The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-12-31 00:00:00

'FROM THE REV. HUGH M`NEILE TO THE
EDITOR OF THE " SCOTSMAN.'

SIR,—I hope your sense of fairness, to which you allude
with reference to theitisertion of Bishop Gillta's letter, will
prove sufficiently impartial to induce you to insert my reply.
The bishop begins with a sneer at our protestant meetings,
and an assertion that, however safe we may be in *peaking
to an ignorant audience; it is a bold experiment, on our part,
to allow our 'speeches toile printed. This comes well from
a bishop of that. ecclesiastical system which incarcerated
literature for centuries, 'amid which even now
.presents her
dogmas to audiences in an unknown tongue—never
using the language of the people, except so. far as surround-
ing protestantism codpels her to save appearances. So long
as the vain inventions and superstitious traditions of men,
which made void the commandments of Godgwere entombed
in monkish Latib, it fared well with the arrogance and tyranny
of the papal system. But alas! " cum statutum esset, ut
cultosdivinus, eo useuein Latino itliciniate absolutus,.tron-
sirelin vernaculum :f- and when -the' refoemers pronounced
it to be " a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and
the custom of the primitive church to have public prayer in
the church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not
understood of the people;" that is, when what certain per-
sons, said to ignorant audiences, came to be submitted to
examination and argument,
.the papacy tottered to its base ;
and but for the seasonable institution of the Jesuits, support-
ing, by perfidy the most accomplished, what had become en-
dangered by inquiry, it would have been utterly prostrated.
One practice of jesuitical perfidy is, to deny publicly what is
secretly maintained and covertly propagated—to deny upon
oath, if need be, what is nevertheless propagated by autho-
rity. This has been recently illustrated by the conduct of
the papal prelates in Ireland, who denied, before committees
of the British parliament; and disclaimed, as never published
to their knowledgsfin Ireland, obnoxious documents of papal
intolerance, which the same prelates caused to be circulated,
with their sanction, among all the priests, the instructors of
all the " ignorant audiences" of their enslaved people. If
Bishop Gillis deny this, and challenge me and my friends
to the proof, he shall have it in circumstantial detail, with
names and dates. If he do not ask for it, it will be, I pre-
sume, because he knows all this already.
And yet he accuses protestants of rashness in having recourse
to printing! That such a charge should emanate from such a
quarter, supplies but another illustration of the 'condemning
and betraying power of conscience. Those who are most'famis
liarised, with treason will he always the most forward to accuse
othe'r's of being traitors.
The main object of the bishop's letter is to exculpate, if
poiaible, the class-book of Maynooth, BAILLY'S MORA',
THEOLOGY, from the guilt of teaching such doctrine as rens
ders it impossible to bind his disciples by an oath under the
British constitution.
Upon this point, I am sorry to say, I have a most, pain-
ful ebservation to make at the outset. The bishop, after
contradicting my statement concerning Bailly's doctrine,
introduces The quotation thus, " But let the words of
• Ilailly-be orsce-fiziek quieted." For once fairly !,
And what is the inevitable inference but that Mr.
M'Neile had quoted them unfairly? Is it possible to
doubt that the bishop intended to convey that meautng ?
Is it possible to deny that he has succeeded in convey-.
ing that meaning? If that be not his meaning, r have-a right
toask him to say distinctly what he does mean hy saying " let
the words of Bailly befor once fairly quoted?'' And if that
be his meaning, what will our readers think -of his candour,
when they observe that his quotation froinliailly is verbatim
et literalim the same with mine, as it was read in the meet-
ing, and as it was printed immediately afterwards in the Ad-
vertiser ? The words of Bailly were fairly quoted by me.
The bishop introduces them with "Let the words of 'Badly
be for owes fairly quoted! " There really seems to be a
moral incapacity in every Roman ecclesiastic to do or write
anything with streitshtforward honesty.
