The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-12-06 00:00:00

DF.C. 6, 1836.

dom, will applaud the faithfulness with which the Bishou
of Exeter has discharged, perhaps, a painful, but an in-
cumbent dutv:. He is too elevated in mind and charac.
ter for the sha-144 sitinder ; when they have reached
their utmost height, they fall far short of him, and return
harmless ; or ptove weapons of destruction in their fall
only, wounding those from whom they received their
force. We leave his lordship safe, resting on his own
integrity, in the hands of protestant England.
Let us now turn to the charge preferred against Dr.
Whately, Archbishop of Dublin—it is the complete anti-
parallel of that of the Diocese of Exeter. Observe the
contrast. That of the Bishop of Exeter was a prescribed
duty—this of the Archbishop of Dublin was an arbitrary
exercise of power. The former only secured the fences,
estanished by the canons of the Church ; the latter for-
bade obedience to the command of Christ, " preach the
gospel to every creature." The one sprang from the
will of law, founded upon religion ; the other from the
will of man, contrary to its express precepts. But, to
mark the contrast more plainly, the very motive which
led to the act of the Bishop of .Exeter, would hav6 re-
strained the act of the Archbishop of Dublin.

Having thus pointed out the manifest contrariety of
principle which dictated the two •proceedings, and having
vindicated those of the Bishop of Exeter, upon grounds
which no candid mind can impugn, we shall briefly ex-
pose the perverse, unholy, degrading, and political con-
duct of the Arch-prelate of Dublin. We do not, for one
moment, question his right—we know that in any court,
civil or ecclesiastical, he would stand acquitted; but there
is another court in which he will be condemned—" in
fore conscientiw"—in the court of conscience—except-
ing the conscience, which sits in judgment;there„ has
been "seared with a hot iron." For what was the of-
fence of Mr. Nolan ? Did he refuse to read the Litany,
or cast any shade of discountenance over the rituals of
our Church in Ireland ? No, nothing of this kind—his
offence, his grievous and unpardonable offence, was a
zeal to bring men from "darkness to light" through the
Gospel. Having " tasted the good word of life" him-
self, he "was ready to preach it unto others"-.—arid, as his
soul was enlarged, lie had "continued sorrow" in his
,lieart for his brethren Roman Catholic bondmen. He
desired " to open the eyes of the blind"—to " bring good
tidings" to those " sitting in the shadow of death; over
Alom ." the prince of this world," and his cruel agents,
exercised spiritual and temporal dominion. This, this
only was the offence at the palace of the Archbishop,
though, perhaps, the interdict was signed at the Castle;
and, probably, the Castle was moved to interference, by
authority of Mr. O'Connell.

We have always been favourably disposed to the esta-
blishment of an efficient police force for the protection of
life and property, and have on every occasion given them
our unqualified support so far as they have discharger]
their duties with faithfulness and moderation. Acting
upon this resolution, we have hesitated to give publicity
to the numerous complaints of our correspondents, un-
less previously authenticated ; and even then, Our usual
mode has been to hand over these complaints to the Su-
perintendent, and we. can bear our testimony to the
prompt and searching inquiry which he has instituted to
ascertain the truth of such complaints, and to redress any
grievances that might be found to exist. It will not,
however, be denied that several cases of aggravated as-
sault have been proved against both inspectors and pri-
vates; and several of them have received notice of trial
at the approaching assizes. The case of Andrew Ed-
ward Lyons will be fresh in the recollection of our read-
ers. The great interest which has been excited from the
nature of the evidence elicited upon his cross-examina-
tion will justify our again referring to this subject. We
recollect that when Mr. Councillor Wahnsley endea-
voured to prejudice the public mind in favour of the new
Council, by presenting a summary of what they had done
during the first year of their dictatorship, he expressly
declared, that persons had not been selected to fill
situations on account of their political opinions, but
solely on account of their possessing the necessary quali-
fication for their offices. Now, we do not mean to deny
that Mr. Councillor Walmsley believed what he said
.to be truth; but it is passing strange that all the necessary
qualificationacould be found only in those who were dis-
tinguished for their violent partisanship. It is entirely
gout of the range of probability to suppose that talent
could only be found in exact proportion to the liberality
of political sentiment. Can any man in his senses be-
lieve that Mr. Radcliffe was selected to fill the situation
of Town-clerk solely because his talents were of a higher
order than those of the late Mr. Thomas Foster ? Was the
-election of a solicitor to the Dock Trust not influenced by
a wish to maintain the ascendancy of party ? We know
that Mr. Crooke was Solicitor to the Reform Association,
• and he became " Deputy Town clerk." Mr. Hall, a
well known liberal in politics, beci,lgi a stipendiary ma-
gistrate. Mr. Wvberg, Chairman of the Reform Asso-
ciation,became the Treasurer of the Corporation, in the
place of Mr. John Deane Case, a well known Tory.
There was no design in all this, if we are to believe Mr.
• • Councillor Walmsley- ; it was rather the result of acci-
dent than of previous arrangement on the part of the
Town Council. The frequent meetings held at the

