The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-22 00:00:00

mity in trappin

e honour of being the Cardinal's
the no less famous Father Ignatius ;
last, not least, Father—we beg his pardon, Mr. Lucas,
P. for Meath, and editor of the Tablet,—all of whom
re, or were supposed to be, concerned in the transac-

!cretary

Lrising.out of the,controversy, and cognizant of the
ship of the libel complained of. But, as is ever
to be the case in questions affecting the interests of
thurck—for reasons to which the writings of the
h casuists furnish the key,—the memories of
witnesses are subject to strange paroxysms in the
s-box, and nothing could be elicited from any of
sufficiently definite to inculpate the Head of the
'Hierarchy in England.

TheTe was one.chance, however, for the plaintiff'. The
Cardimal himself might be called and examined upon his
oath.' To this, it was objected that by the law of England
no. man is bound to criminate himself,—that although the
action was in the"form of a civil suit for damages, yet in
snlsstance it was in the nature of a criminal proceeding,
' that, therefore, Dr. Wiseman could not be examined.
--h with a view to combat this position, as to
Danal hiei-arehy, the counsel

to prevail upon the court to
us point until the Cardinal

lecision o.

ed as a witness and sworn, it being
prince of the Holy Roman Church,"

Wiseman ein:

condescend to appear and be sworn
ness in one of the Queen's Courts, and that,
, he must have rendered himself liable to be

litempt of court.
bound, as, indeed, we are disposed, to assume
,arned and upright judge who presided at the
;ht it an unnecessary-waste of the time of the

mmittect tor
We ar

tler tt

ith foa witness who could not, in
examined on the grOund before stated.
Ind we, are not prepared to dispute the pro-
conclusion, his lordship thought it incon-
te dignity of British justice that the plaintiff
the opportunity-afforded him of punishing
lan by a sidewind for an offence which he could

of establish by
des of evidence,
ielded by a Poi

such proof as was admissible by the
, or that the question of the obedience
Ash ecclesiastic to the Queen's Courts

ran Iby a collateral issue in a civil suit. Be
y, court ruled that Cardinal Wiseman
Id net be examined as a witness, and that it was use-
therefore, to have '

may, ti

um sworn

Up to this point,
'ather Boyle,—who

glaring as is the injustice done to
is, we need not say, ruined for life,

_ .
having no chance of ever getting his &Tad, in however
humble a way, while under the cardinal's frown and ban,
—we can only deplore the insufficiency of the law made
for freemen and men of truth, to reach popish tyrants
hedged in by the system of equivocation which the Jesuit
_ .

code enjoins as a religious duly. But there is one circum-
stance which we confess that, for the honour and dignity

of the English Bench, and Of the British Crown, repre-
sented by the occupants of that bench, we could have
wished had been otherwise. On " Nicholas, Cardinal
Wiseman" being called by the crier of the court, that
_ _

Ininent" individual was introduced from a private door;
4, instead of being placed in the witness-box, he was
commodated with a seat on the bench. Under any cir-

of courtesy ought to hive been extended to a personage
whose assumed rank and titled are an ipso facto defiance
of the Queen's supremacy; but it was singularly inappro-
priate at a moment when the question was raised whether
by the tender of the oath the individual treated with such
unseasonable deference would not be placed in a position
in which, to be faithful to the tenets of his church and to
the obligations of his position, he must have openly re-
pudiated the Queen's supremacy and the authority of that
very court. And it was surely a needless aggravation of
the wrong suffered by the plaintiff, that his oppressor,
who availed himself of the technicalities of the law to
avoid the legal responsibility of a libel of which there can

be no moral doubt that he is the author, should be enabled
to confront him from that very judgment seat at the foot
of which Father Boyle was hopelessly suing for justice.
It is bad enough that popish iniquity should go unpunished
and unchecked by the law of England, but it is too bad
that it should be permitted to display its unhallowed
triumphs from the sacred seat where Justice alone ought
to be enthroned.—John Bull.

HONESTY may be ragged for a season, but :the sound
heart that beats beneath the tatters feels a contempt for
well-dressed rongery as he passes, and a confidence in the
path before him,

BE YOU EVER so PUBES you cannot associate with bad
,mpany without falling into bad odour. Evil company

—you car

without c
A 0

Ting aiva;

n:CEER PROFESSORSHIP.—An American contempo-
rary says the government of Harvard College are said to
be completely nonplussed by a bequest of 15,000 dollars,
_ _

. _ ...._,
left by a certain sentimental .hiss to found a Professorship
of " Philosophy of the Heart." We wish the wise men of
Harvard a happy issue from the perplexity into which
Miss Plummer has involved them.—Musical World.