Upon this bishop a own showing, however, the only quota-
tion I professed to give from Bailly was correctly and perfectly
given. Compared with his own quotation, there'is no flaw in
either the 'accuracy or the completenessof mine. • -
This is so far satisfactory ; but the bishop denies my infer-
ence and says, " There is not in the whole course of Bailly's
Theology, a treatise, a chapter, or a page in which any such
doctriueis taught as that attributed to him by Mr. W.Neile,
but quite the reverse." This then is the matter in debate.
To make good my assertion, I revert to the two charters at
p.p. 119 and 120, of the second volume of Bailly. 'The first
is headed causes hindering the obligation of an oath (causie
impedientes, obligationem juramenti.) The second, causes
removing the obligation of an oath (causse tollentes, oblige.
tionem juramenti.)
These of themselves seem strange to the ears of protest-
ants, who are used to consider an oath so sacred and para-
mount, that once taken, no cause can either hinder or remove
a Christian man's obligation to keep it.
Not so, however, this popish professor of morale : he enu-
merates seven causes which hinder, and five which remove,
the obligation of an oath. The first-mentioned cause which
hinders the obligation of an oath is what Bailly calls a defect
of liberty, (defechis libertatis), which is thus explained,
(nulls enim obligatio 'sine libertate et animi deliberatione
centrahi potest.) For no obligation can be contrasted with-
out liberty and deliberation of mind.
Now, if this had been assigned as a reason why an oath
should not be taken at all, we could understand and agree
With the statement ; for it is the plain duty of a Christian
Man to refuse to contract an obligation, however urged to it,
which he has not liberty to fulfil. Suppose a Christian man,
' seized by a heathen prince, and threatened with instant death
if he did not bow down to Juggernaut, our doctrine is, that
his defectus libertatis should prevent him from swearing, he
should rather die than commit either perjury or idolatry.
Bailly's doctrine supposes him to swear, and assigns his de-
fect of liberty as a reason (impedien.s obligationemjuramenti)
why he has incurred no obligation. Now, if a man may
swear to save his life, and in swearing inetir no obligation to
perform the thing sworn, why not to save his church ?• But
we are not left to an inference for this.
The second cause preventing an oath from imposing an
obligation (inspediens ne juramentum protnissorium obli.ga-
tirmem inducat) is the opposition of the law resistantia
" Quando juramentum fit de re illicita, et per legem
prohibita etiani venialiter, tune vim non habet obligandi.
Enim vero juramentum non est vinculum iniquitatis : ne-
moque potest abligari ad pecandum. Non est obligatorium
contra bonos mores prasstitum juramentum.—Regul. Juris,
• lviii. in 6. Hine non obligat juramentum de re quse sit in
daninum tertii—c. x.rtiii. de jurej. Vel contra bonuin pub-
ileum ant legem divinam ant ectlesiasticani, cut eivilem."
" When an oath is made concerning an unlawful thing, pro-
hilaited even venially by the law, then it.has not authority
to oblige ; for an oath cannot be the bond, of iniquity, and
no one can be obliged to_ sin. Au oath taken against good
. morals is not obligetory ; hence, an oath dee,s not oblige if
it be tp•the iniury Ora third perion, or againstthe public good,
or the drilne law, or the ecelesiaetical law, or the civil law.-"
13vt WAY; we aAI should such an oatls. be takesk.at all
Bailly, all through' this, suppOses the oath reacEer, and not
Oi.ndsng. Tier,: is our complaint against him : -because,-to
secify cases in which an oath is not binding, and still to
'allow tla#,Oaiths iu such cases snag be taken, is systematically=
jo'keep an open door for deception ; the practical application
of the pOost, now before us fully justifies my assertions in
Idinburgli ; because, if an oath, taken against what papists
call their- eeclesiestical . law, be nut binding., then no oath
which respects the interests or even the -existence of pro-
testantismecan be bindiug. It. is notorious that, tlee3'. are
taught to consider protestentism e., heresy) a sin ; and
that to aid or abet it is a sin ; nay, that not to oppose and
extirpate it, if possible, is a sin. But no oath can oblige a
men to sin," says'%illy, and "oaths against ecclesiastical
law lire not binding.',', Again we ask, then, why take the*?
rn
According to Roish doctrine, the perjury of a papist who
swears not to injure the protestant church consists not in.!
breaking the oath, but in taking it. How, then, can a pa-
pist be bound by an, oath under the British constitution ?
