Northern Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-23 00:00:00

iOLICB INTELLIGENCE -YESTERDAY. LIVERPOOL. BEFORE MR. B. GLADSTONZ. A 3111 d, "BLAZING" WEDDING.—A very nice looking 2eneg woman, well dressed, carrying a desperately dilapi &tad white bonnet in her hand, and who gave her name me Mary Ann Blaze, was charged with having assaulted and sobbed Catherine Hanlon. The history of this affair was as follows. On Monday, the psisoner got married to Ztiabe Blaze, an engine-driver, residing in Dryden-street. 21se "happy event," or rather unhappy event, so far as it want fier Airs B'aze, took place in S. Peter's Church, and mit? the anion, the parties retired to a public-house; where the healths of the bride and bridegroom were duly proposed and responded to, and after various libations, Mr. John sam, went off to drive his engine, leaving cli mactic= with his wife to have a nice cozy din war and everything snug when h e came b ac k. Moir Ars. Blaze obeyed the first injunction of her lord mad Master will appear by the sequel. It is said that the *NO Oman passions —sorrow and joy —lead to great thirst, and Mrs. Blaze, not being exempt from the sensation, litabiled a good quantity of liquid of various hues and *ems patity as, well as quantity. Between the joy and the drink, Mrs. Blaze's head went whirling round like the )e wheel of a steam engine, and, along with some of the islaridwanaids," she was proceeding along Dale street, winging as they went, for want of thought. It so happened tint. Blaze, before she assumel that name, had s,me oraffercases with the Eaid Catherine Hanlon, and the latter aca having any regard to the command that orders us to rove ear enemies, was spiteful enough to endeavour to mar the happiness of the wedding day. She might have waited *a ea least " three weeks after marriage," by getting out a amen for the newly-made wife. She was on her return trom the police office, after performing that message of beearrolence, when, who should she meet but the wadding Nasty. It is lamentable to record it, but truth must be fight followed, and in the ruckshin the wedding lasainet of Aire. Blaze, and, eke, that of Mrs. Hanlon, more torn into smithereens, the face of the latter also smscang in fir a trifle of scratches. In the affair, the wascsiainant alleged that the bride hail stolen £1 1-Is 11d. sea of her breast and a police officer coming up, put an wad to the affray, and locked up Mrs. Blaze, not only on the charge of felony, but for being drunk and disorderly. Ma was searched at the station, but no money was found with her. When her husband arrived at home, instead of fading his wife and dinner, he was informed that his young armee was in the station, and there she spent her wedding Wit, as she could not be bailed out, in consequence of tba chtsrge of felony. Several witnesses were examined, _pm ased con, and so far as poor'Mrs. Blaze was concerned, en appeared to be more sinned against than sinning, as it ace/eared she was assailed by foul language, and was also pusled rudely by the complainant before she did anything. - ender these these circumstances, his worship discharged ken; and she was surrounded by her ,friends, who waited in conzt for her. 313m>nz MESSRS, EDWARD CROPPER AND T. BOLTON. Inspector Tyrrell charged Joseph Holme, who keeps a stall en the fish market, with having exposed 201 b of soles Icir tale, unfit for use. Fined 20s and costs. Ellen Drown, a hawker, was charged with exposing for sale Sky nine rabbits which were in a putrifying state. This wag seer first offence ; she was fined lOs and costs. ASILNDLT AT SEA.--A seaman named Thomas Lindsay pitiful:ld a charge of an assault against the captain of the &hip _Mary Russell. of Milford. Mr. Chilton appeared for V* defendant, and Mr. Campbell for the complainant. The complainant stated that he shipped as an able seaman at Rang Kong for Liverpool, and during the voyage the twptain had on several occasions assaulted him. On one eeesaion he struck him on the eye and cut it, and subse gmestiy caught him by the back of the neck and attempted worm% a bucket with tar down his throat. Mr. Campbell tailed several witnesses, but they failed to prove anything *a the complainant. Several witnesses were then called iss defence, from whom it appeared that the complainant saws troublesome and badly conducted An entry in the .4eg - boek to this effect was read by Mr. Chilton. The magistrates stated that they considered the captain had iscare provocation for his conduct towalde the complainant. !they would, therefore, dismiss the case. Ja.Mes Mormon was charged with having forged a sea 3iburi certificate. Mr. Ty nattil. from the Beard of Trade prxeented. The defendant pleaded guilty, and was sen *need to six months' imprisonment COLONEL IN THE GUARDS THREATENED BY A SOLDIER. .A 1 the B;w-street Police-court, on Menday, a fine lbyth ig man, named Pickering, of soldierly appearance, sad "bearded like the Pard," was chareed with having 'written a letter to the Commander-in-Chief containing *rats c f violence against Colonel Foley, of the Grenadier guards. He pleaded guilty. Celsnel Feley stated that the prisoner had been a private in the Grenadier Guards, but '.tad been, at his own request, discharged from that regiment. In corseasence of some complaint which the pr . :nester had preferred against him (Colonel Foley), but whirls had been fully investigated by the proper authorities, the prisoner bad written a letter to the Duke of Cam /xi...3gs, Commander-in Chief, who had handed it to him eCotonel Foley), and he now produced it. In consequence of the threatening language contained in that letter ho was apprehensive of some viotence from the prisoner. The &l owing iet a copy of the letter :—" Dec. 12, 1857.—Your Royal Highness—l am informed by, Colonel Pipit thet vou'R , A. adopt vo further proceedings in the meter gttireeete Major Foley and myself, leaving no other course oyes to me but that of wild revenge. When my case is Mime the public I question whether your R lel Highness -sat bold CO high a prosition in the mind of the people as It. present_ You have in my CLS3 protected an. officer against a man 'nest unjustly. All that I have accused IPoley of is the truth, and you know that—the blackest part being that of a liar, as well as a robber. I may add, Noy reason for not taking the law into my own hends at the time the event occurred, was to sea if it were po •Eible tar. a, man to get any justice wLen opposed to al officer ; mil there is none. But us 1 have said from the first, vial/ have justice at any cost.