The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-10-15 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

A special meeting of the Council, as Trustees of the Liver-
pool Docks, was hell on Tuesday.
The minutes of the Dock Committee embodied a recom-
mendation to apply to parliament, in the next session, for a bill
to amend the present Dock Acts, as far as they are prohibitory
of the use of fires and lights on board vessels in the docks.
Also, to seek for proper powers, under the new bill, to estab-
lish a Home for Emigrants at this port, and to effect other ob-
jects, which are noticed in Mr. Littledale's speech.
Mr. LITTLEDALE, in moving their confirmation. said that
until the report of the sub-committee on the subject of fires
and lights on board vessels in the docks was made, the Dock
Committee were not aware of the extent to which such lights
were used. They had employed some detective officers ; in
ten days these men discovered not less than thirty-four cases
of lights being used on board, and they did not pretend to say
that these were the sum total of the lights used during that
time, from the great difficulty which they experienced in at all
being able to bring home convictions, and to prove ;before the
magistrates that naked lights were used. In some instances
they found candles stuck up against the bulk heads or sides of
the ship; and, indeed, one gentleman stated in his evidence
that he believed a majority of the vessels in dock had lights on
board almost every evening. Now he (Mr. Littledale), did not
know that it would be well to legalise a thing because it had so
often been done against the law, but still, from the expressed
wish of the town in public meeting, and from the fact that
during all the time the subject had been agitated, not a single
opinion, as embodied in a deputation, adverse to the proposed
change, had appeared before the Dock Committee; he hoped
the Council would go so far as to agree that the Dock Commit-
tee should go to Parliament for powers to permit fires and
lights on board vessels. He did not wish to burke the matter
at all ; there was a division in the Dock Committee as to the
word "fires" being added to the report. In the sub-commit-
tee there was a division also, and they had left it to the General
Committee whether fires should be added or not. We had an
instance in Liverpool, in the Duke's Dock, where fires were
used, and had been for a considerable period. There cotton
goods and every other description of goods were standing upon
the quays to be put into the vessels; and he was not aware that
any accidents had ever happened. In London, in the East and
West India Docks, fires and lights were used also ; and lie
held in his hand one of the "permissions" granted, which were
subject to these regulations, that they should not be used be-
fore six in the morning or after nine at night, and then only in
the cabin, store-room, or cook-house on deck. The vessels in
the Import Dock there suffered from not having fires and
lights, and permission was granted to them so late as the 17th
of June in this year. In regard to the Emigrants' Home, it
was a subject which had not been so much before the puulic
as that of fires and lights, but it was a subject on which the
Dock Committee were also anxious, for emigration was now a
trade amounting to an enormous sum, occupying the finest
vessels comingto the port; and, as such, he thought, it would be
wise in the Dock Committee to do all they could to foster and
encourage it. The number of emigrants who came to Liver-
pool was astonishing; and nine-tenths of those, it appeared
from the report of the emigration commissioners, were Irish.
Now, these were the poor people whom the committee wished
to protect. They were landed from the Irish steamers, and
were immediately pounced upon by several depredators, who
swindled these poor people in a very great degree; and the re-
ports of the police-office would confirm that statement. The
home was proposed to accommodate 1,400 people, and the cost
would be £12,000. Suppose the project not to answer, the
building could, at the cost of £2,000 additional, be easily con-
verted into a warehouse. The next subject was the Battery.
That was merely carrying out the instructions of the Council,
and, therefore, no discussion could arise upon it. Then the
bill was also intended to remove doubts which experience had
suggested "as to the construction of some clauses in the ex-
isting acts, but relating principally to matters of a legal and
technical character only. He held in his band a report from.
Mr. North, solicitor. on this apparently ambiguous matter.
He had submitted this to the Town-clerk, and thought he

would explain that the points were merely legal or technical,
as regarded goods and ships in the Albert Dock and ware-
houses. In regard to the extension of time for the purchase
of property at Wapping, it would put their solicitor and Mr.
Stewart, who values on behalf of the Dock Committee, to great
inconvenience to have to complete the valuation between this
and the 26th of June, which was the limit of time allowed by
he act. It was merely a matter of business, so that he
thought there could be no objectton to that. He begged to
move the confirmation of the proceedings.
Mr. JONES seconded the motion, " merely to bring the mat-
ter properly before the Council."