The third cause which hinders the obligation of an oath is,
" wheat lteepieg it would prevent some greater good opposed
to the-tiring promised in the oath" (impeditio niajoris boni
oppositi ref per juramentum pronaissw) ; the explanatory
sentence given iv, "-as if you were to swear that you would
not obey the commands of Christ" (ut si jures to non esse
Christi conciliis obsecutarum). Again, and with increasing
emphasis, we ask, why tekesehy suppose a man, under any
''ciicnrnstances, to take such an infamous oath ? Is it not to
familiarisiethe mind with false swearing? Is it not to culti-
vate an ingenuity in evading,* rather than a holy, reverential
dread in taking an oath?
The fourth cause is, " the impossibility of the thing
sworne for, by'a mile of law, there is no obligation to things
impossible." (Quarta causa juramenti obligationern impe-
diens, est relpromissse impossibilitas ; narn ex regula juris,
impo:esibiliurn 'Huila eat obligatio.) The same enquiry recurs.
Why, then, take the oath ? To go through the whole trea-
tise thus would swell my letter to an inconvenient size. If,
therefore, I omit anything, it is not to garble the quotation,
or make a case, but simply to avoid needless length—l pass
therefore five and -Six.
" The seventh cause or ground of excuse (I adopt Bishop
Gillis's-translation) from the obligation of an oath is, a limi-
tation of the intention of him who swears either expressed
or even tfigitS hutinederstood from provisions of law or from
ceniteine'! cause a juramenti obligatiOne excusans
est,' litnitatin'iritelitionis jurantis vel expressa.vel etiam tacita
et sibintelk-Ctii 'dispositione juris vel ex consuetudine;)
The bishop reMarki : " This Mr. 'M'Neile is pleased to-
transmute into, mental reservation' at the moment the
oath is taken,..and*hich, according to him, is quite sufficient
to preVent its ohligitiOn on -the conscience of a catholic.:
Now, with all due deference to Mr. M'Neile's better jade-
ment, Iwoald say that this charitable interpretation of his
bears its own refutation in the very words in which it is
couched, for all the world knows that a mental reservation is
what is kepl.back'in the mind, whereas, whatever is either
.expressed or understood is necessarily 'brought forward to
the knowledge of others."
To, this, I, reply, first, that what is silently understood
"eaciteaubinteilecta" is precisely what isnot" brought for-
wardeothe knowledge of others, but what is kept back in
the mind. -Andeif it be argued that the silent understandine
.0 i-eferrecl• lois a mutual understanding from Provishmsof law
or custom, so that there is no deception, I answer, that this
prissupposesthat both parties have the same defined views of
the law and custom in question; for if the swearer under-
stand- one thing by his silent reference to law and custom,
and the party to whom he swears understand another thing,
theu there is' deception. This is precisely the fact' be-
okeen papists and the British constitution. The 'paepish
est/eager refers silently in his mind to *hat"he. Understands
by the -taw- otecustotn ; and the British par/hunt-at refers to
what it understands by the law or custortt:' This it not a
'defined, adjusted, and mutually recognises Understanding,
andlhereforil thertsts,deception.. lii theiniftiriees will& the
bishop, hasoeitett'ofetheeoath taken at CambridgeSnfidethe
oathof atiegianne3althe'crown- Of England, there ira legally
elained and troititelt9itetogiiised the'ottihitAelf
,41iot 'at til-.of 414 Wrtsintitin a the ther'et&ie,
it/seri:fir nsdeeplotion... mit* 'rig there Eby need for any bite
of Bailly!s-se!effleotinds of .etctise for exemption from the
obligation of in oeth: ' The'bishOp's attention is respectfully
•recittested,to 111 is disttinetion e--A limitation- of the 'oath is
-one thingeand a limitation of the intention of the swearer
.(intsntionis •jurantis,‘ as Bailly hay it), is quite another
T • • •

In our oath of allegiance there is a limitation of the oath
expressly defined by rfra.w (esto sm:rpetna,) but no limitation of
thaintention of the swearer either expressed or understood.
