The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-30 00:00:00

iimat 'Notice.

THE Creditors who have proved their Debts nder a fiat in
Bankruptcy awarded and issued fotth gainst JOHN
FOX, of Liverpool, in the :countY of Lane ster, wine-tner-
'chant, are requested to meet the Assignees- f the said Bank
raft's estate and effects, on Thursday, the econd day of July
next, at twelve o'clock at nO,in, at t office of Messt,.l.
LOWNDRS' and RonirasoN, Solicitors;•Bru wick-street, Liver-
pool, in order to assent to •tit diasarWfrtmrtire-said Assignees
compounding with certain debtors to, the estate, Who will b
named at the meeting; and also to take, into consideration cer-
tain instances of the placing or .worehousing of Wines with !he
Bankrupt by parties who will be named at the meeting; and
to assent to or dissent from I Ite.Assiggyes delivering such wines,
or any of them, to the patties claiming the Aiple ;. and also to
assent to or dissent from the-saitt Assignees referring such cases
or any of them to arbitration., or otherwise to authorize the As-
signees to take or defend any proceedings the ;High Court of
Chancery, or in the Court of fteview, in relation to the said
wines; and on other special affairs.

LONDON GAZETTE.—FRIDAY, JUNE 2a.

INSOLVENTS.

June 24, Thomas Tomolit', Luton, Bedfordshire, baker—June 25,
Joseph Slnek, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, shipliroket—June 26, William
Sturt, Chailey. Sussex, spirit-merehant. •
BANKRUPTS. '

John Bell and William Stewart, Fort-street, Spitalf►elds, silk-marm
facturera.

George William Lyndon, Gerrard-street, Soho, London, wholesale
jeweller.
.."

Joseph Gillnm James,..Bucklersbury, wine-merchant.
'Alfred Price, Priest-court, Poster-lane, Cheapside, London, straw-
bfmnet-maker.
William Thomas Pesten, Budge-row, Watling-street, and Bromley,
Inciia-rulther-manufaeturer.

George Clisby, litutgerfolli-market, London, corn-dealer.
John Wallis, Tooley-street, Southwark, iinen-draper.
John Ravenscro ft, jun.iManch'ester, wine-merchant,
James Whitelocks, Watnall,Nnteinghathshire, buildef.
John Broom, Jesse Taylor, • and' Solomon Briggs, Huddersfield.
fancy-cloth-manufacturers.. •• • •• •
James Bastian. Truro, g ornwall, merchant.
Thomas Young, Nericastle-dpon-Tyne. grocer.
John Burnley, Wetherby, Yorkshire, wood-merchant.

July 18, J. Fox, Liverpool, •wine4rierchanV—July 18, T. Wadley,
Liverpool, merchant—July,l4;• P. Richard, Liverpool—July 20, J.
M. Holt and %V. Oswald,Yeather's-eourt, London. Irish-linen-factors
—July 17. J. Chandler and. S. King, St.. Paul's Churchyard, London,
woollen-drapers July" '2O, G. Williams, Union-court, Holloway,
merchant—July 17, W. 13ealeandJ: H.Wrathall, Union-street, South-
mark, hat-makers--July 20,' a: Hill, Royston, Ilertfordshire, builder
—July 20, T. Grove. Great Surrey=street London, tailor—July 17, J.
Lucas, City-road, London, timber-merchant—July 10, J. Carter; Cole-
man-street, London, woollen-warehouseman—July 17, H. IL-New-
ington, High-street, Southwark, .Chinaman—July 17, S. and K. A.
Crickett and S. 11. Buffett, Chelmsford, bankers—July 17, G. Telfer,"
Phoenix-wharf, London; coal-thershatit—July 17, P. D. L. Hilde-
sheimer, otherwise P. Levi', Woolwich, grocer—July 7, T. R. Lewis.
Tunbridge-place, London, wine-merchant—July 2.7,' F. P. Couch,
Launceston, Cornwall, horse-dealer—July 31; .P. Cox, Fairford,
Gloucestershire, builder—Aug. 7, J. Dent, Durham. draper—July 18,
0, 'Willson. Atherstone, Warwickshire, victualler—July 20, J. Edles-
ton, Manchester, eommission-agmt—July 21, H. and C. Battersby,
'Lindley, Lancashire, cotton-spinners—July 22. H. Battersby, 'Lindley",
Lanenstire. cotton-spinney—July 23, C. Battersby, 'Lindley, Lan-
rashire. cotton-spinner—Aug. 15, T. Lord, Newton-heath and Man-
.chester, silk-manufacturer—July 24, W. D. Price, .Chejstow, Mon-
mouthshire, innkeeper.

