The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-11-11 00:00:00

_~._.. BLUE COAT 1103PITAL. ()Nyen b NnAAr , Morning next, the 13th instant. a SER , 'A. Preached in ST. PETER'S CHU IWII, by tho lt , fv. JONATHAN BROOKS, M.A., Rector, and a Collection made in aid of the. Funds of the above Institution. A T A PUBLIC MEETING of the Clergy, Gentry, Mer lik_ other Inhabitants of Liverpool and the neigh bour:loA conveited by the Mayor, in compliance with a Requi sition most.aumerbusly and respectably. signed, to consider the propriety of 'ERECTING a BUILDING adapted to the ac coutinod.Ltion of future F ESTIV ALS and other PnblicPurposes, held in the Court Room of the Sessions Ho-ase, on the 22d Oc tober, 1E36.- -•- The Wershi ?al the NINYOR in the Chair, The Ttiwn-clerk hairing read the Requisition, /t resolved unanimously, On the motion of the Rev. JoN. BROOKS, seconded by THOS. Tnoit)mr.v, Esq. , M.P. That great puolic inconvenience having been experienced from the want of a Hall for the Performances of the Liverpool Musical Festivals and other Public Purposes, it is the opinion of thise.eting that measures should be innnediately adopted to remedy this defect. On the motion of JOSEPH LANGTON, Esq. seconded by I'. B. BARCLA Y, Esq. That the Money required for the foregoing purpose shall be raised in Shares of £2o each, by Instalments during the progress of the Work. On the motion of HARDMAN EARLE, Esq. seconded by Gon- FRSY BARNSLEY, Esq. That a Subscription be now opened, and a Committee formed for carrying this purpose into effect, consisting of the under mentioned Gentlemen, with power to add to their numbers ; and that Mr. E. G. Deane and Mr. Thomas Harvey be re quested to undertake the Office of Secretaries to the Commit tee. „ . „ . On the motion of CHARLES LAWRENCE, Esq., seconded by SAMUEL TURNER, Esq. That James Aspinall, Eiq., be requested to undertake the Office of Treasurer to the Fund. • THE COMMITTER. The Worshipful THE MAYOR. . The Rev. Rector BROOKS. The .Rev. Rector CAMPBELL. Mr. T. B. Barclay. Mr. Joseph Langton. Mr.. R. W. Bateson. " Mr. Charles LawrenCe. Mr. Thomas Both. Mr. Andrew Low. Mr.' Richard Bright. Mr. James Moon. Mr. James CroShie. Mr. John Moss. Mr. William Dixon. Mr. Lewin Mozley. Mr. William Earle, Jun.. Mr. W. Nicol. Mr. Hardman Earle. Mr. William Rathbone. Mr. Jo;. C Ewart. Mr. Christopher Rawdon. Mr. GJorge Grant. Mr. Henry Sandbach, Mr., Arnold 'Harrison.. Mr. Charles Smith. Mr.' RB. Harvey. . Mr. John Taylor. -. Mr. Francis Heywood. Mr. Thomas Thornely. Mr. Samuel Holum. Mr. Samuel Turner. Mr. Samuel Hope. Mr. Joseph N. Walker, Mr., Jos. Hornby. Mr. Thos. Winstanley Mr; Richard Houghton. Mr. John Woollright, Mr. G. B. Irlaw. Mr. W. Wordloy. Mr. Thomas Kaye. Mr. John Wright. Mr. John Keareley. - Mr. JAS. AS Mr. B. G. DI Mr. TIIOS. I Signed on behalf of the WM. W IPINALL, Treasurer, .f3ANE. ? HARVEY, 5 , Secretaries. Meeting, LLACE CURRIE. Mayor. Enourance 14Totice0. • • WEST OF ENGLAND FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Chit;f Office, EXETER I FE INSURANCES arc effected on the approved pan I giving. to those Insured a participation in the disposable surplus Premiums, which may be added as a BON US the Sum Insured. or applied in Reduction of the futute ANNUAL PAYMENTS. A REDUCED SCALE of PREMIUMS and CONDI TIONS may be had of WM. WHITEHOUSE and SON, Agents, 12, Exchange-buildings, Liverpool. WESTOF SCOTIANDFIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. Head Office, 147, Buchanan-street, Glasgow, JAMES J. DUNCAN, Esq , Manager. ' r HE Quarterly Receipts for Insurances falling due at MAR ITINNIAS (11th November) are now ready for delivery at the Head Office, and by all the Company's Agents. Insurances effected upon Houses, Furniture, Woollen, Cot ton, and Flax Mills, Distilleries, Sugar Refineries, and all kinds of Public Works, also upon Property in the Colonies, Brazils, &c., at 'Premiums equally moderate with those of the respectable London Companies. ist Class Risks Is. 6d., 2d Class 2s. 6d., and 3d Class 4s. 6d. per Cent. per Annum. Farming Stock and Implements of Husbandry Insured with out Government Duty.. N.Z.--The Rates of Insurance on Warehouses, and Mer chandise therein, in Liverpool, have been Reduced Two Skil- Zings per Ceut. WILLIAM TARBET, 11, Exchange-buildings, Agent for the Company at Liverpool. SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. Head Office, 147, Buchanan-street, Glasgow. JAMES J. DUNGAN ESQ., MANAGER. THIS Society is establishd on the principle of Mutual . - Assurance, on the mode of the Loudon Equitable; and the rapidly ,p.ccumtatting Capital and Annual Revenue of the Institution.euable the Directors to hold forth to insurers all the advantages which .any Institution founded on the same model (the.value Of which is well known) can beast of. At the last. pericklical investigation of the Society's affairs, the 11004 addid to the" Policies amounted to one and a-hatf per cent.,pe s r : annum on the sum assured, being 'as lance a brinus as ever was declared by any Society in Scotland. Du:ing the last year a great increase of members and revenue bastakett This Society has no clause iu its Deed of Constitution de claring that those who insure during a certain definite number of years are entitle.dto two-thirds, or nearly the whole profits accruing on the Insurances effected 'for a certain number of years thereafter. Such elauses are knowu , and publicly adver tised to exist, clearly proving, that, during those years when, in such societies, the bonus is suspended, or liniited to a very small proportion them eof, it is more advantageous for Insurers to take out a Policy from an office such as that of the SCOTTISH Anti c:taut SOCIETY, where there is an Equitable division of the whole bonus which may accrue to all the members entering or existing, and iu force during the currency of the year or period. There are no reserved rights fur privileged members; all now entered, or hereafter entering, are upon an equal and equitable footing. The Board sits every Thursday, to receive and dispose of new proposals. . Every information will be afforded, and Tables of Rates fur nished, by applying at the Head Office, or to WILLIAM TARBET, 11, Exchange-buildings, Agent fur the Society in Liverpool. LONDON GAZETTE.—TUESDAY, Noy. 8. PA RTNERSII IPS DISSOLVED. J. Allen and C. H. M. Lolley, Liverpool, wine-merchants—J. Dun lop and T. Patterson, Manchester, commission-agents—A. Brodrick and I. Brodrick, Preston. Lancashire, watch-makers—J. llirst and J. Lainb, Salford, Lancashire, hair -seating•-manufacturers—J. Walker and J. Campbell, lialsbaw-Moor, Lancashire, spindle-manufacturer s —J. Sleight, T. Speight, R. Speight, and T. Salthouse, Catteral,-Lan casbire, woolstaplers. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. • • George Collins and Edward Dorset, Newgate-market, London, butchers. BANKRUPTS. John Mathews, Long-aerv, London, wax and tallow-chandler. Sable Heins - Jonas, Well-street, refiner: ' W e l! c l ose -square, London, sugar- Edward Bowler, Paddington-street, Marylebone, London, hackney man. • George Jennyn, Oxford-street. London, haberdasher. John Tripp, Kingston-upon-hull, Yorkshire, sawyer and bone crusher. James Royle and Joseph Miller Constable, Manchester, corn rnerelynnts. WU6in - Wright. Harrow on the llill, banker. Charles Drury, Sheffield, Yorkshire, timber-merchant. William Turner, Leamington-Priors, builder. William Denby, Manchester, fustian-manufacturer. Henry Ormerod Cadney, Halifax, Yorkshire, corn-dealer. Silas Pearse, Oreston, Devonshire, quarryman. DIVIDENDS. Dec. 1, T. Chamberlayne and W. Williams, Cumberland-street, Portnian.,square, London, coach-makers—Nov. 29, C. Friend, Mun ster-street, Regent's-park, London, milkman—Nov. 99, C. Austin, L. liampson, aid E. C.'s\ illiamson, Luton, Bedfordshire, bankers—Nov. 29, S. W. Sustenance, Ptcendilly, London, bookseller—Nov. 30, W. I', Atkins and R. Freeman, ilounsditeh, London, bricklayers—Nov. 30, 0. B. Brown, E., 1., Danson, and C. Duncan, New Broad-street, London, merchants -Dee. 8, T. Fargilson, Catteric.k.-Inidge, York shire. innkeeper—Nov. 30, J. Battin and J. Battin, Aston, Warwick shire,. corii,dealers—Dec. 2, J. Seller, Pulboroti4b, Sussex, tailor— Dee. 6, R. Corkin, Doncaster, Yorkshire, rnaltster--Doc. I, R. Wil liamsou, Derby, harness-maker—Nov. 29, .1. Downes, West Ref ford, Nottin , "lainshire, grocer—Nov. 28,T.Giles, jun., I . lancliester, packer. CERTIFICATES To be gTthlted, nuloss cause he show❑ to the contrary, on or before the 29t11 day of November. J. Tetlow, ManoliCsfer, house-painter--It. Danc, , erfield, Bromyard, Hererorlihire, Speedily, Fenchurch-street, London, Iligh-streeL Islington, Middlesek, linen,draper—J. llunter,Cheapside, London, boot-mater—W.Alarns, Arhour-place, Fairfield, Stepney-3. Woodward, Mangotslield, 6100- eestersbire.. railroad-mil:or—E. W. •Williarni, Gerrard-•staect, Soho, London, grocer. LIVERPOOL AGRICULTURAL MARKET, Nov. 9. a. d. s. d. F. d. s. ( 1 . • • Hay, old t 4411 741 r 2011 - , Potatoes...... tt 9d3 5 cir 90th New Ray 1 2 1 6 ---Cattle Potatoes 2 4 3 0 Clover Hay 0 00. 0 -- Turnips 3l 030 0 per too Straw, Wheat.. -a8 0 10 -- Carrots G:I 0 0 0 - Straw, Oat . 0 8 0 9 - Manglewurzle 0 0 0 )-- Green Clover.. 0 0 0 0 -- Manor.. ...., . 7 0 8 6 --- • LIVERPOOL INFIRMARY REPORT, From the. 3d to the 10th of IV:Jaen:l,er, 1835. DISCHAIIGBD. t IT7 In-patie.nts cured Relieved and at own request MailekOut-patients ...... 0 Casual during t'l. I'. Irregular Dead , 1 Remain in We house House Visitors—Mr. Warty and Mr. Molyneux. Consulting Surgeon, Mr. Forshaw. Chaplain. the Rev. R. Davies.-11ouse Surgeon, Mr. J. Ashcroft. -• LOCK HOSPITAL. 15 t In the Hospital 50 1 Discharged 8 Admitted . LIVERPOOL TIDE TABLE. ' Itfrn. Ern. 1 ____--- Festivals, csle. , Nov. T. M. U. )1., P. 1. \v" 8 10 29 10 17 3 Saturn in conj. with Moon, Ti,"4,, e sclaY.. 9 I I 7 11 26 18 4 Venus rises 21i 57m morn, Frifr a ; a Y •! 1 ° 11 44 19 7 Saturn rises 61117 in morn Sa turd Av. 0 025 19 6 St Martin 1.) SUNDNI• • 0 46 1 9 18 10 Cam. Term divides. mid. Monday l3 3 l' 156 17 5 24th Sunday after Trinity 2 251 15 9 Jupiter rises 10117 in even On Wednesday, the 2din a t DIED. age, Sarah, relict of C.uthbe t iZql,r residence, Bath, at an advanced ame day, Hatton, the ordy , hihi am, Esq., of this town.' Great Sankey, aged 5 years and 5 rno'nitiT,e2hn Tus. rner, Esq., M.D.," of Or. SatUrday last, aged 3 . ems, yeara, Mr. John Ewart, of his Majesty's Cust e e i, l , i t i , es i t: . langhter of , at th is port, and formerly of Berwick-upon - Twe ed . Dt sundae last, Alicia. second fln.,,fhter o f b u rnt ? , Esq., formerly of Did. bury, In this county. • 'me Black_ Ofe Tnesday last, in Norwich, Miss BolUrbroke, sister to Mrs. Cooper, Rodney-street. FIRST ANNIVERSA Ric OF THE LIVERPOOL PR,OTESTAN ASSOCEiTION. On Tuesday last the Liverpool Protestant Association held its first anniversary at the Amphitheatre, in Great Charlotte street. 