The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-10-17 00:00:00

Y, room

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

COMMITUENTS AT THE reiETCH-COURT, YESTERDAY.—
Ann Redman, who had been.remanded from Saturday, for
concealirrg.the birth of her child, was committed for trial
at the sessions.—Ellen Alexander, who had gone into the
house of-Jane Whitehead; on Sunday. the key haring

baen left-hi the door, and stolen therefrom two candle:
sticks, value 25., was also sent for trial.—John Hughes.
charged with stabbing John rd'Mahon, on Saturday., in
Bolton-street, was committed for trial.—Also. John Bur-

goyne, Catherine Burgoyne, and John Walsh, for stealing,
on Saturday, a pair of boots from the shop of-John
Roberts, in Pitt-street ; and James Mason, for stealing a
portmanteau, the property of Edmund Strrkie, from a
vessel in-the river.

COMMITMENTS TO GAOLYRY MR. RUSHTON YESTER-
DAY.--John Locket, found suspiciously in the night in
Vauxhall-road ; and John Laffin, John Smith, and Jhmes
Page, round in Pellew-street, were each committed for
three months.—Biddy M`Narimra, for stealing, on Satur-
day, a quantity of beef and butter from the standing of
John biker, in St. Martin's Market, three months.—
Thomas Smith, for stealing beef on board the-ship
"Thomas," now in the Toxteth Dock, same time."—

CathzrineM`Guire and Mary M'Kenna, for stealing cotton
in Upper Williamson-street, two months.—lsaac Owens,.
fount'suspiciously on board of a ship at the Queen's Deck,
three- months.—John Cunningham and Richard Waugh,
for stealing iron (1701b5.) the property of Betty Roberts,
Sefton-street, one month.
AN-ESCAPE.—The other evening one of the police force,
in a state described as "drunk and disorderly, was-taken
to Those-bill Bridewell. Whilst confined to the yard, by
the aid of a ladder he scaled a wall, and dropped down on
the other side, a height of eighteen feet, but received 110
bodily injury. The head, constable, of course, suspended
man.

A PRACTICAL MAGIIiTRATE.-A man was brought up
athe Police-office, on Tuesday, charged with insubordi-
nation in the workhorse, and committed to gaol; for 21
dos. He complained of having to work at aband mill,
which was too laborions for any man to undertake alone ;
brit Mr. Rushton said this was false, as he ha&.been to the
workhouse himself, and turned all the mills there, the la-
bour of which was nnt,too muc

for any inc

ustri6us man

MISDEMEANOttn.—.-Ort Friday, a married female, named
Anne Crewe, was brought up at the Police-court, charged
either with having concealed the birth of, or having de-
serted, her newly born child. Prisoner called at a house
in Kirkdale, about noon on Sunday weeit, and, shortly
,fterwara. , be no

afterwards, a newl7,born infant, which, there can
doubt, belonged to the prisoner, was found at a consider-
able distance or. The prisoner was committed to the
assizes.

A CASE OF HOO.USSING.—On Friday a•scampish-look-
ing fellow, namecUChristopher Crane, was committed for
trial on the charge of having robbed a stupid-looking fellow
of his purse and.; some silver. An attempt was made by
Mr. Owen, an attorney, to show that :he prosecutor had
lost his money before he went to the side of the dock.
The fellow was seen to perpetrate the felony, and it also
appeared clear that the prosecutor (wlvo., by the way, was
half stupified) had been dosed by the companions of the
prisoner, whose brother had offered 3,ppliceman ten shil-
lings not to appear against him.
_ _

court, on Friday, an

A RECOGNITION
officer, who was th
takiug care of

it the Police
nincipal witness in a felony case, was
scree stolen geese,, did not appear at his
e case was called on. " Where is that offi-

post when tb

'‘DINNER OF THE MFINIBERS OF THE
ROYAL DEE YACHT CLUB.

TO THE

isurning tl

the mem

namely, the p:

.owing d

sent Dr

faits of the ease

measure
B

optics
priest
priest

Oct. 17, 1845.

The rev. gentleman was well at half-past six o'clock, a.m.,
but at seven he was no more.--Preston Pilot. [The
reverend gentleman will be remembered affectionately by
many of our readers, as the faithful incumbent of St.
Michael's Church in this town.