—l am, sir, your humble earvant, T. PICKERING. —YOH need no: trouble any ore to answer this." The prisoner acknowledged that the letter was in his handwriting, and that he had addresse l it to tkas Corensaade: - -in.Chief. His 6bjoct was to bring his sease•before the public. While in the Crimea, viz., on the GO of December, 1355, a body of armed men, acting under thee directions of Colonel Foley, had robbed him (the antielof a sovereign, for which he had never been able % get any redress. He had written the letter to the • mander-in-Cbief for the purpose of getting himself taken into custody, in order to make his case known to the public. , Ile alleged that some letters written by Cal Foley, to the Secretary at War, contained stat , tmeets witsich were altogether false, and concluded by declaring that all he wanted was an impartial investigation. Li-. Mtn:line entertaiecd no daub: whatever that, as bad been stated by Colonel Foley, the question had been fatly iterestigated. as such matters generally were. Tlia prisoner imetglat to have abided by thedecision of the authorities. No iweett to him eield result from getting the casa before the • ; tor, as public opinion was now constituted, it old nes doubt concur iu the dee'iliou of the authorities lipvinted to investigate these matters with the public 23ff:fas - Oil. He (Mr. Jardinc) could not listen to such zemease as the prisoner talked about being robbed by a icey cf armed men set oa by his orraser, and the public amid. be sure to take a sensible Yieer of the matter. By inch feorisla conduct he could only get himself into dic gente. He (Ur. Jardine) must hied the prisoner over to p the peace, himself in £BO, and two sureties in £4O each. The prisoner :I am myself the only security I can vier. A person in court here offsred to he bail for the ame r, but in coming f c rward t o en te r hi s recogn i zeuces Nis entered into a wild statement of come grievances of his awn, to which he solicited the attention of the preen, and behaved in avery eccentric manner. It became necessary Ow remove bun from the o)urr, which was done wit all ate courtesy by one of the officers. A SICRETAILY IN DISGRACE.—At the Bow-s!reet acre, on Friday, a short well dressed man, who gave the A.ZZIA: - of Thomas Mark Wheeler, and described himself as agantleman, alL,ongh better known as thi Secretary of a Natio:sal Frien;l-iu-nced Ass ciatior, carrying on its a.p.zons in the Exeter 'Change, Upper Wellington. street, Brand, London, mac charge.: with a violent and WC', ly assault upon Mrs. Lilly, a respectable married woman. The complaiewa said that she was walking viietly through the 'Charge, between seven and eight ol3celr last evening, wh en th &fendf.rit came up to her zed 3t his arms round her neclr. She resented the ix , ult 30 ) . ptlAing Lim from her, upon which he struck her a wiaefit stow, twisted her arm, and knocked her down. He - was evidently drunk. A lad who happened to be in the 'Change at the time, deposed that he witnessed the assault. There was a ladder in the 'Change, and the defendant raid the complainant over it, and struck her after sl.e wiz upon the ground. He fell with her. The defendant laid he had been drinking rather too freiy, there haring li.smn a wedding in his family. The complainant's state ment, however, was exuggerated. She fell, he did not 'luck her down. Tye fact was, that owing to a railt/ay oc-dent which had happened to him a few years ago, a 1 tae ih - rep took a serious effect upon him, so he mast 2a7 whatever fine his Worship might choose to fix. 70, )be astonishment and dismay of the defendant, 115 w. en. n, Mr. Jardine committed him to prison for one sessitb, without the option of a fine, he baying before lieu in custody. EXAMINATION OF SHIPMASTERS. LETTER IV. THE NORTHERN TIME S.:-fLIVERPOOL, WEDNES DAY, DECEMBER 23, 1857 TO THE EDITOR 011 THE NORTHERN TINES. Sir,—Our best sailors are indisputably those who have been trained to the sea from early life, and, as a natural conse quence, their education has, we are apt to say, been comparatively neglected Yet, with as much justice, may they apply the same remark to landsmen, who would feel particularly ignorant if directed to perform a sailor's duties. The fact is, we are requiring more than the public are generally aware of, and shipmasters deserve the credit of the move they are making; f or no t on ly d o th ey p resent themselves and say—" We wish to be thoroughly masters of our profession, so far as any better system of training is concerned ; but we, in aldition, mean henceforward to see if we cannot, by a more free intercourse with each other improve our minds, and make our class not only respected as sailors, bat esteemed for such acquiremeute as pertain in general to landsmen " Hence, I say, we are encourag ing the training of & class of men who must be highly superior, because of the immense amount of sound, useful, practical knowledge to which a sailor's life in its vicissi tudes infallibly conducee. Every one in the responsibility of occasional command on board ship, should have undergone a compulsory examine tion, under parties appointed or sanctioned by the Board of Trade. So far from shipmasters complaining of this compulsion, they prefer it, while they feel and acknow ledge the insufficiency of the subjects and mode of the present examination. A few veterans may rail at those who would introduce " new-fangled" practices ; and we may well permit them to enjoy the remembrance of their successes in navigation before examinations were insisted on. Now, I cannot avoid the expectation of great changes in the form and size, and rig and speed of ships—nay, I have long had a peculiar notion (which may, at some future time, be inclined to burst into remonstanee), that, as a general rule, and locking merely at the water lines of some of our best clippers, we are sailing our ships stern foremost I remember, many years since (say thirty odd), when in Canton, offering to match and row our own jolly-boat, stern foremost, against any jol'y-boat in the fleet pulls l headforemost This is eo digression, because I would call attention to these expected cha-gas in our shipping, as a reason why a higher standard of attainment in those who are to com mand them is desirable. As principles of naval architec ture become the subject of discussion between shipmasters, analogy will suggest the want of a proper knowledge of the principles of nautical astronomy and navigation. I am about to recommend no hard study for young seamen ; but only desire to appropriate the little time they have at sea for mental improvemement, in such a manner as to give them the greatest possible amount of the benefit of sound - knowledge with the least possible labour, in the shortest possible space of time ; and this is beat insured by communicating, in the first instance, a proper insight into the " why and wherefore." Years since (to prove the possibility of this), I have taken village boys from my poorer neighbours, and after the first or second voyage, am convinced from them, that even ordinary minds, when under patient guidance, and with careful explanations of ground-work, are abundantly able to profit from all that I am about to propose as necessary to form the accom plished navigator. I may be allowed, perhaps, to point toe public schoci (and perhaps there are others) in which this wholesome method has to a great extent long been in practice (although without the facilities which now exist), and in naming the Naval School at Greenwich, it is an act of justice to declare that its pupils can easily be detected among the many, when conversation turns upon "principles" and the rationale of nautical astronomy. It would, ut the same time, be casting an unfair reflection upon teachers of navigation in general, were I to omit explaining the', at Greenwich, boys have time for special training, whereas in private nautical schools the students are scarcely in "statu pupillari"—and merely read up for examination of a prescribed limit It is not generally known that the simple problems of geometry, when properly explained, are eminently calcu lated to even entice the mind of young men towards re search, and low indeed must be the capacity of him who can find no interest in them. Not only does the sailor youth relish the daily and hourly proofs of his steady and conscious advance in useful knowledge bearing upon his chosen profession, but the four dation having been properly laid in the first instance, much valuable time, is saved to him subsequently, in working onwards towards his future examinations, which he finally enters upon with confidence and pleasure;—perhaps pride. I must apologise to your