as experience has opened his mind to the deceptions practised by those who bawl most loudly for liberty and reform. An untutored mind cannot detect the motives which induce such men to profess so much interest and anxiety about those in the lower walks of life, and consequently they fail to attribute any radical exertion in their behalf to its actual selfish and interested object. Credit is given for pure and unadulterated motives. Patri otism is too often assumed as a cloak to cover some ulterior purpose. The open and truly liberal conduct of the Aber cromby Ward conservatives will do a world of mischief to the radical cause, by leading the burgesses to inquire what good Win. Earle ever did to any one, either poor or rich, in the ward. It will help to destroy all confidence between the reformers and their dupes, and have a powerful influence in overturning all their sinister measures. It will make the poor suspicious of such men as the whig-radicals generally; and, by a natural reaction, it will lead them to repent of their ingratitude to the conservatives, whom they will find in the long run to be their real benefactors. In short, this Abereromby Ward affair, in all its bearings, is one of the worst works that could have happened to the radical party: and they feel it!" There, Mr. Editor ! By the alteration of a few words only, 1 have put your paragraph into plain, honest, straight-for ward English, and I shall be happy to perform the same kind office for you on any fuiure occasion. I am, Sir, yours, &c., Abercromby Ward, Oct. 24th. A BURGESS. P.S. Wm. Earle and two other gentlemen drove up to my door in a barouch today, and most politely requested the favour of my vote. On expressing my surprise that Mr. Earle should stoop to a personal canvass, after repeatedly declaring that be would nut do so, he declared, with much seeming honesty, that he was driven to perform the unpala table duty by his opponent, Mr. Gladstone, who had cad vassed the whole ward in person. I have since ascertained that this statement is utterly false: MR. GLADSTONE HAS NOT CANVASSED A SINGLE VOTE. WESLEYAN ASSOCIATION. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. Si n.—l perceive, by your last number, that the `• stubborn facts" which I had inserted in last Friday's Standard, have provoked three individuals to reply ?—but such is the nature of their replies, that truth demands an answer to them.—l hope that this will be considered a sufficient apology for again appearing before the public. It may be seen that Mr. Sharp, who is one of the writers, does not attempt to refute any of my statements on Friday last, viz., "that a member was expelled from the society by a leaders' meeting, without notice, without charge, and without trial— without precedent. And that these leaders were forced to acknowledge, at their last quarterly meeting, that they had done wrong by expelling the member alluded to above; and that they had not the common honesty officially to inform the expelled member of it—while they were in breathless haste, officially, to inform him of their fiat of his expulsion." But be refers to a transaction which took place some months be fore the occurrence of those "facts," but in order to disabuse the mind of the public, I am quite prepared to meet him on his own ground. The "official document" which he has in serted, lam prepared to prove is an illegal one. I shall now give an extract of some "communications" which appeared in the Standard in August last, (which they did not attempt to contradict).— " At this la'st June quarterly meeting, there was some very importaut business to be brought forward ; the officials were about to alter the constitution of the quarterly meeting, and to cram down something they call rules "for our people." We were aware of all this, and were preparing to meet them in the " regular channel" by endeavouring to bring the pri vate members forward to maintain and obtain all their right ful privileges; and we thought it a very favourable circum stance that the appointed quarterly meeting fell on the coro nation day; and the more effectually to remind our people of it, these little papers were printed for distribution among the members, viz.,— "Liverpool Wesleyan Association.—All the brethren are particularly requested to attend the quarterly meeting, to be held in the Committee-room, at the Music-hall, on Thursday. 