The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-20 00:00:00

as personal liberality? (-Cheers.)
In addressing your lordship on the substance of these
words, I am not about to enter on any political speculations.
As a minister of our holy faith, it suits not the solemn objects
to which my life is devoted, to mingle in the turmoil of this
world's debate. Nor am I about to offer an opinion on the
immediate point at issue. Your lordship has thought proper
to put forth what is manifestly a cardinal principle, and one
that seems very popular in a quarter to which we are taught
to look with some reverence ; but which appears to me so
irreconcileable to the declared will of God, that I cannot rest
till I have unburdened my heart on the subject. The princi-
ple is this, that it is within the functions of wisdom, prudence,
and a well-directed liberality to contribute to the support of
a religion we believe to be a blasphemy. rather than leave our
neighbour without any religion at all. I put the principle in
an abstract form that it may be the better appreciated. And
lam justified in so doing—for it is plain that to a Jew the
worship of our Divine Redeemer appears a blasphemy, and,
consequently, that if his conscience be not violated by the
support of such worship, conscience can be under no obliga-
tion, in this respect, relative to any worship whatsoever.
It were trifling, my lord, with such a subject, were I to
stop to express my wonder at your lordship's unaccustomed
boldness in this gratuitous infliction on your dissenting
friends, whose oft-invoked scruples are thus unceremoniously
dismissed, and the storm these words must raise amongst
the enemies of the Established Church of every kind whose
" delenda est Carthago" is hereby set at nought. Sweeping
as is their condemnation of every foe to the establishment,
they are not a whit the more acceptable to its best and truest
friends. They amount, however, unintentionally, to an
abrogation of conscience. They make it matter, practically,
of very secondary importance, to say the least, whether a
man's religion be true or false, provided only in his estima-
tion it be a religion. They put God's claim out of the
question. They leave men at liberty to countenance the
grossest imposture that may missal itself religion, if they can
but derive from it a temporary benefit to the community.
They would bind this country to the support, I will not say of
St. Sulpice, or Maynooth, but of Juggernaut. They dethrone
truth.
These are not light words, my lord, nor lightly written ;
nor is it without the deepest respect for your lordships un-
wearied devotedness to the public weal that I employ them.
If I am wrong in thus characterising the principle involved
in your lordship's speech, I will undergo any consequences
from which pure intentions cannot shield me. If lam right,
how much of the architecture of modern politics must want
its key-stone ? Whether lam right or wrong let the `` ora-
cles of God" determine.
St. John, the apostle, commonly styled, of love, has writ-
ten (2 Epistle 10 verse), " If there come any unto you, and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house,
neither bid him God speed ' • for he that biddeth him God
speed, is partaker of his evil deeds." Now I have said that
the principle must be tested in its abstract form. It is obvious
that if a Jew is to fnake no conscience of refusing assistance
to Christian worship, a Christian on the other side is to make
none as to Jewish. Your lordship, then, so far differs from
this inspired apostle, that, whether bidding him God speed
or not, you would find him a house to preach any " other
doctrine," provided only you thought that doctrine better
than none.
St. Paul goes further. He says (Gal. i. 8) " Though we
or an angel from Heaven preach any other gospel than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
And as if this were not enough on a subject so momentous,
he adds, " As we said before, so say I now again, if any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be accursed." Your lordship seems of so totally
different a mind from this Apostle, also (the writer, be it re-
membered, of the oft misquoted description of charity), that
you would not only not say amen to his inspired sentence of
reprobation, but deem it an evidence of humane and well-
directed liberality to build such a man a place, did not
pecuniary obstacles forbid, in which to preach some other
gospel.
St. James says (v. 19), " If any of you do err from the
truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which con-
verteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul
from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." Do not your
lordship's words imply that you are so far from any idea of
thus hiding the multitude of sins, that you would call it wise,
prudent, humane, and liberal, to assist a man in his error,
and so seal his condemnation?
