The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-05-01 00:00:00

CONTEMPORARY PRESS.

The followitig anecdote -is in general circulation
through London, and we have every reason /o believe
that it is true:—,A few days before Mr. Shell's motion on
the subject of Lord Londonderry's appointment as am-
bisSador to Russia, Lord John Russell met Lord-London-
derry at the Duke of Devonshire's, and having. been • on
terms of great- intimacy with him at• Vienna and else-
where, he took that opportunity of telling him that he
considered the attacks which had been made on him in
the public papers as harsh and "unfair,—that a communi-
cation had been made to him by an Irish member of an
intention to bring his case before the House of Com-
mons,—that he-believed he had dissuaded him from do-
ing so, and that, at all events,.he would have nothing to
do with so personal an attack. Lord Londonderry was
naturally pleased with this mirk of friendship, and thanked
him for it. On the Friday following 41r. Shell, how-
ever, did bring forward his motion; and on the Monday
Lord Londonderry, who hati not announced to any one
what his intentions Were, was visited by Mr. Hohnes,
who informed him that it was necessary that he should
make up his mind- speedily, as Lord fohn Russell in--
tended to take the business into his own hands, and ask
Sir Robert Peel a question on the subject that day. Lord,
Londonderry denied the possibility of such being the
case, and told Mr. Holmes what had occurred at Devon-
shire-house. He then went to the HOuse of Lords, and
was scarcely on his legs to announce his resignation,
when he heard that Lord John Russell had risen in the
Commons, and put a question to Sir Robert Peel whe-
ther his appointinent was to be cancelled or not. Lord
John subsequently also said, " 'lathe considered the ap-
pointment so ill-advised as to call for. the observations
Made by other gentlemen as well as Mr. Shell." This
anecdote requires but few comments. It is lamentable
to think that the' rancour of party feeling should so far
prevail over an otherwise honourable mind, as to tempt a
sran like Lord John Russell to make a gratuitous offer of
friendship, and then fly from it, as he did, without the
slightest reason for doing so.
We believe that Lord LondOnderry had an opportunity
of speaking his mind to Lord John Russell at Devon-
shire-house since the affair; and that he plainly told him
befOre Sir Robert Gordon his opinion of his conduct.—
Times.

A great variety of intelligence is contained in our
paper'of,this day-connected
.with the uncontested elec-
tions of some of the whig-radidal ministers, and the.great
constitutional contests in which the return of others of
their number to the House of Commons is about to be
opposed with the best prospects of success.
This mass of information presents many points which
invite discussion or remark, to none of which can we find
space adequately to advert, while by far the greater
number tnust of necessity escape any special notice from
us. We must, however, devote a word or two of com-
ment to the speeches of Mr. Spring Rice and Mr. Orde,
the two consistent and harmonious colleagues in office,
who had the good fortune to be re-elected without oppo-
sition. ,