PORTRAIT OF ESPARTER.O.—The Siècle gives the fol-
lowing description of the man in whom the interests of
Spain may now be considered to centre :—" His strongly
marked eye-brows, the steady regard of his eye, his slightly-
closed lips, and the width of his chin, announce that no
oscillations are to be looked for in him when once his will
has been declared. Espartero commands respect by other
physical and moral qualities. Of middle height, sixty
years of age at least, but not looking more than fifty, he
bears on his lofty forehead, in his black eye, and on his
lips turning readily to a smile, a great appearance of kind-
ness, frankness, and courage carried to recklessness.
By the services which he has rendered, he is the first of all
the living Spanish commanders. He is a good comrade
for his soldiers, and when he saw the troops suffering from
want of supplies, Espartero often engaged his private
fortune towards the contractors. It is in that way that,
being a rich man when he assumed the chief command, he
was infinitely poorer when he laid it down. His fortune
comes from his wife, the daughter of a rich banker ; and
she never hesitated to give her signature when it was
called for to serve the army. Espartero had himself no
fortune—nothingbut his sword. Of an honest but obscure
family, he has always had the good sense not to deny his
origin. One day during his regency there was a grand
soiree at Buena Vista, and an uncle and two female cousins
of the Regent were announced. The uncle was a small
contractor for roads in La Mancha, and his daughters,
dressmakers. TheDkukdely ai
at old
neelweftenetvteorTeoentehsitsrrueclaktwivietsh,
received them most in
pride which
is in
showed itself
in
itself
all
thsogirs cae,eatillynliyn,
thatthe
palace
democraticce o f
kiTh n gs
equal will be
whi c h tam mt
the
ue n
mission
s sts oi an b s
assigned o u e proofto
hthimat. E
Ands pa r ter
yeto a man's
antecedent conduct is one of the elements that serve best
to cuAlgetliew944t9 ((mg j tidgraqt 91124.40999ugivict,",

THE LIVERPOOL

PURITAN SCHOLARSHIP

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SIR, —1 observe that " A Churchman of Liverpool" shirks

(wisely as I think) the question about " Communication"
being the correct rendering of the word " Communion," in
the passage cited from Ist Cor., 10th chapte
of appearing twice to slay the slain, I may just mention that
in the Latin version of the 28th Article, which is even of supe-
rior authority to the English version, the phrase in the latter,
" partaking of," which is a quotation of the passage of St.
Paul in question, is rendered by the very word excepted against
by this learned Theban, viz., " Communicatio. "—Yours, &c.,
August 11, Mi. ANGLO-CATHOLIC.

At the risk

REV. W. POLLOCK'S " PRIZE OF WAR ! '

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sr u,—ln replying to Mr. Pollock's last letter, a few words
will suffice. In what I have to say, I shall endeavour to avoid
both his verbosity and his want of temper. In one point he
is right, and I was wrong. I now see that Mr. Wray did
charge the Puritan party, as well as Dissenters, with a belief
that the Book of Common Prayer contains a large amount of
covert Popery. My error arose from reading the passage in
question hastily: and I have now only to add—first, that no
impartial person would suppose that Mr. W. intended his
charge to apply to every individual of the party without ex-
ception ; and, secondly, that it is notoriously true of many of
them, the proof being their own public declarations.
And now with regard to my assertion, that the prospectus
was published in extenso in the Mail. lam guiltless of any
intentional misstatement ; for I was utterly ignorant that two
editions of it existed. The one given in the Mail I had never
read, and the only one in my own possession agreed verbatim
with that first published by Mr. Pollock as "a prize of war."
However, I have now carefully compared the two, and I
really can find no essential difference between them—not
more than between two editions of a book intended by its
author or editor to be one and the same. No Puritan would
be better pleased with the one than with the other. I still
affirm, therefore, that all Mr. Pollock's talk about its being
" a prize .of war" was mere rhodomontade. He asserts,
" Mr. Pughe must have known of the private letter when he
said on July 13th that ' it was neither written nor printed for
circulation among the Puritan party.' " This seems to be an
admission on my part that it was never intended to meet
their eye; but, had he finished the quotation, my meaning
would have been apparent. I have not my letter by me, but
what I added was to this effect :—" But among those from
whom assistance or sympathy might be expected; but that
Mr. W. ever expected that it would not fall into the hands of
the Puritans, I utterly deny." I have said already that I
knew but of one letter or prospectus, and I may remind him
that at the date which he gives as that of what he calls the
private letter, I was residing in Scotland, and was wholly un-
connected with Liverpool. However, this same private letter
(or prospectus, as I have called it,) is the only one with which
I have been acquainted; and, as a further proof that it was
never intended or expected to be kept private, I may inform
him that myself and others have, during the last year and a-
half, forwarded many hundreds of copies by post to clergy-
men and laymen of whose sentiments we knew nothing, and
this at Mr. Wray's request. So much for Mr. Pollock's
"stunning blow."