Angel, the circulars of Mr. Rathbonr, confined exclu-
sively to the liberal party, were all the result of acei-
dent. But we pass on to notice the case of Inspector
Lyons.

We shall not stop to inquire into the cause of his im-
prisonment, but at once address ourselves to those points
in his cross-examination, which clearly prove his con •
nection with the Town Council, both in his appointmen4
and in his subsequent delinquency. Previously to his
appointment, he was clerk to the Reform Committee of
St. George's Ward, at a salary of 255. a•week. He was
also engaged to canvass before the election, and for these
services he was recommended to the favourable notice of
the Council. We suppose it was also, by pure accident
that this worthy obtained his appointment as inspector
-of Police. Such are our Reformers ! Not content with
the appointment of one of their own canvassers to
the important situation of Inspector of Police, they ac-
tually
appropriate the public money to defend a man who
has been adjudged guilty by a legally constituted court.
Well may that portion of the press, which has usually
been found enlisted on the side of the Council, be
ashamed of such conduct, and not even attempt their
defence

Metter appeared in our contempbra ry of Yesterday, pro-
fessedly from the pen of this worthy Inspector, who very mo-
destly tells us what he has not done, but very carefully
conceals what he has done. We know he is in prison; and
acquiesce in the decision of the commissioner, because we

' bow to the authority of the law. The case is very differ-
ent with our reformed Town Council. What a mockery
.`e-of justice ! What a practical lesson will it afford of the
value of municipal reform ! The council possesses the
tight of appointing a stipendiary magistrate, and is
bound to support his decisions so long as they are con-
. formable to the existing laws. But can it be possible
that the same council has been supporting this man in
prison, and conducting his defence with the public mo-

hey, and employing the public servants of the town for

the same equivocal purpose ? But we are unwilling to
' pursue the subject farther at present. It is a matter for
inquiry, and we promise our Town Councillors that, so
far as our humble efforts are available, we will have a
. thorough investigation of the whole affair. We look
with some interest to the course which they (the reformed
Corporation of Liverpool) will pursue with regard to this
question, and shall narrowly watch their proceedings.

It is with great pleasure that we return to 31r.•Hemming and
our operative friends; and we shall, in the same spirit and with
. the same freedom as in our last article, comment upon such parts
the present interesting lecture as we think need either eluci-
'ration or correction. Mr. H. opened his lecture by observing,
that " a number of laws have been laid down, according to
'which chemical affinities act." Whilst nothing so facilitates
the acquisition of knowledge as the establishment of laws, no-
'thing is more dangerous or more liable to exception than philo-
-"Phical legislation. To enumerate all thht have been promul-
gated and abrogated in every department of science would be to
furnish a library co•npaniun to the gtattits at large. After
gliq'iling of the first 13w, "that ebernical affinity can only take
:place between didi,rryrt as superfluous; Mr. ii. also
;tribes the note superiluity to the' fibc...itiii,-that chemical af-