The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-12-02 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LIVERPOOL
TOWN, COUNCIL. .

GENTLEMEN,—In the letter which. I had the honour to ad.
dress to you on the 18th instant, I said, " The Irish extracts
are unfairly made," and I promised to address another letter it
you, in proof of this assertion. I proceed now to redeem the
pledge thus given ;—premising only, that a volume, rather that
a letter, would be required, to exhibit anything, approaching to
an adequate exposure of those books. A characteristic speci-
men of their unfliirness may, however., be compressed withis
moderate limits. I shall endeavour to do -this.
The subject is of the highest importance • because all the
children who attend your schools, who can read at all, are com-
pelled to use the books in question; and it is a fact of which the
Protestant community are not sufficiently aware, but of which
they must be plainly informed, that the religious instructioa
given in those schools cannot be impartial, because it is cot.-
veyed through 'the medium of books which are unfairly con.
piled. I observe, that in your debate of last Wednesday, 'the
charge of unfairness advanced against the Irish lesson-books is
not adverted to. It is, indeed, a serious charge, and demands
explicit proofs. I now present you with some of them.
We protest against the lesson-books printed by the Irish
Board, and used in your schools :
Ist, Because of the new translation of Scripture which they
contain.

2d, Because of the notes which they contain.
3d, Because they elevate the Dimas, and Rhemish versions
into a position of parallel authority with our authorised version.
4th, Because they inculcate Roman Catholic doctrines.
First, we object to a new translation of Scripture by the
Irish Board:
The Commissioners of Education Inquiry, in 1824, recom-
mended the experiment of a lesson-book for national schools.
A volume was accordingly prepared, which is to be found in the
Appendix to- the ninth report' of the commissioners. 'The-
Roman Catholic prelates, however, objected to this volume,
the ground that it was taken verbatim from the Protestant ver-
sion of the New Testament. In Archbishop Murray's letter
upon the subject, (Dec. 20,'1826, ninth report, p. 20,) he thus
objects, " It purports to preient to children the inspired Word
" ef God, and yet it differs from the lianslation which those
children are taught to consider atith4fittif." This was consi-
dered a sufficient objection. The soitielHOVivas not as to the re
spective merits of the tranSlationaltiiV4-It was deemed un-
fair to unsettle the minds of childijell-tit presenting them with
a new translation. • "
With this fact before us, we turn fo the lessons now in use in
your schools. No. 1 is a new translation of portions of Genesis,
Interspersed with pOrtions of the Psalms, and of the New 'l'ess
lament. The preface opens with these words f---" These les-
sons, as the name imports, are drawn from the sacred volume,
and are almost-entirely in the language of Scripture, translated
literally from the original." The extent of the novelty of this
translation will appear from the fact, that in the first lesson,
consisting of two pages and a half -of a small' book; there are
ninety and nine variations from the authorised version. I have
traced and reckoned the variations in those portions of Genesis
down to chap. ix vi., which are introduced into the lessons, (just
one half of the Lesson-book No. I,) and find thetii &naming to
one thousand one hundred and two! I ant not now speaking of
differences which involve doctrines, but merely of differences
which stamp novelty upon the hook, thereby unsettling the'mind
from all associations of reverence for the authorised version, and
therefore to. ilt, snost unfit and unfair, to be forced into the
hands of Protestant children. We adopt against this book the
prime t facie objection which Dr. Murray urged against its pre-
decessor of 1824-5. It purports to present to children the inspired
Word of God, and yet it difjers from the translation, which those
children are taught to consider authentic. Let it be known, then,
to the Protestants of this town, that in 'sending their children to
your schools, they are sending them where they will be com-
pelled to lead, as'Scripture, a new translation. Are Protestants
prepared to allow the authorised version of the Bible to be so
tampered with ? The fact of a new translation being prepared,
.and put into the hands of Piotestant children, is of itself an im-
putation against the old one. And the effect of references to
varying manuscripts, readings, points, &c., can only be to create
an impression that no certainty can be found in the Scriptures.
This is precisely the consummation at which the Roman Catho-
lic church had always aimed, in her elevation of unwritten tra-
ditions into equal authority and reverence with written revela-
tion. That church assumes the existence upon earth of a living
infallible tribunal. Protestants deny this, and allege that there
is nothing infallible upon earth but the written Word of God.
lf, therefore, the minds of men can be brought to make the in-
quiry with uncertainty, which Mr. Thos. Bolton is reported to
have made in your Council-chamber,--" IVhat is the pure and
unadulterated Hord of God? That is the question. What are
the Scriptures 4"—if this state of mind, I repeat, can be pro-
duced iu the rising generation, the whole 'affair is settled; the
foundation of truth is undermined ; and the result must be either
utter scepticism as to revelation altogether, or unexamining
prostration under the arrogant. claiins.of:Aomieltlinfallibility;
It is, therefore, the most natural thlng imaginable.Ahat the
Church of Rome,should rejoice over a new trawlation ;put into
the hands of Protestant children. Those childken are compel-
