The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-01-11 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL INFIRMARY

The annual meeting of the trustees and friends of the Li-
verpool Infirmary was held yesterday, in the board room of
the institution, Brownlow-street, for the purpose of receiv-
ing a statement of the treasurer's accounts, the appointment
of the annual officers, and the transaction of the usual busi-
ness appertaining to such a meeting. Not more than from
twelve to fifteen gentlemen were present. Edward Gibbon,
Esq. chairman of the committee, took the chair.
The proceedings commenced with the offering of prayer,
by the Rev. It. Davies, chaplain to the institution.
Mr. E. W. JACKSON, the treasurer, read a short sum-
mary of the accounts for the year just terminated. The re-
ceipts consisted of £3053 17s. in subscriptions, in addition
to which £lO are in arrear, making the total subscriptions
£3093 17s. ; on account of the Lunatic Hospital, £llll 55.,
and on general account, £1954 14s 9d. The payments were
for the Infirmary, £4275 14s. Id. ; the Asylum, £B6B 12s.
3d.; the Lock Hospital, £623 Os. 11d., making £5767 7s.
3d., leaving a balance of £352 9s. 6d., of which £l3O 15s.
4d., had been disbursed, leaving £221 14s. 2d. cssh in hand.
The only sums he had to receive were" the half-yearly divi-
dend of a London and Birmingham railway bond, £6O ; bones
manure, &c., £2O ; and the arrears of subscriptions (men-
tioned above), £lO ; making the total cash in hand £3ll

d. Thisucas t.o. pay we

e, to the bank, £llB 13s. id. ;

,e estimated bills were,

Infirmary, £lOOO ; the

A sylu
£159
to the
3d. (
comps

.ock Hospital, £2lO ; making
stimated there would be owing
try next, the sum of £1331 19,
Id next read a statement of the
and 1841 :

£270; and the
13s. 7d. ; so that he el
bank on the Ist Februa
Hear, hear.) He wouli
rative receipts of 1840

C

tt, ..14
r-4

c+3 F;

64
Z••
o g.

1-400

• 1•••1

..0- C., G., C.. 7

c;2 Csi t.
,—,l

0 o o
4? 8 0, 0.4

A ' ''-a C• 4
O'D el
co c:. to cp

,+? „

.••• 0 .-4 e..]
•—•

M 0 N 4
e, . 4

ih as- V•
•-
0 ct

E-a•
E-

CI .3

'l3• OD = its

ICO 'N. co
Ce. 2 to co o,
• • &to LO

.; OD C. 41 al
p-4

vet, ts 3 CeD
c+? r... co n
an 00 04

0

o iti E
*ZI •5 o f.:".
itg 1
ca
A .4 ci3 .;

It would be observed, that the greatest deficiency was in the
donations; but at the same time it should be stated, that
those for 1840 included the portion of " The Queen's Mar-
riage Fund" allotted to the Infirmary.
After a very brief discussion, a motion was proposed by
Mr. READE, seconded by Mr. HOUGHTON, that the accounts
do pass, and it was carried unanimously.
The other resolutions were afterwards carried unanimously,
but being altogether of a formal and routine character, it is
unnecessary to specify them. William Brown, Esq., of
Richmond-hill, was elected president for the ensuing year.
Some conversation took place on the necessity of obtaining
increased subscriptions in order to maintain the efficiencyof
the charity, and it was understood that the committee would
press this subject on public attention.
The meeting then separated, the proceedings not having
oceupied more than half an hour.

LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER AND MANCHES-

TER AND LEEDS RAILWAYS

Our contemporary, the Railway Times, in replying to a
few remarks which we offered, on Tuesday last, upon the
subject of the proposed junction line between the above rail-
ways, infers what we really cannot allow him to do, that the
article in our columns must have emanated from " a partizan"
deep in the secrets of the Liverpool and Manchester board.
We can assure the Railway Times, that in any opinion which
we have at any time offered upon the comparative merits of
of railway undertakings, our motives have been equally pure
as his own, and our mind perfectly unbiassed ; and If, on this
question, we could see, in the conduct of the Liverpool board,
any leaning to individual interests, as opposed to the interests
of the shareholders at large, or the convenience of the public,
we should be as ready to denounce such a leaning as our con-
temporary himself.
We cannot, however, we must confess, discover any such
unworthy spirit in the conduct of the directors of the Liver-
pool line, in resisting the attempt of the Leeds and Manches-
ter directors to hurry them into the formation of the proposed
junction between the two railways. On the contrary, we are,
on a more mature consideration of all the circumstances of
the case, even strengthened in our conviction that the Liver-
pool and Manchester board have a perfect right to pause be-
fore adopting the views of the Leeds Company, and with
three railways, each seeking a communication with them
through the town of Manchester—and that communication
necessarily a somewhat expensive one—to give their sanction
to such a scheme as would satisfy at once all interests, rather
than to enter upon the formation of a separate junction with
the Leeds lige, leaving two other important lines entirely un-
provided for. We can see nothing either very reprehensible,
on the part of the Liverpool board, in wishing to postpone
any present steps in the matter, even supposing—(and
it is a mere supposition)—that they are convinced of
the superiority of any particular scheme. It is quite
possible, as we remarked in a previous article upon this
subject, that circumstances may develope themselves,
during the present session of parliament, which will
force upon the mind of every prudent man the conviction
that the formation of a junction line through Manchester, so
expensive as either of the competing schemes, is very inex-
pedient ; and independent of this consideration, the present
.
position of commercial and monetary interests, and of rail-
way interests as well, is quite sufficient ground for unwilling-
ness to embark in new undertakings not urgently required.
We did not, whilst alluding to the " unfair spirit' mani-
fested by the Leeds company at their recent meeting, or
when expressing our confident expectation that the Liverpool
board would not be turned from their course by the paper
pellets directed against them by their " detractors," include
our contemporary amongst the number. And yet on the
principle that a journalist is in some measure responsible for
the statements of his correspondents, any one, not so well
acquainted as we are with our contemporary's general fair-
ness in " hearing both sides," might almost have done so.
For weeks past his columns have teemed with the contribu-
tions of the Manchester and Leeds gentlemen, impugning
the motives of the Liverpool board in no very measured
terms, and decrying the merits of other undertakings, in par-
ticular of that much vilified one, which is the especial object
of their jealousy (the line between Manchester and Sheffield),
and which for the last five years their scribblers have been
sedulously endeavouring to write down ; and coupling with
these attacks the total omission, (for which our contempo-
rary offers a very lame excuse,) of the claim of that under-
taking to be considered in the settlement of this question of
a junction line, we are convinced that we were fully justified
in charging them with both " selfishness" and "unfairness."
But pass we to the main point in dispute ; the question as
to the relative advantages of the two competing schemes, for
after all, that question is the most important one to be
settled. The Standard, our contemporary, says, " Asserts,
but does not prove that the other junction line" (the line to
connect the Liverpool with the Birmingham and the Sheffield
line) " would be more advantageous and less expensive than
that to Hunt's Bank. We should be glad if this could be
satisfactorily made out, for in that case we should urge the
Liverpool directors and all concerned to give it the prefer-
ence. Our reply to this passage shall be very brief. In the
first instance, we did not say that the line to join the Liver-
pool with the Manchester and Birmingham and Manchester
and Sheffield could be made for less than that to Hunt's
Bank. We said that it had been estimated at and could be
made for one-third the cost (£650,000) put down for it by
the speakers at the Manchester and Leeds meeting ; and is
it be the case that the estimated cost of the line to Hunt's
Bank is £450,000, then, of course, we may in substance have
made the assertion which is here attributed to us. We have
no great confidence, however, in exparte estimates, or indeed
in estimates of any kind. It is not, however, a dozen years
ago since we saw a plan and estimate of a line of railway over
this very part, of Manchester, commencing from the Liver-
pool line at Oldfield-lane and terminating at Sheffield—a
route of 44 or 46 miles, and comprising eight miles of tun-
nelling—the cost of which was stated at, if we remember
right, the very same sum of £650,000, by no less celebrated
an engineer than Mr. George Stevenson, the projector of the
Leeds line •, and we cannot think that such great improve-
ment has been made in the art of spending money upon
railway works that two miles of railway now will cost as much
as 46 miles, including the same two miles, would have cost
ten or twelve years ago ! This estimate, it is true, may be
too absurd to be noticed ; and so may be, and so is, the
estimate which the Leeds gentlemen would palm upon us.
The same line has, however, been surveyed at a more recent
date by more than one eminent engineer; and we are much
mistaken (and we can be corrected if we are) if the estimate
of any of them exceeded £250,000 ! Our contemporary can
readily satisfy himself, if he possesses the inclination, by an
application to the parties in Manchester, one of them a com-
pany proposing to make the line in question, for whom these
surveys were made. If we mistake not, some information
upon the subject will be found by a reference to the early
numbers of his own publication.
With respect to the comparative advantages to the Liver-
pool company of the two connecting lines, we presume that