Mr ilArinorto said a duty devolved upon him, rather un-
gracious in one sense ; that was to move a negative to the de-
cision of a committee of which he was himself a member; but
stern necessity compelled him to do so, and, from the short
period which he had been a member, he did so hesitatingly.
He should propose, as an amendment, "that, in the opinion of
this Council, as trustees of the docks, it is not expedient or
needful at the present time to apply to Parliament for addi-
tional powers, as recommended by the Dock Committee; that
the trustees, therefore, negative the proposition of the Dock
Commitee." As to lights, there was no objection to use under
certain restrictions; but it was thought by some that fires
could not be generally sanctioned; and that point was left to the
decision of the General Committee. The Emigrants' Home,
when. built, would be nothing more or less than a house of
refup for the destitute; and coupling that with the juvenile
offenders' reformatory, we should soon have located here a
large population of the vilest of the vile, from Ireland and
other places. (Hear.) The subjects were not of so vital an
interest as to justify the expenditure of .e 3,000 or £4,000 in
Parliamentary squabbles • although they might be introduced
on some other occasion when weightier matters required legis-
lation. As to the Battery, it was an arrangement with Govern-
ment, which would not squabble with us when no one was pre-
pared to raise a legal point, and no harm could result from
allowing the works to go on to completion. When he saw the
way in which one part of the proposition was worded, that for
removing technical obscurities from the existing dock acts, he
must confess that he viewed it with profound suspicion—(hear,
hear,)—and he thought he was justified in stating what he did
when he first saw it, that there was some sinister motive. Mr.
Littledale had told us that the Emigrants' Home would accom-
modate 1,400 persons, and cost ('12,000; and that if it did not
answer, it could be turned into a warehouse. Now, he thought
that calculation was fallacious, unles, it was desirous to "cook"
the account like some other sums. He meant to prove that
the term had been correctly used on some other occa-
sion. When we thought of protecting emigrants, we should
not forget that there were other interests also which required
protection ; and surely the Dock Committee was not in a posi-
tion to risk its property for the achievement of a possible good.
He thought the contrary, for a I their funds were wanted, as
proved by the very fact of their wishing for an extension of
time for the Wapping purchases.
Mr. WOODRUFF seconded the amendment.
Mr. PARKER announced that if the amendment were not
carried, he was prepared with an instruction to the Dock
Committee to insert a certain clause in the bill—a rating
clan e. (Hear, hear.)
__

Alderman BRAMLEY-?MORE said the proposal to establish
an Emigrants' Home divided itself into two heads,—first, the
philanthropic view, and the other as affecting the interests of
the dock estate and the community at large in this town. The
chairman had properly described the course which the emi-
grant runs from the time he lands in Liverpool. The object
which the Dock Committee had in view was to protect those
emigrants, who, he contended, were perfectly powerless and
helpless when they came here as strangers. It was not the
intention of the Dock Committee to turn shopkeepers, and
supply those men with provisions, &c.; but their sole object
was to provide them a safe home, where they would not be
plundered and robbed, and to get them away with that comfort
wh ch he was sure all present desired, although they might
take different means of accomplishing the object. The Go-
vernment was greatly interested in this matter, bu. there were

great difficulties in the way of Government undertaking any
thing of the kind ; therefore, it more naturally devolved itself
upon the Dock Committee; and the Council, as trustees,
would be giving aid to an excellent cause by supporting the
Dock Committee in the measures which they proposed to
carry out. In regard to the proposed home itself, if he un-
derstood the Dock Committee aright, they would simply con-
struct the buildings and let them, and the tenants would be
subject to proper regulations for their management. That
would be the extent which the Dock Committee would have to
do with them. Now he came to the second part of the subject,
as to its effects upon the dock estate. About 164,000 emigrants
passed last year through this port; and the trade had now
become so important, and was so distinct, that vessels had
been expressly constructed to carry this live carrying trade,
which was found to be a profitable one. The tonnage in our
docks which emigration employed was very great. Last year
it numbered 600 large vessels, of 500,000 tons. Thus, it was a
matter of great pecuniary importance to the dock estate, and
it deserved the very grave consideration of the Council, lest
they should lose such a valuable branch of trade. This trade
was something new, and lie contended that it had become as
necessary for the working of it to construct sheds around the
docks for its accommodation as to build sheds for other pro-
duce. He meant nothing offensive in remarking that every
business-man must agree with him that the only difference
was, the one was living and the other dead merchandise. Now,
this measure had the express sanction of Government. This