As for the prospectus itself, its statements are strictly true
in both editions—true, i.e., of the Puritans as a party, though
no one would ever suppose that the writer intended every
assertion to apply to each individual of the party
Whether Mr. Pollock was guilty of a mere "
take," or of something far more grave, when he misrepre-
sented what I said touching the sacrament of matrimony, I
leave your readers to judge.—l am, Sir, yours, &c.,

trivial rais -

K. MACKENZIE PUGHE.

Winslow, Bucks, Aug. 18, 1854,

ODIUM THEOLOGICTIIII,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
Six,—lf the evil of controversy cannot be altogether
avoided, it might be conducted with better temper and more
charity than Mr. Pollock displays in his strange and angry
criticisms upon my " Appeal on behalf of the Proposed New
Church in Liverpool." Instead of giving me any credit for a
conscientious desire to vindicate the Prayer Book, and benefit
the people by affording them the inestimable blessings of fre-
quent prayer and praise, he is evidently anxious to put the
worst possible construction upon my motives, to discover no-
thing but disingenuousness in my conduct, nothing but a
deep and secret plot against the Clergy of Liverpool and their
religious peculiarities. In his eagerness to do this, he is be-
trayed into the use of language not very much to his own
credit, nor likely to promote the interests of his party. He
calls me a " clandestine slanderer " of my brethren ; the
"Appeal" itself is said to be " steeped in bitterness," and two
editions of it are displayed in parallel columns in last Ties-
day's paper) to prove that the author had "one language for
the public generally, and another for those of his own sect, to
whom he ventured to unbosom himself."

A very plain and simple statement of the facts of the case
is all that is necessary to answer these elaborate charges.
Mr. Pollock has been pleased to impute motives which I now
emphatically disavow ; and, as he has given evidence in his
letter to Mr. Pughe that the word of a gentleman is not held
sacred by him, I can only address my disclaimer of such
motives to the public. I beg, therefore, to state that Mr.
Pollock is altogether under a mistake in supposing that I
ever published, or intended to publish, two appeals (or pros-
pectuses), having one language for my friends and another
for the public generally; nor was I careful to conceal what I
was sure must sooner or later be seen by those for whom it
was not primarily intended. I wrote and printed only one
paper of this kind which was circulated among friends and
others at a distance, with an accompanying prospectus of
proposed Church Services, &c. These, in a subsequent edi-
tion, for convenience and to save expense, were combined,
with such alterations and corrections as were thought proper,
omitting some expressions which had been pointed oat to me
as likely to give offence.

At the time of our advertising in the local papers. I sent a
copy of this edition to the editor of the Mail for his own
inspection ; and upon his inquiring whether I desired it to be
published in that paper, I replied (to the best of my recollec-
tion) that he was at liberty to make what use of it he pleased,
though it had not been written for the Liverpool public. This
is the simple solution of Mr. Pollock's grievance, all which
might have been explained to him, if he had exercised a little
more patience, and had condescended to make a few inquiries.
Other copies might also have been found of the same docu-
ment slighlty differing from the two which he has printed,
for the type was kept standing for some time, and the date
was altered and verbal alterations made as each hundred or
two were struck off.

Unless Mr. Pollock bad been obstinately bent upon making
out a bad case, he would have seen that the hypothesis by
which he explains the difference of the two documents
entirely fails him as reArds the very paragraph which he
charges Mr. Pughe with misunderstanding. "The latter
prospectus (he says) is gentleness itself compared with the
former." And yet it is in the former, and not in the latter,
that the "gentlest" sentence occurs : it is in the first (the
"private letter"), and not in the second (for the Liverpool
public), that I employ words at least intended to be concilia-
tory, and say—" The above remarks are far from being made
in a spirit of resentment against those who are guilty of these
irregularities. It is charitably supposed that they are the
result not so much of wanton indifference to their ordination
vows," V.