, .
company is very competent to judge for itself. We have no
wish to undervalue the importance of a connection with the
Leeds line, and do not think that that line ought to be with-
out a junction with Liverpool ; at the same time we are as
little disposed to overlook the advantage of a connection with
the important towns upon the other two lines, some of which
—and we allude to Sheffield in particular—do not possess
already the advantage of water communication with Liver-
pool. On these grounds we do not wish to see a decision
upon the line to be adopted hurriedly arrived at ; and would
suggest, that it would be infinitely better that all the compa-
nies should consent to abate a portion of their presnt de-
mands, and seek a line of which all might partake the ad-
vantage.

I❑ conclusion, we should be very happy if we could on all
occasions copy entire any remarks of our contemporary
addressed to us. We believe, however, that he will not suffer
greatly by the omission, his journal being generally read by
those of our townsmen who are interested in any subject
likely to be discussed between us.

A recent grant of the House of Commons placed at the
disposal of the government a sum of money to be appropri-
ated in aid of the formation of public works in the vicinity
of large towns. It is a condition that the town or corpora-
tion thereof should contribute land of the value of an equal
sum of money to that granted.
DEATH OF WALTER HENRY WATTS, ESQ.—This gentle-
man died on Tuesday last, aged 64, after many months of
severe illness and painful suffering, which he endured with
heroic patience. Mr. Watts was the son of Capt. Watts, of
the royal navy; and from his earliest youth devoted himself
to the congenial exercise of the pencil and the pen. Mr.
Watts was very many years a reporter of the debates in
parliament for the press, and in the discharge of the duties
thus imposed upon him he has not been surpassed, and seldom
equalled. He was one of the most zealous founders of the
institution for the benefit of newspaper writers, and always
took an earnest interest in its prosperous establishment. Mr.
Watts was no less appreciated as an artist and a writer on
art; and was also the author and editor, for a considerable
time, of the Annual Obituary, published by Messrs. Long-
man and Co. ; and of the Political Memento, a curious se-
lection of striing passages from parliamentary speeches.
For more than twenty years Mr. Watts wrote the most con-
siderable portion of the criticisms on the fine arts in the
Literary
Gazette.—Literary Gazette.

CORRESPONDENCE

MR. M'NEILE'S ANSWER

YOUENS

SIR,—I have just received a copy of your " Remarks" on
a speech of mine, delivered at a public meeting in this town
on the 20th of December last. That speech was brief and
supplemental, and I rejoice in the favourable opportunity
afforded by your publication to call attention more extensively
to the whole statement.

In the speech on which yon comment, reference was made,
as you remark, to an occasion when five men (one Italian
and four Irishmen) protested against the novelties of Roman-
ism, and conformed to the ancient Church Catholic in
England.

Also, reference was made to an address which I delivered
on that occasion, and which I proposed partially to repeat,
but only partially, as it had appeared in print only three liars
before. It was reported with substantial, though not exactly
with verbal, accuracy, in the Liverpool Standard of the 17th
of December. It refers, at the outset, to an important dis-
tinction, carefully kept in view to the end. It is thus re-
ported :

" In offering on historical statement, a distinction must be borne in
mind from the very outset, from the want of which, as appears to me,
much confusion hangs apon the supposed history of this great question
The distinction I refer to is between the the p history of üblic authone
. •

&dire documents of the church, and the
ing in the church."

histo;y of individuals teach

This distinction is of the utmost moment. The error of
an individual as such, whetherpriest or layman, is not fairly
chargeable upon the church to which that individual belongs,
particularly if the recognised standards of his church be

wholly free from such error. But when the error is adopted
by authority, and by authority imposed upon others, as
necessary to their salvation ; then it may, I should raher
say it must, in all fairness, be regarded as part of the system.
Errors of a very flagrant description arose among members
of the Christian church, and were propagated with much
zeal, even in the apostles' days; but the church, as a body,
was not chargeable with those errors. The inspired apostles
reproved them, and condemned'the false teachers of them as
" deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apos-
tles of Christ ; and no marvel," adds St. Paul, " for Satan
himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it
is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the
ministers of righteousness ; whose end shall be according to
their works." (2 Cor. xi. 13-15.)
Having made this distinction, I proCeed as reported thus :