he could show, but did not wish to trespass upon their time;
he had had private communications on the subject, and knew
the great interest which they felt in the matter; and if it hail
their countenance, he did not think that the trustees should

lightly reject a measure of this description. 13ailTereie:a;
another point of view ; it was such an important trade that it
should be kept in Liverpool, and connected with the Liverpool
docks ; for he could assure them that it was no secret that they

were most anxious to get this Emigrants' Home across the
water; and if they did, it would tae away more ratepayers
and inhabitants than any measure yet brought forward in that
Council. If the vessels connected with the emigrant trade
were once removed across the water to the extent of 50,000 or
60,000 tons, they would take with them all the steamers which
brought the emigrants, and all the staff of the various lines of
packets connected with emigration. Among the rest whom
the removal of the trade would take to Birkenhead would be a
large number of shop and house keepe.ts. He urged this upon
the consideration of the trustees before they rejected the mea-
sure which was before them. Mr. Moore then said he was
favourable to oil lamps or other covered lights being permitted
on board vessels, but was opposed individual;y to the granting
of fires.

The TOWN-CLERK then read two memorials which had been
sent in against the proposed Emigrants' Home : the one from
the Vestry, and the other from the Houseowners' Guardian
Society.

Mr. MANN supported the original motion, replying princi-
pally to Mr. Harbord. He thought that was the most impor-
tant meeting which had been held in that room for some time.
He believed all were agreed to grant the use of lights, and he
was one of those who thought it would be judicious to grant
also fires on board. As to the purchases at Wapping, Mr.
Mann gave it as his experience that he had never seen any
disposition in the committee to " grind " the owners of pro-
perty there. The contrary was proved from the fact that
whilst he was on the Committee of Works, there had not been
. a single appeal to a lt was ridiculous to suppose that
the Dock Committee was in want of money, for three-fourths
of the property was already purchased, and they had more
offers of money than they chose to take up. He supposed
eloo.oco or so would be all they now required.
Mr. LITTLEDALE.—eI4O,OOO.
The Council divided, when Mr. Harbord's amendment was
carried by a wajfirity of 29 to 9.
The following is the division :

For Mr. lia;bord's amendment.—Messrs. Walthew, Lungs-
dal e, Woodruff, Thomson, Preston, Hodson, AtkinAtkinson, Briscoe,
Avison, Ferguson, Fernibough, Harbord, Wagstaff, Rogers,
Tobin, Jones, G rdner, Lloyd, Johnson, Picton, Parker. Freme,
Bennett, Beckwith, Henderson, Fisher, and Lloyd ; Aldermen
Cooper and Procter.
Against it.—Messrs. G. H. Horsfall, Littledale, Tyrer, Rim-
mer, W. J. Horsfall, and Mann; Aldermen Bramley-Moore,
Chilton, and the Mayor.

The MAYOR then 'called attention to a request he had re-
ceived from the Gateshead Mercantile Association, to sign a
memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a change in
the stamp duty on receipts.
The matter was referred to the Finance Committee, to au-
thorise the Mayor to affix his signature officially, if they
thought fit.

THE ROYAL SUPREMACY

TO THE REV. DR. MINEILE

REV. SlR—Had I known that you had forwarded to
me your first letter, I should certainly have shown you
the same courtesy. I now offer a few remarks on the
personal topics noticed in your second. I shall not enter
upon the inquiry which you suggest, " Of whom can the
representative body more properly consist than the sove-
reign, aided by the two archbishops ?" because this is not
the present state of the law, and because my only object
is to vindicate my protest against existing grievances.
Nor need I attempt to discriminate between spiritual
things and their temporal accidents, because my present
space would not suffice, and because it is already done by
Mr. Gladstone in his able pamphlet on the supremacy,
and in Archdeacon Manning's letter to the Bishop of
Chichester. I will only say that since the Declaration
was addressed to the clergy, I see no impropriety in the
adoption of logical terms, which are familiar to all who
have had a learned education ; neither do I think that the
same statement could have been expressed in more popu-
lar language, without suffering either in exactness or in
brevity.

