The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-06-01 00:00:00

TO THE REV. J. BAILEE

SIR,—I have this morning received a note, signed " Charles
Maguinness, curate of Trinity Church," enclosing a news-
paper slip, with your answer to my manuscript note, which
was addressed directly to you on the Bth of May. Without
intending any offence to you, I must express regret that the
necessity which your previous silence, and the refusal of the
STANDARD to insert my note, put upon me of asking this
favour from a political opponent, should be availed of as a
reason for experts reflection. Difficult as it is for us all to
judge impartially of our own or our neighbour's spirit, 1 yet
apprehend that good men will not less deprecate the tone of
your's than of mine. But I shall not recriminate nor further
enlarge on this insignificant point.
You have put to me two irrelevant questions, which it
were quite fair I should decline to answer. From their insi-
dious tendency, however, I shall candidly reply to them when
I have remarked upon the inaccurate reference to my first
letter, by which both you and the editor of the STANDARD
have bespoken the prejudice of your own readers. You con-
sent to say I " designate the Church of England as the vain-
glorious first-born of the mother of harlots," with a mani-
fest hastiness of spirit and morbid sensibility, mistaking a
hypothetical for a positive proposition! 1 do not " designate"
the Church of England, nor do I think it such as you assume.
I regard it as an integral of the Catholic Church, but no
more. My words are, " If" your's "be the prevailing opi-
nion of its ministers" (which I do not think is the ease) in
respect to other Christian churches, " this exclusive bigotry
would justify" the designation. The sentiment I deliberately
repeat, with as much, and as disinterested sincerity of love
for its consistent members, as its most vehement partizans.
You ask me— . .

Is that sentiment put forth by you as the opinion of
any body of persons with which you are connected, or is it
the mere expression of individual opinion ?"
The previous step to justify this query would be, to an-
nounce whether on commission or individual responsibility
you put forth the primitive allegation which I assail. But I
answer, as the question restsupon a bare assumption of your
own, it is a nullity.
2. Have you, within the last twelve months, consulted
with a Liverpool clergyman as to the possibility of obtaining
orders in our church ? '

To which plain and simple question I answer plainly and
simply, NO.
With this I might be content to await the advantage to
myself of a further challenge, that should educe facts of a
quite opposite character. But I have no object of this kind,
nor will I fasten your inquiring to a date or a fact. I had
conversation upon that subject with a Liverpool clergyman
more than TWO years ago, arising out of a proposal that
came from him. An Irish gentleman, then and now incum-
bent in Liverpool, introduced the subject To me in the spring
of 1839, representing the enlarged sphere of usefulness which
would be afforded me, should I obtain one of the nine new
churches that it was intended to build in the town and neigh-
bourhood, and which (as he was pleased to express himself)
my talent and respectability, he had no doubt, would en-
sure; and himself offered me letters to another clergyman
and the bishop of the diocese. That was the only " con-
sultation" I ever had with a clergyman upon the "possibility"
you mention. My sentiments and feelings upon the occasion
were given to that gentleman in a letter on the 10th of May,
1839, which you are at liberty to obtain from him for any
candid use, at his pleasure. Should he have mislaid it, and
concur with you in desire for its publication, I will take the
trouble to transcribe it, and forward the copy, on your pro-
mise that it shall be published totidem verbis.
Having answered the tangible points of your Socratic pre-
liminary, and supplied you with data for the scrutiny of my
claims to your condescension, " I," in my turn, " feel as-
sured that every person of real integrity of principle will
admit" that your open challenge, as to "the Church of
England being the ONLY branch of the Catholic church ex-
isting in England," is at my acceptance, and within my right
to oppugn. This Ido ; and call to you for proof.
I remain, Sir,
J. B. M'CREA.
Crescent, IVaterloo, May 31, 1841.