readers for so much reference to myself and "experience," but for many years it has been my anxious consideration and purpose, to some day speak plainly upon these subjects. I may be in error, but only offer some humble remarks, to induce those who are more capable, to take up this important subject. As a maritime nation, we should be more sensitive to the wants of shipmasters, and more watchful over their welfare, in proportion as we witness the developement of science ; of science pervading and changing not merely the ship herself, but the "thousand-and-one" novel appliances which form her outfit. The " wants" referred to are apparent, whenever a new invention presents itself which involves some new application of mechanics or science—and many a useful improvement has become un popular, or has " not taken" with commanders, because its principles have not been understood. There is no obstacle to an engineer's adopting a better form of boiler, or an improved paddle, or a better kind of fuel, nor does a sailor object to such an innovation as a Trotman's anchor, or wire rope, or Cunningham's reefing topsails, —nay, he is not quite so full of prejudices as the world believe him to be. He is eminently practical, and therefore needs only opportunity for quiet considera tion over a novelty which is within the power of his scrutiny, and none are more willing to see and adopt real and useful comprehensible improvements. It is reserved generally for sailors to sh:w indifference to innovations in that branch of practice alone which refers to their most important and exalted work ; they cannot, I say, easily, as a body, e.vail themselves of improvements in nautical science which the progress of the ago provides for them (The Spherograph is an exception, as honourable to them as pleasant to myself ) The burden of complaint against the present system is rather against imperfect training then a4ainet examina tion. The art of " projection," or the solving of geome trical and nautical problems by scale and compasses (the most pleasant, as it is the most useful and instructive), is almost totally excluded both from instruction and examina tions. To proceed to detail, I would abolish the present fallacy of " extra" certificates altogether: Preserve the three classes of masters, if you will, but let it be publicly under stood that certificates henceforth will relate more especially to mathematical acquirement. We cannot, as before insisted on, test accurately what ie denominated " Seaman ship"--there is a difEculty in even degning the word. Bat I am transgressing the limit of apace you allowed me, and will, with your leave, resume in another letter.— I have, , S. M. Sexey. The Times states that the G-overnments of Sweden and Norway have solicited aid from the Bank of England, to the extent of half a million sterling, to prevent the perma nent break-up of some of the extensive establishments which have lately failed in these countries. THE EARL OF STAMFORD AND WARRINGTON.—The Leicesi`er Chronicle contains the following paragraph : There have not been wanting many persons who have suspended their judgments concerning his lordwhip's con duct in the late alleged treatment of one of his tenants ; while among his tenantry at Groby, and the villages in that neighbourhood, a very strong feeling has prevailed" that their landlord has been subjected to gratuitous and undeserved obloquy. They hare, accordingly, found out a mode of testifying to , he earl their feelings in respect to this matter. They have had prepared an address, which they have signed very numerously, and, we believe, almost to a men. Sixteen pages aro filled with the names of the tenants, signed in sympathy for his lordship under what they consider unjust reproach MxTROPOL TAN BOARD OF WORKS.—VIC board held their ueuel weekly meeting on Friday, at the et , sla balance, less sinking fend, was £130,853 Os Gd. The Finance Co rmittee brought up a repo t lecoruelendieg "that the sum of £10,170 Gs 7d a portion of a lo,n of .E14: 1 ,000 for main drainage, including interest, now apportioned to the City of Loncl-n, and other parts not heretofore included iu districts rated by the Illetrop.,litan Commissioners of Sewers, be apportioned among the several parts of the metropolis liable thereto." The ndo2tion of the recommendation of the committee having ben moved and see: , n.le, a very long and desultory coe vergation, which at times approached to a very pe , sonal character, ensued, which was taken part in by MEssis. Leslie, Burslern, Offor, Major Lyor, Deputy Harrison, ard others. 11r. Howes moved, and Mr. Savage seconded, an amendment to the eff ct " that the consideration cf the subject should ba adjourned until counsel's opinion had been ()helped " Upon a division there appeared for the amendment, 16; against it, 15; majority in favour of the amendment, one, which not being a majority of two-thirds of the members present no order was made. Other amendments, including one for the adjournment of the debate, were made r.nd negatived, and eventually, at the suggestion of the Chairman, a compromise was effected, and it was decided unanimously that the draft of a case for the opinion of counsel should be submitted to the board, at their meeting on Wednesday next. Other routine business having been transacted, the board ad journed. REV. JOHN MACNAUGHT IN REPLY TO THE REV. J. K. GLAZEBROOK, TJ THE EDITOR OP THE NORTHERN 7I2dER. Sir,—There appears to be some delay in the production of the apology which Mr. Glazebrook owes us for his grave misrepresentations, and for his most unfounded attacks on my personal character mil orthodoxy. It was for Mr. Glazabrook's own sake, quite as much as for mine, that I gave him the opportunity of making the amende honorasle. I hope he will yet put himself right with the public by offering such an explanation as is to be expected, from a gentleman and a christian, in his circumstances. However, be that as it may, I shall lose no more time in waiting for Mr. Glazebrook, bat shall proceed, at once, to review his last letter which you, Sir, published on the Bth instant. I shall begin by asking your readers whether they can understand the object of that letter ? Mr. Glazebrook ought, in accordance with his own proposal, to be now applying himself to an answer of the fourth paragraph in my first letter. He ought to be telling us which is " the Church that has been preserved, by Scriptural Infallibility, from doctrinal error ?" This, clearly, is what Mr. G. ought to be doing: but it is, apparently, a task which he was mire ready to undertake than he is prompt to ac- complish. If it be said that Mr. G. is still holding on stoutly to the second paragraph of my letter, and that he is still main taining the proposition that Scripture is reason's supreme judge, and that reason is not the sovereign judge over Scripture, then I ask why does not Mr. Glazebrook grapple with some of the numerous arguments I have advanced on this point? For instance, with my letter (published by you, Dec. 11) lying before him, why does he ignore every thing in that letter except the interpretation of one text, 2 Cor. iii. 6? Why does he quit the question at issue to call me "Infidel?" Why does he waste time and distract attention with a peroration implying that I send my con gregat'on away "in doubt and despair ?" One is at a loss to sea the logical force, or even the rhetorical coher ence of Mr. G.'a letters. However, sir, I shall follow him sten by step ; and shall not intentionally, leave any part of his letter unanswered. In the first place, I beg, most respectfully, to suggest to Mr. G. that, if