The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-01-30 00:00:00

looked to such measures as should secure their possession
of office. They cared for nothing beyond this. The
royal veto stood between them and their church levelling
scheme. There they could not move. Lord STANLEY,
the Duke of RICHMOND, and Sir-JAMES GRAHAM stood
by the litma. The small party—the coterie of wasps
such as Lord Jon;r• RUSSELL, Lord ALTHORP, Mr.
LITTLETON, Mr. SPRING RICE, the shabby Lord PAL-
MERSTON, and" the very respectable Mr. EDWARD
ELLICE, of Coventry these• had no sting strong
enough . to encounter the royal phalanx ; but in-
trigue having induced the latter to retire
,altogether,
they had a merry, but alas, a short life. All their plans
f9r i 4 increase of patronage failed. They commissioned
briefless laWyers under the pretext of inquiring into pub-
lic abuses, to procure votes for them all over the country.
They gave bread to the worthless in order to have their
praises sung in taverns and public places; but all this
came to an end. The church was invulnerable—the
corporations, at least in England, still stand secure;
and those who Would have plundered the one, and de-
stroyed the other, barekbeen cast upon the waters, with
no hope. of their retnill. The sea of their disgrace is
without a bottom or a shore.

These observations are initiatory to some most admir-
able arguments.adduced in favour of the duty of a whole
people to support national religious establishments by
an American judge. We are indebted for them to the
British Critic; for January. They were delivered by
the late Chief Justice PARSONS, -of Massachusetts, in
giving judgment in a case of lavr.' He remarks :

". Several objections have at times been made to this establish-
ment, which may be reduced to three: that when a man disar
proves of any religion, or .11; any supposed doctrine of any
religion, to compel him by law to contribute money for public
instruction in such religion, or doctrine, is an infraction'of his
liberty of conscience ;—that to compel a man to pay for public
religious instructions, on which he does not attend, and from
which he can, therefore, derive no benefit, is unreasonable and
intolerant; and that it is anti-christian for any state to avail
'itself of the precepts and tnaxims4trchristiaulty to sppport civil
'government, because the fouuder of it has declared that his
kingdom is not of this world.

" These objections go to the authority of the people to•makc
this constitution, which is not proper nor competent 'for us to
bring into question. And although we are not able, and have
no inclination, to assume the character of theologians, yet it may
not be improper to make a few short observations to defend our
constitution from the charges of persecution, intolerauce„and
impiety.

" When it is remembered that no man is compellable to at-
tend on any religious instruction which he conscientiously dis.
approves, and that he is absolutely protected in the most perfect
freedom of conscience in his religions opiuioos and worship, the
first objection seems to mistake a man's conscience for his
money, and to deny the state a right of levying and'of appro-
priating the money of the citizens at the will of the legislature
in which they are all represented. But as every citizen derives
the security of his property and the fruits of his industry from
the power of the state ; so, as the price of this protection, he is
bound to contribute, in common with his fellow-citizens, fur the
public use so much of his property and for such public uses, as
the state shall direct. And if any individual can lawfully with-
hold his contribution, because he dislikes the appropriation, the
authority of the. state to levy taxes would be annihilated ; and
without money it would soon cease to have any authority. But
all monies raised a.nd appropriated for public uses by any cor-
poration, pursuant to pawers derived from the state, are raised
and appropriated substantially by.. the authority of the state.
And the people in their constitution, instead of devolving the
',support of pubfic teachers on the corporations by whom they
should be elected, might have directed their support to be de-
frayed. out of the public treasury, to be reimbursed by the
levying and collection of state taxes. And against this mode of
support the objection of an individual disapproving of the object
bf the public taxes would have the "same weight it can have
against the mode of public support through the medium of cor-
porate taxation. In either case it can have no weight to main-
tain a charge of persecution for conscience sake. The great
error lies in not distinguishing between liberty of conscience in
religious opinions and worship, and the right of appropriating
money by the state. The former is an unalienable right, the
latter is surrendered to the state as the price of protection.
"The second objection is. that it is intolerant to compel a
man to pay for religious instruction from which, as he does not
hear it, he can derive no benefit. This objection is founded
wholly in mistake. The object of public religious instruction
is to teach and to enforce by suitable arguments the practice of
asystem of correct morals among the people, and to form and
cultivate reasonable and just habits and manners; by which
every man's person and property are protected from outrage,
and his personal and social enjoyments promoted and multi-
plied. From these effects every man derives the most important
betietits, and whether he -be or be not an auditor of any public
teachdr, he receive more solid and 'permanent advantages from
this public instruction than the administration. of justice in
courts of law can give him. The like objection may be made
by any man to the support of public schools if he have no family
who.attend; and any man who has no law suit may object to
the supportof judges and jurors on the same ground; when if
there were no courts of law he would unfortunately find that
causes for law suits would sufficiently abonnd.