" I invite your attention first to a very brief sketch. of the history o
the public authoritative documents of the church. This will throw
light upon the question of antiquity which is so much discussed. The
basis of all Christian faith we believe to be the holy scriptures ; but I
must advance from that at once, in the present instance, to consider
the authorised documents of the primitive church. These are in
number, three ; they are brief, they are explicit—the Apostles creed,
the Nicene creed, and the Athanasian creed. The date of the apostle's
creed is not known; it is found to have existed from a very early period.
The date of the Nicene creed is from the council of Nice, in the year
021 ; and until then there does not appear to have been any public
authoritative Catholic document except the apostle's creed. The date of
the Athanasian creed is nearly the same as that of the Nicene creed.
These three compose the faith, the saving faith, of the Christian church ;
. .

they contain the" trinity in unity, the unity in trinity, neither con-
founding the persons nor dividing the substance;" they contain the in-
carnation, the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ; the person and agency in the prophets, as
well as iu the Christian church, of the Holy Ghost; the existence of a
body distinguishable from all bodies, and called by the name of the
church; the communion existing among the members of that church;
the fact of forgiveness of sins in that church; the belief of the resurrec-
tion of the flesh ; and the anticipation of eternal life after death. This
was the Catholic faith. observe, I am not now speaking of the opini-
.

jns that individuals held. The-distinction I made atthe outset keeps

or is intended to keep, those out of sight for the present. I speak
of the public authoritative Catholic documents of the church—
they were these three, and none other. These three were received by
public assemblies of the church as containing the faith. The second
general council was held at Constantinople in the year 381 ; and these
three creeds, or rather the Nicene creed, as it is comprehensive and
sufficient, were received by that council as the faith of the church. The

third general council was held at Ephesus in the year 431. In this
council the decision of the church as an aggregate body went still fur-
ther. It not only recommended the Nicene creed as the faith of the
Christian church, but it rejected all attempts at substituting anything
else, or adding anything to it. The decree of the council of Nice con-
cerning the faith of the church at that time is most important. It is
transcribed in this pamphlet, and I will read it. Having read it, he
continued—M ark the determination of this holy synod, that if any
person should propose, should offer, should profess auy other form of
creed than that which was agreed upon by the council of Nice, the
persons so doing, if they were clergy, should be degraded, and if they
were laymen, should be anathematised. So stood the faith of the
Christian church to the year 431 ; the Nicene creed, and the Nicene
creed alone, was the recognised symbol of the Catholic faith The
decree of this council seemed to set the matter at rest for many
centuries. No attempt was made for centuries to interfere with,
to add to, or diminish from, the Nicene creed. When the coun-
cil of Trent met in the sixteenth century, they, too, recognised the
Nicene creed as the faith of the church. During all their sittings,
whatever matters they may have discussed, they recognised the Nicene
creed as the Catholic faith. It was not till the conclusion of the

sittings of that council that any other form of faith was proposed;
no one had dared to do it; the decree of the council of Ephesus
was against it; and until the close of the sittings of the council of
Trent, no one presumed to do it. Who, then, was it that .had first
presumed to do it? Who was it that first propounded another form of
faith, to be received as Catholic faith without which no one should be
saved ? It was not a layman, it was not a common clergyman, it was
not merely a bishop, nor even a cardinal only—it was a Pope himself!
Pope Pius IV., who was the reigning pontiff at the time the council
of Trent closed their sitting, commanded, (and they yeilded,) to add, as
the Catholic faith, a new, a totally new creed, consisting of twelve
articles which, whatever individuals may:leave said about them, had
never till that hour been propounded as the Catholic faith. Till that
time the Nicene creed, with its companions the Apostles' creed and the
Athanasian creed, were the only authenticated Catholic documents of
the church. Now my brethren, with this brief sketch of history as
regards the public documents of the church, look at our present position.
For the last 300 years there has been the old creed and the new creed.
Thu old one originating with the apostles, confirmed at Nice, guarded
at Ephesus, continued for centuries till Trent—and continued till now.
We hold the old creed still-- open your prayer-books and there you
have it—the Apostles' creed, the Nicene creed, the Athanasian creed—
and we utterly reject, in compliance with the decree of the Council of
Ephesus, any attempt to propound a new creed different from that which
was approved by the Council of Nice. Along with this for the last 300
years, thers is a new creed, the creed of Pope Pius IV. Our creed was
1500 years old before his creed was propounded. The members of the
Romish church adhere to his creed, and they are contending for a creed
which is but 300 years old as a public document. We protest against
it as an innovation upon the ancient apostolical creed, and we have
stood in au attitude of protesting for the last 300 years—protesting
against novelties, protesting against innovations. Now as regards the
public documents of the church, the authorized, the authoritative,
Catholic documents, this sketch of history is undeniable; and see where
it places us now; see where it places our friends who have just
renounced it. It will be a_consolation to them if they understand it;

