The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-10-29 00:00:00

MORE PERVERSIONS.—The following members of the
two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are announced
as having joined the,Romish communion :—Rev. F. W.
Trenow, 8.A., •St..• John's College. Oxford:; Mr. J.
Maillard, Commoner of Trinity College, Oxford: Mr. T.
Priggett, Commoner of St. John's College, Cambridge ;
and Mr. J. Harper. M.A., Pembroke College, Oxford.
We are also assured, on good authority, that proselytism
to Tractarian principles is still making way among the
younger members of the Universities at a rapid rate; and
no wonder, when,Dr. Mill at Cambridge, and Archdeacon
Wilberforce atOxford, are permitted with impunity to
retain their offices of Professors and Select 'Preachers in
the face of their public abjuration of the thirty-sixth
canon of our Church. What are the authorities about ?
Church aud'State Gazette.

RUBRICAL.DISPUTES.—A complaint having been made
to the Bishop of Exeter, by the churchwardens of She-
viocke, respecting certain innovations introduced into the
service by the Rev. Mr. Cocks, the rector, his lordship,
in anticipation of a personal visit to the parish, wrote a
letter to the churchwardens, in which he observed :—" I
myself am not favourable to alterations, when not in
strict accordance with the rules 'of the Church, even if
they are improvements, unless they are adopted in accord-
ance with the feeling of the parishioners. There are,
however, many things in which the incumbent may act on
his own discretion, which, whether approved or not by
his Bishop, are beyond the reach of Ecclesiastical disci-
pline." On his lordship's visit the various points were
discussed, and, by the Bishop's advice the differences
were amicably arranged, the most material alterations
being condemned by the Bishop.

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES.-The uni-
versity of Oxford, for so great a corporation, is not
wealthy. We have no means for ascertaining its revenue,
but it is understood to be poorly endowed, and to depend
chiefly on fees, the profits of its printing press, and other
fluctuating sources of income. The public are equally
ill-informed as to the incomes of the colleges. It has
been stated that the aggregate incomes of the fellows is
about £120.000 a year. This gives an average of at least
£250 to each person ; but it cannot be taken as a fair one,
for it is understood that many fellowships are valuable;
for instance, at Magdalen, some of them are stated to be
worth £7OO a year. The revenues of New College are said
to be between £15,000 and £16,000 a year, shared
amongst one hundred individuals on the foundation.
The revenue of the Cambridge university is under £5,000
per annum. The principal portion is from the rectory of
Burwell and a farm at Burton, about £2,000. The offi-
cers, such as bedells, proctors, &c., are paid by fees,
amounting to about £2,400 per annum. We have no
means of estimating the college revenue. Some of them
are very large, as King's College, which has about
£20,000 a-year. It is said that the aggregate fellowships
are worth £90,000. But, independently of the estates, a
large income must he derived from the pensioners—that
is, the ordinary students not on the foundations. Take
the total number, stated at 3,000, and deducting there-
from the persons on the foundations, the lowest average
charged for tuition, rent, and other college payments, will
give at least £47,500 a-year. The number of fellowships
is about 300, and the scholarships nearly 700. The church
patronage of the whole colleges exceeds 300 advowsons.—
Tait's Magazine.

THE CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMIN-
STER.

ADDRESS FROM THE CLERGY OF WESTMINSTER

The following address was presented on Friday, at
London-house, to the Lord Bishop of London, who
repressed his entire concurrence in the sentiments and
language of the memorial. His lordship's reply will
shortly be published :

" To the Right Rev. Father in God, Charles James,
Lord Bishop of London.
_ _ _ _ _

" May it please your Lordship,—We, the undersigned clergy
of the city and liberties of Westminster, approach your Lord-
ship with deep feelings of affectionate veneration for your
Lordship's person and office.
" We feel ourselves constrained to resort to your Lordship
for counsel under circumstances of an unprecedented charac-
ter.
" For the first time since the Reformation a Romish ecclesi-
astic, nominated by the Bishop of Rome, has assumed the title
of Archbishop of an English city; and the English city whose
name he has usurped is that in which. the Sovereigns of Eng-
land are crowned, tire Parliaments of England sit, arid the laws
of England are administered—the city of Westminster.