an a popish' bishop's oath of allegiance to the crown of Eng-
:land, there is a limitation of the intention of the swearer
either expressed by " saving-by right" (salvo meo jure,) de
tacitly understood from the custom of the confessional. In
illustration of this, I would refer the bishop to the evidence
taken before the parliamentary committees in 1821 and 1825.
On the following clause in the oath of allegiance proposed
for papists—," I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and
make known to his majesty and his heirs all treasons and
traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or
them," Dr. Doyle was asked, before the lords' committee—
" When crimes, such as murder or treason, are revealed in
confession, is the confessor bound not to disclose that?" His
answer was---" He is bound not to disclose it in any case
whatever." " Has not !such disclosure been allowed at
Rome ?" " Never." To which the Right Rev. James Ma-
ysauran, popish bishop in Ardagh, added, in his evidence :
" If a crone is intended, and if it is made known to him in
confession only, he cannot divulge it." With this informa-
tion on the subject of the inviolable secrecy of the confessional,
before them, the committee said to Dr. Doyle—" It has been
sometimes proposed by those who have had apprehensions of
danger from conceding the Roman catholic claims, that
Roman catholics should he called upon when they take the
oath of allegiance to the king, at the same time to swear that
they will make known to his majesty any treason or treason-
able designs which they may know to be meditated against
him ; from what you have now informed the committee, you
could not take such an oath ?" His answer is characteristic,
assuming that his duty as a popish confessor takes precedence
of his duty as a British subject : it is this—" The secrets
communicated in confession are such as we are supposed to
become acquainted with as ministers of the sacrament of
penance ; and in that capacity' we do not consider ourselves
bound by the oath of allegianCe which we take to reveal
tee-
,

1

crets committed to us in that way; and, as our right of con-
fession is known to the laws, and our doctrines with regard
to it universally acknowledged to exist in our .church, the
oath which hinds us to discover any treason against the state,
or his majesty, does not oblige us to reveal anything. with
which we might become 'acquainted in sacramental con-
fession."
It is true the rite of confession is known, and certain dec.
trines concerning it are universally acknowledged to exist in
the popish church ; but then, these doctrines are not all
clearly defined and mutually recognised, and, therefore, there
was an opportunity for mental honesty, on his part, at the
moment there was an operation of practical deception upon
the committee. In other instances, the same want of mutual
understanding gives opportunity for mental dishonesty.
What, for example, does a popish bishop usean by salvo nzeo
jure, and what does he understand the parliament to think he
means? If .they think, or he supposes they think, that he
'means something entirely spiritual, and wholly unconnected,
directly or indirectly, with polities, while be really, means his
right to ',hake the -sacraments of his church instruments of
coercive tyranny at the registries, and on the hustings, and
in the senate house, for the advancement of the supremacy
of his master the pope, then his oath is fraudulent,- and his
aim deception. 13ailly's Treatise encourages this species of
deception. One of the illustrating examples adduced by him
tinder this head, of the limitation of the intention of the
swearer, is " saving the right of another" (salvo jure alieno).
Suppose, then, the popish swearer should refer in his mind
to the right of the pope, which it is his religious duty to do,
the effect produced upon his oath will be made clear, by con-
sidering what follows in Bailly, under the head of " causes
removing the obligation of an oath" (causer tollentes, Src.)