led in your schools to read the new translation pi. the Word of
God. They go home and find the authorised translation as' the
word of God. These two differ in hundreds' and thousands of
places, the one from the other. What is, what must be, the re'.
suit ? Is not Mr. Bolton's question actually: forced upon the:
children. "What is the, pure Word of God, what are the Scrip
tures ?" Thus confidence in all iersions'of the Bible is shaken ;.
no standard of certainty is left; we are bereaved of the testimo-
nies and commandments of God ; and thrown upon the doubt-
ful reasonings and corrupt traditions of men.
If, in answer to this, it be argued that the Irish lessons are
not intended to supersede the authorised version, and that it is
so distinctly stated in the preface ; we reply, either this new
translation of Genesis is an improvement upon the authorised
version or it is not. If it be an improvement, why should it not
supersede the other? Why should we sanction such a super-
stitious reverence for antiquity as to retain an old inferior
version when we may adopt a new superior one ? If' the new
one be indeed an improvement, let us have it by all means, and
discard the old one. But if not, if improvement be not even
aimed at, if it be not designed to supersede the old one, why
make it at all .Is it made out of pure love of translating for
translating sake, without improvement? Mr. Carlile says that
" he was compelled by the exigency of the case to undertake
the task."—Preface. In what that exigency consisted we are
not informed; that Mr. Cariile sincerely felt himself so called
upon we du not doubt; but the effect is not, on that account,
the less disastrous. It is true that new translations of various
passages of Scripture have been made by private individuals,
but none aft__ _ J-'eth, ma.s,
LAy. They remain, and are usefui, in the libraries of
the learned. But-a new translation, forced by authority into
the hands of the rising generation, cannot fail to contribute to
the grand design of Romish Church to throw uncertainty
over what is the Word of God ! It would have been a more
impartial course in itself, and a thousand times less pernicious
in its consequences, to have taken the lessons verbatim from the
Douay version and the authorised version, alternately, than
thus to have introduced a new version, fraught with fresh ele-
ments of uncertainty. Thus, on the simple ground of novelty
in the translation, we utterly reject the lessons as unfair. if
it be said they are equally unfair to the Romish and reformed
churches, we answer no ; because, a leading object of the
Romish church is, and ever has been, to produce uncertainty
as to the written Word of God, while it has been equally a
leading object of the reformed churches to dissipate all litich
uncertainty.
Why, let me ask, does not Dr. Murray object to this lessons
book, as he did to the book prepared in 1824-5? The objection
he urged against that, applies, in the letter of it, to this. "It
purports to present to the children the inspired Word of God,
and yet it differs from the translation, which those children an
taught to consider authentic." Why, then, does he not object"
to this, as he did to the former? The answer is, the former had
no tendency to create or increase uncertainty, being in the
words of the authorised version; but this has au obvious tendency
to create and increase uncertainty, and therefore, although it
differe from the translation which Roman- Catholics are taught
to consider authentic, it is not objected to; but, oil the contrary,
its circulation is zealously promoted by Dr. Murray.
As to the comparative merits of the translations it is very
moderate praise indeed of the forty-seven translators appointed
by King James I to say that they were more competent than
the members of the Irish Board. Those distinguished scholars
were -divided into six companies. Ten were to meet at West--
minster, to translate front the Pentateuch to the end of the Sec-
ond Book of Kings. Eight, assembled at Cambridge, were to
finish the rest of the historical books, and the Hagiographa. At
Oxford. seven were to undertake the four greater Plophets, with
the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the twelve minor Prophets.
The four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Apocalypse, were
assigned to another company of eight, also at Oxford. The
Epistles were allotted to another company of seven, at West-
minster. Lastly, another company at Cambridge were to trans-
late the Apochryphal books. According to the regulations under
which the work-was conducted, first, each individual translated
EVERY book which was- allotted to his company; secondly, the
readings to be adopted each book -were agreed upon by the
whole of that company assembled together ; and thirdly, the
book, thus prepared, was• sent to each of the other companies to
be again examined. At these meetings one lead the translation,
the rest holding in their hands some bible, eitherin the learned
tongues, or in souse modern language, if they found fault, they
spoke ; if not, he read on. The translation commenced in the I
spring of 1607, and' the completion of it occupied nearly three
years. It was first published at folio in 1611.—lierne's Introdue-
lion. vol. ii, p. 250-251, edit. v.
With this history before us, we scarcely wonder at the eulo-
giums which have been written in commendation (dour author-
ized version by scholars of all parties. In Mr. llot ne's truly
valuable work, just referred to, you will find the testimonies Of
Sehlen, Walton, Lowth, Horsley, Middleton, Dr. Geddes,
Whittaker, Doddridge, Dr. John Taylor of Norwich, Dr. Jas.
Beattie, Dr. Adam Clarke,! and Professor Stuart, of North
America, all uniting in eloquent admiration of the accuracy,
elegance, strength, learning, pathos, and sublimity of our un-
rivy.lted translation.