28th June, 1838, (the coronation day,) commencing at one o'clock, on special business.' And it would appear that they gave an alarm to the other party, for they were taken to the leaders' meeting, and there, we understand, read and discussed, and the result was, the postponement of the quarterly meeting, for no other purpose but to keep the private members out of that meeting. And this opinion is confirmed by the very time they had chosen for this postponed meeting to be held, viz., the very time fixed, according to the preachers' printed plan, for our monthly missionary prayer meeting, when the missionary collectors, in all from 60 to 70 of our own members, meet to pay in the monthly subscriptions, consequently they could not attend the quarterly meeting ; and I am prepared to prove that this was not an oversight but a design; for that day or evening two months they had fixed for another illegally adjourned meeting to alter the constitution of the quarterly meeting. I then wrote to the chairman, Mr. Peters, reminding hint of the circumstance, and wishing him to get their adjourned meeting put off till the following evening, but it was not done. Now when we were informed that the leaders' meeting had postponed the quarterly meeting, we saw at once theirdesign, and the injustice and cruelty of it; that the members should have had such a favourable opportunity snatched out of their hands, for we conceived that ten to one might attend that day; it beings general holiday; and we were not singular in these views, for other parties had embraced that day as a favourable opportunity for special business; even at our own place of worship, the Music-hall, Mr. Bowes and his brethren fixed that day to meet on very special business relative to their church. But to decide the legality of that postpone ment we referred to their own law, and found that they have no control over, and no more right to postpone the quarterly meeting, than they have to postpone the meeting of parlia ment, or the Annual Assembly. They should have called a special meeting for that pur pose, (see in their own rules, page 11 and 12, and section 13 ") " If in the interim of the quarterly meetings, any of the following parties are agreed upon the necessity of calling a special society, or circuit meeting, they have the right to call such meeting through the chairman of the circuit, viz.:— " Ist. The leaders' meeting. " 2nd. The local preachers' meeting. " 3rd. The chapel stewards and trustees. " 4th. One hundred male members of the society, of 21 years of age and upwards, having been members of society at least twelve months." Let it be observed, although the word postponement is not in the above rule, yet the postponement of the quarterly meeting was a special occasion, and should have been regu lated by that law. "Therefore, by their own law, that post ponement was illegal; consequently, the regularly appointed quarterly meeting would remain legal, and that meeting was duly held, and of course all the business done in that meet ing is legal." It may now he perceived that the origin of this very serious and much-to-be-regretted dispute may be viewed in a very small compass. Prove to me that the "leaders' meeting" had no right to postpone the " quarterly meeting," and you prove to me that the quarterly meeting which was held on the 28th June was legal; consequently, the rules then adopted are to us, as a church, our only legal constitution; therefore, to these rules alone should we submit. But, on the other hand, prove to me that the "leaders' meeting" had a right to postpone the "quarterly meeting," and you prove to me that what I have been doing is wrong; consequently, I will not only cease at once from agitation, but, so far as possible, will retract all I have said and dune in these matters : but— never till then. But Mr. Sharp would appear to be of a different temper, for his opposition, at least before a discern ing public, is just a beginning and ending ; his first is to be his " final reply," and for a very good reason—he has no other to make. But to his party where is the advantage of his first and last effort? The advantage, it may be perceived, is all on the. other—on the right side, as truth invites inves tigation. It matters not as to the number being present at any regular meeting; a quorum is formed for all purposes; when any meeting has been regularly adjourned or called, those who do attend are competent to perform the business of that meeting. There were 300 circulars printed for dir trihution among the members, giving them notice of the time and place when and where the June quarterly meeting would be held, and every member in the society, according to the rules, was eligible and at liberty to he at that meeting; whereas, at the meeting which produced Mr. Sharp's " doeu 'tient." about one half of the members of the society were excluded, which rendered it illegally constituted; and also it was illegally convened according to the rules. But their insinuation that the June quarterly meeting was conducted by one individual, is altogether false; and that is a sufficient answer to it. I shall now conclude with Mr. Sharp for the present, by repeating my intentions of last week. "At my leisure and convenience I intend fully to expose them and their system, by a series of public lectures, to be open to all the Methodist ical sects." In reply to Mr. Shirley's must unaccountable letter, I have a correct copy of those statements, to which he affixed his name, as the clearest and strongest evidence against himself. I again give a copy of them : •" ILLEGAL EXPULSION has also commenced with the Wesleyan Association, in Liver pool. On