THE PROPOSAL
'ATHOLIC PRIEST-

THE REV. DR. M'NEILE OI
TO PAY THE ROMAN
HOOD BY THE STATE,

EDITOR OP THE LIVERPOOL

MAIL

Stn,—A friend has called my attention to a paragraph
in your last paper, which seems to call for a few observa-
tions from me; and I have, therefore, to beg the favour
of the insertion of this letter in your next. To avoid
misrepresentation, however unintentional, you will oblige
me by reprinting die paragraph here. I have cut it out
of the paper and enclose it for the purpose.
" It is currently reported in circles usually well-informed,
that the Rev. Dr. M'Neile has had the candour to admit the
overwhelming necessity for greatly modifying his objection* to
a state provision for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland.
Indeed there are many converts to the conviction, that there
will be no lasting peace in that unhappy land for either pro-
testant or papist, until the Irish priesthood are relieved from
the worst form of the evils of "voluntaryism," that is, abject
dependence on the demagogue of the day and his seven millions
of deluded dupes—the excitable peasantry—whose "pence"
now form their precarious stipends. At all events, it is confi-
dently stated that Dr. M`Neile has been in correspondence
with Bir Robert Inglis on this vexed subject, and that the latter
at least is willing to advocate, or to acquiesce in, the state pay—
ment of the Roman Catholic clergy, PROVIDED, the law mll ar
the same tie re confer on the Irish laity, Roman Catholic aS well
as Protestant, the same ceded-Attical rights and vrivEcsre,s-az

• .1, 6.0 L.,
f the Anglican Church in this country enjoy ;•
'--- of demanding Christian baptism, church-

of women, and burial, as un

this latest on dit as we receive it. We should r
leas we had received it from a trustworthy guar

to communicate it

We giVe

give

ter,-not likely

demands'

e/pianatton. In the place, filet.,
my kind friend, Sir Robert Inglis, are et v...
sequence to the public' than mine, I beg to assure you
that there is not the slightest foundation for the above
report, so far as he is concerned. r have never had the
honour of any correspondence with him-upon the subject
referred to, nor do I know whether his view of it has
undergone any recent modification, I think it extremely
unlikelt.

Opinions of

ly more con—

For -myself T can answer. My opinions-npon the sub-
ject are grounded upon a carcfully acquired knowledge of
the system. of Romanism, and an anxiously eont.eientions
comparisortt of it with the inspired word of God. They
were not hastily formed, and 1 have not seen, or heard, or
. .

read anythirl which appears to r
them.

,oration of

In reply to the mullum veratt_ ..---
to be done for' Ireland ? the design, now very generally
attributed to her Majesty's ministers of making, some
national proyisicn for the maintenance of the Roman
Catholic priests, ie.. of course, largely and freely debated
It forms the subject not only of public
ing. but of innumerable private con

of what is

tins and speak-
the
above

amount of foundation that exists for the
stated, concerning rye, must be traced to one or two such,
conversations which have lately taken place, and they
general drift of whieh appears to have been misappre--.
hended. There is, indeed, always some risk of misappre...
hension, (especially where a strong tasli exists on one,
side,) when even, for argument's sake, the main question:-
is set aside, and some secondary or subsidiary topic ele-'
rated into chief discussion. That you and your readers,
may perceive how this he happened in this case, I have,
written a fair specimen of the conversations referred to,•
held in a passing way, stake pede in uno, in a newsroom-
or counting-house. I can, indeed, recall only two such
occasions Ido not pretei;d=to transcribe the very-words-
which passed on either; but if you will allow A. in the'

!ogue, to represent your informar
M`Neile, youvtill have substl

,andßto
rtially tho

A—W ell, what say you to' this project of paying the
Raman Catholic Priests in Ireland ?

B .—W hat can be said in favour of such a project ?
A:----Why, don't you think that if the priests were made
independent of the fees, dues, and other exactions from
their 'people,. en which they novr,live, their people would
become more independent of them.? Surely, if the people
knew; as they would, of course, soon know, that the
priestS were salaried by the state, they would feel them-

selves at liberty to withhold many of those payments
which they now give as matter of necessary support to
their clergy. And is it not human nature that the priests
themselves, or many of them, if independent of their peo-
ple, would be less sedulous in their-attentions, and there:
fore less influential ? In this point of view, as tending to
diminish the absolute control now exercised by the priests,
do you not think-that their endowment would be a politic

You could not attain, or eve

pproximate to the
effect you anticipate, unless you corahtned the endowment
of the priesthood with an act of parliament giving the
laity a legal right to the sacraments and other ordinances
of what they consider the true aural. and prompt and
efficient legal redress against any priest who refused those
-cents or'ordinances. You are avrave that, whatever
__
s practically

s of the aystei

ble to