The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-02 00:00:00

..„ .„

y~~~l~.'

A REAL OrriTRRENCE.

Which is the happiest death io ate
Oh said one " if I might choose
Long at the gate of bliss would I lie,
And feast my spirit ere it fly.
With bright celestial views.
Mine were a lingering death without pain,
A death which all might love to see;
And mark how bright and sweet should be,
The victory I should gain !
Fain would I catch a hymn of love
Prom the angel harps which ring above;
.And sing it as my partinc, breath
Quivered and expired in death—
So that those on earth might hear
The harp-notes of another sphere,
And mark when nature faints and dies,
What springs of heavenly life arise,
And gather from the death they view,
A ray of hope to light them through
When they should be departing too."

No," said another, "so not I
Sudden as thought is the death I would die;
1 would suddenly lay "my 4backles by,
Nor bear a single pang at parting,
Nor see a tear of sorrow starting,
Nor hear the quivering lips that bless me,
Nor feel the hands of love that press me,
Nor the frame, with mortal terror shaking,
• Nor tire heart, where loVe's soft bands are breaking—
' So would I die!
Alt hliss without a pang to cloud it !
All joy,without a pain to shroud it!
Ncit'slain, but caught up, as it were)
To meet my Saviour in the air!
So would I die.
Oh hovitibright
' 'Al4re th'e realms of light
Bursting at once upon my sight!
Even so.
I long to go,
These parting hours, how sad and slow ;"

His voice grew faint, and fix'd was his eye,
As if gazing on visions of eestacy ;
The hue of his cheek and lips decreed
Around his mouth a sweet smile pleyed—
They look'd—he wasdead—
H is spirit had fled,
Painless and swift as his own desire;
The soul undreseil
From her mortal vest,
And stepp'd in her car of heavenly fire—
And proved how bright
Were the realms of light,
Bursting at once uporrthe sight.
—Dithein Record.

cONTE,IIPOR4RY PRESS.