St. Peter (2 Epistle, ii. 1), speaks of "false teachers privily
bringing in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them, and bringing upon themselves swift destruc-
tion." I will not believe that your lordship thinks lightly of
this destruction, or imagines that denying the Lord cannot
bring it, yet I find your lordshiplaying down a principle that
would furnish a conventicle for any heresy, if it contained
nothing worse than that denial of the Lord.
Lastly, St. Paul (2 Thess. ii. 11), speaking of those who
" receive not the love of the faith," says that, " for this
cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should
believe a lie ; that they all might be damned who believe not
the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Your lord-
ship's words are again in melancholy contrast with apostolic
declarations, for they proceed on the principle that error is
not damnable, inasmuch as it does not result from enmity to
the truth or love of unrighteousness, and that consequently
a man of humanity, wisdom, and well-directed liberality, is
acting as it becomes him, when he encourages his neighbour
in what he believes to be a strong delusion, since it is better
both for society and for himself that he should have a false
religion than that he should have none at all.
I will not ask, my lord, from what authorised standard of
truth, or from what code of laws that will abide the issue of
the Great Assize, principles can be derived which flatly con-
tradict the words of the Holy Ghost, nor how far the cheers
of even a British House of Commons will be audible when
the " Judge of quick and dead" is on His " great white
throne." This, my lord, I will say, that it becomes those
who respect, as I believe your lordship sincerely does, the
authority of that tribunal, to frame their thoughts and feel-
ings, no less in matters social than personal, on God's re-
vealed will. We live in times when men make bold to lay
down laws for themselves ; we hear strange notions of right
and wrong, and see strange virtues, unknown to inspiration,
held up to public gaze. And in no respect is there a more
monstrous departure from truth than in the harlotry which
has baptised herself with the sacred name of charity. It is
now more than insinuated that to believe all men sincere
alike, is charity—to hold that " there is" not " a way that
seemeth right unto a man, the end of which are the ways of
death," is charity—to maintain that " if the blind lead the
blind they shall" not " both fall into the ditch," is charity
—to act as if to believe a lie is not damnation, to flatter a
fellow-creature in that lie, and to help to fasten it upon him,
is charity. What shall we say ? This is not charity, my
lord. Charity is a Christian, not a heathen virtue. Charity
cannot strew garlands at every festival called religious, for
she is the offspring of Him who has emphatically spoken of
" the way, and the truth, and the life." It is not charity
then, but a cold-blooded complaisance, to act or to speak as
if there were more. No, my lord, I must not mistake such
blood-guiltiness for charity. If my neighbour be in error,
however deep and deadly, I will remember the while that he
is my neighbour notwithstanding. I will care for him—re-
lieve his wants—consult his happiness—respect his rights—
debar him from no privileges, whether civil or social, to
which, as a fellow-subject and fellow-citizen, he is entitled.
I will respect his conscience even in error; but beyond this
I cannot go. If I flatter his prejudices—if I strengthen his
delusions—if I minister to his rejection of the one only Name
whereby he can be saved, I violate charity, whilst I outrage
truth. I sin against his soul, whilst defiling my own.
This, my Lord, is the law of love, which I read in God's
Word. I need not, surely, vindicate it from the manifest
misconstruction, that if so it be, I cannot, even in obedience
to civil authority, contribute to a religion which I do not
approve. Between voluntary contribution and the payment
of tribute there is, it seems to me, so broad a distinction,
that the same principle cannot without violence be applied
indiscriminately to both. That Apostle who forbade us to
wish false doctrine God speed, paid, undoubtedly. his quota,
as his Divine Master instructed him, to the Roman tax-
gatherer. Nor was his conscience burdened by its appro-
priation to heathen worship. His conscience bade him "obey
every ordinance of man." Had he lived, as it is your hap-
piness, my Lord, and mine, to live,rbeneath a constitutional
government, doubtless he had protested against such appro-
priation, and used every constitutional means to make his
protest available. But having done this, his conscience was
free. He went to prison, not for refusing legal tribute, but
for withholding personal worship. His Patmos was there-
fore enlightened by visions, to which, fear, some modern
martyrs are strangers.