The former, while he expresses much gratitude for the
aid his party has received from men of extreme opinions
in respect to 'the. reforms of the institutions of the
country, professes that he has no sympathy with them
as politicians, and affects to spurn every suggestion of
violent or precipitate change. Mr. Spring Rice, mode-
rate reformer as he seems anxious, at least when at Cam-
bridge, to represent himself, is an advocate for the aboli-
tion " at one fell swoop" of all the municipal corpora-
tions now existing in England and Wales, and the crea-
tion in their place of new corporations, the ruling mem-
bers of 'which are to be elected—how frequently Mr.
Spring Rice does not inform us—by the ten-pound house-
holders. This, for a moderate reformer, is pretty well,
considering that the scheme of corporation reform which
Mr. Spring Rice suggests has been distinctly denounced
by the only Whig member of the commission which was
appointed to inquire into the present state of corporate
bodies, and the most effectual correction of their abuses,
who has any claim to learning or talent, we mean of
course Sir F. Palsgrave, as a remedy for existing abuses
at once the most vicious, extravagant, and inefficacious,
that could be devised. If to go beyond any existing
=necessity, if to defeat the purposes in view by an excess
-a innovation, is an essential part of the conduct of a
moderate reformer, Mr. Spring Rice is, no doubt, as he
gives himself out to be, a moderate reformer, and quite
incapable of lending whatever influence office may have
given him to men of extreme or dangerous opinions.
The Only difficulty, in this case would be to know who are
'the reformers who are not moderate.
Mr. Spring Rice seems to think it hard that Sir Robert
Peel should have been permitted to propose improVe-
ments in our laws and institutions, with the general ap-
Probation of all parties in the nation, whereas the same
reforms would have prodneed extensive alarm had they
been proposed by himself and his colleagues. The truth
is as Mr. Spring Rice very candidly states it, yet it is
not hard, but strictly and merely just. Sir Robert Peel
has a character which convinces mankind that when he
Proposes a measure he means exactly what he proposes,
and no more. He is not, and ought not to be, regarded
as a labourer in the work of meditated destruction, ap-
plying, in the first instance, the thinnest side of the
wedge. And if Mr. Spring Rice and his colleagues have
the misfortune to be regarded in this light, (by-the-bye,
it is to the honour of Mr. Spring Rice that he is so deeply
sensible how great a misfortune this is) who have they
to blame for it but themselves ? Had Sir Robert Peel
among his friends and supporters any party whose avowed
object is the overthrow of the established church ? Did
he permit any portion of the patronage of his govern-
ment to be distributed by one who seeks to separate Ire-
land hi:3m Great Britain, and to subject the former to an
independent Roman catholic government ? Had he ever
among his lords of the 'treasury any advocate of vote by
ballot ?

The last question is suggested to us by the speech of
Mr. Orde, one of the new Lords of the Treasury, who,
in his election speech at Newport, expresses much indig-
nation at what he pleases to describe as a calumny pro-
mulgated against him, that calumny being merely that
he had relinquished his opinion as to the necessity of the
vote by ballot. Perhaps Mr. Orde, in the opinion of
Mr. Spring Rice, is also a very moderate reformer. If
not, the country will no doubt be edified very soon by
seeing a division upon an important constitutional and
practical question in the House of Commons,upon which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer will vote on one side,
and a Lord of the Treasury on the other. Will 'the new
Chancellor of the Exchequer allow the same latitude .to
individual opinion among the holders of stibOAdidate
offices when his first budget is to be discussed P PtWe.
suspect not. But, if our suspicion be well foundediftvill
it not follow that the present ministers care more for .a
siz-and-eightpenny affair of revenue than for any princi-
pie of the constitution ? And we ask Mr. Spring Rice
if sucha_ministry ought to be entrusted with the task of
'refOrniing the most valuable of our national institutions
with the same alacrity and confidence as that of Sir
`Robert Peel?
.Mr. Murray is threatened with a signal defeat at Leith,
notwithstanding the support of the voluntary party, the
party in Scotland who wish to abolish the church—that
church which has been constantly lauded as the best and
purest in Christendom by English radicals and dissenters,
when the only object they had in view was to attack the
Church of England. Here is another of the subordinate
°Meets of the present administration to whose character
and position we may refer' in 'order to explain to Mr.
Spring RiCe a distinction which seems to puzzle him so
exceeaingly.. Does the alliance of Mr. Miirray, 'the
Flop 'of. the Voluntary party In Scotland, and deriving
support.in his election exchisivel,y from them, strengthen
the claims of the present 'gci-iernment- to the eonfidende
orthe nation ;"titid entitle it to- expect that its reforms in
the state and in the church shotild be regarded without
distrust ? Mr. Murray' has lost, it
.seems, the support of
such adherents of the national church as were before ifis-
posed to favour his claims by the unbecoming, imprudent,
,and irreligious act of playing at backgammon on a Sun-
day; in the public cabin of a public passage-boat. For
the opinion of this class of his supporters Mr. Murray, it
'is evident, could not have had much respect. Farther
than this there is nothing in his conduct to excite sur-
prise, for we ,believe the instances are very rare in which
radicalism is unconnected with profanity.—Morning
Post.