Emptrial Varliamtnt.

HOUSE OF CONIMONS.—WEDNAsnAy.
SPANISH AFFAIRS.

_ ....._.
Lord MAHON moved for a copy of the order in council, and
all' communications respecting. it, exempting his majesty's
subjects who may enter the service of the Queen of Spain from
the provisions of the foreign enlistment act. The debate on
this motion was a very long one,' but nu opposition was offered
by Lard Palmerston. Col. Evans, the officer who is to hav'e
the command of the English auxiliaries now raising, took ex-
ceptions to some expressions used by Lord Mahon, which
called for the interference of the speaker, in consequence of
which the noble lord and the gallant colonel mutually ex-
plained.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' BILL

LOIAJOHN RUSSELL moved (us committee) the 10th clause
of this bill, with some alterations. This clause affects the
rights of all freemen to any property to which they might be
entitled by depriving all freemen, widows of freemen, &c. &c.—
who were not freemen on the sth of June, 1835, of any right to
participate therein. His lordship having explained the amend-
ments which he proposed to make in this clause, said, with re-
gard to freedom by birth of right, he thought that it did not
stand an the same ground as the right to freedom by apprentice-
ship. It had been urged with regard to the latter that the ap-
prentices had either paid themselves, or their friends or relations
had paid for them, sums of money, iu the expectation that those
sums of money would be afterwards repaid to them by means
of the advantages which they would enjoy on becoming free-
men of the borough. It would therefore be a hardship upon
them if the house were to deprive them of those advantages
which they had been accustomed to expect. As to those who,
by the accident of birth, were entitled to become freemen on
their coining of age, it was quite clear that the same argument
did not apply to them. They gave nothing for the advantages
which they might enjoy, and therefore had no reason to com-
plain of the operation of the clause.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT understood the amendment of the noble
lord to admit the principle that certain persons had vested
rights in property which ought not to be destroyed, and in fur-
therance of it we ought to exempt all persons having at this
moment the same description of vested interests. What was
the distinction between an apprentice whose right was admitted
and the son of a freeman now born who possessed the same
right on arriving at the age of twenty-one? Did it make any
difference when we were dealing with the rights of property
whether the property was that of a poor or rich man ?---an estate
of £20,000 a-year or a right to turn out a few bead of cattle on a
common ? What he meant to propose by. way of amendment
was, that every person having an actual right as a freeman at
the time of the passing of the act, and every person then having
an incubate right to be admitted to his freedom by birth or
otherwise, should have the same rights of property as if this bill
had never existed. Exemption from tolls might be a public in-
convenience; but he thought the house ought to be cautious
how it took such privileges away. •
Lord JOHN RUSSELL subsequently moved that the chairman
should report progress. The hon. and learned member (Sir W.
Follett) could inform him of the words he proposed to introduce
into the clause, and he (Lord J. Russell) would consider them.
. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress and the house ad-
journed.

HOUSE OF LORDS—THURSDAY.
The Earl of Devon took the oaths and his seat.
The Bishop of LICHFIELD presented petitions from Coven-
try, Cardiff, and other places against the appropriation clause
in the Irish church bill.

