The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-02 00:00:00

Ebt tibtr. aoL otanbarb. TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 2, 1846. In another column we give the substance of the p a rliamentary proceedings on the Dock Bill ; and we greatly wish that it had been in our power to give them in full. The object of the opponents of the Bill may be gathered from the brief report which we have given. It is to arrest the progress of the purchase, for dock purposes, of the 'Wapping property, on the ground that increased dock acreage is not wanted, or likely to be wanted ; or, in the event of such pur chase being permitted by parliament, to insist, as a condition, that the compact of the Dock Trustees with the warehouse owners, as to the erection of .arehouses upon the dock quays, should be broken through. The Dock Committee are asked to give up the further extension of the water space of the port, and to limit themselves, at present, to the carrying out of the pet scheme of Mr. Eyre Evans and others, viz., the surrounding of the existing water space of the port with warehouses on the dock quays. We need not say that Mr. Eyre Evans is himself a prominent mover of the op position; and we are sorry to see associ ated with him the promoters of the docks en the other side of the Mersey. These gentlemen have again and again asserted, and the public have believed in the honor of their word, that they had no local object to serve in pushing forward their scheme—that their object was purely the advance ment of the general interests and commerce of both sides of the Mersey. In parading their scheme, however, as calculated to furnish dock room for both sides, and attempting to confine the energies of the Liverpool dock estate to the erection of ware houses only, they are, somewhat too glaringly, flying in the face of their professions of disinterestedness. There is, we believe, an erroneous impression abroad as to the exact position in which the bellige rent parties are placed by the temporary adjourn ment_ of the question. The Dock Committee are presumed to have experienced a difficulty, if not a defeat. Their sole difficulty, however, is that of assenting to or dissenting from vexatious modifica tions of their bill, without first consulting their con stituents in the Council. They have conceded in the Lords' Committee nothing to opposition which they had not already voluntarily offered to concede in the Commons. They are in no dilemma—no fear of their scheme being carried out in all its integrity. They object only to the demand made upon them to break faith with the warehouse owners, who lately, so handsomely, relieved them from that portion of their compact which had refe rence to the period of completing the warehouses on the quays of the Albert Dock. Their course in this matter the Council will no doubt sanction at its meeting to-morrow.; and the aecision of Parlia ment, in favour of such a course, we look forward to with perfect confidence. The sorry figure which some of their opponents made before the Lords will materially tend to give the Dock Committee the confidence and countenance of that house. Mr. Goulburn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has always been considered a gentleman of great discretion. He is seldom found tripping in figures; and is cautious and correct in most other matters. But zeal will occasionally overrun discretion. The right hon. gentleman has succeeded in equalizing the public revenue and the public burthens. He has substituted a surplus for a deficit. He has ef fected some important reductions in the charge of the public debt; and whist detailing these achieve ments to the house on Friday night, we could rea dily have allowed him to indulge in a more than or dinary amount of self gratulation, and to take a more than ordinary latitude in adducing his evi dence of the happy state of things which he has succeeded in bringing about. The right hon. baronet's discretion failed him, however, when he adduced as evidence of the im provement which his financial policy had created, the increased religious feeling of the country, as shown by the increased amount of church building which had been going on of late years. . . " There were times," he said, "in this country that the legislature thought itself entitled to high approbation, vben, in the course of a century, it had built 50 churches , r the purpose of communicating to the lower orders the -efits of religious truth. But in our own day, in the 't period, I am happy to say, we should not think it have built 50 churches in the course of a century. ,angle year there have been 50 churches built and ..sowed with funds by the rich of the land, to furnish temples in which, conjointly with the poor, they can offer up a common prayer f r the prosperity of the country. The ardour with which this object is pursued, and the equal ardour with which congregations rush to them for ---Sion, is, I think, conclusive evidence of the im -ovement in the moral and religious habits of the people; nsient improvement—l believe it to be of a nent character." instru With all due deference to Mr. Goulburn, we sub mit that this was rather dangerous ground to touch upon. It may be that in asingle year there have been 50 churches built and endowed by the rich of the land ; but that Sir Robert Peel's government has had any hand in promoting their building, or en dowment, Mr. Goulburn will scarcely assert. They have, however, we may be told, created by their po licy the wealth with which they were built and the disposition so to employ it. Be it so. But, then, they have created and are creating the necessity of so employing it—the want of church accommodati on—in a tenfold degree, by the concentration of our population in the large manufacturing towns and villages. During the last five years, since the cen sus of 1841, Manchester and Salford have added to their population, at a moderate estimate, 100,000 souls. The increase of the manufacturing villages around is in a similar ratio, viz„ as 1 to 3 in 1841. Liverpool we may put down at 40 to 50,000 increase. The total yearly increase throughout the United Kingdom is estimated, by great statistical authori ties, at 365,000 souls, or 1000 per day, the bulk of ;m are absorbed by the manufacturing districts; and, to meet this increase,where do we see the 50,000 churches, and how far does their erection, if we could discover them, leave us still in arrear in pro viding for the religious wants of the whole people. It is not a fact, however, to the extent, at least, which Mr. Goulburn would have us suppose, that increased commercial prosperity has anything to do with increased church building, or that it is empha ically the rich" who thus take care for the spread )f religious truth. Commercial prosperity makes tlways, erects factories and villas, consumes luxu !s, and employs artificers and artists of the higher iss ; but it builds few churches for the poor. If be a fact that we have had these fifty churches re to assert that one we yen half of the funds have come out of the pockets of the industrious tradesmen and the working classes. It is so amongst ourselves; and the manufacturing districts will show a like result. Mr. Goulburn would find, too, on enquiry, that much of this boasted increase of church building may be traced to the movement which has been going on, within the last few years, in the church it self—a movement which, if it has produced some disastrous results, some lamentable defections, has undoubtedly stirred up a considerable amount of energy amongst churchmen, a portion of which has thus expended itself. But the instances of that self -devoting zeal for the service of God, which ani mated our ancestors in the erection of those noble fanes, which they have left as their monuments throughout the land, will be found rare indeed. But, now, since Mr. Goulburn has introduced the subject of church building, and informed us that the community has done something towards removing the destitution of which every statesman and every wise man must acknowledge the exist ence, let us ask—what does the government, of which he is a member, intend to do, as its own portion of the good work ? We have had, for a few years past, a considerable surplus revenue. This year it amounted to two millions and a quarter ster ling, which the Bight. Hon. Chancellor