It is no disparagement to Mr. Cathie or any member
sl,r,cis,h,nd account this translation
rate,"'l. d to •
.•••••.“..Z.J.•
—oar, to say that we refuse to ..
the
an receive a new one at their hands as an im-
provement.
n°. Sevi
~ then, that by the confession of the board themselves, is not intended,f • they disclaim' for. all intention of
superseding in env degree
the authorised version; and, seeing
that novelty, without i
inprovemenk,,ean only, he productive of
unmixed mischief, we occupy thiaour first, firin ground of ob-
jection to the lesson-bo(tic.s n now,,,wied in, your schools. We
know. by evidence not to ,
Scripture is. and
w:e
tvtl-insaid. what the canon of in-
spiredsurnetimotsly .protest against any
attempt to throw discredit or uncertainty Upon it, by whomso-
ever such attempt may: be-, made'
deceived or by men who aredecei'ver.so whether
byloth.men who ore.
2. we object to these. books, its the. Ilex); 1
the NoTEs which they contain. Ile—' Rotuma 'Cae.e.et - f
Church
has never sanctioned the circulation of any yersiont 'oflic he`nr
tures in the native language, .taeot peoPle; Without on
tr
s,' IP-
is notorious. On the contrary, theßible alone contains the fhis
reli-
gion of Protestants We have ncit, forgotten the s.tit•
animated Protestant Britain, when churchmen and dissenters
of all denominations proclaimed from like, thousand platforent:of
bible societies, with the authorised- version in their' lannad ,
' " The Bible, the whole Bible, and NOTHING 11:T the Bibe." lands,—
'
distinguishing characteristic of genuine Christianity j,, that it
rests exclusively. on the Word of God, Without noteor corn-
merit. The distinguishing characteristic of Itotnanisit is, that
it holds notes and comments to he
.iodispeuseible. 11pi,., again,
the Irish lessons are unfair, because they reject the Potestan
principle, and adopt the Romish erautjue. They conhin mul-
titudes or notes and comments. Some of those notes ire ver-
batim from the Romish Bible, and inculcatti.inusl olnoxious
Romish doctrine; and yet in your schools the'.
P.Lielts cottaining
such notes are , fumed into the hands of Protestant children,
and they are compelled to read them, and to be exanined in
them. het the Protestants of Liverpool:hear and knot this.
One of the notes in question is this, on' the celebrabd pro-
phecy in the third chapter of Genesis : " It shall el-4h, Eye.,
ipsa, she, the woman ;, so divers of the fathers read His place
conformably to the Latin; others read it ipsum, viz. Ise seed.
The sense is the same ; for it is by her seed Jesus Chist, that
the woman crushes the serpent's head."—Note to nu Douay
version on Genesis iii. 15. This note states what is not lie fact.
Of the two readings, it says, the sense is the Same. The^ fact is.
the sense is not the same. The one statement is, pra, the
VVOILUU, crushes the serpent's bead by her seed: the ,theris,
ipsum, the seed, crushes the setpent's head. In the me case
the woman is the agent, and her seed an instrument; in the'
-other, the seed of the woman is the agent. NOw, as thewoman,

and the seed of the woman, are not the same person, the sense
of, the two statements is not, and cannot be, the same sense.
On the-contrary, the one is Protestant, that is Scriptural, doc-
trine; and the other is Roman Catholic; that is unscriptural,
doctrine.