" The first cause which wholly removes the obligation of an
oath, is a change of the matter—to wit, if the thing sworn
become impossible or. unlawful on account of the prohibition
of a superior, &c. &c. (Prima cause juramenti obligationem
perimens, est materim nintatiO ; videlicet, si res jurata fiat
impossibilis, vel illicila ob superioris prohibitioneln). Hence
it follows that every sincere disciple of Bailly must feel him-
self completely released from the obligation of an oath, by a
prohibition from the pope. This, also, has" received a re-
markable illustration in'• our own times. The case of the
Bishopof Malta, brought before the House of Lords by. the
Bishop of Exeter, has made public the pope's prohibition of
the parliamentatlasath administered to. papists. The Bishop
cif Malta, tscling nsin straitlstforWard irassalef the pnee, witli-
•-ont any: isidihreet dhjece view, hai 'refused' to take it.. The
Irish- papist reemberS instructed laY priests
tersesisin TheelogyS IMie taken the oath to worn-
plish'their pnroese in Englettel,ind are freed from the
autism :of it by a prohibition from 'Rome. Badly teaches that
the:prohibition: of a superior removes the obligatiOn of an
oath: Thelaets referred to prove that the great superior of
the papisrs-haa isSned a prohibition against the parliamentary
oath. It follows, therefere, that whatever may he said cone
cerning the papal' clutifulnesS of those who eontinite to take
it, no genuine disciple Of Badly, who' has taken it;.can feel
himself unekv the leastt'oblitetiots keep it. "'flit third
cause which removes'tbe Obligation of an bath is if another
keep not his promise: Thereasoit assiined is,l;ecause the
oath is made under the silent condition, if another keep his
promise and fulfil Iris obligatinn." • (Tertia cause jeramenti
obligationern Linens est, si alter non 'set-*at promissa c. 3
Jurejur. Ratio est quia emittitur jerarnenfum sub bac ta-
cita conditione si alter sertat'promissa et snarl' obligationem
impleat.) Thus the fidelity'Of every' genuine disciple of
Bailly, when be swears, is contingent pion the fidelity of the
person to whom he swears, hi the performance of what is sie
dently understood to be his part of the obligation`;: and as
this obligation is not expressly defined, the swearer can at
any time so conveniently interpret the conduct of the other
party as to pronounce it unfaithful, and thereby feel himself
released from all obligation of fidelity. How different the
protestant and scriptural view of the case which commends
him wild when he bath sworn to another disappointeth him
not, though it be to his own hindrance. The bishop's as-
sertion, that " there is no difference Whatever with respect
to oaths, between 'catholic doctrine, and protestant doctrine,"
is already answered ; and although not fully, yet, I hope, so
far satisfactorily. I nuist, however farther remind him that
every beneficed clergyman of his church is bound by oath to
the creed of Pope Pius IV., and through it to all the canon
law, and 'all the.decrees of all the general councils.
- This being premised, I request the bishop's attention to the
few following documents, to which lie will look in vain for
any parallel amongst the standards of the reformed church.
He should remember when he quotes Grotius, that we are
in no way bound by the statements of that author. The case
cited frova his writings by the bishop, is one of a change of
circumstances after the oath had been taken, and not a case
of limitation of the intention is the persons taking it. The
soldiers swore to theEsteertoa, and they were naturally and
honestly embarrassed when the individual, who had been em-
peror when they took the oath, ceased to be emperor.
The standards of the popish church are not so scrupulous
as those heathen soldiers seem to have been. -The sixteenth
canon of the second Lateran council says, that an oath may,
and ought to be violated, when it is " contrary to the utility
of the church ;" and the third canon of the same council de-
clares, that. " all oaths against the interests of the church,
and the decress of the holy fathers, arc not to be accounted
oaths but perjuries." (Non enirn dicenda sunt juramenta,
sed potius perjuria (litre contra utilitatein ecclesiasticam, et
sanctorum patrum veniunt institute.) A .decree of the
nineteenth session of the council of Constance, one of the
largest ever assembled, says, " this present synod declareth
that the safe conduct granted to heretics by an emperor,
king, or any other secular prince, shall not prevent any eccle-
siastical judge from punishing such heretic, even if he come
to the place of judgment relying on such safeguard, and
would not otherwise come—(etiam side salvo conductu
confisi ad locum venerint judicii, alias non venturi.)