Such is the apology which I offer for the Liverpool Clergy, in
writing a "private letter" to strangers. Had I intended to
write a gentler prospectus for the eyes of the Liverpool
public, should I have suppressed this paragraph? Mr. Pol-
lock must have seen this, had he not been blinded by pre-
judice.

And now, having, I trust, cleared myself in the opinion of
all reasonable people from the charge of being a "clandestine
slanderer of my brethren," I would appeal to the common
sense of your readers, and ask whether the document in
question is rightly designated when it is said to be " steeped
in bitterness." It may be convenient for an opponent to
prefer such a charge against me, in order to draw away public
attention from the real objects which my friends have in
view. But what was to be gained by the exhibition of bitter-
ness on our part ? Bitterness in return, it appears, by the
law of worldly retaliation, it being presumed that we have
been the "first aggressors." But it is not by bandying
angry words that we hope to gain justice for the people, and
to vindicate the beauty of the Prayer-Book ; but by a plain
statement of facts, in as conciliatory a tone as we can adopt.
And these facts Mr. Pollock has not attempted to deny. I
repeat, there is no bitterness in this prospectus, but a few
unpalatable truths, which cannot be gainsaid, and are neces-
sarily unpalatable to those who resist wholesome reform.

Nor was there anything like an "attack" upon individuals,
nor the semblance of an "insult" offered to particular Clergy-
men. For the allusion to Ireland (which was omitted from
feelings of delicacy in the second and subsequent editions),
when there are so many Clergymen from the sister country
among us, can hardly be called an offence, since it is evident
that the allusion had reference only to the style of public
worship in that island, where an indifference to ritual pro-
prieties is notorious.

But, according to Mr. Pollock, my pen is not only bitter,
but " STEEPED IN BITTERNESS !" This, were it true, would
have been impolitic in me, as well as a breach of good man-
ners ; for, having a great object in view, and important
principles to recommend, we desire not to offend, but to win
our opponents to adopt thi doctrines and practices which
they are now too hastily condemning. "Enemies" though
they are to these principles, we feel no bitterness against
them ; nay, we have hopes of shaming them at length to
adopt a more conciliatory tone, and to regret that they have
not been workers with us in justifying and putting in force
the Scriptural rules of public worship ; namely, in helping
us to "turn out of the temple the buyers and sellers" of
pews, as those who make merchandise of sacred ground ; to
treat the "poor man in vile raiment" as a brother, and not
give the best places in God's house to " the man with a gold
ring, In goodly apparel ;" and to permit people, as of old, to
"come together to break bread on the first day of the week,"
and, some at least, to be "daily in the temple" (Acts ii. 46),
before or after their daily converse with the world.
These are great principles of Christian worship, taught in
the Bible and authorised by the Church, upon which the
Clergy ought not to be found disputing, but agreeing. It is
grievous that those who may be said to have the monopoly
of the churches in Liverpool will neither carry out these
principles themselves, and hinder those who desire to carry
them out. It is intolerable in this free country, that a num-
beg of persona, ifito dcslre to pronnte that Scriptural Worship

STANDARD, AND GENERA'

only because tb

are Churchmen

Sir, yours, faithfuly,

Aug. 17, 1854

WEEKLY COMMUNION.

I of God which their consciences approve, should meet with
opposition where they ought to find sympathy and support,
and should positively find themselves precluded from acting

By God's help, we will continue to contend for these prin-
ciples, in spite of unreasonable jealousies, and will endeavour
to open the eyes of the public to the true causes of this oppo-
sition: And we are sure to be justified in this contest, whe-
ther we are permitted to exhibit these principles in our pro-
posed church or no, because they are the principles of truth
and justice, and the practice of the universal Church.—l am,
CECIL WRAY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