LIVERPOOL YOUNG MEN'S ESTABLISHED
CHURCH SOCIETY.
MEETING AT ALL SAINTS' CHURCH.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

Sin,—There is an inaccuracy in your report of the meet-
ing of this excellent society which was held on the 24th inst.
The rev. chairman is incorrectly made to class "Methodism"
with the God-denying heresy of " Socinianism." Being
present at the time, I can correct the error. His observa-
tion was, " The preacher who was bound only by this"—
alluding to a particular creed—" might introduce Socinian-
ism, Deism, or any other ism, until himself borne down to
destruction in the stream of error or infidelity, his con:re-
gation were involved in the same perdition."
It would be a source of unfeigned regret both to the re-
spected pastor of All Saints' Church and myself, if, by rea-
son of the remark in question, any untoward feelings should
have been excited in the minds of our respected non-con-
forming friends. I verily believe that the Wesleyans, as a
body, have the " truth" ; and whilst I hold the Church of
England to be " a living temple of the living God, the pal-
ladium of British piety, and the glory of our land," I am
still ready, notwithstanding the misrepresentation of the
semi-popery of I'useyism, to hold out the right hand of fel-
lowship to all those " ho love the Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity."—l am, sir, yours most obediently,
JAS. MATHEWS,
Secretary to the Liverpool Young Men's
Established Church Society.
Clarendon-buildings, South John-street,
29th May, 1841.
[The mistake alluded to arose evidently from a misappre-
hension on the part of our reporter ; and, as it is very de-
sirable that such an impression as our correspondent refers
to should be dissipated as early as possible, we insert his
communication with pleasure.—ED.]

ANTI-CORN-LAW FAILURE AT NORTHWICH

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

Northwich, May 271 h, 1841

SIR,—As corn-law and anti-corn-law meetings seem the
order of the day, I am unwilling that the welcome fact fur-
nished by an anti-corn-law assemblage last night in this
town should be lost to your readers.
It was mustered by the posting and parading all over the
town of large and flaming placards, printed circulars, and
public notice last Sunday in a place here known as " the
Tabernacle," in which sonic dozen or two of dissenters meet
for preaching (!) and other purposes. This was the scene of
action. A large loaf and a smaller one were exhibited in
the course of the afternoon upon two poles, carried by some
rough lads of sixteen years of age, hired by the " league "
for the purpose. Lawrence Heyworth, Esq., a Liverpool
radical, was announced to preside, and that the meeting
would be addressed by many geatlemen !!
The platform was occupied by six gentlemen—one Dignum,
a tailor; Mister John Sutton, a schoolmaster ; a Mr. Green,
who was, 1 understood, lately a clerk in one of our lawyers'
offices; another gentleman, who wore shabby mourning, who
was, I understood, a dissenting preacher ; " Robert Gorst,"
from about the Liverpool docks ; and Mr. Heyworth. These
occupied the stage. Instead of acting fairly, by placing the
" whig-and-something-more" in the chair, as they had pro-
mised they would, they placed the lawyer's clerk there, who
is a Unitarian, the aforesaid Mr. Green ; and truly green he
seemed to be, for on getting up to announce what the meet-
ing was called for, he was at sea, until Mr. Dignum reminded
him, and then he began muttering something about a cheap
loaf, &c., and called up " Robert Gorst." Robert looked
around him, and then dashed off in a rhapsodical announce-
ment that he was for the regale of the corn-laws, those
barstly laws, he said, that had lowered down man to the
baist of the field. Robert next tried his hand at Scripture
quotation ! and soon arrived at the conclusion that the
25,000,000 of people ought to share the estates of the
30,000 landlords ! Not by Scripture, nor the principal
of rason, could the reverse be justified, or the barns be
impartially held. He now turned sharply round to
the " rich man" from Liverpool, and said " Misther Hey-
worth! I appale to you, Sir !" which made Misther Hey-
worth laugh no little. Robert concluded by showing a lot of
crackers, (I suppose sea biscuits,) not for the purpose, I
fear, of giving them to the poor creatures who were, with
open mouths, listening to Robert's logic.
Mr. Heyworth then said a few words, and the meeting
broke up. And now, Mr. Editor, of whom did this meeting
consist? Of about twenty-six poor men and women, who
appeared to have nowhere else to go, and who were
doubtless glad of an opportunity of being seated. Where
were our swarms of creditable watermen ? where our
hundreds of honest artisans ?—where our respectable shop-
keepers and tradesmen ? our wealthy rock and salt proprie-
tors ? our professional men, and our numerous gentry ?
Where were all these important classes of our town and
' neighbourhood on this occasion, after all this exertion to get
it up? They know better. A more complete failure there
never was ; and this is the fact I wish your readers to know.
These anti-corn-law men will never surely try their game in
Northwich any more, where they found last night that the
; people were too well instructed.—l am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A YOUNG CONSERVATIVE.