I come then to your personal explanations. I did not,
as you suppose, assert you to have contradicted the bap-
tismal service. My words were general, and related to
the unfairness of all who are precise in the penal enforce-
ment of one part of our formularies, while they explain
away another. I should have been unwilling to have
given so harsh a form to a personal accusation. Again,
you deny that you regard the Church of England as only
a well-endowed sect. I can only reply, without intend-
ing to be disrespectful, that this is the exact impression
conveyed by your own published volume. But, indeed,
I need not go beyond your present letter ; for what is the
Church of England but such a sect, if, as you affirm, " it
is an abuse of language to call it a spiritual body " ? I
will not trust myself to enlarge on this extraordinary
statement, which is the key to the whole difference be-
tween us. No wonder that you do not regard baptism
as an unfailing means of grace, nor ascribe authority to
the Church's judgment. But your assertion would render
our formularies, in my judgment, a mass of confusion, to
which no system of bracketting could enable me to sub-
scribe.

But I pass from what is personal to you to what is per-
sonal to myself. You now admit that the supremacy
might be disputed, if we were bound to it only by law, for
that you yourself dispute the lawfulness of many recent
enactments : your charge against me is founded on the
assertion that we are bound to it by subscription also.
But this is to take for granted the very point in dispute.
I maintain that I Pm not bound by oath except to the
ancient supremacy, which was restored to the crown ; you
consider yourself bound to that supremacy which has been
created by recent statutes. Now why is my honesty to
be measured by your conscience ? I know not why my
opinion should be worse than yours ; for my own guidance
I have a right to think it better. In a case which admits,
like this, of legal settlement, your private judgment is no
public tribunal. What I ask is, not forbearance, but jus-
tice : I ask that which common equity assigns to all men—
not to be condemned without trial. I maintain that, till
I am sentenced in court, yon have no right to gibbet me
in newspapers.

. .
I deny your assertion, then, that every honest man
must understand the oath of supremacy as you do, be-
cause it takes for granted the very question which is at
issue. I affirm, on the other hand, that I own her Ma-
jesty's supremacy, in its true sense, when I attribute to
her in all causes and over all persons that ancient supre-
macy, which was not incompatible with the law of Christ.
At present no question can arise in any of the courts of the
Church—no doctrine or practice can come into discussion,
respecting which her Majesty would not give final sen-
tence. Her privy council, therefore, is, in fact, the high-
est ecclesiastical court within this realm • her Majesty is
the ultimate arbiter in all questions of religious doctrine.
It is said that the Queen can only execute laws, and not
make them. This is a distinction without a difference—
' fOr the Church's legislative powers are in abeyance, and
as the leading authority among Erastians (floadly) has
truly said " whosoever hath absolute authority to inter-
pret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the

lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person
who first wrote or spoke them." How can this be dis-
puted in the present instance ? If a clergyman were to
deny our Lord's divinity, or the inspiration of Scripture,
he would not be amenable to ex-pod-facto laws, but to
the laws and courts already in existence. With whom
would it rest to decide if he was amenable to them, but
with the Queen ? Do you say that in these cases the law
is so plain that it could not be disputed ? Who would
have supposed beforehand that any one who used our ser-
vice could deny baptismal regeneration ? And do not the
Scriptures declare our Lord's divinity ? Yet the Arians
accepted them as well as the Catholics. Looking at the
insidious growth of neology in Germany, I feel the great-
est doubt what might be Lord Langdale's decision if a
clergyman were articled before him for denying the in-
spiration of the book of Genesis. Now you have bound
yourself to affirm that " the church bath authority in
controversies of faith ;" and your construction of the
oath of supremacy binds you to admit further, that this
authority is properly exercised through those individual
judgments which are pronounced by the Queen. For
your oath means, not merely that you will submit with
patience, as in temporal matters you might, to an unjust
decision, but that you admit the Queen's right to deter-
mine such cases. The statute law gives the Queen a
power, which you declare by oath that you approve in
conscience. Those who assert that her Majesty ought to
determine what a clergyman shall preach, must suppose
that a clergyman ought to teach what her Majesty deter-
mines. So that your nation of the royal supremacy binds
you to teach any doctrine which an English sovereign
(whether churchman or not), may promulgate as the
mind of the Church of England. For, as you admit that
" the Church has authority in controversies of faith,"
you cannot say that its interpretation of Scripture is er-
roneous. And your explanation of the oath of supre-
macy binds you to suppose that the Church's laws find
their true expression in the Queen's decisions. And this
oath you take without conditions. You affirm the sove-
reign not only to possess present power, but inherent
authority, so that your conscience is bound to an abso-
lute surrender for all time to come. Now, if the Church
of England be only a sect, all this is conceivable, though
a base and hateful supposition ; that if, as she has herself
affirmed, she be truly the Church catholic among us, it is
as inconceivable that she should admit this as that any
Christian sovereign should desire it.
Your obedient servant.
ROBT. T. WILBERFORCE.