Sunday, the 2nd instant, a member received his quarterly society ticket, and on the Thursday following he was expelled from the society, by a leader's meeting, without notice, without charge, and without trial—Tithout precedent— consequently his leader sent in his resignation on Thursday last, and many others are most seriously demurring against it. The whole society is in a fearful state of agitation, the consequence of which time only can develope. " His Reverence' John Peters in the Chair. " I do hereby certify tha t above is correct, the member alluded to being one of my own class. (Signed) " War. SHIRLEY, " Leader and Local Preacher." . . And now he calls those statements "most calumnious," " and a gross violation of truth itself," " positive untruth," and "-I did not see the statements to which he has so unwar rantably attached my name." Relative to this last declara tion of his, I not only read the above " copy" verbatim to him, but left the statements with him, for his perusal and consideration, for about twelve hours. I then called on him, and he said he had no objections to sign it, and he then signed it in my presence. Since that time there has not been one word or one letter added to it. And seeing him some days after, he was so far from regretting testifying to the truth of the " statements," that he expressed his regret at not g i v i ng his address as well as his name. Those statements were first designed for the Christian Advocate. And in that ietter to the Advocate, I stated that " the Editor will please consider Mr. Shirley's testimony confidential until the truth of these state ments'are questioned." The editor of the Christian Advocate did question the truth of the "statements" with Mr. Shirley's testi mony, and refused to insert them; therefore I considered the r,,ndition of keeping Mr. Shirley's name private,wasat an end. His complaint of .` breach of confidence," even if it were true, is an acknowledgment that he did sign to the truth of the " statements." Flow, then, can this possibly be reconciled with what has been already stated? " I did not see the state ments to which be has so unwarrantably attached my name." What need have we for farther witness : out of thy own mouth 1 condemn thee. Before the exposure of his conduct, I "told him of his fault," but he would not acknowledge it. I then told him of his fault before two of our brethren, neither would he then acknowledge it—but, alas, I can t a k e hi m no f art h er in a regular channel, for withi the officers in our society in Liverpool, there is no church meeting to charge him with his crime, be it what it may; and this appears to be the only way left us, for the present, to bring him, and his guilty asso ciates to the bar of public opinion, that they may be well lashed there—by bringing in " hi s gu il ty assoc i ates " w i t h him, I mean to say, they also have had a hand in this most disgraceful affair. He told me that he did not write the " letter" himself, but that some of his brethren did, but that h e s i gn ed it; of course he i s no t t o b e excuse d, b ut t h ey a l so are to be criminated, for they knew that my statements were correct, viz., the " illegal expulsion," and that their last quarterly meeting had acknowledged that "the leaders meet ing bad done wrong by expelling the member alluded to ;" and Mr. Shirley, (I am sorry for him,) by following such PILOTS, is on the rocks together with them. And, now, to conclude with poor Mr. Shirley for the present, while I am not indifferent to my own character, which may be injured by his most unaccountable, and false statements, yet, I trust, I am more concerned for the cause of truth and righteous ness. And if there is a particle of redeeming principle in our society, I now call upon the persons who have assumed the management of its affairs, to take cognizance of the guilty party in this transaction, now before the public. P.S.—Let it be observed, that Mr. Shirley was the person who sent in his resignation on account of the " illegal expul sion by the leaders meeting." I have written to the Christian Advocate for the original letter with Mr. Shirley's signature affixed to it, and when it returns, it shall he open to any of the public who may be curious to see Mr. Shirley's handwriting, if his own state ment can be believed, written blindfold. Relative to the scurrilous abuse of the letter subscribed "A Churchman," I shall not waste my time answering it. illy own character has nothin! , to fear from the attack of an anonymous person, who evinces i❑ every line a profound dis regard of Christian charity, common civility, and honesty. Contempt, mixed with pity, is theonly feeling I have towards the writer, whoever he is. I court the investigation he threatens, convinced that the truth of my statements, and the purity of my motives, will stand the strongest test. WM. HOSKING. 21th October, 1838. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL ST,INDARD. Sin,—You will oblige me by inserting in Friday's Stan dard the following answer to a malicious and anonymous at tack on private character, which appeared in your last paper, signed " A Churchman." To the Members of the Liverpool Wesleyan Association. DEAR BRETHREN,—When slander and falsehood are sub stitutes for argument and truth,—when plain and palpable charges are met by shuffling equivocation and personal abuse, —it invariably proves, on investigation, that the parties guilty of these mean devices resort to them for want of better means of defence against the piercing home-thrusts of TRUTH. I have been led into these remarks by reading a letter in last Tuesday's Standard, signed " A Churchman," but which smells horribly of the " Old Church-yard." -It is evidently the production of a person well versed in the art of mixing up the smallest particle of truth with the greatest quantity of the contrary commodity; infusing therein a portion of his own vulgar - bile, gilding the pill with a little disinterestedness, and cramming the bolus, nolens volens, down the public throat with the long pole of holiness and Christian philan throphy. (?) I shall try, by administering a little truth as an emetic, before I have done, to compel this Mr. Church man to eat his own nauseous words. The David of ancient times went boldly, armed but with his sling, to meet the Goliah of the Philistines; but the Da yids of modern days skulk under the hedge, and thence launch forth the arrows of slander, or, like the ass in the fable, clothe themselves in the lion's hide, and in safely bray forth Bil lingsgate and falsehood.—How are the mighty fallen ! ! Dear Brethren,—You must all recollect, when we sepa rated ourselves from the old connexion, it was that we might no longer be rode over roughshod by any body of men, and that we might in future be governed on sound, liberal, New Testament principles. During the long continuance of agi tation which preceded our establishment as a Christian church, each and every word of the eloquent leaders of the Association breathed liberty and equality. Whilst Farrer spread abroad " the principle of the right of interference, on the part of the members of the church, in the regulation of all its affairs,"—Rowland boldly bearded the monster Eccle siastical Tyranny, and triumphantly advocated the liberal and scriptural doctrines of church government, which form the basis of the origin of our Association. Time rolled on, and the power which, during an unsettled and stormy period, they had been allowed to assume, became sweet. They be gan to look upon it as a right, and were extremely loath to part with it, that the liberal original principle of our Asso ciation might be fully brought into operation. Then Bro ther Hoskings, by every means in his power, attempted to arouse the members to a consciousness of the fact, that in rushing from Scylla they had fallen upon Charybdis, that for the tyranny of a superintendent which was almost exclu sively felt by the officers, they have exchanged the domi neering power of a knot of officials knit together by the bonds of self interest and exclusive feelings. Brother Hoskings accordingly issued notices, requesting the attendance of every member on the quarter day, 28th June; but the officers took the alarm, they feared the extra ordinary attendance of members on that very favourable day would swamp the designs of their clique, and, although there are several "leaders meetings" in the circuit, and all leaders meetings are inferior and subservient to the quarterly meet ing, yet ONE of the leaders meetings had the impudence to pretend to postpone the quarterly meeting of the whole cir cuit; this, of course, was not to be borne, and although this illegal attempt to postpone had the effect of keeping away many members, yet the quarterly meeting was regularly and punctually held, and in the absence of the Chairman of the circuit, Mr. Hosking officiated as Chairman ; and now Mr. "Churchman" you say "1 ascertained that his boasted quar terly meeting was ho meeting at all, and that he was the___ only member present, both judge and jury in his own case; the only answer this demands is, that the whole statement is one outrageous and impudent Lie ! and I challenge the clique who have disgracefully smuggled an heterogeneous apology for rules into the society, to show one iota in the illiteral effusions of this blockhead," which is not dictated by a sound scriptural spirit, and is infinitely superior to the "spurious rules" which disclaim all connexion with common sense, scripture, liberality, and which are a beautiful exem plification of the extended figure of speech, "Humbug." Since the above period Brother Husking has been tried— expelied—re-tried—t he former decision cancelled, (without any legal trial, or even hearing) and yet, not one word, as far as I can learn, has been said against his moral or religi ous character until this letter of "a Churchman" (which looks very like an official document) applied the elegant and courteous epithets of" coarse, illiterate buffoon" of "consum mate