SlR,—Your correspondent, who signs himself "a Church.
man of Liverpool," generally commences with an exordium
of self-complacency, and ends with a peroration of abuse.
Witness the quiet way in which, in his letter of July 24, he
asserts—" My letters speak for themselves; and my citations
from the rubrics verbatim, allow the Church to speak for
herself. They require but a re-perusal to be cleared of all
the dust raised by your correspondent." This is all very
fine; but it would be more to the purpose if he would con-
descend to notice the arguments brought forward. His know-
ledge of the history of the Prayer-Book, and acquaintance
with its rubrics, are about upon a par with his skill in Greek.
For example—he hinted, some time ago, that daily public
prayer was only intended for a period when the people gene-
rally could not read, but that now it is well superseded by
family prayer: forgetting that in the very year following the
publication of Edward the Sixth's second Book of Common
Prayer, came out a Primer—in other words, a Book of Prayer
intended (as its structure shows,) for family as well as private
use. Again, in lis letter of July 24, he says—" The Church,
effectually to guard against the abuse of private masses, for-
bids the celebration of the Lord's Supper when there are not
four, or at least three communicants, a case very possible in
a sick man's chamber." Is it possible that he is ignorant o f
the fact that the Church has provided a service, with rubrics
of its own, for the Communion of the Sick 7 She has not only
done so, but provided rubrics upon this very point, differing
from those pertaining to the office which is provided for use
in public. For, whereas, by the latter it is required, as he
says, that there shall be four, or at least three, to communi-
cate with the Priest; by the former, three, or at the least two,
are required ; while the last rubric of all permits the Priest,
under certain circumstances, to communicate with the sick

person alone.
His argument, based upon the notice of Communion
required by the rubric following the Nicene Creed, possesses
the fatal vice of proving too much. For, as the rubric in
question is equally applicable to all Churches and Chapels
whatever, if it proves that the Church does not require weekl y
Communion in any, it equally proves that she requires it in
none; whereas, that she requires it in Cathedral and Col-
legiate Churches and Colleges, not even himself will deny .
Moreover, in quoting this rubric he garbles it by omitting the
words "if occasion be." "Then, also, (if occasion be,) shall
notice be given," &c. Surely, if the Communion be cele-
brated every Sunday, there is no occasion to give notice,
except for holy-days or others which fall at irregular intervals.
And this, I find, is the view taken by Mr. Stephens, in his-
edition of the Book of Common Prayer, published by the
Ecclesiastical Historic Society. With the direction, " thee
shall follow the Sermon," the "Churchman " compares the
rubric which succeeds the Church-militant Prayer, "when.
the Minister giveth warning," &c.; and he proceeds—" Mark
the difference. Instead of, then shall the Minister give warn-
ing, it is, WREN the Minister giveth warning. And instead
of every Sunday, it is THE Sunday" (or some holy-day
which he omits,) "immediately preceding. The contrast is
striking. Weekly Preaching is plainly assumed, and non •
weekly Communion is as plainly assumed." I add, if any-
where, then everywhere. If in Parish Churches, then in Ca-
thedrals also. But surely a school-boy may see that not non-
weekly Communion, put only non-weekly notice of Commu-
nion is assumed. Moreover, as the "when" in the rubric,
before the exhortation, depends upon the " then" in that after
the Nicene Creed, it is absurd to attempt to build an argument
upon it at all. But we are not to meet the "Churchman" " with
verbose arguments of our own, but with the language of the
Church itself ;" i.e., he may compare, or argue from rubrics,
while we are only to quote their ipsisaima versa.
In the First Book of Edward VI. it is directed, that after
the Nicene Creed shall follow a Sermon, wherein if the people
be not exhorted to the worthy receiving, &c., then shall the-
Curate give his exhortation—viz., one similar to the third in
our present office; and it is added, that in Cathedrals or
other places, where there is daily Communion, it shall suffice
to read it once in a month ; and that in Parish Churches it
may be left unsaid upon the week days. Now here is plain
proof that, while the Church required daily Communion in
some Churches, she contemplated and wished for it in all.
And yet the direction last referred to is followed by one
which says -"And if, upon the Sunday or holy-day, the
people be negligent to come to the Communion, then shall
the Priest earnestly exhort his parishioners," &c. ; and this
is followed by an exhortation the same in substance as that
which follows the Church-militant Prayer in our office, and,
like it, announcing the day on which the celebration waa-to
take place. The concluding rubrics required that on Wednes-
days and Fridays "The Priest should . . . say all things
at the altar (appointed to be said at the celebration of the
Lord's Supper,) until after the offertory . . . And that
the same order should be used on all other days, whensoever
the people were accustomelly assembled to pray in the
Church, and none disposed to communicate with the Priest."
In this service there is no order for giving notice, as in our
present one, after the Nicene Creed; neither is there in the
Second Book of Edward VI. In that, after the Church-mili-
tant Prayer, there is an exhortation to be read "at certain
times when the Curate shall see the people negligent to come
to the Holy Communion," similar to the second in our pre-
sent service, and commencing thus—" We be come together,
at this time, to feed at the Lord's Supper, unto which in
God's behalf I bid for all," &c. The next rubric, "And
sometimes shall be said this also, at the discretion of the
Curate," is prefixed to an exhortation the same in substance
as the first in our present service: and "then shall the Priest
say this exhortation"—viz., one similar to that which now
stands third. The concluding rubrics which bear upon the
point in hand are the same—a few verbal differences excepted
—as those at the end of the office now in use.
Now, in comparing these two offices, it must be remem-
bered, that the work which the Reformers had to do in com-
piling the first, was the turning of the Mass into a Com-
munion. In one point they knew that the then existing
practice of the Church, with regard to the Mass, was in
accordance with that of the Primitive Church, (which they
professed to follow,) with regard to the Communion—l mean
in the frequency of its celebration; and not havingexperience
of the difficulty of always securing the presence of Com-
municants, they provided for its daily celebration everywhere,
while in some places they required it. The Second Book
shows no alteration in their wishes or opinions upon this
point. It still provides for the possibility of daily Com-
munion by appointing, as does our present Book, that the
Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the Sunday shall serve for
all the week after; but it exhibits such modifications as might
be expected from the experience which had been gained.
And, indeed, when we consider that the Romish Church had
required Communion but once a year, and also the scanty
population, in those days, of many (if not most) parishes, it
would- have been wonderful had their experience been other
than it was. Now, taking our present service as a whole, I
maintain that it affords convincing proof of these three
points:—l. That daily Communion is provided for; 2. That
weekly Communion is required in Cathedrals, &c. ; and, 3,
That it is intended in all other places, upon every Sunday and
holy-day, when there are a sufficient number to communicate
with the Priest. And all the rubrics which, at first sight,
seem to be opposed to this last point are nearly exceptional,
intended to meet cases which, alas! our Reformers had
learned from sad experience were likely too often to occur. The
first two points are patent, and proof is therefore unneces-
sary; while of the third amply sufficient proof has already
been given in the correspondence which has appeared in your
pages.