has got rid of, in useful expenditure no doubt. But whilst we can give so largely, of our savings, to commerce, to capital, to the national defences, to the improve ment of our public buildings, and other merely se cular and human undertakings, let us think of giving something, as a nation, to God himself, — something for the spread of his knowledge amongst those toiling millions, who create for us our overflowing prosperity and abundance. One or two hundred thousands a year would b e a trifling contribution for the state, but a powerful encouragement to the zeal of the com munity. Let Mr. Goulburn, or Sir Robert Peel, cast his eyes over our manufacturing districts— over our large towns and villages—over the me tropolis itself even. Will they see nothing to de plore, no sabbath riot, no deficiency of religious accommodation and teaching ? They will see tens and twenties of thousands congregated together in every large town throughout the land, to whom the sound of the sabbath bell is a mockery, or is un heard, because it cannot pierce their densely peopled streets and unwholesome dwellings ; who never enter, and could not find room if they would enter, the church of their fathers. This must be amended. For a nation blest with prosperity and abundance above all the nations of the earth, it is a scandal and a disgrace to have one human being of its po pulation, who can say with truth,---" I have no temple in which publicly to return to God thanks for the blessings which he has showered upon my head." But upon other grounds—upon the ground of mere economy—for, al's ! this is the age in which religious and moral incentives to legislation are viewed as nothing in comparison with those of tem porary expediency—upon this very ground of ex pediency the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives us evidence himself of the prudence of government aid to the national movement in favour of church ex tension. He says—and we shall be perhaps ex cused if we quote a second time the most important part of his remarks—" The ardour with which this object is parsued, and the equal ardour with which congregations rush to them for instruction, is, I think, conclusive evidence of the improvement of the moral and religions habits of the people. Nor is it a transient improvement ; I believe it to be of a permanent character." Surely if it is true, and we believe it is, that " con gregations rush" into the churches as soon as they are opened—rush from Sabbath desecration to Sab bath observance, and consequent improvement of their habits as social beings, consequent diminution of crime and increased industry and attendance up on their duties as Christians and members of a great community—it is true that a government, from hu• man and economical considerations merely, ought to advance by all the means in their power such a blessed consummation. We tax ourselves for the erection or enlargement of prisons, we tax ourselves for the transport of offenders to our penal colonies ; we devise new systems of punishment for offenders against our laws. At what a vast expense in county rates and sums paid by government all these devices are carried out ! Yet Mr. Gold burn's language, and all human experience, warrant us in the conclusion that our offending fellow -creatures, who are now drawn under the lash of the law, would willingly " rush "—we thank him for the word—into churches, to listen to the word of God and to be made thereby better men and better citizens, if we would provide for them churches to go to, and faithful ministers to preach that word ! After this admission what more need we have ? The true course of a Christian government is laid down by its own Chancellor of the Exchequer. You have money to bestow upon prisons and transport ships ; but you have shown that churches are the most ef fective and the cheapest preventatives of crime, and the Christian people of England acknowledge the truth of your assertion. It has all along been one of the most telling replies of the millowners to the demand of their workpeople for shortened hours of labour, that they could not, coexistently with a high rate of duty upon foreign corn and provisions, relax their pre sent pressure upon the time of their operatives. A large number of the advocates of a Ten Hours Bill looked to the repeal of the corn laws as an event wi: ich was to hasten the achievement of their object. There can be no doubt of this. They were promised the support of the Anti-Corn Law League to procure such a bill, if they would co-operate with that body in its agitation. Mr. John Bright denies this fact; but, if we mistake not, we ourselves heard it given. At all events, if not authoritatively promised, such a course was very distinctly shadowed forth to the working classes. Well, the Corn Bill has passed the Commons ; and see how differently the measure which was to follow is treated by two statesmen— one in favour of short time, the other against, and both Free-traders. Sir Robert Peel, in the debate on Friday night on the Factory Bill, says : . . " You liave — passed a law also, the object of which is to insure the public against a sudden and extraordinary rise in the price of corn, and to give them an opportunity of obtaining a freer access to the necessaries of life. But ob serve that this law does not come into full effect for three years, supposing the bill passed in its present form by the House of Lords. Not until the Ist of February, 1849, will there be a free trade in corn; for the intervening period some restrictions will still remain. At the same time you have removed protection to domestic manu factures ; and upon this ground, because of the period at which this is fixed, it would be good policy to give a longer trial to that experiment w; ich you have already made. By that which you have already done, you pre vent the employment of any children under eight years of age, or under thirteen years of age, for more than six hours and a half a day. On the ground, therefore, of the period which it interposed, in addition to the other grounds to which I have referred, do I respectfully entreat this house to refuse to give its assent to the bill of the hon. gentleman ; to permit a fair opportunity of effecting this desirab!e arrangement by voluntary agreement between the masters and the employed—(hear, hear)—and, above all, to postpone this irrevocable step, for irrevocable I think it will be, until you can, with more certainty than at present, draw a conclusion as to the effect of your measure." Manufacturing capital has had its interests attended to, at what risk to the interests of the nation at large we shall not stop to enquire ; but poor humanity must wait to see the working of the great measure of expediency. The experiment de vised to aggrandize the millowner was hurried on with all speed ; but the experiment to raise the social condition of the toiling many is to be ap proached with hesitation. Contrast this language of the Premier with the following manly and just expression of opinion which fell on the same evening from Mr. T. B. Nlacauley " My noble friend near me seemed to think that the time was ill chosen. I must say that I am of a different opinion. (Hear, hear.) We carried up on Monday to the House of Lords a bill which, if our expectations are answered, will have the effect of raising the condition of the labouring classes, and of giving to the people of this country a very great advantage they have not hitherto pos sessed in their competition with foreign countries. It does seem to me that there could be no time more favourable for the transition we are now discussing than the present. I must add that I think it would be highly honourable to this house to make in one week, as far as in our power, a reparation for two great errors of two different kinds ; for Sir, as lawgivers, we have errors of two different kinds to confess and repair. We have done that which we ought not to have done ; we have left undone that which we ought to have done. We have regulated that which we ought to have left to regulate itself ; we have left unregu lated that which it was our especial business to have regulated. We have given to certain branches of indus try a protection which was their bane. (Hear, hear.) We have withheld from public health, and from public mo rality, a protection which it was our duty