'rile advertisements convening the meeting announced that the Rev. R. J. Ill'Ghee and the Rev. Mortimer O'Sullivan were expected to attend, and from the well-known talents of those gentlemen, a great , desire was generally prevalent to attend the meeting. The Amphitheatre having before been fre quently used for similar occasions, it is almost unnecessary to give a description of it. Suffice it to say that the whole of this spacious building, lookina at it from the front of the stage, pre sented one dense mass of human beings. Pit, boxes, and gal leries, from. the most-remote corner at the bottom to the very ceiling at the top, were excessively crowded. On turning round and looking towards the stage, the same scene presented itself. In the whole of the back of the proscenium was erected a kind of gallery, tier above tier, from the stage floor to the ceiling, which was densely crowded with ladies, being set apart exclu sively for them. The stage itself presented the same crowded appearance; on it were assembled the clergy of the town and neighbourhood to the number of sixty or seventy. We need hardly state that the whole building, when thus filled by about 4,000 persons, many of whom were of great respectability, and great numbers of -whom were females, presented a most magni ficent spectacle. The admission into the theatre was by ticket, on which was printed that the parties obtaining them were ex pected to accede to a pledge nut to interrupt the business of the meeting, and to maintain order. .The orchestra was appro priated-to " the gentlemen of the press," and every accommo dation was afforded to them. We have to tender our thanks for the conveniences provided for us. It was announced on the advertisements that after tile • meeting a collection would be made at the doors fur the benefit of the protestant schools. The doori were opened at ten o'clock, and the house was almost im mediately filled. Precisely at eleven o'clock the Rev. Morti mer O'Sullivan and the Rev. H. M‘Neile entered on the stage, and were greeted with loud cheering. Immediately afterwards C. S. Parker, Esq., the treasurer of the association, was moved into the chair. Among the gentlemen on the platform was the Rev. C. Glad win, T. Tattershall, M. Hawtrey, C. Lawrence, J. Jones, J. Bates, J. 11. Stewart, J. H. Stafford, E. Sp_eucer, T. Garrett, W. 'rvrer, J. Power, R. Wilson, J. B. Wiustauley, W. H. Tuer, - W. Waunop, IL. Davies, Dr. Ralph, J. Lyons, C. Wray, J. Maughair, 11. M`Neile, J. North, Dr. James, Mr. Alder, F. Barker, A. Knox, W. Rawson, Mr. Lugger, R. Davis, jun., R. Blacuw, J. Hodson, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Wright, F. Ould, 'l'. France, Mr. Cheetham, and Mr. Bunbury. The Cuatumast then said, before commencing the business of the meeting, he trusted they were all prepared to unite in seeking the blessing of Almighty God ; so that all their pro ceedings being overruled by his spirit, peace, and wisdom might attend •to animate them in his glory, and for the good of his church. He would therefore call on the Rev. Mr. Stewart to offer up a prayer. The Rev: - hir." STEWART , incumbent of St. Bride's, then offered up an appropriate arid solemn appeal to the Deity, in which the andience joined with devout attention. After which The CUAIRSIAN said, at the important meeting which had been held within those walls some time before, the Protestant Association had taken its origin. The only officers than ap pointed were a secretary and a treasurer.' To the former the committee had assigned the duty of reading their report, and they had requested the latter, according to the usage of those societies similarly constituted without a president ,to take the chair at its annual meeting. Whilst he acknowledged with un affected humility his utter unworthiness of the honour they had clone him in not withholding their sanction from the ar rangements they had just heard, be had acceded io it at the sacrifice of very strong personal feelings. Had the meeting been convened for ally other object, nothing could have in duced him to have taken an . office, of hiS' incapacity fur which he was painfully conscious; whether he looked b ack at the talents and station of those who had preceded him in that chair, whether he looked around him at that vast assembly of his fellow-townsmen, or whether he looked forward to the ability and eloquence of those who were to address' them that day. But it being their high privilege to maintain the supremacy of the word of God—(cheers) —to contend earnestly for " the faith once delivered to the saints," it would ill become the most feeble and untried soldier of Christ to desert his post. (Cheers.) And yet would they bear in mind that they were commanded by the same authority to speak the truth in love—to speak evil of no man, but to be gentle. He should now best consult their convenience and the gratification of his own feelings by pro ceeding to the business of the meeting, and call on their secre tary, Mr. Edwards, to read the report. - Mr. EDWARDS then proceeded to read the retort of the com mittee of the association for the past year. REPORT. After reciting the two principal resolutions that were - passed at the meetin4 in October, last year, the report proceeded as followsl— Such is the origin of our association, and your committee, in the review of the year which has since elapsed, desire humbly and cor dially to thank God, and to take courage. They desire, also, to pre sent to their constituents, and to the nation, a brief vindication of their design, snd'description Of their oprations. The living and true God, the ntlieT.of heaven and earth, has re vealed to men his will concerning men. The Bible contains that re velation. No man is excepted, whatever be-his-station—high or low. All are commanded to love and speak the'truth ; to confess Jesus Christ the Lord ; to let their light shine before men; and whatsoever they do, in word or deed, to do all to the glory of God. As touching eternity, all are proclaimed on a level. There is no difference, for all have sinned. ' As touching human society in this world, the greatest differences are described. The powers that he are ordained of -God. ,By Him kings reign, and princes decree justice. By him they are reminded whose ministers fhe'y are. By Him they are com manded to tide in his fear, and for the temporal and eternal benefit Of his people, subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, esteeming loyalty a Christian duty, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Upon these high. truths,. as they progressively became practically undeistood, and nationally recognised, the British constitution was erected, and made progress towards perfection ; and whatever minor measures of alteration in detail may from time to time be found &du.' tart',—witff the national recognition of these great truths thatconsti tution must stand or- fall. The great principle is—that the will of God, as-revealed in the Bible, is the o ty sure and - safe standard of right arid wrong. and therefore constitutes the fundamental basis of all (lbritttian legislation. No rulers, acting on this' principle, can arraign their own charter, by propagating falsehood, or exercising tyraowy. Anil no people, acting on this principle, can fail to possess and inKicy p oth rah anti liberty. , By this theory, all most dear as christians and as English , men is assailed: and it is in uncompromising hostliity to this theory that our protestant asSuciation is formed. it is called into existence by imperative self-defence. Its declaration, deliberate arid determin ' ed, is this :—That the authority of Gud must not be set aside; that there is revealed truth; that both rulers and people may and ought to know it; that both rulers and people are hound to give it practical preference in the council cha Other, iii the senate-house, in the school, in the 6tmilv, as well es in the closet; that if any of our fellow country men fie ignorant of this high principle, and he duties conse quent thereon, they should be'instructed; if any have forgotten, they should he reminded; if any be hesitating, they should be decided; if any be timid, they should be encouraged ; if any be supine, they should be stimulated; so that our rulers may know, and the nation may know, and the whole civilized world may know, that England and the Bible are so linked together that no. infidel philosophy, no unnatural coalitionbetween the disciples of liberality and the disciples of intolerance can dissolve the indissoluble bond ; and that when liberalism shall have succeeded in extinguishing the voice of con science—when popery shall have succeeded in enthroning the dog mas of her apostacy in the chair of unquestioned infallbility—w hen infidelity shall have succeded in burning up the last copy of the Bible as a scroll—when atheism shall have succeeded in expelling the living God from his own creation, then, but not before, shall England be de prived of her constitution, the palladium of civil and religious liberty amongst mankind. The object. then, of our protestant association is not to misrepre sent, not to calumniate, as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we do, but to give needful publicity to fundamental truth. In furtherance of this object, 7,614 tracts, controversial and others, have been put into circulation. Of these, 4,614 have been sold. Also a course of controversial sermons was preached in St. Andrew's Church, and of these 10,444 copies have been sold. Your committee have much satisf ac ti on i n calling the attention of th e ir c onstituents and friends to the ci rcums t ance ot so very large a proportion of their publications having been purchased. This supplies a strong indication of the desire of the people to pro cure sound instruction. And if any stronger indication were required, it is abundantly supplied in a fact tor which your committee desire to express thankfulness to Almighty God, and cordial congratulations to their fellow-citizens —th e fact held !Urn to the encouragement of the friends of genuine protestantism, and to the admiration and imitation of the United Kingdom, in the history of the. Liverpool Church of England Sellouts. Protestant parents among the .poor•have felt the Justice Of the appeal of their clerical instructors, and have refused to send their children to schools front whose hours of authoritative teach ing the uninutilated Word of God is excluded. The children of Ro nan Cath o li c p arents h ave naturally enough stepped in to occupy the deserted form s . Th e en li g h tene d an d wealthy friends of Scriptural education have nobly responded to the same appeal. Donations amounti ng to £lOlOO, and an nua l s u b scr ipti ons excee ding £5OO, pro claim conclusion, hot la) n eg l ee t e d. the encouraging assurance that the l'rotestant poor are not for gotten; aril shall Lp your committee have real pleasure in recording their conviction, that the RI/3tilV 1 • prevailed among the friends of our Christian institotiiMs w is li f ' as ' g and a fixed determina tion inanifesting throughout the country to distinguish wisely to at' r d eOt ' a t i i i ( d A r i It3P ,11 . 