he were correct in saying that I " spread the ravages of infidelity," an 1 " a thousand heretical opinions" from my pulpit in St. Chrysostom's, it would be, indeed, a great disgrace to me, but it would be hardly a less disgrace to any Bishop who allowed such mischief to be done in his diocese, without, at least, attempting to correct the errors, or check the wilfulness of the clergyman who dii it. The Bishop of Chester has never, in any way , remonstrated with me on the subject of my teaching. I thought his Lordship alluded to me at the Collegiate Institution last October, bat it seems I was mistaken. Indeed, I am persuaded he is too wise, and, I trust, too liberal to do so as long as my doctrines are in ac cordance with Holy Writ, and the broad Catholic teach • ins of the Prayer Book. My views are no secret. They are uttered every Sunday, and at other appropriate times, without reserve. They cannot be un'tnown to my Dio cesan. Does Mr. Glazebrook, then, intend to charge the Bishop of Cheater with most culpable negligence ? Let Mr. G. remember that I cannot be charged with publicly and habitually spreading " infidelity" and •' heresy," without Mr. G.'s thus grievously inculpating the Right Reverend Overseer of this diocese. Besides, if I taught "heresy and infidelity," and " sent my flock away in doubt and despair," does Mr. Glazsbro:k think it probable that, for the last four years and upwards, ever since St. Chrysostom's Church vas opened, the Churchwardets should never have had a single pew they could not Ist? As to the text, 2 Cor., iii., 6, Mr. G. says, my inter pretation of it is a "perversion," " an arbitrary gloss," &c. The words of the text are, " Who (1 e., God) hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, net of the letter, but of the spirit ; fo: the letter killeth, bat the spirit giveth life." Now, Mr. G. informs as that th 3 " letter" here means " the old dispensation " (Judaism), and t'se " spirit" here means " the Christian dispensation." Granted. What, then, is the characteristic of Judaism, which has been " done away ? ' Just this, that it was a dispensation of "the letter," of written records, addressing themselves, not directly to the reason and affection of humanity, but to the outward senses, and then to the principles of terror and absolute literal obedience, as is most clearly shown in such a passage as Heb. xii., 18.21. And, on the other hand, what is the characteristic glory of the new dispensation (Christianity) ? Is it not this. viz , that it is a dispensation of spirit, propagating itself, now, by word of month to those who cannot reai; now, by the suggestion of various books to those who can read; now, without book or spoken word of man, to the reflective mind of a Socrates, or to the zealous heart of a Paul—ths Spirit of God, in each such case, working with the spirit of man? Is not this the characteristic glory of Christianity, that (in the laugusge of Jeremiah mod., quoted Heb. viii , 10) it is the " covenant " in which God " pats His laws into men's minds an I writes them on their hearts ?" So far, then, is my interpretation from being a "delusion," &c., that it pree_sely accords with, and recognises Mr. Glaze brook's own true interpretation of 2 Cor. iii, 6, and on the strength of tbat interpretation, we learn that the " letter," written, and material, and perishable —like the printed pages of any book or Bible—is inferior to the spirit," or living sentiment, and conviction, and principle, which— liGe religion of Christ—addresses itself to, and takes hold of, the mind and heart of mzn. I will only add, in the words of Canon Stanley, in his commentary on this verse, " The mere outward book, or ordinance," is " con trasted with the living power of the Gospel" Thus, on the testimony of Scripture, it is true that Reason, or the mind of Humanity, is superior to, and mast be judge of, every Rule of Faith—yea, even cf Holy Writ itself. In trac!ng backwards the stream of Mr. Glaz :brook's rhetoric, I come neat to what Mr. G. says of " poor Cole ridge." True, Coleridge was an " opium eater." It wai a great folly, confessedly a great sin, and bitterly the sinner rued it. Bat C;leridge is doad : he ii gene to a judgment where he will be judged by One who kaows his weakness and his temptation, as wall as his folly , and his sin. As far as our knowledge goes, that judgment is pending, and it wero profanity if any man shoull anticipato it. It is not, however, I trust, in this sense that Mr. Glszebroak refers to the Bin or folly of the great Coleridge. Ido wish, however, that Mr. Glazebrook would not so frequently, and, with so much irrelevance, assail the characters of the dead. It was said by a wise man of old, that "he who attacked the reputation of the departei *reminded one of a dog gnawing savagely at an unresistirg bone." When Mr. G. is again tempted to defame the dead, or even nee•Resgly to rip up their faults, I wish he would remember the wholesome adage which bids us spea'A _ _ _ " Nothing but what is good of the deal" I wish he would ponder over Tom Hool'a charitAble and reverential Beall. meat regarding an erring but departed sister " All that remains of her Now is pure womanly." Or, if these authorities ba not of enelcient weight for Mr, Glazebrook, I must request him to remember that our Master bade men to be chary in condemning others till they were themselves " without sin." But, after all, what is the force of Mr. G.'e denunciation of Samuel Taylor C )leridge ? Does Mr. G. mean to insinuate that he who wrote " Ch:istabel," " The Ancient Mariner," " Aids to Reflection," " The Friend," "The Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit," Sce., was an incompetent witness, or a shallovi thinker, or, generally. and on plain sulljeets, a confused or obscure writer ? Was not the very extem poraneous, overflowing stream of Coleridge's ordinary conversation, a perennial source of delight, a constantly fresh well of suggestive wisdom to all the great thinkers of the day ? sire not the writings of Coleridge amongst the first which are commended to an advanced student in our Universities ? Is not a saying of Coleridge's, one of the brighest ornaments and highest vintowledged authorities With which an necomplishe4 Writer or speaker of the present day can hops to adorn his utterance, or to confirm his argument. Sir, if it shoal.! be relevant—that is, if Mr. G. should again desecrate the great name of Coleridge by mentioning it as he has done—l will bring forward a quotation from that despised " opiam-eater," that shall put to the blush the cheek of any ordinary writer who contende with it. I will bring forward, from Coleridge, an encomium on the hallowed page of Scripture that shall make even Mr. Glazebrook's praise grow pale before the effalgence of its genius. I will adduce an argument, from Coleridge, that shall show the miserable lifelessness of the theory which Mr. Glazebrook so vainly and so strangely strives to uphold. Meanwhile I abstain, for COleridge was no witness of mine ; and I do not wish, for I do not need, to make my case stronger than it is with reference to the only two, out of my nine and thirty paragraphs, which Mr. Glaze brook has yet ventured to deal with. I next find Mr. G. engaged in the unenviable task of cavilling at another dead man. In this case the holy, blameless life of Dr. Arnold cannot b 3 im peached. Indeed, that saintly man was originally quoted by Mr. Glazebrook. Dr. Arnold was strongly opposed to Socinianism, and wrote some very sharp words about that system of theologizing. Of coarse, as neither Mr. G. nor I are Socinians, and as our