The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

ON POPERY.

Innumerable' symptoms appear Of a prevailing disposi-
Aion to Contemplate the doctrines of popery wit. 4 less
disgust, and fo Witness their progress with less alarm,
than has ever been known since the reformation. All
the zeal and activity are on one side; and while absur-
dity is restrained, and every pretension defended, which
fermerly drew upon popery the indignation and abhorence
of all enlightened- GI) rift tiart,r; wgttlitild- be beady' con-
elude, from the altered state of' public feeling, that a
system once so obnoxious had undergone some momentous
revolution. We seem; on this occasion, to have inter.
preted in its mostliteral sense the injunctions of ." hoping
all things,, and believing all things." We persist in,
maintaining that the adherents to popery are materially
changed, in contradictionlo their eXpressive disavowal;
and while they make a boast, of the infallibility of their
creed, and the_nnalterable nature of their religion, we
persist in the" belief of its having experienced we know
not what melioration and improvement. In most instances,
when men. are deceived, it is the effect of art and con-
trivance on the part of thoie who delude them: in this
the deception originates. with ourselves; and instead of
bearing false witness against our neighbour, such is our
candour, that we refuse to credit the unfavourable testi-
mony which he bears of himself.
There is in the meantime nothing reciprocal in this
strange method of proceeding: we pipe to them, but they
will.not dance. Our concessions, instead of softening
And mollifying, seem to have no other effect upon them
thari to elate their pride and augment their arrogance.
An equal: change in the state of feeling towards an
object which has Itself undergone no alteration whatever,
and where the party by which it is displayed profess to
adhere to their ancient tenets; it would: be difficult to
sPecifv. The causes -of_ this singular phenomenon may
partly be ascribed- to the length of timd,which has elapsed
since we .have hal, actual, experience. of, the „enormous
crueltiei of the papal system, and-to the fancied security.
we possess.ag.ainst theirjecurreneel- partly to the agita-
tion 'of a great pblr cal nuestinti,:-whielfieeras to have
had the elfget 'of iden.tifying the causen of;p9Pre,iv with that
of the Protestint dit.”ethiersJ 'll..i.rnpr,essirin,o'f the heart;
Ms:, in a mangler, Spent:it-sell:: and itt many' its place
,is
occupied bran eagerness to grasp at present advantages,
and 'to Tay hold"of every expedient for shaking off the
restraints which a narrow and: tirriid, policy has imposed.
The influence; ettliese circumstances has been much aided
by that in‘litterence to religious. truth .which too often

shelters itself under the mask of candour; and to such an
extent has this humour been carried, that distinguished
leaders in parliament have not scrupled to represent the
controversy between the papists and the protestants,
turning on obscure and unintelligible points of doctrine,'
scarce worth the attention of enlightened minds.
Whether popery will ever be permitted, in the inscru-
table counsels of Heaven, again to darken and over-
spread the land, is an inquiry in which it is foreign to
our province to engage. It is certain that the members
of the Romish community are at this moment on the tip-
toe of expectation, indulging the must sanguine hopes,
suggested by the temper of the times, of soon recover-
ing all that they have lost, and of seeing the pretended
rights of their church restored.in their full splendour. If
anything can realize such an expectation; it is undoubt-
edly the torpor and indifference of protestants, combined
with the incredible zeal and activity of the Papists • and
universal observation. shows what these are capable of
effecting,—hcw often they compensate. the disadvantages
arising from paucity of number, as well as almost every
kind of inequality.—Rev. Robert Hall, of Leicester.

LONDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH., MONDAY, JUNE 8.

The Attorney-General moved fora rule to shows cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against an 6verseer of a
parish for neglect of duty. So pure and disinterested was the
object of the parties, that they requested him not to mention
the name of the parish or the individual supposed to be impli-
cated.

Lord Demi A N.—The only objection is, that the wrong person
is sometimes suspected.
• The Attorney-General was quite in their lordships' discretion.
The parish was 100 miles from London, where, in the month of
February last, the small-pox broke out in alarming an manner.
It was determined, with the concurrence of the overseer, that the
poor should be vaccinated, and a medical man was applied to
tor that purpose, and he agreed to vaccinate the poor for Is. 6d.
a-head ; he accordingly attended in the pariih, when the over-
seer refused to allow him to vaccinate the poor ; the consequence
was, that the infection spread over the whole parish, and one
person died. It was decided that where the overseer did not
btive relief to the poor, he was liable for neglecting his duty.
Here the overseer, merely to save the parish the expense of
Is. 6d. a-head, and which he bad admitted was a reasonable
compensation, had refused the attendance of a medical man,
and the eradication of the disease which had been attended with
the most serious consequences. It was a gross breach of duty :
it was of the last importance that the parish should obey the
law, and in order that they should certainly obey the laws, laws
should be enacted for their relief and protection, and they would
the more readily do so if they found their interests at ad times
attended to by those in whom the constitution had placed the
trust. He, therefore, submitted that the court would think the
overseer called upon. to explain his conduct, why he refused to
do that which, in this case, was necessary, and the desire of the
parish.
Lord Denman said the circumstances were unfortunate, and,
so far as they could judge, this overseer had exercised an un-
sound discretion. Most probany if he had abided by the agtee-
ment be had entered into, those very serious consequences
might have been prevented; but at the same time, before they
granted a criminal information against a public officer, they
must ascertain that the duty was cast upon him by law; but he
was not aware of anything that reqUired him to enter into this
arrangement. The poor would not have been bound to submit
to it. If the legal duty had appeared, he should have thought
the unfortunate consequences would have made out a case of
gross negligence, but he was now obliged to say that the court
did not think this rule ought to be granted.
Rule refused.