4t e e n n e r r i Ot r liTn a e t i i rs oafnita destniction, and resolutely pal tyi auny and intolerance. A U said he hoped it would riort il l ' i, h w e i s h j u s t s s i have been his pleasing duty to introduce Mr. Mliiree to the meeting, but he grieved l i ,s;ty that he had received a letter 'from that gentleman, an erious indisposition , [The Chaitman read the letter, in which INl‘Ghee stated " that he was unable to speak or swan". from c luinsY in his throat, and should, there rgtimer O'Sullivan to the on' Tuesday."] The be When silence was sufficiently restored, the ilmati o',sut.t IVA N then stood forward, and was greeted u I t i h a e b n le i n t t o roclu t t e e e i t l i d t t o ' C lue: guilt or innocence lay often be learned more th( • of an accused party >toughly from meet the strength of an accusation h w e it i l tVo l % t e re t i le:(7l a g s ch e ers,loll :—Al Chairman, rho tire testimon 11V - 1644 i he. charges against him are supported. : c ‘ a t u , d a i ( d l l l 6 . c , a u t i e d eboldly ilsl toa voucher fur, at least, the hOnesty of is not thought counsel' who evades the strength and s charge, and piirpase in - which the defence is unde u r i t }s a t k a e n n c , e tt o u t d a il , ll l l . l l o r U , gh th e 6 he is vet universally ,to.haVe necessarily betrayed his cause, replies only to matteis incidental or indifferent, es teemed as one not over careful. for his client's reputation - - twine c lent a tided to his•protection. His first care was to pr (Cheers:) . That reputation however, may not have been con , - ' his ous duty, he is ineompatible with due regard l'or the more imperi_. acquittal, and if to free honour also from . stispi . cion wasfound void - of blame, because, when assailed by.contraclictury c bound to'acknowledg,e. The indulgence yielded as of right to he gave his chief attention to those whiC h he was es p ecially the udydcate in a court of justice is not granted to trial who defends a cause arraigned before public opinion. At that tri bunal reputation is•ttio award, and good fame was never 'won where the arts and efforts which sought' it were proved to be disingenuous. (Cheers.) Let an individual who seeks his own renown be convicted of any equivocalidn, and he is held ,per sonally dishonoured. Who will believe that an unscrupulous . advocate can promote. the interests of what he terms a holy cause by adopting practices which would be held unworthy and unbecoming, it' considered only in reference to himself, and which receive a character of deeper criminality when minister- ing to the advancement of what is termed religion? (Loud cheers.) No. It is not the devices Of mammon by which the cause of righteousness can be served. (Hear, hear.) No sane man who thought his cause good could have recourse to them. In the controversy. then, which has of late years been conducted on the part of the Church of Home, and those who complained against her, it seems of moment to examine the arguments by which she has sought to defend herself, not only for the purpose of exposing their inconclusiveness, but also with a view to ex hibit in the principle of their selection the character of the cause artifices which it has l e d t o hi s ' a d o pti ng —t o they protect—to trace out the secret . cunzciousness.of the advo vocate throueh the .show that he has turned aside from the charges which were ~r aveht and most direct — that he • has., eagerly e xpl o r e d an d shaped out some matter of trivial moment through which to ef fect a brief and unprofitable diversion, and thus to suggest the natural inference that he would not hate descended to such unworthy arts , if soy hope remaiued of defending his cause in. sincerity, ( L ou d c h ee rs.). - The letter„sir, which you have just now read, and which 'has been. heard by Ibis great assembly with feelings of regret still more suitable than of the disappoint ment- which the communication naturally caused, will have sug gested abundant proofs that these remarks aro not irrelevant to the occasion on which we are, assembled. When we name Robert M c Ghee, we name one who has brought forward'charges of the gravest character against the Church of Borne, who has sustained them by irrefragable ,evidence,..atrd enforced them with an eloquence which has compelled even a heedless gene ratiOn to give them attentive audience. (Cheers.) We name one who summoned to the controversy with that church her own acknowledged instruments—her formnlariel of worship— the - decrees of het - councils—the decisions or,her popes—her ; annotations ors Holy Scripture—her approved summaries of doctrine and morals, and who in . everrinstancc so couviuc- TYTTII T 111:17, T 3 nr,r, r Fr A ILT "1 - , A •-•A THE LIVERPOOL STANDKO. ingly established the justice of his charge as to have reduced the advocates of Itienanisi to silence; or to have• extorted_ from them those irrelevant and unbecoming cries of personal invective which serve to little other purpose than to renders, the confession implied in their silence the snore 'significant., A moment's reflection - will show how aptly the invective with which this ardeut asseitor of the truth has been assailed har monises with the evidence by which his propensities" have all, substantially, been confirmed. Among the ninety and nine documents which he set forth as authenticated by the Church of Rome, there was one which was not genuine—a document which he had hastily adopted, and which he lost not a day in retracting. (Hear, hear.) What does the rage and the perseverance with which he has been assailed for this one mistake prove? It proves that the mistake was solitary. If a second instance of error could be discovered in his statements, his adversaries would have adopted an occasion of giving variety to.their in vectives more creditable than that to which they have been driven. (Hear ) Their charge is now, 1 understand, that Mr. M'Ghee has not expressed !regret for his mistake. Never was charge more unjust. He did deeply feel, and most affectingly expressed, his sorrow for having done, in a single instance, through inadvertency, what his adversaries have been unceas ingly doing with design. But while he so expressed himself, he could not be unaffected by a feeling of thankfuluess that, through his transient and amply atoned-for error, the weakness of the cause to which he was opposed had become so signally mani fested—so groundless was the calumny of his accusers. (Long continued cheering.) Mr. M'Ghee has expressed the deepest sorrow for this single act of mistake, but which, I am happy to state, has done no injury to the cause. It was-impossible for a man like Mr. INl`Ghee to look to observations that were of a personal nature. He knew that in consequence of his mistake the cause had prospered, and the measures taken by his enemies showed the rottenness of their cause. He, therefore, had reason to rejoice at the consequences of that mistake. But there is another matter on which Mr. iNPGhee has been assailed. It is said that he declined accepting a challenge addressed to him by a Roman Catholic clergyman, Mr. Maguire. (Hisses.) This is, no doubt, a subject on which Rome should exult, and on which she should instruct her advocates to insist strongly. Mr. 11I‘Ghee charges the Church of Rome, generally, and certain of her ecclesiastics directly and by name, with dis seminating the most abominable principles. (Loud cheers.) He summons them to meet his charges in person, or by ap proved advocates—leaving than liberty and choice wide as the world. (Loud cheers.) They obstinately and prudently decline, and then sound trumpets of triumph over his imagined unwil lingness to meet in argument the adversary by whom he had been provoked to engage in a disputation. It would be indeed a sickly triumph were the case such as they would represent it. (Great cheering.) But what were the facts 7—what is the his tory of this challenge? I wish that lie were here to narrate them who could speak with authority. I know them only Irons the published correspondence on the subject, and from that 1 learn, that, in consequence of expressions used by Mr. Maguire, Mr. M`Gliee addressed to hint a proposal of which no notice was taken; but that, instead of a reply, Mr. Maguire issued a challenge on conditions wholly dissimilar to those on which it had been proposed to meet him. The correspondence is before the world, and could not be abridged within limits, which justify me in laying its substance before you. (Loud cheers.) But there was one condition proposed by Mr.'Maguire which served to indicate the character of the proceeding, and to intimate the impossibility of complying with his propositions. Ile required that there should be judges to decide on the matters at issue be tween him and the Rev. gentleman whom he invited to a dis cussion. And how were these judges to he selected? Mr. Maguire was to choose three Protestants. Mr. M‘Gliets was to search out among Roman Catholics three, by, whom , impartial judgment was to be pronounced. On what question' ? The very first question which - naturally presented itself was on the right of private judgment. And Roman Catholics, to whose profession of faith it was essential.that they should renounce such a right—who, in truth, would become Protestants by ex ercising it, were to act in judgment, and. pronounce upon a matter in which they had incapacitated themselves from de ciding. (Cheers.) No Roman Catholic clergyman could be unaware—indeed Mr. Maguire was not—thatthe•first question , "to be determined was on this solemn right. Protestants are free—Roman Catholics are intellectually fettered—Rome boasts herself the champion of freedom, but it is of that freedom which is conceded only to a part of man's nature—a free• dom which would set the nerves and sinewe at large, and would reserve its fetters for thought. (Loud cheering.) I address myself to another topic—one in which I was myself more immediately concerned-1 too was charged with misie presentation. The matter may appear, •at first, merely per sonal, and unworthy to engage your attention; but you will find that in all its facts it admits of general consideration, and introduces matter of general interest. At the- time when I was accused of misrepresentation I was occupied in duties interest ing and absorbing, which did not allow of looking back. Such opportunities as incidentally presented themselves I employed to explain and vindicate my conduct ; and as soon as leisure was given me I availed