controversy is not about Socinianism, but about the Infallibility of the inspired volume. Dr. Arnold's opinions, regarding Socinianisin, are quite irrelevant. However, Mr. Glazebrook thought proper to drag in Dr. Arnold, as if, for sooth, that great man were on his side. I immediately showed, by a quotation, which is printed on the title page of Afacnaught on Inspiration, that Dr. Arnold compared the future and necessary dis covery of the Bible's fallibility to the already accomplished "discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility." I showed how Dr. Arnold had foretold that views like ?nine would be opposed by "the fears and clamours of the weak and bigoted." I showed how Dr Arnold had foretold that views like mine would end in the higher exalting, and more sure establishing of Christian truth." This quotation of mine was really relevant. It bore directly on the Bible's Fallibility. It showed Dr. Arnold to be a witness, not against me, bat on my side. Thus did one of Mr. Glazabrook's own witnesses, when allowed to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, most distinctly and emphatically testify in my favour. Upon this, Mr. Glazebrook, like a skilful pleader, begins to depreciate his own witness. Dr. Arnold is a good critic, Mr. G. informs ns, but he is a bad theologian. How does Mr. G prove this ? Some anonymous writer, in the Christian Observer, said so; and " the late Rev. Edward Bickersteth" said so ; Mr. Glazebrook says so ; and throe three saying so are proof. Before Mr. Glazebrook's opinion can carry much weight, he must be good enough to con vince your readers, sir, that he is not " amueing " .himself by such "artifices" of wilful and defamatory misrepresen tation as it was my painful duty to show (in your paper of the 16th) that he frequently practices and actually " con fesses" and "congratulates himself" on. As to the anony mous writer's testimony, he ruins his own credibility—if, indeed, he bs correctly quoted in Mr. Glazebrook's printed letter—by even hinting that Dr. Arnold was a man who awoke " every morning with the impression that everything was en open question." This calumny, together with the fact of his associating " supercilious pedantry and intoxi cated vanity" with the name of the firm bat gentle, calm, and philosophical Arnold, will strike this second detractor from the list of those who ars trustworthy. As to the late lamented Edward Bickersteth, he was a holy, zealone intelligent, and most amiable Christian minister, whom no one knew without loving. Bat what scholar, in his senses, would dream of setting up Edward Bickersteth as a judge of Arnold ? Arnold was a first-class Ox ford man, a fair critic, a theologian capable of pro ducing his sermons on prophecy and on the interpretation of Scripture, a historian hardly second to Niebuhr or Grote. Bickersteth, on the contrary, was a man who laboured at first—if my memory serve me ; and, if not, Mr. Glazebrook will doubdess correct me—as a pott office clerk. Subsequently he entered the ministry of the English Church, with a less deficient education than was to have been expected in his circumstances Ho was the clever writer of a large number of popular works on the Low Church aspect of Christianity. Peace be to his hallowed bones and to his lovely memory : but he was no more fit to be a Judge of scholarship or theological accuracy—no more fit to be compared with Arnold " than Ito Hercules." So much for the slight attempted to be put on Dr. Arnold, Mr. Glazabrook's Own witness, when at is unmistakably seen that Dr. Arnold condemns Mr. Glazebrook's view of the Bible, and gives the weight of his important approbation to the doctrine held by me. The next witness claimed by Mr. Glazebrook, as on his side, is the Bishop of Manchester. That right rev. prelate is not known by me to have published his views on the subject of Scriptural Fallibility, or the contrary. If he has done so, perhaps Mr. Glazebrook will be so good as to refer us to the beek and page ? When this shall have been done by Mr. Glazebrook, we shall know what force attaches to the testimony named. As to the Bishop of Llandalf, I have already quoted as a witness on my aide, one of his concessions, to the effect that the term, " Word of God," does not, in the New Tes tament, mean the Bible. Any other argument of his lordship's, which may be brougu forward, with relevancy to our present controversy, I shall be quite prepared to examine respectfully. Dr. Hampden (the Bishop of Hereford) is named by Mr. Glazebrook as in his favour. How far this statement is correct, any reader may ascertain by reference to my Doctrine of Inspiration, 2nd edit., p. 42. Among Dr. Hampden's words are the following : —"lt would be nothing strange or objectionable in a revelation, were we to find embodied in its language much of the false ethical philosophy which systems may have established." This does not look as if the Bishopeof Hereford agreed eith Mr. Glazebrook, or was far removed in opinion from my views. Mr. Glazebrook refers to Tholuck's article on inspiration, translated by a gentleman of my acquaintance, for the sixth volume of Kitto's Journal of Sacred Literaturo I should strongly recommend your readers, sir, to peruse that article. With Mr. Nicholas' translation I am, oddly enough, not acquainted, but I know the articlo in i$ original form, as it came from the pen of Dr. Tholnck. Indeed, I have it now lying be fore me, and I am cot:Meat it will have been well and fairly translated by Mr. Nicholas, and will, consequently, show that my doctrine of Inspiration is, at least, more like to the ancient opinions on that subject, than, any "which has, so far, been advocated by Mr. Glazabrook. How unfortunate Mr. G. is in the selection of his witnesses ! All the witnesses in the world could not help him much, for palpable facts—such as any in telligent man of common sense :can test—are against hint. But, still, it is quite remarkable how Sepoes, like thdee I slow last Friday, and good men and true, like these whom Mr. G. now attempts to bring foward, all turn against Mr. Glazebrook and yield their testimony, willingly or unwil linaly, in my favour. Dr. Butler is quoted by Mr. Ghzsbroak as saying, He knows absolu'ely nothing, who does not know that in religion we are all children." Of cour-o we are. Who ever doubted this ? Have I ever denied it ? Yet, surely, Bishop Butler used these wor 3s to commend wise humility and not to favour puerile weakness, for, otherwise, he w ou ld have contradicted a g r e a t er than even Butler, seeing that Paul write, "Be men in understanding." But is Bishop Butler at all on Mr. Glazebrook's side ? Let this fact answer the inquiry. In the Analogy, Butler sets out with assuming that the human mind has Lire sdy been competent to infer " that 'here is an intelligent Author of Nature and Natural Governor of the world;' Hte whole argument, then, p - oceeds upon the further assump tion, that the human mind can observe the dealings of Nature's God : can compare these with the representations of God's dealings, which are given by Cnristianty ; and is competent to infer the credibility, and evon the pro bability of the Christian Revelation, from the resemblance between the actual dealings of Nature's Gad and appare,.4 doctrines of Christianity. This vise capacity, 'the profound Bishop Butler" ascribed to the human mini. Let y readers, sir, judge with what fairness Mr. Glaze brook quotes an isolated phrase, to show th Lt Butler thought meanly of human reason ! And, as to the superiority of human reason o►er any Rule of Faith, yea even over the Bible itself, Bishop Butler