IN ADDRESS TO ANTI-CORN-LAW

CONSERVATIVES

FELLOW COUNTRYMEN !—I address you, because an ad-
ministration which has shown itself ready to disregard all
integrity of principle, and to adopt any line of conduct,
however inimical to the welfare of the country, ventures to
suppose that you will contribute to give it a longer tenure of
office, and that you will assist to protect it from a deserved
and threatened fate. Will you allow yourselves to be drawn
into the snare placed for you? My sentiments agree with
yours—l am opposed to the present corn-laws ; but this fact
should never induce me to forget that a desire to amend the
system now in operation is not the only qualification requi-
site in a parliamentary candidate. Must every other poli-
tical consideration be merged in your efforts to promote this
measure ? Will you sacrifice to the advancement of this
object the principles you have long cherished—principles
which, if acted upon at this juncture, might secure the
safety, happiness, and prosperity of your native land? Is it
your desire to remove (what we consider to be) an evil, by
the substitution of others snore exceptionable in their cha-
racter, and vastly snore injurious in their effects? Desert
the cause which is identified with the welfare of your country,
and you may, perhaps, procure " cheap bread." But how
dear a price will that cheap bread cost ? You must pay for
p
it in the wasteful expenditure of a reckless and profligate
government. You must pay for it in the increased taxation,
which will fall alike upon the incomes of the' wealthy and
upon the earnings of poverty. You must pay for it in the
annual deficiencies of a mismanaged and exhausted exche-
quer. You must pay for it in the thousand evils which
spring from an administration destitute of every senti-
ment of religion, justice, and patriotism—an administration
bound by no laws but those of self-interest, consistent only
in inconsistency—an administration- which has violated every
principle that deserves the esteem and respect of mankind.
This, fellow-countrymen, is what you will have to pay for
the " cheap bread" offered you by those whose promises
have ever been considerably in advance of their perform-
ances. Ave you content to pay such a price for it ? The

principles you profess—thcse principle' embodied in the
motto you have loog ago adopted as your own—" Our God,
our Queen, and our Country"—forbid it. Thee let the con-
duct and the solicitations of those who would seduce you
from the path of duty meet with the contempt which they
merit. So you will secure, for your country; the benefits of
a righteous government, and for yourselves the blessings of
posterity

I am, Fellow Countrytnen,
Yours, most sincerely,
AN ANTI-CORN-LAN CONSERVATIVZ
Liverpool, May 31, 1841.

—...0mp...---...

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sza,—Observing in this day's Albion a statement that
there are no loaves to be bought in Liverpool, for sixpence,
of the size of the English loaf exhibited in your window,
allow me to say, that I saw that identical loaf broken off
from several others, at a shop where it and others of similar
size are always to be had at the price quoted. The reality of
this assertion may easily be ascertained by weight.

The correspondent or the Albion has thus unintentionally
paid a remarkable tribute to the fair proportions of the Bri-
tish loaf. I have no doubt but that many others, as well as
the gentleman who wrote to the Albion, woald be mach
benefitted by a little sober investigation.

I remain, Sir, yours, &c.,
Liverpool, 31st May, 1841. R. G. J.
[The writer of the above leiter is well known to us, and
his statement can be corroborated. The letter in the Albion
is a distinct proof that the anti-corn-law advocates hays no
sensible reply to any tangible argument on the subject)