myself of the freedom it gave me inure, for mally to address myself to the task of vindication. Previously, however, I made known to Dr. Murray, by private letter, the statements which I actually had made, and of which he had seen imperfect reports. The fact is, that, although there were in circulation authentic and exact reports of the proceedings at various meetings, Dr. Murray, leaving all the accurate reports unassailed, vented his indignation on one which did not even profess to be verbal. The charges he had advanced against the were, that I had misquoted a decree of the Council of Trent, and that I had misrepresented evidence delivered by him be fore a parliamentary committee. I stated to him the substance of what I had said, and forwarded to his address a paper con taining a statement more in detail. I said that the Council of Trent had affirmed the Nicene Creed to be the creed of the catholic church, and that Pius IV, proposing, after the council had dispersed, a new creed, instituted thus a new church and established a new religion. [Here the reverend speaker enter •ed into asletail of the argument, by which he showed that the Church of Rome is a schism, dating its origin no farther back than the year 15111, and even then with an anathema from the Council of Ephesus. (Applause.) He concluded his argu ment by stating that Dr. Murray's silence, who never attempt ed to reply, gave it confirmation, the most reverend divine, having addressed himself with eagerness to assail the incorrect report, and receiving with submissive silence the allegations in the more exact report.] The reverend gentleman continued.: With respect to the evidence offered by Dr. Murray, I had stated two truths, and I named them to him. One was, that he had denied that comprehensive and most abominable oath which - priests of his church take on collation to benefices. (Hear.) To this charge he made no reply. He neither explained nor extenuated the actual, I do not say wilful, un truth he had uttered. I shall recur to this topic, and beg you to bear it in mind. The other notice of his evidence was con tained in my charge, that according to the testimony which he had borne, and which was borne by the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle —the Church of Rome did not permit the circulation of the. Bible in the vulgar tongue, without notes; and that up to the year 1825 there was no Bible in Ireland containing notes of which the bishops of the Church of Rome entirely approved. To this he hazarded a denial; but when I demanded what was the Bible thus sanctioned ? why Dr. Doyle denied it with an oath ? why he himself directed attention from it by an evasion ? he was silent. Perhaps the researches of Robert 111•Ghee may explain why. This is a subject of so much importance that 1, must beg your permission to state the argument somewhat more fully. The Church of Rome prohibits the study of the Holy Scripture. I do not read the prohibition from the 'testi mouies of individual divines, or even from the rules of cringres, gations. The prohibition which I regard as issued with the authority of the church (for a church is responsible) is that it is acknowledged in the promise—the promise which is all but a' direct renunciation of faith in God—contained in the creed of Pius IV :—" I also admit the Holy Scripture according to the sense which our holy mother the church has held and does hold, I to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures." This is sufficiently disparaging to "the divine word; but how can we, without amazement and sorrow, hear what follows?—" Neither will laver take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." I need not 'Wove to you that the fathers are not unanimous, that the Church of Rome has nut set forth with authority,a full interpretation of Scripture. On that, accordingly, the votary who has promised solemnly to embrace traditions, to receive without any doubt the conflicting declarations of canons and councils—who has thus pledged himself to learn and revere the contents of those most voluminous records in which the character of the Church of Rome is depicted—plcdges him self, with equal solemnity, to renounce fur ever that one book which God has commanded to be written for his learning. I had adduced testimony to prove, that the practice . of the church of 'Rome is conformable to this denunciation. Dr. Doyle, ex amined on oath before a parliamentary committee, in 1825, was asked, " Have you in any instance allowed the circulation of the bible among the laity without notes ?" Ile answered, " I do not know that we have." He was asked whether he and his brethren considered themselves " pledged to all matters con tained in these notes ?" " No—nut by any means." He said further, "the notes carry, in our editions of the bible, no weight." In the tonne year Dr. Murray was examined, and bore testimony not adverse to that part of his episcopal brother. He was asked, "Do you approve of the circulation of the scrip tures, without notes, among ,the Roman Catholics ?" Ile an swered—" I du not approve of the circulation of the scriptures without notes; I wish there should be seine Mites appended to them, as an indication that they are not to be interpreted ac cording to private judgment, but according to the authority of the church." All this is consistent with the promise in the Creed of Pius the 4th. The scriptures are to be received in the sense admitted by the chnrch. But was that sense made known? You have heard tile testimony of Dr. Doyle, who declared, on oath, that it was not ; thathe had not approved of the notes ap pended t o the editions o f tire Bible then in circulation. (Loud cheers.) Il a d, Dr. Mu rra y app rove d o f them?-of those ap pended t o a ny e diti on ? H ear hi s re ply: tie was asked, "What a re th e p ar ti cu l a r no t es ; by w h a t au th or ity prepare,d ; or wh ere are t h ey to be found; whicli,in your opinion,,should' accompany the )3ible ?" And he answered,—what? Did lie Lreadysuch t a ho s issued; approve or, stereotype er e is a tacit . name any p u bli s h e d no t e s? Did h e l ay any copy of Scripture upon th e ta b le of the committee? He did not; he promised One, Il e said now , " I have myself prepars.l an edition of the Bil,le, which is edition of the ss ; notes re jection °f existiu notes not less c lear than Dr. Doyle's sworn condemnati on of diem. I did dot ascribe division to those bi• shops, and inferreil froth their j o i n t t es ti mo ny, w hat wa s little if, when they were asked , the less than equiv ocat i on du you answered, "No," and again containing studs of the Bible, without" e w d h t a n d e tliey indiscriminate published same necessary annotations, they editions of Scripture, cont.: answered dwell no iuthe E r s . ' i t l h t e h s (u s t ( ti c u:, I stn sati sereu fied to leave the denial of Dr. Murray, soar toy part of the sub' : t(. ( Great cheering.) and to be judged by every impartial reader, t~'b~thcr my was not natural, and whether the tleni,d IS its justlee w:stTont ill-judged, involving as it did, cue Roman Catholic bishop in a charge of perjury , con v icting Dr. Morley himself o f amost discreditable evasion, and leaving his church burdened w i t h a charge,.that she circulated comments upon the Bible anion , her people, of such a character, as that in 1525, Dr. Doyle de nied then—Dr. Murray evaded then —and that ten years after, he cannot venture upon the task of explaining the evasion and the oath, and naming the Bible which had called for them. (Hear, hear, and much applause.) Instead of this defence, or a defence like this, Dr. Murray would pour Comm fusien upon me by assert i ng , that many copies of the Scriptures had been cir culated among, the members of his church. Is this established approval of them ? The Rhsiwish flutes have been approved— Dens has been a pproved. T hat he would formerly not admit. He should not, therefore, have framed au arginnem in which it is implied that circulation infers sanction. But • how could this •be ? I know that there are many who appeal to what they term facts, and who affirm, that facts confute reasoning, and contra dict all arguinent from principle. 1 admit, fully, the import ance of appeal to fact : where such appeals are made for the purpcise of exhibiting principle in action, they are of great mo ment. But where facts are exhibited to oppose princis!e--rent from the parent stock on which they should grow, they perish. They blossom no more. Still the cry is of many who are re puted among the discreet, "Facts are valuable —on e fact is bet ter than a thousand arguments." , The fact is, we live in times when observation seems to have overlaid reflection, and, when the actions, which, betraying inconsistency in the e sr s orm e rs of them, serve to awaken suspicion in the wise, sl,all be noticed' by the seedy reasoners of our day, as calculated to dissipate alarm, and to restore'and confirm their confidence. (Cheers.) 1 wish, sir those who are to decide for others as well as them selves, would look upon the acts of any portion of then &Eel% ing them by the light in which the principles of the agents exhibit them. rue trespasses of nations would not be so flagrant— their perils not su formidable if a rule like this were constaie.ly observed. Rome circulates Scripture—therefore she does not, should she obtain power, prohibit U. She does permit the cir culation—but she promises not to study except according to the sense of the church, which has not been made known—or the consent of the fathers, who are not unanimous in• consenting, renders the circulation unprofitable. 