nil iliee inop n
br ey( i
j" The last objection is founded upon the supposed anti-
christian conduct of the state in availing itself of the precepts
and maxims of chi istiauity for the purposes of a more excellent
civil government. It is admitted that the founder of this re-
id iiicoots ionft etni
ids
et
(omenrtercyt
nal e temporalodom reignin i ,t ahge r
ho e
ee abr
tls o
y tof
subduing their irregular' appetites and propensities, and
by moulding their passions to the noblest purposes. And it is
one great excellence of his religion, that, not pretending to
worldly pomp and power, it is calculated and accommodated to
ameliorate the conduct and condition of man under any form of
civil government. - •
" The objection goes further, and complains that.christianity
is not left for its promulgation and support to the means de-
signed by its author, who requires not the assistance of man to
effect his purposes and intentions. Our constitution certainly
provides for the punishment of many breaches of the laws of
christianity; not for the purpose of propping' up the chris-
tian religion, but because those breaches are offences against
the laws of the state; and it is a civil as well as religious duty
of the magistrate nut to bear the sword in vain. But there are
many precepts of christianity. of which the violation cannot be
punished by human laws.; and; as the obedience to them is be-
neficial, to civil society, the state has wisely taken care that they
should be taught and also enforced by explaining their !lima!
and religious sanctions, as they cannot be enforced by temporal
punishments. And, from the genius and temper of this religion,
and from the benevolent character of its author, we must con-
clude that it is his intention that man should be benefited by it
in his civil and political relations, as well as in his individual
capacity. And it remains for the objector to prove, that the
patronage of christianity by the civil magistrate, induced by the
tendency of its precepts to form good citizens, is not one of the
means by which the knowledge of its doctrines was intended to
be disseminated and preserved among the human race.
" The last branch of the objection rests on the very correct
position, that the faith and precepts of the christian religion are
so interwoven that they must be taught together; whence it is
inferred that the state, by enjoining instruction in its precepts,
interferes with its doctrines, and assumes it power not entrusted
to any human authority.
" lithe state claimed the absurd power of directing or con-
trolling the faith of the citizens, there might be some ground
for the Objection. But no such power is claimed. The au-
thority. derived from the constitution extends no further than to
submit to the understandings of the people the evidence of
truths -deemed of public utility, leaving the weight of the evi-
dence and the tendency of those truths to the conscience of
every man.
"indeed this objection must come from a willing objector;
for it extends in its consequences to prohibit the state from pro-
viding for public instruction in many branches of useful know-
ledge which naturally tend to defeat the arguments ofinfidelity,
to illustrate the doctrines of the Christian religion, and to con-
firm the faith of its professors.
fruotigirieooli.teo,oidt Colain,rnanlittylieb
"As christianity has the promise not only of this, but of a
Ydepnroietdegwstetaaililatirttefolt:regualcilhicerisn,sitirlauyethioany haven
piety,l)etie
64. et heviae.4l presettt stitee-- of existeuee. Anti the
people are
wisdom,a retofitehaatppinla.uste as well
religion
whose
hb benevolence vporleetn:ledsasoloodr
sanctions might supply the defects id civil government, neces-
sarily liknited in its power, and supported only by temporal pe-
naltieS, they adopted a religion founded in truth, which in its
tendency will protect Our property here, and may secure to us
an inheritance in another and a better country."

