The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-30 00:00:00

THE REV. HUGH M'NEILE AND DR. BUTLER

It is perhaps quite unnecessary to notice the perversions
and mis-statements of any advocate of the Popish system ;
but as the talents and scrupulous fidelity of Dr. Butler have
been much lauded by the party to which he belongs, and the
radical press of Liverpool, we cannot refrain from alluding
to one or two of his remarks at St. Anthony's Chapel on
Sunday evening last. It will be remembered that this gen-
tleman, on his arrival here, undertook to reply to the admir-
able lecture of the Rev. Hugh M'lsleile, preached five years
since at St. Michael's Church, in this town, and to refute
each and all the arguments advanced therein. It was also
announced in the most pompons style, that this great gun of
the Papacy was ready to meet any Protestant divine, to dis-
cuss with him the truth or falsehood of the Popish doctrines;
being, no doubt, inflated with a foolish confidence that, be-
cause the clergy of Ireland had not deigned to notice his
boasting challenges, he would meet with a similar reception
here, and could then duly notify his fancied triumph. He
has, however, been woefully deceived, as would be observed
from the correspondence in the STANDARD of Friday last.
The Rev. Mr. Baylee, of Woodside, professed his willingness
to meet this vaunting controversialist; but the high tone of
challenge was quickly laid aside, and an invitation to hear
from him " the pure gospel of the blessed Jesus" placed in
its stead. The gauntlet was then taken up by Mr. Baylee,
who stated his readiness to prove " the apostacy of the
Church of Rome," the " schism of Popery," and the " catho-
licity of the Church of England." To this Dr. Butler has
not yet given any reply.
We now proceed to show the obstinate blindness and evi-
dent prevarication of this reverend doctor, whilst giving
utterance to a series of unprovoked attacks on the character
and name of a gentleman he would do well to imitate—the
Rev. Hugh M`Neile. After some passing remarks, the
lecturer stated that, in Mr. Wisieile's " endeavour to prove
the Church of Rome tyrannical, he had only referred to the
case of Mr. Galway, a Roman Catholic, of the county of
Waterford, in whose house the priest of the parish had re-
fused to celebrate mass, in consequence of a dispute between
him and the Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese"—and
then expatiated upon the conduct of Mr. M`Neile in prying
into the private concerns of such respectable parties as Mr.
and Mrs. Galway, and wound up by telling his audience that
this was the only instance adduced to prove that the Church
of Rome was tyrannical.

It will, perhaps, not occasion much surprise to our readers
to learn that in the preceding page of the sermon to that from
which Dr. Butler was quoting. Mr. M'Neile brings forward
another very significant fact, illustrative of the principle for
for which he was contending, viz. the refusal of the Venetian
republic in 1604, to admit the temporal authority of the
Bishop of Rome, and the proceedings consequent upon that
refusal are detailed at length on the page, which must have
been before Dr. Butler's eyes at the very time he was declar-
ing so positively that the former instance of tyranny was the
only one advanced by Mr. 111'Neile. So much for this part
of the story ; and now let us see what becomes of Mr.
M'Neile's curiosity in prying into the private concerns of
a domestic circle. Mr. Galway was naturally indignant at
such treatment as we have alluded to, and wrote to the
bishop to remonstrate. He received no answer, and wrote
a second letter, which, with the former, he published in the
newspapers a few weeks prior to Mr. M'Neile's remarks.
The latter gentleman mentioned, in the most delicate man-
ner, the facts as detailed by Mr. Galway, in the documents
so made public, and appears purposely to have refrained from
any comments on such a nefarious transaction. And this is
called " prying into the private concerns of Mr. Galway."
Surely our radical friends must now be ashamed of their ad-
vocate, and the putdic will know from the instances we have
given, at 'what rate to estimate the asseverations of Dr.
Butler.