" We have reason to believe that this step is only a prelimi-
nary one, and that, unless it be now checked, it will soon be
followed by others of the same tendency; that names of other
English cities or towns will he assumed as titles of episcopal
sees by other Romish ecclesiastics ; and that a general effort
will be made by the Papacy to give a complete provincial and
diocesan organization to its own hierarchy in England and
Wales.

" Being persuaded that, according to the fundamental prin-
ciples of the universal church, there can be but one metropo-
litan in a province and one bishop in a diocese, in a country
like England where one language is spoken, we deeply deplore,
and solemnly protest against, this unwarrantable act of reli-
gious division, by which the Church of Rome has now given
fresh evidence to the world that, instead of being, as she pro-
fesses to be, a centre of spiritual unity, she is a main cause of
the unhappy schism that rends Christendom asunder.
" We lament also the fact that among British subjects, and
especially among Christian ecclesiastics, any should be found
to assume a title taken from a metropolitan city in the realm
of England, and thus be guilty of invading Her Majesty's con-
stitutional prerogative, which is to be the sole fountain of ho-
nour and dispenser of titles in that realm, and so be justly
chargeable with an outrage against the British Constitution
and with indignity to the British Crown.
" We therefore, the undersigned, having been duly called,
according to the laws of this church and realm, to discharge
spiritual functions in that city in which the Bishop of Rome
now assumes to himself pre-eminence, and over which he has
set no a Claim fn roithnritli by nntnApntiorr On Arch-
bishop thereof; and being bound by our or illation vows to
maintain peace and quietness in church and state, and to
banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines,
contrary to God's word' ; and having solemnly declared our
assent to the principle embodied in the Ordinal, articles, and
canons of our church, that the Queen's Majesty under God
is the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in all spiri-
tual or ecclesiastical causes as in temporal'; and that no fo-
reign prince or prelate bath, or ought to have, here any power,
superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiri-
tual'; and that the Bishop of Rome bath no jurisdiction in
this realm of England,' feel it our bounden duty, in the pre-
sent emergency, to crave directions from your Lordship's wis-
dom and authority how we may best vindicate the rights of
our church and country, which are now assailed, and may,
with the Divine blessing, avert the dangers with which we are
menaced, and maintain the peace of society and the cause of
unity and truth. _ _ _

"A'hat Almighty God may long vouchsafe to continue the
blessing of your Lordship's life and health, to the benefit of
this diocese and of the church and country at large, is and will
be our most hearty prayer at the Throne of Grace."

The address was signed by about seventy clergymen

TIIE OXFORD ADDRESS AND THE ARCHBISHOP
OF CANTERBURY.

The address of the Oxford Graduates to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, on the subjects of the Royal
Supremacy and the recent judgment of the Privy Council,
which was signed by upwards of one thousand members
of the University, has been transmitted to the Arch-
bishop through the Bishop of Oxford, accompanied by a
letter from the latter, dated Cuddesden Palace, Sep. 23,
" pointing out the great weight the document receives
from the character of the subscriptions to it." The fol-
lowing is the Archbishop's reply
. .