The council of Trent distinctly recognised the canon of
Constance; and, as there has been no general council since,
the doctrine which declares against keeping faiths with here-
tics, cannot have been struck out of the popish creed by any
competent authority.
In the decretals we are informed that simulation is useful,
and sometimes lawful. (Simulatio utilis est, et in Apt, pore
assumenda.) Again, an oath ought to be so understood that
it should not oppose a right: (of a superior) ; otherwise, as
being a rash oath, it does not oblige. And pontificalia auc-
toritas a juramento fidelitatis absolvit. " Pontifical autho-
rity absolves from an oath of fidelity or allegiance." Does
the British constitution recognize the right of the Pope to
remove the obligation of an oath from British subjects?
Surely not. But every Popish priest who is true to his
church, and every Papist who is instructed by -Badly, does
and must : consequently, when a Papist, swearing under The
British constitution, whether in a jury box or at the table of
the House of Commons, either expresses in words, or secret-
ly understands salvo fare alien°, meaning thereby to reserve
_what lie believes to be the Pope's right, he is guilty of trea-
chery ; because he produces, wilfully, upon English Protes-
tants the impression alorehe ' Wound"
is by chat -oath d-s- They
would be, while he knows, as a Papist, that if the Pope issue
his prohibition to the keeping of the oath, that prohibitio etz-
perioris removes the obligation. froin .him. Such• was the
Itnistatio intentionis of the swearer.
I-feel obliged to Bishop Gillis for giving me such an op-
portunity cf stating the matter more distinctly and in order,
than is.practicable in the extemporaneous hurry of a public
meeting. I have only to add, concerning the charge of wil-
fully confounding oaths with vows, that it is wholly unfound-
ed. I kept -them as distinct as Bailly does. The bishop
knows that in some respects they are not to bedistinguished.
Bailly, when explaining a dispensation or commutation of en
oath given by a superior, says, " ut ostendemus übi de voto.
In hoc enim vote et juramenta mquiparantur." In this`point
of view, vows and oaths are on the same footing. altruist
leave unnoticed the bishop's burst of eloquence in defence of
the convent, whose heaven-condemned idolatries exhale to
Popish senses " no other odours than the perfumes o
flowers "

The bishop's concluding sting being directed against the
" reverend graduates" of Edinburgh, will doubtless be re=
pelled in the proper quarter. To swear to the creed of Pius
IV., thereby endorsing all the canons and general councils,
with all their perfidy and intolerance, and then to talk
smoothly about charity and brotherly love, what is it but to
hang upon a man's forehead the apostolical_ label of the apos-
tacy, " speaking lies in hypocrisy." . -
• I am, sir, &c.
Liverpool, Dec.l23, 1839. HUGH RI`NEILE.

CHURCH RATES.

(From the Nottingham Journal.)

A new species of martyrdom has been invented, in these
modern days, by the fertile genius of political dissent. It is
not found in a peaceable submission to ecclesiastical require-
ments, as was the precept and example of our blessed Re-
deemer on the occasion of an unjustifiable lemple-rate being
demanded of him ; nor in bowing the willing and cheerful
spirit to the tortures of fire and sword, as was the experience
that " noble army," whose van was led by the sainted Ste-
phen, and whose rear was brought up by our own Ridley and
Latimer; neither does it consist in the resistance, to cruel
bonds and imprisonment, of that intolerant spirit which
would constrain men to conform to a church from which they
may conscientiously differ, as was the case with Baxter and
Banyan, and the other foes of the bigot rule of Charles 11.