•
preceded by attendant ministers in the rites of their office, mak-
ing
.the rounds of a new church in the metropolis. Such a-
scene,' remarks the popish edidor, ' proves the triumph of their
faith.' At Chelsea, it is said they have new congregations
every half hour, and thus accommodate, in one chapel, a popu,
latioo of 6000 persons. In 1796 there were but ten chapels in
London, but they are now increased to 25. The following is a
brief sketch of the Reformation Society's map .
Public seminaries
• Chapels. or colleges.
In Lancashire
Middlesex
Northumberland .. 18
Staffordshire ... 27 7
Yorkshire
"The.nutnber of chapels in England and Wales, in 1824, was
358, but in 1834 it was 429; the increase in England, therefore,
is 71 chapels, and in Scotland, since 1829, it is 23."
Every newspaper teems with accounts of new chapels,
and nunneries, and colleges, where the superstition may
be bred and nourished. Take, for instance, the following
paragraph from the Brighton Geizette of Thursday :
" The Roman catholics are inclosing with a stone wall the
large piece of land which they have purchased near St Leo-
nard's. It has an imposing appearance. The report is that
they are going to build a college; but it is not positively known.
There can be no doubt, however, that it is intended for a very
large establishment."

Well may we shudder when we learn these facts, and
recollect the filthy, ferocious, and idolatrous character of
the Romish superstition. For the abominable practices
by which it suggests vice to the innocent, and introduces
the foulest pollution into the bosom of every family, see
the Times of Tuesday, April,7th, and the standard Roman
catholic work, entitled " The earden of the Lord," pub-
lished by Keating and Brown. For its sanguinary fero-
city, remember the days of Queen Mary, and the victims
of the inquisition. Its idolatry is proclaimed by the
confessions of every reformed church in christendom.
And it is to restore this system that the whigs are again
in power.!;,-Alackburn Standard.

POPERY AND PERJURY.

(From the London Standard of Monday.)

We have this day to importune public attention tolthe
most valuable and interesting pamphlet that has ever is-
sued, in our memory, from the press of Great Britain.
It is an essay upon the oath taken •by Roman catholic
members of the houses of parliament ; written by a Ro-
man catholic; not merely by a Roman catholic, but by a
Romait catholic lawyer of distinguished ability—not
merely by an able Roman catholic lawyer, but by a gen.
tleman whose zeal for his religion, whose knowledge and
experience recommended him to his Roman catholic
countrymen as the fittest of their whole number to be,
employed as the Roman catholic agent to the parliament,
and people of Great Britain. The author of the pam-
phlet in question is Mr. Eneas Macdonnell, a barrister,'
a member of a most ancient and respectable family in
the.west of Ireland; who having, during many years, we
believe as many as ten or fifteen, acted as secretary to
the several catholic committees, catholic boards, catholic
associations, &c., that in succession usurped the function
,of a Roman catholic parliament in Ireland—was appointed
Ronan catholic agent,' or envoy, to this country in 1824
—an appointment in which he continued until the ad-
mission of Roman catholics into parliament in 1829 ex-
tinguished the necessity or pretext for .such an office.
Whatever light, therefore, can he reflected upon the
meaning of the oath taken by Roman catholics, from the
most pet feet knowledge of the discussion preceding the
establishment of that oath, of the intention of those who
framed, of those who approved of it, and of those who
professed"their readiness to take it, must be 2 expected
from Mr. Macdonnell.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH, &c.
