The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-04-29 00:00:00

Hugh M`Neile to Mr. Roebuck, the member for
Bath, and Mr. Ward, M.P. for Sheffield, in reply
to some flippant comments made by them, in the
House of Commons, upon a passage of his speech
at the recent meeting at the Liverpool Amphi-
theatre. The crushing which these two very small
personages have received at the hands 3f the Rev.
Incumbent of St. Jude's will, we dare say, not be
without its effect upon themselves. It will, we
trust, however, have an additional good effect
nearer home; and teach some of those persons who
are disposed to sneer down truth, and to set worldly
expediency above the commands of the Most High,
to weigh well the imperative nature of those com-
mands against which they are presumptuously
setting themselves.

TO JOHN A. ROEBUCK, ESQ., M.P., AND
HENRY G. WARD, ESQ. M.P.

SlRS,—Ridicule is cheap : the weapon of little minds.
Scoffiing is easy : the ebullition of bad hearts. Reason
and argument are more becoming in senators. In your
public capacity as senators you have thought proper:to in-
troduce my name into the House of Commons, and to
cite, though incorrectly, a passage from a speech of mine.
In so doing, you succeeded, doubtless, in exciting some
polite merriment, but we look in vain for anything ap-
proaching to argument in refutation of what I said.
What I said was, that " the Word of God forbids bow-
ing down to images, as explicitly as it forbids theft or
adultery. And consequently, that as we could not (with-
out wilful rebellion against God's authority,) approve of,
or co-operate in, the endowment of a college for instruc-
tion in theft or adultery, so neither can we approve of, or
co-operate in, the endowment of a college for instruction
in bowing down to images."
In defence of such a line of argument I refer to an in-
spired logician. The apostle James makes this startling
statement : " Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all ;" and he assigns
the reason of it thus : "For HE THAT SAID, do not com-
mit adultery, SAID ALSO, do not kill. Now, if thou com-
mit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a trans-
gressor of the law." The apostle estimates transgression,
not by its quantity, but by the principle of its opposition
to the authority of the great lawgiver. "He that said,
said also !" This is my argument. He that said,—Thou
shalt not steal, said also,—Thou shalt not bow down to
images. Now, if you do not steal, or teach men so ; yet
if you do bow down to images, or teach men so, you are
guilty of wilful rebellion against God's authority.
Now, gentlemen, as you have yourselves selected this
statement of mine for citation in Parliament, and cannot
therefore consistently turn away from it as unworthy of
your notice, I think I have a right to require of you a
reasonable refutation of it, if you can supply such. But I
venture to prophecy that as you found it convenient to
raise a laugh by a garbled quotation of my speech, you
will find it convenient to pay no attention to my letter.
Yet this is not patriotic in you ; for if you can fairly refute
my arguments, you will convert me, and many thousands
with me, to your opinions.

It is quite possible that you may not be disposed to
defer, as I do, to the paramount authority of the inspired
volume, and that the apostle's statement will fare no bet-
ter in your hands than mine has done. I am content to
be condemned in such company, and rejoice in the assur-
ance that you will be egregiously disappointed if you ex-
pect the people of England to go along with you in any
practical " contempt of God's holy word and command-
ment."

Allow me, then, to call your attention to another pas-
sage in the same speech, reminding you before you read
it, of what the Scottish bard well said, when cautioning
his friend against evil companionship,—
" An Atheist laugh's a poor exchange
For Deity offended."

" It is easy to laugh at all this as the fanaticism of a
diseased fancy. It is easy for the fashionable sceptic to
turn away, with a shrug of ill-dissembled impatience or
contempt, from what seems to him such puritanical vul-
garity. It is easy for the statesman, who takes nothing
into his calculation but human probabilities, and who
really worships nothing but human sagacity, to persevere
in thinking and deciding and acting, as if there were no
God. Still it remains not the less true, that Jehovah
reigns, the supreme and jealous Ruler over all ; not ex-
cepting the minds and lives of the men who neglct Him,
and upon the loftiest, proudest, and most powerful of
whom, He has but to speak the word to bring idiotcy,
despair, or death."—Speech, p. 11.
I am far from insensible to the difficulty of eoverning
the United Kingdom on scriptural principles ;bbut I see
that difficulty vastly increased by every fresh departure
from those principles, and then I see every additional
difficulty pleaded as a ground for some additional depart-
ure. It seems a dangerous course; and those who think
it is so, and conscientiously reiterate their warnings and
protests at every step, are entitled to something better
than "Atheist laughs" in return.

Come then, gentlemen. grapple fairly with the single
argument contained in this letter. Disprove, if you can,
the fact that bowing down to images is a part of the in-
struction given in the College of Maynooth. Laugh if
you will, but reason. Laugh if you will, but refute if
you can ; and if you cannot refute, be ashamed of the
flippancy with which you can drag forward and hold up
to ridicule a scriptural argument which you have not the
ability to answer.
I have the honour to be, gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
HUGH M`NEILE.
Liverpool, 25M April, 1845.