Alas, for the LIVERPOOL STANDARD The Rev. ED-
WAUD HULL, of the Blind Church, has tkclarecl war
against itl He has issued his proclamation, in which all
our deadly sins have been raked up against us, and the
public are counselled not, to waste their money in buy-
ing, nor their time in reading our anathematized sheets!
-The pope of Duncan-street, and the legate of St.
Luvrs, have denounced us, and the days of the pious
and sainted A' BECKETT are revived. Must ne, then,
kis-stile shrine ? That remains to be seen.
In another page will be found the letter, addressed to
the Liverpool Courier by Mr. HULL. We print it in
order that.the whole of our'readerS may see what sort of
production it is.- The rev. gentleman is described as a
man of "splendid talents,". by his particular friend, the
Rev. JAMES ASPINALL, and we are desirous that so great
a light-should not be hid. We thus do more for him
than he has yet been able to do for himself. His letter
will be read by at least fire thousand readers, and if any
one of them can discover in that letter any ray of " ta-
lent," any trace of meekness or charity, any spirit be--
coMing the gospel be preaches, or any indication of that
liberality which he professes, we shall be content to en-
dure all the opprobrium acid all the consequences of his
accusations. •

`When the immortal heroes oC the Danciuu are corn.
mantled by their inspiring goddess -to plunge into their

congenial mud, in. order to gain the leaden prize, two
of the competitors remind us very-much of our own two
candidates for fame, viz. the Rev. JAMES AsetriALL, and
the Re V. EDWARD HULL. List to the challenge!—
' , Here strip, my children hero at once leap in!
Here prove who best can dash through thick and thin,
And who the most in love of -- excel
Or dark dexterity of groping well.
The invocation being given, the first springs—
ILo
diluted a stranded lightens height
Shot to the black abyss, and plunged down right;
The hero's judgment all the crowd admire,
Who but to sink the deeper rose the higher.
The second worthy tries— •
----Drawn endlong by his skull,.
Furious he sinks, precipitately dull.
Whirlpools and storms his circling arm invest
With all the might of gravitation blest:
No crab more active in the dirty dance;'
Downward to clitub and backward'to advance.
tt wouiclfi'll become us to decide which of these reve-
rend competitors who have resolved to annihilate the
STANDARD, is deserving of the prize. They are both
equally meritorious in our estimation, and we leave them
to the public to which they have made their appeal.
Having finished Mr. ASPINALL in our last, it now be-
comes our duty to do similar serviez to the Rev. EDWARD
HULL. We challenged the veracity of the former gen-
tleman, with what success the reader will determine;
we acc.Qse the latter of wanton and unprovoked calum-
ny. Mr. Mum, begins his letter by making four distinct
charges against the STANDARD, none of which has the,
slightest connexion with his case, with none of which is
'his name otcharaCter mixed up,'but which we shall here
insert, numbering.them for the sake of reference.
No. I. " A few weeks ago there appeared in the columns of
Twit LIVERPOOL STANDARD the most groii and tUat►lrm attack
upon two exemplary clergymen, on their appointment by the
Common Council 'to the ecclesiastical situations which they
now occupy; that ever,disgruced the pages of a new,spaper."
No. 2. " In December last was contained in it a most low and
scurrilous paragraph :respecting one of the snost eminent mek
chants and best men in this large community." • 1
No. 3. " In the commencement of the' present_ Month two
gentlemen,'Whose characters, 1 believe, arc unimpeachable, are
charged in it.with collecting together a body of the lowest class
of Irishnrm and exciting them to do violence to an alderman
of the borough."
No. 4. "The. publication in it this week of certain letters
concerning a mercantile house in the town is scandalous beyond
all precedent."

In these charges the Rev. EDWARD HULL assumes
the character of a public prosecutor. The meddling
priest and the amateur attorney are here blended in one
Voluntary informer and accuser, and, if he is to be be-
lieved, we have been guilty of gross breaches of deco-
rum and morality. It is fortunate, however, that Mr.
111713. is as powerless as he is venomous, and that.his dis-
position to inflict an injury is neutralized by the redun-
dancy of his violent temper and restrained by thatlove
of justice which is the proud characteristic of the public
to which he appeals. To that public we present our de-
fence, and on their decision we rest our cause. We ask
nothing but fair play ; we make no charges which are
not founded on facts; we offer no statement which is-not
susceptible of the clearest proof.