to have given. We have prevented the labourer from getting his loaf where he could get it cheapest, but we have not prevented him from prematurely destroying the health of his body and mind by inordinate toil. I hope and believe that we are approaching the end of a vicious system of interfe rence, and of a vicious system of non-interference. We have just done what was in our power for the purpose of repairing the greatest of all the errors we have com mitted in the way of inteference, and I hope we shall to night take a step toward repairing another error into which we have been led,—that of great neglect. (Loud cheers.)" _ Which of these men ought to have the credit, if any, of repealing the corn laws ? The reply will be almost unanimous in favour of him who would accompany it with a concession to the working man which has been too long withheld. There is nothing for which the Parliamentary proceedings of the last two months will be more vividly remembered in after years, than for the an nouncement, which they have conveyed to us, of the creation of a new and powerful element in our con stitution. Hitherto, we have been accustomed to regard that constitution as based, on the one hand, upon the landed property and the aristocracy of the empire, and, on the other, upon the voice of public opinion amongst the middle and industrial classes. Upon all questions, in which the two elements seemed to clash for a time, there was an appeal to the people for their decision. It is now, however, admitted, tacitly, that we have in our social fa bric a power which must be permitted to override the ancient constitutional tests. We have just been told, upon the question of the corn and Cus toms bill, that we dare not appeal to the people. The legislature dare not even debate any measure which may be forced upon them by an arbitrary minister, because, forsooth, it is thereby producing stagnation in our commerce, by prolonging the feeling of uncertainty which its proposition has created amongst mercantile men. Touch any great article of consumption; propose an alteration in the duties upon timber, upon sugar, upon coffee, or upon corn, and you are not allowed breathing time to consider its probable effects upon the pros perity of the country. You must press it forward at all hazards, or a deputation from Manchester or Leeds, or Liverpool, will be reminding you that, whilst you hesitate, orders are being withheld, ships and looms are idle, and weavers are starving in their empty cottages. The stream of trade must flow on. It has drawn into its eddy so large a share of the interests and influence of the nation—. our destinies are so inextricably involved in its ca reer—that we dare not check it, even to measure the dangerous gulf into which the indulgence of its own wild whim would hurry us. We cannot believe that this is a healthy symp tom of our condition as a nation. It is, on the con trary, one full of peril. A quarter of a century ago, we used to be told that annual parliaments would be conducive to the prosperity and mainte nance of the liberties of Englishmen. The masses demanded that statesmen should appeal more fre quently to them as the arbiters of their measures. But now the people are put aside. Their own re presentatives have not time allowed them for the ordeal. They have other masters to serve, an d must legislate with the brawling of a huge factory population, or the fear of a commercial panic, urging them on. The House of Lords may be said to be virtually extinct as a controlling power in the constitution. It has two influences operating to make its voice null in the regulation of the national affairs,—on the one hand the power of the crown, wielded by the minister, and, on the other, the fear of a commercial crisis. It is impossible not to foresee very serious evil, and even danger, in the growth of this formidable power; and, moreover, that the effects of most of our recent regulation must be to precipitate that growth. We are getting more and more bound to the wheels of this vast commercial machine. Our masses are becoming more and more its slaves; and we less capable of enforcing measures for the ame lioration of their social condition. A few days ago, we had submitted to Parliament a wise and humane measure, for limiting the hours of labour of the youthful portion of our factory population ; and a British legislation durst not exercise its phi lanthropy. This new power in the constitution urged its selfish fear of a trifling diminution of pro fits; and Parliament succumbed to the iron necessity, which it has itself created, and is rapidly perpetua ting. What hope, then, can we have of procuring for our masses, against the dictation •f their em ployers and the pressure of commercial competi tion, any relaxation of their severe lot ? We have no such hope; and whatever expectations may have been entertained by our working population of sharing the benefits promised as the result of our present policy, they would do well to erase them from their minds. Legislation is no longer in the people or in the peerage. The working and all other classes must stand or fall now, must rejoice or suffer, accordingly as the complicated machinery of our commerce runs smoothly or gets out of order. An amusing quarrel is just now being waged between the Times and the Morning Herald, with respect to the great foresight, or knowledge of cha racter, on the part of the former, in determining, so early as the 4th of December last, the course which would be taken by Sir Robert Peel and his Cabinet upon the corn-law question. The Herald seems to regard his powerful contemporary as a kind of poli tical Mephistopheles—a literary wizard, or a clair voyant—whose vision into the recesses of the minds of statesmen is something more than human — something calling for the exorcist or the Inquisi tion. The Times retorts by accusing his assailant of a want of political discernment and perception of character. We have no wish to snatch the laurels from the conqueror in this dispute ; but it does strike us that they are fighting about other people's property. Six months before the Times announced, or the Herald contradicted " on authority," the de fection of the Premier and his fraternisation with the League, the LIVERPOOL STANDARD assured its readers that " Sir Robert Peel was prepared to repeal the corn-laws." We dwelt upon no fixed duty. We said, above twelve months since, that he would propose a measure of total and uncondi tional repeal ; and he has done so. We made at the same time some other predictions, with respect to the future course of this pre-eminently Inconsis tent statesman, which we expect to see fulfilled in due course of events ; but as we don't wish to be burnt at the stake for witchcraft before our time, guillotined by the Morning Herald, or to put the public into premature alarm, we do not intend to report them here. They are, however, to be found by the curious in our file. THE SUGAR DUTIES. We have long ago intimated our opinion that the pro gress of free-trade principles cannot be stayed at the limit of a repeal of the Corn-laws; that the farmer's class, in common with other portions of the industrial community, who have now to enter upon the race of competition with the foreigner, will demur to the retention of the duties upon commodities which enter extensively into their consumption, and listen to no pleas which involve the continuance, to other classes, of that protection which is denied to themselves. This consummation is about to present itself to us. The sugar duties have shortly to be brought before the House of Commons; and even in the Ministry we understand that there is division of opinion as to the course to be pursued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Gladstone are opposed to the ad mission of slave-grown sugar. The remaining portion of the Government see no other course left open to them. The Premier is undecided, and will probably go with the strongest section amongst his colleagues. As in the case of the Corn Bill, he will be unable to defend protection to free labour in our colonies. _ The - fate of the bill, therefore, will depend upon the opinions of the protectionist party ; and here, we are assured from good authority, there is a split. The dis inclination to tolerate the introduction of slave-grown produce is great ; but it is argued by an influential section of the party that the agriculturist must now look, irre spective of considerations of humanity, to his own imme diate interest, and that he cannot deny himself the ad vantage of cheapness in so important an article of consumption as sugar. The Whig party will undoubtedly follow the leadership of Lord Palmerston, who is to move the abolition, or the reduction, of the present discrimi nating duty. The great probability, therefore, is that the present session will see added to the other movements i❑ favour of free trade the reduction of the discriminating duties upon foreign slave .grown and British Colonial su gars. At all events, such an arrangement cannot be far cff, however unfortunate may be its results towards the cultivators of the British West Indies and of our East Indian possessions. BIRKENHEAD COMMISSIONERS.