The new. martyrdom consists in a refusal to pay live shillings
and sixpence when demanded by the laws of the land, a going
to prison in consequence of such refusal, and a sending round
.of a begging subscription in order to allow the " martyr" a
good per centage on his speculation. But on what ground is
the law resisted ? Oh, on the ground of conscience, of
course ! It is so very wrong to pay five shillings and sixpence
to the Protestant Church of England, that it is worth while
to shake the foundations of society by a direct resistance
to_ the . law, rather than the payment should be made.
. The money is only five shillings and sixpence, to be sure,
but were it only one halfpenny, the principle would be
the same ; the law ought to be violated for the sake of
that individtial helfpenny, for why, it is a compulsory pay-
ment to a-Church which is altogether an object of dislike. We
believe that the line of argument expressed in our last sen-
, tenee is exactly the one used by the political Dissenters in
the refusal to pay their church-rate debts. Now every per-
son in this country pays in the public taxes a proportion of
the expense of maintaining Popish priests in Canada and
Australia, and a whole seminary of them in Ireland. Yet we
do 'not hear of any refusal on the part of the tender con-
sciences of the dissenting community to pay their share of
this particular impost : we are 'not apprised that they make
'the slightest exertions even of a legal and hoafst nature to
remove from the nation the stigma of paying for the support
of Roman superstition. How then is coasciente;diSposed of?
'Are we to understand that. the rcfornied more:
odious- to the political dissenters than tfie corruptChnich of
Rome? We apprehend the truth to he, that it isihbre hated!
heeanse more feared, more We' -in ch
0 believe that it is because the' Chinch 'of Enslaxid ni4e
prospered- with divine and human favour than any other reli-
lious institution of the land, and especially than any of the
thousand-and-one dissenting sects, from the factiiin of Soei-
nits down to that of Robert Owen ; it is, moreover, because
,her ministers occupy a higher grade in society, and meet with
more general deference and respect than those of the various
" other denominations" (to use the cant term);—it is for rea-
sons such as these that the " dominant Church" excites the
vehement resistance of those who arc as gentle as lambs in
their Opposition to Popery.-
It was well remarked by Mr. Baron Gurney; on occasion
of' a recent church rate trial, that he had heard a great deal
about "conscientious" objections to paying dues of this and
other kinds ; but that lie had in the first place a great sus-
picion of that kind of conscience which was displayed in
saving the pocket ; and in the next place he generally found
that these legal demands were resisted rather by a spirit of
faction, than a sense of religious duty. Mr. Baron Gurney
is a Liberal, andthe only Dissenter moreover upon thebench ;
but he is a man of sound law and strong sense, and therefore
he sees through and condemns the shallow pretences which
are resorted to by the church rate agitators. This tax, the
most ancient and the best entitled of any public tribute that
is levied, has for its object the repairing and maintaining of
the fabrics of the parish churches ; edifices which are open
to the use of all, and which the State has decreed by imme-
morial custom—a law stronger than any Act of Parliament—
shall he supported in this manner. " Oh, but," say the
Dissenters, " we want nothing with your churches ; they are
of no use ; we find our own chapels, and keep them up at
our own expense, so we will not pay a farthing to your
churches." Very well; now suppose the case of a Gas
Company (for instance) which has obtained an Act with
power to levy rates upon the inhabitants of a certain town
for the lighting of their streets : every body pays 'this tax
except one '' conscientious" individual who has hung out
a light of his own for his particular premises. This man
refuses to pay anything to the general rate, because he has
provided a light for himself at his own expense, and never
has the least wish to make use of the general town lamps.
The Act of Parliament, however, does not make any ex-
ception in favour of this individual, and so he is obliged either
to pay with costs, or to go to prison. The wiseacre did not
consider that he had begun at the wrong end ; no one would
have objected to his getting up a petition to Parliament to