it will be a consolation to them to know that they are not forsaking
Catholic antiquity, to know that they ara not giving up the old faith,
that they are in no wise giving up the old creed When they take the
Church of England prayer-book in their hands, they will find the true
Catholic faith. They have professed faith before you all in the Apostle's
creed. They will find also the Nicene creed, and indeed all that the
church ruled as her faith for fifteen hundred years. They will not find
the creed of Pope Pius IV. there: they will not find that. What is it,
then, that they are leaving behind them? They are leaving behind
them the novel'ies of the sixteenth century, and they are cleaving
afresh to the antiquities of apostolic truth. lam persuaded that this
will be a satisfaction to their hearts, and I hope it will throw light upon
the subject, in this general view of it, to all your minds. 'With regard
to this view I must say to them in the langnage of Jeremiah of old—
"Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths where is the
good way and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for you souls."

Here I must supply what the reporter omitted, and tran-
scribe the decree of the Council of Ephesus :

" These things having been read, the holy synod decreed, that it
should be lawful for uo one to profess, to write, or to compose any other
form of faith than that defined by the holy fathers, who, with the Holy
Ghost, had been assembled at Nice.

" But those who shall dare to compose, or to profess, or to offer, any
other form of faith to those wishing to be converted to the acknowledg-
ment of the truth, whether from Paganism or from Judaism, or from
any sort of heresy ; that these if they were bishops or clergymen, that
the bishops should be deposed from theirepiscopacy, and the clergy from
their clerical office ; but that if they were laymen, they should be sub-
jected to an anathema." Mansi. Vol. iii. p. 1362.
In this decree, neither the Apostle's Creed nor the Atha-
nasian Creed are referred to. The creed defined by the holy
fathers assembled at Nice was comprehensive of all. The
Athanasian Creed, though more amplified, in a strain of
scholastic controversy excluding and condemning all forms
of heresy, yet contains no truth but what is distinctly stated
in the Nicene Creed.
Our readers will observe that the Council of Ephesus re-
cognise the Nicene Creed as defined by the holy fathers as-
sembled at Nice, and limit the authorised standard of the
Catholic Christian faith to this symbol.
This is perfectly intelligible, whatever brief additions may
have been made to it at a period subsequent to the Nicene
assembly.
As we have it now, it was recognised as the Catholic faith,
and sufficient to express the same, by the Council of Ephe-
sus. This you do not deity.
You say that " in the third general council, which was held
at Ephesus in 431,

prohibiting any other profession of faith to be required from
converts in future, except the Nicene Creed, as amplified of
course by the previous Council of Constantinople." Re-
marks, p. 13.
Here you state"an important truth, in which I am happy
to observe you entirely agree with me, viz., that the Council
of Ephesus prohibited the profession of any other faith to be
required from converts in future, except the Nicene Creed.
Against this prohibition, Pope Pius IV., and all of you
who agree with him, have very flagrantly transgressed : for
he introduced, and you all require, as necessary to salvation,
a profession of faith, containing a quantity of new matter,
never once alluded to by the holy fathers assembled at Nice.
Even the Council of Trent resisted the innovation, but, by
a subtle contrivance, the Pope carried it.
This new matter contains what we take the liberty of call-
ing the novelties of Romanism, as contrasted with the ancient
creed of the Catholic Christian Church. This new matter is
the cause of all our controversy. For the information of
such of our readers as are not in the habit of studying this
subject, I shall here transcribe this new matter;—