Commenting in defence of this note, Mr. Blackburn says,
"'That the woman bruised the serpent's head by her own power
or agency, is not the doctrine-of the Roman Catholic Church.
That glorious work, they, in common with Protestants, ascribe
to the Lord Jesus Christ."
How far Mr. Blackburn is, in this instance, acquainted with
the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, will appear from
the following facts. First, in the return made to the House of
Commons, August 17, 1833, of the books to be used by. Roman
Catholics in the hours of separate religious instructiou, with
the sanction and approbation of the board, we find " Reeves's
history of the Old and New Testaments." Secondly, in this book,
so sanctioned and used at one period of the day, by children,
who at another period of the day, read the lessons, this pas-
sage occurs, " Mary was the woman destined by Almighty
" God to crush the serpent's head, as it is written in the
" book of Genesis, (chap. iii,) and it was to obtain her consent
" that God then sent his angel to Nazareth." Here, the crush-
ing of the serpent's bead is ascribed to tile woman, without any
mention of her seed. This passage in Reeves's hook, gave
prise to a curious examination of Dr. Murray, by the commis-
sioners. Reeves is a Roman Catholic expositor. His book is
adopted for instruction in Roman Catholic doctrine. Misstate-
ments of doctrine are sanctioned by the Roman Catholic mem-
bers of the national board, including Archbishop Murray. But
Mr. Blackburn assures us, that what Reeves states to be the
doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, is not the doctrine of
the Roman Catholic Church. Is not this in effect, however
undesigned, to misrepresent the Roman Catholic Church ?
Gentlemen, I have been accused of misrepresenting that church.
I have already asked when and where? And now I will say,
that it any person will have the kindness to point out to me, in
any of my writings, such a palpable misre-presentation of Roman
Catholic doctrine as the above, I will publicly retract it, and
express my sincere thanks to the friend who shall haVe pointed
it out.
In the lesson-book professing to contain St.. Luke, the follow-
ing mite occurs at- page 3 : '"Beeause thou has'not believed, 4-c.
, Zacharias might no: be blameable' in doubting,- for what saw
might hare been an illusion; bat he should have waited the event,
which; would have decided. Craving, however, ass immediate sign,
he received one whiCh was also a rebulde,'!':' ;
The. Scripture says. that Zacharias received his rebuke,: not
because he did not suspend his belierand reinain in doubt until
the prediction was verified by the event, but because he did not
steadfastly believe it as soon as it was foretold. The angel does
not say, "Because thou wilt not wait the event:" but, "because
thou halt not believed." Yet the commissioners pronounce that
"Zacharias might not be blameable in doubting !" This
note, then, contradicts the Bible, and teaches the harmless-
ness of sceptcism respecting a divine revelation.—Christian
Evaminer.
In lesson exiii, seven notes are given respecting the fall of
Peter. The last of them is in these words :—" Peter's repent-
ance was immediate, sincere, and lasting, and he was in conse-
quence received into favour again, and continued, till his death,
a faithful. and undaunted champion in his blessed Master's
cause." _ _ _

Here the commissioners, in their anxiety to exalt St. Peter
in the minds of the children, and to wipe away the stain from
his character, appear to have forgotten that on a subsequent
occasion he again showed that he was not undaunted, but, " fear-
iog them of the circumcision," was guilty of " dissimulation ;"
for which St. Paul deemed it necessary not only to censure him,
severely and openly, before all who were then present at Antioch,
but subsequently to record this censure in his Epistle to the Ga-
latians.

On Acts xv, 7, this note occurs : " Peter here states the origin
of the whole dispute and discussion !" The commissioners say
not a word to call attention to the marked tone of authority in
which St. James, the bishop of the infant church, and the presi-
dent of the assembly, gave his decision. But endeavour rather
to fix observation on the part which Peter took in the debate, as
if he were the principal person in the council, and opened the
business, although, in fact, he did not speak until after "there
had been much discussion."