In reference to charge No. 1, we reply that it is false,
in all its parts, and a most deliberate and malignant ca-
lumny. We n*de no " gross"; or " wanton attack"
upon' the reverend gentlemen alluded to. tWe presume
we are as good judges of what disgraces the pages of a
newspaper as Mr. HULL can be, and we' boldly assert
that his charge-against us is one which, being unfounded,
is a disgrace to a clergyman. The circumstance to
which he alludes ;xas the appointment to one of the town
churches of two gentlemen, against whose private vir-
tues or professional abilities we never breathed a syllable.
We did not think the appointment a_ proper one, simply.
on the ground that the successful candidates had impor-
tant school duties to discharge and numerous pupils to
attend to; hence we very naturally inferred that they
were not in a condition to attend to the craving wants
and penitential solaces of a populous community. We
warred against our own interest—we provoked the hos-
tility of friends—in contending for the rights of the poor,
and advocating the necessity of extending the influence
of able and unincintrbered ministers of the gospel. We
may have: been mistaken in our policy, but that is no ex-
cuse for the false and unprovoked slander of Mr. HULL.
Charge No. 2is only ridiculous. We, have as ,much
respect for the private character of Mr. WILLIAM BROWN
as he can have, and Mr. BROWN well knoWs that we never.
assailed it, or ever spoke of him in . that capacity but in
terms of respect. This we take it is higher praise than
Mr. IltiLL's senseless interference in a matter with which
he had no concern. No man of any sense—no man who
has seen the world—sio man- of generous feelings or of
christian spirit ever descends so far as to rake up the
hasty trifles of an electioneering pasquinade.

No. 3 refers to a meeting of the'carpenters during the
borough election. 'lt was a riotous assemblage of low
Irishmen, who had no right to be there. Was Mr. HULL
among the number? It. would'almost appear so; for he
passes rather an equivocal compliment upon the gentlemen
whom he believe.s to be respectable. The circumstances
occurred as we stated them, and are ready to prove.
How unworthy. of a clergyman to mii himself up with a
transaction which, if he bad been present, would have re-
flected dishonour upon him, and which, if not present,
he had no right either to censure or 'Raise But

"Fools rush in where angels fear to trtlad."

The charge No. 4 is only an ebullition 0( spite and ig-
norance—spite because Mr. HULL has nothing to do with
it—ignorance because he knows nothing of the circum-
stances. He may have read the Courier for. fifteen
years; but if he had read a better book with any advan-
tage he would not now be endeavouring to remove his
neighbour's landmark. How consummately paltry is all
this in a clergyman, a minister of peace, a stormy ultra,
in his pulpit, against Romish intolerance, but, in his
own person, the unbending despot in respect of forms,
and the ready listener to parlour gossip! The subject to
which he refers was contained in an advertisement. It
was a pure matter of business. The editor had no more
to dQwith it than Mr. HULL or the keeper of the Eddy-
stone lighthouse. We disclaim that we are parties to the
reflections cast upon the house in question, and, if they
have suffered wrong, we are prepared, on a moment's no-
tice, to do them every reparation.

Mr. HULL, after generously 'esponing the cause of
parties, who will`not thank him, and intermeddling with
matters with which he has nothing to do, just as amateur
peace-inakerS increase the quarrel by their silly interces-
sion, and are pommelled for their painsMr.OULL, after
charging the windmills and the poor .sheep, like Dort
QUIXOTE, condescends to notice some letlections which
ht 3 -considers bear upon hinist4f.; Are.are-•disposed
pass them by ; but this would be deemed unkind by our
friends, •and perhaps uncourteous by those convenient
upholders of private reputation, who, hiding themselves-
in dark corners while they laugh, pretend to lie friends
of the gentleman of " splendid talents."'
He sayi we accuse him of radicalism, and that we
place him in the ranks of a church leveller. Mr. HULL
complains loudly of this, and he appeals to his twenty-
five years service in the church in proof of the contrary.,
This is ingenionS enough; and it may take with those
who are not so much compelled as we are to judgeof men •
by their deeds, and by the well-stored notes, and copious
extracts withal, of their avowed opinions from the pul-
pit. The appeal, however, on the part of Mr. HULL
wants one most important link in the Dliain, which would
have led to a: more faiourable conchision. He doeer.
not deny that he is a radical and a leveller! He dues
not appeal to published or unpublished discourses, in or-
der to prove that he is not a leveller. He dues nut say,
"consult my writings—examine my sermons—revise the
opinions I have-given under the rose at private enter-
tainments." No, he conjures up twenty-five years of
his experience, and, at the eleventh hour, now that
his hopes are blasted, now that revolution is not likely
to patronize his " splendid talents"—he holds up his
hands like Lord BROUGHAM and eicaiitus---" these
hands are pure" ! •