TO ARCHDEACON WILBERFORCE

VENERABLE SIR,

This correspondence was provoked by the Circular
which you sent tne. Hid not interfere till I was called upon.
Your Circular and Declaration seemed to me so to commit
you, that nothing but their withdrawal, or your secession
from the Church of England, would save your conscientious
consistency. In pointing this out to you, I endeavoured
to fix your attention upon the fact that my observations
were " not grounded upon any conduct of your's, in op-
position to any interpretation of mine ; but on your con-
duct in defiance of your own interpretation." Your
" honesty," therefore, is in no way measured by my
conscience ;" neither would it have been called in ques-
tion at all by me, had you not described yourself, in your
Circular, as one of those who are " bound by oath and
subscription to the existing state of the law," and at the
same time described the existing stare of the law as " at
variance with the law of Christ."

In reply to my letter, you had recourse to the easy but
inconclusive retort of an argumentum ad hominem ; as if
my inconsistency, even if proved, could afford any excuse
for your's.

After briefly defending myself, I returned to the point,
and particularly to the words to which we are bound by
oath and subscription—words which I observe you do not
quote either in your Circular, or your Declaration, or
your letters. I quoted them thus :
" Our 36th canon is decisive—

" The King's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme go-
vernor of this realm, and of all other his highness's dominions
and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or
causes, as temporal.'

" Observe, in all spiritual things or causes, and in all eccle-
siastical things or causes, as well as in all temporal things or
causes. Here are not only temporal things, and the temporal
accidents, whatever they may be, of spiritual things, but sri.
ri,ual things themselves I pray you mark this."

On this you make no comment, but content yourself
with a general statement that you did not, and do not,
so understand the words. You have not taken the trou-
ble to justify your understanding of their meaning by any
reference to the words themselves. Neither have ycu
taken the trouble to shew, or even to attempt to shew,
the fallacy of my comment upon them. Read it again.
It is nothing more than a dissection of the very words of
the Canon, in order to exhibit its various members seria-
tim. Does it not include spiritual things ? The words
are—" as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or
causes, as temporal." Suppose the writers of the Canon
to have intended to say, that the Sovereign of England,
under God, is the only supreme Governor in this realm,
in all spiritual things, could they have said it in plainer
terms ? Could I, or any one who agrees with me, sad it
in plainer terms now ? I do not, as you seem to do,
separate the Sovereign from the Church, and talk of them
as two distinct authorities. On the contrary, I look upon
the Sovereign as the chief member of the Church, under
CHRIST THE HEAD ; and I look upon any other member
of the Church, lay or clerical, who denies or disputes the
supreme authority of the Sovereign, as refractory and
rebellious. The Divine Head of the Church has given
us His own SUPREME LAW, to which our Sovereign, as
well as ourselves, is bound to yield implicit obedience.
This is our security, and the only security the nature of
the case admits of. True it is irdeed that the members
of the Church may not all take the same view of the law
of Christ, which the chief member takes. This is an in-
firmity inseparable from human affairs ; and would not
ba at all mitigated, but rather in some respects greatly
aggravated, by transferring the supreme authority under
Christ, from the Sovereign to the majority of a represen-
tative Synod ; and more particularly a clerical Synod, in
whatever way its members were elected. The loud oppo-
nents of Erastianism are after all Erastians. Their sove-
reign is a majority liable to all the fluctuations of popular
election. Ours is an individual, ascending an hereditary
throne, and surrounded by the hallowed precedents of a
Royal ancestry.