impudence," "stupid blockhead," " wicked," "dan gerous character, "suspicious character, if not of decidedly immoral life," and then, by way of climax, "I .have proof that the Rochdale correspondence so much boasted of, was, if not a forgery, very nearly allied to it ; and that the whole scheme is a refuge of lies to deceive the ignorant and unwary; but let the writer beware if he provokes the majesty of truth, the touch of Ithuriel's spear will unmask the traitor, and exhibit him to an insulted community, and to the world, in his dis gusting character. Poor thing ! his zeal or terror overcomes his discretion. He has proof, from head quarters I presume, but he won't produce it; I can assure the members for the best of all possible reasons—tie cant. Christian brethren, is the above the language of a Christian like spirit? Does it notbetray every symptom of the "galled jade wincing" under the lasts of honest, manly truth? I have been acquainted with Brother Hosking for many yews: and even those who most deprecate his present faarless conduct will agree with me in pronouncing him to be a devout, honest, and upright man, confident in the justness of his cause, and resolutely bent upon working out, by every righteous means, the free dom and liberty of his brethren. In conclusion, though I have no doubt Brother Hosking will fully answer the several communications in Tuesday's Standard, I may state that the letter signed by Wm. Shirley (if authentic) is the most extraordinary thing I ever remem ber, for I saw Wm. Shirley's signature to a letter which, as far as I can recollect, was verbatim the same as that which appeared in last Friday's Standard, and I heard Brother Husking say at the time that he had read the letter to Wm. Shirley betore W. S signed it. Wm. Shirley must have been bordering on idiotcy when be affixed his name to a statement of a dozen lines, without knowing what he thereby testified to. If the letter signed by W. S. should turn out to be a forgery there is an end of the matter, but if not, we must look out for other pioof, which will be forthcoming. But would not Brother Hosking be worse than a madman, if he should have unwarrantably used Wm. Shirley's name, with the positive certainty of immediate exposure ?—I now conclude, dear brethren, yours respecttully, One of the Members who were present at the Quarterly Meeting, 28th June. Liverpool, 25th October, 1838. [This protracted controversy must positively end here. We have only permitted it to be cat ried on so far in orderto exemplify the beauty of the voluntary system. The dis putants must hereafter find some other vehicle for their com muaications.—E. L. S.l HOUSEBREAKING BY DAYLIGHT.—The house of Mr. Joseph Sparks, Upper Stanhope-street, was entered through means of picklock keys, on Saturday morning last, about ten o'clock, by a young man about 25 years of age, light com plexion, and wearing a green coat with yellow buttons. Mr. Sparks's daughter had riot been absent from the house more than 3/ of an hour, and had locked the door, and took the key with her ; the thief entered the front door, went up stairs, and took £55 in cash from a desk in the bed-room, and de camped with his booty through the back door. ASSAULT BY A CAPTAIN ON HIS STEWARD.—On Wednes day, Captain William Robinson, master of the Cmur de Lion, was summoned by his steward, James Clark, for an assault. The complainant stated, that on Sunday evening, the 7th instant, between eight and nine o'clock, whilst on their pass age from Montreal to this port, the captain found fault as to the great consumption of lamp oil on board the vessel, and on the steward explaining the cause of it in a proper and re spectful manner to the captain, the latter said, "give us none of your cheek," and instantly struck him a violent blow on his face, and then kicked hint repeatedly, and at the time he was doing so said, " d-n you, I know I shall have to pay for it, and I'll make your head as soft as a boiled turnip." On Mr. Hail asking the captain what he had to say, he replied, that the steward had used abusive language to him. Mr. Hall then asked what was the language, but the captain replied he could not call to mind the precise language. Mr. Hall then told him he could put any questions that bore on the case to the complainant, but this the captain declined, and Mr. Hall having made some severe animadversions on the conduct of the captain, fined him in the full penalty of five pounds and costs, and, in default of payment, two months'im prisonmen t. BINGEN, OCT. 18.—Prince Napoleon arrived last night, and left this morning; he was .m the 15th at the fair of Man beim, where he passed the night. On the 15th in the morn ing, at the depart ire of the prince, a considerable crowd sur rounded his carriage, and formed a line frau his apartments to the carriage, crying, " Vine l'Empereur." CLEVELAND 110 USE, ST. JAMES'S.