It may be so; but will Mr. HULL grant us the extreme
liberty of donbting it, We beg to recall his aiteution to a
sermon he preached at the re-opening- of the Blind
Church,. in July last. We have ample notes of that se't-
Mon, revised and confirmed by tw•o or three of his most
r'espectable hearers. Ths sentiments prothulgated on that

JANUARY 30, 1836.

occasion, (for we had previously entertained some
respect for the reverend gentleman) opened our eyes to
the character of the preacher. On that occasion the
LIVERPOOL STANDARD spoke of him as follows, but in a
charitably subdued tone, feeling the full force of the in-
sult, but hoping that it contained many hasty expres-
sions, which on consideration the preacher would recon-
sider and reform. It was impossible, however, for us,
in the strut discharge of our duty, to pass it wholly by,
and we published the following modified report as a hint
in the STANDARD Abe Bth July, 1834.
So spoke Mr. HULL on that occasion—

" Affer urging with great eloquence (we beg pardon) and
ability the necessity of supporting the church as an institution
—after deprecating the attempt to commute church rates as an
experiment that would fail from its inapplicability to particular
districts of the country, the reverend gentleman avowed him-
self a church reformer, and spoke .with great animation; we
might be justified in saying with great bitterness, of whit! he
called_ the abominable corruptions which, he said, were like a
canker worm, eating its way to her very vitals."
These are the win, h of our reporter ; but, now that
the whole truth must E e told, they convey but a feeble
expression of the wholesale, sweeping,. and. levelling
principles he boldly advocated in that sermon against
the institutions of the Church of England. There was
In it all the bitterness of a disappointed aspirant—all the
gall of an insidioUtqpnetriy—all the wanton misrepresen-
tations of a downright radical, whose principles were sup-
posed to be popular, and likely, -under" a revolutionary
administration, to be profitable.
Mr. HULL may wince at this, but he knows he cannot
contradict it. We have it, as JosEpu Hums says, in
" black and white." We have it corroborated by some.
of the most respectable of his audience—aye, by some
of his then friends.

Will Mr. HULL do us the favour to publish that ser-
' mon ? We shall undertake to pay all the charges of pub-
lication, if he will give us a copy of it as he delivered it.
No, he will,not. He can defend low Irishmen in a con-
cocted quarrel—he can' defeird -people supposed to be
injured by advertisements in the Standard—he can de•
fend gentlemen who will not ask him to an evening party
oftener in consequence—he can meddle irkimatters which
evince the narrarness of his disposition and the morbid
nature of his mind—but he will nut publish this sermon.
But ,when was it delivered ? At a time when the
destruction of the church was the .prirnum mobile of
ministerial and popular action. The dirk was driven,
as a highlander.would say, when the blood was up. A
sweeping reform of the church was then in contempla-
tion. The worms below who gnawed it hoped to be W.,.
terflies to glisten in-the sunshine of prosperity above it.
Every small.wit had his cut and slash at pur venerable
institutions. The arch's overthrow was the spoiler's
toast, while the cheer at the mob banquet was raised
aloud as if her walls were in the aet of tumbling to the
ground. At that critical moment, when every minister
of our Zion should have been girding on his sword, and*
arming himself in her defence, determined to stand or
fall with her, and to give no quarter to her assailants—
at that critical moment she had a swarm of traitors
within her pale, who were 'ready to aid the besiegers,
and who were actually returning the signals of those who
formed the "pressure from without." In the success of
a sweeping reform and in the final doom of the corpora-
tions, such men as klr. HULL looked for preferment.
The cup, howevilt, was dashed. from their lips, and we
now put the seal to the rank which they must be content
to hold until the next revolution. But the comity, of
that event in their day is, we trust, beyond the verge of
hope.