The argument for the suprsmacy of Peter, which is deduced
in the note on this passage in the Rheims Testament was too
glaring a falsification of the history to he transplanted in full
blossom into the pages of the Scripture lessons. The seed of it,
however, is sown ; and lest it should fail to produce the expected
fruit, it is watered by means of a question at the end of the les-
son, in these words: " Who first addressed the assembly ?" It
would be difficult for the children to answer this correctly, as
the inspired writer has not informed us who they were that took
part in the discussion before Peter spoke ; but it is evident that
the commissioners had the old Rhemish note iu their eye when
they constructed the answer to this question. It is as follows :
"St Peter, as the head of the church, speaketh first, as his suc-
cessors have ever had: not only in their personal presence, but in
their absence, by their legates and substitutes the chief voice in
all councils general, none ever being received into authority and
credit in the church without their cor!firmation."
And in Reeves's History, and Gahan's abridgment of it, both
which works are sanctioned for the use of the Raman Ca-
tholics in the National Schools, it is directly asserted, that " St.
Peter, asynesident over all the rest, opened the subjects of de-
bate."—Christian Examiner.
Such instances might be multiplied, as you may see by re-
ference to two valuable treatises, the perusal of which I would
strongly recommend. One is entitled Ast EXAMINATION OF
'THE SCRIPTURE LESSONS, &c., by Henry Newland, D.D.,
Vicar of Ferns. The other is a reprint from the Christian Ex-
aminer, entitled A REVIEW OF THE SCRIPTURE LESSONS, &c.,
with an Appendix.
Again, then, 1 would ask, are books, containing such notes,
to be forced into the hands of Protestant children ? This is a
question loudly claiming the attention of the Protestants of Li-
verpool. Will they sanction schools during whose authoritative
hours of instruction, these books must be read, and the authoris-
ed version of the'Bible must not be read? Will they be satisfied,
in the face of all this, with the plea, that for one hour, and that
'the last arid must wearisome hour, an hour, moreover, subse-
quent to the time at which the resolution of the Council says the
schools shall be considered closed,—that the Bible during this
1
one hour may be read, that is, it is not prohibited, provided the
children remain, and some person, not employed by the Coun-
cil, should choose to come and read it to them ? The resolu-
tion of the Council (and we are hound to take you at your
printed words, not at what may be your private intentions) is
this—" That the schools shall be considered as closed at three
o'clock in the winter, and four o'clock in the summer."
_:,..,, 5....5s s spa, days ago, I went a va4l. nut of my way to
visit the north school, in company with my reverend friend Mr.
Lyons, about a quarter-past three o'clock. I asked the master
if the boys we saw sitting in the lower room were all the boys
of the school ?• He replied, " All the catholic boys." I asked,
"Where are the Protestant boys ?" lie answered, "Gone
into the Committee-room." 1 asked, " What are these boys
now engaged at ?" lie answered, " Nothing, sir ; lam keep-
ing them till the priest comes." We went up stairs, where we
found the Protestant children, both boys and girls, in one corner
of the room, and two ladies teaching them the Church Collect
for the following Sunday. The remainder of the room was oc-
cupied by classes of girls saving the Douay Catechism. After
some time we returned to the boys' room, and found them still
unoccupied, no priest or other teacher having come. Mr. Lyons
asked the master if he ever read the Bible with the boys? and
he said, " No, never." I did not ask him by what authority he
kept them after three o'clock, because I did not wish to excite
any feelings of dissatisfaction in his mind ; but I now respect-
fully ask you, gentlemen, by what authority the master, as in
the case above stated, keeps the boys in the school after
Ithree o'clock ? Is it by
.his owu authority, in opposition to your
printed resolution ; or is it by the authority of unpublished
instructions from you ?
According to your own published rules, the schools are con-
sidered as closed at three o'clock in winter. Till three o'clock
the Bible is not, and must not be read. After three o'clock it
may or not be read, according to circumstances. if clergymen
ten he found willing to go, then the Bible, after three o clock,
may be. read. But if the system be such, in other respects, as to
deprive clergymen, on conscientious grounds, of the power of
availing themselves of the one hour, then, as far as they are
concerned, the Bible cannot be read at all. This is precisely
our position. The sYstem excludes the Bible, except for one
hour. We cannot, lay attending during that hour, give our
sanction to this system; so that, as far as we are concerned, the
system excludes the Bible altogether. 1 need not enlarge upon
our reasons for not being able to sanction this system. We can
sanction no system of education which does not enforce the
reading of the Word of God. We do not desire or attempt to
-enforce attendance. Attendance is optional : but upon all who
choose to attend, we do and must enforce the reading of the
Bible. You were told on Wednesday, by one of your own body,
that to enforce the reading of the Bible was " not Protestantism,
but persecution." We do not think so. We think it sound
Protestantism, because it is obedience to the Bible itself, which
commands us to bring up children in the nurture and admonition
of THE LORD.
But we think the, hrase is legitimately transferable to books,
which are not the Word of God, which are not extracts from
any known translation, but a new translation without authority;
and which contain notes by men, notes of at least doubtful in-
terpretation. To enforce the reading of these books, as is the
practice in your schools, is indeed " not Protestantism, but per-
secution."
I have thus, under the heads of translation and notes, given
you some of our strong objections to these books. There re-
inain other sources of objection, but instead of swelling this
letter to an inconvenient size, I will reserve them for another.
Meantime, I am anxious to offer an observation or two upon a
statement made in your debate of last Wednesday. Mr. Black-
burn is reported to have said concerning my letter to you, "This
" letter concluded in a style of denunciation. It must convince
" every gentleman who sat in that council, that the divine judg-
'"
Merits were not at the disposal of the writer of it. He sup-
" posed, if they were, he for one, and all who sat in thercouncil
" who dared to thinki differently, would fall under the writer's
" ban." These words may not be quite correctly given; but to
the substance of this statement, or rather to the state of mind
Which appears to have dictated it, I reply, that my letter con-
cludes with an earnest prayer, for the urgency of which a so-
lemn reason is assigned in the very words of Scripture. I have
never either expressed or entertained a thought of evil towards
1\ 1 r. Blackburn, or any other member of your honourable coun-
cil. If it were in my power to do any of you any real service,
I would cordially rejoice in the opportunity. If I have at any
time written or spoken anything, beyond what the interests of
truth required, calculated to wound any of your feelings, I beg
ter assure you, gentlemen, that I am sorry -for it; that nothing
could be more remote from my intention ; and that if I knew
wherein I hale offended you, I would gladly apologise fur it.
The subject is of mach too high a character, and the interests
at stake vastly too important, to admit of anything approaching
to personalities.-1 have the honour to be, Gentlemen, with
much respect, your obedient seivaut,
SI. Jude's, Noe. 28, 1836. HUGH AVNEILE.