—A meeting of this Board was held last night, in the Board-room, Hamilton square: J. H. Green, Esq. in the chair; but the only business transacted was the signing of the amended Im provement Rate, so as to enable all who have removed to vote at the election of commissioners this day. TIIE Docx BILL. —The alterations proposed to be made in the clauses of the dock bill, by the opponents who are represented by Mr. Evans, were submitted to a special meeting of the Dock Committee yesterday. Mr. Bromley Moore, the chairman, presided, and there was a full attendance of members, but the proceedings were not public. On Sunday last the sum of seven pounds was contri buted by the congregation of St. Barnabas Church, towards the relief of the sufferers by the late melancholy collision on the river. The sum will be considered a very handsome one, when we state that no notice was given of the collection, which was made by boxes held at the doors. . THE STRIKE IN THE BUILDING TRADES.—Although we still head our remarks upon this subject as heretofore, the unfortunate disunion between the employers and the employed is now confined to the masons, who, contrary to the expectations indulged in last week, have thought fit to stand out for other terms than those accepted by the other trades, viz., for a deduction of half-an-hour per day from their time of labour. To this Mr. Tomkinson, to whom it was first proposed, dissented as unreasonable; and his example has been followed by other masters. At present there are no symptoms of the dispute being acco modated. _ ROYAL MERSEY YACHT CLUB.—The first sailing match of the season, of this distinguished society, for elegant prizes of plate, will take place on Friday next, for yachts belonging to members of the club. The start will be from Rock Ferry, about eleven a.m., sailing round the bell buoy and back. The fine steamer, the Iron Duke, is engaged to follow the match for the accommodation of the members and their friends only. If this fine weather continues, a delightful day's excursion may be anticipated for those parties who are fortunate enough to possess tickets to view the match. A band of music will enliven the day's proceedings, the officers and members attend. ing in their uniforms. ST. MATTHEW'S CHURCH..--011 Sunday next, and on the following Tuesday, sermons will be preached in this indispensable expenses for the purpose of defraying t he expenses connected with it ; and the churchwardens have the most pressing occasion to appeal to the public for liberal contributions, as in consequence of the Liverpool and Bury Railway Company having intimated that they are likely to want the site of the church, and the ground attached to it, for their station, many persons who would otherwise have taken pews have declined doing so, and in consequence the pew-rents being very small, the church wardens depend principally for support to the quarterly collections. The following statement will exhibit the position in which the pecuniary affairs of the church will stand at the end of the present month : Due the treasurer from last quarter.. £ll 16s 8d Due the minister .... Salaries, gas, &c . ........... 11 10 0 65 6 8 Collected from pew-rents Leaving a balance of ...... 57 2 8 A Gnu, FOUND DROWNED.—On Saturday forenoon, the body of a girl named Eleanor Owens, aged seven years, who resided with ber parents in Cinder-street, Kirkdale, close to the gaol, was found by her father, drowned in a pit, in the brick field where be works for Mr. Rowlands. Her mother bad left her in the field half an hour previously. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. LIVERPOOL PROTESTANT AND REFORMA TION SOCIETY. Last evening, the half-yearly meeting of the above ex cellent and important society was held in the Concert hall, Lord Nelson-street, the Rev. Canon M'Neile, pa tron of the institution, in the chair. The spacious hall in which the meeting was held was crowded, and the gal lery was graced by the presence of a great number of ladies. Among the gpntlemen on the platform we no ticed—the Rev. Canon M'Neile, the Rev. H. Carpenter, the Rev. W. Pollock, the Rev. J. R. Connor, the Rev. D. Anderson, the Rev. G. Cuthbert, the Rev. T. Nolan, the Rev. M'Call, the Rev. H. Jones, Dr. Batty, Mr. Webster, Mr. Middleton, &c. &c. On the Rev. Chairman making his appearance on the platform, he was greeted with several rounds of enthusias tic applause. After the cheering had subsided, he rose and said—Our national Protestantism possesses many ex cellent qualities, the highest of which is the liberty it se cures for the pure worship of God. (Hear.) You are aware that upon all these occasions we commence our meeting with that worship—prayer and praise. This evening we commence by singing the first hymn upon the paper that has been circulated in the room. I t is called " A Hymn for English Protestants." The meeting then sang the hymn in congregational style, with admirable effect. The tune was " the old hundredth," and at its conclusion a fervent end appropri ate prayer was offered by the Rev. J. Cuthbert. The CHAIRMAN then addressed the meeting as follows: —Fellow Christians and Brother Protestants,—l have come among you upon another half-yearly meeting, for the purpose of performing what I conceive to be an im portant duty ; and that is, to communicate to you such scriptural instruction as seems to me specially seasonable at the present time. There never was a period in which you were more imperatively called unon to enter into a personal and intelligent examination of the foundations of your Christian faith than the present time. Touching our national Protestantism, we have enjoyed a long period of authority which is now giving place to a period of argument. Among the authoritative restrictions under which we have hitherto been protected, one has been a statute which rendered it penal for any one to main tain, or assert, the supremacy of the Pope in this country. Whether it was right to have such a statute or not is not the immediate question. As a matter of fact, such a statute did exist since the reign of Henry the Eighth ; so that if a Romanist asserted the supremacy of the Pope in England, instead of taking the trouble to argue against the assertion, you might have prosecuted him under the statute for an offence against the laws of the realm. It is now proposed to repeal that statute ; so that: in the event of such an assertion being ad vanced, there is no longer any appeal to the law ; our only appeal is to argument. This is what I meant when I said, that we had had a period of authority, which is now giving way to a period of argument. The statute id question, which rendered it an offence to assert the supremacy of the Pope in England, did, as it were, close the question from argument; it rendered argument needless, because it presented a legal hindrance in the way of even the assertion. We can quite under stand that members of the Church of Rome have felt this statute to be a serious restriction ; and if it had applied simply to their liberty with regard to their own religion ; if it had hindered them from a conscientious recognition of the Pope as the head of their own Church ; it would, I freely confess, in the present state of our law, since other concessions have been made—it would be unfair, if their religion be tolerated in England, that this part of it should not be tolerated like every other part. I do not offer any opinion upon the abstract question as to whether it should be tolerated or not. We believe it to be