wrote thus, If in Revelation there be found any passages, the seeming meaning of which is contrary to natural Religion, we may most certainly conclude such seeming meaning not to be the real one." Thus, "natural religion," the dictate of human reason, is to act as supreme earthly judge, and is to set aside as erroneous the " seeming," or apparent, meaning of " Revelation ," or Scripture, which is the record of Revs- lation. I trow Bishop Butler's testimony will not help Mr. Giazebrook much. My opponent, however, claim, A.rehbiehop Whiteley, and Bishop Made, as amongst his upholders. I am glad to see Mr. GI tzebreek ie now, at length, beginning to read my book on Inspiration. I have given (pp. 38, 39, of the 2nd edition) passages from Hinds and Whateley, in which they teclare their sentiments on the matter of Scriptural Fallibility. I have given for instance, the following quo tation from Whiteley, which, in this letter, may sufficiently represent the view of Bishop Hinds as well. Wiladely writes, "In matters unconnected with religion, such as points of history, or natural philosophy, a writer who professes (as the Apostles do) to be communicating a divine revelation, imperted to him through the meaus of miracles, may be as liable to error as other men, without any disparagement to his pretensions ; but if we reject, as false, any part of the religion which he professes himself divinely sent to teach, we cannot consistently believe but that his pretensions are either an impost u re or a delusion, and that he is wholly unworthy of credit." In my book I give the whole of this passage, that which seems to mak: against me, as wall as that which is so strongly in my favour. It would, I submit, have been well if Mr. Glaze brook had done so toe. However he has thought proper only to quote the latter portion of the passage and chooses to omit the forno!r. So, then, the testimony of Archbishop Whateley and Bishop Hin Is is, that, in all matters which we can test by sense and reason, the Bible is fallible, but, on matters of religion, which, it is supposed, we cannot test by sense or reason, the Bible is to be regarded as infallible Why? I ask. If the Bible must be acknowledged to be fallible "in matters unconnected with religion," why is one to believe the same Bible infallible as soon as it touch., "any part" of religion ? Till Mr. Glazebrook shall instruct us on this point, I beg most respectfully to repeat the unanswered argument, on this very subject, which I submitted to the Bishop of Chester last October. If, in matters of sense and reason, we concede the fallibility of Scripture, and then proceed, in matters which are pro nounced above sense and beyond reason, to maintain the infallibility of Scripture, this course of argument is as though we should see an object to be red as long as it is in sight, and then should declare that, when it has passed oat of sight, it is not red, but geese. Thus to argue is as though we should say—" All we know of this man shows him to be honest, but yet we are determined to pronounce him dishonest in those things of which we know nothing about him." Twat so, men urge, the Bible is felib'e, or tinged with error, in all points which we can te.t, bat we are determined to declare it infallible in those points which we cannot test. The wondrous verdict is—We pronounce ties Bible to Ic infallib!e. though all the evidence (1. e. all the palpable facts) shows it to be fallible. Such is the logical position of Drs. Whitely and Hinds. They consider the Bible to be fallible in everything except religion ; but there they, most illogically, stop short. I am more consistent; for, being obliged to join them in their concessions, Ige further, and say—lf the Bible be fa'lib'e in ordinary matters, I see no reason why it should be infallible in extraordinary ; and, moreover, I see and have shown, in my book, fevers' in stances in which the extraordinary or religious statements of the Bible are plainly and positively at fault. Let Mr. Glazebrook show where these, my facts, are misstated, or where this, my argument, is unsound. Let him correct me, and he shell find me most ready to be converted, for I had rather agree with men, if I could honestly do so, and have their praise, than differ from them, and suffer the bitterness of their lack of charity. Of course, Sir, all that Mr. G. says about " Theitarialism," and about my being an " Infidel," and "given up to strong delusion to believe a lie," &c., is simply nihil ad rem. I shall no more notice it at present, but I hope he will yet desist from such sad waste of time cud space, and such pitiable display of uncharitableness. One more witness Mt. Glazebrook long ago quoted against me ; and Itim Mr. G. again produces. Mr. G-Isze. brook has told us how " the immortal Chillingworth" has said that he would believe anything which was "proposed to him out of the Bible ;" for he would be sure that " God load said" that which might bo so " proposed." Sir, I have long had a great respect for Chillingworth ; and, the moment I read Mr. Glezebrook's quotation, I thought it strange that one of our greatest Protestant writers against Papal infallibility should he opposed so strongly to my denial of Scriptural Infallibility. I thought I remem bered that there was much in Chtllingworth which went rather in support of my view than of Mr. Glezebrook's. However, I had not Chillingworth's writings at hand, and I abstained from referring to him memoriter. Now, I have Chillingworth upon my table, and he shall say a few sentences for himself. lam far from intimating that he did not use the words quoted by Mr. Glazebrook. I know the passage well. lam far from meaning that Chilling worth is clearly and entirely on my side, so that there are no detailed passages of his which might be quoted fairly against me. Let Mr. Glazebrook, however, help himself with such arguments from the great magazine of Chilling. worth, and I will examine them with the respect and at tention which is their author's due. Meantime, I submit that Mr. Chillingworth and I are agreed in our main I I principles, and, consequently, that much cf Mr. Chilling ; worth's splendid writing is on my side in this controversy, as may be gathered from the following passages : First: What does Chillingworth mean by " proposing anything to him out of the Bible ?" Doss he mean that any man, or any body of men, have a right to expound for one any text or texts, and that one is bound to accept and submit to such, their exposition ? Far, indeed, is this from being Chillingworth's meaning. To men, advancing such a claim, he indignantly replies, " What an impudence it is to pretend that your church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture, whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand, and about the interpretation whereof your own doctors differ among themselves !" Again, he writes, disclaiming, on behalf of Protestants, any such authority to interpret : —" This pre sumptuous imposing of the senses of man upon the wards of God—the special senses of men upon the general words of God : this deifying of our own interpretations, and tyrannous enforcing them upon others; this restraining of the word of God from that laTude and generality, and the understendings of men from that liberty, w h ere i n Carist and his Apostles left them, is, and hath been the only fountain of all the schisms of the church. Take away these walls and all will quickly be one : take away this persecuting, burning, cursing, damning of men, for not subscribing to the words of men as the words of God; require of Christians only to believe Christ, and to call no man master bat him only ; let those leave claiming infalli bility that have no title to it ; and let them that in their words disclaim it, disclaim is likewise in their actions : taken away tyranny, which is the devil's instrument to support errors, and superstitions, and impieties—l say, take awe ) , tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and I'4l liberty of captivating thei r un d erstan di ng to scr i pture only ; and, as rivers, when they have a free passage, run all to to the ocean, to it may well bo hoped, by God's blessing, that i universfd liberty, thus moderated. 