The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-06-21 00:00:00

tained."

Thus—contrary to what Mr. Lowe would lead us to
expect—does Michaelis contenance the very theory, of
Inspiration being wholly distinct from infallibility, which
is the characteristic of llfacnauyht on inspiration.

It may possibly be a satisfaction to the editor of the
Courier to know that Hartwell Horne—to whose " well
known and invaluable Introduction to the Scriptures" the
Courier's review (\lay 21) refers—describes the book above
quoted as " Michaelis' inestimable work."
Hoping Mr. Lowe will review himself and his own
writings, I am, sir, yours &c., VERAX.
June 20, 1856.

MACNAUGHT ON INSPIRATION,

TO THE EDITOR or THE NORTHERN TITRES.

Sir,—My attention was called late yesterday evening to
a letter in your paper of the same day signed " Verax," in
which the writer has brought himself to say " Mr. Lowe
misquotes the book he pretends to review; and then, from
his misquotation, he wilfully draws an inference whioh he
knows to be unjust !" Such is the statement which is made
in your columns against the character of a Christian
minister, by an opponent concealed behind the mask of a
fictitious signature. And I have no doubt that you will
allow me a little space in self-vindication. I had occasion,
before, in your columns, to decline replying to anonymous
letters, but this letter does not practically come under this
title. The peculiar style of the author is now t)o familiar
to the public to leave any doubt as to the authorship of this
communication. It is on this account that I request your
insertion of a few words in reply.
What, then, is the misquotation on which such a serious
imputation is founded ? I assure you that I had to read the
letter several times over befon I could myself understand
it, so innocent was I of any intentional misrepresentation.
And other gentlemen, I find, have been equally puzzled with
myself to ascertain the cause of complaint. But let me
give it in the words of " 'eras" himself :

In his fifth letter to the Courier Mr. Lowe quotes page 147
of lifacnaught on Inspiration thus : —" even the Spirit of the
truth, i.e., the spirit of my revelation!' The passage, in the
original, is printed thus : —" even the Spirit of the truth, i.e ,
the Sprit of my revelation." This difference, between the
large and the small letter s, might seem an unimportant error
of quotation if Mr. Lowe did not immediately proceed to infer
from it that his author " thus throws overboard the personality
of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter."
_ _

Now on this I remark. (1.) That the omission of the
capital S in the word Spirit, the second time it occurs, was
purely accidental, and whether made by myself or the
printer I cannot tell. (2.) That by whomsoever made it
affords no ground whatever fur the charge of misquotation,
inasmuch as to the same word is given the capital S in the
very same sentence, and in an equivalent clause. The whole
words imputed to our author standing thus : " Even the
Spirit of the truth, i.e., the spirit of my revelation." Surely
the capital S given to the word in the former clause implies
and requires it in the latter. And, surely, any one design-
ing to " miquote" the author would not have put it to
either. So that, after all, the sense is not affected by the
mistake of which such complaint is made. (3.) It is
obvious to remark that the eagerness and bitterness with
which this triflir: change of a letter is seized upon by your
correspondent, affords a strong proof of the general correct-
ness of my statements and arguments in the review to which
he refers. That review has, during five successive weeks,
occupied upwards of a dozen of columns of the Courier.
During all this time " Verax" has been looking on, and the
first opportunity he has had of making a statement
is this little and utterly unimportant mistake. But,
(4) I regret to be obliged to s:ey, in conclusion, that
your correspondent has been!guitty, in this short letter, of
the very thing which he has accused me, i.e., of misrepre-
sentation. I say this not behind tho cover of an assumed
signature, and I am most anxious to believe that it is purely
unintentional on his part--but any one reading his letter
would infer that my argument was founded on the use el
the small instead of the large S. He says that I " proceed
to infer from it," (i.e., plainly from the change of letters,)
a charge against the Essay which I review. And, in order
to make this appear, he changes the word " thus" into
italics, as though it referred to the charge of letter S, and
so evidently implies that I change the type in order to make
a false accusation ! Now, any one reading my letter, with
the least attention, must be aware that my argument refers
to the change of the translation (indeed I expressly say so,)
and has no reference whatever to " the letter s, " which is
actually correctly put in the very clause on which my argu-
ment is founded. S. that in the very act, and for the purpose,
of bringing so serious acharge against me for the change made
in the type of one letter, your correspondent actually
changes the type of seven ! Wishing him a happier
illustration of the sacred import of the signature which he
has adopted,

_
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
June 20th, 1856. JOSIAH B. LOWE.

SUGAR STATISTICS.

The following communication has just been addressed
to the editor of the Daily News :
Sir,—There is now again a great stir in sugar, owing,
as it is said, to the very largely increasing consumption.
This may be true, but the trade ought not to allow itself
to be misled by semi official statements such as the Trade
List of yesterday evening supplies, manifestly and grossly
incorrect as regards the quantities on which duty
has been paid, as long as this last operation is looked
upon as a good measure of consumption. The
quantity so given up to the end of last week
is 2,858,839 cwts, and up to the end of the preceding
week it was 2,614.340 cwts, showing an increase
in the week of 244,499 cwts, or, in round numbers,
12,225 tons. But on investigation of the various
elements of this statement, it is clear that, owing to an
error in the addition of the line appropriated to Brazil
sugar, the quantity has been overstated of that descrip-
tion by 132,000 ewes., or 6,600 tons, and thus, whilst we
are led to believe that duty has been paid on an enormous
quantity, the fact is quite otherwise. If this were the
first blunder of that kind, it might be passed over with
leniency ; but important errors have appeared in the
matter of sugar more than once in the Trade List. What-
ever may be the cause of this misleading statement, it
ought to be animadverted upon with severity, or the
public ought to discontinue looking at figures so entirely
worthless.—l am, &c., MERCATOR.
N.B —The above is not the only blunder in the sugar
figures ; but I leave the general correction of the Trade
List to men who have more leisure.

LONDON AND BRIGHTON AND SOUTH
COAST RAILWAY.

A special general: meting of this company was held on
Thursday at the London Bridge Hotel to consider' two
bills now before Parliament—one for authorising traffic
arrangements with the west end of London, and Crystal
Palace Railway Company, and the other for authorising
a lease of the Wimbledon and Croydon Railway. Mr.
Leo Schuster presided.
The Solicitor having read the items of the first bill,
The Chairman moved a resolution upon the subject,
observing that the west end terminus was proposed to be
made at Battersea, op,osite Sloane-street, Chelsea. The
company was to pay the West End Company a rent of
£B,OOO a year in consideration of the free use of their line
and terminus, and the providing of ample accommodation
for the Brighton traffic. The Brighton Company were to
work the line and find the rolling stock, for which they
were to receive 42 per cent. of the gross traffic receipts.
In order to get to or from the Middlesex side of the water
the traffic would have to cross the new Chelsea bridge,
which he believed would be a toll free bridge.
After a number of questions hail been satisfactorily
answered, the resolution was carried unanimously.
The Chairman then moved the second resolution,
explaining that the company was to lease the Wimbledon
and Croydon Railway for £1,820 a year. being 4 per cent
upon £45,000, the cost of the construction. The South
Western Railway Company were to participate in the
lease—they taking the part from Mitcham to Wimbledon,
and this company the portion between , Croyden and
Mitcham. He positively promised the shareholders that
there would be a profit from the line. This resolution
also was carried unanimously, and the proceedings ter-
minated.