In a word, I prefer Monarchy to republicanism, in the
Church, as well as in the State : and rejecting, with
all the earnestness of undivided allegiance, the presump-
tuous usurpation of the Bishop of Rome, I cordially
rejoice in the supremacy of our gracious Queen.

You assert a distinction between the "ancient supre-
macy which was restored to the Crown, and the supremacy
which has been created by recent statutes " : but you
make no attempt to point out wherein the distinction
lies, or to shew that it affects the essence of the authority,
or extends to any thing more than the manner of its ad-
ministration.

Still, confining yourself to general terms, and refusing
to grapple with the distinctions I have pointed out, you
adhere to your own construction of the canon, and say
that you have a right to your own opinion. Certainly you
have. Who can doubt it ? But when you ask my signa-
ture to your opinion : when you canvass the suffrages of
the whole Church (for your Declaration, a copy of which
lies before me, is drawn up for the Clergy and Laity to
sign) and for the avowed purpose of making use of the
signatures, if sufficiently numerous, to influence the Le-
gislature : then, I have a right to tell you what I think of
your opinions and your procedure, and to lay the whole
before the public ; or, as you express it, (angrily I fear,
certainly not courteously) to " gibbet you in the news-
papers." It is too late now for you to shrink from
this exhibition. It has, I quite agree with you, placed
you in a most woful plight ; but you should have thought
of this before you issued your Circular. You say you do
not ask forbearance, but justice. Then why do you com-
plain ? Is it because you are not prosecuted ?
Before I conclude, I must invite the attention of our
readers to another instance of our differing judgments.
In my volume to which you refer, I have given the various
scriptural significations of the word ;CHURCH—mystical,
visible, local, collective—sustaining them by citations and
authorities. Under the last head, I have enumerated the
episcopal constitution of the Church as one of its scrip-
tural characteristics; and then declared my conviction,
that all these scriptural characteristics, episcopal consti-
titution and diocesan superintendence specially included,
are comprehensively combined in the Church of England.
Such was the subject of my first lecture, and it did not
contain one syllable on the subject of endowment.
Your understanding of all this, or as you tell me, the
exact impression conveyed to you from my published
volume, is, that I consider and have always asserted the
Church of England to be " only an endowed sect." I
think you must have confounded my volume, with one by
Dr. Chalmers on the same subject.
If you had taken as much pains to avoid obscurity of
expression, by defining your terms, as I have done, our
letters would have been more useful. I have endeavoured
to ascertain what you mean by THE CHURCH. I
have invited you to tell. I have, in my last letter,
entered into distinctions which accord with both the
language of Scripture and the facts of the case ; and still,
without any attempt to show that those distinctions are
unsound, indeed without even noticing them at all, you
persevere in using the word Church, in a way which
serves to conceal rather than communicate your senti-
ments.

I must candidly confess, therefore, it is not in the hope
of making myself intelligible to you, that I again take the
liberty of addressing you ; but I still indulge the hope
that our correspondence may be of use to others. It
will, I trust, prove instrumental in convincing many, of
what Mr. Newman, Mr. Maskell, and others, have already
discovered, viz., that the Church of England is not and
cannot be made (Roman) Catholic ; and that, conse-
quently, Romanizers within her pale must either leave
her, that their budding superstition may be developed in
some more genial atmosphere, or else they must, by the
help of non-natural interpretations, crush and keep in
abeyance their mediaeval convictions.
In reply to your observation on tne " penal enforce-
ment of one part of our formularies while another part is
explained away." permit me to call to your devout atten-
tion, the seventeenth of our thirty-nine Articles. Those
who value the high and holy truth therein stated, have too
git_
much charity to attempt " a penal enforcement" of their
interpretation of the words, however natural and inevi-
table it may seem. It would "make nr-peace" if those
who value the language of our 134pti v
imitate that charity. A _ "Oy 0111 d
ra
4.
*it

See also the generalizing gloss (16-melaiNfeldcgft
explaining away of the words),ich•the "%Mule:of Xxv:
ipveenssol eleortcheemveentyt,
tacaesrnfharoansa,srceiocenmnhptialmrey
ldpauywt,iutohpfohje.wnhttateobdse
hijtclag,cee of the thirty,silth
letter of the Baptismal Service. 4.01

L am, '
Your obe

Liverpool, I Ith Oct., 1850.