utterly opposed, radically opposed, to the revealed will of God. Still you are aware that it is tolerated, and that latterly many ccncessions have been made to it ; and it is fair, and quite in harmony with those concessions, that the part of this statute which hindered the Romanist from asserting the supremacy of the Pope in his own church and over him self, should be removed;. and, if this were all that it is proposed to remove, we should have no fresh cause to complain. Romanists assert the supremacy of the Pope, not only over their own consciences as members of the church of Rome, but over all the world beside. They assert his supremacy over kings and states, and over all baptized persons, so that he has a right, according to their assertions, to coerce baptized heretics into the faith. The repeal of the statute in question will open a wide field for them to assert that the Pope is and ought to be supreme in Eng land. Here is a fresh question then. We have not hitherto been called upon to argue this question, and why so? It is worthy of your consideration for a moment. We have been arguing the questions of transubstantiation, of purgatory, of penance, and of various other views which they hold, and which we believe to be utterly opposed to the word of God. And why is it that we have not been called upon to argue this question of the supremacy of the Pope in England ? As I said before, the reason simply was that the statute book closed it. Suppose a statute to be passed which rendered it penal to agitate the question of the repeal of the Union in Ireland. That would close the subject. Instead of being called on to argue the question with Mr. O'Connell, or with any of those who agree with him, of the repeal of the Union, he could be prosecuted for agitating it as for an offence against the law. (Hear, hear.) I say this by way of illus tration to show you how the matter stands. It was an offence against the law to assert the supremacy of the Pope in England; but if the bill brought by the present Lord Chancellor of England into the House of Lords, during the present session of I'arliament, passes into a law, it will no longer be an offence in a Romanist to assert the supremacy of the Pope in England. Therefore, it behoves you, the Protestants of England, to have an answer, for the time of argument is come. It is somewhat singular that as this period of argument advances, an indisposition to enter into the argument appears to advance also amongst many Englishmen. There are not a few called Pro testants who maintain a painful, a morbid, disinclination, to the argument. Yet they have no protection now but in argument. The shield of the statute is removed, and where is the protection? (Hear, hear.) These are briefly the grounds upon which I hold myself to be in my proper place as aminister of the reformed church established in this country, when explaining in this simple mode, and endea vouring to make myself intelligible to all of you—explain ing the prevent state of things—that you may apprehend the reason for the instruction that is to follow. I proceed to give you instruction upon this su!iject. That you may know what answer to give to those who assert the supre macy of the pope in England, you ought to know the na ture of the assertion itself, not as it may be now glossed, but as it is really made by the most distinguished canon ists of that church. I will therefore state it to you in the language of the celebrated Dr. Barrow, in his " Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy." He says : "They ascribe to the Pope an universal, absolute, and bound less empire o':er all persons indifferently, and in all matters; conferred and settled on him by divine, immutable sanction so that all men, of whatever degree, are obi geLl in conscience to believe whatever he doth authoritatively dictate, and to obey whatever lie cloth prescribe. So that if princes themselves do refuse obedience to his will, he nrly excommunicate them, cashier them, depose them, extirpate ti,em. If he chargeth us to hold no communion with our prince, to renounce our alle giance to him, to abandon, oppose, and persecute him, even to death, we may without scruple, we must in duty obey. If he doth interdict whole nations from the exercise of God's worship and service, they must comply therein. So that, according to their conceits, he is in effect Sovereign Lord of all the world; and superior, even in temporal or civil matters, unto all kings and princes." . . . . . I am quite aware that such a statement will now be charged with gross exaggeration. I feel assured that if a simple Romanist, taking what his priest tells him for the mind of the Church Catholic, were here present this evening, and upon hearing this statement, he would feel in his own mind thus—" No such thing; this is quite a misrepresentation. The supremacy of the Pope is merely over our consciences, as head of the church, and it is a gross calumny to charge His Holiness with asserting his supremacy over princes and governments—he asserts no such thing—it is only a spiritual supremacy, not a tem poral." And such a man might be honest in the opinion that what I have read is an exaggeration. 'Why so? be cause he is not told all that his church holds. (Hear.) He is only told what it is convenient and politic now to say in England; he is not told the whole truth. (Hear.) In justification of the statement I have read from Dr. Barrow, I will mention an instance or two of the exercise of this prerogative by the Pope. (Hear, hear.) These are mentioned by Dr. Barrow himself. The first is that of Pope Sixtus the sth, in the year 1585, against Henry, King of Navarre and Prince of Con& It begins thus : "The authority given to St. Peter and his sue 'essors, by the immense power of the Eternal King, excels all the powers of earthly kings and princes—it passes uncontrollable sentence on them all—and if it find any of them resisting God's ordinance, it takes more sever:, vengeance of them, casting them down from the thrones, though never so puissant, and tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the minister of aspi ring Lucifer." _ _ _ And then he proceeds to thunder against them— •. we deprive them and their posterity for ever of the domin ions and kingdoms," and accordingly he depriveth those princes of their kingdoms and dominions, absolveth their subjects from the oaths of allegiance, and forbiddenh them to pay any obedience to them. "By the authority of these presents, we do absolve and set free all persons, as well jointly as severally, from any such oath, and from all duty whatsoever in regard of do. minion, fealty and obedience, and do charge and forbid all and every of them, that they do not dare to obey them, or any of their admonitions, laws, and commands." The next comes nearer home. It is that of Pius the sth against our own Queen Elizabeth. It opens in these wordit:— ~. He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and in earth, has committed the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one alone on earth, namely, to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, arid to the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to be governed with a plenitude of power : this one he hath constituted prince over all nations, and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, ruinate, plant, and build.' And in the same bull he declares that he thereby deprives the Queen of her pretended right t the kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege what soever; and all nobles, subjects, and peop:e of the kingdom, and (I,:e have sworn to her, from their oath, and all duty whatsoever, in regard of dominion, fidelity and obedience.' " 1 need not add to these proofs that the power to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance, and the power to depose princes was claimed by the Bishop of Rome. This is an historical fact, and if any man say now, "It was, but it is not," we ask, " What then be comes of the infallibility of the Church of Rome ?" (Hear.) When the Pope claimed what I have read, was he infallible ? If so, he cannot change without ceasing to be infallible. Does he not make the same claim now ? Is he infallible ? (Hear.) Does infallibility change its opinion? Does infallibility become liberal to suit the tim:s ? Was he infallible when Pius the sth was in the