- ROMISII OATHS.
(From the Dublig Record )
We are always gratified when we find the Popish
an jour-
nals making even attempt to defend their people from
the heavy charges trought against them, for some gleaM
of light may therefrom arise on a few of the bonds Men,
several of whom we believe to be unconscious victims of
the system-by which they are enslaved. It is not often,
however, that such gratification is afroided us: in gene
ral, a discreet silence is observed:on all tender points by
the Jesiiil press, which is made to pass with their poor,
benighted dupes, for dignified contempt toward us igno-
rant heretics. We have little,doubk, that when an ex-
ception to this rule takes place,' it proceeds from some
half-trained combatant, who had not previously essayed
the temper of his tiny sword. We imagine, :also; that
the rash deed draws. down the rebuke of some of the
more experienced Janissaries of Popery, for the impru-
dent attempt is,not speedily repeated.
. The Freeman's Journal, one of the least effective, bp -cause one of the most open-tongued advocates of priest-
craft and revolution, waxed extra-valiant last week on
the' presentation of the Protestant petition by Mr.
Plumptre. We shall quote the Freeman's explanation
and defence of the parliamentary conduct of the Ro=
manist members :—.
"It may be well, (says our orthodox contemporary) for par-
ties outside the walls of the legislature to continue their un-
meaning and absurd attempts upon the Catholic rneinhers—it
these can be called attempts which evapOrate in unheeded de
nunciations and abuse—but we suggest that it is a most flagrant
ofnindonment of die principle of the emancipation bill to PERMIT
these insulting demonstrations inside the walls of the House of
Commons. (Pretty good this, in the present state of Romanis
supremacy Catholic's have been permitted to enter within
the gates of the constitution, and some care should he taken to
preserve them from such gross attacks upon their character and
honour as-Mr. Plumptre has made, through the agency of a pe-
tition, originating froth a body of fools and
,knaves. [What
would our gentle friend think of Some of the minor apparatus of
the inquisition—such as thumb-screws and gags—being hung
above Mr. Abercrombie's chair; to be applied by his liberal.
whig-radical hands to any person who dare to say thatblack was
not white?] The petition (continues our acute contemporary)
is in itself so absurd, and the question of perjury has grown so
old and worn, that it is scarcely, woith while to allude to the
mistake under which the honest reasoners on this subject (if any
such there be) most plainly labour.
The oath which the Cathdlic members take is binding on
them to support the church'as by law established. These words
have an anticipative as well as a retrospective effect, for other-
wise the absurdity would he too gross even for Mr. Plumptre
himself. ' The 'Changes which constantly take place' in every
establishment are so numerous and unavoidable, 'that an oath
- which would bind the conscience Of the subject in 1829 to a
certain order, would be nseless'id 1838, inasmuch' as the whole
face of things might have silently and almost imperceptibly
changed. [Coed—but infinitely better is to follow.] .It is true
that the Catholic members disclaim and dicorOw brig Wenti* of
disturbing the church 'as by law established,l-4MarkThe
Je-
suit, how he understates the oath t/ey do not disclaim any
intention of availing themselves of their legislative character and
capacity to change, modify, or ABOLISH the law which 'gives
VITALITY to the establishment. flow absurd it would be to be-
stow the character of a legislator on a man who is prevented by.
an oath from availing himself of it! But no such preventative
Check was ever designed by Sir Robert Peel—at least he is not
found vindicating its existence in the House of Commons."
This is pretty well, for so much.
NOw we beg to ask the writer of the foregoing in-
structive observations—whether he be Doctor APHale
himself, or the editor of his private-property journal
we most humbly beg leave to inquire of him,—lf the
oath in question were not intended to bind Romanist
members " in their legislative character and,capacity,"
in what character and capacity was,, it the intention of
the legislature of
_that, day to operate on the orthodox
worthies? Was it proposed to operate on them, outside
,the walls of Parliament ? Not to dwell on the gross ab-
surdity of such a supposition, we should find matters
worse and worse—the perjury committed still more
g rr larin—if we adopted it. how many sworn "joints
of the tail" were implicated in the anti:tithe conspiracy ?
how many were actual leaders in it—actual concoctork
Of it ? . Was the oath to bear any meaning at all ? And
if it were, what was that meaning? Will the• Freethan
take compassion on our ignorance, and condescend to
answer this question ?
However, the npshot of the matter seems to be that,
according to the Freeman's confession, the Rornanists,
swear them as you will, are not to be hound, "in their
legislative character and capacity,". from laying violent
bands on the Protestant Church. The honest journal
of the Jesuits—for we understand that its patron, Dr.
APHale, succeeded the late Dr:Dovle as Irish General
of the trustworthy order of Loyola—the very candid 'or-
gan of that order assures us, that our goodly Popish le-
gislators are not to ,be restricted from depriving the
Church Establishment of its "
,vitality," which last rear
meant an operation somewhat worse than an " IriSh
kill" !
We have always insisted on it that Papists had no se-
curity to offer to Protestantism, except their total exclu-
sion from power ! .Welt—the Freeman most uniqoiva-
cally confirms cur allegation, and to the letter bears us
nut in claiming a repeal- of the act of 1829. Doctor
Drnmgoole, in his celebrated " Cat-out-of-the-bag"
speech, gave similar testimony in 1813. Fli! said,
(speaking of Romanists' oaths to abstain from injuring
the EStablished Church :
" Are these the.securitiea that are sought for the protection of
tla'e Protestant church ? If so, she cannot nbtaim them. * • *
No ! if the Church of England trembles for ft. safety, it must
seek it elsewhere; we have
,no security to give."
This was ,an honest, candid man. He spoke the
truth, as the Freeman now distinctly assures us,-and as
the event has proved..
Ho-Weyer, before
,we conclude, let us refresh the Free-
man's memory by a question or two. Was it not the
,Common reply of .Mr. O'Connell
.and others, before
" eniancipation" was granted, and when bigots like our-
selves ventured to hint the fugitive: nature of Popish
oaths in a case like that under consideration, was it not
their constant gnd indignant answer, " What keeps us
out
.Of parliament, but our conscien! ions scruple at taking
an oat!i?''' 'Was not this also the hackneyed reply of
their parliamentary.advocates? When a member of the.
parliament of 1829—proposed that Roman Catholics
should'not he entitled to vote on any' questionaffecting.
the interests of the Pi•otestant chtirch,..was not the pro-
Position met by a declaration that the oath intended to
be imposed on theca, and which they now tnke,':was far
.better security than their abstinence from voting on those
questions "because," said their advocates, ." they might
-then feel themselves at liberty do influence the votes of
ministers and other's,
,by offering .a quid pro quo, but
'when you bind them by an oath, you prevent that ?"
ill the Freenuin please to reconcile these sturdy.facts:
with its denial that there was any intention rotund them,
by the said oath, "in their legislative character anti
•
capacity ?" ' • ,

Mr: William .Forbes Mackenzie, tiro member for
.Peebles-.
shire, hai,been lately Confined with an attack of the, small-pot.
AGES OF THE _PRESENT M INISTRY.— Having before us the
years in which the members of the present administration were
born, we make out their ages as follows :—Lord Melbourne,
prime minister, is in -his 58th. Lord Cottenham, 56; Lord
Lansdowne-, president.' or the council, 57; Lord Puncannon,
privy 'seal, 56: Lord ,Johinussell, hoMe department, 45; Lord
Palmerston. :eign secretary, 53; Lord Glerilg, colonial se-
cretary, 54; Lord Holland, duchy of Lancaster, 64; Lord
-I\linto, admiralty,
.n 5 ; Lord Lichfield, post office, 42; Lord
Langdale, master rif the roll's, 52; Lord HOwick, seyketary at
war, 35; Mi. Sprinz Rice:, ChaircePor of tbe'eichequer. 47;
Sir John IlobhotiF-ejoa.rd of control, 50; Sir flucsey Vivian,
master of ordri,,:,e, 62; Lord Mulgrave, ford lieutenant of
Ireland, 49; Lor , Plunkett, lord chancellor of ditto, 63; Lord
Morpotb, chief secretary of ditto, 35.