IRISH POOR LAWS.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a parish
in the cothity of Clare. praying that poor laws might be intro-
duced into Ireland. The noble duke said he had passed a great
part of a long life in Ireland, and was convinced that there was
no man acquainted with that country but must feel that what
would suit England would not suit Ireland. Poor laws had
crushed the energies and demoralised the people of England,
and in Ireland would destroy all the charitable feelings which
now existed there. Poor laws in Ireland would be productive
of the most mischie%ous effects.
IRISH EDUCATION COMMISSION.

The Bishop, of EXETER presented a petition from the Rev.
Edward Mangles, a minister of the established church in Ire-
land. It set forth, in effect, that the petitioner, the Rev. E.
Mangles, a member of the united church of England and Ire-
land, and minister of the island•of Achill, had been placed in
that living in July last; that at the time there was no glebe-
house on the island; that the petitioner procured a tract of
mountain land, and proceeded to build houses upon it; that
he had expended £1,500 in improving the place, and that £5O
for a month's wages had frequently been paid to the labourers
employed by him; that he had gone to considerable expense
to clothe the naked children, and that he had established schools
for their education; that Mr. Newport, one of the commission-
ers of public instruction, had visited his establishment, and' ex-
pressed his approbation of it; that a Roman catholic priest,
who resided ou the island, had done everything in his power to
frustrate the petitioner's attempts to ameliorate the condition of
the inhabitants; that he pronounced from the altar frightful
imprecations against those who worked for the petitioner or
went to his school. The petition then proceeded to set forth a
great many outragesTerpetrated against the petitioner, as it was
alleged, in consequence of the influence of the priest, and con-
cluded by praying that measures should be adopted by the
legislature to secure to individuals the right of professing with-
out annoyance or molestation the protestant faith in Ireland.
Lord FARNHAM had known Mr. Mangles for many years,
and believed that there did not exist a milder or more auiiable
man, or one less likely to provoke the outrages which were de-
tailed in the petition.
The Bishop of EXETER then said that he had also a petition
from the Rev. Mr. Stoney. The petitioner " implored their
lordships to take such steps as should seem fitting in their lord-
ships' wisdom for the protection of the
_protestant religion—for
the redress of those grievances which afflicted the country—and
to extend such relief to the members of the church of England
as would ensure to them religious liberty and personal safety."
The petition was against partial and unjust proceedings alleged
to have been resorted to by two of the commissioners of public
instruction in Ireland. Now, in order to see whether their con-
duct was partial and unjust, the best course, perhaps, would be
refer to the commission. Their lordships would bear with him
when he said that, recollecting that this was a commission un-
der the great seal, it was to be expected that the object of such
a commission could not be meant, in the slightest degree, to
weaken or to interfere with the cause ottrue religion,'or to im-
pair any of the rights and privileges of the clergy of the esta-
blished church in that part of the united kingdom to which such
commission was directed. Those rights and privileges were of
the most sacred character, and he was sure that in granting this
commission it was never intended that it should be made an
instrument for invading them, because, if his majesty departed
from that principle, it must be plain to their lordships that in
such a case his majesty would have done that which it would
be unseemly to conceive possible—nay, which could not be con-
ceived,to be possible—that he had adopted a course contrary to
the iuterests of the established religion, and thereby violated his
coronation oath. The terms of the commission were such as
went strictly to the protection of the rights and privileges of
the church; but there was one part of it liable to much objec-
tiou—that which directed a summary to be made of the number
of persons attached to different religious persuasions in Ireland.
Looking to the commission, the powers confided to the fidelity
of the commissioners would, if rightly followed up, have con-
ferred the greatest blessings upon the people of Iceland. He
alluded particularly to the last matter given in charge to the
commissioners—namely, " to inquire generally whether ade-
quate provision is now made for the religious instruction and
for the general education of the people of Ireland, and to report
such other circumstances connected with the moral and political
relations of the church establishment, and the religious institu-
tions of other denominations dissenting from the established
church as may bring clearly into view their bearings on the,
general condition of the people of that part of our said united
kingdom called Ireland." Nothing better for the happiness of
Ireland—nothing better for the security of England—nothing
better for the good, temporal and eternal, of the popolation of