chair, which they blasphemously call Peter's chair ? Is he iafallible now ? They are taught to say he is—they are taught to say that his claim now is not what it was then. It is what it was then ; and I have a very simple proof, which will be satisfactory to educated minds at least, and ought to be satisfactory to you, when the re ferences are pointed out, that the claims I have read are by no means obsolete. I hold in my hand a number of the work by the celebrated Ranke called " The Popes of Rome." A translation of that professor's book is now soing forward in Scotland, and is sent forth to the public in shilling numbers there have come out twelve numbers; and in the tenth, which I have now in my hand, there are notes appended by the translator—very valuable notes. In one of theni be informs us— " These principles are by no means obsolete or extinct. They have boldly avowed and eloquently indicated in the 19th cen tury by de Bonald, de Mastre, and other ultra montane writers in France. The time for their open avowal in Britain and Ire land has not yet come. it would be tedious' says the Count Montlosier, to name all the ultra-montane doctors ; they amount to above a hundred, almost all Jesuits After this we can understand on the one hand the furies of the League, and the horrible assassinations to which it led, and on the other, the just apprehensions of Louis the 14th and Lewis the 15th, and the precautions which our magistrates may have taken to this effect. At the present time can it be said that such apprehen sions are chimerical? Yes no doubt, and I hope so in so far as respects corrying them into execution ; but are not such doc trines embellished, as we have seen them in our day, with a racy eloquence. sufficient to shake allegiance, and to produce, sooner or later, violent commotions ? Thanks to a celebrated writer, nothing is wanting to us in this way ; he gives us the formulas cut and dry. After a chapter in which he esta blishes the papal supremacy over temporal sovereigns, M. the Count de Maistre, takes the trouble, for our greater convenience to draw out himself the terms to be employed for an act of deposition. In another chapter we find, The most humble and respectful remonstrances of the states general of the kingdom of met at —, to our holy father Pope Pins 7th,' to the effect of deposing their sovereign. These re monstrances end as follows.—' It ist o you. most Holy Father, as the representative of God upon the earth, that we address our supplications, that you would deign to absolve us from an oath of allegiance which attaches us to the royal family that governs us, and to transfer to another family those rights which the present possessor can no longer enjoy, but for his own infe licity and ours.' " Not one jot of the most arrogant claims ever put forward by the most ambitious Pope has been given up by the Popedom. It has been politic to refrain from asserting the claim in open terms, but no part of the claim has ever been authoritatively relinquished. They are ready at any time when it shall seem politic to reassert it, to make that reassertion. The way is now clearing for them in Eng land. It is no longer an offence,- or will be no longer when this bill becomes law, to make the assertion. I should tell you that the excuse pleaded, as an argument for the repeal of the statute, was. that the common law of the realm is sufficient to guard the Queen's supremacy, and that we do not require a statute for the purpose. I do not suppose there are many of you much versed in the law, but I may inform you concerning the common law of the land that its practical safeguard depends upon the con struction put upon it by the practising lawyers and the presiding judges in our courts, and in the last resort by that of the law lords, to whom the final appeal is made, in the Upper House of Parliament. I need not inform you, that in point of fact all these respectable functionaries with the single exception of the Lord Chancellor, might, in the present state of our laws, be Roman Catholics. To their construction of the common law the question might as a matter of law then be left. And what is a law prohibiting an offence which enacts no penalty fur the commission of that offence ? You ought to be aware that at common law, although lawyers may show you cer tain acts are illegal—there are no stipulated r.enaliies ; that it depends on the mind of the judge after the verdict has been given, and the act, whatever it is, is thus contrary to the common law of the land. But without a statute there is no penalty ; the penalty as I said is in the option of the judge. It may be a day's imprisonment, or a year's ; or banishment for life ; it may be a fine of 6d, or £20,000 ; it is arbitrary. Hence we value our statutes because they make the appeals to our courts of law definite. In this statute the question is thrown open for argument ; full claim of the Pope's supremacy is brought out in their own canonists before you ; a fair opportunity is thus given; for arguing this question ; and I ask, is it not proper, is it not fitting, that you should have informa tion on the subject ? Is not the time come when you ought to charge yourselves with procuring right information on the subject? and is not the time come, when your authorised pastors of the national esta blished church of the realm should feel it their duty to give yon information on this subject? and I would respectfully appeal to my brother clergymen of the Estab lished Church, who may be of opinion that it is quite right to repeal the statute, and I would call upon them— of all ranks and degrees—our bishops, deans, archdeacons, all in their respective places, as well as on the inferior clergy, to put the members of the church now in pos session of the facts and arguments of this case, seeing that the question is open, and the shelter of the statute no longer afforded to Englishmen. (Cheers.) You have heard the claim of the Bishop of Rome to pass uncontrollable sentence upon kings and princes, because he has a power that excels all the earthly power of kings and princes. The question naturally arises, where did he get it? (A laugh.) Who gave it to him? (Hear.) The answer readily is, he received it from the Lord Jesus Christ, through St. Peter. But, unfortunately for the effect of that answer, the king received his authority from the same divine source. (Hear.) And one of the elements of valuable instruction which I now desire to bring before you to refresh some of your minds, to instruct others, is upon this great question of the divine origin of civil go vernment. (Hear.) The divine origin of civil govern ment was felt to be very much in the way of 'the Pope's claim to supremacy over princes at the time of the Re formation ; and therefore the Protestant reformers in sisted largely upon this truth of the divine origin of civil ' rule. I think it highly probable that few, if any among I you have realised any doubt or difficulty about Men reading their Bible could never entertain a doubt, while men who desire to get rid of the authority of the Bible, have invented theories of this matter, and you I ought to be apprised of them. I think lam performing an important office in refreshing, as I said, some of your minds, and instructing others on this great subject on the divine origin of civil government. [The rev. gentleman i here entered into a scriptural argument, proving the divine origin of civil government.] Civil rule is then an ordi nance of God. This truth was felt to be a very great hindrance in the way of the asserted supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ; for if the authority of the King be derived from God, as truly as the authority of bishop, upon what pretext could the bishop attempt to usurp authority over the king ? If they both came from the same source, how should one assume superiority over the ' other. It is a remarkable fact in history, that this 'eery point was damaging the Popedom. The time had passed when assertion, without some reason, or some show of proof, could practically move the communities of Europe. They demanded a reason; and if no authority had been stated to decide many minds on the subject, the divine object of civil rule, proved by the references, would have been most fatal to the Popedom. It was to that point among many others, but to that point chiefly, that the