Mr. HULL having failed to refute or deny the charge
of disaffection which we brought against him, (for we
never called him 'a radical," that term can only be ap-
pliel to an open, and bold enemy of the church,)
next proceeds to instruct the public on private matters
connected with the LIVERPOOLSTANDARD I buthere also he
rushes headlong into falsehood. He borrows his al-
leged facts from a contemporary journal, and, having ex-
patiated upon them in a manner which was, no doubt,-
gratifying to his malignity, he concludes by saying—
" This statement was publicly made by the discarded
editor some time in the year 1833." This we repeat is
untrue! We have before us a letter.of 'the '" discarded"
gentlemanin question, addressed to the publisher, and
dated 11 I h April, 1833, in which lie says, that the notes
published in the Liverpool Journal, to which Mr. Hull.
refers, were obtained " through the grosses: breach of
professional confidence." ,Dues Mr. Wu. identify him-
self, with such conduct ? Is he the apologist of disho-
nesty ?

But what right has this minister of a charitable asylum
to interfere with th private concerns of a newspaper ?
Have we trenched -upon his plough-land—have 'we
invaded his private avocations—have we inquired
how Mr. Hum, began the *odd, or how accident
placed him in the statiten he holds ? No, and we would
disdain it. We are resolved to know nothing of Mr.
HULL but in his public capacity, still we_ are not tom-
posed of such soft metal as to bear, without resenting
them,_ such epithets as " foul-mouthed monsters,7' who
"tornit forth their pestilential vapours to the deep disgust
of all honourable minds." We shall not submit to vulgar
invectives even from a. minister of religion. , Is it 11:f.-
coming—is it seemly—is it decent in such a man to talk
of the " puppet who discharges the foul syringe from the
stage—the tilt/ is supplied to him from behind the scene."
Is this language becoming in a clergyman.? On the
contrary it is the language of the pothouse and the vilest
places in low society. •

He too speaks of " imbecility of intellect" being an
excuse for " malignity of heart." Let him apply the.
excuse to himself. We have yet to learn thatbii intellect
ranges above that of the lowest order of minds. Certainly
it was not otherwise developed at college, and it does not
show itself to any advantage in the pulpit.
But we hare done, with him, and we deeply regret that
so painfill a task .has devolved upon us. We defy his
best fi lend to defend such pitiful raving, or find an excuse
for such deplorable folly. It cannot be urged that lie wrote
the letter rashly—that he gave vent to his teehings in a
momentary fit of passion—that he committed this violence
upon good sense, good taste, and truth itself, in an un.
guarded. moment. No. Mr. HULL had hawked his
letter about the streets for several days before it appeared
in the Courier: He had read it aloud on the highway—
he had town-cried it everywhere—he had read it to gee. •
tleinen learned in the law—he had proclaimed its merits,
and Ire had boasted that he, Mt. HULL, could and would
"write down the LIVERPOOL STANDARD! Poor vain man !
No doubt. he was sore.-=4no doubt he was angry ; but be
should not have forgot the ditty of a christian. He al-
lowed. the sun to go down open his-wrath on-Saturday
night-he allowed the sun to rise upon it on Sunday
morning—he performed divino service with the " foul-
mouthed monster" in his pocket—he said his prayers
with the letter lying before him, and he remained in all-
his original bitterness up to the hour of publication on
Wednesday. In what mood these presents will find himi
we know not, and indeed we care not. We leave him to
the solace of £5OO a-year derived from a benevolent -
asylUm, which we suspect wants reform quite as much as
does the defamed clitirch of England. We have received
a number of letterslon this subject, all of them curious
and instructive enough, but in mercy to Mr. HULL we
only publish two of them.

What is to be done with the Roman Catholic priests
of Ireland ? This question is asked with much anxiety
on all sides, and it must be answered satisfactorily on art
early day in the House of Commons. ,
By the law •cf the lead peers are precluded from
taking any part in elections. The law in this respect is
not universally respected, as a letter written by Lord
DERBY, now lying before us, most amply proves. But
the interference of peers, be it ever so powerfully or
obnoxiously exerted, is nothing compared to the terrible
and pernicious influence of the popish priests Of Ireland.
When a recognised minister of religion, clothed in the
awful authority of his church, and believes to possess the
power of everlasting Y.ife and death, mixes in_an
dragging• reluctant voters and victims to the poll—
waving the cross before him—and calling down judg-
ments from on high, in the accents of a drunken parti•
san, against ail those who dare to oppose his will—Ashen
rlas outrage is of daily occurrence, the moral sense of a