1121 y quickly r educe Christendom to truth on ; 1 unity." Aeainst one who op• pored the right of priv.ife judgement in the 'interpretation of Scripture, Chillingworth maintained that it was wise arid proper for any Christian to say, " These and these reasons I have to show th tt this or that is tree dont ine, or that this or that is the meaning of such a scripture. Reason beine a public and certain thing, and exposed to all men's trial and examination." Thee, then, sir, we see what " the immortal Chillingworth" meant when he said as quo:ed b e Mr. Glazebrook, h Propose to me anything out of this Book (the Bible) and I will subscribe it with heni and heart,' &c. Mr. Chillingworth, that is to say, would listen to any text which might be "proposed," or quoted to him. He would not submit to that text any sense, which might be arbitrarily attached to it by other men ; but he would judge of its possible meanings according to the best private judgement of his Human Reason, and then Mr. Chillingworth would accept what he felt convinced was the truo meaning of the text. That truth he would regard as one of the sayings which God spoke to him. What lees than this would any pious man think of any maxim which he felt to be true and important ? So inueli for the quotation made by Mr. Glazebrook from Mr. Chillingworth. Mr. Chillingworth, be it remembered, is not my witness: but, as Mr. Glazebrook has brought him forward, and actually made him repo ;t the Fame testimony on two different occasions (viz., in Mr. G.'s letters published Dec. 4, and Dec. 18), I shall presently use my right of cross-questioning my opponent's witneer. Before proceeding to do this, however, I must direct the reader's attention to Mg Glazebrook's own mode of inter pretit g any text of Scripture. Mr. Glazebrook tells us that, in order "to ascertain the mind of the Spirit" which terms, when put into plain English, mean, as I believe, in order to find out the true meaning of a text— Mr. Glazebro k proceeds " by attending to the scope of the argument, the grammatical construe ion of the pa sage under consideration, to the context and to parallel pas sages, and we thus guard ourselves against the thousand arbitrary meanings which a mere rationalist wou'd impose," &3 With reference to this passage, I put it to your readers, sir, whether Man is not a reasoning or rational being? And, if out Creator bath made us rational beings, why should men mock and sneer at those who humbly and thankfully use God's gift of reason or rationality I moat respectfully submit, that for any man to be otherwise than a Rationalist or user of Reason is for him to degrade hie humanity by being irrational. But let us lock at the case of Mr. Glazebrook. He professes to interpret Scripture "by attending to the scope of the argument." Will Mr. Glazebrook tell us how. except by Human Reason, he can do this? or, How, except by Human Reason, he can attend to the "gram matical construction of the passage under consideration ?" or, How, except by Human Reason, can Mr Glazebrook attend "to the context and parallel passages t'' Should Mr. Glazebrook answer, as I hope he can, that he prays for the apirit's aid, still I ask Mr, Glazebrook, What faculty, except Human .Reason, does he ask the .-- lia t t a til illumine and to aid in order that he may be "p eo i against the 1,000 arbit r ary meanings ?" And, if 11 yl Human Reason that Mr. Glazebrook is thus able what is the true meaning of Scripture, then to / I t 00 has Mr. G:azebrook been so long trying to argue Igr.joil original assertion, that human rea son "is decl trea " 1 ,00 be superior to—because it is con s tit u ted the judge of . 6 0 other role of faith ?" If M. G. does really thus 1701 ally interpret Scripture, as he, no doubt, honestly P r o f fy to do, then I submit that he is himself a specitoendoo highest work of God, a R a t%oxali s t, or user of t S Reason. Whether, however, Mr. G-. does, indeed , i n Scripture as rationally as he thinks and says he &cot reference to its " scope," its " construction , " its " c ° l3b yti and its " parallel passsges"—any of your reador° , 0 1.1 1 be able to judge by seeing how, in the past aoti c ° , o 'd t?, part of this controversy, Mr. G. has interlo ev f o rl famous text, " Thy word is truth ?" So totie ll „, G.'s own practics, and the concessions it in]ro°';',o ll now I proceed, in coneusion, sir, to ask a few 1: 0 01 tions from Mr. Glezebrcok ' s own witness "th e St t D 4 ; 1 V II kS , ej i d e , Vat , °4 lll Üb e ,' ‘ 4l GI [ th e 4EhTE 4,s the it, 14,„,tibeg i ti,l l be we Chillingworth." 0 . Mr. Giazebrook declares me an "infidel , ' PO phemer," a " Judas," &c., because, fo rso oth, tofi l. .h r ist , that we have a rule of faith i n th e re li g ion L. llt generally set forth in Scripture, I deny the • 0 1 the Bible What eays Mr, Chillingworth? should believe Christian re li g i o n w h o ll y a nd en," . 0 4 0 " live according to it, sack a man, tho ug h he shou l d /1 0, 1 or not believe the Sc r ipt ur es t o b e a rule of fait" ' e gg, to be the word of God ; my o pi n i on i s , that he'i s , the entire condition of the n ew covenan t, whie'uil Is 6/ we believe the matter of the Gospel, and not that f tamed in these or these books, So that the bo,_oks: tare are not so much the objects of our 10 '1' 0 01 instruments of conveying it to our uticle a r4 s ay Again, Mr. Chillingworth writes that, even I ` t err„ shoutd doubt the canonicity of any parts of Ser i loss' did Luther and Chemnitz, and Melito, and St. , s t 0 0 and St. Gregory of Nazianzum—still " I have He a l to damn any man that shall doubt of them or now, having the example of saints in heaven, An - a l' justify or excuse such d ou b l i ng or denial." es once more, Mr. Chillingly„" O )rth writes, " Thoug s S unreasonable, yet God requires n o t an ythi n g bm' „" tor, they pretend that heavenly thi ngs canno t be Fr o " purpose but by the mid-day li g ht ; b u t G o d will u . if we receive any degree of light which makes 1 4 A works of darkness a nd wa lk as c hild ren of 14 , r „ large-heartei and liberal, a n d c h ar it a ble i 5 v„.;100 Chillingworth. I wish, sir, m an y o f us m ight ° TO "inintortar example, both of wisdo m and If Mr. Glazsbrook would imbibe a little of Chl"% c l, spirit, he would desist frot h hi s l amen t a ble, s" unsuccessful, attempts to defame me. 111 Sir, I have already stated that I regard So l l p the rule of faith subject to the judgment o ` l . oo Reason. It is, I suppose, against this my °P! n d - ,; Mr. Glszebrook has quoted that passage of Chalitor which we examined above. We saw that Mr. Ci' l ' when fairly interpreted on Chillingwoqh's ozvni" carried no weight against me. But, still, es X t in k put Chillingworth into the witness box, I sha ll ;1111, question or two about the Rule of Faith al i •don Reason. For example, let M r . Chilli ng wortb l 4 whether Scripture be th e R u l e o f F a i t h on a" „ 1 „, "IA subjects? "Of all," he a nswers , " th os e 011 ,. 