FATAL ACCIDENT.—On Monday morning last, John Osborn,
one of the porters at the railway station in Lime-street, in
running across the rails whe❑ the train was issuing from the
tunnel, Caine in contact with the buffer of a carriage lorry,
which threw him down, and the lorry and three of the carriages
passed over him. He was alive on being taken up, but expired
almost immediately.

DINNER TO Silt ROBERT PEEL—We understand that large
order, for tickets to the banquet to be given here to Sir Robert
Peel, are pouring in from all the surrounding towns and dis-
tricts, as well as from Perthshire, Ayrshire. E'dinburghshire,
&c.—ln the first place, as had been agreed upon, tickets for the
requisitionists: here, ionounting to" 1200, will be laid aside ; and,
to secure against mistake regarding this point, all their names
and addresses, arranged in alphabetical order, were copied from
the scroll previous to its being conveyed to Tamworth.—The
situation. selected for the entertainment, in rear of Mr. Gor-
don's mansion in Buchanan street, we believe is capable of
containing a much larger assembly than has vet been announced;
but with eves y wish on the part of the directors to accommodate
the greatest possible number, that number must be limited, as
it is well known, were the company so large as to prevent them
from hearing the speakers, dissatisfaction and disappointment
must be the consequence.--4t is possible we may be eased of
part. of the rush of company from the east, as we observe, with
pleasure. by the Edinburgh papers of Saturday, that a requisi-
tion to Sit Robert to accept of a public dinner in "the metropolis
Of Scotland," has also been got up.—We shall, however, have
the first of the right honourable gentleman at all events.—
Herald.

FRIDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 2, 1836.

We have ben favoured with New York papers up to
the Bth ult. The contents are particularly interesting ;
but we regret that our limits will not admit of any ex-
tended extracts this day. We are happy to inform our
readers that we have made arrangements for obtaining a
regular supply of papers from that city, and shall in
future be enabled to present them with the earliest in-
formation on the affairs of the United States. The most
recent arrivals announce that the elections are proceed-
ing with great vigour. The friends of Van Buren seem
confident of success. We transcribe the following:—