the former country could be devised than a thorough investiga-
tion of the effects produced by the respective religious principles
of the established church and of the Roman Catholics on the
character and conduct of the people of Ireland. It was with
regret he found that the commissioners had not only not exe-
cuted that important part of the inquiry—that they had not only
nut touched upon it, but had, as be thought, permitted themselves
to pass it over most unjustly and unfairly. He had just read
what the commissioners were called upon to inquire into, and
now he would refer to their report. They said, speaking of the
course which they had adopted, that, in pursuing it, " we are
influenced by the consideration, that, inasmuch as the inquiry
committed to our charge is essentially of a statistical nature,
and as we are not authorized to recommend remedial measures
in respect to the anomalous relation in which the institutions of
the. established church stand, with reference both to its own
members and to the rest of the population in the greater part of
Ireland, as apparent from those facts as set forth in our reports,
any comments upon- those facts illustrative of that relation
would necessarily involve us in the lengthened discussion of
many matters of serious import not comprehended, as we
conceive, within the scope of our inquiry." (Hear, hear, hear.)
Their lordships would perceive they hail not only refused to do
that which they were called upon to do, but had been pleased to
allude to what they called the " anomalous relation in which
the- institutions ()fate established church stands with reference
to its own members and the rest of the population of Ireland."
Ile would now call the attention of the house to the allegations
contained in the petition. It was alleged that the Roman ca-
tholic priest objected to the reception of the statement given on
oath by the parochial schoolmaster of the numbers of the pro-
testants, and-the commissioners refused to receive evidence re-
fife" protestants thought it waquitt—'
of their instructions to inquire into the reasons of the increase
or diminution in the number of the persons who attended
schools and places of worship. The petitioner stated
.that lie
was ready to prove at the bar of that house, that the protestants
had been subject to the most cruel and' unrelenting persecution ;
that the Roman catholic children would attend the parochial
scripture school, if it were not that they were pelted with
stones, and hunted across the streets ; lie said that some of
them had the. mark of the cruel whip of the priest upon their
backs, and that some had been confined to their beds in conse-
quence of the ill usage they had received. 'Whether that state-
ment was or was not true he ( the Bishop of Exeter) could not
say, but the petitioner had offered to prove its correctness before
the commissioners, and he now offered to do so, with their
lordships' permission, at the bar of that house. The commis-
sioners, for reasons with which he was not disposed to find
fault, thought proper to bring forward their statement in justi-
fication, and it would be in the recollection of their lordships
that the following observations were made by the noble viscount
(Lord Duncannou), and that they produced some effect at the
time :—" When the commissioners first arrived in Dublin, they
deemed it necessary to address certain queries to the clergy of
all denominations. T. these they had generally received proper
answers, but the parish of which Mr. Stoney was the incum-
bent formed, it appeared, an exception. He did not think pro-
per to return written answers to the printed queries, but sent
back printed answers, many of them irrelevant." In conse-
quence of that statement, he (the Bishop of Exeter) wrote to
Mr. Stoney, expressing very strongly his disapproval of the
course which had been taken by that rev. gentleman in dealing
with the .quei ies put by the commissioners. lie had also con-
demned the ill temper exhibited by liiin, and the improper lan-
guage employed in several instances in his answers: In reply
lo his communication he received a letter from Mr. Stoney
which utterly astonished him, and which he should presently
take the liberty of reading to their lordships. He felt it neces-
sary, however, to state, in the first place, that after reading that
letter, he thought it right to move that the original letter re-
ceived by the commissioners from Mr. Stoney in answer to their
queries should be laid on their lordships' table. That motion
was agreed to, and in compliance with it, the noble viscount
placed last night on the table a written copy of the letter. He
(the BishOp of Exeter) remarked to the noble viscount that the
nranuscript was not the original letter. The noble viscount
promised to show him the original, and had that day placed in
his hands a paper which purported to have been received on the
23th of November, 18&I, at the Record-office of the Public In-
struction Commission, in Dublin. The paper was without any
cover, and whether it was received by post or not was not ap-
parent. He had no hesitation in saying, that in the absence of
all internal evidence, be must give implicit credence to the ex-
ternal evidence which the Rev. Mr. Stoney offered on the sub-1
ject.