If the "Churchman" will take my advice, he will relinquish
this subject, though I can have no objection to his continuing
it, for, the more he writes, the more he exposes the weakness of
his cause. I only wish he would try his hand at an argument
upon Daily Prayer, provided he is willing to abstain from the
dishonest sophistry by which his last letter is disgraced. This
is strong language, but justified by the quiet way in which he
substitutes non-weekly Communion for non-weekly notice of
Communion, In the conclusion of his learned argument upon
" when" and " then."

In conclusion, permit me to refer him to Nicholls, Wheatly,
Sparrow, Beveridge, and others who have treated upon this
point. Their general explanation of the order given to read
a portion of the Service even when there is no Communion, is
that the Church may show her readiness to celebrate, and
that the fault is with the people when she does not so. Beve-
ridge, particularly, says, " the Minister, by her order, goes
up to the Lord's table, and then begins, &c., and goes on as
far as he can, till he come to the actual celebration ; and if he
stops there, it is only because there are none or not a suffi-
cient number to communicate with him. For if there were,
he is bound, and is ready to consecrate and administer to
them." And again, "Why only on Sundays and other holy.
days? but to distinguish them from other days, on which, if
there be a sufficient number, the whole Communion Service is
to be used, but no part of it, except there be so ; but upon
Sundays and holy-days, although there be not such a number,
and therefore no Communion, yet the Priest shall go up to
the altar, &c., whereby the people may see that neither he
nor the Church is to be blamed, if the Holy Sacrament be not
then administered."—(Necessity, &c., of Communion, pp.
92, 44.) I am, Sir, &c.,
August 2, 1854. K. MACKENZIE PUGHE.

A CASE of a peculiar and painful nature was investi-
gated at the Police-court, Longton, on Wednesday. The
information charged the Rev. John Magee Marten, mi-
nister of Hanley Presbyterian Church, with being the
putative father of a male illegitimate child, of which Sarah
Felicia Holmes is mother. The complainant, a young
female of prepossessing appearance and pleasing manners,
and apparently about twenty-two to twenty-three years
of age, gave her evidence in a firm but very becoming
manner, She is a milliner and straw-bonnet maker, liv-
ing at Hanley, and became acquainted with defendant by
g
a teacher in the Sunday-
tooohixnoo,galn.tod
Tldisiis eihetlnrlcuetvrlc.yl, gideeannie4em being
tahe
P
n
was placed in the witness-
boa, of the child ; but
the% magLitliitq ordered him t 9 pay:2l, 034, per weel4 owl
on

OAIME ROTA'

ADVERTISER.