1 need nut prove here that the fathers, whom Rome has not even named, are not unanimous —not even consistent with themselves. I most highly respect ar►d loVe the wisdom which I" sometimes find in the writings of the sagei of the early church. I look back to them with interest, and feel strongly moved by the testimony which they bore, amid trials by which the stoutest of men might be shaken, to the faith they profesSed, and by the energy of their dependence and the strength of the hope which cheered them through their troubled lives and crowned their matyrdorn—but I cannot disguise from myself that they were men—and to postpone Scripture until their differences can be adjusted, and in the mean time to have their discourses as the substitute, would be about as wise as to deprive our navy of the mariner's compass, until the traditions left by men who had prosecuted their uuadventurous voyages by the guidance lent them by the stars, could be collected and reconciled with the truth, and with each other. To say then, that itonianisin while permitting the Scriptures to circulate under the shackles of a promise which makes it a sealed book, vindicates herself from the charge of opposing and prohibiting the study of it, is, at the least, to speak rashly. Indeed, sir, I am strongly disposed to think that such rashness, indicates more often indifference than imbecility. On moral and religious topics, empty shows content many. Shows at variance with the principles of those who exhibit them will suffice. But whore personal interest or political predilection are concerned, there the value of such exhibitions will be as fully understood, as a bill of exchange is by a broker. I will put this matter to the test. I have hazarded a comparison between navigation , directed by the mariner's compass or guided by the stars. Let it De sup posed that among the vessels which have entered your port, there was one in which the romantic guidance of mere poetical days was substituted fur that which has been formed by men of our times, more eligible and safer. Do I impose too seriously on your credulity when I affirm, thct, were the master of such a vessel to advertise fur passengers, he would not be embarrassed by a very earnest competition. But let it be imagined, that, in a spirit of curiosity, a stranger visited the vessel, and that the first object which presented itself to his eve was that very coin pass which the men said had been prohibited and disused, would you think it a matter of course that he should at once account the representations"of star-light wanderings all untrue, and pro nounce the good ship sea worthy and safe ?—(Loud applause.) I think, air, he would not if he were wise. No! he would in- quire hOw the sinister reputution had been acquired? and if in the course of examination it was brought to light, that although the compass was exhibited, it was not consulted ; if the master, the mate; the helmsman, the crew, all were bound to postpone inquiry at the compass until previous questioning had been suc cessful; that all were bound first to consult the traditionary relics of old star guided voyages; that they were bound to hear the mandate of the - captain or the mate—and if the voice of a superior instructed them that the needle ought to point to the north, when their eves taught them that it pointed actually to the 'south or west--that they were bound by their sworn obligations to give credence to what they heard, and to disregard the testimony of their eyes—he would surely hesitate, at least, before he decided the charges against the suspected vessel were mere calumny and slander. What would, in such a case, be the natural interpre tation of the phenomena. It would he, that while the regula tions of the vessel were unchanged; while fragments of tradition constituted the directions by which it was to be governed, an idle show had been sel up, that men of easy credulity might be deceived, and that the injurious accusations might be averted. It would be natural to inter that the captain, who beheld barks from:all realms surrounding his—who saw plain proofs of the preference with which those were favoured—who were governed by the guidance which was safest—accommodated himself to the necessities of The times—set up the compass as a pirate might, for an advantage—display the conquering ensign of Britain—to be taken down and cast aside so soon as the emergencies ceased to require it. Is this illustration overstrained ? No, sir;—the teaching of the Church of Rome suggests it,—Dens directly re comniends a practice not dissimilar. lie has recited the re strictions by which the reading of God's tvord is encompassed, and he adds, that in countries where heresy prevails a more li beral indulgence may be granted. Is not this hoisting upon occasion the convenient flag, without giving up the purpose of cot always sailing under it,--the setting forth the compass, but preserving an unchangeable resolution that it shall never direct the voyage. Why is it that I have dwelt at such length on a topic which seems so little to require elucidation? Because I regard the policy by which the Church of Rome is governed in her dispensation of scriptural truth, as her most prominent and unambiguous characteristic: She proclaims that the bible con tains the pure word of God. She does not impute to itadinix lure of human error. The bible is the only book respecting which she makes this comprehensive acknowledgment ; and the bible is also the only book which she forbids her votaries to study. Individuals may prohibit works which sap the founda tion of morals, but the authority of no individual is paramount. Congregations established as a censorship over the press may endeavour to correct what is partially erroneous, or to suppress what is all evil; but the commands of congregations may be altered or overruled, and, even while. unrescinded, have no au thority to compel assent and obedience. All that has been pro nounced by subordinate and unaccredited depositaries of power in the Church of Rome is to be regarded us neither permanent or constraining. The only prohibition for which as a church she is responsible, is contained in the declaration to which all her votaries subscribe, which her ecclesiastics confirm with an oath, that unless they can accomplish the impracticable task of rendering the fathers unanimous, they will never take or inter pret God's Holy Scripture. " Hear, 0 heavens ! and give ear () earth ! for the Lord hath spoken," is the language of God. Heaven must suSpead her harmonies—earth must admit the quickening power of reverence and still attention—all that is created must pause from its agitation or waken from its inert ness, because the Lord bath spoken, and 'everything that has any being should hear. This is God's law. What is the law of Rome? She, too, acknowledges that the Lord hath spoken ; but does she invoke silence and attention to what he utters. IS her language "Hear, 0 earth ?" No, it is, pour your voices free ; ye fathers of the early time. Speak, thou church, for the Lord bath spoken, and unless the words obscurely uttered ob tain your approval and interpretation, they must fall to the earth neglected. Am I not justified in calling this a proscrip= tion of the bible? The voice that cried in the wilderness was powerful to reach many hearts—when wisdom cried in the streets, those who ,disregarded were at least free to hear and become wise. But it is not so with respect to the bible. On that blessed book the Church of Rome scowls suspicion. She does not leave it free to contend with the natural obstinacy of the human will —to overcome the distraction and indifference and preoccupa tion of human intellect, and to soften the obduracy of the hu man heart. No, every avenue to the soul is preoccupied and guarded by sin, invested with a character of religion; the bible is actually sent into banishment, unless the fathers go forth on an unanimous mission to return it into the ways of life it must remain a fugitive in the desert. No marvel that the Church of Rome has excommunicated the saints of God when thus she pours an anathema upon his bible. No marvel, if, instead of listening to the still small voice, and distinguishing it from the tumult of voices which raise their clamours above it, she teaches that nothing should be respected except what these earthly voices pronounce. If thus. she suffer the voice of truth to be drowned in the confusion of tongues, which arrogate an mi nim ity as the interpreters of the truth they stifle. No marvel if the doctrines which God has revealed, are superseded or de faced, and the church which renounces them gives heed to se ducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils. A manifestation of the power that opposeth and exalteth itself above all that is called God, and worshipped, so plain as this demands ample and cogent proofs. (Cheers.) You will not think me unpardonable for hav ing been even tediously minute in my enumeration of them. I turn from Dr. Murrav's charge against me, and pass away also from a criminating, defence, attempted by another. On this my lips are sealed—a domestic calamity has visited my ac cuser, and debarred me from the privilege of adding to the ob servations, in which 1 have alreadyexposed the injustice with which he had assailed me. 1 abstain : and lest, if I entered into a review of the topics which had called forth the invective, I might inadvertently make use of some expression unsuitable to the circumstances which restrain me. 1 dismiss the topic alto gether, important though it be, and turn to another portion of my subject. But in comparison with the defence which Dr. Murray has been bold enough, recently, to adopt, all preceding attempts at justification are of but little moment. I will not enter into an examination of the different parts of the memorable and characteristic epistle in which the defence is stated. I will confine myself to a single topic. Dr. Murray recommends the theology of Dens to the attentive perusal of his clergy, and justifies the recommendation by referring to the oath in which they and he had declared that they rejected doctrines which Dens maintains. " I have now no hesitation," he writes, "in recommending it to your attentive perusal, convinced that, trained as you have been to theological discussions, you are well qualified to appreciate the value of the arguments which the author adduces in support of his opinions, and bound as you are by the sacrei obligation of an oath, that you do, as you have solemnly sworn, reject and abhor the opinion, that it is lawful to injure any individual whomsoever, on account of his religious opinions. " " Bound as you are by the obligation of an oath." —What oath ? I repeat—of what oath ? Why do I propose such a question ? You shall hear : Dr. Murray was asked be fore a committee of the House of Commons, in the year 1825, on the 17th of May, " Do the priests take an oath similar to this? ('l'he oath taken by Roman Catholic bishops.) Ile answered, " No ; they take no oath but the oath of allegiance to his m ajes ty—they make a promise of obedience at the time of 'their o r dination—that is all." This answer of the witness may be divided, as logicians say, into two propositions—one i l ifi rm i ng that the priests of the church of Rome in Ireland take the oath of allegianCe to his Majesty, the other asserting. that they take no other. The answer, it is plain, conveys intelligence tb the effect that priests; as priests, swear allegiance to the throne, and that they swear, as priests, no other oath. In both pa il' s it was false. Students at Maynooth, at their entrance into are required to tak e an oath of . allegiance. No t hut' seminary, such oath is required at any other Roman catholic college, and no such oath is required at ordination. It is false, then, to say, that the priests take it. Here Dr. Doyle, I,t ho was on his oath, appears to have given testimony the very opposite to Dr. Murray. Lords' Committee, March 21, 1825. THE RIGHT REv. JAMES DOYT.E.