."'Addington, Sept. 26, 1850.
"My Lord—An address has reached me through your lord-
ship's hands, signed by a large body of Oxford Graduates, on
the subject of the present constitution of the Court of Appeal
in matters ecclesiastical. Such an address is entitled to grave
and respectful consideration, both from the names appended to
it, and from the subject to which it refers. 1 cannot, however,
see grounds for the apprehension expressed by the subscribers,
that the doctrines of our Church are exposed to danger, either
from the constitution of the Judicial Committee, or from the
decision at which they arrived in the case recently brought
before them. It would certainly be desirable, that a large pro-
portion of the judges should be taken from the ecclesiastical
members of our Church, if the settlement of doctrine were
involved in their decisions. But, happily, this case needs not
to be provided for. Our doctrines and our formularies were
settled at the Reformation : and the agreement or disagree-
ment of these with any opinions which may become matter of
inquiry, is a question well suited to the habits of the Judicial
Committee as now existing. And having assisted at their re-
cent deliberations, I feel bound to bear witness to the patient
investigation which the question received, and the earnest
desire of the members of the Committee to pronounce such a
sentence as should be in accordance, both in letter and spirit,
with our Articles and formularies.
" But I beg to assure the subscribers to the address that they
cannot be more anxious than myself to maintain the doctrines
of the Church inviolate ; and that I shall always, by God's
grace, employ any influence which my station may afford me,
in promoting such measures as may appear likely to contribute
to that end.—l remain, riy Lord, . _

" lour very faithful servant,
"J. B. CANTU:kit

" The Lord Bishop of Oxford."

CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT

IRREGULAR MARRIAGES AT PARISH CHURCHES

A court WAS held uu rrlduy, et the Diocesan Registry,
St. Jamea's-square, Manchester, under the Act 3 and 4
Victoria, sec. 86, commonly known as " The Church
Discipline Act," to inquire into a charge preferred by the
Rev. Thos. T. Eager, M.A., Incumbent of Audenshaw,
against the Rev. W. Wilson, M.A., Minor Canon of the
Manchester Cathedral, that he had irregularly married
two patties. For some time the clergy of the parishes
adjacent to Manchester have complained that persons
residing in their districts have been married at the Cathe-
dral, by which an injury was done to their rights as in-
cumbents, and also a laxity of discipline extended among
their parishioners. In order to put a stop to this, a ma-
nifesto was issued November 26, 1849, directing attention
to the following statutes, showing it to be the imperative
duty of the clergy to satisfy themselves as to the truth of
the statement of residence :-26 George H., cap. 33 ; 3
Geo. IV., cap. 76, sec. 7 ; 4 Geo. IV., cap. 72, sec. 17.
The charge against Mr. Wilson divided itself into four
sections or counts : Ist, that Mr. Wilson did, on the 15th
of July, in the present year, solemnise a marriage between
John Rothwell and Mary Smith, they being under the
age of 21 years ; 2nd, that they were not resident in the
parish of Manchester at the time of marriage ; 3rd, that
he married them without receiving a certificate of the
publication of banns in the parish in which they were
resident, and without due inquiry to the best of his
power, and as by law required, as to whether they were
really resident at the places they named as their resi-
dence ; and 4thly, that if he did make such due inquiry
he married them with the knowledge that they were not
so resident. The commissioners appointed by the Bishop
were, the Rev. R. Mosley Master, Rector of Burnley,
and Rural Dean, chairman ; the Rev. R. Durnford, Re

tor of Middleton, and Riiral Dean ; the Rev. Joseph
Turner, Rector of Lancaster, and Rural Dean ; the Rev.
Thomas Corser, Rector of Stand, and Rural Dean ; and
the Rev. E. G. I. Hornby, Rector of Bury. The court
was declared open, and a considerable number of clergy
and influential laymen were present.
After considerable .discussion, the decision come to was
to the effect that the °large as set forth had been inquired
into, and that the prosecutor had tendered no witnesses
in support of the charge, witich seemed to have been con-
templated. They felt themselves bound not to accept the
proseptor's statement per se, as there rvas not 511.05cieut

LIVEIMOL STIVDAVII.

evidence to-constitute &prima facie ground for prosecu-
tion. They did not. feel themselves warranted 'in adjourn-
ing the inquiry, as the prosecutor might then supply evi-
dence, which he had,not done on the present occasion.
They were, therefore, unanimously of opinion that there
was not sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant further
proceedings being instituted against the party. The
commissioners. then inclosed for the Bishop, under their
hands and seals, the depositions of witnesses taken before
them, and.elso•a report of their opinion.