I have thus, my Lord, endeavoured to discharge a duty to
which the love both of God and man prompted me ; and I
can unfeignedly say that in doing so, I have not been with-
out a deep sense of the patriotism by which I believe your
Lordship's conduct here, and in other matters is actuated.
, I have been compelled to express sentiments widely differing
from those which are attributed to your Lordship • but this
cannot deprive me of the right, any more than of the dispo-
sition, to subscribe myself, with very sincere respect,
My Lord, your Lordship's obedient humble servant,
Clifton, March, 1841. EDWARD YOUNG.

PARISH AND PRISON PEDAGOGUES.—The Warwick guar-
dians, the other day advertised for a tailor-teacher, to mould
the minds and clout the clothes of the juvenile paupers. In
York Castle, we now learn, the magistrates employ a shaving
schoolmaster ! who instructs the prisoners at one time, and
at another shaves them, at the liberal rate of FIVE BEARDS
for a FARTHING!
DEPOSIT MONEY AT AUCTIONS.—At Cambridge a case
came on for hearing which excited very considerable interest.
It was an action brought by Mr. Barley, a highly respect-
able solicitor of the Isle of Ely, against Mr. Cutts, also a so-
licitor, Mr. Sandie, a gentleman of property, and Mr. Smith,
an opulent member of the Society of Friends, to recover
back deposit money at an auction, upon the alleged ground
that the plaintiff had been induced, by a conspiracy between
Sandie and Cutts, to employ Smith as a " puffer," or in the
Cambridge vocabulary " a setter," at the auction, to give a
higher price for certain lots than he would otherwise have
given.—lt appeared that in the course of the year 1839, cer-
tain landed estates left by the will of Miss Susannah Mat-
thews, spinster, were put up to auction by the trustees, in
the assembly-room of the Griffin Hotel, in March—Sandle
being the vendor, and Cutts the solicitor employed. On
that occasion a large number of persons were bidders, and
the competition in some of the lots was carried on with great
eagerness, so that the estates, which sold for upwards of
£BO,OOO brought a larger price by some thousands than had
been anticipated. Among the purchasers was Mr. Barley,
the plaintiff, who bought two lots, numbered 40 and 50 ; but
when the time came to complete the purchase, at Michael-
mas, be thought he had paid more for his bargain than it
was worth, and was the more induced to believe that to be
the case from having put up one of the lots in small parcels,
and found no purchasers, or none whose terms he could ac-
cept. A report was circulated in March that, contrary to
the conditions of the sale, " puffers" or " setters" had been
employed to take advantage of the eagerness of competition
among the real bidders, and run up the price. Suspicion
rested upon Mr. Smith, the quaker, who took up a conspi-
cuous situation in front of the orchestra, and bid away most
lustily. Lot 50 was knocked down for £2,880 to Mr. Bar •
ley ; and upon its being so knocked down " the Quaker"
asserted that the bidding was his, and demanded that the lot
should be put up again, but after some altercation the
auctioneer declined to do that, and Mr. Barley remained the
" fortunate" purchaser. It was this very lot that gave rise
to all the litigation that followed. The main facts relied
upon to prove that Mr. Smith belonged to the fraternity of
puffers, were his not denying that he was related to the
Gurneys of Norwich, when some inquisitive persons wished
to know who he was, and his travelling about the country in
a mysterious manner, and not habited in the usual dress of a
quaker. It appeared, however, that he had done consider-
able business as a purchaser of land, and as to Mr. Sandle,
the vendor, it was not shown that he had ever seen the de-
fendant Smith before his going in March to attend the sale.
'
Under these circumstances, the jury returned a verdict for
the defendants. The trial lasted two days, and Mr. Thesi-
ger was specially retained by Mr. Cutts and Mr. Sandie
with a fee of 300 guineas,