—Are there any oaths taken by the Roman catholic priests in Ireland to the state at present? All those educated at Maynooth are obliged, on their entering the college, to take the oath of allegiance prescribed to be taken by Roman catholics. -: •Are all the persons appointed to be parish priests in Ireland now educated at Maynooth? No, far from it. Then, if a person is not educated at Maynooth, is he obliged to take the oath of allegiance? Not unless he succeeds to some property, or is appointed to some office requiring it. 1 never took the oath of allegiance in this country until about a year ago,—( Dr. Doyle, according to the Ordo Divini Officii of 1835, had been consecrated bishop in 1819,)—" and jirobably," he continues, "should not have then done so, had I not been ap pointed to some situation." Thus is Dr. Murray plainly con tradicted. Had he said, there are some priests who, when they w ere students in Maynooth, t oo k an oat h of allegiance, ho would have spoken truth. Had he said "priests" meaning " som e priests, did so, he might have an opportunity of special p l ea di ng in his defence. But when, in answer to a question the whole body o f th e It om i s h c l ergy in Ireland re respecting " the priests," he affirmed that th ey t oo k an oat h o f s pecting allegiance. it is impossible to escape from the conclusion that the testimony of Dr. Doyle convicts him of direct untruth,— whether ascribable to an intention of deceiving or to inexplica ble ignorance, I do not presum e to determine.—(Loud.—(Loud cheers and a laugh.) I turn to the second part of the answer. The priests in Ire land take no other oath;—ii this the truth? No. I cannot cite the testimony of Dr. Doyle to prove its falsehood, but am not without evidence strong as the ease requires. The Appen dix to the Report of the Lords Committee on Ireland, in 1825, May 27, (at page 913 ,) recites. " The form o f oa th t a k en b y priests on being collated to parishes." It concludes with the 3 following clauses: "1 do promise and swear true obedience to the Pope of. Rome, successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Chri s t. Al so. all other things defined, delivered, and deemed by the sacred canons and cecumenical councils, and especially the holy Council of Trent, 1 do, without toibting. receive and profess; and also all things contrary, and ull heresies whatever, condemned by the church, and rejected and anathematised, do I, in like manner, condemn, reject, and anathematise. This true catholic faith, without which ire man can be saved; which at the, present I do voluntarily profess and tru hold, the same w ill I take care to hold entireand inviolate by God's help, most constantly, even to the last breath of my life, and as much as in ins Beth, to be held, taught, and preached by those that are under me, or whose care belongs to me in my of fice. This Idu promise, vow, and swear, so help me God and these holy Gospels of God." Such is the oath which Dr. Mur ray solemnly denied on his examination before a parliamentary committee. I charged hint with the denial. It was necessary that I should call his especial attention to the charge, and I did so. 1 - le has nut ventured to deny the justice of the accusation ; he has not thought it advisable to attempt any excuse for his most false disclaimer. Yet he expresses anger at being charged with disengenuous artifice, and he remains,—may God pardon the nation which continues the enormity,—he remains patron of the system of moral education in lieland.—(Hear, hear, and much cheering.) When he reminds his clergy that they are "bound by the obligation of an oath," you do not now marvel that I should ask, "What oath does he mean?"—the oath which ho drew upon his invention to say that they had taken, or the oath which they /sad taken, and which, at the convenient season, was erased from his memory, or which he denied with an untruth—the oath in which some have sworn that they re gard as flagitious any abominable the doctrine that faith is not to be kept with heretics, or security afforded them for property or life—or the oath in which they have sworn to receive, with out any doubt, the declarations of councils and canons which teach that, where the interest of the church demands, those doc trines must be received and practised which, in the oath of al legiance, must be pronounced impious and unchristian ? What oath is to govern the clergy in their attentive perusal of Peter Dons? Which oath have they taken? We do not know that one has taken the oath of allegiance. We know that every priest colliited to a parish has taken the oath of perfidy and in tolerance. How, then, are we to regard the obligation which is recalled to their remembrance ? Is it cautionary against Dens—is it cautionary agaiust the charities—against the im pulses of natural feeling, and the warnings of conscience, which teach that Dens should bo condemned and rejected ? The recommendation, for aught we know to the contrary, may be interpreted so as to challenge approbation from the Inquisi tion in Rome, as well as to win favour in England. (Applause.) But it may be said that the oath to which Dr. Murray refers, is one in which Catholics have sworn to injure no man " on ac count of his religious opinions," These are his words—are they spoken in guile or in simplicity? Can it be that he ranks heresies among "religious opinions ?" Most surely he does not. He accounts heresy irreligion, and the oath not to injure an individual on account of his religious opinions would much wore rationally be interpreted as applicable to the permitted di versitY of opinion which is confessed within the Church of • Rome, than to that wider deviation which is not tolerated by the church, but is condemned us heresy and irreligion, We may then boldly say, that an oath containing the professions relied upon by Dr. Murray is not such as Protestants ought to hold satisfactory.—( Hear.) But we should not be so precise in cri ticising language. He means the oath of allegiance, which pronounces it impious and unchristian to hold that men ought ' to be injured, "for, or under pr e t e n ce o f, th e i r b e i ng heretics." i This, too, is nsufficient. A man may swear that he does not passively or actively injure a fellow-creature because he is a heretic—while vet he abets his destruction because he has been excommunicated. You have no right to strike a Irian dead be cause you are convinced he is a murderer; but when sentence has been pronounced upon him, as a convict ho forfeits life. In like manner, a bigoted member of the Church of Rome may affirm that he does not cherish a purpose of injuring heretics— nay, that he renounces it—while vet, if his church pronounced an anathema, and demanded of .him that he should be a minis , ter of vengeance, he may afford himself as willing an instru ment to wreck its merciless will, as ho was ready when the sea son required—to win favour fpr it by swearing oaths which were so constructed as to disarm the vigilance of those who dreaded intolerance, and yet to leave him free for any demonstration which a more favourable time would encoilrage him to exhibit. (Loud cheers.) As a case in point, call to mind the bull of Sextus V., excommunicating Elizabeth and calling on her sub jects to depose her, and remember how the command was ac commodated by his successor to the difficulty of the times, when he interpreted it as being always binding on Protestants, but not obligatory on Roman Catholics until the day in which it should be found wise to enforce it. In the interval, peace and good-will may be sworn, and if a time arrive in which mercy and justice may be disregarded, Protestants may be taunted with their simplicity, and it may be said by those who are then armed as their oppressors, "we swore to do you no wrong for your heresies. We do not, but we obey the commands of our head, the Vicar of Christ, and we visit on you the penalties not of heresy, but of exconununication." Are we to account oaths ca pable of such interpretation a security ?—(Loud applause.)— But, suppose them more precise, suppose the oath one less elastic and accommodating, what is to be thought of an oath by which practice is so uninfluenced? Dr. Murray confesses that the Theology .of Dens teaches doctrines which he has, on oath, rejected—he recommends this theology to the attentive perusal of his clergy, and he assigns as the justification of his having recommended so pernicious a book—the oath in which he and those whom he governs swore that they rejected some of its doctrines as impious and unchristian. What an age in which such confusion shall he committed by one who holds an office of the highest trust and importance ! It is a grave offence for one having influence to recommend, as a safe guide, a book containing impious doctrine. This, the Romish bishops did when they so highly eulogised Professor Dens. It is an aggra vation of the crime when the opinions thus indirectly, but am biguously, countenanced in secret had been publicly abjured on oath—but it leaves all common iniquity behind, when the oath to reject evil doctrine is, with unabashed effrontery, alleged as the justification for recommending it—when a bishop of the Church of Rome stands before the public—confesses that he has' sanctioned, and that he recommends a detestable book—and presents, to the nation he abuses and insults, the oath he has broken as the shield by which he woulil cover himself from their indignation. Who can say—it is true I recommended Dens, brit what right have you to object—have I not given you an oath, which should cause you to believe that I condemn him—how can you find fault—if after having quieted.your sus picions, I follow the course which my judgment recommends,' and direct my clergy to study with profound attention the book which my oath to you comprehends as among those which 1 detest, abjure, and condemn. I would propose to any twelve men, of plain sense and honest principle, a question as to the duties of devolving on men who swore the oath of which Dr. Murray would remind us—in which he, in the face of the En glish nation, abjured intolerance and bad faith. It was not an oath England required—that is, it was not for its own sake the oath was demanded—it was to obtain assurance that habits of sincerity and general good will were not incompatible with the principles of those who swore. The oath taken by Dr. Murray to renounce and abhor certain dogmas ascribed to his church was desired only as containing or giving an assurance that he would practically abjure them. I would ask of any twelve honest men whether thii is not the truth—with a full assurance that their answer would be affirmative and unanimous. Further, I would not hesitate to ask, whether, in their judgment, he who swore had not taken upon himself as an imperative duty to stigmatise and discourage every book which taught the con demned opinions, and to seek out and bring into general circu lation such as