1 , 1 1 wherein the Scripture it se lf is the subject of ID", which cannot be determined but by natural 'r e 00 11 a Only principle, be s id e Scripture, which is e °,l4 Christians." " Scripture is a perfect Rule of ." - e r:P„i ranch as a writing can be a rule." Mr. Chilling°;sl,i often spoken—as I do, too,—of Scripture ss_„, b , e lCT word of God," Let him say what he me l t " Scripture is the Word of God, so much of it a do '0 contains all things ncceseary" to Salvation t hel y according to Mr. Chillingworth, it is implied ths'slo:o parts of the Bible which are not necessary t°2 as and parts of the Bible which he does not ergs'' Word of Cod." And, moreover, there are 8° 41 1 highest questions in religion of which Seriptureu" the Rule and Reason alone must be our fg li "„ - i# ! surely, surpasses anything which I have said i ° lo Yet it comes from Mr. Glazebrook's own lei' _ l ll- 0 9 he has not badly designated as " the imrillift' worth." t gp Mr. Chillingworth has written a goo d deal eh° tis " rt, and 13 t A 1 411aPProvo IT S C A kl? ? R And o , Will, in 4 ' BRE A 7 It Iv 4 0R rt 57, t m tt tit ktii, RE W tus '' ALBU tr". l P,i PI e t teii eiebrate Et i alt 6d. ;tn frod 03 , k il ii e r P 8 AL t e .413 %II 1 / 4 1, 1 t 7: tad 5 fr,oni 57 i \____ Li If R 41C D PL] 185,1 111 18 T c i k t „ ,n 2_l7, f! ee ha T tl His w Reason and S'Cripture. Let U 4 850 -- if hewiiteliporl he thinks of their relative positions—which i° 611 0 0 4 the other ? —" To speak properly (as men should ir? they write about controversies in religion) the S '':1:11 0 not a judge of controversies, but a rule only, 5° n ollj rule, for Christians to judge them by. .Every, judge for himself with the judgment of discreu°",'lk choose ; and the rule whereby he is to guide „5 he be a natural man, is "reason." Again' ra n truly and properly, the Scripture is note judge O r oss but only a sufficient rule to judge by," eze• , oast Mr. Glazebrook' s "i mmorta l Chilli ngw orth,' over again decide ag a inst M r . G , and In * t oor Chillingworth is of opinion that Human Reason the supreme judgs, and that Scripture ee' t jel i speaking, be " on ly th e ru l e. " Thi s i s j u st 01° 100 by asserting in the se con d p aragrap h o f my firs t ob Mr. G. will h ea rk en t o Chilli ngwor th, and re lff' evidence I have laid before you, sir, he will, ° II this point at once and for ever. litt l6 /. Another word, and I have done. It is not lb t of one that, from the midst of the one ciao ation ° ti re d", lingworth, with 'which Mr. Glazebrook has fe r)° 01 omitted these important and charitable word o .:,, l oV wrote Chillingworth, "think no man the vfol• - forir; the worse Christian, I will love no man the I , ef f i iiioB ing in opinion f rom me ." W e ll sa id , Mr, u'', l tisl e " Sir, I commend thi s b roa d an d b enevo lent E ° hits , Mr. Glazebrook and your readers ; and, Wis hivg lo li gt , them, and you, a me rr y an d a w i se Christin . .,,,°' ‘ 12',0179 yours truly, J oux 2. Everton, December 22, 1857. bi ll' A I, -Dpued (/ 0 cj b 1 1 1141ki : 0 1 ; 11 cg: 14 th' feel favou CD R B NE AT E 31, be gtj The Shipowners' Towi ng C, )m p any , whic h IPr", for operation twen t y years, i s to b e woun d up. oco The " austei e G u ' zot '." memo i rs are ann"„10!, s c oll 15th of Janne!y in six volumes. He wa s w ool' wi3ded, and wh ,t Carlyle in his rude jarg" „, f i re . d o The !limes city article say s , the bills hay° - . _ firm "It tl , 0 12 0 oysi 11/§Der Part ,eeesrs. Ktingender.• Bro;., of Liverpool, a with the America n t ra d e . Their liabilities er " r ed be very large. v iefO r A few days ago Mr. Stevens, a stockbrolsericiplel', charge of robbery against a person named oe charge was dismissed by the Lord Mayon k is e s itri which Mr. Killby conceived to be attached to ac ment in a police cell preyed upon his mi ll ' o' .11 be committed suicide. svl A i The operations for launching the Leviathariee Lts) . 4"l resumed till next week. The hydraulic Oalre a lor a el more than double that to which the ship ha 9 a l 11 4 9" subjected. There are to be twelve addili° l3- t her, rams. The ship continues even and fair ° n o d P - 101 and ways. On Seturday. at high water, ell e , i to' six inches of water under her keel. t tofnlerC t i t . A VICTIM OF SRPOY CRUELTY.—We regr e- p c d i t h' young lady, the daughter of a highly-rel t ;eco l ati to l ,; men of Bristol, who married a gentleman c : t ot r e `o, ° ,, J e the Indian service, about a year since, brie, The ';„'" f not only wido.ved, but terribly mutilatea., • rf%, '".( have cut her tongue cut, and inflic . ed other I v u s et l ,,tlo, l , meanchcly circumstance has created mach S o 1 15 : ti P e 1 0 7 it has brought the horrors of the war 17 : 1; _, Ir ievo a :be* Il i td :t re lity, and not the least in the parish froal,"„ o3 o' no y welt forth, sn short a time since, in th e bi ° '', l to the enjeym-nt as it was believed, of a le- ~,00 1 , de in lice —Bristol Mirror. to c- j: THE RUSSIAN MERCHANT SERVICE IN Tilt Wag gl , ll O , On Tuesday a powerful iron screw.steron, e ,; from the building-yard of Messrs. Clla r A"; is I, 'A Oa/ teed Co ,of Low Walker, on the Tyne. 7 - „e, 01 " ye healers' measurement, is named the Onna l o - S t epe a l s i l d '0 property of the Russian Steam Navigation k Se pa te is built for the Company's trade in the vet o f Are of Sea of Azoff. In these localities the desng t h a C fe e limited, and the Oudatoy, when laden w i j irtee ll eto tl t i t e 1,100 tons dead weight, will only driiNg t . is ag t $ll Al f water. It is intended to look to the a c l t„,, t power, and she is barque rigged, and modern improvements ueed in first-class selp fitte .4 0 , 0 1_ 0 0 4 country. Forty-six vessels have been 0 01'0 cd course of building, in England, for thie v a elc oblQp will trade with every port almost in tha t CO' ,ll Levant, and will convey great quantiti°s ° Otto from the Russian coal fields on the Don. 1 , 0 irtr i ,loo - o r ANOTHER DARING HIGHWAY ROBBERY, W i k A t g n O a n tn W ed ed i‘ e v e c s ii da e y i at the works of Mr. Richard Barrow, e f b r itig° l t ibi a * morn ing, Barl Vi,Wahboo about s f° e u tri r p °1 ;: t c : d y ' to his employment, when, at the railwaY aim so: ot p : . 00 a mile from Chesterfield, h a was stoppe d a nd tb 01, 1 0 men—one a tall man, with dark Whis kers ' eaonlreP,,,r* person of low stature. They demanded ,i; Darl o o lo a P " W want that six sovereigns of you rs ' i c ed, ° le l,l o " I have no money." The fellow's In fo , ateal o p ti o six sovereigns, which you have ea/c lo d eo t a : the itit pee." Barlow assured them thet th h a e prceTi ill o e r r a : ot se e d o : , ; ( 4 11 ' k s o To - fk ro e s a ti ll ,::s o l:4 2 , they would not believe him, and the threw Barlow's slop over his face and The taller man then knelt upon whilst the other ripped open his clothee..,l le tt a , tn), ij them for money. They found none, etu ser teueu r osy ; pockets tarne I inside out. ,Barlow Su op tbe ha. jOt that he was unable to move, and he 11 0 1 b,_,, ape AO ' ,l * several hours before assistance cP.rne t . elan needle* conveyed home by three men. and a who proamiced him in a kovorioue • : ‘ ,.... C . c1N: lift, o• 7 ' Bl l4eks 4,. 116 'N lIIL Si t i o SToc pith e i 75 , 6t a IViP (1° 4 1 0 1 ; !! ll gil-Ls, i lg l 4 l , 11 . 1 t1 . •01 1 ,. ho A, a ‘i 1( u uttikekAß 14OXI Ks , tl` . f (i HT .4 kik T Ms, t'eqkh . k i t % / 1 0 ti Ni; rj l 4 l l 14 q„ Bi t 4,81411. A U oD ' a 1 Co N „ an 4 Y e t t/ll T° Y3 o. 12, J KLO L 1 . „ ORR t 6c 0 o B 1 11 Op tk, t 411; GI 144(Inans at B A; ° 0 T tt 0 And T / I 'o 4 kbt Ll:t rl ' n ° ° ll , ' n th ( qtto obta rt accol ) 14 0 ,_ vit, t 17