He trusted, however, that if there -was any cover to the

letter, the noble viscount mould produce it. The rev. gentle-

TUE LIVERPOOI

man, in his letter to him (the. Bishop of Exeter), said the t
statement that he had returned printed answers to the queries
of the commissioners was a mistake. He (the bishop of Ex-
eter) rejoiced to find that the rev. gentleman had now adopted a
more temperate style. At a former period hemight probably
have applied a stronger term, to the statement of the cThuniis-
sioners than mistake. (A laugh.) He (the Bishop of Exeter),
however, firmly believed that it was a mistake on the part of the
commissioners. The rev. gentleman proceeded to state in the
letter addressed to him, that he did not send printed answers to
the commissioners ; he said, that a printed list of queries was
forwarded to him, that he made out manuscript answers to
them, and sent them by post to the commissioners. He
distinctly denied that he sent printed answers, and he asserted
that his memory ou that point was refreshed and cor-
roborated by an individual who officiated as his clerk ; he said
that he afterwards got them printed and circulated, in answer
to some virulent attacks which had been published by
the priest Hughes ; that he had no intention to show disrespect
to the government or to the commissioners, but that he felt
strongly, in common with the rest of the clergy of the establish-
ed church, on receiving queries, calling on those who replied to
them to recognise the mass as part of divine service ; the rev.
gentleman apologised to the house 'and to the government for
anything that might appear improper in the tone or language
of his answers ; but he repeated that the statement made by him
was perfectly true, as to the Romau catholic priests preaching
in his chapel the destruction of those who read the Bible by
pitchforks, and of his ordering the people to wallop (such was
the priest's expression) any one who dared to collect tithei for
bum (the petitioner)—.as to the soldiers being obliged to leave
the Roman catholic chapel in consequence of the seditious lan-
guage spoken in the pulpit—and as to the children of the na-
tional school going out to meet the catholic Archbishop
M'Hale with green boughs, ribauds, and flags, in October last.
He (the Bishop of Exeter) need scarcely remind their lordships
that the professed object of the government in establishing these
national schools was to put an end to everything like religious
strife, and to promote peace and charity among the people ;
but, he would ask, was that object likely to be answered if the
children educated at these schools were permitted to go out, and
meet a Roman catholic archbishop with party, if nut seditious,
emblems ? With respect• to Mr. Stoney's assertion, that the
soldiers were ordered out of the Roman catholic chapel in con-
sequence of the seditious language used by the preacher, be
would remind their lordships that that was a circumstance of no
uncommon occurrence in Ireland. In the report of a commit-
tee of their lordships in 1832, a case was mentioned where the
officers of a regiment felt it their duty to order the soldiers to
quit the chapel to which they had gone for the purpose of wor-
ship, and Dr. M'Hale himself made use of such inflammatory
language in the pulpit in the town of Ballina„ that the officers
of the 27th regiment were obliged to withdraw their troops from
the chapel. In his opinion, the fact that the answers sent by
Mr. Stoney to the commissioners were not printed extenuated
in some degree the language in which they were couched, be-
cause it might happen that the answers, being in manuscript,
were written hastily, and sent off in a hurry. He felt- it his
duty, however, to declare that the language of some of those
answers was intemperate and improper. The rev. gentleman
had acted improperly in charging the government with helping
to build up the superstition denounced as contrary to God's
truth by the law of the realm, and supporting nurseries for re-
bellion, sedition, and treason. Such language, in his opinion,
was highly indecent, and his statement that Satan sat at the
board of file new education commission shearing God's word of
its glorious truth deserved reprobation. He also thought that
the commissioners had acting indiscreetly in calling in their
printed queries the Romish mass divine service; for it was un-
doubtedly true that in one of the articles of the established
church it was designated to be blasphemous. The petitioner
asserted that when he gave to the commissioners a statement of