ECCLESIASTICAL INTELLIGENCE

PREFERMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS,

Rev. W. C. L. Aspinall, to the Incumbency of St. Michael's,
Birmingham, and to the Chaplaincy of the Church of Eng-
land Cemetery in that town.
Rev. H. Cheats, M.A., to the Curacy of St. John's Church,
Hull.

Rev. H. Crawford, M.A., to the Rectory of Urney, and the
Vicarage of Annagelley, in the diocese of Kilmore.

Rev.-31. Davies,-111.A:, Rector of Llanrcrst, to an Honorary
Canonry in St. A-aph's Cathedral.
Rev. S. P. Davies, 8.A., to the Incumbency of Kingsthorpe,
near Northampton. Patrons, St. Catherine's Hospital, Lon •
don.

Rev. R. D. Duffield, M.A., to the Vicarage of Great Evers-
den, near Cambridge.
Rev. H. Gordon, to be Chaplain to the Meander, 44, at
Devonport.
Rev. A. Hanbury, to the Curacy of St. James's, Bury St.
Edmunds.

Rev. C. Hare, M.A., to the Rectory of St. Munchin's,
diocese of Limerick.

Rev. E. Harston, Vicar and Rural Dean of Tamworth,
to the Vicarage of the Abbey Church of Sherbonie, Dorset.
Patron, the Crown.

Rev.' W. J. Hathway, 8.A., to the Curacy of Locking,
Somerset.

Rev. S. P. Hill, 8.A., to the Curacy of Hevworth..
Rev. A. Hogg, M.A., to the Vicarage of Shrule, in the
tiocese of Ardagh.

Rev. F. P. Johnson, to the Curacy of Whittington, Salop.
Rev. A. H. Lea, 8.A., Curate of Stratford-upon-Avon, to
the Sub-Vicarage of that parish.
Rev. H. E. H. Mairis, M.A., to the Incumbency of the
Chapelry of St. James, South Broom, near Devizes.
Rev. J. Maude, M.A., Vicar of Chirk, to an Honorary
Canonry in St. Asaph's Cathedral.
Bev. J. M'Cubbin, to the Perpetual Curacy of Christ Church,
Bacup, near Manchester.
Rev. H. Milne, M.A., of Brasenose College, Oxford, and
late Curate of Bushey, Herts, to the Vicarage of Harlington,
Beds. Patron, W. D. C. Cooper.
Rev. M. O'Brien, A. Professor of Natural Philosophy
and Astronomy in king'a,College, London, to be Professor of
Mathematics at the Royal Military Academy,
Rev. C. E. Partington, 8.A., to the Stipendiary Curacy of
Stand, Bury.

Rev. J. Phelps, Rector of Little Langford, to the Vicarage
of Stapleford, near Wilton. Patrons, Dean and Chapter of
Windsor.
Rev. E. Ridgeway, M.A., to the Rectory of Mothel-with-
Rathgormack. Patron, the Duke of Devonshire.
Rev. Dr. Rushton, Archdeacon of Manchester, to the Vi-
carage of Blackburn. _ _

RiW. J. Sampson, 8.A., to the Curacy of St. John's, Hull.
Rev. W. E. 6haw, to the living of Kinsalebeg, diocese of
Kil more. Patron, the Duke of Devonshire.

Rev.. J. P. Shepherd, M.A., to the Incumbency of Oswald-
twistle, near Accrington, Lancashire.
_ _ _

Rev. F. E., Smith,B.A.., Assistant Curate of Bracknell, to
be Chaplain of the Union, Easthampstead, Berks.
Rev. H. Watson, 8.A., to the Curacy of Papworth St.
Agnes, near St. Ives.
Rev. J. Whytt, 8.A.. to the Incumbency of Thorpe Hesley,
near Rotherham, Yorkshire. Patrons, the Earl of Gains-
borough and the Rev. Joseph Brawn.
Ven. Archdeacon Wickham, B.D. Vicar of Gresford, to an
Honorary Canonry in St. Asaph's Cathedral.

DIOCESE OF CHESTER