were in conformity with the spirit of the oath. I have no fear what the answer would be, and boldly affirm that the oath by which Dr. Murray qualifies his recommendation of Dens—pledged him to censure it, to prohibit his clergy from its perusal—in short—bound him to act in a manner the very re verse of what his conduct has been—and further, I affirm that the man who could pursue such a course of action as he has adopted, cannot possibly have a just sense of the oath he has taken, or feel the abhorrence which he professes, of the foul doctrines which he had, in words, rejected as impious and un christian. (Loud cheers.) Dr. Murray knew his duty; I pro mised to show you that he did, by his own confession. A letter was addressed to Dr. Murray, dated Pembridge Rectory, Sep tember 17, 1835, and signed Maurice James, B.D. It con tained the following expression, " Your lordship will greatly oblige me by informing me how it was that the authorised re publication of Dens, in 1808, and again in ]Bl2, took place without the omission, or any explanation of the passages objected to, and also what is the nature of the conference in which the hook is used, and to what use it is therein applied; and especially to what kind of comment or interpretation the passages are there subjected." The answer of Dr. Murray was satisfactory to the polite and reverend querist. ‘ 4 lam con. vinced," he says, " that because we dissent from the opinions of an author, it would be quite fair to mutilate his book," Are we to believe, that his belief of Scripture is his reason for mutil ating it ? " The Work was designed solely for professional men." Now those men had disavowed on oath, this only opinion that could lead to any practical mischief. Of what advantage, then, would it have been to load the page with a note? No student could be placed on the roll of Maynooth College, with out taking the oath alluded to, in one of the letters, which you will find in the Dublin Morning Register, (the oath to which I have already adverted.) " This, surely, was the strongest com ment that could be made on the text of Dens." " Conferences," are " meetings held by our clergy, at stated times each year, for the purpose of discussing, for their mutual information, questions connected with their profession." " Questions are proposed in the order in which they are usually found in theo logical works. The order adopted by Dens was found to be convenient, and therefore, the questions to be discussed in this province were set down in the order in which they lie in his book; but when brought under consideration, they arediscussed exclusively on their own merits, without any other reference to that author." But why were questions regarding the punish ment of heresy, discussed at all ? " Because they form a part of a treatise on heresy, which i s never om i tte d i n a theulogical course, and which should, therefore, naturally come under consideration in its turn. Surely, a clergyman ought to be ashamed, not to know the state of a question, which has so often agitated the Christian world, or to be unacquainted with the arguments which would enable him to come to a just con clusion regarding it? Would it not be satisfactory to him to be able to prove, to his own mind, the justice of the oath which ho bad taken, and to which I have already alluded. And is there anthything so very alarming in his being allowed to dis cuss the question, even for that excellent purpose?" Such are the leading parts of Doctor Murray's reply. Mr. James, who forwards it to the editor of the Hereford Times, fiats it with his approbation. " I will only add," he writes, "that lam entirely satisfied with the answer g i ven i n t h e a b ove letter," &c., &e. ,No doubt Dr. Murray was well satisfied with his judge. If not, his case is hopeless. Perhaps outside the guardianship of the wicked and the weak,—Great Britain could not afford him one more to his purpose,—a more exact counterpart of hiinself,—% a Daniel come to judgment. (Tremendous cheering.) The oath, you observe, is the governing principle of all the move ments of the most reverend divine. He and his priests had sworn that they rejected certain opinions. It was, therefore, right that they should be taught the justice of the oath they had taken. (Hear, hear.) "Sufficient !" cries Mr. James. "In my conscience I acquit," he says, " the writer, individually, and the Roman Catholics in general, of entertaining, at this day, the persecuting and homicidal doctrines and dispositions attributed to them." Even with this the reverend judge is not contented. lie is so fully possessed with the innocence of the bishop and priests, that he passes sentence on their accusers, " which doctrines," he adds, (the spirit of them, at least,) "and dispositions belong, I believe, much more to their accusers." And what is the argument by which the volunteer arbitrator has become thus enchanted ? I dwell not on that inversion of every thing honest and reasonable implied in the acknowledge ment, that the priests first swear solemnly to certain matters, and then are taught that they were justified in swearing. Nei ther do I detain you with comments on the third step of this in comprehensible produce,—the adopting as the proper means of reconciling priests to their obligation, the book which teaches them that they have taken a false oath. It is sufficient to state the process at which Mr. James cries out, Ohe ! he priests swear that they renounce certain opinions. 'They are then taught that it was right so to swear, and the book selected to teach this lesson, instructs them that it was wrong. It is, in truth, a novel mode of pleading which Dr. Murray has adopted. First, Dens cannot embarrass the Romish clergy, because they have taken an oath that they abjure his objectionable doctrines; and then, this oath cannot prove enabarrising to them, because Dens guides the conferences in which they learn that it was right to take it. I do not dwell on this "satisfactory" reasoning: 1 come to a matter of more importance. he priests have taken an oath to which it is expedient that they be reconciled. The book named to the office of reconciling them, pronounces that the oath was false. What has been selected as Of authority to appease' the restlessness of the priests disturbed consciences, and to correct the pecnicious influence of Dens? Mr. James, in substance, proposed this question, and Dr. Murray declined giving en answer. Notwithstanding his evasion, the complai- Nov. 11. ISM. sant vet ist pronounces himself satisfied. But the inquiring public will not be so. They will form a wiser and fairer judg ment. The book which appears as a guide to the priestly con-. ferences teaches the lawfulness of perjury and murder. The' natural inference on finding that no better appears is, that none mere creditable exists. If Roinish theology can supply a safe guide, it is disgraceful to have chosen one who is " ins pious and unchristian." If all are alike aboinineble, is it unjust to coma plain of a church which has not a single complete standard of faith and morals of which its bishops and priests have not sworn;- in one oath that they embrace all its parts; and in another, that they renounce and•cletest portions of it as damnable ? More than a year has now gone by since Dr. Murray was first charged with his patronage of the Theology of Dens. His recent epistle contains a full avowal of the charge. He admits that be gave permission to have the work printed—he admits that to withhold his permission would have prevented the publication. It is necessary merely to add, that he had previously opened a mart for the book by adopting it for the conferences, and all is admitted which was originally charged against him. During the interval which elapsed since his partnership in the publica tion of Dens was exposed, he has been repeatedly called on in distinct terms by some, in substance by Mr. James, to name any complete system of theology, by which the errors of Dens could be corrected. He has never given heed to the demand, and now, wholly unmasking himself, he recommends his clergy to engage in—not some safe and Christian course of study—not some work, by which they should be taught to reject the abomin able principles with the report of which the country has been ringing—but the very book against which, if he and they bare any respect for an oath, they ought to be especially guarded. He says he sees no reason to be ashamed of having, if he bad, directed the publication, he evidently is not ashamed of recom mending it. No reason to be ashamed! After a year's ac quaintance, to say no snore, upon these odious and demoralising volumes. No reason to be ashamed—what! of recommending to the attentive study of his clergymen, those odious pictures of crimes which, as Robertson says, " never had existence except in the impure imagination of a casuist," not ashamed of sug gesting the torture of those flagitious questions, which if they are proposed, convert the confessional into a retreat of intel lectual prostitution—and which, if they were not to be so em ployed, it was an uncompensated enormity, profligacy without the plea of a base necessity in him to recommend. No reason to be ashamed I ! My valued friend, Robert hl - Ghee, was ac- - cused—l was accused—by partizans of the Church of Rome of having translated extracts from this bad book, and do not ascribe. blame to the translator. His motives and the result may have justified his undertaking. We, however, felt ourselves called: upon to deny, as we could, all knowledge of a translation likely to prove the foulest, work in the language, and Dr. Murray is not ashamed to recommend it to his clergy—who are to inter-- pret it to female penitents in the confessional. (Rapturous and prolonged applause.) There is another topic of defence which I would fain have spoken upon if I had the opportunity afforded me of so doing; but, circumstances which go home to the heart of every man prevent my entering upon that peculiar point, in asmuch as the person who has accused me has lately been visited with a domestic calamity. Under these circumstances, there fore, I will give up the topic altogether. (Hear, hear.) I con ceive I shall .not be under the necessity of much longer detain ing you. Well, then, in the general charges brought against the Church of Rome are those of preventing the dissemination of truth; and they, for the most part, exist in the iniquitous' practices which have, from time to time, called into public view the doctrines of the Church of Rome; and, if those doctrines were found to be contained in obsolete volumes, or if, in the general improvement of the people professing the Roman 'Ca tholic religion, it could be conceived that those pernicious doc trines had been left behind, and that those had been formally renounced, I for one would not have taken the liberty of