TO THE REV. DR. WNEILE.

REV. Snt,—From your last letter I suppose that, like
the public, you are weary of the newspaper correspon-
dence in which you have engaged me. I will sum up,
therefore, in a few words what appears to be our differ-
ence. Let me add, in relation to your las. letter (I sup-
press the obvious sarcasm which suggests itself), that I
did not, as you suppose, confound you with Dr. Chal-
mers.

It is plain either that every one must be left to make
out his own creed for himself from Holy Scripture, or
else that some public authority must exist among men.
The first is the opinion of Mr. Baptist Noel, which has
led him very consistently into secession. But ho has
shown clearly enough that the clergy are precluded from
adopting this opinion, because a public authority is not
only implied in the very principle of subscription, but is
expressed in the statement that " the Church bath autno-
rity in controversies of faith." This principle cannot be
abandoned till it is formally renounced, nor can the clergy
profess to disown while they continue to subscribe it.
And that such an authority exists, you seem to admit as
plainly as I do. Our difference respects the seat of this
power, which you attribute to the Crown, and I to the
Church. And when I speak of the Church, I use the
term in its common sense, as it is employed by the Church
of England herself in her liturgy and formularies. In this
sense :surely the Church of England is a thing as well
known as the English State, though the last is a civil,
the first a spiritual society. Now, why should not the
Sovereign be the " chief member" of this society without
possessing such irresponsible authority over its other
members as you attribute to her? You beg me to read
over again the canon which affirms that the King is
" supreme governor in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things
or causes." I never denied it; I affirmed only that the
Queen's supremacy was legal, not absolute; and, again,
that it was such a jurisdiction as had been assigned to the
Crown by the ancient rules of the Church, and not that
which had been enacted by recent civil statutes ; for the
ultimate decision in points of doctrine was neither exer-
cised nor possessed by our Sovereign till it was given to
the Crown by act of Parliament 17 years ago. Before
that time the Crown did, indeed, appoint the delegates,
but it was on the faith of a promise which bound it to
acknowledge that the spiritualty had the right of inter-
preting doctrine. It is not necessary for me to say what
kind of Court would now be satisfactory ; my protest is
sufficiently vindicated by the fact that the Church did
not suppose she was leaving doctrinal questions to the
discretion of the Crown. As the Queen is supreme,
therefore, in all civil things, and yet is bound by acts of
Parliament, so her ecclesiastical authority may extend to
all causes, and yet be limited in degree by the laws of
God and the Church's principles. This is the " existing
state of the law," as the Church understands it, which I
am so far from saying to be " contrary to the law of
Christ," that the very purpose of my declaration was to
maintain and assert it. The contradiction, in which you
fancy me to be involved, arises merely from your forget-
ting that the Church has rights as well as the State, and,
therefore, that the obligations by which the clergy have
bound themselves are not superseded by every new enact-
ment of the temporal authority.
And in pressing this point upon the public attention I
can cite you as a witness against yourself. Few clergy-
men have felt themselves called upon to take a more pro-
minent part than you in political disputes, and it has
been especially on religious grounds that you have justi-
fied the warmth of your opposition to various measures
which have been sanctioned by her Majesty. The public
has not forgotten your remarks on Roman Catholic eman-
cipation and the Maynooth grant, or your denunciations
of Jezebel. You did not at that time suppose that to
interpret Scripture differently from the " chief member
of the Church" was " refractory and rebellious" ; you
did not think that in deciding what was right and wrong
the private conscience of the Sovereign was " the only
security the nature of the case admits of;" yet, if the
clergy must teach whatever her Majesty decides in respect
to the most momentous articles of the Christian faith,
much more should they acquiesce in the lawfulness of any
public act which she sanctions. As citizens they might
think such acts unwise, but they could not, as you have
done, denounce them as unchristian. Now, I pronounce
no censure on your conduct, nor is this a mere ad homi-
nenz objection against yourself. You exercised a common
right, which I have little doubt you would be the last to
surrender whenever you found that the " Daniel come to
judgment" gave an unfavourable verdict.
I appeal, therefore, to the freedom of your acts from
the servility of your principles. An Erastian when you
hold the pen, you relapse in liberty when you mount the
platform.
If anything which I have written shall induce you to
be more moderate and more consistent both in the one
instance and the other, I shall be compensated for having
been subjected to the acrimony which you have thought
it fitting to employ, and whi^h it has been my hope and
effort not to retaliate. The Royal supremacy, as I have
already said, is secured by penal provisions, and if I have
exceeded 410 oluim, Inm
ready to abide the consequences. But it must be a weak
mind which the injustice of an opponent could goad into
abandoning everything which is precious among men.
You must demonstrate your two assertions-Ist, that the
Church of England considers the will of her earthly So-
vereign to be the final expositor of God's revealed law ;
and, 2nd, that it is " an abuse of language to call her a
spiritual body," before you can effect your unfriendly
purpose of destroying my attachment to the Church of
my fathers.