Whatever disinclination I may have hitherto entertaine d to
a public statement of my construction of the Roman Catholic
oath embodied in the relief bill of 1829, I feel that the contro-
versy respecting that solemn obligation has reached a crisis so
awfully important in its bearing upon the moral and political
fame of the Roman Catholic community, and more especially
upon one who had been, for several years, officially involved in
their proceedings as I have been, that I could not without great
derilection of duty towards all parties, abstain, any longer,
from the declaration of my sentiments, and a development of
the grounds upon which they rest. * 'a * *
It is certainly not intended that the relief bill of 1829 bhould
provide new facilities for catholics to injure the church establish-
ment-, This will be admitted on all hands : and yet it is not
equally-:clear that their admission to seats in the two Houses of
Parliament would have provided such facilities, if some correc-
tive hied notbeen also embodied in the bill. Now, it is obvious
that the only corrective provided by the bill is the oath. Again,
no man will be found so rash as to contend that, if the minister
who framed and proposed the oath in 1829 had openly stated to
parliament and the protestant public, at the time, that its ob-
ject was to recognise and establish the right of Roman Catholic
members of both houses to legislate upon the rights and privi-
leges of the church establishment, such form of an oath, or any
other form, accompanied by such an avowal of its object, would
have been tolerated, for a moment, by the legislature. Surely,
then, if the jealousy would have been so determined at that
time, it cannot be deemed reasonable or just, at the present day,
to attach to that oath a signification which would confessedly_
have ensured its rejection at the time of its formation. It will
be seen, by-and-by, those restrictive obligations are not only
not optiosed.to the avowed principles and desires of the Roman
Catholic community, but are, on the contrary, in strict and ma-
nifest accordance with their uniform declarations, during a long
succession of years, without one sjngle exception to that uni-
formity, that I can bring to mind; therefore the limitation can-
not be, deemed so unreasonable or so unexpected as some per-
sons would appear to consider it; and it is not unworthy of re-
mark, that the disproportion between the numbers of catholics
and protestants in Ireland, and also the amount of the revenues
of the establishment, were, at least, as highly estimated is hen
the oath was framed in 1829, as at the present day. * *
In fact, I have always considered, and am still decided in
that impression,. that the oath of 1829 was framer* and proposed
by the minister, and. adopted and enacted by the legislature,
as a security against the hostile interposition of catholics, par-
ticularly catholic members of the two houses of parliament, in
the affairs of the church establishment, including the property
of that establishment. If we refer to the words of the act itself,
and to the statements and explanations of the minister who in-
troduCed it, we shill find this fact placed, according to the best
of myledgmenii,.~ beyond a possibility of doubt. The words of
the net axe as fotlow :
" 4nd he it enacted, that from and after the commencement
of this act, it shall be lawful for anf person professing the Ro-
man Catholic religion,..being a peer, or who shall, after the
commencement. of this act, be returned as a member of the
House of Commons, to sit and vote in either house of parlia-
ment, respectively, being in all other respects duly qualified to
sit and, vote therein, upon taking and subscribing the following
oath, instead of the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and aliena-
tion."