bring ing those charges to light. No, 1 would rather consult the" peace and tranquility of the inhabitants of this country at large, than be the means of reviving the errors of the Church if Rome of which she had herself become ashamed, although she had never formally renounced them. But I find the worst doctrine of the• olden times promulgated and arranged in all their theoretical forms, and assuming a twofold aspect, for the purpose of making an attempt to undermine the Scriptures, and to break down that church in which the Scriptures are approved and acknowledged.. They had seen how in Ireland the Bible had been partially closed, and the children in the schools merely indulged with portions of it extracted at the will and pleasure of the Church of Rome. As an illustration of what has there taken place, I may say, that if Satan could not destroy the field of wheat he would at all events introduce the tares into it; and, in like man ner, if the Church of Rome could not altogether withhold the, Bible from her people, she would at least contrive to mix up with it some of her own absurdities—and how far she has suc ceeded in doing so I need only refer you to Ireland herself; for there they have been eminently successful in subjecting the national schools to their commanding authority, and have al most entirely excluded the book of God's Word. But now, in this age of improvement, we are told that the book which the Church of Rome has prevented her votaries from reading is the book on which men sit in judgment. It is to you a subject cif thankfulness that you can look back with pleasure upon the time a hen the enemy passed (ruin the west and visited your own homes, that you engaged with such earnestness and vigour itt the work of God's vineyard, the result of which will, by God's blessing, be your recompence. The accusation, therefore, which 1 bring against the Church of Rome is, that she has been from time immemorial guilty of intolerant acts, that she has promul gated intolerant doctrines. And those intolerant acts, those intolerant doctrines, have not been practised in the dark ages alone, or confined to their councils, but have been promulgated in the nineteenth century; and the accusations which 1 now bring against the Church of Rome are precisely those which.. have called forth of late so many champions in defence of the.". Protestant truth. (The speaker was here interrupted by some noise in the gallery, which shortly subsided.) The accusations thus brought against the Church of Rome were founded on grounds which could easily be met and refuted if they admitted of any refutation. They might meet the accusation in either of these two modes. Either they might prove the statements made against their church to Le false, or they might prove that the- Church of Rome had abandoned the practices which she had in dalged in in former times • but neither of these modes having been adopted, the inference I draw therefrom is, that the charges cannot in any way be disproved. The truths I have stated have been confirmed and acknowledged, and so far is the Church of Rome from repudiating the doctrines which have led her into these errors, that she would rather heap obloquy upon those who " refute her doctrines, than attempt to clear herself of the charges made against her. As a proof of what I have said, I will beg leave to allude to a letter recently addressed to his clergy by their diocesan, the Right Rev. Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ireland. And, with your permission sir, and the.' permission of this congregation, I will confine my remarks to that letter, which, be it remembered, will prove the charge brought against the Church of Rome in a two-fold c ap a city:' I had nearly omitted to notice a point which I, in a former pad of this address, begged that you would keep in mind. Dr. Mur ray says, as a defence for enjoining that Dens should be read and studied by the Roman Catholic clergy, that they have each taken an oath. He says that every student of the College of. Maynooth takes an oath. This is his defence of Dens, and this oath is to guard them against the false and pernicious tenets' contained in the works-of that writer. Now, Dr. Doyle declares that the College of Maynooth is the only college where this pro tective and guarding oath is taken, for in fact this oath is in-', tended as a protection for the doctrines of Dens. My respected friend, Mr. M'Ghee, made this statement publicly at Hereford, and he has never yet been contradicted ; and we may, I think, rely pretty implicitly upon the truth of any statement which may be made respecting the catholics, when such statement re mains for so great a length of time without contradiction. I have always made it a rule not to give implicit credit to any charge against the Church of Rome, until it has remained one whole week without contradiction. Robert M'Ghee stated that in a book purchased at an auction, he had found the identical advertisement which was a copy of Coyne's Catalogue for 1814. It was called the " Catalo g ue f or 1814, of the books published by Richard Coyne." In this was set forth " Dens' complete system of theology, seven volumes, duodecimo, price £3." This' is the work which is now read in the catholic colleges, and which had been adopted by the catholic bishops, as the safest and best work whereby to instil into the catholic students a knowledge of their principles. Now, not at one college in Ire land, with the exception of Maynooth, is there an oath admi nistered. At Carlow there is no oath. At Dublin, at Cork, at. Limerick, at Cove, there are no oaths of protection administered, and yet in all these Dens is introduced. In Maynooth there is an oath, and Dens is not introduced. This, then, is the state or' the case. An oath is used to protect the clergy of the Church of Rome, against the pernicious doctrines of bens. There is , no oath used in any one of the colleges where it is used, and in , . the only college where the oath is administered, his works are not introduced. This is the species of argument that is used by the supporters of the Church of Rome, by Dr. Murray. He says, be sees no reason to object to the clergy studying the doc trines of Dens, he even recommends them, saying, that one or two pages of objectionable matter can make but little difference, where there is so much that is good : some of the gentle and li beral of the present day have agreed to this. They say, it is. harsh to judge of the merits of a work by what is expressed tie • only a few pages. Out of seven volumes there are only a few pages of what is objectionable, and it is hard and rigorous to pronounce strong objections, because of a few pages. We might say, that this is like the argument adopted by the man whom one person had seen killing the sheep. "Oh! said he, "you state, that you can bring forward one person who saw me kil ling the sheep; but I can bring forward one hundred people who will swear that they did not see me kill it." (Cheers.) I should like to see one of these individuals sitting in judgment upon a case. Some one comes forward who has been accused of a crime, and he makes his defence as follows. " Most wor shipful sir. It is true I am guilty. I do not deny it. Bull have lived in this world forty-five years. During the whole of these years nothing of wickedness has ever been laid to my charge ; all my life has been passed in respectability and ho nour, with this exception, and now, because on one day I have' committed perjury, robbery, murder, that one day islo be prat' against forty-five years of a life against which you are not able to say anything. My long life of virtue ought to stand against one day of crime and . iniquity, and I ought to be acquitted. By such arguments do they reply to our insinuations ae•ainst the poor injured and persecuted Dens. (Cheers.) We ltnovt that oft in the olden time there were men who exercised the office of poisoners. We ktrow that annexed to things which ' 4l, destroyed there were frequently numbers of others adduced o f a neutral character, and even those which shed forth an agreeable perfume to greet the senses; but, would any man say, that be cause there were to one poisonous, ninety-nine neutral ingre dients and even several that wore agr eea bl e , th a t th e person who had administered such . potion had done no harm. •NV,e, object to Dens for his one poisonous passag e , even th ou gh all the rest of his ingredients had been full of virtue, and power, and truth. (Cheers.) We object to the Romish Church he; cause it teaches doctrines which efface the best impressions of the human heart. They teach that Tour ne i g hb our is to be no repute if he have been stained - by the guilt of heresy; the laws of the land are of no avail if the Church of Rome.pro nounce that such laws tally not with ecclesiastical intentions. (Cheers.) We may say that the laws are the means of recon ciling man wills his fellow, and of conducing to our individua!, repose and security. We might expect that every man would pay habitual respect to his neighbour's life and prop s through the laws that teach others to reverence that which longs to him. We might expect habits of sincerity, and that in an especial manner, where God was solemnly called upon to witness thei r sa yi ngs, t h e d eta il s o f t h e trut h s h ou ld b e presented inviolate. The laws may he mild, and we may wish for them be obeyed through the reverence they inspire. But it t. lend. business of Dens to teach disobedience to the laws of the e te . , o _ except inasmuch as they may be according to the rules of Roniish Church. It is, therefore, that we pretest againstipeco_s_. and say that if Dr. Murray is not ashamed of having ' mended him to the study of the clergy of his church, then this vs that absence of shame indicates the power of habit. Iles% 6 ___ our object—the object of myself and my friend Mr. M re ign p is la t i i n ot e t f o er t r e e a r c . teach l t , h e e m t a r i u e t t h e , ie b . u w t htentehnedetaesr•onuisr tthoed.Teta.zsdt:ionn!l.„,.*:- etiethsse.'e'f our r e e ts e a r y c o h w i i e t lio re ld le ly e , d an te d s a n t e o k n e ce en a y pp s e e a e l n t religion which we profess. But, even it would not be one of which we need be ashamed. to make possession struggling side we see law and established posse on the other, a claim for that which belongs to them inviolably ; against the law oppos.- perjury and recorded recommendations riga f the former that we • ing. Is it of standing forward in aid p if we had such see the good and t e n b s e f t : o h n e , : an object, l o h u e gh e t is t e o , immersed tn ter- ,, land--we see them surrounded by danger and we Bee those t b h e os a e sh w am he ed h ? eve On bee th n e ;or. On the other side what do we see t o er n i e ne s d id t e heh e est gentrY 6 . 1 ° LaP'. ♦*- ... It ( I