Your obedient servant,
ROBERT J. WILBERFORCE

- _
POLITICAL MISCELLANY.

It is said that Mr. Hill, the recorder of Birmingham,
will be the new Baron of the Exchequer.
On the South Cheshire registration the Conservatives
succeeded in striking off 227 votes, principally those
created by the Anti-corn Law League.
Earl Stanhope has issued an address to the labouring
classes of Great Britain and Ireland, urging them to exer-
tion for the abolition of free trade, and a return to the
principles of protection.

- .
LEGAL APPOTNTNIENTS.—It is said that Baron Rolfe
will be made Vice-Chancellor, and Sir John Romilly
Master of the Rolls, in the place of Lord Langdale, who
will resign in February. Sir A. Cockburn will be
Attorney-General, and probably Mr. Page Wood
Solicitor-General.

The King of Denmark has presented a splendid tan-
kard to Sir H. W. W. Wynn, who, " as the representa-
tive of four British sovereigns to four kings of Denmark,
has promoted the continuance of a good understanding
between Great Britain and Denmark." The presentation
took place at a magnificent banquet.
THE PREMIER'S SOAP BUBBLES.—At the Collingham
agricultural meeting on Tuesday last, the chairman (Mr.
Barrow) said he understood that " Lord John Russell
was amusing himself on the heaths of Scotland by blow-
ing soap-bubbles," and added, that " this was not at all
improbable, because the Premier was always on the look-
out to see which way the wind blew."
REACTION AGAINST PAPAL ENCROACHMENT.—At
the Tring agricultural meeting, held last week, on giving
the health of her Majesty, "in all matters ecclesiastical
as well as civil in these her dominions supreme," the
chairman, after remarking on the well-known steady
loyalty of the agricultural body, added, with emphasis,
that if her sway were insulted, or her rights assailed by
Prince, by President, or by Pope, the farmers of England
would I:now how to rally round her throne and rebuke the
audacious presumption. This was received with repeated
cheers.

TAXATION DOUBLED BY RETURN TO CASH PAY-
INIENTS.—In 1812, a time of war, the government taxes
amounted to sixty-five millions in money, and in wheat
to ten millions of quarters. In 1850, a time of peace,
the government taxes amount to fifty-two millions in
money, and to twenty-four millions of quarters in wheat.
So that taxation in real burthen, and owing to the depre-
ciating effect of gold money, is twice as heavy now, after
thirty-five years of peace, as it was in time of war.