The part of the oath tc which I now refer is the following :
" I. do swear that I will defend, to the utmost of my power,
the settlement of property within this realm, as established by
the laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly ab-
jure any intention to subvert the present church establishment,
as settled by law within this realm, and I do solemnly swear
that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may
become entitled, to disturb or weaken the protestant religion,
or protestant government, in the United Kingdom." * • *
The former oath [the oath proposed in 1793) did not require
an express general disclaimer of an intention to subvert the
church establishment, but, perhaps, accidentally limited the
obligation by adding the words:—" for the purpose of substi-
tuting a catholic establishment in its stead ;" whereas, the new
form of oath, now used, pledges the catholic, generally, against
an intention to subvert the establishment, whether for that pur-
pose or any other purpose, or without any specific purpose
whatever. It also binds him " never" to exercise any privi-
lege, &c., to disturb "ur" weaken the protestant religion, " or"
protestant government, in the United Kingdom; whereas the
word " never" was not contained in the oath of 1793, and the
copulative " and" stood in the place of the disjunctive " or," as
appears by the following extract from that oath of 1793 :
" I do swear that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, .
the settlement and arrangement of property in this country,
as established by the laws now in being. Ido hereby disclaim,
disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the pre-
sent church establishment, for the purpose of establishing a ca-
tholic establishment in its stead; and I do solemnly swear that
I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become
entitled, to disturb and weaken the protestant religion and pro-
testant government in this kingdom."
Those who are conversant with former discussions, particu-
larly between catholics, as was noticed by the minister in 1829..
respecting the relative value of the conjunctive "and," and the
disjusustive 'J or," as used in the oath, will feel the-materiality.
of this relerence to the substitution of "or," for " and," as
intended to constitute, if possible, a more direct and unequis
vocal pledge of catholic faith, against any adverse or unfriendly,
interposition of the newly acquired privilege against the church
establishment. Assuredly, the substitution must have been in--
tended for some purpose or other, as must also the whole of this
part of the oath. e * • * *
The relief bill was introduced by Sir Robert Peel on the sth
March, 1829. In the course of his unexampled speech, on that
occasion, he observed:—
" We have to reconcile two great objects—the restoration of
civil and political privileges to the Roman catholics, with the
full and perfect security of the rights of the established church."
Again, after stating the terms of the new oath, and dwelling
upon its power and obligations, he says :--
• So far as oaths can give security, this oath gives us all the
security which we can expect."
It cannot be doubted but that the only just conclusion from
--.-- - -
1 these pro osition must be, that the object of the oath was to
ROMAN CATHOLIC STATISTICS.—Let not the proven-' establish pa
securitys against any hostile exercise of the parlia-
tants of England flatter themselves that they can escape I
i mentary privilege granted to the catholics, as affecting the
if they are indolent or indifferent in this moment of clan- 1 rights of the church. What follows is still more direct and
ger and tribulation to their Irish brethren. The re- I material. On Monday, March 23d, the House of Commons
lijneitnhge eonagtlaig:—ed'i'"l elm) isnwipttere,thin the consideration of these words
establishment of popery its Ireland is the object and pur-
pose with which the present ministry is formed. Lord defend to the utmost of
my power the settlement
atti property will
withinc e d t
oa thisd rdetahl iens,e a
words,
blished by the laws;''Alro
John Russell and his colleagues have sought and gainedoesrdta-1.
office on the faith of this sole assurance—that they would " including the glebe-lands, rejtslirsionpdo-other hercditaments Or
plunder the protestant church, drive the protestant popu- the protestant established church ;" and he added, "this amend-
lation into exile, and transfer the property which is now I ment will comprise all those matters which, in the conscience
ochfuarpcahpAst,Nalrre not consered as the property of eosiblished
devoted to protestant purposes to the propogation of the
. .Secretary Peel rejected this hasoffive distrust
popish creed. No wonder that O'Connell and his gang of.catholic sincerity. He Bahl—
are in high glee ; they foresee some reward for the per- " I think the introduction of the proposed words quite urine-
juries which they have perpetrated. But let the people cessary. If the honourable member deems the ecclesiastical,
as well as the lay property of the church not sufficiently secured
of England take warning. If they connive at the exist-
by the decl,aratioi.a,dleothiigo a little further, and he will find
ence of a government founded on so hellish a principle,
the words
anyintention and Idisclaim disavow and solemnly
and indebted for its momentary creation to means soherebyd
abjure
irupiotts—for by the perjured papists of th:, tail alone did spent, as settled by law within this realm.'"
do not strain The secretary added this emphatic declaration :—" as far as
Lord John succeed in his motion—if they
every nerve to
prove, by annihilating these traitors, words go, these afford ample security."
their attachment to religion and liberty, let them look
The secretary (p eel ) again in reply to an objection of Mr.
Estcourt said:—
for a fearful retribution.
" According to the form as it stands, the Roman ca.tholic rte-
Do any flatter themselves with the hope that in Eng- t closes that he will defend, to the utmost of his power, the settle-
land there is nothing to apprehend from them ? Let them ' meat of property
_as established by law; so that the words in-
read the following statement. : elude ecclesiastical and other property. In the next clause he
" A member of the society of friends has published an account is called upon. solemnly to swear that he never will exercise any
of theincrease of the Roman catholics. He says it was stated , privilege to which he may be entitled to disturb or weaken the
by the Reformation Society's Legate at Oxford last summer, s protestant religion or government of this kingdom. It seems to
that the increase of their chapels is on the average of two a me that, coupling the declaration he first makes with the-oath
month. At Berruendses'a Roman catholic chapel is now builds he afterwards takes, it is sufficient. I beg to refer my hon.
ink. and the attendants have increased in, that neighbourhood friend to the oath framed by Dr. Duigenan in 1794, it runs '
from 2110 to 3000, arid are very wealthy. On laying the founda- thus:—' And Ido hereby declare, disavow, and solemnly abjure
Lion stone of this edifice, the Puisi.sit Mayasine observes' 'that any intention to subvert the present church establishment, tor
for tar first time since the reformation they had the proud gra- the purpose of substituting a Homan catholic estafilisbment in.
prelate with crcnier in hand, its sti.iiii.' 1114,1ibjettiou to that oath was, that a Roman
siticaticm of witnessing the mitred