then newly-started society of the Jesuits came to the rescue. How came they to the rescue ? Why, they saw how this matter bore on the popedom, and they boldly denied the divine authority of civil government. They asserted that all civil rule was a mere compact of the na tion. They asserted the omnipotence of the people ; and thus they made the omnipotence of the people to har monise with their views of the supremacy of the pope, because they said God did not appoint the pope at all, but the people. God did appoint the bishop, and therefore the bishop was paramount. This was their argument ; so that, in point of fact, the Jesuits were—l will not say the original inventors, for it may have been thought of before —but as far as the modern history of Europe is concerned, they were the re-introducers, if not the original inventors of the supremacy of the Pope, and that civil rule could be traced no higher than a compact between the people and their rulers. This is illustrated in the history of Ranke also. It had been for a long time the received opinion in Europe ; an opinion received without much examination that the Roman Church was favourable to monarchical government ; and that an opposition to the church was akin to rebellion in the state, but at the time of the re formation it was found that this was a mistake; it was found that Romanism was favourably to monarchy only so long as monarchy was favourable to Romanism, and that where a monarch presumed to think for himself and to differ from the Pope ; the agents of Rome appealed to the against the monarch ; the stirred up his own vacsels against him, and they represented him as well as them as mere creatures of the supreme bishop; they preached insubordination to them, deposition against him. This is a very instructive part of the history of Europe, and you ought to be in full possession of it. It is curious enough to see how some our modern politicians, drawn aside by the liberalism which asserts the supremacy of the people, declaring all power proceeds from the people, rejecting, as an exploded notion, the divine right of kings, snd ap pealing to the people as the source of all power. Here these men are taken in the snare of the Jesuits, and lend ing themselves to remove the statute against the supre macy of the Pope. [The rev. gentleman then showed from Scripture that the supremacy claimed by the Bishop of Rome over the other bishops had no true founda tion.l I must now, he proceeeded, call upon some of my rev. friends to follow up these arguments, and give you further instruction, reminding them that the time of authority is past, and the time for argument is come; and I must remind you that it will not answer the purpose merely to manifest your zeal at meetings of this kind, but you must exercise your understandings to give a reason for thehope that is within you. Let me tell you that there are many of the emissaries of Romanism ready for this line of argument; they have been preparing and drilling the disputants, and now that the restriction in the way of dis pute is removed by the statute being repealed, they have their controversialists ready. If the field be open for ar gument, and if those upon one side are prepared, and those upon the other side are not prepared, what must the end be ? Are we afraid of argument ? (Loud cries of "No, no, no.") No, but I will tell you what we are afraid of. We are afraid of ignorance ; lam afraid of your ignorance, and I am afraid of the ignorance of my reverend brethren in the church—of the ignorance of dissenting ministers; I am afraid of the ignorance of Protestants in general—that they have not been studying the subject as they should do, and that they are not pre pared for the argument, and they do not know what their adversaries are pledged to do, and that they are gulled by what their authors choose to say. Do you think that the emissaries of Romanism are fools enough to tell at once the real objects they have in view ? (Hear, hear.) No. The fact is, they have too much to hope from the ignorance of Protestant governments to tell their meaning all at once. (Cheers.) The rev. gentleman closed a speech of more than an hour's duration, which was listened to throughout with great applause, by ad dressing a few words of exhortation to the operative por tion of his audience. The Rev. H. CARPENTER apologised for the absence of the Rev. Messrs. James and Parry, and read a letter from the Rev. J. B. Owen, whose name was mentioned in the placards calling the meeting, and who was pre vented attending by an engagement in Leicestershire, which was received with loud applause. He then said that he was happy to have it in his power to make a state ment relative to the concluding remarks of the chairman, which he was sure would be as gratifying to his reverend brother as it was to himself, and that was that he (Mr. Carpenter) could, from his own personal knowledge, testify that many in that room were well acquainted with the articles of Church of England—(loud cheers)—and he trusted many more, who were unknown to him. (Ap plause. The princ ipal Azad met clietiugutaltius feature June 2, rf4f6. of the present day was religious activity; every form of religion, true and false, had seemed to have acquired afresh impulse ; and it was astonishing the amount of money and zeal now employed in the cause of religion beyond what was employed 50 years ago. For his own part, he did not fear the activity of false religionists, if the Protestants would be true to themselves and to their religion ; for he did not like cold, inert, good-for-nothing Protestants. (Loud applause.) It was necessary they should bestir themselves, for their enemies were many and active. The . chairman had told them that the period of argument was• come, and he (Mr. Carpenter) had been lately in Ireland, and he had been struck with astonishment at Vie number of argumentative books published by the Itomanists.— Mr. Carpenter then proceeded to read extracts from a twopenny weekly issue, called " Cheap Volumes of Ca tholic Divinity," under the sanction of the present Pope of Rome. The number he quoted related to the rosary, and he exhibited one which had been blessed by the Pope, and had belonged to a converted Papist ; and explained its decades, hail Marys, &c., to the audience, and nar rated many extraordinary fables propagated among the Romanists as true stories, respecting various miracles performed by the Virgin Mary by those who had shown great zeal In honouring her by the use of the rosary. Atter an allusion to St. Dominick, the founder of the order of preachers, an order which he in his ignorance had imagined was founded by our blessed Lord himself, he remarked, amid loud applause, that be would confidently show their chairma❑ against the best of the sons of St. Dominick ; he concluded by a long statement of recent persecutions in the Dingle, and in other portions of the sister kingdom. The Riv. T. NOLAN, in an admirable speech, which we regret we are obliged to omit, in consequence of the late hour at which it was delivered, impressed upon the au dience the necessity of their being well versed in the prin ciples of their own true faith, in order that they might the more effectually be enabled to unmask and defeat the in sidious attempts made by.the Rornish hierarchy to seize on the bright gospel diadem of England. The rev. gentle man's excellent address was received with loud cheers throughout. The Rev. Mr. CUTHBERT, who was received with load cheers, next addressed the meeting. He powerfully urged upon the assemblage to follow up the glorious principles of Protestantism, for to be a Protestant was synonymous with being a good Christian. Let them not be dismayed at the dangers that surrounded them ; for notwithstand ing the wiles of Rome, if they but knew their Bibles well, not all her subtle contrivances could beat them from , the. rock of their salvation. The CHAIRMAN, in an emphatic concluding address, said their duties as Protestants had that night been see before then-i ; and they ought to endeavour to hand down the spiritual blessings they enjoyed to their children. He combated the idea entertained by many even educated Protestants, who thought there was nothing in concessions made to Popery, and that nothing was now to be feared from it. Romanism was unchanged and unchaogable. Many of the Dissenters said