ENERGETIC PROCEEDINGS OF THE CENTRAL
ANTI-MAYNOOTH COMMITTEE IN LON-

DON

This Body, of which Sir Culling Eardley Smith is
Chairman, have issued circulars throughout the country
intimating that the time is not yet past for successful op-
position being offered to this measure, and inviting all
denominations of Protestants to co-operate with them.
The committee state that on Wednesday the 30th April
there should assemble in London deputations from every
town in the kingdom, in the first place for the purpose of
vindicating their petitions, which the Premier has shown
a disposition to slight as uninfluential ; in the second
place to exert their influence over their several represen-
tatives, and to hold ooe or two meetings in conference in
order to bring to bear upon the Ministry and Parliament
the aggregate sense of the country in opposition to the
measure. The first of these is announced for the 30th
instant, (to-morrow.) The committee announce that they
have other plans of Constitutional and Christian opposi-
tion in reserve, in allusion to which they say ;—" We do
not overlook the influence which the addresses of the
people may have, at the right moment, on the mind of
our gracious Sovereign. It may become our duty to pe-
tition the Throne to dissolve the Parliament. In such a
case, we hope to be prepared for the crisis. Give us, then,
Brother Protestants, your confidence and co-operation,
and, by the blessing of God, the triumph will yet be
ours."

REPRESENTATION OF WOODSTOCK.—The vacancy
created by the retirement of the Marquis of Blandford
from the representation of this borough, supposed to be
through the objection of bis noble father to his recent vote
in favor of the Maynooth Bill, is about to be filled up by
the election of Lord Loftus to the seat. A very success-
ful canvas has been instituted on his behalf, and no oppo-
sition appears likely to be offered. Lord Loftus, in his
address, states that his principles are firmly in support
of Church and State, and opposed to the grant to May-
nooth.

A COMPLIMENT TO CONSERVATIVE CONSISTENCY.—
It is truly a creditable fact that the only petition emanat-
ing from this town in favour of Sir Robert Peel's May-
nooth Bill has been based upon the resolutions of the
meeting of Roman Catholics held in London, of which
the Earl of Arundel was chairman ; and that it has been
left for signature at the office of the the popish Mercury
and the shops of the Roman Catholic booksellers ! Sir
Robert Peel will, we hope, make a flourish on its pre-
sentation. It will be a splendid document when put to-
gether, exhibiting as nice an assortment of marksmen,
Whigs, Radicals, and pseudo Conservatives, as ever were
tacked together. We hope to be able to publish the do-
cument.

GREAT MEETING OF CHURCHMEN IN MANCHESTER
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MAYNOOTH BILL—On Tues-
day evening last, an aggregate meeting of the churchmen
of Manchester, who are opposed to the increased grant to
Maynooth, was held in the large room of the Town-hall,
the Rev. C. D. Wray, the sub-dean, in the chair. On
the platform we observed most of the leading clergy of the
town and neighbaurhood, with a number of the influential
laity. The body of the room was densely and most
respectably filled, and the proceedings throughout were
characterised by the most anxious attention to the various
speakers. The meeting was addressed by the Rev. Chair-
man, the Rev. J. Huntingdon. rector of St. John's, the
Rev. J. Magrath, the Rev. J. Irvine, (Liverpool,) and
others, and resolutions, concluding with a memorial to
the Queen to dissolve the present Parliament, were
passed by acclamation. The meeting, which was one of
the most enthusiastic we ever attended. broke up about
half-past ten o'clock.
THE BISHOP OF CHESTER AND THE MAYNOOTH
GRANT.—What the Bishop of Chester stated in the
House of Lords relative to this grant, was, by some mis-
take of the reporters for the press, misrepresented in the
London papers, so that the inference was that his lordship
was not opp ,sed to the measure. The Rev. H. M'Neile,
however, at a recent Protestant meeting at our Music-
hall, cleared up the matter by reading a document deny.
ing the words and their purport ascribed to the Right
Rev. Bishop ; and we have since received the following
extract from the correct report in the Record, which sets
the matter entirely and satisfactorily at rest :—" Petitions
against any further grant to Maynooth were presented by
the Bishop of London, from certain parishes in the city
of London, * * * * and by the Bishop
of Chester from various places. The latter Right Rev.
Prelate said—' I am aware of the difficulties with which
any government must contend in the administration of
the affairs of Ireland, and I would make every concession
to my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects which did not in-
fringe on a sound principle. On this ground, I gave al-
most the first vote which I was called upon to record in
your lordships' house, in favour of the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill. Many reasons concurred in rendering the
measure undesirable; but it did not appear to violate any
immutable principle, and therefore it was a measure of
conciliation, in which I was ready to concur. The case
is very different with the subject of the petitions which I
now hold in my hand, and [entirely agree with the prayer
of the petitioners. To teach what we profess to be erro-
neous, to support by publie means what we know and
have declared to be dangerous, is a solecism in govern-
ment to which I trust this house will never consent—a
violation of religious duty in which I can never take a
share.' "