—Letters were brought by the Earl of Durha:n's nephew and aide-de-camp, Mr. Cavendish, directing the housekeeper to get the mansion ready for the reception of the family by the latter end of the year. The house steward of the noble governor-general, who attended him to Quebec, was also a passenger by the Great Western steam-ship, and is come over on business relative to the return of the household to England. It was understood that the earl would be absent two years iu Canada, and the family mansion was dismantled of most of the furniture previous to undergoing a thorough course of repair and em bellishment, which had already commenced; and Mr. Ste phenson, secretary to his Royal liighnesslhe Duke of Sussex, was appointed agent to his lordship's extensive estates in the north.—Morning Herald. The Edinintro Chronicle very lugubriously gives the world, to wit that Mr. Cutler Fergusson is about to retire from par liament altogether; end that Mr. Murray, " the late libe;.. al" candidate for Wigtonshire is to succeed him in the re-, presentation of Kirkcudbright. What is meant by a late liberal we cannot tell; but the Edinburgh Chronicle says it regrets Mr. Cuear Fergusson's retirement the more because the late liberal (Mr. Murray) isnot "a man of business." ATTEMPT TO Munnan.—A few days ago a woman named Austen, living at Charing, attempted to destroy her husband in the following singular manner :—She requested him to accompany her to a wood, near their dwelling, for the pur pose of obtaining some fuel, but he at first refused. He, however, some time afterwards, on her again asking him, complied with her wish. When they reached the place, he was in the act of stooping to pick some wood off the ground, when she struck him several very severe blows on the head with a hammer which she had secreted about her person, and then ran away. He bled profusely, but was enabled to reach home, when medical assistance was procured, and he is now likely to recover. The woman, we understand, is at times subject to fits of insanity, which is the only reason that can be assigned for her brutal conduct.—Canterbury Paper. A MAD BULL IN ST. JAMES'S Pa CK.—Yesterday evening, at six o'clock, great consternation was created in St. James's Park in consequence of a bull in an infuriated state having escaped from its owners at Buckingham -gate, and tearing its way through the park, hutting at every person it met. When it arrived opposite the Wellington Barracks the animal at tacked a lady, named Barker, and tore off her shawl, and a female servant, who had been taking her mistress's children for an evening walk in the enclosure, was knocked down; both the servant and the children luckily escaped without in jury. The animal then continued its course, much to the an noyance of both horse and foot passengers, until it came closely in contact with the sentries stationed at the Horse guards. Private Benton, of the 3d battalion grenadier guards, seeing the imminent danger tit which the passengers were exposed, confronted the animal with his bayonet; but the concussion was so violent that, although the bayonet pene trated the chest, it was forced from the musket, and the stock of the gun was shivered to pieces; at the same time the sol dier received a severe wound on the head, and was taken to the hospital. After running upwards of 30 yards the animal fell with great violence against the railings of the enclosure, and died in a short time from the effect of the bayonet wound. —Morning Herald. CARICATURES. —H. B. has enlivened the dull season of the year, (now, we hope, touching its end) in London, by the is sue of three new and amusing caricatures, Nos. 54, 55, and 56. The first represents O'Connell as a Trappist. in his re ligious retreat, with his scratch wig on a peg, and a "new plan of agitation" on a table behind him. His crucifix on his beads is a skull and cross-hones, and he is praying to ano ther of the same kind. Asa picture, the skull here is a capi tal balance to the scratch on the other side of the picture. The next is a " Scene from Don Giovanni;" the Duke of Wellington, a droll marble statue of the governor, and Lord John Russell and O'Connell most ~r otesque as Juan and Leperello. The last is "Maternal Solicitude and Unnatural Offspring ;" O'Connell as a hen, cackling in distress to a brood of ducklings she has hatched, and which are taking to the water in various ludicrous ways. These, twelve in num ber, bear the likenesses of the principal members of the cabi net. Lord .John Russell is swimming away at a great rate in the pool of conservatism, and all the other web-feet are making the best of their way from their ruffled mother, except Lord Glenelg, who has only just broken the shell. - - NEW DEFINITION OF THE WORD LUXURY.--A worthy divine, the other day, asked a farming man, whom he had noticed at church the preceding Sunday, if he liked his ser mon. The man answered in the affirmative; and he also said he understood it. When asked if he knew the meaning of the word luxury, which had been several times used in the discourse of the sermon, John said, " Ees, I knows the word wheel enow: it means the inside of a pig !"—ShOeki Iris.