the number of protestants in his parish (which he set down as
amounting. to about 500 persons,) the list was handed by them
to the Roman catholic priest, who forthwith op—e-ned a large
book, and began to examine the list of protestants amidst the
jeers and laughter of the surrounding crowd. The petitioner
reminded the commissioner of the dangerous persecution to
which the protestants were subject. but the commissioner allowed
the priest to go on with his objections, and one poor protestant,
who had married a catholic, was rparticularly singled out for
comment. 'Again the petitioner stated, that, in reply to the
question whether the attendance at the protestant church had
increased or diminished, he said that the attendance would be
much greater were it not for the intimidation which was prac-
tised. The commissioners told him to refrain from such obser-
vations, because their inquiry was restricted to statistical facts,
and would not extend to the causes of the increase or diminution
of the protestant congregation; and why? Because such, an
extension of their inquiry was likely to lead to aitercations.
This was a most extraordinary statement, because it would seem
that the commissioners expected their mission to be all plain
sailing. In that respect they had exhibited great ignorance of
human nature. The petitioner further asserted, that he went to
the commissioners to prove cases of persecution against the
protestants; but he found that the word persecution" was un-
pleasing to the delicate ears of the commissioners, who would
not allow the evidence to be received.' The proof of minor
peccadilloes they were willing to admit, but they would have
nothing to do with an offence of so heinous a kind as persecution.
The petitioner also said that Mr. Stewart, who, when the list of
protestants was given, observed that it must have been made out
On a red-letter day, meaning thereby that the protestants must
have been counted on a ate day, and not oil a Sunday, was a
great friend of the Roman' catholic priests, and joined in the
laugh raised against the clergyman. That gelitleman, who was
nominally a protestant, alleged that the .number of the protest-
ants was -110. The petitioner complained of the unbecoming
conduct on the part of those present, which was allowed to_ pass
unchecked by the coinmissioners ; but in his (the Bishop of
Exeter's) opinion those gentlemen were chiefly to blame fur
refusing to inquire into the causes of the increase or diminution
of the protestant congregations. He had no hesitation in say-
ing that it was a culpable dereliction of duty nn their part to
refuse to enter into that inquiry, which they had themselves
invited, and which those individuals whom they summoned
were ready, by every means in their power, to facilitate. He
wished to deal with this question on general grounds ; he had.
no wish to bring any charge against individuals,•but he believed
that the statements in the petition made out a prima facie case
for inquiry. The right rev. prelate then referred. to Dens's
Theology, and stated, we believe, that the question of Irish
education had assumed great interest in consequence of pro-
ceedings which had lately taken place in this metropolis. He
said that more dOutlful principles than were set forth in that
work it was never his misfortune to read, oven in the worst
publications which had appeared in the worst ages of popery.
Protestants were described as being worse than Pagans, and'
were doomed, not merely to ecclesiastical punishment, such as
excommunication, but to the greatest corporal inflictions, and
even death, together with the confiscation of their property.
This was set forth in plain language, and was sanctioned by no
less a person than Dr. Murray, the Roman catholic Archbishop
of Dublin, one of his majesty's commissioners of education in
Ireland, who was stated in a work of the most authoritative kind
to have directed that that book of Dens's should not only be
published for the education of the priests in Ireland, but should
also be made the test-book at the conferences which the Roman
catholic clergy were bound to hold four times •every year. The
right rev. prelate then presented the petition.
Lord DUNCANNQN defended the conduct of the commissioners,
who had acted pfoperly in refusing to receive any evidence *ex-
cept such as tended to establish facts of a statistical nature.
The petitions after some remarks from Lords Brougham,
Wicklow, Hatherton, and Radnor, was laid ou the table, cud the
house adjourned.