that if the union of the church and state were abrogated, true religion would flourish ; but if the Dissenters (as he showed by a variety of excellent arguments) had the power, they would,. if the monarch was favorable to them, also seek to be supported by the state. This, he illustrated by the fact, that, when the Queen of Taheite became, through the Dissenting missionaries that visited her kingdom, of their religion, and asked one of them what she should do, the reply immediately was, oh ! establish the church by all means. After a fervent exhortation to those before him to discharge their duties as Christians and as men ; to be thankful that they were in work ; to keep their tempers under contradiction, to do their duty, and daily to pray to God. he concluded by pronouncing a blessing, and the meeting broke up. On Saturday the London and York scripholders agreed to proceed with the bill. Earl Fitzwilliam, through his agent, has caused £lOOO worth of potatoe-seed to be distributed amongst his te nantry in Wicklow. J. C. Colquhoun, Esq., M.P., has announced, in an address to the electors, that he does not intend to offer himself again for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Cour, of Exchequer was occupied on Saturday with the arguments on the rule for a nonsuit in the cele brated railway case of Walstab V. Spottiswood. The court took time to consider. Ibrahim Pacha will leave Paris on Wednesday, (to morrow,) for the Chateau d'Eu, from whence, it is said, he will cross to Portsmouth on the following day, en route to London. A St. Petersburgh letter, in the German Journal of Frankfort, mentions a report that Prince Albert will, on the occasion of the marriage of the Grand Duchess Olga, return the visit which the Emperor of Russia paid to Queen Victoria, her Majesty being unable to do so in, person. Prince Napoleon Louis Bonaparte arrived in England on the 26th ult., the day after his escape from Ham. We learn that the Prince has written a letter to Sir H. Peel, and one to Count St. Aulaire, the French Ambassador. In the latterhe states that " in quitting his prison he was not actuated by any idea of renewing against the French Government a war which has been most disastrous to him, but only to be enabled to go to his aged father." In the Vice-Chancellor's Court, on Saturday, a motion.. was heard to dissolve an injunction granted in May. last, restraining the Birkenhead Dock Company from throwing a pile bridge across Wallasey Pool, whereby the property of the plaintiff (Mr. Bibby, of the Seacombe Copper Roll ing Mills) was injured through his vessels not having sufficient room to navigate the stream, in consequence of its being narrowed by the erection of the bridge. The arguments were not concluded. SWINDLING — A genteel person, calling himself "Mr.. Wyndham," contrived last week to defraud several per sons at Slough, Windsor, and Eton, by false cheques. His plans were well laid, but he does not appear to ha% e leaped a larger harvest than about £3O. He began by paying into a Windsor bank a cheque on a London house, to a consi derable amount, and thus obtained a cheque book front the local bankers, and was thus enabled to effect his pur pose before the news of the dishonoured draft reached) Windsor. CONVERTS TO PROTESTANTISM.—On Sunday last, (Whitsunday,) a most interesting scene took place in the French Protestant church in St Martin's-le.grand, Lon don, where two (formerly) Roman Catholic ladies, firmly convinced of the truth of the Protestant faith, and con verted under the instruction of the ministers of the church, presented themselves for the purpose of publicly renounc ing the errors and superstitions of the Church of Rome, and rejecting the delusions of Popery, to embrace the re ligion of Christ. On the conclusion of the sermon the now Protestant believers partook with the rest of the con gregation, of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. thus solemnly and eternally abjuring the unscriptural and heretical creed which they had formerly professed. Sine() the opening of the new church in St. Martin's-le-grand , three years ago, no less than six persons have been thus converted from Popery to Protestantism. THE CORN BILL IN COMMITTEE.—The on dit in Lon don, with respect to the probable fate of the ministeria l measure in the Lords' Committee, is, that an amendmenv will be moved, substituting for the decreasing slide scale a permanent duty of 4s. per quarter,. to come It operation immediately. It will be remembered thar4, second reading was carried by a majority of 47, o b . proxies, the majority of peers present being only 14. This majority, it is thought, will be diminished in case 0' such a compromise being proposed in committee. VB L have, however, little faith in the rumour, a lthough it s comes to us from good authority. the peers would of would be inclined to rush to a disso lution of parliament and its consequent turbulent excitement for so paltry an object as a four shilling duty; and Lord Stanley would assuredly not be the statesman to head such a movement. The proper and constitutional course, of referring the whole question to the people, having been omitted by the peers, they will scarcely right themselves in public opinion by the adoption of the poor substitute proposed. OUR FREE TRADE POLICY EXAMINED, By A LI VERPOOL MERCHANT.—We noticed recently with ap probation, in two successive publications of the Standard* a pamphlet under this title, in which the effect of the ministerial policy upon the national industry, and espe cially upon Colonial industry, was a bl y canvass ed an d the views of the writer supported by an overwhelm l9 , mass of statistical facts and calculatio ns , th e corr ectnet of which we have never seen impugned. We have siec' observed the pamphlet in question noticed most flatt er : ingly by several of our contemporaries ; and, after e l l through the debates upon this measure in both hoof:s as we do in the performance of our ordinary duties, nad impossible to avoid noticing the weight which it has P 74 with a considerable number of the speakers. L 0 ; t 1 ; George Bentinek on three t occasions has quoted frote;, pages and its figures, complimenting its author ; and,. o f though not decidedly referring to it, the able spee ol 4, Lord Stanley was upon all fours with the views of r 4 tional policy which it contains, and man y o f hi s s tatistr - o , facts appeared to be derived fro m th e same authoriti`o: and to have impressed his lordship's mind with the 9 thor's conclusions. th e On Friday the African Roscius t a ke s hi s benefit at Theatre Royal.' SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. MODAY, JUNE I.—ind S E • • ARRIVED.—AdoIph N us Yates, Ohier, fr W om Leghorn—and o°°e from Newry. o ntio SAILED.—IrIam, Morphew, for Havana—George Slforri" Cushing, for New Orleans—Arab, Gardner, and Henri, son, for Riga—and Priscilla, Taylor, for Pernambuco. Oh VEssRLS SPOICEN.—Welcome, from Amherest to Londrai.6 S. Jan. in lat. 4 N, long. 87 E Bucephalus, 3rd Feb. i n .., 10 long. 66 E ; Georgetown, from Calcutta to Demers,VdittOr March, in Ist. 31 S. long. 38 E; Aurora, from Calcutta I° l o Ri°,; lath March, in lat. 32 S, long. 34 E ; Canopus, heu n c sta fill_L v outward Amsterdam, a April,rd bound , iunn3ldar,dt in lat . long. a N aty , :4i7n, loa long. 1 , 9 V 16 ; 7 b.Tyhl long. o. Robert r 3 e 4 , f vv r o r d y _ll;_a7 . j I' Vet LIVERPOOL CATTLE MARKET, II he eds o,a The supply of Beast at our market today has b e " - d s sw"., t than of late. We have had a fair average of Sheep al' o ur;,4 Beef met with dull sale, at a shade of advance fr°nlle• prices. The Mutton trade was dull at a decline in _Pr aid to 6id per lb.; Mutton 7d to 70; Lamb 7d to Sa• A OT, LIVERPOOL HAY AND POTATO Mg' R 0 ii. i d . JUNE 1, 1846 s. d. s. d. •It Hay, old 211 b .. 0 7 @ 0 gi Potatoes,*9olll._ G ~ _ $ Clover ... 0— 0 0 Kemps ...... ! • ... ! 0 Vetches 0 14— 0 2 Short TOPS •• ;9 : 5 Grass Straw, Wheat O3 0 4 Pink Eyes•••• 0 0-- : 0 3 Cattle , ...... .. • .. r • Barleyt.. 7 , - . Carrots 0 • 0 0 IManure ...... LIVERPOOL : TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1846. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED T I EVERY TUESDAY MORJ-i- ' IT JOSHUA FLETCHER LACE, of as. Grove-street. 05_4 LEONARD ADDISON, of 14, Great Orford-street- A t No. 4 s Si. G 11042101 Comma' i•ivisroelm