. •
Tux Pnnr.•. r QT,I,VAT firCf timn ainre the
triumph of Protestant principles the Pope has ventured to
erect in England, not a point of faith or a rule of conduct,
but what must be regarded, if it be anything, as a form of
government; and this is done by the very men who are
stated without contradiction to have suppressed the prayer
for the Queen in the Romish chapels of the London dis•
trict. It is e•; idea that these transactions are tainted
with a treasonable hostility to our national institutions ;
and though it may be contended by legal formalists that
there is no statute to compel a Christian congregation to
pray for their Sovereign or to prohibit a spurious title, it
will be not the less generally admitted that these acts
constitute a moral breach of allegiance to the crown and
to the country.—Times.

Ministers had an unexpected cabinet-meeting last
Wednesday, with regard to the conduct of Prussia in the
Schleswig-Holstein affair. The governments of Russia
and France have jointly proposed to the government of
this country, that the three powers shall peremptorily
require Prussia to fulfil her recent engagement with
Denmark, and withdraw the support she still continues to
give to the Schleswig-Holstein army. In the event of
Prussia hesitating to comply with this reasonable demand,
Russia and France are prepared to back it, not by an un-
profitable march to the territory under dispute, but in a
way more congenial to their tastes—by an invasion of the
Silesian provinces of Prussia on the one side, and the
Rhenish on the other. In the first instance, however,
they require the co-operation of England in the remon-
strance with Prussia, without which they are not prepared
to move at present. It is understood that England de-
clines to join in the remonstrance, but proposes that each
of the three powers shall remonstrate separately.
WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE PROTECTIONISTS ?
The question has been asked with great pomposity,
" What has become of the Protectionists ?" I should
like to ask another question—" What has become of
Free Trade and the Free-traders ?" I should like to see
the man—a man who calls himself a statesman, and has a
pretence to knowledge of any kind whatever—who will
come to me and say, " I am a Free-trader !" Is Mr.
Bright a Free-trader ? if any man was supposed to be
one, he would be. Well, Mr. Bright is a Free-trader ;
but I want to know upon what principle of Free Trade he
asked for a commission to inquire into the best means of
promoting the cultivation of cotton in India, (Hear.)
Do you call that Free Trade ? 'Well, but there is the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Charles Wood—is he a
Free-trader ? I should like to hear bim review his Free
Trade doctrines. I myself conceive that Free Trade

means a total abolition of restrictions upon all trade
whatever. Then, if Sir Charles Wood is a Free-trader,
he will repeal the Malt Tax to-morrow, and he will also
repeal all the taxes that press upon the agricultural in-
terest, and all the taxes that press upon the domestic in-
dustry of the country. If he does not, he is no Free-
trader. If they mean, however, that their Free Trade
applies only to foreigners; let them say so, and ir, would
be understood ; but they are not Free-traders unless they
repeal all restrictions whatever. "Oh ! but," says the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, " I must have a revenue ;
the interest upon the national debt must be paid ; the
dignity of the Crown must be maintained ; our institutions
must be supported ; the army and navy must be kept up ;
I must impose taxes to maintain the necessary revenue,
for the honour, dignity, and very existence of the country
depend upon it." Who doubts it? Not the Protectionists ;
they quite agree in saying that it is perfectly necessary ;
but what has become of your Free Trade ? The fact is,
you cannot impose taxes upon this country, and at the
same time carry out your doctrine of Free Trade. I care
not who contradicts me, I tell them they cannot do it,
and that if these are their principles tney will sink under
them. "Oh I but," they say, " what we want is cheap
food ; we want cheap bread." Now is that so ? Are
they consistent in what they say ? Quite the contrary ;
what they want is cheap foreign bread, not English bread.
If they want cheap bread—if cheap food is their sole
desire, allow me to ask why it was they refused Mr.
Disraeli last year, when he proposed a reduction of the
taxes that press upon the agricultural interests, and
which therefore tend to raise the price of English grown
bread ? If that was their sole desire, why did they not
support his motion ? Does not the land-tax, do not the
poor rates, do not the highway rates, do not the county
rates, all press upon the agricultural interest ? and do
not they prevent the agriculturalists in England from
growing food at the prices at which they would he
enabled to produce it if these taxes were taken off ?—The
Marquis of Granby.