The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-05-02 00:00:00

are, having
and chaste
ed into three panels. In

'ldle of amostuniqu-E

ducal crown, and in the lower a rr
r of the Order of the Ga

r, having
irrounded by the

Honi soft qui mal y. pens

centre panel will be

ras s plate, on which will appe,

r the following

" Depositum

sttissitr

Principis

Augusti Frederi
Ducis Sussexiz

Antiqu

Honora

ssitni Ordinis Cardui

Clitoris de Balneo

Victoria,

niarnm Regime;

Oblit die Vicesimo Primo Aprilis,
Anno Domini MDCCCXDIII.,

tis sum LXXII

gSPIRACY AGAI

t will have eight corner

CST THE

CHURCH OF

ENGLAND

le Morning Post, of Thursday, contains a somewhat
,hened correspondence between the Rev. Dr. Hook, vi.
I Leeds, and Mr. Hamer Stansfield, an agitating Dissen -
who is a considerable manufacturer in that town. This

s, in a very marked and conclusive man-
od and forgery to which the ene-
nd resort in order to defame her
ishment. It shows also
Church of Scotland are

,n 1 system, either as instigators, or

.nd. that th,

:o cordially hand-in-hand
congenial work of detrac-

stated by Dr. Hook, took its rise

delivered at

wernment. In attack-

--- ,„
land, this dissenting agitator made the

stated in one of the -Leed

ispices of this new school

Tot in His name in this several trans-
The writer affirms, that ' the rite of

aniinist6'ecl. preacb

M ,a conven-
ordained by a

the conventicle rites do not bind the parties ; that marriage
by the statute law, without the benediction of a priest of the
Catholic Church, is, no marriage at all : it is but legalised

adulteky.'
the Eaablis

Strong

hsapprobation.) Is that the religiou of
tied Church of this country, into whose hands

e asked to entrust the education of the rising genera-
God forbid ! Oh, let not our legislators, by passing
11, aid and. abet this. proud .assumption of a
_priestly

example and throw dOwn the

rena of conscience—let them not place in

Dr. Hook; this .
against whom general attick.on the church
was more particularly, though covertly, directed, immedi-
ately wrote toeMarb.ovS,tansfield, requesting a sight of the tract
After some days' delay
stausfieldr-

containing t

Mr. ... returned the following answer, which. we quote
in full, as it affords an unmistakeable clue to the real source

of the calumn

Headingley Lodge, April 21, 1843.
----,—l have delayed replying further to your note
of the 15th, in the daily hope of being able to furnish you
with a copy of the original tract on matrimony, which I un-
derstand is in the possession of the Rev. John Burnett, of
Camberwell. I have-Written to ,him, but have as yet •nQ
reply.

In the meantime I enclose you a reprint of the tract, and
that the original existed and was sent from Leeds, the fol-
lowing .extract. of a. letter from Hugh Miller, editor and
printer of the Witness, on Edinburgh journal, incontestibly

proves.
" The letter was addressed to a friend who had made inquiry

' I am sorry to find that the Puseyite tract. to which you
refer, and which was presented some time since to the readers
of the Witness, was cut up into slips by the printers, and can-
not now be recovered. I can refer, however, to the fact:of
its existence to very unexceptionable testimony. It was
sent me anonymously through the post-office, under a cover
bearing the Leeds post mark, and, before using it, I showed
it, among others, to the Rev. Mr. Buchanan, High Church,
to Mr. John Hamilton, to the Rev. Mr. Goold, and to the
Rev. Dr. Symington. I read parts of it also to Dr. Chal-
mers.' "

" Tile difficulty in procuring a copy arises from the tract
not having been published as usual, but circulated•privatelp.

perhaps

ssist you in your endeavours to meet

with one to mention that report ascribes the authorship to
Mr. Ward, formerly, I understand, one of your curates ; at

any rate

of so do

le him to contradict` the report if c

esirous

—I remain,ie,;erelci;

Yours respectfully.
" HAUER STANSFIELD

ley. W. F. Hook, D.D."
' We regret we have not room in to-day's paper for the re-
ply of Dr. Hook to this singular epistle. In that reply he ex-
poses most ably the pitiful explanation of Mr. Stansfield.
Di. Hook utterly denies, the truth of the allegation that any
tract containing the sentiments quoted by Mr. Stansfield,
ever emanated from the Leeds clergy, and he as strongly re-
pudiates the doctrines laid down in the tractlwhich had been
ascribed to him. lie further gives a letter from Mr. Ward,
his former curate, contradicting in the most distinct terms
the statement that he was the author of the tract, or pre-

I tended tract.
The Edinburgh Post says that the truth of the affair ap-
pears to be as follows :—Some enemy of the Church of
•,lat?d, being aware of the hostility entertained towards it
_he violent members of the Church of Scotland, printed a
sper containing the assertions quoted- by Mr. Stansfield, as
ell as other 'gross misrepresentations • and then forwarded
„le fraudulent document to the editor of the Witness, as the
Ireadiest recipient of such calumnies. The editor appears.,
then; to have communicated with his advisers, Messrs. 13,17
chanan, Hamilton, Goold, and Dr. Symington, and also Dr.
Ili:tiers, who appear all to have thought it a capital ground

was.gtven to the world clai;ed with their other proofs
of the alleged popish tendencies of the Episcopal Church.
The same weapon seems to have been equally acceptable to
the Socidians of Leeds ; and Mr. Stausfield, finding it sd
paraded in the Witness, attempted to turn it to his own ac-
There appears, indeed, to be a regular manufactory
)f falsehoods and slander's against the Chureli'tif England,
- ,t,-;‘..tinns nowhere find a readier market than

for attacking
forg

the Church of

THE 16:N
the Commis

.SIIIP OF
ers of 14;